Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48
Like Tree10Likes

Thread: LDH intake on the drivers side? NFPA standard?

  1. #21
    Let's talk fire trucks! BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HBofCJ View Post
    I am wondering why your fire district insists on buying $NEW$ and not excellent condition certified USED? Somebody has to pay for it and we tax payers are all in this together.
    If the taxpayers are willing to allow the department to purchase a new vehicle, it would make sense. They'll be able to find a vehicle that meets their needs, hasn't been abused, and will have a longer life expectancy.

    I you are buying new and specifying the engine yourselves, (you are very lucky here) why are you painting yourselves into a tactical corner? Why not go with a heavier 3 axle chassis and a true tanker engine design with a 2500 gal tank?
    Purchasing new is standard practice for a lot of departments. Heck, even in the rural locality that I volunteer in, we haven't purchased a used fire apparatus since the early 1980's.

    As for the tank capacity, I would think that the department has evaluated their needs and felt that a 1000 gallon tank will fit their response matrix. While a 1000 gallon tank on a tanker would never make it in our area (we run all 1800 to 2500 gallon tankers), there are areas of the US where anything with a 1000 gallon tank is automatically designated a tanker.

    Has there been any documentation on Engineers being injured or killed by a bursting large diameter discharge hose located by the pump panel? And if not, just why is there a silly regulation prohibiting large diameter discharge gates?
    Should we wait for an injury or death to occur before we take a proactive approach?

    Before the dawn of time, or 40 years ago, we had a 6" NS threaded intake on both sides of the pump. They normally ran capped.
    6" threaded intakes are still the standard for 1250gpm or greater pumps. However, most places now are outfitting them with jumbo intake valves and/or butterfly valves, depending on what their water supply situation is.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!


  2. #22
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HBofCJ View Post
    Another very old school point of view and comments. I am wondering why your fire district insists on buying $NEW$ and not excellent condition certified USED? Somebody has to pay for it and we tax payers are all in this together.

    Because sometimes buying used isn't such a great deal. Sometimes you buy someone else's trouble. Sometimes you just can't find what you need. Sometimes buying used means that in the long run you pay more for maintenance and repairs over the course of the life of the vehicle than the per year cost of a new rig.

    I you are buying new and specifying the engine yourselves, (you are very lucky here) why are you painting yourselves into a tactical corner? Why not go with a heavier 3 axle chassis and a true tanker engine design with a 2500 gal tank?

    Maybe their roads and bridges won't handle that big of a rig. Maybe they don't have the room to manuever a rig that big. What does having a 1000 gallon tank have to do with a tanker engine? Our rescue engine has a 1000 gallon tank and we serve about a 90% hydranted area.

    Has there been any documentation on Engineers being injured or killed by a bursting large diameter discharge hose located by the pump panel? And if not, just why is there a silly regulation prohibiting large diameter discharge gates?

    Safety is silly? Would you be happier if someone had been killed as a justification for a "silly regulation" instead of being proactive?

    Before the dawn of time, or 40 years ago, we had a 6" NS threaded intake on both sides of the pump. They normally ran capped. The newer stuff also had a gated 6" NS soft front suction. Our outfit reversed layed back then. Much better.

    Our newest engine has a 6 inch NST threaded intake on each side of the rig and at the rear. We normally come in the rear because we forward lay, kind of why we have 5 inch supply hose. But we also have the officer's side set up to take 5 inch hose into an intake pressure relief valve, and the driver's side is set up with a butterfly valve for drafting. We also draft from the rear intake. Personally I never thought much of the first in engine, in our area anyways, reverse laying. I would rather have the engine with its tools, equipment and ladders at the scene rather than a block or more away at the hydrant.
    I think they probably know what they want and need better than any of us internet experts.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  3. #23
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HBofCJ View Post
    re very lucky here)
    Has there been any documentation on Engineers being injured or killed by a bursting large diameter discharge hose located by the pump panel? And if not, just why is there a silly regulation prohibiting large diameter discharge gates?

    Before the dawn of time, or 40 years ago, we had a 6" NS threaded intake on both sides of the pump. They normally ran capped. The newer stuff also had a gated 6" NS soft front suction. Our outfit reversed layed back then. Much better.
    Actually most injuries from fire hose failures occur during testing. In other words, pressurized hose. That is why the NFPA safety committee has been lobbying to get all discharges removed from the pump operator area. The LDH stipulation is a compromise. You can call it silly if you want but would you really want to be straddling LDH supplying an older aerial at full flow if some moron in the bucket slammed the quarter turn valve for the monitor off? Or perhaps an angry truck driver that is running late decides to drive over the hose downstream of your position at full flow?

    As for the 6" steamer inlets, they are still there on a lot of apparatus, for drafting. Without them it would be nearly impossible to get rated flow at draft. Again, there is no restriction on having them at the pump operator's position. What was your point?

  4. #24
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SW Oregon
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Interesting thread and thank you. Respectfully. Yep...how times have changed. I am still waiting for somebody to document death or serious injury of an Engineer by a bursting LARGE DIAMETER discharge line. If none exists, then why have that regulation? And if that regulation has no truth in the real world, does that possibly qualify as "silly"?

    Or....and this is a stretch, (pun intended) if the regulation is silly, why have it? It sounds like to me, (and this is my own "silly" opinion) like a bunch of pencil neck jeek bean counting wanna' be's FEDS with no prospect of ever working for a real Fire Department just somehow gained regulatory power and just went hog wild writing up stuff? Regulatory law.

    Back in about 1972, we reversed dropped from the fire to the plug. Had too; low pressure, but high volume city water supply. Many advantages. We always had at least one Truck on scene, sometimes many. The address belonged to the Trucks. The Engines had to make do. We could drop two hand lines at once and let gravity help up. Many plugs.

    Reverse laying also kept the entire Engine crew together. No dilution catching a plug going in. It also gave the officer the choice of pulling preconnects or going for a plug. The truckies ran the show. I guess all the water was just an after thought. But, tax dollars flowed back then and we were a very comfy ISO Class One. Lots of bodies. Not now.

    What little feedback I receive now, since I'm out of it, is that the new FEDERAL laws, rules and regulation are designed to eliminate the backbone of the American Fire Service? The Volunteers, God bless them. Seems every year new roadblocks are presented to slow down new young people from volunteering? Too many rules and regulations? Maybe.

    Again, I am very old school West Coast Fire Service. Big qualifier. The things we did routinely back then would get you fired instantly today. Again, my feeble question is....Are we better off today than we were say...40 years ago? I have lived the old stuff. Now beginning to see the new stuff. I keep asking myself what has happened? HB of CJ (old coot)

  5. #25
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HBofCJ View Post
    Interesting thread and thank you. Respectfully. Yep...how times have changed. I am still waiting for somebody to document death or serious injury of an Engineer by a bursting LARGE DIAMETER discharge line. If none exists, then why have that regulation? And if that regulation has no truth in the real world, does that possibly qualify as "silly"?

    So you wouldn't proactively act in a safe manner until someone got hurt or killed? Sorry but that is just plain insane.

    No one is saying you can't run an LDH supply line into the opertors side of the panel, the standard says no LDH discharge from that side. If it is a discharge what difference does it make if it comes off the other side of the rig?


    Or....and this is a stretch, (pun intended) if the regulation is silly, why have it? It sounds like to me, (and this is my own "silly" opinion) like a bunch of pencil neck jeek bean counting wanna' be's FEDS with no prospect of ever working for a real Fire Department just somehow gained regulatory power and just went hog wild writing up stuff? Regulatory law.

    Pssst...The word you wanted is GEEK. The truth is NFPA has no power unless your authority having jurisdiction or your state adopts them. Further, if you insist I believe some manufacturers will build outside of NFPA standards as long as you sign waivers and assume the liability. But the hard truth is lawyers will use NFPA against yu whether you have adopted it or not...Does the name Alan Baird and his so called ignorance of NFPA 1403 ring a bell?

    Some of each NFPA committee is made up of "Real" firefighters or officers, then technical experts and then manufacturer's reps. Are some of the regs hard to defend or understand? Yes, but if you are unhappy get on one of the committees and work to affect change.


    Back in about 1972, we reversed dropped from the fire to the plug. Had too; low pressure, but high volume city water supply. Many advantages. We always had at least one Truck on scene, sometimes many. The address belonged to the Trucks. The Engines had to make do. We could drop two hand lines at once and let gravity help up. Many plugs.

    If low pressure was an issue then the reverse lay was the answer for you. Although you could have forward laid and had the second engine pump the line too.

    Reverse laying also kept the entire Engine crew together. No dilution catching a plug going in. It also gave the officer the choice of pulling preconnects or going for a plug. The truckies ran the show. I guess all the water was just an after thought. But, tax dollars flowed back then and we were a very comfy ISO Class One. Lots of bodies. Not now.

    If the first engine goes straight in, or wraps the hydrant and goes straight in, the crew stays intact with the second engine making the hydrant, or laying in supply lines.

    What little feedback I receive now, since I'm out of it, is that the new FEDERAL laws, rules and regulation are designed to eliminate the backbone of the American Fire Service? The Volunteers, God bless them. Seems every year new roadblocks are presented to slow down new young people from volunteering? Too many rules and regulations? Maybe.

    Blah, blah, blah...I have been hearing this tired old bunch of BS for all 37 years I have been a firefighter. Frankly, if people don't want to meet the standards for training what the hell good are they? All they are is fire ground injuries and deaths waiting to happen. If people want to be volunteer firefighters it takes a committment and they will find the time to do it, just like everything else they do outside of work and family. Excuses are like butt holes, everybody has one.

    Again, I am very old school West Coast Fire Service. Big qualifier. The things we did routinely back then would get you fired instantly today. Again, my feeble question is....Are we better off today than we were say...40 years ago? I have lived the old stuff. Now beginning to see the new stuff. I keep asking myself what has happened? HB of CJ (old coot)

    40 years ago...Many were still using demand only SCBA if using them at all, rubber coats or FR cotton were still options, MSA TopGuard helmets that would melt or break, Senator Aluminum helmets, fireball gloves, no hoods, 3/4 boots, riding tailboard...Yeah those were the good old days alright.

    I am still an aggressive firefighter and when I can I will go interior to put out fires, I will risk my life to save others, but to mock the safety advances of the last 40 years seems sad to me. I much prefer the better gear we have today. I much prefer the thought that we risk a lot to save lives, and that a building is just a building, we will save them when we can, but not at the cost of lives for a building.
    I respect your time in, my Dad was a firefighter from 1958 to his death in the 1990's. They used Filter masks when he started so I understand completely the progress of the fire service, But I wouldn't go back to that era for anything.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 03-23-2014 at 12:16 AM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  6. #26
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    731

    Default

    It seems to me that, generally speaking, the larger hoses operate under the lower pressures and the smaller hoses operate under the higher pressures. Why so much concern over large diameter discharge? If it was a compromise, it wasn't a great one IMO.

  7. #27
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firepundit View Post
    Actually most injuries from fire hose failures occur during testing. In other words, pressurized hose. That is why the NFPA safety committee has been lobbying to get all discharges removed from the pump operator area. The LDH stipulation is a compromise. You can call it silly if you want but would you really want to be straddling LDH supplying an older aerial at full flow if some moron in the bucket slammed the quarter turn valve for the monitor off? Or perhaps an angry truck driver that is running late decides to drive over the hose downstream of your position at full flow?

    As for the 6" steamer inlets, they are still there on a lot of apparatus, for drafting. Without them it would be nearly impossible to get rated flow at draft. Again, there is no restriction on having them at the pump operator's position. What was your point?
    IMO, a quarter turn shut off for an aerial monitor is not the best choice. Rapid shut down can make bad things happen, as you pointed out. Large diameter discharge being on the other side of the rig in that situation could still be a problem

  8. #28
    Forum Member FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    IMO, a quarter turn shut off for an aerial monitor is not the best choice. Rapid shut down can make bad things happen, as you pointed out. Large diameter discharge being on the other side of the rig in that situation could still be a problem
    Which is precisely why NFPA1901 requires any discharge valve larger than 2" internal I.D. be of the slow-close/wheel-operated type.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  9. #29
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SW Oregon
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Thank you all. Great discussion. Yes...that word is "DEEP", not "JEEK". Don't forget riding the tailboard stuff, (oh...you already said that) manual Fuller T-905M transmissions, manual steering, 2 stroke Detroit Diesels, no cab heaters or a/c, no enclosed cabs,, no drink holders, fire unions, no entitlement attitudes, exercise periods, labour relation boards, huge retirements, a total lack of safety equipment and of course affirmative action. Oh...do not forget the lawyers. One stood on his own legs back then. It is amazing we were not all killed instantly. I love this forum if you will have me. HB of CJ (old coot)

  10. #30
    Let's talk fire trucks! BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HBofCJ View Post
    Back in about 1972, we reversed dropped from the fire to the plug. Had too; low pressure, but high volume city water supply. Many advantages. We always had at least one Truck on scene, sometimes many. The address belonged to the Trucks. The Engines had to make do. We could drop two hand lines at once and let gravity help up. Many plugs.
    Many departments still reverse lay. FDNY and Memphis come to mind.

    Reverse laying also kept the entire Engine crew together. No dilution catching a plug going in. It also gave the officer the choice of pulling preconnects or going for a plug. The truckies ran the show. I guess all the water was just an after thought. But, tax dollars flowed back then and we were a very comfy ISO Class One. Lots of bodies. Not now.
    It just depends on local protocol, staffing, station placement, and another of other factors. In my department, the first engine forward lays and the second engine pumps to them. Works for us..

    What little feedback I receive now, since I'm out of it, is that the new FEDERAL laws, rules and regulation are designed to eliminate the backbone of the American Fire Service? The Volunteers, God bless them. Seems every year new roadblocks are presented to slow down new young people from volunteering? Too many rules and regulations? Maybe.
    What laws are you referring you? Aside from NFPA regulations, there are little-to-no federal laws that impact the American fire service. State and local laws, yes, but not federally. Heck, there are even differences in career (NFPA 1710) and volunteer (NFPA 1720) staffing recommendations.

    Again, I am very old school West Coast Fire Service. Big qualifier. The things we did routinely back then would get you fired instantly today. Again, my feeble question is....Are we better off today than we were say...40 years ago? I have lived the old stuff. Now beginning to see the new stuff. I keep asking myself what has happened?
    Are we better off? I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder. Whether we like it or not (or even embrace it), we're learning much more about the trade and its dangers. Many say that it's the pussification of the fire service, but I see it far differently - I love this job so much, I'll do whatever is necessary to ensure that I stay safe and get to enjoy my retirement for many years.
    RFDACM02 likes this.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  11. #31
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    It seems to me that, generally speaking, the larger hoses operate under the lower pressures and the smaller hoses operate under the higher pressures. Why so much concern over large diameter discharge? If it was a compromise, it wasn't a great one IMO.
    It's actually the volume of water that is the danger and not the pressure.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  12. #32
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    It's actually the volume of water that is the danger and not the pressure.
    I would think that a smaller volume of water at high pressure could be just as dangerous (probably more dangerous) as a large volume at lower pressure. I could easily put my head under a hydrant discharge but would hesitate to put it in front of an operating 2 1/2.

    Isn't the higher pressure what would be more likely to cause a failure of some kind? W/O the failure it doesn't much matter which is worse.

  13. #33
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,655

    Default

    I agree, the higher pressure would more likely cause a failure, but there is simple physics involved. Once the line blows...the pressure has been released and the pressure is on the engine side. The hose is now without pressure so its not going to do too much. The volume of water in that hose is constant and will need to release somewhere.

    If you look into the science of why hose testing companies use small pumps with low volume of water to test...it can be really interesting and quite surprising.

    PS - they, above, were talking about injury from a hose bursting off and hitting someone. That was what I was addressing, the hose. Yes, the pump it self would do more damage with the higher pressure discharging.
    Last edited by Bones42; 03-24-2014 at 11:54 AM.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  14. #34
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I would think that a smaller volume of water at high pressure could be just as dangerous (probably more dangerous) as a large volume at lower pressure. I could easily put my head under a hydrant discharge but would hesitate to put it in front of an operating 2 1/2.
    I'll bet if the flowing pressures were the same you would have second thoughts.

    Isn't the higher pressure what would be more likely to cause a failure of some kind? W/O the failure it doesn't much matter which is worse.
    The concern would be in potential energy. A small diameter hose moves less volume, i.e. pounds, of water. A hose flowing 1000 GPM is moving about 8000 pounds of water per minute as opposed to a 200 GPM flow of about 1600 pounds per minute. The amount of energy released in a short period of time is much greater with higher flows in the case of a catastrophic failure. There is simply a lot less energy released when a small hose fails as opposed to a large diameter hose, until you get into higher than normal firefighting pressures such as the old John Bean Ultra-High Pressure Fog which operated around 750 to 850 PSI.

  15. #35
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firepundit View Post
    I'll bet if the flowing pressures were the same you would have second thoughts.



    The concern would be in potential energy. A small diameter hose moves less volume, i.e. pounds, of water. A hose flowing 1000 GPM is moving about 8000 pounds of water per minute as opposed to a 200 GPM flow of about 1600 pounds per minute. The amount of energy released in a short period of time is much greater with higher flows in the case of a catastrophic failure. There is simply a lot less energy released when a small hose fails as opposed to a large diameter hose, until you get into higher than normal firefighting pressures such as the old John Bean Ultra-High Pressure Fog which operated around 750 to 850 PSI.
    But the pressures are NOT the same. Not in the example I gave.

    Smaller diameter hose at higher pressures can deliver the same volume (measured in GPM) as larger diameter hose at lower pressures. Potential energy won't hurt you. Kinetic energy will. A smaller volume of water at high speed could easily hurt you worse than a larger amount of water at low speed.
    HBofCJ likes this.

  16. #36
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SW Oregon
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Actually it is the velocity of the water, which is a function of the volume and pressure. Basic Rocket Science. Which...if run through the math to the illogical solution or current condition, there would not be an American Fire Service Today because even walking into a house and just looking at an Engine, (not "truck") would kill you instantly with evil intent.

    Who is the NFPA? It is amazing that today so many really intelligent individuals take as a matter of faith that national organisations are by their nature the very best they can be and have the best interests of the Public close to their hearts. Again...who is the NFPA? Please do not tell me it is some fire people, manufactures and UNIONS! HB of CJ (old coot)

  17. #37
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SW Oregon
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Actually it is the velocity of the water, which is a function of the volume and pressure. Basic Rocket Science. Which...if run through the math to the illogical solution or current condition, there would not be an American Fire Service Today because even walking into a house and just looking at an Engine, (not "truck") would kill you instantly with evil intent.

    Who is the NFPA? It is amazing that today so many really intelligent individuals take as a matter of faith that national organisations are by their nature the very best they can be and have the best interests of the Public close to their hearts. Again...who is the NFPA? Please do not tell me it is some fire people, manufactures and UNIONS! HB of CJ (old coot)

  18. #38
    Let's talk fire trucks! BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HBofCJ View Post
    Again...who is the NFPA? Please do not tell me it is some fire people, manufactures and UNIONS!
    Nope, no union representation...the committee is made up of reps from the following organizations:
    • Los Angeles Fire Department
    • National Wildfire Coordinating Group
    • Charlotte Fire Department
    • Myrtle Beach Fire Department
    • CAL-FIRE
    • W.S. Darley & Company
    • Insurance Services Office
    • Akron Brass
    • US Department of Agriculture
    • Underwriter's Laboratories
    • Juneau, Boll, Stacy, & Ucherek, PLLC
    • Mistras Group
    • Oshkosh
    • Glatfelter Claims Management
    • US General Services Administration
    • Hartley Volunteer Fire Company
    • Waterous Company
    • WC Peters Fire Apparatus Consulting Services
    • Stockton Fire Department
    • Mike Pietsch, PE Consulting Services
    • John H. Enders Fire Company & Rescue Squad
    • District of Columbia Fire Department
    • Mayfield Village Fire Department
    • Goshen Fire Company
    • E-One
    • Sutphen
    • KME
    • Hale Products
    • Certified Fleet Services
    • Tinley Park Village Fire Department
    • Michigan Department of Natural Resources
    • Waterous
    • Volunteer Fireman's Insurance Services
    • Pierce Manufacturing
    • Fort Worth Fire Department
    • Rosenbauer America
    • Oregon Apparatus Repair, Inc
    • Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Department

    Hope this helps...
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  19. #39
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HBofCJ View Post
    Actually it is the velocity of the water, which is a function of the volume and pressure. Basic Rocket Science. Which...if run through the math to the illogical solution or current condition, there would not be an American Fire Service Today because even walking into a house and just looking at an Engine, (not "truck") would kill you instantly with evil intent.

    Who is the NFPA? It is amazing that today so many really intelligent individuals take as a matter of faith that national organisations are by their nature the very best they can be and have the best interests of the Public close to their hearts. Again...who is the NFPA? Please do not tell me it is some fire people, manufactures and UNIONS! HB of CJ (old coot)
    Actually NFPA, or at least part of their standards, including 1901 on fire apparatus, are law in Wisconsin as they were adopted by SPS 330 in the Administrative Code. So while they may mean nothing where you are, your situation doesn't hold true everywhere.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  20. #40
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SW Oregon
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. It took you some time and effort to do so and it is appreciated. This could be a subject close to your heart or one you have distinction with .....or have a vested interest towards? Respectfully, no Labour Representation? Are you OK with your answer? Are your sure? I will let that go for the time being.... however ..... it might be enlightening for us to understand just who the NPFA may be and what MAY be their intent.....and agenda?

    Again, my point of view here is one who was on the inside over 40 years ago, did my time and now am looking back through that door long vacated with the eyes of a very old school individual. The NFPA is made up of certain selected fire officials, many fire apparatus manufactures and perhaps Union Representation. Kinda like the Fox guarding the hen house? Or the lunatics running Bedlam? Perhaps my comparisons are overly harsh and if so, my apologies. HB of CJ (old coot)

    Question at large because I do not know. Are there any other organisations who do what the NFPA does? Besides the August benevolent ISO that is. We do not want to open that Insurance Industry Fire Service can of worms. Different aspect for sure. Are there any other better or newer ways of "Doing Business"? Thank you for your time.
    Last edited by HBofCJ; 04-16-2014 at 01:01 AM. Reason: cut stuff out

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. LDH intake on the drivers side? NFPA standard?
    By EGFD87 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-18-2014, 02:09 PM
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-10-2008, 05:06 PM
  3. Standard Side-mount pump or Command side mount
    By EngCo29 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-17-2005, 10:39 AM
  4. Front vs. Side Intake
    By TowerPower in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-01-2002, 01:24 PM
  5. Intake valve- Which side ?
    By Smokeetr4 in forum The Engineer
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-26-2001, 02:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts