Like Tree10Likes

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

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4

    Default LDH intake on the drivers side? NFPA standard?

    Hello brothers,


    We are just finishing up specing out a new engine tanker with a low hose bed. We hired a private firm to do some of the legal work as well as the actual spec writing. One of the spec writers is stating that it is now a NFPA requirement that you can't have a LDH intake on the drivers/ pump operators panel. He is saying nothing larger than a 2 1/2 can be taken in on the drivers pump panel. I see his point on the possibility of injury of the line breaks but I cant find anything in writing on it. Due to him saying that we piped a LDH intake/suction to the rear of the truck. Our guys want the side LDH intake but would like the truck to meet NFPA requirements. Has anybody had to deal with this recently?

    Thanks for the help

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EGFD87 View Post
    Hello brothers,


    We are just finishing up specing out a new engine tanker with a low hose bed. We hired a private firm to do some of the legal work as well as the actual spec writing. One of the spec writers is stating that it is now a NFPA requirement that you can't have a LDH intake on the drivers/ pump operators panel. He is saying nothing larger than a 2 1/2 can be taken in on the drivers pump panel. I see his point on the possibility of injury of the line breaks but I cant find anything in writing on it. Due to him saying that we piped a LDH intake/suction to the rear of the truck. Our guys want the side LDH intake but would like the truck to meet NFPA requirements. Has anybody had to deal with this recently?

    Thanks for the help
    did said spec writer give you a NFPA and edition he got this from?

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,895

    Default

    16.6 Pump Intake Connections.

    16.6.1* The pump shall have a sufficient number and size of intakes to perform the apparatus pump system certification test.


    16.6.1.1 The intakes specified in 16.6.1 shall have male National Hose threads if the apparatus is to be used in the United States.



    16.6.1.2 If the couplings on the suction hose carried on the apparatus are of a different size from that of the pump intake(s) or have means of hose attachment other than that provided on the intake(s), an adapter(s) shall be provided to allow connection of the suction hose to the pump intake(s).



    16.6.1.3* A sign shall be provided on the pump operator's panel that states the following:
    WARNING: Death or serious injury might occur if proper operating procedures are not followed. The pump operator as well as individuals connecting supply or discharge hoses to the apparatus must be familiar with water hydraulics hazards and component limitations.







    For aerial ladders::


    A.19.6.6

    A.19.6.6 The arrangement of the external inlet should be specified by the purchaser based on the intended local operation in supplying water to the waterway.
    If the normal operations are to supply the waterway through the external inlet, a valve should be provided where large diameter hose is to be used. A valved three- or four-inlet siamese should be provided when 21/2 in. or 3 in. (65 mm or 75 mm) supply lines are used. Attention should be given to the inlet arrangement to limit friction loss. Also, if the apparatus is equipped with a fire pump and the purchaser wants to use the auxiliary inlet as a discharge, a slow-operating valve needs to be installed in the riser to the swivel.

  4. #4
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,314

    Default

    There is no restriction in the current edition of NFPA 1901 restricting LDH intakes anywhere on the vehicle. If the spec writer insists that there is, force them to show you proof. Then show it to us. ;-)
    CaptOldTimer 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!

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,895

    Default

    Might want to hire another high price spec writer to check these specs, if the ldh question shows it can be anywhere

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fire49 View Post
    Might want to hire another high price spec writer...
    Good advice right there.

    Then again...we've never used a spec writer.
    "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?

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,401

    Default

    If I remember correctly the current edition of 1901 does not allow an LDH DISCHARGE on the driver's side.........
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,895

    Default

    Section????


    Maybe 2016 edition???

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Udall, Kansas
    Posts
    436

    Default

    One our truck that has the rear ldh suction, that's the only one we use. Works nice when drafting to keep the dump tanks out of the way and nice to have supply line away from the pump panel.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    If I remember correctly the current edition of 1901 does not allow an LDH DISCHARGE on the driver's side.........
    FWDBuff is correct. Nothing larger than a 2.5" on the pump operator's panel.

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilo Kilo View Post
    FWDBuff is correct. Nothing larger than a 2.5" on the pump operator's panel.
    Correct for DISCHARGE:::


    16.7.9* Location of Discharge Outlets.

    16.7.9.1 No discharge outlet larger than 21/2 in. (65 mm) shall be located at the pump operator's panel.



    16.7.9.2 If the apparatus has a top console–type pump operator's panel, vertical discharge outlets larger than 21/2 in. (65 mm) shall be permitted at the top midship position of apparatus where the outlets are used for directly connected deck guns or monitors and no fire hose is used for coupling the components.




    16.7.10 Where the valve-operating mechanism does not indicate the position of the valve, an indicator shall be provided to show when the valve is closed.





    OP was asking about intake.
    Last edited by fire49; 03-19-2014 at 08:25 AM.

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Swanton Fire Dept. Swanton, Vermont
    Posts
    476

    Default

    As has been well documented above, LDH Discharge is different than intake. Any master intake even at draft is technically a Large Diameter Hose intake, so the person doing the Spec has to explain what they mean.

    I will agree, that the intake that you are expecting to receive water from a pressurized source is better away from the operator's panel. We set our last two engines up with Electric MIV on the Officer's side and had the LDH connections there. That way you have all LDH in one spot and not next to your operator. The Electric controlled valve keeps it controlled by the operator but does not have to physically go to the other side of the truck.

    It comes down to Risk vs. Reward vs. Cost as so many things do on spec's....

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,684

    Default

    Old school baby....

    LDH supply into the pump panel by the operator so he can lean on it and tell how much more water is available. It's hard, you got more. It's soft, you are getting close to it's capacity.
    "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. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    600

    Default

    I hope your department did not spend a whole lotta money on these "experts."

    Ask them to cite the exact part of 1901 they are using for this nonsense. Every paragraph is numbered for precisely this purpose. If they were unable to get this simple part correct, what else did they misinterpret or misrepresent?

    If they cannot provide proof of their claim it would also be nice if you actually named names so other departments would know who to avoid wasting money with.

    To be sure, the NFPA safety committee would prefer that absolutely no discharges be near the operator and have leaned that way since the '90s. However, I can't remember any meetings that I attended where inlets were given the same treatment.

    As an aside, once the safety committee was on a jag and wanted backflow preventers installed on inlets to prevent any contamination of a municipal water supply. This was brought up at a FAMA techinical committee meeting and Ken Lenz of HME pointed out that fire apparatus were not wide enough to accommodate the device that would be required to do this on a 6" inlet on flows of 1500 GPM. It got scrapped when reality hit.

    As for stepping on the hose to tell if you are close to out flowing a source, that is why they have gauges. Any good pump operator should know that if an inlet gauge is approaching zero when connected to a hydrant that trouble is approaching. The hose is only getting soft because the pressure is low and that will show on the gauge.
    CaptOldTimer and RFDACM02 like this.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    586

    Default

    EGFD87, I notice you mentioned a rear intake as a possibility. If you routinely or even occasionally run calls with narrow roads or long driveways, a rear intake (6") is a great advantage for keeping drop tanks and the engine on one lane. This allows a number of arrangements for rural supply with tanker (tender) operations. There are some cautions when using this arrangement. DO Not directly connect a large diameter Storz Cap to this connection, but instead use a gated siamese and threaded connections on the rear. Suppose that on a call or drill, you have attached a pressurized line (relay or hydrant) to the pump and the pump operator intentionally or accidentally cracks the rear suction internal valve. This will pressurize the rear suction compressing any trapped air. It the operator neglects to drain the rear or relieve the trapped pressure, the piping can remain under pressure for a long time. With a storz cap in place of say 5" diameter and a trapped air pressure of 70 psi, taking off the cap will propel it into the firefighter with over 1,000 lbs of force. A gated 2 1/2" x 6" siamese will allow you to connect two 3" hard sleeves and nurse directly from a tanker for things like chimneys, or brush where one tanker load of water is enough to handle the problem. If you add a second priming valve and line from the primer to the rear suction piping, it is then possible to start out of the engine tank, connect the hard sleeve(s), and then remove any air from the rear suction before opening the internal valve so there won't be any momentary loss in discharge pressure to the lines. By the way, I'm with Bones on bringing in the line next to the pump operator if possible. He and I both like to operate with one leg tight against the incoming line to monitor it. I can feel changes in pressure before most gauges show the change, especially in the age of automatic snubbers.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kuh shise View Post
    EGFD87, I notice you mentioned a rear intake as a possibility. If you routinely or even occasionally run calls with narrow roads or long driveways, a rear intake (6") is a great advantage for keeping drop tanks and the engine on one lane. This allows a number of arrangements for rural supply with tanker (tender) operations. There are some cautions when using this arrangement. DO Not directly connect a large diameter Storz Cap to this connection, but instead use a gated siamese and threaded connections on the rear. Suppose that on a call or drill, you have attached a pressurized line (relay or hydrant) to the pump and the pump operator intentionally or accidentally cracks the rear suction internal valve. This will pressurize the rear suction compressing any trapped air. It the operator neglects to drain the rear or relieve the trapped pressure, the piping can remain under pressure for a long time. With a storz cap in place of say 5" diameter and a trapped air pressure of 70 psi, taking off the cap will propel it into the firefighter with over 1,000 lbs of force. OR, don't put a cap on it at all. That is how our rear intake is set up. The threaded intake has an intake relief valve attached to it. It is not gated. We draft from folding tanks off the rear and use 6 inch hard sleeve. We remove the relief valve for drafting ops. Because we are a mostly hydranted area we leave the relief valve in place and when we drop LDH we go right in the rear. A gated 2 1/2" x 6" siamese will allow you to connect two 3" hard sleeves and nurse directly from a tanker for things like chimneys, or brush where one tanker load of water is enough to handle the problem. OR you can take a 2 1/2 off from the pump on the tender and feed what ever rig you need to like the tender is a hydrant. If you add a second priming valve and line from the primer to the rear suction piping, it is then possible to start out of the engine tank, connect the hard sleeve(s), and then remove any air from the rear suction. Maybe it is just me but I wouldn't spec a rear intake without a seperate priming device. By the way, I'm with Bones on bringing in the line next to the pump operator if possible. He and I both like to operate with one leg tight against the incoming line to monitor it. I can feel changes in pressure before most gauges show the change, especially in the age of automatic snubbers. We run LDH into the driver's side or rear, and leave the operators side strictly for drafting.
    Different strokes I guess.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 03-20-2014 at 03:35 PM.
    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

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Thanks for all the help, the rear intake has been removed and we will be using the drivers side pump panel for our intake. We run in a mostly hydrated district and only usually draft when we run mutual aid. When we do operate in areas that require a tanker shuttle we use a nurse tanker at the end of the driveway that all the trucks feed into and they also operate a portable pond.

    As for the truck we have speced out a Spartan ERV with a 1,000 gallon tank, 1250 pump and seating for 8. This is our first Spartan and our first truck without crosslays and with a low hose bed. Hope to get some pictures up as the truck progresses down the line.

    Thanks again for the help, it saved us money as well as lowered the hose bed even more. As everybody know the money saved will be used down the line on something else.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EGFD87 View Post
    This is our first Spartan and our first truck without crosslays...
    Just curious. Since Spartan is building it, it most likely is compliant with 1901. Where are your two preconnects located and what is the hose load you chose? I have often thought crosslays add length to apparatus that might not be necessary to meet standards.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SW Oregon
    Posts
    64

    Default

    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.

    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?

    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.

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HBofCJ View Post
    And if not, just why is there a silly regulation prohibiting large diameter discharge gates?
    Oh I don't know, you'd have to ask those fine people in Quincy, Ma. that create the standards that every attorney in the known world will cite in the event of an accident and ensuing court litigation. You may have heard of them before- the National Fire Protection Association, also known as the NFPA. The standard for automotive fire apparatus by the way is NFPA1901. And by the way it does not say you cannot have an LDH discharge, you just cannot have it on the operator's side of the pump panel. I don't know about you but I'm kind of allergic to the kinetic energy of the mass of water that comes out of the end of a burst length of 5" hose, especially if it has a few psi's of push on it.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  21. #21
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,314

    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!

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,070

    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

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    600

    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?

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SW Oregon
    Posts
    64

    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)

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,070

    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

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register