1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    189

    Thumbs down SCBA Application Question

    I have not posted in a long time... In reviewing a computer DJ from a 2014 grant, I think I found the question that may have crashed the application. Everything else appears in order to have made it to peer. Their SCBA are pre-1998, steel bottles, population 2,100 and call volume average is 6 structure fires, 100+ total calls, request was $42,000.

    Under request details , the question is: If you are requesting new SCBA, what percentage of your seated riding positions will have compliant SCBA assigned to it if this grant is awarded?

    Their vehicle fleet has a total of 19 available seats on their 5 trucks. The request was for 8 SCBA, which is what they have, are replacing and what they felt they need. They entered that they would be 42% compliant, instead of 100% as I would have picked. 8/19 is 42%. The seats are spread over the engine, 2 engine/tankers, small rescue and brush truck.

    I'm curious how everyone else is interpreting this question as I know you need a complete solution that brings them to 100% compliance?

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,720

    Default

    Couple o'things. First is that it takes 12 SCBA minimum per department to meet 2in/2out regardless of the number of seats on apparatus. So if they only have 8 SCBA and were only requesting 8 SCBA, that goes against them.

    And you are correct, marking 42% hurts, but that's also an inaccurate reply to the question since only pumpers, rescues, and aerials are eligible for SCBA. The seats on the brush truck don't count, and neither would any seats on true tankers. I know NY likes "ETA" to describe what NFPA calls pumpers, but if they are 750gpm or less with 1250+ gallon tanks they are tankers per AFG definition. Anything with 751+ gpm pumps are pumpers by AFG.

    Either way sounds like 12SCBA needed to be their request, and yes, that answer needed to be 100% since 100% of eligible seating would have been covered by the awarded packs.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Application Question
    By DBake5 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-08-2014, 03:53 PM
  2. application question
    By joshp707 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 09:36 PM
  3. Application question?
    By spnickson in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-31-2006, 01:50 AM
  4. PPE Application Question
    By Not2L84U2 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-02-2006, 04:14 PM
  5. Application Question
    By jbfajs in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-13-2005, 12:11 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