1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default Bronto Boom Failure In Montreal

    Has anyone with knowledge heard the outcome of the reason for the failure of the boom on the Montreal 27M (92 Ft.) Articulating Platform yet?

    I've heard from some sources that some of the other Bronto's have been taken to a workshop outside of Montreal to have the booms modified. No confirmation of accuracy but I find it strange that there still is no official response from the FD or E One (Bronto) as to the reason. I've also talked to other Bronto users and none of them have been informed by Bronto (E One/Superior) as to the reason for the failure..

    Do we assume that it was just one of those things...?

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Weruj1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    7,857

    Default PPPPPPSSSSSSST

    Pardon me sir.. .....but I believe we are all over here !
    http://cms.firehouse.com/forums2/sho...bronto+failure
    IACOJ both divisions and PROUD OF IT !
    Pardon me sir.. .....but I believe we are all over here !
    ATTENTION ALL SHOPPERS: Will the dead horse please report to the forums.(thanks Motown)
    RAY WAS HERE 08/28/05
    LETHA' FOREVA' ! 010607
    I'm sorry, I haven't been paying much attention for the last 3 hours.....what were we discussing?
    "but I guarentee you I will FF your arse off" from>
    http://www.firehouse.com/forums/show...60#post1137060post 115

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Sorry Weruj1: I'm not that familiar with the parlance on here and I didn't see anything new under the original topic so that's why I had posted the new one asking if anyone had any other information. I do not think the failure had anything to do with hitting an overpass and my sources say the same. So I guess we'll just have to wait until someone provides a response as to what really happened. I know of another Bronto in B.C. experiencing a structural issue and the FD can't get any response from the manufacturer or it's representatives.

  4. #4
    Junior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    4

    Default Sounds a bit Fishy!

    It is interesting and sounds a bit "fishy".

    A guy on the posts named "Firefish" was blasted a few weeks ago for not identifying himself (after offering, what I feel, was over 100 posts of informative, educational and fairly open opinions). The posts I see from "aerialguy" seem to have a bit of a "tainted" view, as I recollect the poster ffmedic used to describe firefish when he posted a negative on, I think, the "HME - good or bad" thread . I would only have a sneaking suspicion that the "aerialguy" is looking for data on the Bronto for reasons other than "curiosity" and his new book -a "History of the Bronto SkyLift". LOL!

    So if the ground rules are, that you clarify who you are, it would be interesting to know where the aerialguy stands? It seems as though there is a bit of Smeal mixed into his lingo and defense here and on the "truth in advertising" thread? Hmmmm. Maybe I am wrong and aerialguy is from The History Channel? If you are, I very much apologize.

    Fish is now gone and does not post as he had assured, unfortunately. I heard "thru the grapevine" that a particular manufacturer threatened to sue anyone posting negatives about them on fhforums and fish got caught up in the middle of it. So much for freedom of speech huh? So, beware guys, the rules are the rules. And YES, I am "associated" with a manufacturer, to keep clear that that I am posting with a clarification of "association", but I will also clarify that I have run the nozzle in the front door and worked off the tip of an aerial on many occasions, as a firefighter and officer!

    Oh......aerialguy. The answer to your question. What happened to the Bronto in Montreal? As best as I can tell. It tipped over. LOL!

    Slow down and take time to be safe. One minute may be the rest of your life.

    FIRETRUCKGUY

  5. #5
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default Re: Sounds a bit Fishy!

    Originally posted by firetruckguy
    As best as I can tell. It tipped over.
    LOL

    Like I've said before, I think manufacturer reps have A TON to add to the forums. I just think it's important to be upfront about the affiliations. There ain't no freedom of speech here... it's a private, moderated forum. There are rules that we all have to play by, and I think they're good ones.
    God Bless America!Remember all have given some, but some have given all.
    Google Is Your Friend™Helpful forum tip - a "must see" if you're new here
    Click this to search FH Forums!

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    277

    Default

    We have a 50 meter (167ft) bronto here in Calgary and we were just talking about the fact that no one ever heard the outcome of the investigation. I would like to hear what happened.
    Sometimes, in order to make an operation idiot proof, you must remove the idiot!

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default

    To firetruckguy: How do you feel my question was tainted? Also your suspicion is wrong I don't have time to write a book either. Further to you comment about "defense" about Smeal is wrong too, I only wish to point out accurate facts not inuendo and inaccuracies that some people on here seem to like to write without any foundation or any accuracy as to what they say.

    As I see from the Calgary response others are also wondering as to what was the reason. Seems to be a very long time since the event that no one from the responsible parties has offered any reason or explanation.

    I don't need any other data on Bronto as I am far more familiar with the product and company that I believe you are. It was just that there was a lot of comments about the incident and theories when it had first occurred and then nothing. So if you have any further info please share it.

  8. #8
    Junior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    4

    Default Simply answering the question.

    Aerialguy:

    Must be I had an interpretation problem reading your posts. Your comment stating that you would not defend Smeal, nor use the data of the Bronto failure for personal gain. I must have just read your posts incorrectly?

    Here is your first post:

    AERIALGUY POST IN TRUTH IN ADVERTISING and I will quote:

    ********"The reason was that different manufacturers have different ratings, for example the Bronto and Metz can't achieve a horizontal reach that is even close to their vertical reach so it consensus couldn't be reached about how to qualify the issue.

    It should be at 0 deg horizontal as that's the worst case scenario. I know that Smeal also shows their horizontal as well as vertical reaches in their literature and specifications. They also achieve their vertical at 72 deg whereas other builders use 75+ to achieve the vertical reach.

    Just another example of Buyer Beware. Make sure what you thought you get is what you did get."*********



    I guess your are not questioning the Bronto or the Metz?



    So, lets check your second post by aerialguy:



    AERIAL GUY POST IN TRUTH IN ADVERTISING and I will quote:

    *******"How does he know the size of the hose from the photo??. I can tell him and anyone else that it does flow that GPM and was verified by UL to meet the ULC Standard that Canada uses as that truck went to Delta B.C.

    For anyone's info the ULC Standard used in Canada is more stringent in many respects than NFPA and in fact the latest NFPA actually has incorporated some of the ULC standards and the new ULC Standards has incorporated some of the NFPA Standards.

    And for the record Smeal has "ALL" of their aerial models "listed" which means a 3rd party (Independant) verification of the materials and engineering to ensure "Truth In Advertising"*********



    Did I read these wrong? These statements are not defensive? I believe you said that I was wrong about your "defense" of Smeal. Must be I read that wrong also?

    The real question I posted for clarification was was:


    So if the ground rules are, that you clarify who you are, it would be interesting to know where the aerialguy stands? It seems as though there is a bit of Smeal mixed into his lingo and defense here and on the "truth in advertising" thread?

    It did not question your integrity and depth of product knowledge on Smeal, Bronto or Metz, as I know "in fact" that you have intimate knowledge of all three. It merely stated that the rule enforced against other people who post, that they should clarify their position of affiliation to a manufacturer. Its quite simple and it does not mean you cannot share a view or opinion, but rather that you should clarify if you do or don’t have those affiliations to a manufacturer, either directly or indirectly, as a factory employee, a dealer, a regional manager or any thing else that brings monetary value to the company or yourself. You are a smart guy and know more than the average Joe, made obvious by your posts. I am sure that all forums readers would like to hear you lend helpful, statistical and tactical support data on apparatus. It said you should simply state and answer this one question: Are you affiliated with a manufacturer? Answer is not long winded or detailed. It is:

    A) I have an affiliation with a manufacturer.

    B) I have no affiliation with a manufacturer.

    Slow down and take time to be safe. One minute may be the rest of your life.

    FIRETRUCKGUY

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    Posts
    8

    Default Bronto investigation

    I crew a Bronto in Toronto (Hey, that rhymes!). Toronto has 2 Bronto's of the same style as Montreal's. Our's were removed from service while the Montreal investigation was conducted. I am not a mechanic or a spokesman for TFS, but this is what i believe the findings were.

    Montreal's Bronto's ride on single rear axle Freightliner chassis. Toronto's are on dual axle Mac MR's. The second boom rests in a cradle atop the first boom near the back of the truck. The pounding of Montreal's legendary terrible roads slowly weakened the first boom at this cradle. This was the failure point for the accident. Toronto's did not have similar weakening due to the dual axle heavier rear end. Regardless, Toronto's Bronto's have been retro-fitted with a re-enforcement sleeve on the first boom at the cradle, and are now re-entering service. Hope this helps. If I'm wrong, someone put me straight.

    http://www.torontofirepics.com/333tower.jpg

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default Bronto Boom Failure In Montreal

    Tower 333 you are correct. I've learned from sources in Montreal and it was also on NAVET website that the cause of the failure is as you describe.

    These trucks have been in service about 12-14 years and being on the single axle and not airride does subject them to more road travel abuse and wear as well as they have done a lot of firefighting in comparision to other FD's using this type of device.

    It's my understanding that SPIM (Montreal FD) is having them all getting a collar or sleeve installed on the lower boom saddle and I believe TFS has done or is doing the same to their two Bronto's.

    It's too bad that it too so long for the responsible parties to in fact offer an explanation to the fire service to eliminate the innuendo and inaccurate information that originally was being talked about.

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    160

    Question Strange

    It is definitely a stange thing. In our station we have 8 trucks and 7 of them are E-One's and we've never encounred a problem. E-one seems as a very dependable ompan and it is not something that you hear alot, that something from E-one fails. I only have one question though. Did it only occur on the F100 foot booms? or did it also occur with the other models?

    Dave

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Attleboro, Mass USA
    Posts
    4

    Default MFD Update

    Greetings ~ a little new to the forums...but I am associated with E-One and can help clear a few things up for you all. In no particular order: This Bronto device (HDA-91) was a the "articulating" model, much like the 85' Snorkel here in the US. Not at all affiliated with the current HDT (heavy-duty telescopic) and the newest model; RLP (rescue-ladder-Platform...namely the F100 & F114) ~ The newer booms have been designed by Bronto AND E-One...all previous rigs (and about 98% of ALL Candian rigs) were Anderson Engineering devices. They sold a bunch...but did a very poor job by not supporting them > the delivery. (sorry to ramble)

    The MFD event was handled direct by Finland as is was an early 90's vintage ~ way pre-E-One. What complicated matters too, was the fact that E-One just cdompleted delivery of eight (8) new HP-100 ladder trucks there.

    The device was inspected by authorized Bronto personnel along with E-One engineers for observation / input. One thing that has NEVER come to light...THIS device had signs of damage in the UPPER boom...yes, the high point...which when contact was made...forces were transferred to the lower boom...starting a chain of unauthorized welds (previous damage ?) to break...eventually leading to weakness and failue. It looks like an apparent damaging contact (low bridge / low station door ?) started the whole mess.

    As far as the lack of communication...you can probably now understand the E-One certainly did not want to come out and point fingers where issues lied. MFD did there own internal 3rd party test, and I believe the findings very similar. Bronto issued a detailed release of these findings to MFD...and then to the existing E-One dealer network. Those of you with justifyable reasons could obtain this info from your local E-One dealer...but understand this is not info being handed out freely. ALL other Bronto models remain in full service ~ No issues. MFD is strengthening the area in question as a safety precaution. This is NOT a free upgrade. Hope you find this info helpful.

    OD-58

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Weruj1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    7,857

    Default

    thanks for the info !
    IACOJ both divisions and PROUD OF IT !
    Pardon me sir.. .....but I believe we are all over here !
    ATTENTION ALL SHOPPERS: Will the dead horse please report to the forums.(thanks Motown)
    RAY WAS HERE 08/28/05
    LETHA' FOREVA' ! 010607
    I'm sorry, I haven't been paying much attention for the last 3 hours.....what were we discussing?
    "but I guarentee you I will FF your arse off" from>
    http://www.firehouse.com/forums/show...60#post1137060post 115

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Same story I got from a Bronto dealer and a Cheif Mechanic for a large department OldDog. Tried to say that a few weeks ago but aerialguy didn't want to hear that conclusion. Apparantly the shop work in Montreal was done by mechanics for the city that didn't specialize in fire apparatus and changes have been made since then. My sources thought it probably was contact with an overpass.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    160

    Post

    Well that's good to hear, well not really, but it's goo to know that the failure occured to due damage and not a glitch in the manufacturing, considering we were looking into a bronto.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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