1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Sharon, Ia
    Posts
    47

    Default 2006 grant - Brush Buggy

    Once again into the fray.......does anyone have any good verbiage that I can use for this years application. I am working on stressing the safety factor involved for firefighters security or lack of in the older style brush buggies. If any of you can help I would appreicate the help....I have already gleamed somthings from you Brian, I just need some more thoughts.

  2. #2
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    In the PG it states priority to replacing vehicles performing a job they were not designed for so depending on your current buggy that's another angle. If you're talking about the cage type skid units where FFs can stand and spray, they're good improvements over walking next to the truck or riding the tailgate.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    bigJ164019's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    96

    Question

    Since I don't think I can sell the ALS EMS grant, I will look at replacing our 1984 Chevy brush truck. It was a convert, and has been broken down for quite a while. We just cant keep it running.
    Does anyone have good angles, or a successful narrative they would care to share?
    We are rural, and 60% agriculture area with 8.5% of call volume (excluding EMS) being grass, woods fire.

    Any help would be appreciated.

    Jeremy
    Jeremy (bigj164019) - FireFighter-I/Paramedic
    Fraternal Order of Paramedics Society
    Member Firehouse.com I.A.C.O.J. EMS Bureau


    "Live for today, because yesterdays are over, and tomorrows may never come"!

  4. #4
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    I threw you one in the above post, and sounds like you just mentioned a couple more reasons why it needs replacement. You're farther along than you think you are.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,756

    Default

    Jeremy,

    I have emailed you a copy of our narrative. Good luck.

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Not2L84U2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Catlin, IL, USA
    Posts
    960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er
    In the PG it states priority to replacing vehicles performing a job they were not designed for
    So not trying to throw big buckets of water on wheels into the brush buggies battery of comments and chronicles (try and say that 3 times fast), but what about tanker chasis? If the chasis was originally a pipeline hauler and we bought it, had it converted (cut the frame and change wheel base, based upon tank mfg recommendations) does that mean that it is being used to perform a job it wasn't originally intended to be used for? The Chief says no because we updated it to meet the recommended specs and there is no such thing as the chasis having a "designated job" since most tankers are put on commercial chasis anyway. He says they are talking more about milk trucks and gas trucks that have been converted and that it wouldn't apply to our tanker. I think it does. I'm sure GMC didn't have in mind that we would have someone cut the frame down and change the wheel base. We're not saying this thing is a death trap because we converted it, but we are simply mentioning it in the narrative. However, if we do say that it is a converted vehicle do we then have to "certify" that it will be taken out of service? Because this thing is unsafe, but not because of it being converted but because it has mechanical issues such as dieing and shorting out and the possibility of it dieing and us not having a primary water supply is the danger. However I'm not nieve and I know that it is probably still in better shape than some of the vehicles that are out there that are converted military vehicles or are 40+ instead of 20+ years old, and I could see it being sold very reasonably, donated, or even kept in house in the back of the station to use only as a back up back up water supply. But if we check the box that it will be taken out of service then that means it has to be sent to the scrapper correct? Just trying to make sure I understand all this corectly.

    Thanks for letting me take up space in the rubber baby buggie bumpers thread

  7. #7
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    If the GVW wasn't meant for hauling that type of load, or if the tank if off of a fuel or milk truck.

    And yes, if you say the truck will be taken out and shot in the pasture, it had better happen or the new one will follow the auditor home.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    Not2L84U2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Catlin, IL, USA
    Posts
    960

    Default

    The highest consideration is provided to applicants wanting to replace vehicles that have been converted to use as firefighting vehicles but were not originally designed for firefighting. We will give high consideration to applicants with firefighting vehicles that have an “open-cab” configuration as well as vehicles that did not include seatbelts in their original design. Applicants with these unsafe vehicle characteristics will receive higher consideration over applicants seeking to replace vehicles having these safety features. However, applicants wanting to benefit from this consideration must certify the unsafe vehicle will be permanently removed from service if awarded a grant.
    Is that two seperate statements there? Are the saying that the highest consideration is to vehicles not originally designed for firefighting and then after that they are looking at vehicles without seat belts and open cabs? I'm assuming that the last sentence is refering to all of the above correct? If you want consideration for any of the afore mentioned then you have to certify it will go to the scrap pile is how I'm reading it. So then how much weight is that going to carry? Obviously they are saying it is going to afford you a higher priority but is that going to make or break you?

  9. #9
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    It might. People have claimed that they want "this dangerous truck replaced and off the road" then at audit time, there it is as in service as ever. It's an attempt to keep people honest.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not2L84U2
    So not trying to throw big buckets of water on wheels into the brush buggies battery of comments and chronicles (try and say that 3 times fast), but what about tanker chasis? If the chasis was originally a pipeline hauler and we bought it, had it converted (cut the frame and change wheel base, based upon tank mfg recommendations) does that mean that it is being used to perform a job it wasn't originally intended to be used for? The Chief says no because we updated it to meet the recommended specs and there is no such thing as the chasis having a "designated job" since most tankers are put on commercial chasis anyway. He says they are talking more about milk trucks and gas trucks that have been converted and that it wouldn't apply to our tanker. I think it does. I'm sure GMC didn't have in mind that we would have someone cut the frame down and change the wheel base. We're not saying this thing is a death trap because we converted it, but we are simply mentioning it in the narrative. However, if we do say that it is a converted vehicle do we then have to "certify" that it will be taken out of service? Because this thing is unsafe, but not because of it being converted but because it has mechanical issues such as dieing and shorting out and the possibility of it dieing and us not having a primary water supply is the danger. However I'm not nieve and I know that it is probably still in better shape than some of the vehicles that are out there that are converted military vehicles or are 40+ instead of 20+ years old, and I could see it being sold very reasonably, donated, or even kept in house in the back of the station to use only as a back up back up water supply. But if we check the box that it will be taken out of service then that means it has to be sent to the scrapper correct? Just trying to make sure I understand all this corectly.

    Thanks for letting me take up space in the rubber baby buggie bumpers thread
    Your chief is correct. You go to any major truck dealer any day of the week and you will find them shortening (and LENGTHING) chassis to meet the needs of their customers. All totally appropriate and legitimate. They also may be changing rear axles, suspension etc and rerating the GVWR (based on axle, suspension, brake, frame capacity) is also appropriate, legitimate and legal. If the total loaded weight of the truck is less than the GVWR as stated on the sticker in the cab and each axle/suspension/brakes are within the mfg design limits/specifications there is nothing to complain about and no case that is being unsafe/converted. Members of the evaluation team certainly know this and you should have something specific that violates appropriate practices if you are going to discuss an unsafe chassis. I don't think a opinion of engine size/hp counts here either.

    But is the tank baffled to meet NFPA? If not, that is a very appropriate safety issue and why I previous questions about rebody a current chassis (should not be counted as a vehicle grant).
    Last edited by neiowa; 03-10-2006 at 12:25 AM.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    bigJ164019's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    96

    Default

    I have not received any emails as of now.

    firemedic911@bellsouth.net

    Thanks

    jeremy
    Jeremy (bigj164019) - FireFighter-I/Paramedic
    Fraternal Order of Paramedics Society
    Member Firehouse.com I.A.C.O.J. EMS Bureau


    "Live for today, because yesterdays are over, and tomorrows may never come"!

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,756

    Default

    Jeremy,

    I sent it again, this time to the firemedic911@bellsouth.net address. The first time it was sent to your profile address.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    bigJ164019's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    96

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by onebugle
    Jeremy,

    I sent it again, this time to the firemedic911@bellsouth.net address. The first time it was sent to your profile address.
    Onebugle,

    Recieved. Thank you, and I updated email on forum.
    Jeremy (bigj164019) - FireFighter-I/Paramedic
    Fraternal Order of Paramedics Society
    Member Firehouse.com I.A.C.O.J. EMS Bureau


    "Live for today, because yesterdays are over, and tomorrows may never come"!

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    bigJ164019's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    96

    Wink

    Ok, on forward...
    Are there any known features and/or equiptment that will be more favorable or less favorable to be funded?
    Tank sizes?
    Fundable price ranges getting approved?

    Thanks as always!!

    jeremy
    bigj164019
    Jeremy (bigj164019) - FireFighter-I/Paramedic
    Fraternal Order of Paramedics Society
    Member Firehouse.com I.A.C.O.J. EMS Bureau


    "Live for today, because yesterdays are over, and tomorrows may never come"!

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    bigJ164019's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    96

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by bigJ164019
    Ok, on forward...
    Are there any known features and/or equipment that will be more favorable or less favorable to be funded?
    Tank sizes?
    Fundable price ranges getting approved?

    Thanks as always!!

    jeremy
    bigj164019
    OK, Bump please.

    Can anyone offer successful narratives, and advice on equipment, tank size, funding ranges?

    PPllllleeaasssEEE!!!
    Jeremy (bigj164019) - FireFighter-I/Paramedic
    Fraternal Order of Paramedics Society
    Member Firehouse.com I.A.C.O.J. EMS Bureau


    "Live for today, because yesterdays are over, and tomorrows may never come"!

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,756

    Default

    Funding Ranges:

    Ours: $135,000 - fire body F550 (4x4)
    Neigboring Dept.: $115,000 - flat bed F550 (4x4)

    Max. AFG: around $125,000 - depends on the type of vehicle

    The tank size, equipment carried and personnel are dependant on the GVWR. You do not want to exceed it when the vehicle is fully loaded.

    The two units above have been speced out with 300 gallon tanks, 1 with foam capabilities, the other as an option.

    As for equipment ours will be outfitted with the following (not part of the grant): brooms, brush rakes, shovels, Pulaski axes, spare forestry hose, nozzles, chain saw, floating pump, soft pump cans, water extinguishers, spare foam.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    bigJ164019's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Brian,

    Do you have any successful narratives for brush trucks?
    Jeremy (bigj164019) - FireFighter-I/Paramedic
    Fraternal Order of Paramedics Society
    Member Firehouse.com I.A.C.O.J. EMS Bureau


    "Live for today, because yesterdays are over, and tomorrows may never come"!

  18. #18
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Almarante's Mini-pumper on my web site is basically a brush unit, their narrative was sent to me to post. I don't think I have any others. The ones I wrote for clients I wasn't given permission to post so I can't do those. If anyone wants to send me any shoot them over with proper author identification in the narrative and I'll put it up.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 03-02-06
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-02-2006, 11:11 PM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 04-19-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-23-2005, 12:09 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 04-17-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-21-2005, 08:05 PM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 03-17-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-20-2005, 12:29 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 04-10-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2004, 10:22 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