Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Livingston, Louisiana
    Posts
    24

    Default NFPA 1901 Tanker

    In the infant stages of specing a new tanker. It would be replacing on non NFPA 1901 tanker. Should we spec a NFPA tanker or not. I think that money wise we are looking around 20k to 25k difference. But I am thinking of what happens if something happens like a wreck or something and we don't have a 1901 tanker? I think we should spec a 1901 tanker. Just wondering if anyone had .02 on the topic! Thanks for the input.


  2. #2
    FH Mag/.com Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    It depends on what pieces of NFPA 1901 for tankers that you are going to leave off. If you don't want a baffled tank, then yes you'd be in deep in a wreck because there are piles of studies pointing to unbaffled tanks as the cause of crashes. If you left off dump valves, compartments, hose, fittings, or other functional stuff then it wouldn't mean squat in a crash, but your ISO score would probably suffer as would the functionality of the vehicle during operations.

    What are you leaving off to make that $20-25K difference?

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Livingston, Louisiana
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Things that would be left off would be, NFPA lighting package, crosslays, hose bed area, and my biggest concern is the weight issue. Some trucks that I have looked at have there rear axle maxed out. NFPA states that you must be 2k below the rated axle. Those are the things that I can think of off the top of my head. The main issue I have is the axle weight issue. But I think that will be ok with my Mayor that we spend the 20k to 25k more on a safe truck.

  4. #4
    FH Mag/.com Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Crosslays aren't required on Mobile Water Supply apparatus, and it only needs to have a small amount of hose. I can't remember how much exactly, but most tankers only have 100' or so of supply line just for hydrant fills. In drafting ops hose comes of the supply pumper.

    The builder won't let you make it overweight without signing your life away at order time. Same with the lighting package since that will get you into trouble in a crash. Some idiots behind the wheels of cars won't get out of the way no matter how many flashing lights, sirens, and air horns you have, but their lawyer will want to know why yours doesn't meet the understood standard.

    Personally you want to have at least a 500gpm PTO pump, 1-2 crosslays, and a few hundred feet of supply line (3"+), and hard suction on the truck just in case. That way it can act as an attack truck if needed, or refill itself. It doesn't have to meet both attack pumper and mobile water supply sections of 1901, but you want it to meet at least MWS. Otherwise you'll lose ISO points, and more importantly, functionality.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    438

    Default Don't Do It

    In my opinion no fire department should ever spec a non-compliant piece of apparatus nor should any manufacture build one. If there is ever an incident and you end up in court the lawyer for the injured party will kill you on the point that the truck did not meet NFPA standards. It does not matter if what you were non-compliant on did or did not have any bearing on the accident, the jury will only hear that it did not meet standards. YOU LOOSE!!!!

    As a salesman for many manufactures over the years I know I would not take an order that didn't meet the NFPA standard that it had to.

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Livingston, Louisiana
    Posts
    24

    Default

    The moble water supply section of 1901 states that you must carry 200 foot of 1.5 inch hose and 400 foot of 2.5 inch hose.

    Thanks for the input, I just wanted to make sure that I was thinking on the right lines.....

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Swanton Fire Dept. Swanton, Vermont
    Posts
    470

    Default

    We replaced a non-1901 tanker in 1995 with a compliant one. We would not got back. Spend the money you will wish you had 8-10 years down the road if you don't.

    The thing is the 1901 minimums are there for function and safety. Even the axle ratings. If you are at or near the max rating it will come back to bite you when you can least afford it to. During a call. It isn't going to break when it is not being used. When do we use it? During a FIRE!

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: 01-16-06
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2006, 10:08 PM
  2. NFPA 1901 vs. 1906
    By onebugle in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-20-2005, 05:02 PM
  3. Tanker Debate in Coal Country!
    By coldfront in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 10:50 PM
  4. Civilian Fire Fatalities
    By DCFF in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-08-2002, 08:18 AM
  5. NFPA & IAFC -- dissension in the ranks?? I hope not!
    By Jolly Roger in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-31-2001, 12:21 AM

Posting Permissions

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