1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Above The 49th
    Posts
    80

    Default Reasons Why There Is A NFPA Standard

    Not to rehash all the talk about pro's and con's of the NFPA 1901 Standard and why apparatus are getting more sophisticated/complicated/expensive BUT here's a statement from the "expert" witness for the plaintiff of the PA 10 year old girl killed by a Crosslay hose falling off an apparatus while responding a couple of years ago..

    [He said manufacturers and their engineers are responsible for anticipating human error and are charged with designing products to prevent freak accidents]

    Boy if that isn't a classic statement!

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Chauffeur6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Metro NY
    Posts
    613

    Default

    I kinda agree with that statement to a certain extent. While you can never fully take away the "human" factor (or make things completely firefighter proof), there are certain things that surely can and should be addressed. In the case of apparatus, that should start with the manufacturers in my opinion. They should not only strive to build the best trucks, but also the safest. I think the person making the statement takes it a bit too far though, because if these were indeed "freak" accidents, then you'd be hard pressed to prevent them to begin with. A "freak" accident is something that happens one in several million times or more and is nearly impossible to duplicate, let alone prevent against. Hose falling off trucks is not, as many of us know firsthand, a "freak" accident by any stretch of the imagination. My dept alone has not only dumped LDH on several occasions throughout the years, but we had a 2" crosslay shoot clear off the side of the truck once while rounding a corner and wrap itself around a sign post, yanking it right out of the ground. Thank GOD no one was around to be injured by it.

    Not surprisingly, this very issue is addressed in TIA 1901-03-1 which was issued in October 2005:

    1. Add a new 15.10.7 to read as follows:

    15.10.7* Any hose storage area shall be equipped with a positive means to prevent unintentional deployment of the hose from the top, sides, front, and rear of the hose storage area while the apparatus is underway in normal operations.

    2. Add a new annex paragraph to 15.10.7 to read as follows:

    A.15.10.7 Many fire departments have experienced fire hose inadvertently coming off fire apparatus while traveling to and from incidents. Several incidents have resulted in personal injury and damage to property. At least one death is directly attributable to an unintentional deployment of fire hose during a response. It is imperative that the fire apparatus manufacturer provide and the fire department use a means to assure this does not occur. Fire departments and manufacturers have developed various methods of preventing inadvertent deployment of fire hose including: fully enclosed hose beds covers, buckled straps, hook and loop straps, fabric covers, webbing mesh, wind deflectors, and other material restraints or combination of restraints. It is also important that fire departments develop methods of storing hose connected nozzles and appliances in a manner that does not promote the inadvertent deployment of the hose, nozzle or appliance.
    While I do at times think some points of different standards (not just NFPA) are a bit much or seem rather useless, I try to remember that for every one of these seemingly frivolous points, there are hundreds that likely make a huge difference or save lives. On the specific subject of apparatus, I for one am damn glad there are standards these manufacturers have to follow and build up to, instead of just throwing together some *****box without having any accountability whatsoever.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Above The 49th
    Posts
    80

    Default Reasons Why There Is A NFPA Standard

    Chauffer6-Thanks and that's why I quoted what the "Expert" said in the court case recently because it shows someone's perspective that may not really even know or understand the situation or reality BUT in a court of law that's another matter.

    I started this post because of all the pro/con comments made in a post earlier in the year some of which I felt were unfair to the NFPA Committee of which I'd served for 5 years.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    MMA10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21

    Default

    I find it's a shame that the little girl's family doesn't see that incident for what it is.

    I've learned that people can die in the most amazingly unusual ways, as well as the common ones... I've seen it so much, that unless there is malice/intent involved or "true" negligence (like drunk drivers), I don't blame anyone. Things coulda/shoulda/woulda always been different, just "if"...

    Of course, I have a little girl, and although I can't feel the degree, I can understand the anguish. The pervert in this situation is the lawyer who will represent them and make statements like those quoted, rather than sending them to some grief counseling. And, to go after the manufacturer rather than the driver or the city is another obvious "tell," as the shark is going after the deep pockets...


    SAFETEK - Since you sit on NFPA committee, I'm curious about this new standard. It doesn't mention securing the bottom of the hosebed... (Just wait - someone will come up with a suspended hose carrying system and NFPA will have egg all over it's face for not "anticipating"...)

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Above The 49th
    Posts
    80

    Default Update On Lawsuit

    I saw today that the jury awarded $5 Million and the family of the little girl that was killed was awarded $3 Million and $2 Million to the injured girl's family. The Firehouse news said that Freightliner was bearing the brunt of it as the FD only had $500K worth of insurance.

    This is just another example of how/why apparatus manufacturers are going to be very wary of doing anything that has a potential for liability because of the so called "experts" being called to testify.

    I'm no longer on the NFPA 1901 Standard Committee due to being too busy but If I understand MMA10mm comment the TIA does require any and all hose beds to be properly secured to prevent the hose from falling out. See the response from Chauffer 6.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. NFPA Hose Standard
    By firemanmikey in forum The Engineer
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-22-2006, 03:02 PM
  2. NFPA Medical Standard for Firefighters
    By dbarajas10 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-13-2006, 05:35 AM
  3. NFPA SCBA Standard
    By FFTrainer in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-15-2002, 10:21 AM
  4. NFPA 1710/1720 Standard
    By rwise in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-19-2001, 04:14 PM
  5. Regulating the manufacture & use of TIC's
    By FireFLIRMgr in forum Thermal Imaging Cameras
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-16-2000, 08:25 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