Thread: Secured Hosebed

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    207

    Default Secured Hosebed

    I had a chief from a mutual-aid company ask me the other day if there was or is going to be any law on pre-connect hose beds having to be secured by webbing or whatever.

    The last I had heard was that some companies up in the Pittsburgh area were going to these ideas due to the accident that happened in that area a couple of years ago, but I was not certain on any other mandates.

    Is there a policy in place at this time or is there going to be in the future? You can e-mail me at tfd7301@hotmail.com

    Thanks.


    STILL DOING IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    242

    Default

    It's an NFPA requirement, althought I don't know the particular code and section number.

    We took delivery of an apparatus almost a year ago and we had to deal with change orders due to NFPA issuing some sort of emergency addendum to their code. Apparently it went into effect immediately and the apparatus manufacturer wouldn't deliver a non-NFPA compliant apparatus.
    So it has been a NFPA requirement for about a year now.

    Anyone know the exact wording or code section number?

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Swanton Fire Dept. Swanton, Vermont
    Posts
    476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefSquirrel View Post
    It's an NFPA requirement, althought I don't know the particular code and section number.

    We took delivery of an apparatus almost a year ago and we had to deal with change orders due to NFPA issuing some sort of emergency addendum to their code. Apparently it went into effect immediately and the apparatus manufacturer wouldn't deliver a non-NFPA compliant apparatus.
    So it has been a NFPA requirement for about a year now.

    Anyone know the exact wording or code section number?
    NFPA 1901. The emergency addendum was effective January 2006.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default

    to heck with the nfpa

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Penny Lane
    Posts
    390

    Thumbs down

    SCtrucky, what in GOD's name is the matter with you?

    I happen to disagree with a lot of NFPA standards, think that many should be optional, and think that many of them make the problems worse than they originally were.

    HOWEVER, this is a requirement that is 100% valid and should have been a requirement years ago. Do you remember the poor 10 year old girl from PA that was killed while innocently playing in her front yard? Do you think it is a good idea to keep up our ignorance and kill a few more before we do something about it? Is that your attitude as a firefighter?

    Let's respect those that we have killed and do something to prevent another needless death.

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,689

    Default

    BlitzFireSolo, just curious. Do you (or anyone else) have any stats on how common an occurrence this hose coming off the engine is? I know in my area, I can remember 2 times in 24 years. Both times due to bad hose repacking.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefSquirrel View Post
    It's an NFPA requirement, althought I don't know the particular code and section number.

    We took delivery of an apparatus almost a year ago and we had to deal with change orders due to NFPA issuing some sort of emergency addendum to their code. Apparently it went into effect immediately and the apparatus manufacturer wouldn't deliver a non-NFPA compliant apparatus.
    So it has been a NFPA requirement for about a year now.

    Anyone know the exact wording or code section number?
    Maybe I'm not famillar with other parts of the country, but I am a little confused with your post. Are you spec's including hose and nozzles? The design groups I have been privy to have always supplied their own. I am with a non-NFPA department now, but have been with pro-NFPA departments since and have not seen pre-connect tethers. Can someone post some pics showing their answers to 1901?

    iluv4201

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Penny Lane
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Bones,

    I don't have any specific stats - I have to doubt that anybody does. If anybody is taking it seriously enough to keep track of the stats, they would have secured their hose by now. All I know is that, while it doesn't happen every day, it does happen regularly enough that it is a known problem throughout the fire service and we are ignorant (dare I say negligent - though I hate the legal game) if we don't address it. I also know that several highly respected veteran firefighters and officers have stepped in on this subject in the past and agree with that point of view.

    I probably came off a bit harsh in my last post, but this is a very serious issue to me - and attitudes like SCtrucky's are what allowed a 10 year-old girl to get killed. I'm not saying that SCtrucky has personally killed anybody, but it's his lackadaisical attitude that we all know in far too many firefighters that literally kills innocent people.
    Last edited by BlitzfireSolo; 01-16-2007 at 11:05 PM. Reason: Typo

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    For those who care to read it, here's the link to the official amendment to 1901 listing the means to contain all hose on a rig.

    http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF...A1901-03-1.pdf

    It isn't anything really crazy that needs to be done to contain the hose. For example, on our engines, instead of having a weighted end flap on the hosebed cover, the flap is secured with shock-cords. Canvas covers contain our speedlays on the engine. This can also be done by using cargo net style retainers, and any number of more expensive and unique ways depending on what a department wants to do.

    Love it or hate it, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a major body builder who will buid a rig without meeting the NFPA's wishes.
    Last edited by npfd801; 01-16-2007 at 11:09 PM.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Thanks all that have applied! At least I can give the other Chief some better direction now and where to look for it.


    STILL DOING IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,689

    Default

    Love it or hate it, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a major body builder who will buid a rig without meeting the NFPA's wishes.
    I noticed a lot of demonstration/new rigs with something to cover this NFPA standard at our last state convention. I also noticed that just about every one of them was built in such a way that it could be very easily completely removed from the apparatus, once delivered.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Like Bones says,it's happened here twice in 38 yrs.Both caused by improper packing,and both "caught"before the crosslay completely unloaded.Doubtful that a NFPA net would have helped because if the hose was improperly packed(it was)probably the net wouldn't have been hooked either. T.C.

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    869

    Thumbs up Hose Load

    I think it is becoming a more common occurance due to the shift away from heavy double jacket cotton hose to the light weight synthetic hose. The new hose is slicker and more likely to slide out of the hose bed and it is lighter and can get lifted out of an uncovered hose bed at road speeds. We had a unit dump 2,000 feet of 3" LWH going over a railroad track crossing on the way to a call. Somewhat embarassing, but nobody got hurt.

    I think the new requirements make sense with the newer hose.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iluv4201 View Post
    Maybe I'm not famillar with other parts of the country, but I am a little confused with your post. Are you spec's including hose and nozzles? The design groups I have been privy to have always supplied their own. I am with a non-NFPA department now, but have been with pro-NFPA departments since and have not seen pre-connect tethers. Can someone post some pics showing their answers to 1901?

    iluv4201
    Our specs did not include hose and nozzles, but the manufacturer would not deliver the apparatus without devices on the hosebed and crosslay areas to keep hose in place once we put the hose on the apparatus. Thus we had to pay for unexpected and unwanted changes.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefSquirrel View Post
    Thus we had to pay for unexpected and unwanted changes.
    What change in the fire service has EVER been wanted???
    Last edited by firepiper1; 01-17-2007 at 02:27 PM.
    I have only 2 allegiances, to my country and to my God. The rest of you are fair game.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    rschultzjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    106

    Default

    I think hose deployment while fire apparatus are driving down the road happens more often than you think, it just doesn't kill or injure any one so you don't hear about it. We recieved delivery of a new truck in early 2004 and in the first two years we had lost our complete load of 1000 feet of 5 inch hose while traveling down the road and a cross lay once. We were lucky that no one was hurt, when we realized that it was not a packing problem we placed an order for a hose bed cover and todate we havent lost any hose.

    Not only does a hose bed cover keep the hose in the bed of the truck it also helps protect the hose from the enviroment such as sun, leaves, rain, snow, ice and i think you get the point.

    Everyone stay safe out there!

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    55

    Default

    I agree with the placements of restraints on the hose beds. If it has happened once it is once to often. We are in the prevention business, which also means prevention of accidents also, whether it is because of improper hose load or other reasons. There is always this mentality of here they come forceing another regulation on us, but if it prevents 1 injury or death why not.

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,689

    Default

    Going to fires is dangerous too, maybe we should stop that as well.


    (just kidding)
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    explr985's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    the other end of all that LDH...........
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    \ I know in my area, I can remember 2 times in 24 years. Both times due to bad hose repacking.

    Been in 5 years, seen it twice. Both were a combo of poor packing and the most recent was the operator was driving like a friggin' idiot. Both trucks had dimond plate over the top of the bed and a flap over the end that was secured in a similar means to the new NFPA standard. Still layed about 800' of 4" off the first time, and about 35-45' of 2 1/2" the second. Maybe it isn't so much the new rigs/hose/nets or whatever that is the problem with accidental layouts but perhaps our driving and poor equipment checks.......just a random thought. As for fires being dangerous, I'll keep wearing my NON-NFPA compliant lid into them. :-)
    No longer an explorer, but I didn't wanna lose my posts.

    IACOJ 2003

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,407

    Default

    I keep seeing or hearing people saying that a manufacturer will not defer from NFPA GUIDELINES. (Note I use the word GUIDELINE. NFPA is NOT LAW.) Persons posting in these forums have stated "XYZ Apparatus told us they will not deliver a truck manufactured to our specs as they do not meet NFPA requirements."

    Never, not once have I ever seen evidence or proof of this happening. Does anyone have anything in writing (converted to PDF format) on factory letterhead stating a Mfr will not "do something their way" because the allmighty NFPA says NO? Just curious.

    And before you all bash me, I am not totally against the NFPA. Just most of it. And I dont think anyone who is employed by a manufacturer should be allowed to sit on any committees designing guidelines for that particular object/design/topic etc etc etc.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  21. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Not saying you are in the NFPA bashing mode but I tend to disagree with your point on mfg's not being on the NFPA comittees. Lets look at the newest change upcoming in 1851 regarding SCBA. There is a WhAcKeR company officer in Sacramento CA that cant get his three guys to check their SCBA at the start of their shift so this moron has got the comittee to agree EVERY FD IN THE NATION needs this to make sure we are all safe. The fact is IT IS GOING TO COST US ALL, big department or small. My question is how/why did one person influence the NFPA 1851 comittee for this change when they can't even do their job as a company officer ?

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default

    just tell them you won't buy it from them if they won't stray from someone's GUIDELINES. FDNY does it, we have 3 aerials that are non-compliant, so be it.

    the NFPA should be re structured to have union leaders, chiefs, officers, even firefighters on it and no manufacturers allowed.

    this is what this country has came to when everyone and everything has to have someone/something babysit them.

    screw PC screw affirmative action and screw the NFPA

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default

    FDNY does it, we have 3 aerials that are non-compliant, so be it.
    meant to say FDNY does it and that we (not NY) have 3 aerials that are non-compliant

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,689

    Default

    Both trucks had dimond plate over the top of the bed and a flap over the end that was secured in a similar means to the new NFPA standard.
    Ah, so another "mandate" that is not solving the issue.

    Not
    For
    Practical
    Application
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bryn Athyn, Pa.
    Posts
    1,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Ah, so another "mandate" that is not solving the issue.

    Not
    For
    Practical
    Application
    I've been trying to put this in for the last three days, but for some reason it wouldn't go. Was it trying to tell me something?

    I feel like I want to share some thoughts here. Or maybe vent is a better description. Everyone please bear in mind that much of this is my PERSONAL OPINION and is based more on observations down through the years rather than provable facts.

    Bear in mind that everything here begins with the basic premise, IT'S ABOUT MONEY.

    Why do manufacturers have a dominant position on the committee? Because they have a major stake in what comes out, and they can afford it. Look at the practical factors. It costs beaucoup bucks to participate in the meetings. Presumably they're held at or near NFPA headquarters in Quincy, Mass., near Boston. So in order to attend, you have to travel to Boston and stay there for the duration of the meeting. Meaning travel cost, meals, hotels, etc. for however long. Does NFPA pay for that? If not, as I suspect, can you afford it? Can or will your department go the price? Will they keep you on their clock, or are you on your own time? To the manufacturers (apparatus or components), it's a worthwhile business expense, and a tax writeoff. And all the while, they get to push the stuff they sell.

    Example: Some years back it was decreed that we all had to have liquid filled gauges unless we were willing to put up with snubbers. Nothing else woud do. Happens only one company made liquid filled gauges at the time and their guy was on the committee. So all of the truck builders went over to them. And we wrench turners spent our days replacing their leaky gauges.

    Now you don't have to use liquid filled gauges. I don't know why, but I'll guess that it's because now there are competing liquid filled guages. Since that company no longer has a corner on the market, it's no longer an issue.

    Some years back I got tired of replacing gauges, so I found a line of dry guages that really work well. Over a period of a year, I replaced every gauge on the engine. And guess what's going on the new engine. I would be remiss if I didn't say this - the liquid gauge company was good about repairing and/or replacing the leakers. They fixed some for free, replaced some for free, and replaced others for 1/2 price. But that was only supplying the gauges - I still had to do the labor. And why should it have been necessary in the first place? Because one company with bucks enough to afford to send their guy to the meetings, did so.

    Now I'm not against someone selling a product and making a buck on it. Quite the contrary, I view myself as a hard core capitalist. But if you have a truly good product, you don't have to compel people to buy it - they'll get in line for it.

    So how do we even the playing field? Good question, and I don't have a good answer. I don't claim any knowledge of the inner workings at NFPA, but I'll guess that they won't go for anything that will cost them money. (Remember, IT'S ABOUT MONEY.) And the solution I would offer would cost them money. I wouldn't want to eliminate manufacturers from the committee; I think their knowledge and insight is critical to the committee's work. But I would want to have the committee structured to reduce their dominance and increase our input. The obvious first thought is to have NFPA pay for the expenses of the committee members, or at least those outside of the manufacturer community. But as I said above, I don't see them going for that.

    Another possibility is to do something along the lines of an organization that I am a member of - the Technology and Maintenance Council of the American Trucking Associations. It's a group composed primarily of maintenance managers and executives of trucking companies. They develop recommended practices for maintenance of vehicles. They also, independently or in conjunction with SAE, develop some engineering and design standards(Recommeded Engineering Practices). Truck manufacturers and component suppliers can be members (at a different dues structure). They can and do provide tons of valuable input and insight, but they have no vote. The truck builders buy in to the REPs, because if they don't, the fleets won't buy their trucks. There's at least one fire apparatus manufacturer that is a member (no, we didn't buy theirs). You don't have to be a member use the REP book. You just buy it and read it.

    What comes out of participation makes it worthwhile for the trucking companies to send their people, three times a year, for several days at a time. But most of us aren't in that position.

    What TMC does do, and how I'm able to participate, is that any proposed practice, or change to an existing practice goes through a committee procedure. It gets written up in great detail, and before it can be accepted, it gets mailed out to all voting members to be voted upon. When you vote, you accept or not, and in either case, you can submit comments. Before final acceptance, all comments have to be reviewed by the cognizant committee. If there's something that would alter the proposed practice that the committee feels is important, the proposal gets redone and reballotted.

    Another note: Until they get to the fire, our apparatus are trucks. They're pretty much made out of the same stuff highway trucks are, using the same construction methods. So the chassis portion of our spec was loaded with references to TMC Recommended Engineering Practices.

    Enough of this diatribe. Stay safe out there, everyone goes home!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. NFPA Emergency Update
    By ChiefSquirrel in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 11-28-2005, 08:54 AM
  2. hose bed height?
    By SFD992 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-04-2004, 11:09 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 06-15-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2004, 08:23 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

Log in

Click here to log in or register