Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29
  1. #1
    Forum Member TFMBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ohio & Texas
    Posts
    129

    Cool Apparatus "Rollover" Accidents:

    It is apparent that the number of "rollovers" of apparatus while responding on a run, is on the increase. Nearly every few days, someone rolls one somewhere...usually while turning left, in dry road surface conditions. There seems to be a common thread here, and the first thing that comes to mind is...the driver was [obviously] moving too fast. The second is, maybe the vehicle was not designed to carry all that has been loaded onto it...since designed by the mfgr., i.e., it is now "top heavy." Thirdly, since the steering is so effortless now, and with automatic trans., possibily the driver has "lost the feel" of his rig, which by the way...one had without P/S and auto-trans. I cannot recall the rigs of the 50's hardly ever being in a rollover, therefore in my humble opinion...something is now out of order.

    Regardless, it is becoming very serious and costly [in my opinion]. You cannot be of assistance to those in need...with your rig laying on it side, firefigher's injured, and equiment scattered all over the place. I hate to present a problem without a solution...but I am in no position to offer one at this time, except to "slow down while turning."


  2. #2
    Forum Member FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFMBob View Post
    It is apparent that the number of "rollovers" of apparatus while responding on a run, is on the increase. Nearly every few days, someone rolls one somewhere...usually while turning left, in dry road surface conditions. There seems to be a common thread here, and the first thing that comes to mind is...the driver was [obviously] moving too fast. The second is, maybe the vehicle was not designed to carry all that has been loaded onto it...since designed by the mfgr., i.e., it is now "top heavy." Dont really understand what you are trying to say here....if it was designed by the Mfr. to haul all that equipment, what's the problem? Thirdly, since the steering is so effortless now, and with automatic trans., possibily the driver has "lost the feel" of his rig, which by the way...one had without P/S and auto-trans. Every driver who knows his equipment, whether it be a 2004 Kenworth T600A Tractor with a 3406B Cat and a 13 Speed RoadRanger, or a 2004 Pierce pumper with a 60 Series Detroit with an Allison Automatic, has the responsibility to get to know that particular piece of machinery and all of it's personalities and quirks. It doesnt matter HOW the driveline is equipped, that has NOTHING to do with how the driver performs related to the road conditions. I own a 1958 FWD Pumper with a 140GZ Waukesha Gas engine and a 5 speed Clark tranny, and juice brakes with a hydravac assist. I also own a 2004 Ford Escape that is probably 24,000lbs lighter in weight, with a 6 cylinder engine that is probably 2/3rds less CID than the Wauky, and it has an automatic. When I am driving the FWD, I know what I am driving. When I am driving the Escape, I know what I am driving and act accordingly. I cannot recall the rigs of the 50's hardly ever being in a rollover, therefore in my humble opinion...something is now out of order. The rigs in the 50's didnt do 1/4th of the runs that are happening now. The ones that DID do high amounts of runs were in the cities, and rollover accidents were rare if at all. People back then also respected what lights and sirens meant, and acted accordingly.

    Regardless, it is becoming very serious and costly [in my opinion]. You cannot be of assistance to those in need...with your rig laying on it side, firefigher's injured, and equiment scattered all over the place. I hate to present a problem without a solution...but I am in no position to offer one at this time, except to "slow down while turning."
    Not every rollover is caused by driver error. Just out of curiosity, are you a Driver/Operator?
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  3. #3
    Forum Member TFMBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ohio & Texas
    Posts
    129

    Smile

    Dont really understand what you are trying to say here....if it was designed by the Mfr. to haul all that equipment, what's the problem?
    Some departments are "adding equipment" after taking delivery from the Mfr., including everything but the kitchen sink...therefore possibily making it "overloaded and/or top heavy" from the original specs. it was designed for.

    Every driver who knows his equipment, whether it be a 2004 Kenworth T600A Tractor with a 3406B Cat and a 13 Speed RoadRanger, or a 2004 Pierce pumper with a 60 Series Detroit with an Allison Automatic, has the responsibility to get to know that particular piece of machinery and all of it's personalities and quirks. It doesnt matter HOW the driveline is equipped, that has NOTHING to do with how the driver performs related to the road conditions.
    I beg to disagree on both points. Many drivers, especially volunteer, do not have the opportunity to REALLY "get to know their equipment," and tend to operate them "like" a much lighter vehicle...not realizing the weight, "personalities and quirks" of their apparatus.

    The "responsibility to get to know that particular piece of machinery" is a textbook "good idea," however many are NOT afforded this opportunity, only driving a few days per week or shift...unlike the professional driver/operator who spends many hours per day at this task. When I first started driving a Class A vehicle at the age of 21, an "ole timer" told me, "son, whenever you think you know all about this truck...it WILL show you something you don't know.

    Road conditions are definitely a factor, but as I first stated...many of these are on DRY conditions...therefore the primiary factor must be driving too fast while negotiating a turn...not considering all of the above.

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    Not every rollover is caused by driver error. Just out of curiosity, are you a Driver/Operator?
    To end your "curiosity"...I have been "driving/operating" Class-A vehicles {including HAZMAT} for over 40 years...without a charageable accident or citation...or "rollover."

  4. #4
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFMBob View Post
    I beg to disagree on both points. Many drivers, especially volunteer, do not have the opportunity to REALLY "get to know their equipment," and tend to operate them "like" a much lighter vehicle...not realizing the weight, "personalities and quirks" of their apparatus.
    I suspect that this pretty well sums up the problem. Modern apparatus with high powered engines, P/S, A/T, advanced suspension, etc. almost drives "like a car" making it easy to make the mistake of unconsciously thinking that it will handle "like a car" as well.

    I can think of no real solution to this problem except a rigorous driver training program and regular refreshers for every driver/operator.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    867

    Red face Roll Overs

    IMHO
    Reasons for more roll overs now than with previous rigs:
    500 hp engines. To fast for the brakes available.
    Heavier & Taller rigs. 15 lbs. in a 5 lb. sack. Trying to do the fuction of three rigs with one.
    Poor driver training. Most roll overs are from over correction after the driver gets the right side tires off the pavemant.
    Other drivers don't hear the sirens and air horns because the have the windows up, A/C on meat locker setting, and the 10 speaker sound system at full blast.

    Rigs are now making many more runs due to medical calls so the probability is higher for an accident.
    And throw in thousands of drivers talking on cell phones and not paying attention at intersections. SCARES ME!

    It would be interesting to see some type of figure of the number of accidents per the number of runs made and how that is trending. Anyone have this type of information?

  6. #6
    Forum Member TFMBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ohio & Texas
    Posts
    129

    Question

    It would be interesting to see some type of figure of the number of accidents per the number of runs made and how that is trending. Anyone have this type of information?
    I agree...I think many would be shocked, knowing the number of accidents per the number of of runs made...especially on "sickie calls" that engine Co.'s did NOT use to run on.

    That is mostly a PR program, and the cost of running a big, custom engine [often a big quint] with 3 or 4 firefighters on every "sickie call" is obsured. Usually the amb/squad is right behind [or ahead] of them anyway, and the firefighters are [usually] standing around doing nothing.

    The use of "grade-retarders" is also a driving hazard with fire apparatus. The driver dosen't have his foot on the brakes...relying on the GR, entering turns much faster. Before everyone gets "excited" on this...I know GR's are "trendy" with many today...but it is similar to using cruise-control...which takes over the vehicle until released.
    Last edited by TFMBob; 07-16-2007 at 02:36 PM.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFMBob View Post
    I
    That is mostly a PR program, and the cost of running a big, custom engine [often a big quint] with 3 or 4 firefighters on every "sickie call" is obsured. Usually the amb/squad is right behind [or ahead] of them anyway, and the firefighters are [usually] standing around doing nothing.
    )
    What happens when the truck recieves a fire call on the way back from a medical call? What would you say if they responded to a medical and responded with a chase vehicle (like a blazer or pick up) leave the scene and get a fire 2 blocks from where they were? Some of this would be based on manpower minimums as well. If you have 4 on a shift then sending 3 on a truck is not obsured.

    I do agree there have been quite a few apparatus crashes. I feel the trucks are to easy to drive. When I started 99% of the trucks were standard. In a way not to many people could drive them. Now with everything being automatic any body can climb into a truck and go. For example a dept in our county has a big tractor trailer tanker. For some reason I think It holds either 8 or 10,000 gallons of water. It was a standard and only a handfull of people could drive this truck.Well they had done some upgrades to this unit and purchased a new tractor for it. Of course it's a automatic and a member of the dept of which I spoke with says "yeah I can drive this thing now becase all I have to is push a button" That in my opinion is not safe.

  8. #8
    Forum Member TFMBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ohio & Texas
    Posts
    129

    Cool

    dday05:
    What would you say if they responded to a medical and responded with a chase vehicle (like a blazer or pick up) leave the scene and get a fire 2 blocks from where they were?
    I think your scenario is NOT typical...an extreme case point. In my humble opinion, I don't think the FIRE DEPARTMENTshould be responding to ANYTHING but FIRE calls. Yes, ONLY calls that a FIRE is reported...not; power lines down, every MVA unless persons are trapped, every medical incident, cats in trees, etc., etc. All this "cross training"...being able to be a "jack of all trades" is obsured and extremely costly to the taxpayers of the community.
    That said...I think THIS discussion should be in another thread.

    Of course it's a automatic and a member of the dept of which I spoke with says "yeah I can drive this thing now becase all I have to is push a button" That in my opinion is not safe.


    This exactly my point...many people are operating very heavy, difficult to drive, Class-A type vehicles, with little or no experience, and the capablities on how to handle the vehicle in various [emergency driving] situtiations. On many volunteer departments...the person driving the "tanker", is the last one to arrive at the fire house. In your opinion this is not safe...NO, it is extremely unsafe to all the citizens he/she comes within 10 feet of.

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFMBob View Post
    dday05:


    I think your scenario is NOT typical...an extreme case point. In my humble opinion, I don't think the FIRE DEPARTMENTshould be responding to ANYTHING but FIRE calls. Yes, ONLY calls that a FIRE is reported...not; power lines down, every MVA unless persons are trapped, every medical incident, cats in trees, etc., etc. All this "cross training"...being able to be a "jack of all trades" is obsured and extremely costly to the taxpayers of the community.
    That said...I think THIS discussion should be in another thread.
    .
    Why is'nt my scenario not typical? Yes it would be nice to just respond to fire calls BUT it is what it is. We respond to medical calls. To say this belongs in a seperate thread well you brought this up in your post before mine.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFMBob View Post
    I agree...I think many would be shocked, knowing the number of accidents per the number of of runs made...especially on "sickie calls" that engine Co.'s did NOT use to run on.

    That is mostly a PR program, and the cost of running a big, custom engine [often a big quint] with 3 or 4 firefighters on every "sickie call" is obsured. Usually the amb/squad is right behind [or ahead] of them anyway, and the firefighters are [usually] standing around doing nothing.
    )
    We have helped many, many pts before the squad arrives. Even though we stand around and do nothing.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFMBob View Post
    This exactly my point...many people are operating very heavy, difficult to drive, Class-A type vehicles, with little or no experience, and the capablities on how to handle the vehicle in various [emergency driving] situtiations. On many volunteer departments...the person driving the "tanker", is the last one to arrive at the fire house. In your opinion this is not safe...NO, it is extremely unsafe to all the citizens he/she comes within 10 feet of.
    Something we agree on...

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,330

    Default

    I'll make a deal with you, lets leave the medical stuff out of this and focus on what can be done to make driving the apparatus from point A to Point B as safe as possible. No matter how long we debate the ems issue, it will not stop us from responding to these types of incidents and along with several other departments through out the country.

    LETS FOCUS ON WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE ANY TRIP IN THE APPARATUS AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE!

    dday

  13. #13
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,851

    Default

    I a, going to deal with this topic from 2 perspectives, career and volly.

    First career:

    On my career Fd you must successfully complete the state of Wisconsin Driver operator course as part of the requirements to be promoted to MPO. In order to act as an MPO of any rig you must accomplish all of the training standards required as well as over a period of time deomstrate safe operation of the vehicle on the road. The MPO trainer decides when you are to be signed off.

    On my volly FD inorder to be a dribver you must successfully complete the stae of Wisconsin driver operator course. Much the same as my career FD driver operator trainers runs candidates through an extensive training program and the chief decides through consultation with your trainer when you are ready to be signed off for that vehicle.

    The issue is training. There is no excuse in a career FD for putting inadequately trained people in the position of MPO. Similarily there is no excuse for putting inadequately trained people in the position of driver operator in a volunteer FD. The truth is just because that person can drive a dump truck or a moving van does NOT, let me repeat that does NOT qualify them to drive a fire truck. Specialized training and refreshers are required.

    Complacency is a killer.

    Now on to EMS...it is a fact of life for most FDs and we have adapted and frankly it has become the bread and butter life's blood of many FDs these days. Without it I can guarantee you my career FD would not have half the people we do each shift. Is running a pumper or ladder or quint to these calls the most efficient way of doing things? I am not sure, but I prefer having the crews with their rig instead of splitting crews to use a seperate vehicle for EMS runs.

    FyredUp

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFMBob View Post
    It is apparent that the number of "rollovers" of apparatus while responding on a run, is on the increase. Nearly every few days, someone rolls one somewhere...usually while turning left, in dry road surface conditions. There seems to be a common thread here, and the first thing that comes to mind is...the driver was [obviously] moving too fast. The second is, maybe the vehicle was not designed to carry all that has been loaded onto it...since designed by the mfgr., i.e., it is now "top heavy." Thirdly, since the steering is so effortless now, and with automatic trans., possibily the driver has "lost the feel" of his rig, which by the way...one had without P/S and auto-trans. I cannot recall the rigs of the 50's hardly ever being in a rollover, therefore in my humble opinion...something is now out of order.

    Regardless, it is becoming very serious and costly [in my opinion]. You cannot be of assistance to those in need...with your rig laying on it side, firefigher's injured, and equiment scattered all over the place. I hate to present a problem without a solution...but I am in no position to offer one at this time, except to "slow down while turning."
    TFMBob,

    I would say that a majority of roll over acceidents are the result of improper training. Fryred Up touched on subject very well.

    It comes down to the fact that in both career and vollie departments we no longer "Train" our people, we now show our people how to do something instead of taking the time to properly train them.

    We no longer take the time to make sure our operators know their apparatus inside and out. We throw them on a rig and show them how everything works then let them "go to town". Years ago operators knew their apparatus inside and out, that is not true in today's world. Today we make "button pushers" and "lever pullers" instead of Operators.

    Hope that makes sense!

    Chief1FF

  15. #15
    Forum Member TFMBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ohio & Texas
    Posts
    129

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Chief1FF View Post
    TFMBob,

    I would say that a majority of roll over acceidents are the result of improper training. Fryred Up touched on subject very well.

    It comes down to the fact that in both career and vollie departments we no longer "Train" our people, we now show our people how to do something instead of taking the time to properly train them.

    We no longer take the time to make sure our operators know their apparatus inside and out. We throw them on a rig and show them how everything works then let them "go to town". Years ago operators knew their apparatus inside and out, that is not true in today's world. Today we make "button pushers" and "lever pullers" instead of Operators.

    Hope that makes sense!

    Chief1FF
    Chief1FF: Excellently stated:

    I guess this sums up the discussion, and the answer appears...MORE hands on TRAINING. Operators that are sent to a "truck driving school," are not necessarily TRAINED operators upon completion. They were schooled to pass their CDL License Exam, and have very little "practical...behind the wheel" experience. Nothing will ever replace a good OJT program, [for those who were not in the military, that is On the Job Training]. This being said, I realize that many depts. [especially vol.] do not have the time to train everyone to operate/drive the shinny, new, $250,000+ "push-button," pumper, and they do the best they can under the those circumstances, knowing this...may not be optimal solution.

    The risks are very high in operating an emergency vehicle running Code 3, and everyone must accept this.

  16. #16
    Permanently Removed
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default * Mandatory Shift Change Operation *

    I have a suggestion. Many times (typically larger departments), each shift taking the helm is required to run the equipment immediately after “acceptance” of the duty. Particularly this applies to aerials in my end of the business. The new shift is required to take it out on the apron, set it, lift it, rotate it, etc. Not only does this make sure the equipment is in good order, it gets people’s “head back in the game” after a couple days off.

    That is my point. When a new shift takes charge, regardless of being a big or small Dept – I think it would be a good idea if the new drivers / operators were REQUIRED to take the rigs for a short spin just to get their “head back in the game” of a big apparatus rather than the Toyota they drove to shift.

    I would be willing to bet good money that the majority of these rollovers (And other accidents) happen during a new shift’s “First Out” call. TL

  17. #17
    dazed and confused Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    I would be willing to bet great money that the majority of these roll-overs involve volunteer department water tankers/tenders...

    .. i.e. "new shift's first call" probably isn't a common denominator.
    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!

  18. #18
    Permanently Removed
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Resq14 View Post
    I would be willing to bet great money that the majority of these roll-overs involve volunteer department water tankers/tenders...

    .. i.e. "new shift's first call" probably isn't a common denominator.
    I guess we will never know since there is no study I know of, but most of the Vollies I know (and I have worked with a lot) drive trucks and work with large industrial equipment in their real jobs on a daily basis.

    I think “first call out” is much more likely and taking the apparatus out for a required “equipment AND driver check” makes a lot of sense. And it serves two purposes.

    If you start & run all the chain saws at the beginning of the shift, why would you neglect the biggest, most expensive and most dangerous piece of equipment? Oh, that’s right. It must be the Volunteers. TL

  19. #19
    Forum Member TFMBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ohio & Texas
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Resq14 View Post
    I would be willing to bet great money that the majority of these roll-overs involve volunteer department water tankers/tenders...

    .. i.e. "new shift's first call" probably isn't a common denominator.
    There is some validity in this statement. I know of incidents, where the "last person arriving at the fire hall, was ordered to bring the BIG tanker"...and was NOT trained to drive it...but since it had an automatic trans...they were able to get it to the scene...somehow staying out of the ditches." I believe you could train a "caveman" [no pun intended]to move a BIG piece of apparatus down the road today with A/T. This is part of the problem...not a solution for sure.

    SSIaerialmanTIM:
    I think “first call out” is much more likely and taking the apparatus out for a required “equipment AND driver check” makes a lot of sense. And it serves two purposes.

    If you start & run all the chain saws at the beginning of the shift, why would you neglect the biggest, most expensive and most dangerous piece of equipment? Oh, that’s right. It must be the Volunteers.
    Keep in mind...90% of the firefighter's in the U.S. are volunteers...just trying to save there community from fire. They do the best they can...and the "equipment AND driver check" is not a "daily" function...maby once a week at the Saturday morning "training/meeting"...at best.

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TFMBob View Post
    I believe you could train a "caveman" [no pun intended]to move a BIG piece of apparatus down the road today with A/T. This is part of the problem...not a solution for sure. .
    Like you said you can teach ANYONE to move it, but can they operate it? Everything comes down to training, and knowing all of your trucks and equipment.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. another SCBA question
    By DJACOBSON in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 10:03 PM
  2. Prospect Fire Apparatus Web Site
    By Box2565 in forum New Web Site Announcements
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-21-2005, 11:01 AM
  3. Rural Fire Apparatus Discussion
    By SamsonFCDES in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 09-20-2005, 07:06 PM
  4. NFPA 1901 Pumper Equipment Requirements
    By Brtengr in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-16-2003, 04:27 PM
  5. Fire Apparatus Manufacturer Logos?
    By yfdbuff in forum Fire Buffs' Firehouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-13-2002, 09:32 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