Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Leland Lavender on April 22, 2011 at 1:27am

We are required to carry 1, A Class and 2 mixed Class.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ashfire on April 22, 2011 at 7:48am

I think a automatic or manual fire suppression system wouldn't hurt. If you know you can't raise the hood or the cab quick enoungh to stop the fire in the engine compartment from doing extream damage. Then why not have a system to protect the cab and crew area on also.
I have seen where a engine room and other apparatus were damage when a electrical fire started in a rescue truck while the crew was asleep in fire station.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tyler Lyons on April 22, 2011 at 9:40am

Wouldn't be a bad idea.... Halon or halatron auto system....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason M Haas on April 22, 2011 at 11:47am

I would assume the answer would come down to price increase for the apparatus. However if this were to ever become the future of Fire Apparatus, I am sure fellow present and past USAF FireDawgs will find a new place to use the all famous line " THROTTLES, BOTTLES, BATERIES"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on April 22, 2011 at 5:26pm

All in perspective here BZ. ZCommercial vehicles from forklifts to tractor trailers have a fire extinguisher.Even a fire apparatus is equipped with an extinguisher for the vehicle. Now the size of said extinguisher can vary from a 2 1/2# dry chem to a 20# dry chem etc. Where you may see a system is when you are talking some serious significant cost involved. The picture you show is a dump truck for open mining most likely and costs are going to be much more significant than even a ladder truck.

Yeah sure there have been incidents with fire rigs involved, but is quite low in incidents when comparing how many apparatus never had such a problem. Statistically speaking it doesn't make sense to incur the additional costs of such a system, let alone the maintainence and testing of such a system. Fire systems are tested semi-annually, the costs involved with a Halon or Clean Agent system can be quite significant every six years. Does it really make sense to incur such additional costs adding a system would entail?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Klaene on April 22, 2011 at 9:20pm

Well our engines often run at high RPM and High load for long periods of time while stationary. Lets face it it is not unusual for us to push the limits either. These dang EPA regulations have us with exhaust restrictions, much higher exhaust temperatures, and tighter engine compartments. I think it is time!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roy Walker on April 22, 2011 at 10:00pm

I agree with John the cost incurred to install maintain and test such systems would be cost inhibitive. However that being said carrying two or three dry chemical extinguishers ,which may be used for other applications as well, could be a more viable alternative.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ashfire on April 23, 2011 at 9:45am

I guess one question that should be a forum question would be if you have a apparatus room with sprinklers or the whole station along with a auto or manual pull alarm system.
I have seen what happens when you have bad electrical maintenance done on a fleet vehicle or fire apparatus.
I mentioned the fire station that lost or had damage done to their units and apparatus room because the electical system on their rescue truck caught fire while the crew was asleep. The crew just barely got out before calling communications about the fire.
Years ago one of our pumpers was running a call when the cab filled with smoke from a electrical short.
Also we had happen the crew was asleep when we had the Federal Q start up on one of our engines twice. It was a electrical short.
As for fleet vehilces. I work at a county transportation building for buses and public works vehicles. One weekend one bus caught fire in the line and spread to several other buses before someone driving by saw the fire and called 911.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fireyladd - Retired Chief Sharp on April 23, 2011 at 11:59am

Good Idea BZY. Good question.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 23, 2011 at 6:36pm

The standard fire extinguisher complement (2.5 gal water can, ABC dry chem extinguisher, and CO2 extinguisher) should be enough.

The fixed system will take up a significant amount of space, add weight, and add cost to the rig. Statistically, very few rigs are lost to fires other than the rig being an exposure fire at a wildland fire or really large group fire. The ones that burn are typically the old, really worn-out ones that probably should have been retired anyway.

If I had a fire in an old, outdated rig, I'd rather have a good insurance policy to replace the rig rather than an onboard fire suppression system to save an old, outdated rig that now has fire and probably electrical system damage.

A better idea might be a set of dry-piped deluge sprinklers that can be used to protect the apparatus in the event of a wildland fire burnover, using the onboard water and pump; the option to hook up to a hydrant with a discharge to protect the hydrant line might also be included.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barbu-Maximilian Laurentiu on April 24, 2011 at 6:36am

Although Romanian fighting technique is generally in the 90s, a series of large water and foam machines have individual self-protection systems to inceniu. ASPLS, ATI. Estrus doses of spraying it operated from autospecialei plant discharge water, cans mounted on the machine. We provide a curtain of protection which serves to cool the fire.
For the electric motor and powder extinguishers are Preveza operated manually or automatically. Modern technique of intervention and provide fire protection through the production does not provide special facilities

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barbu-Maximilian Laurentiu on April 24, 2011 at 6:40am

The risk of fires intervention technique is well kept so small that does not justify the cost of installation of suitable protective deviceFor cars that appear in the special intervention (petrochemicals, airports, etc.) these devices are necessary, even mandatory by STAS site design.s.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page