Why No Emergency Escape Ladder On Mount Vernon TL-1

[x635 4,066]

I'm just curious why there isn't an escape ladder on Mount Vernon FD TL-1 (Seagrave-Aerialscope)

The two rumors I heard when it was first delivered was that they were going to add it when funds permit, and that it didn't fit into the firehouse with the escape ladder.

To my knowledge, it's the ONLY Aerialscope WITHOUT the escape ladder.

http://www.fdnytrucks.com/files/html/other...nt%20Vernon.htm

Now, someone brought up a good point in another topic, which reminded me of this issue.

Isn't it a safety concern, if let's say, the bucket somehow fails, and fire is close to or threatening the members in the bucket? How do they escape? I guess the same would be true for a Snorkel, but don't those have an emergency escape system as well?

[FirNaTine 370]

I heard that's why they cancelled the appointment of those 5 guys, so they could purchase the escape ladder for the TL and the 4 new generators for each station. While on that note, how many Depts. out there have emergency generators for their stations?

Edited March 21, 2008 by FirNaTine

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

Why the need for a Escape ladder , we have no men to put in it and it's always out of service. any body coming to my block party? p.s. don't delete it's a joke upstate moderator.

[CPAGE 2]

I know of a few dept with T/L's that do not have the escape ladder on it and here are a few from LI NY.

I would not want to go down on the ladder but anyway.

1) Baldwin LI : http://www.fdnytrucks.com/files/html/other...sau/Baldwin.htm

2) Freeport LI : http://www.fdnytrucks.com/files/html/other...au/Freeport.htm

3) Valley Stream LI : http://www.fdnytrucks.com/files/html/other...ey%20Stream.htm

I think that I missed one or two.

Also thanks to Mike for his site and all his great photo's

Chris

Edited March 21, 2008 by CPAGE

[res6cue 67]

I guess the same would be true for a Snorkel, but don't those have an emergency escape system as well?

Negative. Not unless you want to scale the booms or waterway piping, or you have some kind of rope you can throw out of the bucket to rappel down. I don't see what the big issue is, my dept survived just fine for 40 years with two Snorkels, neither of which had any type of "escape" system.

[JFLYNN 681]

Negative. Not unless you want to scale the booms or waterway piping, or you have some kind of rope you can throw out of the bucket to rappel down.

I don't see what the big issue is, my dept survived just fine for 40 years with two Snorkels, neither of which had any type of "escape" system.

That's the whole point of this site isn't it? To provide information that is not available to you from within your own department or based on your own personal experience?

Do you think that 40 years of experience with TWO snorkels in your department (which I am sure you will tell me is SOOOO busy) is all anybody needs to determine whether this is a "big issue" or not?

The more personal "experience" you get the more you will (hopefully) realize that experience can be a good teacher, but it is a real hard way to learn...

remember, "qtip"...

[x635 4,066]

I don't see what the big issue is, my dept survived just fine for 40 years with two Snorkels, neither of which had any type of "escape" system.

Complacency kills. You can't justify something as being safe just because you haven't had an incident. You have to be prepared for the worst, and hope for the best. That Mount Vernon bucket has more potential of coming upon a dangerous situation then most Tower Ladders out there. From experience using an Aerialscope, conditions can change real fast....and I've been in the bucket a couple of times when the aerial has failed during training or weekly checks...and I've had to use the escape ladder. Fortunetly, I had plenty of time- something that FF's won't when defensive or rescue conditions can change rapidly.

And, why does one of the largest and most respected FD's in the world, FDNY, which borders MV, have escape ladders on their aerialscopes?

I'm tired of MVFD being shortchanged on everything. Their whole operation is held together with chewing gum and duct tape, and the FF's of MVFD make the system work every day to the best of their abilties-and thank god as safely as possible.

[res6cue 67]

My point is that for as many decades as Snorkel has been making their articulating platforms, I've never heard an outcry for an escape system on them. In the 40 years my dept owned two Snorkels, it was never an issue for us. I cannot recall ever hearing of it being an issue in Chicago, or any other big Snorkel city. Nowhere did I brag about how "busy" my dept is, the Chief back there saw fit to ASSume I would, just as he ASSumed whatever else he did about my experience or knowledge in his post. A bit ironic that he ends his posts with "qtip", yet chooses to bring his posts down to a personal level. Hmm.

By the way, if your aerials are failing THAT often, then you've got much bigger issues. Why the hell is the rig even in service if it fails THAT frequently during testing or training? The piece should not even be in service. This is especially disturbing to hear given that it IS an Aerialscope. Those things are practically bulletproof. Leads me to believe there is a severe lack of proper maintenance or care being given to the rig. Maybe if the rig was taken care of, you wouldn't have to worry so much about having that extension ladder bolted to the boom.

Edited March 21, 2008 by res6cue

[hudson144 150]

Its never in service anyway! A real shame, it has a mind of its own. The old mack tower ladder which is older than most of the guys on the job has been more dependable. Just my thoughts---

[res6cue 67]

For the record (since it seems everything one says these days must have a disclaimer attached, lest it be taken the wrong way or twisted around)...I am NOT against escape system of any kind. I am very PRO-firefighter safety. The safer and more efficiently we can get the job done, the better for all concerned. I responded to a very specific question Seth asked about Snorkels based on my intimate knowledge of them, that's all. No reason for anyone to get articulated out of shape.

Yes, that was a little joke.

[JFLYNN 681]

My point is that for as many decades as Snorkel has been making their articulating platforms, I've never heard an outcry for an escape system on them. In the 40 years my dept owned two Snorkels, it was never an issue for us. I cannot recall ever hearing of it being an issue in Chicago, or any other big Snorkel city. Nowhere did I brag about how "busy" my dept is, the Chief back there saw fit to ASSume I would, just as he ASSumed whatever else he did about my experience or knowledge in his post. A bit ironic that he ends his posts with "qtip", yet chooses to bring his posts down to a personal level. Hmm.

By the way, if your aerials are failing THAT often, then you've got much bigger issues. Why the hell is the rig even in service if it fails THAT frequently during testing or training? The piece should not even be in service. This is especially disturbing to hear given that it IS an Aerialscope. Those things are practically bulletproof. Leads me to believe there is a severe lack of proper maintenance or care being given to the rig. Maybe if the rig was taken care of, you wouldn't have to worry so much about having that extension ladder bolted to the boom.

I didn't say that MY aerialscopes are failing- they're not-I'm in Yonkers...the brothers in Mt.Vernon are having problems through no fault of their own, the city of Mt.Vernon refuses to provide them with adequate resoures...

...if your point was that in all the years Snorkel has been making articulating platforms, you've never heard of a problem or outcry as you put it, and you were basing your opinion on Chicago and other big cities, why did you only reference your town and your two snorkels in your first post ?????

BTW, I have no real opinion regarding Snorkels and escape systems, it's not my area of expertise...it just seemed obvious to me from your first post that it is not an area of expertise for you either and you sounded awfully sure of yourself as well as condescending to the first poster who asked a valid question...

...qtip...

[x635 4,066]

By the way, if your aerials are failing THAT often, then you've got much bigger issues. Why the hell is the rig even in service if it fails THAT frequently during testing or training? The piece should not even be in service. This is especially disturbing to hear given that it IS an Aerialscope. Those things are practically bulletproof. Leads me to believe there is a severe lack of proper maintenance or care being given to the rig. Maybe if the rig was taken care of, you wouldn't have to worry so much about having that extension ladder bolted to the boom.

That was out of my control. When I worked, I did what was required and what I was trained to do. Beyond that, I wrote up every problem I found or issue I encountered. The Chief and Commisioners were aware of the situation, and their remedy is to keep dumping money into it sending it for all kinds of repairs several times a year. I don't think they comprehend it would probaly be less expensive and more efficient if they refurbished the boom, and replaced the hyrdraulic and electrical systems and components completly.

Part of the problem is that when the apparatus was built, Aerialscope was in a transition phase. The quality of the electrical and hydraulic systems from the OEM was very poor from the start.

It's Chiefs, Commisioners, and City officials, in my opinion, who choose poorly trained or unqualified mechanics or a poor fleet maintainence program, coupled with poor oversight of the fleet, since they really aren't the ones working with the apparatus on a daily basis.

When it worked, it was a GREAT tool. But an apparatus that fails frequently and the issue is not addressed, is scary. The escape ladder bolted to the boom is a backup safety mechanism. If two firefighters get roasted or smooshed, god forbid, because their aerial fails and fire is heading their way, and they had no backup escape mechanism, then that's going to be an issue.

For example, look at FDNY and why they got the emergency escape ropes........

[DCurtis 1]

Arielscopes are awesome, but ours in Pleasantville is a sister truck to Hartsdale. It has all the same problems as theirs, except ours has failed in a major way. The internal hydrolics of the boom completely failed as they were crushed by each other. This happened right after it had been fixed no less, and luckly it failed during testing. Our truck has been in limbo ever since. Seagrave wont refurb it, and the rumor behind that is because they are in financial difficulty. But other than the 10-15 sister trucks to Hartsdales and ours, they are really solid platforms, they can take a abuse like no other, as long as maintained. Say, anybody got a spare one lying around that they might want to give to us? lol

[jloftus 28]

Hold on here, the point being with the ladder is for one purpose and one only, for us to get down in case of failure of the system, those that even suggest this using a rope is out of their minds. This is a safety issue thats why that ladder should be there. You wont find any FDNY rigs without them, why? cause they have a real purpose, to be used as a escape ladder. Not blaming the city for all the problems with this rig, but how on earth they put it in service without that ladder is again a lack of concern for OUR safety. The debate on a snorkel doesnt have one is mute, this rig and ALL towers have them period. That LI doesnt, shame on them. With all the hydrallic problems this thing has, doesnt that ladder seem real important then ever. I have been assigned to this rig and was NEVER at ease with it.

Jim Loftus

Ladder 2

[res6cue 67]

it just seemed obvious to me from your first post that it is not an area of expertise for you either

Once again, sir, you'd do well to keep your assumptions to yourself. You couldn't possibly know what areas I am or am not an "expert" in. Perhaps instead of advising everyone to "qtip", you ought to work on not making it personal as appears to be your style. Someone who makes backhanded remarks then issues a "get over it!" disclaimer after doing so grates on my nerves. Try acting more like a Chief and leader and less like an antagonistic teenager in your posts. QTIP!

Seth - I was not suggesting it was your fault or that of the men that the equipment is in poor shape, be it from lack of maintenance or gremlins from the factory. I was merely saying that the escape ladder on the Scope should be a LAST RESORT, and if you wind up having to use it as often as your post suggests, there are some very serious issues that need to be dealt with to protect the firefighters operating that equipment.

[JFLYNN 681]

Once again, sir, you'd do well to keep your assumptions to yourself. You couldn't possibly know what areas I am or am not an "expert" in. Perhaps instead of advising everyone to "qtip", you ought to work on not making it personal as appears to be your style. Someone who makes backhanded remarks then issues a "get over it!" disclaimer after doing so grates on my nerves. Try acting more like a Chief and leader and less like an antagonistic teenager in your posts. QTIP!

Seth - I was not suggesting it was your fault or that of the men that the equipment is in poor shape, be it from lack of maintenance or gremlins from the factory. I was merely saying that the escape ladder on the Scope should be a LAST RESORT, and if you wind up having to use it as often as your post suggests, there are some very serious issues that need to be dealt with to protect the firefighters operating that equipment.

Maybe just a "Seth, I apologize" would have worked better for you here...

When you make a statement on this forum, it is obviously then open for discussion, debate, or criticism. I, and others, had a problem with a statement you made. If it "grates on your nerves", I would suggest that you either stop posting, or "qtip"...

I stand by any comments I have made in this forum and do not believe I have made any personal attacks such as the one you have obviously just made against me...don't worry everyone...I'll remember to "qtip"...

[JFLYNN 681]

Maybe just a "Seth, I apologize" would have worked better for you here...

The second paragraph in blue font is part of my reply... I goofed up somehow...

[Ladder44 73]

Is this truck still out of serivce?

[FirNaTine 370]

If conditions are that severe, I'm not wasting time climbing down some flimsy ladder if I can rappel down. It's alot quicker and safer if you ask me. If your not in a hazardous condition, then just wait it out until the mechanic arrives. That is if he's not on the hoseline or pump panel, right Seth? As far as Snorkels are concerned, they can be manually rotated out of harms way and then the booms bled down to the ground. The FDMV Administration should be more concerned with increasing their staffing and apparatus numbers, not an escape ladder. Take that money and put it towards one of these more important objectives.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Every catastrophic failure of an aerial device over the years has resulted in the total failure of the aerial device, ie. breaking, bending, ect. With this hazardous condition in place, why would you want to attempt to climb down the aerial device, wouldn't a person's weight shifting cause more problems or repelling down from the basket ad more of a tip load as the weight distribution / gravity is forcing it down? I would rather have another aerial, cherry picker or even a crane basket be set up so I can get off the darn thing before it goes kaput! I wouldn't want to even attempt to climb down he thing.

Now mind you I'm not a truckie or operated one (I haven't started learning how to operate our tower at work yet). So I might have some misconceptions here. I know the theory "when you have to bail, then bail" but if their is a safer way to get out of a failed tower, then I would chose that if time permitted. But of course I'm looking through lack of experience with truck operations.

As for some of the "scopes" that were posted from LI, I think Valley Stream's truck had a height requirement problem with their firehouse and that is why they didn't have the escape ladder on it or it was damaged or something. I can't remember the others why they didn't.

[antiquefirelt 994]

We looked at buying a Scope without the "escape" ladder as well. While all of FDNY's TL's have them, read their TL Ops manual, it basically says that the escape ladder is a last resort, after using another aerial or rappelling. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their use. Given that FDNY buys about half of the Scopes built each year, they may know a bit about them.

It seems there have been a lot of issues with Scope's since Seagrave took over, between the last few built in Virginia and the stuff coming out of Wisconsin, the new Seagrave/Aerialscope seems to being damaging it's own good name. Really a shame for a TL buff like me.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

My solution? Personal escape rope, hook to the platform and rappel.

[Scottyk107 9]

My solution? Personal escape rope, hook to the platform and rappel.

I agree with repelling down but what if you are over the fire? You are between a rock and a hard place if you have no where to go. It would be nice to have both options available. Its not about what hasn't happened but about what can and inevitably will.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Neither of the options are good in that instance, you'd have to take a chance I suppose.

[Mac8146 61]

Just a point of information for those who may not know, the Term Last Resort in using this "Escape Ladder" is as it is stated. When climbing down this ladder the sections of the boom may self adjust causing the person on the ladder to possibly get seriously injured. The Aerialscope has this feature so the boom sections do not fatigue over time and extending to same spots. When in the Bucket you do not even know when this self adjusting occurs. Unless of course you are at full extension. I think the escape ladder has been used less than 3 times in FDNY since 1960's when first tower ladders arrived. As mentioned we do now have Personal Harness' however the rope is only 50' so unless you can deploy and reach a safe area the ropes are not useful. We do sometimes have LSR in basket which can be used to reach the ground if necessary. Again you have many things to take into account when repelling from Tower Ladder

Edited March 23, 2008 by Mac8146

[usedtruck 0]

The answer to the escape ladder on Aerialscopes is simple.

The NFPA standard for aerial devices changed a few years ago, and the new standard has specific qualifications for escape ladders. Much of the change relates to rail heights and other standards.

The Aerialscope standard escape ladder does not meet the NFPA standard for an aerial ladder for climbing.

So departments are faced with 2 choices regarding NFPA compliance on an Aerialscope.

They can buy it without the escape ladder and it now is classified as a "water tower" not an aerial platform.

Many departments have opted to purchase it without the escape ladder in order to have an NFPA compliant aerial.

I believe the FDNY aerialscopes are not NFPA compliant and FDNY signs off on that. The issues that Mac referred to "boom shifting" would also not comply with NFPA standards, but I am not certain they are still an issue with the current generation of Aerialscopes. I was told that is no longer a problem since the single extension cylinder was changed to the current generation hydraulics.

A few of the ones on Long Island do not have the escape ladder for the same NFPA compliance reasons.

The NFPA standard really puts fire departments between a rock and a hard place. Put the ladder on and you are not compliant, don't include it and you comply but have a smaller level of back-up safety.

I do not know if Seagrave is offering a comlpliant escape ladder, because it would have to meet the hand and side rail heights of the NFPA, and would probably add 12-20" to the height of the unit. That would keep it out of many of the older stations

Bottom line, Mt Vernon obviously wanted to purchase an NFPA compliant unit and couldn't do so with the standard escape ladder.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Bottom line, Mt Vernon obviously wanted to purchase an NFPA compliant unit and couldn't do so with the standard escape ladder.

Based on what I've been reading here the 3 reasons that are available are:

1) Being NFPA compliant

2) Height Restrictions

3) Cost savings

Any other reasons?

[antiquefirelt 994]

The answer to the escape ladder on Aerialscopes is simple.

The NFPA standard for aerial devices changed a few years ago, and the new standard has specific qualifications for escape ladders. Much of the change relates to rail heights and other standards.

The Aerialscope standard escape ladder does not meet the NFPA standard for an aerial ladder for climbing.

So departments are faced with 2 choices regarding NFPA compliance on an Aerialscope.

They can buy it without the escape ladder and it now is classified as a "water tower" not an aerial platform.

Many departments have opted to purchase it without the escape ladder in order to have an NFPA compliant aerial.

Bottom line, Mt Vernon obviously wanted to purchase an NFPA compliant unit and couldn't do so with the standard escape ladder.

I believe you're mistaken here. NFPA 1901 does not require that an elevating platform have a ladder. See section 20.7 for the list of required components. It does specify that when it does have a ladder then said ladder must meet certain standards. The lack of the ladder does not make the aerial a water tower. While one might argue that an elevating platform cannot have a non-compliant ladder and remain compliant, the fact remains that it never needed a ladder to start and to diminish its designation due to the escape ladder would be silly.

One also must ask at what point does NFPA compliance become too much? We are so worried about liability, that we spend money on items we admit we won't use, for a non-mandatory regulation. How many of you who will argue for full NFPA 1901 compliance have met 1710 or 1720?

[usedtruck 0]

I believe you're mistaken here. NFPA 1901 does not require that an elevating platform have a ladder. See section 20.7 for the list of required components. It does specify that when it does have a ladder then said ladder must meet certain standards. The lack of the ladder does not make the aerial a water tower. While one might argue that an elevating platform cannot have a non-compliant ladder and remain compliant, the fact remains that it never needed a ladder to start and to diminish its designation due to the escape ladder would be silly.

One also must ask at what point does NFPA compliance become too much? We are so worried about liability, that we spend money on items we admit we won't use, for a non-mandatory regulation. How many of you who will argue for full NFPA 1901 compliance have met 1710 or 1720?

Directly from NFPA 1901 "Annex D" which explained many of the changes to the standards after 1991:

Many requirements were added to increase the operating capabilities of all aerial devices. For aerial ladders, the minimum design strength of the rungs was increased, a height requirement for the hand rails was specified, a minimum load carrying requirement for folding steps was specified and the aerial ladder had to have a minimum carrying capacity of 250 pounds at the tip at 0 degrees elevation at maximum extension. Where a water tower was equipped with a ladder, the same requirements as applied to an aerial ladder were required of the ladder on the water tower."

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. You can argue with me all you want, but this is the NFPA annex that explains the change to the standard. If you are going to have a ladder on a water tower, its got to meet the requirements of an aerial ladder. The Aerialscope ladder doesn't meet those standards and the only way to have a compliant Aerialscope is without the escape ladder. The Mt. Vernon and those LI units are NFPA compliant water towers. With escape ladders they would not comply. I can tell you that the committee went round and round about the Aerialscope specifically, that there was nobody willing to make an exception for that unit, and they represent a tiny portion of the aerial market, particularly used in the Northeast corridor and some very few other areas.

Please don't shoot the messenger, i just wanted to explain why many of these units don't have escape ladders.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Directly from NFPA 1901 "Annex D" which explained many of the changes to the standards after 1991:

Many requirements were added to increase the operating capabilities of all aerial devices. For aerial ladders, the minimum design strength of the rungs was increased, a height requirement for the hand rails was specified, a minimum load carrying requirement for folding steps was specified and the aerial ladder had to have a minimum carrying capacity of 250 pounds at the tip at 0 degrees elevation at maximum extension. Where a water tower was equipped with a ladder, the same requirements as applied to an aerial ladder were required of the ladder on the water tower."

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. You can argue with me all you want, but this is the NFPA annex that explains the change to the standard. If you are going to have a ladder on a water tower, its got to meet the requirements of an aerial ladder. The Aerialscope ladder doesn't meet those standards and the only way to have a compliant Aerialscope is without the escape ladder. The Mt. Vernon and those LI units are NFPA compliant water towers. With escape ladders they would not comply. I can tell you that the committee went round and round about the Aerialscope specifically, that there was nobody willing to make an exception for that unit, and they represent a tiny portion of the aerial market, particularly used in the Northeast corridor and some very few other areas.

Please don't shoot the messenger, i just wanted to explain why many of these units don't have escape ladders.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the most current edition of 1901 specifies what is required of an elevating platform. An escape ladder or any ladder for that matter is not required. In fact what you've posted is just as it says, "Where a water tower was equipped with a ladder, the same requirements as applied to an aerial ladder were required of the ladder on the water tower." This means that the water tower does not require the ladder but when it has one, it should meet ladder requirements to meet that part. The same is true of an elevating platform. Just because one non-required part/portion doesn't meet the standard does not mean the apparatus doesn't meet. Otherwise there'd be very few NFPA compliant buildings, where NFPA 101 is a probably their most used codes.

As for MVFD's Scope, I'm sure someone here knows better, but I was told by the dealer who was delivering it that it was purely monetary. MVFD had little money but wanted a quality tower, and given the thoughts on using the escape ladder it was an easy cut. Again, third hand info someone form MVFD must have the inside skinny.

Edited March 23, 2008 by antiquefirelt