Tanker/Tender Safety

[antiquefirelt 994]

This topic seems to rear it's head many times a year after a tragic accident claims one of our own. Fire apparatus that carry large quantities of water often are overloaded, under braked and top heavy. Until recently a significant number up in my area were converted oil or milk trucks who upon being too worn out for commercial deliveries were sold to FD's who made cheap tankers. When I started in 1986 my VFD had two such conversions. One thankfully only carried 750 gallons of water in a fairly low profile, but he other was a 2200 gal oil tanker with a gas powered portable pump tacked in the rear. Coupled with a 10 spd. tranny and we had a recipe for disaster with drivers of every type.

Here's my solution:

Any fire apparatus that is fails to meet NFPA standards for it's post 1991 age should not be considered an authorized emergency vehicle. If your truck is pre-1991 it either must meet or exceed 1991 NFPA standards or lose it's emergency vehicle status.

Removing the "authorized emergency vehicle" status in my state would mean: no red, white or blue warning lights (amber only), no authorization to operate outside the rules of the road, and if GVW meets the thresholds: CDL drivers.

NFPA standards do require baffles in water tanks and the new standards will start to take care of the top-heaviness with tilt-table testing. But under or un-baffled tanks, rural roads and adrenaline are all that are needed to continue our trend of killing a handful of firefighters every year in these apparatus.

BTW: When I was made the station officer of the house with the 2200 gal. tanker back in the 90's I refused to assign any firefighters to it. I was not able to remove it from service but I could warn firefighters that it was unsafe and that I'd protect them if they refused to operate it. It worked, we replaced it two years later.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Chief,

Could you elaborate on the circumstances regarding your dept. LODD and the tanker? (Condolences to RFD belatedly) Was it the 10 speed, high capacity tanker that was involved in the accident?

Are "water" tanks baffled horizontally as well as standard verticle liquid baffles found in most tankers? If not does the NFPA standard call for baffle systems specifically designed for emergency vehicles?

How much of Rockland is covered by a hydrant system?

Kudos for taking a stand to get a frontline apparatus removed and replaced. What did you replace the rig with?

(Maine notes: North Whitefield VFD covers my home in Maine. I support them during their fund drives, but they are so severely under-equipped and their equipment is so outdated. I think their "tanker" belonged to Mr. Moore one of the local farmers; who used it for milk at his farm previously.)

So many places still need so much help.

~Good post and topic. I hope some of the members pick up on this thread and share their experiences and thoughts about tanker units in Westchester.

Edited September 1, 2009 by efdcapt115

[antiquefirelt 994]

Chief,

Could you elaborate on the circumstances regarding your dept. LODD and the tanker? (Condolences to RFD belatedly) Was it the 10 speed, high capacity tanker that was involved in the accident?

Sorry, when I noted "after a tragic accident claims one of our own" I was speaking of the posts we see each time a tanker accident occurs nationwide. Thankfully no one from the RFD has died in almost a century. The LODD in VT again will bring about a round of posts questioning the use of "unsafe" tankers, driver training program questions and CDLs for all apparatus operators. None of which are bad topics to discuss, but in fact should be carried on tirelessly until changes are effected that reduce driving deaths.

I'm at home so I don't have the NFPA code set on my computer, but I'm 99% certain that they require a minimum baffling of sixteen chambers in all water tanks to prevent slosh. Oil tankers generally have three vertical baffles making three chambers splitting the unit lengthwise into thirds. Milk trucks have no baffles and are almost always elliptical as I believe corners are sources harder to keep clean. Also the new standards for apparatus call for tilt-table testing of all designs to further eliminate top heavy apparatus prone to roll over. Of course I'm not sure how that plays out with FD's adding tons of equipment after delivery. Maybe they have to add weight to open spaces like hosebeds and coffin compartments to complete the tests. I'll check my codes tomorrow.

My previous FD (St. George) replaced the 2220 gal. oil tanker with a 1800 gal. Central States NFPA compliant tanker on a Ford LN800 single axle with a 500 gpm pump. For reason that escapes me now (money I'm guessing), we put the 500 gpm in instead of the 750 which was all this (and it's sister the next year) needed to be Class A pumpers.

Undoubtedly, this is tough topic for many as more often than not the places with rural water an old sketchy tankers have little resources to buy new apparatus. Couple this with typical low volume FD's and it isn't hard to see these accidents in the making. This is why I think slowing them down by taking away warning lights and sirens makes sense. Rarely does a large tanker need to break the rules of the road and often they should not at all costs. Putting water in a truck made to carry oil immediately overloads the design of the brakes and suspension if it wasn't modified properly. Overweight trucks with inexperienced drivers going to the infrequent fire spells LODD.

[antiquefirelt 994]

As I suspected, the picture of what I assume was the tanker in the VT LODD is just as I pictured when I saw the announcement. A day must come when we have laws that prevent us from allowing brothers/sisters from operating these vehicles. Affordability cannot overrule basic minimum safety requirements.

Here's a link to a picture on New England Fire News's website: http://www.firenews.org/vt/vtc.html scroll down to Charleston and click Tanker 1.

Edited September 1, 2009 by antiquefirelt

[efdcapt115 1,511]

As I suspected, the picture of what I assume was the tanker in the VT LODD is just as I pictured when I saw the announcement. A day must come when we have laws that prevent us from allowing brothers/sisters from operating these vehicles. Affordability cannot overrule basic minimum safety requirements.

Here's a link to a picture on New England Fire News's website: http://www.firenews.org/vt/vtc.html scroll down to Charleston and click Tanker 1.

Wow, it's pretty hard to look at the photo of that rig as she was before this accident. To know that a member just died driving it....

I see what you mean about top-heavy, and I think your ideas regarding tankers are well worthy of further consideration, and discussion here as well.

~Thanks for the link and info

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Charleston FD Tanker 1 1988 Volvo 3500

After viewing the accident photo

I'm sure what we're looking at is Charleston FD Engine 3: 1970's International/Maxim 2500. I think this is the rig the member just died in, may he Rest in Peace.

(just IMHO)

Action plans need to be developed. One tanker LODD is too many, but like you pointed out; this is WAY TOO COMMON an incident, that we read about year after year. Departments need to get proactive about the issue before it happens to them. Starting with an internal department review of policy and current understandings of dept. specifications of tanker/engine tankers in the fleet, a fire department could institute changes; from going to an amber warning light system (only for tanker units), to a new policy regarding transport of "additional supply water" to and from fire scenes, or any other type of call.

Charleston FD Engine 1: 2004 Sterling/Metalfab 1250/1250

When you think about it, if your 1st due attack includes a pumper with at least a 500 gallon tank, that's adequate to "BEGIN" with. If your interior attack can't be effective with those first 500+ gallons, the tanker response SOG can reflect that in a policy of "standard cautionary response" because more than likely the IC is going to switch tactics, and if you are going defensive, the time needed for the 2500 gallons to be on-scene, pooled, waiting will be set back a bit; as the companies go to work setting up the appliances, supply lines, attack lines, monitors, etc in preparation for the arrival of the tank, and the subsequent defensive operations to commence.

You are really on to something with this Chief (in IMHO). Still would like to hear from some northern Westchester guys who could share some of their knowledge with tank supply systems, response policies, really any info/experiences/input would be interesting.

Edited September 2, 2009 by efdcapt115

[antiquefirelt 994]

Good catch on the tanker, I hadn't seen the post-crash picture. It looks like the tanker/pumper he was operating could be a compliant one as it looks like it was designed and purpose built.

You are really on to something with this Chief (in IMHO). Still would like to hear from some northern Westchester guys who could share some of their knowledge with tank supply systems, response policies, really any info/experiences/input would be interesting.

I've had this discussion with Mike Wilbur and he published it along with some opposing views as a response to a driver safety article he wrote for Firehouse in a previous issue (maybe 2 years ago?). It seems that this ruffled some feathers in the hinterlands where many rural FD's are convinced that all tankers need the ability to speed, run red lights and violate other rules of the road. They cite having no budgets and needing to hold chicken BBQ's to buy equipment and the travel distance to fires as excuses to speed in old crappy conversion trucks. I am remiss in my duty as I told Mike that I would work on this issue in my state and he promised to help by flying in and testifying if need be at our legislature. But local duties have kept me far too busy to try and battle with the State Fire Chief's who represent predominantly rural FD's with these types of apparatus. I guess it may be time to try and recommit to this goal.

Of course, I look like a hypocrite in this regard as our FD has no tankers so it's easy to banish those that do, or so it seems.