Catastrophic Aerial Ladder Failure In PA

[x635 4,066]

Two firefighters were hurt this morning when an aerial ladder collapsed during a commercial fire in Monongahela, Pennsylvania. New Eagle VFD Firefighter Les "Hootie" Pemberton was at the tip of Ladder 14 (New Eagle VFD, Washington County) when it collapsed during ladder pipe operations. Pemberton was strapped in and rode the ladder down as it crashed onto a roof top. He was treated and released from the hospital on Sunday afternoon.

PHOTOS AND FULL ARTICLE:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/blogs/...sed-aerial.html

[JimmyPFD 11]

Wow. But for the grace of God goes Hootie.

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

Mid 70'S Maxim just like Croton on Hudson !

[antiquefirelt 994]

Thankfully all were OK. We skirted a bullet when we got rid of our Maxim ladder. For years we said we could ladder around the corner with it, and after passing numerous UL tests, someone finally realized they were using the wrong test specs for it after it had been de-stroked to 80ft! What a great laugh when we were told to use it for emergencies only! Or :I know it's not safe, but you'd use if you had to right?"

[x635 4,066]

It's been mentioned recently that New Rochelle had a catastrophic ladder failure, and I seem to remember FDNY as well. What were the causes of those events?

Is it operator error? Could age be a factor?

[BFD1054 1,552]

WOW! Glad to hear the brothers are ok, that could have been ALOT worse.

Seth, good questions. I to would be interested in learning the causes of these failures. I mean, for the metal to fail/bend like that is almost unthinkable.

[unklecletus 0]

In Tarrytown we just had a class on ladders. One thing they said was shutting down the master stream to fast can make the ladder drop so fast that it can twist and fall.

[FFFORD 27]

In Tarrytown we just had a class on ladders. One thing they said was shutting down the master stream to fast can make the ladder drop so fast that it can twist and fall.

i have also heard this. In addition i have been told a quick side to side motion with a water stream can cause failure as well.

[Bnechis 3,961]

It's been mentioned recently that New Rochelle had a catastrophic ladder failure, and I seem to remember FDNY as well. What were the causes of those events?

Is it operator error? Could age be a factor?

Nope...poor design, failure to notify the customer of a recall (they "forgot" the unit was a ladder) and failure to fix a know design flaw even after an identical rig (San Antonio <sp>) failed. Note: 1 member was perminatly disabled (and was paid a lot of money in an out of court deal), 2nd member was inches from being crushed.

The operator raised the ladder to about 70 feet at 70 degrees and the main pin fell out. This unit was 9 years old and had a full ladder test a few months before this incident.

The FDNY incident that I'm thinking of (have they had more than 1?) occured at low angle, with at least 1 ff on the tip & 3 or 4 civilians. fire cut off the path and the operator rotated the ladder to clear a path. The ladder twisted and down it went. I would not call it operator error because he had no other option, but the ladder was pushed beyond its design.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Bnechis

[lad12derff 283]

I would like to know why Hootie was at the tip of the ladder while operating a master stream? This should be a lesson on what we have been taught. there is NO good reason to be at the tip of the truck above the fire while flowing water. If you need to spot the water you should ask the people operating a tower ladder if possible or try to gain a vantage point from an exposure and use radios. You don't need the best seat in the house when it could end up being your last performance.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I would like to know why Hootie was at the tip of the ladder while operating a master stream? This should be a lesson on what we have been taught. there is NO good reason to be at the tip of the truck above the fire while flowing water. If you need to spot the water you should ask the people operating a tower ladder if possible or try to gain a vantage point from an exposure and use radios. You don't need the best seat in the house when it could end up being your last performance.

Excellent point! Far too many FD's still put guys on the tip of sticks to flow aerial master streams. If the guns are up, the building is coming down and we have no excuse for exposing our members to the dangers of operating from the tip. Failure of basic risk/benefit analysis.

I think the FDNY operation BNECHIS was describing was originally blamed on the operator but found to be an extreme situation that had no other real options. As I recall the tip was up at a low angle fully extended down a the side of a building and as the ladder became loaded one side made contact with the building causing a twisting action that failed as more victims exits onto the ladder? It's a case study Mike Wilbur uses in his presentations. Know your equipment, know your limitations, and sometimes you have to go beyond. Sadly sometimes going outside the safety parameters have serious consequences.

In general Maxim has had many aerial failures. A few brother in Seattle were injured on a reserve Ward LaFrance/Maxim when the ladder failed in similar fashion as this latest one.

On the side to side motion, and quick shut downs: When speccing our tower, we found two of the big builders outright said no to a manual tiller bar controlled gun due to the ability to change the direction of nozzle reaction too quickly. One other builder failed to give and answer and three said they do it all the time and were confident. We also wanted no valves between the waterway inlet and the nozzle tip to ensure all water flow was controlled by the engine to alleviate fast opening and closing and the chance of closing the waterway in freezing conditions. We ended up with a handwheel shutoff just below the gun and two 2.5" discharges with quarter valves, that we have instructed operators they are never to use.

[x129K 1,393]

I agree...no one should man a stick flowing water...that said...I have been ther emyself, and most likely do it again...

Here's hoping Hootie heals hastily.

[DR104 141]

I agree...no one should man a stick flowing water...that said...I have been ther emyself, and most likely do it again...

Here's hoping Hootie heals hastily.

I agree too!!!! Not one FF but they had two.Said it before on this site!!!! In the clip you see two FFs sitting at the tip of the ladder. Don't know if that was the ladder that failed,but they were very close to each other and one guy was sitting on the ladder with his legs hanging down! Don't remember that in ladder ops!

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Nope...poor design, failure to notify the customer of a recall (they "forgot" the unit was a ladder) and failure to fix a know design flaw even after an identical rig (San Antonio <sp>) failed. Note: 1 member was perminatly disabled (and was paid a lot of money in an out of court deal), 2nd member was inches from being crushed.

The operator raised the ladder to about 70 feet at 70 degrees and the main pin fell out. This unit was 9 years old and had a full ladder test a few months before this incident.

The FDNY incident that I'm thinking of (have they had more than 1?) occured at low angle, with at least 1 ff on the tip & 3 or 4 civilians. fire cut off the path and the operator rotated the ladder to clear a path. The ladder twisted and down it went. I would not call it operator error because he had no other option, but the ladder was pushed beyond its design.

Barry...if its the failure or a certain manufacturer you had is the one I'm thinking of not too long ago, we had the same ladder and they came in quite quickly after that to check it. Your failure also led certain powers to be to listen to the calls for regular testing as required for safety.

FDNY has had more then one. The one mentioned above was in the Bronx if I remember correctly and due to the location of the civilian victims the aerial had to be used outside of its operational limitations for the angle and extension. One of the beams was in contact with the window sill..as the firefighter was assisting the children and female if I remember the report correctly (it can be found on the USFA website for aerial ladder failures which concerned older ladders and "medium duty" ladders) the male civilian lunged on the ladder and when the beam slipped off the ladder sprung violently and torqued causing the failure. Another failure was L14 which can only be commented on via video as I believe there is still litigation about the incident...it appeared in the video that the operator only set the working side outriggers and when the bucket was rotated to bring a civilian to the ground the center of gravity shifted and caused the aerial to rollover on the non supported side.

Miami also had one not too long ago where the operator decided to check the aerial without setting the outriggers/jacks...the truck rolled over and he was subsequently terminated.

Utilize aerial apparatus within their operational specifications, inspect them as required and know how the systems work and you will generally be ok.

[FireMedic049 597]

This happened not too far outside my area. The speculation on a "local" forum is leaning towards "operator error" based on the assumption of a tip load limit of 250# with 2 FFs and a 4" supply line running up the ladder.

As for why a person was operating at the tip.........well, the ladder did not have a pre-piped waterway. So they had to go "old school" for the master stream, which normally would necessitate a person being there to direct the water flow.

Maybe it's just me, but I think you guys are being a bunch of "Safety Sallies" about not wanting to put a person up there to direct the stream.

[grumpyff 1,159]

This happened not too far outside my area. The speculation on a "local" forum is leaning towards "operator error" based on the assumption of a tip load limit of 250# with 2 FFs and a 4" supply line running up the ladder.

As for why a person was operating at the tip.........well, the ladder did not have a pre-piped waterway. So they had to go "old school" for the master stream, which normally would necessitate a person being there to direct the water flow.

Maybe it's just me, but I think you guys are being a bunch of "Safety Sallies" about not wanting to put a person up there to direct the stream.

There is no need for a FF to be on the the tip...is the dept there to poor to buy some rope? I know when I joined my first FD we had a 1949 American Lafrance with a 65' ladder. One the first things I was shown was how to manually set the outriggers, attach the ladder pipe to the fly while in the bed, stretched and attach a 3 inch hose from the pipe to the turntable, and then attach a halyard to the pipe. That way in could be operated from the ground, and could be directed in conjunction with the operator on the turntable and other spotters on the fireground. It's not about being a "Safety Sally" but going home in one piece. Why take the unnecesary risk.

PS who uses a 4 inch line to feed a ladder pipe?

Edited September 14, 2009 by grumpyff

[FireMedic049 597]

There is no need for a FF to be on the the tip...is the dept there to poor to buy some rope? I know when I joined my first FD we had a 1949 American Lafrance with a 65' ladder. One the first things I was shown was how to manually set the outriggers, attach the ladder pipe to the fly while in the bed, stretched and attach a 3 inch hose from the pipe to the turntable, and then attach a halyard to the pipe. That way in could be operated from the ground, and could be directed in conjunction with the operator on the turntable and other spotters on the fireground. It's not about being a "Safety Sally" but going home in one piece. Why take the unnecesary risk.

I'm well aware of the rope thing, but you still can't properly direct the stream very well doing so. I really don't see it as an "unnecessary risk" to have somebody operating up there and don't quite understand the desire to utilize multiple personnel to direct the stream, when one person could easily and unless you're being stupid, safely from the tip. What's the actual concern with this? Is it a fear of ladder failure? Is it a fear of them falling off? Help me understand because there's a lot more dangerous things you could be doing on the fireground?

PS who uses a 4 inch line to feed a ladder pipe?

Apparently they do.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I really don't see it as an "unnecessary risk" to have somebody operating up there and don't quite understand the desire to utilize multiple personnel to direct the stream, when one person could easily and unless you're being stupid, safely from the tip. What's the actual concern with this? Is it a fear of ladder failure? Is it a fear of them falling off? Help me understand because there's a lot more dangerous things you could be doing on the fireground?

Apparently they do.

Frankly, I'm of the mind that it is stupid to put a firefighter on the tip for a defensive operation. Reasons:

1. We've already determined life safety is not the issue. We're limiting fire spread at best, more likely burning the building down to a manageable size. So on the reward/benefit side of the scale, we're pretty light...

2. Hazards: Firefighter is generally above and close to the heat and smoke. Any wind change, sudden intensification of the fire from collapse (expected), or unforeseen materials may expose the firefighter to dangerous heat/flame. Smoke better not be a concern, as the firefighter should be in SCBA breathing air, as rapidly donning a mask while in the air is not feasible.

3. Aerial movement: It's never a good idea to retract/extend an aerial with a firefighter on it, regardless of the folding footrests at the tip. Most accuracy requires full range of motion over the operational duration.

4. What is your aerial rated for? If you have a low load rating for your aerial, it is going to be far more susceptible to damage from sudden flow changes. Many ladders fail when water is shut down too quickly causing them to to "spring" forward then back. Not only does the firefighter get whipped about (better have a belt on) but the stick could fail as this is not what they're designed for.

Basically I see this a failure of the basic risk/reward benefit. I'm far from a Safety Sally, but I don't see the benefit in lieu of far better/safer options when this is a defensive job. You want an accurate aerial master stream? Get a tower ladder in there, Far better safety for the firefighters, much more accurate stream placement, far less safety risks.

Edited September 14, 2009 by antiquefirelt

[lad12derff 283]

I'm well aware of the rope thing, but you still can't properly direct the stream very well doing so. I really don't see it as an "unnecessary risk" to have somebody operating up there and don't quite understand the desire to utilize multiple personnel to direct the stream, when one person could easily and unless you're being stupid, safely from the tip. What's the actual concern with this? Is it a fear of ladder failure? Is it a fear of them falling off? Help me understand because there's a lot more dangerous things you could be doing on the fireground?

Apparently they do.

Well we could start with the ladder rating and what it can hold. I went back to my notes from Yale and found a formula I developed for finding out how much water is in a 4 inch pipe: Volume = Pi (3.14159) X Radius of pipe 2 X Length of pipe

Then convert Volume to Weight.

So, for 10 feet of 4" Inside Diameter pipe:

Radius = 1/2 * Diameter = 1/2 * 4 inch = 2 inch

Length = 120 inches

Volume = 3.14159 X 22 X 120 = 1,508 cubic inches

1 cubic inch of water = 0.036127 pounds

So: 1508 cubic inches * 0.036127 pounds per cubic inch = 54 pounds.

I do not know how high the ladder was but for the best pictures for TV and newspapers and for everyone to see you at the top it should be at least 80 feet in the air. So we have 432 pounds plus 2 firefighters 300 pounds each with gear. For a grand total of 1032 pounds operating on the ladder plus the reaction force of the flowing water which I could not find in my Yale notes. Now we get to those dirty lawyers who will use my notes from Yale to prove that there was no reason for 2 firefighter to be operating beyond the manufacturers specs to "save " a building that was burning down to be at the tip. He will have video and newspaper footage because they do take the best shots from that high and what do we get? Hootie and the crew get no money and have to pay to fix the truck. So this topic should be titled Firefighter stupidity causes failure of the truck and not Catastrophic Aerial Ladder Failure In PA

Post

[FireMedic049 597]

Well we could start with the ladder rating and what it can hold. I went back to my notes from Yale and found a formula I developed for finding out how much water is in a 4 inch pipe: Volume = Pi (3.14159) X Radius of pipe 2 X Length of pipe

Then convert Volume to Weight.

So, for 10 feet of 4" Inside Diameter pipe:

Radius = 1/2 * Diameter = 1/2 * 4 inch = 2 inch

Length = 120 inches

Volume = 3.14159 X 22 X 120 = 1,508 cubic inches

1 cubic inch of water = 0.036127 pounds

So: 1508 cubic inches * 0.036127 pounds per cubic inch = 54 pounds.

I do not know how high the ladder was but for the best pictures for TV and newspapers and for everyone to see you at the top it should be at least 80 feet in the air. So we have 432 pounds plus 2 firefighters 300 pounds each with gear. For a grand total of 1032 pounds operating on the ladder plus the reaction force of the flowing water which I could not find in my Yale notes. Now we get to those dirty lawyers who will use my notes from Yale to prove that there was no reason for 2 firefighter to be operating beyond the manufacturers specs to "save " a building that was burning down to be at the tip. He will have video and newspaper footage because they do take the best shots from that high and what do we get? Hootie and the crew get no money and have to pay to fix the truck. So this topic should be titled Firefighter stupidity causes failure of the truck and not Catastrophic Aerial Ladder Failure In PA

Post

Not quite sure why you quoted me for this response, but I'll assume it was in response to my "why" question.

I was in no way attempting to condone what took place at this specific incident, however I really don't see it as any sort of "justification" for a "don't put anybody at the tip" course of action. The incident appears, from the info I've seen so far, to be largely a case of "operator error" - grossly exceeding the max tip load. If you do all of these things on a 250# tip load, then the outcome that occurred is pretty predictable.