Raised Roof On Apparatus Cabs

[x152 179]

I am guessing the new chassis name has been contained within their advertising campaign for the past several months “the LEGACY grows.."

Still can’t understand why the industry is encouraging cathedral-like crew cab roofs and our business end is trying to keep member's seated while in motion.

Sometimes it is like we are driving in different directions.

But, as long as it is shiny....right?

Edited March 10, 2014 by x635
Topic split into own topic regarding raised roof on apparatus cabs

[Bnechis 3,961]

Still can’t understand why the industry is encouraging cathedral-like crew cab roofs and our business end is trying to keep member's seated while in motion.

It has nothing to do with being seated or not.

1) Even with seatbelts, some "standard" height roofs can have taller members hit their heads during an accident or hitting a bad pothole.

2) When exiting the cab, particularly while wearing SCBA & helmet, in a standard roof engine you have to stoop as you go through the door, which increases the chance of being off balance and falling. Being able to stand up straight to exit reduces this.

Remember back when we did ride standing up because we had true cathedrals.....No roof.

And its not the industry that is "encouraging" it, its the Fire service that's requesting it.

[x635 4,066]

I thought this cab would be a stainless steel split cab, to complete with KME, Ferrara, and Seagrave for FDNY contracts. Anyways, this is the first time I'm hearing a raised roof being called a "Cathedral Ceiling".

Seems like a double edged sword. It does let you stand up and get situated before you exit the cab without having to duck and crawl out for the bigger guys, but there are some that take advantage of it. And it seems the industry trend is more room in the cab.

I've very interested in seeing how Pierce makes more room in the cab.

A "catherdral ceiling can also be used to turn the cab into not only a place to be seated for a response, but a place to operate during a response, such as a command post, which is popular with chassis that are used for rescue trucks:

(Spartan)

And even FDNY spec's raised roofs now:

(Seagrave)

[BCFire05 83]

I much prefer a raised roof. Our Stock pierce is a flat roof and I don't particularly care for it. I love the space in our new engine with the raised roof. It'll be interesting to see how they create more room. If it will be similar to the Saber in interior space. Though there are a few fire dept's around Houston who have spec'd velocity's with a cab as big as the old Sabers.

[mfc2257 464]

I don't care for raised roof rigs. The flat roof'd Pierce Lances that have become popular in the mid Atlantic I like a lot. Super short wheelbase, basic engine company compartmentation, flat roof.

It's been a while since I've packed up in the back, but I'll tell you honestly that if being able to stand up is a priority while your heading out the road to a working job with the radio squaking then I'm not sure that you are focused on the right things. The only time you should need to stand is when your feet hit the curb. The busiest FD's in the world have done without raised roof cabs for a century. Not sure why we'd spend money on them now.

Edited March 8, 2014 by mfc2257

[x152 179]

It has nothing to do with being seated or not.

1) Even with seatbelts, some "standard" height roofs can have taller members hit their heads during an accident or hitting a bad pothole.

2) When exiting the cab, particularly while wearing SCBA & helmet, in a standard roof engine you have to stoop as you go through the door, which increases the chance of being off balance and falling. Being able to stand up straight to exit reduces this.

Remember back when we did ride standing up because we had true cathedrals.....No roof.

And its not the industry that is "encouraging" it, its the Fire service that's requesting it.

Barry:

Thank for your insight, but it has everything to do with being seated.

Perhaps in your part of the world, Firefighters always follow signage, directives, or you ride looking backwards, but my opinion is that a large open “cathedral” like cab encourages movement.

If we are intent on trying to reduce the “responding and returning” numbers with policies, we should also try to create environments that support the same policies.

I am fairly certain that we can still get there and do the job, without the cathedral.

If you need them or want them, great.

And let us not be so naive to believe that industry does not push the service, rather than the service pushing the industry.

[Bnechis 3,961]

And let us not be so naive to believe that industry does not push the service, rather than the service pushing the industry.

Having been to all of the major manufacturers factories multiple times over the last dozen years I can tell you that much of the industry will build and sell almost anything the dept wants so as not to "upset" the dept by saying no.

Its amazing how many stupid designs I have seen, where the manufacture just says, that's what the customer insisted on.

When the majority of buyers are more concerned with how it looks, then how it performs, this is what happens.

[Bnechis 3,961]

The busiest FD's in the world have done without raised roof cabs for a century. Not sure why we'd spend money on them now.

The latest apparatus being purchased by the following departments have raised roofs:

Boston

FDNY

Philadelphia

Baltimore

Chicago

LA

Cleveland

St Louis

Phoenix

Detroit

Dallas

Houston

Orlando

Charlotte NC

Denver

Milwaukee

Toronto

Montreal

Yes I found a few busy depts. that have not started purchasing raised roofs, but it looks to me that in the last century no one had them, but we also had boosters, fireball gloves and no scba.

[FireMedic049 597]

Barry:

Thank for your insight, but it has everything to do with being seated.

Perhaps in your part of the world, Firefighters always follow signage, directives, or you ride looking backwards, but my opinion is that a large open “cathedral” like cab encourages movement.

If we are intent on trying to reduce the “responding and returning” numbers with policies, we should also try to create environments that support the same policies. Yeah, and a more important part of creating an environment that supports that includes having company officers who make sure their FFs are seated and belted in during the response and firefighters who have the self-discipline to do it on their own. The only impact that a taller cab has on firefighters and not being seated and belted in is that there's more room when they are doing it. From my experiences, if a firefighter is going to be out of their seat during the response in a raised roof cab, they'll be out of their seat in a flat roof cab too.

I am fairly certain that we can still get there and do the job, without the cathedral. No doubt we could.

If you need them or want them, great.

And let us not be so naive to believe that industry does not push the service, rather than the service pushing the industry. Let's not be so naive to think that's a one way street.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Perhaps in your part of the world, Firefighters always follow signage, directives, or you ride looking backwards, but my opinion is that a large open “cathedral” like cab encourages movement.

In any part of the world firefighters standing up during response is a disciplinary problem. I gaurantee that you have even deeper issues if this is routine in your FD and is against policy. Why have rules you don't intend on enforcing? Stupid unenforced rules result in undermining authority and respect. But I will say it's a lot easier when the rules must be followed to stay employed!

[mfc2257 464]

I will yield to Barry on the topic of large departments moving towards raised roofs. I also will agree from a response to a previous poster that in a flat roof cab you do have to stoop to exit especially while wearing a scba but I can't recall after 20 years of firefighting and related activities of ever hearing of this causing injury.

(*)

[Bnechis 3,961]

I will yield to Barry on the topic of large departments moving towards raised roofs. I also will agree from a response to a previous poster that in a flat roof cab you do have to stoop to exit especially while wearing a scba but I can't recall after 20 years of firefighting and related activities of ever hearing of this causing injury.

Its not that stooping causes injury, its getting out and something as simple as twisting ones ankle because the ff was just a little off balance. We have seen it a number of times and the cost of sending a career ff to the ER and losing them for the rest of the tour (and replacing on OT) costs more than the raised roof.

So if it prevents 1 injury it paid for itself, and the likelihood of that in a 10-15 year service life is pretty good.

[x152 179]

In any part of the world firefighters standing up during response is a disciplinary problem. I gaurantee that you have even deeper issues if this is routine in your FD and is against policy. Why have rules you don't intend on enforcing? Stupid unenforced rules result in undermining authority and respect. But I will say it's a lot easier when the rules must be followed to stay employed!

“Antique”... try not to re-write my position into some global insubordination issue, which it was and is not. I am pretty sure that I did not mention or discuss a epidemic where we have people “surfing” inside the truck while it is on a run. I did mention a personal belief that large open spaces tend to encourage movement. Perhaps this is not or has not been a problem for you, but if your Department feels the need to have a large open space cab on every one of your rigs, have at it.

As far as rule enforcement....We are a fairly human organization with humans performing the work. We can have every rule, placard, decal, slogan or Dirty Harry riding shotgun and it is plausible to recognize that not every member has the same attitude or values. If we can adapt a spec to meet our needs or beliefs, we will do that. If your beliefs differ, adapt as needed.

PS - For those using comparative Department specs to try and prove one’s point, you may want to double check the current specifications for Boston and Los Angeles apparatus.

[antiquefirelt 994]

“Antique”... try not to re-write my position into some global insubordination issue, which it was and is not.

My point is that the cab style won't encourage movement if movement is just not an option people think of. Do the company officers require their crews to be seated and belted before the apparatus moves until the brake is set? Why not? Does their chief require they ensure this? Is there are valid reason not to remain seated and belted while moving? Aren't responding/returning accidents still a leading casue of LODD's?

While I understand tailoring your specs to fit your dept, over the years this is why we as the F.S. have had so many mandates, because at a local level people are rarely truly required to do the right thing. Now we have seatbelt alarm systems that have redundant safeties to ensure they can't be defeated, or compartment door alarms that are in alarm more than they work, becasue guys were not required to do their job, every single time, thus complacency crept in. We still have people falling out of apparatus and being run over. I'm hardly a Safety Nazi, but when we can show direct benefit with nearly no operational deficit, the safer option ought to rule, without question.

As for it being a global insubordination issue? I look at it more as organizational complacency or weakening of rules. I find it hard to beleive that many FD's that have guys ignoring blatant rules such as seatbelting, not picking and choosing what other rules/policies they feel need to apply to them. While I am confident that moving about in the cab is not an issue at my FD, I'm not saying we're immune from the same type of issues, but when they rise to the level of modifying specs, I'd want to maybe ake an introspective assessement.

Edited March 9, 2014 by antiquefirelt

[Bnechis 3,961]

PS - For those using comparative Department specs to try and prove one’s point, you may want to double check the current specifications for Boston and Los Angeles apparatus.

While I did not contact each dept to get a copy of their latest spec, I took a little look and figured this was good enough:

the two are worth 2,000 words.

[x152 179]

Barry:

Sorry to disappoint your gotcha moment, but the two photos are worth two (2) words “ego preservation"

We could play the Google photo shoot game all day, but you may want to try and check the dates on your photos and compare with my prior statement and the definition of the word “current”.

Your photos appear to be several years old and not “current”, but if it makes you feel better about yourself.....you would have been correct about 5 or 6 years ago.

Not so correct, today.

Do I need to belabor this issue and post “current” photos too, or is it possible for you to ever be incorrect?

Have a nice day.

Edited March 10, 2014 by x152

[Viper 139]

Raised Roof=Subliminal Message

But the, why does FDNY have raised roof nowadays?

[FFPCogs 863]

I don't know if having a raised roof actually leads to members "surfing" in the cab while in motion or not, but I do know that having that option certainly allows for it. It's like anything else, you can require, demand or dictate all the regulations you want, but ultimately it's up to the members themselves and their officers to follow through with them. I guess the easiest way to address the issue, if it is one, is to simply keep the roof line flat...if they can't stand up comfortably, well then guess what, they won't...problem solved. And injuries, I've never heard of it being an issue either way. To me the real test comes when we look at how or when a raised roof will affect functionality. On an engine I doubt it makes any real difference. I do think however that a raised roof can impact the functionality of an aerial when or if it is necessary for us to work off the front of the rig. Those few inches gained on the cab can translate into feet lost in scrub area at the tip. But for all that, the truth is I'm just not a fan of the raised roof configuration and never have been, and frankly, that has more to do with aesthetics than anything else. Given the choice I would pick with a flat roof configuration over a raised roof every time simply because I think it look better...and you know what there's nothing wrong with that.

[firebuff88 4]

Barry:

Sorry to disappoint your gotcha moment, but the two photos are worth two (2) words “ego preservation"

We could play the Google photo shoot game all day, but you may want to try and check the dates on your photos and compare with my prior statement and the definition of the word “current”.

Your photos appear to be several years old and not “current”, but if it makes you feel better about yourself.....you would have been correct about 5 or 6 years ago.

Not so correct, today.

Do I need to belabor this issue and post “current” photos too, or is it possible for you to ever be incorrect?

Have a nice day.

Those LAFD Pierces were bought in 1999/2000. Since then all subsequent engines do not have raised roofs.

Same goes with Boston, engines delivered in the 2012/13 do have not have raised roofs either.

Edited March 11, 2014 by firebuff88

[Bnechis 3,961]

Barry:

Sorry to disappoint your gotcha moment, but the two photos are worth two (2) words “ego preservation"

We could play the Google photo shoot game all day, but you may want to try and check the dates on your photos and compare with my prior statement and the definition of the word “current”.

Your photos appear to be several years old and not “current”, but if it makes you feel better about yourself.....you would have been correct about 5 or 6 years ago.

Not so correct, today.

Do I need to belabor this issue and post “current” photos too, or is it possible for you to ever be incorrect?

Have a nice day.

It was not that important to me to spend time checking "every" depts. spec. Feel free to if makes you feel better, because clearly your post is about building your ego up.

I have admitted when I am incorrect, but since you have this need to prove me wrong, please look up the other 16 depts. and share

Glad I made your day.

Those LAFD Pierces were bought in 1999/2000. Since then all subsequent engines do not have raised roofs.

Same goes with Boston, engines delivered in the 2012/13 do have not have raised roofs either.

Thanks for the update.

It turns out that 2 out of 18 of the depts. that I spent 10 minutes doing a quick search on, only did raised roofs for awhile. Still means that many of the busiest depts. in the world are still using them.

There was a comment earlier on the waist of $$$ to buy them. Found out today that on Spartan Chassis the added cost for the standard raised roof is $0.00

[x635 4,066]

Didn't FDNY do a study on this? They started using raised cabs on all their apparatus in recent years.

Here's an interesting article against: http://www.iafc.org/onScene/article.cfm?ItemNumber=6336

I think it really comes down to the department's decision on what works for them. I mean, even a slight 10" raise helps.Also, they weren't wearing a seatbelt and get injured in a crash, that shouldn't be considered a LODI. A seat belt is part of your PPE.

[FireMedic049 597]

Didn't FDNY do a study on this? They started using raised cabs on all their apparatus in recent years.

Here's an interesting article against: http://www.iafc.org/onScene/article.cfm?ItemNumber=6336

I think it really comes down to the department's decision on what works for them. I mean, even a slight 10" raise helps.Also, they weren't wearing a seatbelt and get injured in a crash, that shouldn't be considered a LODI. A seat belt is part of your PPE.

I wouldn't categorize the article as being "against" raised roof cabs. The bulk of the article was about the lack of training in specific areas (riding in fire trucks and using the Q siren) for new firefighters and officers under the assumption that they just know what to do. It also touch on a primary factor in non usage of seatbelts being the non-user friendly aspects of older seatbelt designs and that newer designs have made them much easier to use when geared up.

The only thing about raised roof cabs in it was the assertion that having them meant the department was sending the message that it was ok to be out of your seat dressing, even if your policy stated otherwise. Personally, I think that's a bunch of crap. If your policy states personnel are to be seated and belted when the vehicle is moving, then the department is sending the message that being out of your seat getting dressed is not OK. If your personnel are not following the policy and your officers are not enforcing the policy, then that would be sending a message in conflict with the stated policy of the department and none of that has anything to do with how much headroom is in the back of the cab.

Edited March 11, 2014 by FireMedic049

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Shame on your Officers and Chauffeurs for not enforcing the seatbelt LAWS, raised roof or not.