Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NFPA 1901 Rev 2003

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • chiefengineer11
    replied
    [QUOTE=npfd801]My understanding was that the choice to "clean" the filter would be made by the operator, so as to find a time when the rig would be in a place that allowed such an operation. The thought was that an indicator would light on the dash telling you to initiate the "burn off" process, and you could decide when. At a meeting with one of the big chassis builders, this was what was indicated to us, though we all know that things change as production realities close in.

    One of the issues with the new exhausts will be where we can actually run the thing, as apparatus builders won't be able to change the piping at all, except I believe after the particulate filter. At the very least, I would make sure my side exhaust didn't have a deflector that shoots the exhaust down, or you may be melting some asphalt.

    [/QUOTE

    True, but if you keep postponing the burn off, at some point the thing is going to say, "Enough already!" and begin the process whether you like it or not.

    Shooting the exhaust straight out, which is what we do now, won't be any better. Pity the person walking by, or anything combustible close by, when the burn off process is taking place.

    Stay safe out there, everyone goes home!
    Last edited by chiefengineer11; 10-25-2006, 03:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoxAlarm187
    replied
    Originally posted by npfd801
    As far as new NFPA safety rules, I've heard rumors (and only rumors) that deck guns are going to be required to be remote controlled in future versions, except for top mount pump panels. That will add some cost...
    Vertical exhaust is the ONLY way to go. Keep that nasty stuff out of the noses and faces of the pump operator and other personnel!

    As for the remote deck gun requirement, I certainly think that IF this proposal came forward from the 1901 committee, we could "discuss" it enough during the public comment period to have it removed from the proposal. Please don't get me wrong, I am 110% pro-safety, and keeping the jakes off the top of the rig is important. However, as infrequently as 90% of the fire departments out there actually use their deck gun, this seems like a unreasonable proposal to me.

    OK, off my soapbox now...

    Leave a comment:


  • Eno821302
    replied
    I've been pouring over the threads, looking for some innovative ideas for this new foam truck we're ordering. I'll keep my eyes on them, but if anyone else is in the same boat and has some feedback about the process I'd sure appreciate the handout. No sense reinventing the apparatus.

    I thank you!

    Ian "Eno" McLeod
    Firefighter, 1st Platoon

    Leave a comment:


  • npfd801
    replied
    Originally posted by chiefengineer11
    Even a stack exhaust could present problems if you happened to back into the station while it was in the clean mode. I'm sure that there will be something to indicate that it's in its clean mode, but you can see the potential.
    My understanding was that the choice to "clean" the filter would be made by the operator, so as to find a time when the rig would be in a place that allowed such an operation. The thought was that an indicator would light on the dash telling you to initiate the "burn off" process, and you could decide when. At a meeting with one of the big chassis builders, this was what was indicated to us, though we all know that things change as production realities close in.

    One of the issues with the new exhausts will be where we can actually run the thing, as apparatus builders won't be able to change the piping at all, except I believe after the particulate filter. At the very least, I would make sure my side exhaust didn't have a deflector that shoots the exhaust down, or you may be melting some asphalt.

    As far as new NFPA safety rules, I've heard rumors (and only rumors) that deck guns are going to be required to be remote controlled in future versions, except for top mount pump panels. That will add some cost...

    Leave a comment:


  • chiefengineer11
    replied
    Originally posted by Eno821302
    Some time ago I was reading about some emerging standards regarding vertical exhaust,...

    Ian "Eno" McLeod
    1st Platoon.
    I don't know what NFPA has in mind, but I've been suggesting to members of our county's engineers' association that anyone who buys anything with a 2007 engine go for vertical exhaust. What we've been able to glean from the trucking industry trade press is that exhaust temperatures are going to be higher during normal operation.

    But if the DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) goes into its self-cleaning mode, as it will from time to time, the temperatures may approach 1000F. If true, that would create some major problems for anything or anyone near an underbody exhaust.

    Even a stack exhaust could present problems if you happened to back into the station while it was in the clean mode. I'm sure that there will be something to indicate that it's in its clean mode, but you can see the potential.

    Stay safe out there, everyone goes home!

    Leave a comment:


  • BoxAlarm187
    replied
    You hear a million rumors about what the next revision will call for. I've heard vertical exhaust, chevron striping on the rear, and seatbelt warning indicators. You can find all of these things on rigs that are in service today, but I don't know if they'll become part of the standard or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eno821302
    replied
    Originally posted by BoxAlarm187
    This was an emergency update to NFPA 1901 that was made about a year ago. Here's a Fire Chief magazine article about the topic: http://firechief.com/inservice/nfpa_hose_storage120905/

    Hope this helps...

    Yup, that does. I thank you! Recall anything about the vertical exhaust?

    Ian "Eno" McLeod
    Firefighter, 1st Platoon

    Leave a comment:


  • BoxAlarm187
    replied
    This was an emergency update to NFPA 1901 that was made about a year ago. Here's a Fire Chief magazine article about the topic: http://firechief.com/inservice/nfpa_hose_storage120905/

    Hope this helps...

    Leave a comment:


  • Firesmylife
    replied
    Equipment Containment

    Somebody was trying to tell me the other day that cargo netting (made from 1.5-2" strapping) does not comply for holding loose equipment inside a walk-in rescue. Anyone else hear anything about this? I believe this webbing is tougher than seat belt material, and if installed securly would hold the loose equipment against any G-Forces that would be present in an accident or roll over.

    Looking forward to any comments here.

    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • Eno821302
    started a topic NFPA 1901 Rev 2003

    NFPA 1901 Rev 2003

    Hey guys and gals. Some time ago I was reading about some emerging standards regarding vertical exhaust, hosebed straps, and other NFPA upgrades to the current 1901 standard. I've not since heard anything about it and in reviewing 1901 2003 I haven't come across any mention of it. We're spec'ing out a rig right now and I just want to make sure if there are emerging standards that I'm on top of it. When is the next revision due?

    Thanks in advance for your feedback. Sorry if this has been approached before, my search feature doesn't work.


    Ian "Eno" McLeod
    1st Platoon.

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X