Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Secured Hosebed

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

  • Secured Hosebed

    I had a chief from a mutual-aid company ask me the other day if there was or is going to be any law on pre-connect hose beds having to be secured by webbing or whatever.

    The last I had heard was that some companies up in the Pittsburgh area were going to these ideas due to the accident that happened in that area a couple of years ago, but I was not certain on any other mandates.

    Is there a policy in place at this time or is there going to be in the future? You can e-mail me at [email protected]

    Thanks.


    STILL DOING IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • #2
    It's an NFPA requirement, althought I don't know the particular code and section number.

    We took delivery of an apparatus almost a year ago and we had to deal with change orders due to NFPA issuing some sort of emergency addendum to their code. Apparently it went into effect immediately and the apparatus manufacturer wouldn't deliver a non-NFPA compliant apparatus.
    So it has been a NFPA requirement for about a year now.

    Anyone know the exact wording or code section number?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ChiefSquirrel View Post
      It's an NFPA requirement, althought I don't know the particular code and section number.

      We took delivery of an apparatus almost a year ago and we had to deal with change orders due to NFPA issuing some sort of emergency addendum to their code. Apparently it went into effect immediately and the apparatus manufacturer wouldn't deliver a non-NFPA compliant apparatus.
      So it has been a NFPA requirement for about a year now.

      Anyone know the exact wording or code section number?
      NFPA 1901. The emergency addendum was effective January 2006.

      Comment


      • #4
        to heck with the nfpa

        Comment


        • #5
          SCtrucky, what in GOD's name is the matter with you?

          I happen to disagree with a lot of NFPA standards, think that many should be optional, and think that many of them make the problems worse than they originally were.

          HOWEVER, this is a requirement that is 100% valid and should have been a requirement years ago. Do you remember the poor 10 year old girl from PA that was killed while innocently playing in her front yard? Do you think it is a good idea to keep up our ignorance and kill a few more before we do something about it? Is that your attitude as a firefighter?

          Let's respect those that we have killed and do something to prevent another needless death.

          Comment


          • #6
            BlitzFireSolo, just curious. Do you (or anyone else) have any stats on how common an occurrence this hose coming off the engine is? I know in my area, I can remember 2 times in 24 years. Both times due to bad hose repacking.
            "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ChiefSquirrel View Post
              It's an NFPA requirement, althought I don't know the particular code and section number.

              We took delivery of an apparatus almost a year ago and we had to deal with change orders due to NFPA issuing some sort of emergency addendum to their code. Apparently it went into effect immediately and the apparatus manufacturer wouldn't deliver a non-NFPA compliant apparatus.
              So it has been a NFPA requirement for about a year now.

              Anyone know the exact wording or code section number?
              Maybe I'm not famillar with other parts of the country, but I am a little confused with your post. Are you spec's including hose and nozzles? The design groups I have been privy to have always supplied their own. I am with a non-NFPA department now, but have been with pro-NFPA departments since and have not seen pre-connect tethers. Can someone post some pics showing their answers to 1901?

              iluv4201

              Comment


              • #8
                Bones,

                I don't have any specific stats - I have to doubt that anybody does. If anybody is taking it seriously enough to keep track of the stats, they would have secured their hose by now. All I know is that, while it doesn't happen every day, it does happen regularly enough that it is a known problem throughout the fire service and we are ignorant (dare I say negligent - though I hate the legal game) if we don't address it. I also know that several highly respected veteran firefighters and officers have stepped in on this subject in the past and agree with that point of view.

                I probably came off a bit harsh in my last post, but this is a very serious issue to me - and attitudes like SCtrucky's are what allowed a 10 year-old girl to get killed. I'm not saying that SCtrucky has personally killed anybody, but it's his lackadaisical attitude that we all know in far too many firefighters that literally kills innocent people.
                Last edited by BlitzfireSolo; 01-17-2007, 12:05 AM. Reason: Typo

                Comment


                • #9
                  For those who care to read it, here's the link to the official amendment to 1901 listing the means to contain all hose on a rig.

                  http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF...A1901-03-1.pdf

                  It isn't anything really crazy that needs to be done to contain the hose. For example, on our engines, instead of having a weighted end flap on the hosebed cover, the flap is secured with shock-cords. Canvas covers contain our speedlays on the engine. This can also be done by using cargo net style retainers, and any number of more expensive and unique ways depending on what a department wants to do.

                  Love it or hate it, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a major body builder who will buid a rig without meeting the NFPA's wishes.
                  Last edited by npfd801; 01-17-2007, 12:09 AM.
                  "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks all that have applied! At least I can give the other Chief some better direction now and where to look for it.


                    STILL DOING IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Love it or hate it, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a major body builder who will buid a rig without meeting the NFPA's wishes.
                      I noticed a lot of demonstration/new rigs with something to cover this NFPA standard at our last state convention. I also noticed that just about every one of them was built in such a way that it could be very easily completely removed from the apparatus, once delivered.
                      "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Like Bones says,it's happened here twice in 38 yrs.Both caused by improper packing,and both "caught"before the crosslay completely unloaded.Doubtful that a NFPA net would have helped because if the hose was improperly packed(it was)probably the net wouldn't have been hooked either. T.C.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hose Load

                          I think it is becoming a more common occurance due to the shift away from heavy double jacket cotton hose to the light weight synthetic hose. The new hose is slicker and more likely to slide out of the hose bed and it is lighter and can get lifted out of an uncovered hose bed at road speeds. We had a unit dump 2,000 feet of 3" LWH going over a railroad track crossing on the way to a call. Somewhat embarassing, but nobody got hurt.

                          I think the new requirements make sense with the newer hose.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Iluv4201 View Post
                            Maybe I'm not famillar with other parts of the country, but I am a little confused with your post. Are you spec's including hose and nozzles? The design groups I have been privy to have always supplied their own. I am with a non-NFPA department now, but have been with pro-NFPA departments since and have not seen pre-connect tethers. Can someone post some pics showing their answers to 1901?

                            iluv4201
                            Our specs did not include hose and nozzles, but the manufacturer would not deliver the apparatus without devices on the hosebed and crosslay areas to keep hose in place once we put the hose on the apparatus. Thus we had to pay for unexpected and unwanted changes.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ChiefSquirrel View Post
                              Thus we had to pay for unexpected and unwanted changes.
                              What change in the fire service has EVER been wanted???
                              Last edited by firepiper1; 01-17-2007, 03:27 PM.
                              I have only 2 allegiances, to my country and to my God. The rest of you are fair game.

                              Comment

                              300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                              Collapse

                              Upper 300x250

                              Collapse

                              Taboola

                              Collapse

                              Leader

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X