Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Out of service pumper

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

  • Out of service pumper

    I'm helping a neighboring department out with writing a grant. They wish to replace a 1962 pumper, but my concern is that it has been out of service for 2 years and that may cause it to score poorly in the computer review due to the question in the application asking how many runs did the vehicle make in the past year.

    Would it be best to write it on this vehicle or another vehicle they have in their inventory that is currently in service? The other vehicle that is in service would be a 1970 pumper that is converted from a wood chip hauling vehicle that has been hacked together and an old fire engine bed has been placed on it.

    Another question is in the NOFO it states "Disclose damaged vehicles and out of service vehicles in the organization’s inventory" would I also include in the inventory section a vehicle they currently have had for a year and a half but are just slowly working on bringing it into service? This vehicle has not been in service yet. It is a 1989 Amertek ARFF truck if it matters.

  • #2
    The 1970 and 1962 will most likely receive the same computer pre-score, but your 1970 will be listed as a converted vehicle; quite likely it will receive additional consideration.

    If that is your only pumper in service, I would find that to be your best shot. The ARFF would be listed under Additional Vehicles which should not effect your pumper score.

    Send me an e-mail if you'd like more specifics. Happy to help.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SLY4420 View Post
      If that is your only pumper in service, I would find that to be your best shot. The ARFF would be listed under Additional Vehicles which should not effect your pumper score.
      I should have listed all the pumpers that they have.

      They wish to either write it on these two:
      1962, out of service for 2 years.
      1972, converted from wood chip truck.

      They also have:
      1970
      1972, out of service for 7 years.
      1980
      1989, Amertek ARFF, not in service yet.

      Just to be clear because I'd hate to knock them out of the grant process due to a technicality, the ARFF truck was a forestry surplus, it has a 1000 GPM pump with a 700 gal tank. They don't have any airports and don't plan on responding to any aircraft incidents, they are planning to put it in service as a pumper. I would still place this vehicle under Additional Vehicles?
      Last edited by edge1317; 12-16-2015, 10:57 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by edge1317 View Post
        I should have listed all the pumpers that they have.

        They wish to either write it on these two:
        1962, out of service for 2 years.
        1972, converted from wood chip truck.

        They also have:
        1970
        1972, out of service for 7 years.
        1980
        1989, Amertek ARFF, not in service yet.

        Just to be clear because I'd hate to knock them out of the grant process due to a technicality, the ARFF truck was a forestry surplus, it has a 1000 GPM pump with a 700 gal tank. They don't have any airports and don't plan on responding to any aircraft incidents, they are planning to put it in service as a pumper. I would still place this vehicle under Additional Vehicles?
        I would say yes, as technically it's not a pumper and does not carry the equipment (tools, supply hose, ladders, etc.) to function as a pumper.

        I would classify as "other" as it's most likely function, based on vehicle "type" would be a brush truck.
        Train to fight the fires you fight.

        Comment


        • #5
          Given the GPMs the brush designation would put it up around Type I or II (going from memory) which are under Pumper anyway.

          As Sly mentioned all vehicles that are in the possession of the department are supposed to be listed regardless of whose name is on the title or if it's been used to respond recently. Given the fact that ARFF is 27 years old it's not going to hurt anything, the average fleet age is over 30 with or without that truck there.

          So despite the age and agree with Sly the trucks that ran 0 calls last year are going to hurt the scoring so using the 62 or 72 that haven't run at all wouldn't help as the replacement target. But the 72 wood truck or 1970 pumper if they made calls last year would be worth mentioning. If it were me I'd get the grant truck and ditch the 2 OOS trucks and the 72 wood chipper all at once to lighting the insurance loads and get some trade-in or scrap metal money to put towards the new one. Could even end up finding collectors that would want them, also a legal disposition of vehicles replaced by AFG.
          Brian P. Vickers
          CEO - Vickers Consulting Services, Inc
          FH.com/Firehouse Mag Contributor
          www.helpmewithgrants.com
          www.facebook.com/vcsinc

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by edge1317 View Post
            I should have listed all the pumpers that they have.

            They wish to either write it on these two:
            1962, out of service for 2 years.
            1972, converted from wood chip truck.

            They also have:
            1970
            1972, out of service for 7 years.
            1980
            1989, Amertek ARFF, not in service yet.

            Just to be clear because I'd hate to knock them out of the grant process due to a technicality, the ARFF truck was a forestry surplus, it has a 1000 GPM pump with a 700 gal tank. They don't have any airports and don't plan on responding to any aircraft incidents, they are planning to put it in service as a pumper. I would still place this vehicle under Additional Vehicles?
            Why would you keep two engines out of service -one for seven years ?
            ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
              Why would you keep two engines out of service -one for seven years ?
              I have no answers for you, just helping a fire department that's in the same county.

              I believe it's one of those situations of where it gets put in the backyard with the thought of someday in the near future it'll get fixed or it'll have a part on it that may be needed and then it ends up sitting there for a decade rusting away.

              I'll be meeting with him in the next few days, I'm going to try to persuade him into writing the grant on both out of service vehicles and the wood chip truck.
              Last edited by edge1317; 12-20-2015, 08:14 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by edge1317 View Post
                I have no answers for you, just helping a fire department that's in the same county.

                I believe it's one of those situations of where it gets put in the backyard with the thought of someday in the near future it'll get fixed or it'll have a part on it that may be needed and then it ends up sitting there for a decade rusting away.

                I'll be meeting with him in the next few days, I'm going to try to persuade him into writing the grant on both out of service vehicles and the wood chip truck.
                I never understood the "let it sit" mentality , I see it in my neck of the woods also. They let a nice restorable antique, lose most of its value.
                ?

                Comment

                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                Collapse

                Upper 300x250

                Collapse

                Taboola

                Collapse

                Leader

                Collapse
                Working...
                X