Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tanker narratives

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by neiowa View Post
    Our current tanker (former milktruck) at 2600gal is the largest in 30mi (and the smallest community in that territory. We scraped up enough $ to get a "real" chassis and we get called to all "real" fires for mutual aid becasue we show up with "real" water.
    At what point did you get denied? Did you make it to peer review?

    Did you select the option that notes that the grant would benefit more than one department? It sounds like that if you cover primary Tanker territory with your mutual aid because they need your water that the grant would certainly benefit more than one department.

    Perhaps with the wealth of knowledge and experience we have on these forums we could help you figure out where you went wrong.

    It has been pointed out, however, that even a POS home-built tanker scores higher than those with no water 'atall.

    Comment


    • #32
      I was not implying that all homemade or converted vehicles are a POS, far from it. I understand that rural departments have very limited resources and rely on ingenuity to get things accomplished (neiowa your department is a great example). The department I started with over 25 years ago had converted a number of surplus vehicles into tankers. It is always with good intentions to build something that meets the need of the community and the department, but in some cases are these vehicles safe to operate over the road.

      We learned that lesson the hard way. While responding on the highway to a MA call (not speeding) the tanker (had been used consistently without issue) had a catastrophic failure (frame) sending the vehicle off the road. Due to the experience of the driver and a miracle the vehicle did not roll over or hit other vehicles. Reason: grossly overweight. 20 years ago that was not on the minds of the members when converting it to a tanker.

      My point, to firegod101, was their vehicle safe to be used over the road, if not it shouldn’t be used which lends itself to a better argument than just stating the vehicle does not meet NFPA standards. We preach life safety is important & firefighter safety is #1. The consequences of operating a vehicle that is not roadworthy far out weigh the benefits. A home can be replaced, but a firefighter’s life can’t. There have been a number of articles in Firehouse recently, where firefighters are being charged, cited etc. after being involved in accidents with emergency vehicles. We are being held accountable for our actions. Will there be some one there to CYA, if you are involved in an accident with a vehicle that should not be on the road in the first place?

      Comment


      • #33
        neiowa,

        First off, you are the man when it comes to getting surplus equipment for your department. What I saw on the department's website for apparatus and conversions was really good.

        After looking at the website and the equipment you have, I have a theory on why your application was "flushed".

        According to the PG it states:

        When we assess the number of vehicles a department has within a particular class, we will include all vehicles with similar functions.
        I'm thinking (MO) is that the AFG looked at the apparatus and classifed the pumper as a pumper/tanker. It has 1500 gallons of water. Under the NFPA standard a classification for a tanker (water supply vehicle) is a minimum 1000 gallons. Therefore both vehicles could have been classifed as tankers. Now it appears you have 2 tankers, meaning that some one else with no tankers has a better chance than you do.

        Other than not being NFPA compliant and homemade, did you have any other arguments to justify the need?

        Comment


        • #34
          1250 tank is the pumper/tanker split, over tanker, under pumper.
          Brian P. Vickers
          www.vickersconsultingservices.com
          Emergency Services Consulting
          Westlake VFD - Houston, TX
          Proud Member IACOJ - Redneck Division

          Comment


          • #35
            Any word from anyone about permitting past vehicle winners to apply again? We received a new pumper recently from the 05 grant, and would really like to get rid of the "death with water" tender. I know it probably doesn't look promising, but one has to keep optimistic.
            BAClair

            Comment


            • #36
              Don't see it happening, too many in need in that category.

              Is that your station in your avatar?
              Brian P. Vickers
              www.vickersconsultingservices.com
              Emergency Services Consulting
              Westlake VFD - Houston, TX
              Proud Member IACOJ - Redneck Division

              Comment


              • #37
                ....................
                Last edited by bart51; 01-11-2007, 08:13 AM. Reason: double post

                Comment


                • #38
                  BC79er Don't see it happening, too many in need in that category.
                  " Is that your station in your avatar? "

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by onebugle View Post
                    neiowa,
                    ...

                    Other than not being NFPA compliant and homemade, did you have any other arguments to justify the need?
                    At the time of the app (and still the case) we had/have one each tanker/tender (2600 milk truck). App was for a 1500gpm/3500gal tanker pumper 4dr cab. Gustification was homemade/non compliant unbaffled tank, no NFPA equipment (would retire current non compliant unit); manual trans (driver shortage), only 2man cab (short on transport/use POV to fire scene); provide mutual aid to all FD in 2 counties (+) where there also is inadequate tanker capacity to meet ISO fire flow standards.

                    Flush msg was:

                    However, we
                    > can tell you that a panel of your fire service peers reviewed your
                    > application, and that our analysis is based solely on the scores submitted
                    > by the panelists. The panelists scored four elements of your application
                    > narrative: 1) clarity of the project description, 2) demonstration of
                    > financial need, 3) demonstration of benefits to be derived from the grant
                    > funds and 4) affect on daily operations. The peer review panel?s scores
                    > indicate that your application was generally worthy of an award except for
                    > the lack of sufficiently compelling information on the cost/benefit of the
                    > project that your department wished to fund.


                    So evidently I didn't make a good enough case. In 2005 was canned by the computer.

                    I had zero expectation of success for a grant as we have very low call volume. So I continued, successfully, chasing down our "new" tanker chassis - Navy surplus 1991 Ford F900 with Marmon Herrington 6x6, 18000mi diesel, auto, AC. Tank is a Army surplus HEMMT 2500gal Stainless, baffled elliptical. Will be putting together in the next few weeks. Will only be 2 seat and 2500gal, only a portable pump, but will have to live with it. Hope to get DHS $ for lights/radio. Not sure where we will come up with $ for paint (is now worn out OD green).

                    We are then going to (as per the Fire Grant) retire our current tanker. Still a very good chassis; we are retiring it for safety reasons - unbaffled, to much weight on a single rear axle for soft roads, manual transmission.

                    We apparently are now getting into/reinforcing irresponsible behavior/poor planning. For years the debate over big daddy (Feds) bailing out communities that failed to plan/save for obvious needs. The FD that obviously needs tankers intentionally has none in hopes that Sam will send $. Wrong answer. How about an urban FD that obviously needs an aerial that sells their existing unit in hopes to score a fire grant for a new unit?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Rural Tanker Award

                      We are a small rural town of 650. Have a 74 army 5-ton for a tanker. We applied in 2004 and got turned down. Got 1st round award in 2006! The questions for 2006 were very favorable for having an unsafe vehicle that needed replacing. Our unit does not have original seat belts and has a soft top. We are required to get rid of the unit upon delivery of the new unit. We also own a 98 pumper and an 01 quick response/rescue.

                      This is our 4th AFG out of five years, but first truck grant.

                      If you can get past the computer questions you are well on your way. We asked for $175,000 - I'm not sure the affect of asking for too much but I think you need to be resonable considering the size of the community and # of responses. We've got a nice 500 gpm/2500gal unit ordered for June delivery.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Most Bang for the $$

                        We were also turned down twice for a tanker (once to refurb old tankers, once for a new tanker). What we did last year was actually ask for more than just a tanker (first time asked for a 2500 galon tanker with a dump and small pump). This time we asked for a pumper-tanker with a 1250 gpm pump and enough compartments to serve as a engine company. Now its not just a tanker, it can also be our engine when our main engine is pulled for maintenance. It will carry a full load of LDH and pre-connects (also features our 1st master stream device).

                        Our neighbors have successfully applied for engines but also are using the them as rescues with full sets of rescue tools.

                        My opinion (and I know its not worth much) is that multi-mission trucks are a higher priority than a single mission truck (more bang for the buck).

                        Stay safe!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Deleted duplicate post

                          Deleted Duplicate post
                          Last edited by mitchkrat; 01-12-2007, 04:10 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by mitchkrat View Post
                            My opinion (and I know its not worth much) is that multi-mission trucks are a higher priority than a single mission truck (more bang for the buck).
                            I have no idea how they score, but a pumper/tanker has to be more cost-effective than a standard tanker. One thing we made sure to mention on our pumper/tanker was that it would respond to all structure fires in our area, both in and outside the city. We also pointed out that we were lacking the required engine companies for ISO, and this would cover that requirement for some insurance breaks.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Decommsioning a "Homemade" Tanker

                              Ok, 1st i am sorry that i posted anything about decommisioning a tanker.
                              But, i guess my question is the tanker we are attempting to replace is in BAD condition. It is out of service more than it is in. This tanker is a DEATH trap. So, do i let firefighters get injured or possibly killed by keeping this tanker in service???? NO WAY!....Volunteer firefighters are too hard to come by. Firefighting is already dangerous enough....isn't it???? Why should i as a leader in my "RURAL" department take a chance of injury or possibly death.
                              Again sorry if i offend anyone.
                              I am in hopes that the peer review will understand our need.
                              Only having an engine that carries 1000 gallons of water and a brush unit that only carries 250 gallons of water, hopefully this will help our cause.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Show how you have trid to meet the need

                                If you do take the tanker from service because of safety concerns, then make sure you state in your narrative that you had to do this.

                                Several of our neighbors have purchased used equipment that was in decent shape to get buy with for several years. They both were awarded new trucks this year and they expalined in their naratives that they tried using used equipment and how it has been benficial but that it was not meeting their needs and wasn't cost effective (high maintenance cost/reliabilty). If I was a reviewer - I klnow I would be more sympathetic to a department that has really tried to make do (used equipment/fund raising/building you own) vs someone who hasn't.

                                On our grant app for the pumper tanker - we stated how we purchased 2 used worn out oil field tankers and then refurbished them and used them for over 20 years. So we made our best effort to use what we had an make improvements, but we are at a point maintenance/repairs/reliability are killing our budget. Throw in the fact they meet no NFPA requirements and we only have one engine with no reserve engine, a combination pumper -tanker made perfect sense. Now we have a reserve engine if the 1st engine is taken out of service and have a good tanker.

                                Catch 22 - should have new rig in 2 weeks if Jack's old van can make another trip up north

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X