Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tanker narratives

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

  • Cappy05
    replied
    Originally posted by BC79er View Post
    But to be honest
    BC79er is absolutely correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    Well letme rephrase that the lady from FEMA/DHS stated that you must have an existing need for a vehicle (hince already having one) or your existing vehicle must be more than 20 years of age, extreme cases of need can be exempt.
    Remember the DHS folks are going on guidelines, and yes, it states over and over that the grant program is here to 'enhance' and 'support'.

    But to be honest on tanker apps I'm close to 50-50 on awards. Half to replace existing tankers, half to ones that didn't have one. Most of the latter had less than 1500 gallons on wheels with small tanker pumpers in the fleet and shuttling water with a 500-750 gallon tank is a pain in the tuckus.

    By no means should anyone scrap anything unless it is truly a safety risk at any speed on the road. You should never alter major components of the department's operations just to try to get a grant. That puts everyone in the community including the department at risk on a fireground. Proper driving of emergency vehicles will save more lives than the newest truck with all of the NFPA bells driven stupidly.

    That would be Brian the former Training Officer & Captain talking, not the grant guy, but they both agree.

    - Brian

    Leave a comment:


  • befferk
    replied
    Originally posted by Cappy05 View Post
    Belferk, there a lot of good posts in this thread but I really do not beleive there is a single answer to your question. There are a few good points that I had picked up on in the past years. Now I am not sure whether this is still true or not but if you are applying for an apparratus then your existing app must be more than 20 years old. They had so many applications they had to narrow it down somehow. Do not get rid of your old tanker just yet. If it is non functional and in disrepair then park it out of the way. You will stand a better chance in getting a grant if you have a tanker that is a compelte wreck than you would if you did not have a tanker. I know of a department that needed a tanker really bad. They never had one and they kept getting the DJ. Last year they went and purchased a 25 year old piece of junk for I think $500 and listed that as their primary tanker. They then received the grant for a new tanker. For other types of grants there are many factors that come into play. But as I said earlier, your existing app must be older than 20 years. Well letme rephrase that the lady from FEMA/DHS stated that you must have an existing need for a vehicle (hince already having one) or your existing vehicle must be more than 20 years of age, extreme cases of need can be exempt.
    Thanks, I have gained a lot of knowledge just from this thread. I know we cannot take the chance of getting rid of the tanker we want to replace, our mutual aid takes too long to respond (so spread out) that the structure would surely be gone before they got there. The guys on our department said they couldn't have that on their conscience, not for any price. So I will need to do the best I can. I really appreciate everyone's help. I have been reading and absorbing the information.

    Beth

    Leave a comment:


  • Cappy05
    replied
    Originally posted by befferk View Post
    As if I'm not busy enough with the 3 grants I am working on now , looking ahead to the '07 AFG, does anyone have any successful Tanker narratives (or any vehicle would help I guess) they would be able to send my way? Having learned a lot from Kurt , I know I have my work cut out for me and can use all the help I can get.

    bethkayhart @ hotmail.com

    Thanks!
    Beth

    Belferk, there a lot of good posts in this thread but I really do not beleive there is a single answer to your question. There are a few good points that I had picked up on in the past years. Now I am not sure whether this is still true or not but if you are applying for an apparratus then your existing app must be more than 20 years old. They had so many applications they had to narrow it down somehow. Do not get rid of your old tanker just yet. If it is non functional and in disrepair then park it out of the way. You will stand a better chance in getting a grant if you have a tanker that is a compelte wreck than you would if you did not have a tanker. I know of a department that needed a tanker really bad. They never had one and they kept getting the DJ. Last year they went and purchased a 25 year old piece of junk for I think $500 and listed that as their primary tanker. They then received the grant for a new tanker. For other types of grants there are many factors that come into play. But as I said earlier, your existing app must be older than 20 years. Well letme rephrase that the lady from FEMA/DHS stated that you must have an existing need for a vehicle (hince already having one) or your existing vehicle must be more than 20 years of age, extreme cases of need can be exempt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Not2L84U2
    replied
    Originally posted by BFD003 View Post
    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.
    Just curious what your call volume is?

    Leave a comment:


  • mitchkrat
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • firegod101
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catch22
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mitchkrat
    replied
    Deleted duplicate post

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

    Leave a comment:


  • mitchkrat
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • BFD003
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • neiowa
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • bart51
    replied
    BC79er Don't see it happening, too many in need in that category.
    " Is that your station in your avatar? "

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    Don't see it happening, too many in need in that category.

    Is that your station in your avatar?

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X