07 vehicle question

[steelman]

thanks for all the input......mabye i'm off track in my thinking, but, while replacing a old vehicle is important, i would think that awarding a vehicle to a department that doesn't even have a certain type of apparatus (ie aerial truck) would be just as important, if not more so.

I don't see where the prior award should come into play, if you are justified, your'e justified, plain and simple. I know of a department in my state that was awarded a $800,000 platform and had 5 pumpers newer than 2000 and recently built a 6 million dollar headquarters, did that department have a financial need? unlikely......

just some thoughts.......

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

i would think that awarding a vehicle to a department that doesn't even have a certain type of apparatus (ie aerial truck) would be just as important, if not more so.

To an extent, this is true. But when it comes to aerial devices that doesn't count if you don't have the stats to go with the request. And expensive vehicles are still a long shot. And when it comes to something you don't have, they other side of the coin is that if you have a great need now, you had a smaller one years ago that could have predicted the greater need and should have been saving for it.

And no, not finding the financial need in your other department's description there. Have to give you that one.

[Catch22]

I don't think you'd be rated as high as someone that hasn't gotten a truck yet, but as long as you're applying for a 'real' tanker (1800+ gallons IMHO) I don't see any real issue with it. Everyone in a rural area needs a solid pumper, brush, and tanker.

Glad to see that "brush" in there. I think we're going to take a shot at a rapid response/brush truck while we're at it this year. Even though we got awarded a pumper/tanker in '06, I figure it's not going to hurt, especially with the drought we dealt with and increased brush/grass fires this year and our ever increasing med call rate. It'll replace a '79 1-ton (motor's already been replaced once, trannies on the fritz, and suspension is shot) and an even older skid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they change to where if a truck has a real pump on it, it's classified as a pumper, no matter the gallonage? I ask because one of my guys thinks we should consider looking at another tanker (true tanker, no pump or a small one) since in their eyes we have nothing but pumpers. I don't think we're going to try it this year, but perhaps if the same rules apply next year....

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

No. Hidden in the Instructor Notes for the DHS PPT slideshow is the answer:

750 gpm or more and 300 gallons water capacity = pumper
1000 gpm or more and 750 gpm = tanker
750 gpm or less then 300 gmp – Quick Attack

That's a direct copy and paste, so looks like someone didn't proofread it.

So I take that as 750gpm and 300+ gal= pumper
1000+ gal tank = tanker
300gal & less than 750gpm = quick attack

Drops it away from the 1250 gal tank mark from years before. And yes, I'm checking on what they meant instead of what was typed. No answer yet.

[steelman]

with 50+ buildings 4 stories or higher, is it safe to say we could make it past the computer scoring and to peer review......if so, i'll give it my best shot in the narrative......

has anyone been successful with being awarded used apparatus?

i've found a few quints, 2000 or newer, for sale with low mileage and hours. Could be a cost-effective alternative, if peer looks at used apparatus.......

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Used has happened before, definitely an alternative to new.