Author Topic: BA Seats in pumpers (Read 32760 times)

PF_ · « **on:** September 30, 2006, 11:25:45 PM »

why dont CFS appliances have BA seats. Dennis excluded.

medevac · « **Reply #1 on:** September 30, 2006, 11:30:02 PM »

not 100% sure, but i would hazard a geuss that the issue is cost.

also i dont think it would be practical considering the chassis we tend to use. it would impact on the number of crew you could seat (since the 'proper' seats take up a bit of room), it would impact on cab space and also ease of entry/exit into the vehicle....

rescue5271 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2006, 07:57:58 AM »

CABA seats,well would you like to come out of a high 34 with a caba set on??? OHSW would have a field day,but all in all they would be too high up in the seat and getting out would not be that easy due to the hight of the new appliances....

PF_ · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2006, 11:21:28 AM »

sorry should ahve been more clear, IM referring to the type 2's.

Camo · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2006, 11:42:50 AM »

As someone said the issue would be cost. And really even the busiest CFS brigades dont go to more then maybe 1 going Domestic a month (ball park figure, open to correction) is it really cost effective even if it were affordable?

But how much money can you put on a life i guess?

PF_ · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2006, 11:56:00 AM »

It easier and better for OHS.

Camo · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2006, 12:03:52 PM »

how is it easier and better for OHS?

From what i have seen the Type 2's have fold out BA holders which lower down to the right height and as for being easier well probaly not.

I would rather put a BA on at ground level then climb down from the cab with one on. I would suggest OHS would see it the same way.

The only thing it does is maybe save 30 secs to a min.

PF_ · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2006, 12:09:28 PM »

not everyone is the same height, Id rather have it on in the cab then climb out. Why wouldnt it be easier, dont say it wont without evidence.

I say it is because you are sitting in the truck, you put on the straps release the release thing and climb out like climbing down a ladder and in ya can go.

30sec to 1 minute can make a big difference.

Stefan KIRKMOE · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2006, 12:46:59 PM »

Camo, et al,
OHS&W isnt all about manual handling. While climbing out of a high cab, while wearing an airset does present some awkward situations, put that into perspective of what you may be required to do while wearing BA (climbing up/down ladders, working on rooves, etc). I think the big benefit of BA sets in the seat, is that BA then tends to be worn more reguarly (car fires/bin fires, etc)reducing the ammount of smoke therefore potential carcenogens etc, breathed in. I would also think that donning/ starting up a BA set in 30 secs to a minute under pressure would be difficult to do and some vital things may be ommited. While donning and starting up in the cab gives more time in a less pressured environemnt (compared to standing out the front of someones burning house). Also re-Comments that busy brigades may only go to one house fire a month, that may be true, but include all the care fires, bin fires, fire alarms etc that they attend and BA use starts to get higher. I think BA seats are of great benifit in Urban applainces, i wouldnt think 24p/34p appliances would warrent them, but the pumper appliances should.
SK

PF_ · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2006, 12:52:28 PM »

Yep, SK's got it right.

I saw some MFS guys even using BA at the Wingfield dump fire. That place must have stunk.

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #10 on:** October 01, 2006, 03:00:50 PM »

Full points to skirmoe. Being a volunteer service, we are already arriving later than a paid service would. The quicker we can get to work on arrival the better, and it's probably safer to climb down off a truck with BA, than to climb up a ladder with BA...

PF, we are required to wear BA for essentially every fire that isn't a grass/scrub fire (although wearing BA at those is more common these days)... I wouldn't want to fight a dump fire without BA...

Toast · « **Reply #11 on:** October 01, 2006, 04:41:32 PM »

Quite frankly, if you have difficulty climbing out of a truck with a BA set on, you shouldn't be using them. Not only would BA seats allow us to don/start up much faster and as SK said, in a less pressured environment, but they would also open up and entire new locker worth of stowage space. This can only be a good thing.

Is there a real issue with only being able to seat 5 on an appliance? I dont think so. Its an Urban Appliance, if going to a working job, then there will no doubt be more appliances and people on the way. Something thats not BA? MVA's etc, you can all do with less than 6 people.

Firefrog · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2006, 05:51:16 PM »

I remember being on the road once in our good old 32 pumper - got a call for a going structure fire. We arrived first, Capt putting in a priority voice while we donned CABA on the road side.

I am fast at donning and took probably 30-45 seconds. First SAMFS pump arrives two guys leave the cab of the truck and are inside knocking the fire down before I can drag our HP line. We had a good fast crew, but the time saved by already being donned and started up prior to arrival saved them heaps of time.

I was not impressed that they beat me

PF_ · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2006, 05:57:13 PM »

Quote from: CFS_Firey on October 01, 2006, 03:00:50 PM

PF, we are required to wear BA for essentially every fire that isn't a grass/scrub fire (although wearing BA at those is more common these days)... I wouldn't want to fight a dump fire without BA...

me neither, just saying

bittenyakka · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2006, 07:31:21 PM »

Remember if CFS was to get BA seats they would probarly require thje smaller 300bar cylinders so they would fit.

Being able to jump out of a truck and charge in so quickly does create some possible ECO proplems.

Toast · « **Reply #15 on:** October 01, 2006, 07:42:34 PM »

Quote from: bittenyakka on October 01, 2006, 07:31:21 PM

Remember if CFS was to get BA seats they would probarly require thje smaller 300bar cylinders so they would fit.

Being able to jump out of a truck and charge in so quickly does create some possible ECO proplems.

Why? Multiple fire services around the world, including CFS/NSWFB/QFRS all run the larger 9L cylinders in their BA seats with no issue.

Why does it create an ECO issue? You take your tally key and give it to the OIC of your appliance if there is no ECO yet?

medevac · « **Reply #16 on:** October 01, 2006, 09:16:13 PM »

Quote from: Camo on October 01, 2006, 12:03:52 PM

I would rather put a BA on at ground level then climb down from the cab with one on. I would suggest OHS would see it the same way.

i would rather already be started up on arrival than waste another 30-45 seconds.

Camo · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2006, 09:30:06 PM »

Ok im big enough to admit defeat!

You have all put up good evidence as to why they are better.

medevac · « **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2006, 09:35:04 PM »

aaah its not defeat....

we all have our own opinions.

bittenyakka · « **Reply #19 on:** October 01, 2006, 09:41:17 PM »

Quote from: Toast on October 01, 2006, 07:42:34 PM

Quote from: bittenyakka on October 01, 2006, 07:31:21 PM
Remember if CFS was to get BA seats they would probarly require thje smaller 300bar cylinders so they would fit.

Being able to jump out of a truck and charge in so quickly does create some possible ECO proplems.

Why? Multiple fire services around the world, including CFS/NSWFB/QFRS all run the larger 9L cylinders in their BA seats with no issue.

Why does it create an ECO issue? You take your tally key and give it to the OIC of your appliance if there is no ECO yet?

I didn't know that 9L cylinders fitted in seats well it was an assumption. but if we had smaller ones they would be reasonable to put in higher rural appliances and you wouldn't break your neck getting out.

RescueHazmat · « **Reply #20 on:** October 01, 2006, 10:52:48 PM »

The 9L cylinders do fit, however if CFS adopted the SAMFS style cylinder, not only do they hold more air, but are lighter and alot more ' user friendly '.

One thing though, with climbing heights, the Scania's are alot lower to the ground compared to Type 2's.

Toast · « **Reply #21 on:** October 02, 2006, 02:01:00 AM »

Quote from: RescueHazmat on October 01, 2006, 10:52:48 PM

The 9L cylinders do fit, however if CFS adopted the SAMFS style cylinder, not only do they hold more air, but are lighter and alot more ' user friendly '.

One thing though, with climbing heights, the Scania's are alot lower to the ground compared to Type 2's.

Are you sure they hold more air? They still have around a 30mins working duration I believe, the difference being that they are half the size, hence at a higher pressure to maintain the same amount of air?

Now I personally could go a 2x9L CFW setup, 60min duration

PF_ · « **Reply #22 on:** October 02, 2006, 02:56:15 AM »

why dont CFS have MFS type Cylinders and BA set up? They are ergonomically better, lighter, more comfortable etc. What we need is BA seats in our urban pumpers and new BA sets.

There are excellent arguments for why we should ahve BA seats in appliances and Im sure CFS know this so the question is why havent they put them into use? Time to make some changes and put them in amd get new BA sets.

RescueHazmat · « **Reply #23 on:** October 02, 2006, 09:07:15 AM »

Quote from: Toast on October 02, 2006, 02:01:00 AM

Quote from: RescueHazmat on October 01, 2006, 10:52:48 PM
The 9L cylinders do fit, however if CFS adopted the SAMFS style cylinder, not only do they hold more air, but are lighter and alot more ' user friendly '.

One thing though, with climbing heights, the Scania's are alot lower to the ground compared to Type 2's.
Are you sure they hold more air? They still have around a 30mins working duration I believe, the difference being that they are half the size, hence at a higher pressure to maintain the same amount of air?

Now I personally could go a 2x9L CFW setup, 60min duration

You could be quite right, I was under the belief they had more air time, I will find out.

bittenyakka · « **Reply #24 on:** October 02, 2006, 09:53:24 AM »

Quote from: Federer on October 02, 2006, 02:56:15 AM

why dont CFS have MFS type Cylinders and BA set up? They are ergonomically better, lighter, more comfortable etc. What we need is BA seats in our urban pumpers and new BA sets.

There are excellent arguments for why we should ahve BA seats in appliances and Im sure CFS know this so the question is why havent they put them into use? Time to make some changes and put them in amd get new BA sets.

Money
First we need to replsace half the trucks in the state. And get all the PBI gold etc

Author Topic: BA Seats in pumpers (Read 32760 times)

PF_

rescue5271

PF_

PF_

PF_

PF_

Toast

PF_

Toast

Toast

PF_