The Hazards of Modified Fire Apparatus and Extended Passenger Vans

BY CHRIS DALY

Sadly, many U.S. fire departments are desperately underfunded and poorly equipped to handle even the most basic incidents they may face. Many departments are forced to purchase used vehicles that were originally designed for other purposes. These used vehicles are then modified, often by in-house personnel, and converted into firefighting vehicles. Although this practice is a tribute to the “can-do” attitude of our nation’s firefighters, this practice tempts disaster in many instances.

CASE STUDY: NEW MEXICO

A fatal tanker crash that occurred in New Mexico exemplifies the safety issues associated with modified vehicles. Following this crash, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) completed a firefighter fatality investigation report that attempted to identify the root causes of the incident. The purpose of this report and the lessons conveyed in this article is not to point fingers or place blame but to make other firefighters aware of the tragic and preventable chain of events that led to this fatality.

On June 26, 2003, a volunteer firefighter was responding to a wildfire on a remote, unpaved road in New Mexico. While attempting to negotiate a downhill curve, the vehicle left the roadway and rolled four times while traveling 123 feet into a canyon. During the course of the crash, the unrestrained driver was ejected from the vehicle; he sustained fatal injuries when the truck rolled over on top of him (photos 1, 2).

(1) Final rest position of the “Deuce and a Half” after rolling 123 feet into a canyon. (Photo courtesy of NIOSH.)

(2) Damage sustained by the “Deuce and a Half” after rolling into the canyon. (Photo courtesy of NIOSH.)

The vehicle involved in this incident was a surplus 1954 2½-ton fuel truck, commonly known as a “Deuce and a Half.”¹ The vehicle was equipped with a 1,200-gallon tank that had one centralized tank baffle. According to the NIOSH report, the vehicle’s loaded weight was 24,930 pounds, and the vehicle was not equipped with seat belts. A National Forest Service officer who arrived shortly after the crash stated, “The brake pedal could be depressed completely to the floor with no resistance,” indicating a failure of the braking system. (1)

While the “Deuce and a Half” is one of the more commonly modified vehicles found throughout the fire service, few people realize that it received its name from the amount of weight it can carry. According to military specifications, the “Deuce and a Half” is designed to carry 2½ tons (5,000 pounds) off-road and five tons (10,000 pounds) on a paved road.² Considering that water weighs approximately 8.3 pounds per gallon, it is obvious that the amount of water that this vehicle was carrying far exceeded the off-road weight rating for a “Deuce and a Half.” Despite several fatal case studies, our nation’s fire service often overlooks the dangers of overweight vehicles. When a vehicle is overweight, problems will arise.

OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES

The amount of kinetic energy that must be dissipated to safely stop a vehicle depends on its weight and speed. If the vehicle weighs too much, there will be more kinetic energy than the braking system was designed to handle. As a result, the brakes will overheat, resulting in a loss of braking efficiency and the possibility of complete brake failure. This scenario is known as “brake fade.”³ An overweight vehicle may not handle as well as its original design because the vehicle’s weight distribution has been altered. The vehicle may pull or lean to one side, especially if the vehicle’s weight is not distributed evenly on the suspension components. If the axle weights are not distributed appropriately, the vehicle tires may lock during panic stops or evasive maneuvers. This tendency to skid is especially pronounced under poor weather conditions. A skidding vehicle will lead to a loss of steering control and the possibility of a subsequent crash.

Many surplus military vehicles were originally designed to carry fuel or gasoline, which weighs considerably less than water. When a fire department takes delivery of a modified or surplus military vehicle, it often arrives with the same size tank that was previously used to carry a lighter liquid petroleum load. Not knowing any better, the fire department fills the tank of the modified vehicle with water, causing the vehicle to exceed the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

This type of situation occurred in Texas when a surplus military tanker truck lost control and killed the firefighter who was driving it (photo 3). The vehicle involved was a 1979 cab-over tractor pulling a trailer that contained 5,000 gallons of water. According to NIOSH Report F2006-06, the trailer was designed to carry a payload that weighed less than 35,250 pounds. Had the vehicle been carrying 5,000 gallons of gasoline, for which it was originally designed, the weight of the gasoline would have been only 28,000 pounds. However, when the fire department took delivery of the truck, it filled it with 5,000 gallons of water. The weight of this water was 41,500 pounds, well in excess of the maximum allowable payload weight.⁴

(3) Damage sustained by the tractor and trailer after rolling over. Loaded with water instead of fuel, the vehicle was considerably overweight. (Photo courtesy of the Texas State Fire Marshal’s Office.)

WATER TANK BAFFLES

This case study also highlights the issue of water tank baffles. According to the United States Fire Administration’s (USFA) “Safe Operation of Fire Tankers,”⁵ one of the most crucial aspects of water tank design is the use of properly installed baffles. Baffles are installed inside the water tank to control the amount of water surge that results as the vehicle is moving along the roadway. As explained in the USFA report, if a vehicle rounds a curve, the inertia of the water inside the tank will tend to surge toward the outside of the curve. In other words, as the vehicle is attempting to safely steer through a curve, the water will want to continue in a straight path of travel, pushing the vehicle toward the outside of the curve. This surge of energy could cause the water tanker to lose control or roll over, depending on the situation. Should the water tanker begin to slow down suddenly or attempt a panic stop, the water will continue to move forward, creating a forward surge that will increase the stopping distance of the vehicle and possibly lead to loss of control.

For these reasons, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, 2003 edition, states, “All water tanks shall be provided with some type of baffles or swash partitions to form a containment or dynamic method of water movement control.”⁶ The USFA report provides the following explanation of these methods. (5, 68)

The Containment MethodThis method uses a series of swash plates to divide the tank into a series of smaller, interconnected compartments.

The Dynamic MethodThis method uses a series of baffles to disrupt the movement of water by changing the direction of travel. These baffles are often staggered so that the changing direction of the water creates a turbulent motion that results in the water absorbing most of its own energy.

However, it is not uncommon for a fire department to place a used or modified vehicle in service as a water tanker without properly examining the inside of the water tank to see if it is properly baffled. Many times, when a vehicle has served as a fuel container in a previous life, it is not equipped with the proper baffles necessary to control the surge of a water load. In the case of the modified 5,000-gallon fuel trailer, the only baffle found inside the tank was a partition that divided the tank into two separate compartments. Although it is not known if the lack of baffles was the primary cause in this crash, this fact is an important learning point for the fire service. Make sure that if you must place in service a vehicle that was previously used to carry a liquid other than water that the tank meets the safety and water baffle requirements set forth by NFPA 1901.

TIRE BLOWOUTS

Tire blowouts are associated with overweight vehicles. In recent years a number of firefighter injuries and fatalities have resulted directly from tire blowouts. When a vehicle is overweight, the air pressure inside the tire cannot support the excess weight. As a result, instead of the air inside of the tire supporting the weight of the vehicle, the sidewalls of the tire begin to bear the load. This causes the tire sidewalls to overflex as the tire rotates around the axle. The overflexing of the tire sidewalls will lead to a buildup of excess heat. If the tire sidewalls overheat too much, the tire may fail and a blowout will occur.⁷

It is also important to keep a close eye on the age of your tires. Many surplus vehicles arrive in station with aged and degraded tires. According to NFPA 1911, Standard for the Inspection, Maintenance, Testing and Retirement of In-Service Automotive Fire Apparatus, tires shall be replaced every seven years or when the tire tread wear exceeds state or federal guidelines.⁸

On June 21, 2005, these issues were highlighted during a fatal tanker crash in Utah. A volunteer firefighter was driving a 1981 2½-ton military surplus tanker truck to a neighboring town to have the vehicle inspected. As the firefighter proceeded down a straight gravel road, the front driver’s side tire blew out, causing the driver to lose control. The driver was able to keep the vehicle on the road for approximately 100 feet before striking a ditch on the east side of the roadway and rolling over three times. The driver was ejected from the cab and pronounced dead at the scene.⁹

Investigation of this fatality revealed that the GVWR for this surplus military truck was 16,530 pounds off-road. Considering that the empty weight of the vehicle was 13,530 pounds, the vehicle was rated to carry only 3,000 pounds of payload. (9) However, the vehicle was equipped with a 1,200-gallon tank. When filled with 1,200 gallons of water (which weighs 8.3 pounds per gallon), the vehicle would have exceeded the off-road GVWR by 6,960 pounds. In addition to being nearly 7,000 pounds overweight, eight out of 10 tires on the vehicle were manufactured in 1981, making them more than 24 years old at the time of this crash. (8) It is not surprising that the overweight condition of this vehicle, in conjunction with old and degraded tires, resulted in a serious vehicle crash.

WEIGH YOUR VEHICLES

To prevent weight-related vehicle crashes, it is imperative that departments have their vehicles weighed annually. While originally only a recommendation, NFPA 1911 now requires that a vehicle receive an annual weight certification. This weight certification must be completed as outlined in Section 16.2 of the standard. The procedures for this weight certification are as follows:

Load the vehicle with everything it will carry when it is in service.
Fill all fluids such as fuel, foam, water tank, portable water coolers, portable fuel tanks, and ice chests to capacity.
Remove all personnel from the vehicle.
Weigh the front axle.
Weigh the rear axle or tandems.
Weigh the entire vehicle.
Determine the weight of any additional equipment that will be carried on the vehicle such as personal protective equipment and loose equipment.
Determine the number of personnel who will ride the vehicle and multiply by 200 pounds.
Add the calculated weight of the personnel and additional equipment to the total vehicle weight.

NFPA 1901 provides a worksheet that allows the user to determine if the weight of the vehicle exceeds the gross axle weight rating or the GVWR.

As indicated in the standard, it is important to ensure that your department weighs each axle individually and does not just weigh the entire truck at once. There are times when a vehicle will fall within the GVWR provided by the manufacturer and at the same time have an overweight axle. Axle weight ratings can be found on a plate inside the vehicle cab (photo 4). When in doubt, contact your vehicle manufacturer for this information. Should you find that your vehicle exceeds the GVWR or an axle weight rating, place the vehicle out of service.

(4) Gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) can be found on a plate in the cab of newer fire apparatus. In this case, the vehicle’s GVWR, or total vehicle weight, is 45,740 pounds. The weight rating for the front axle is 18,740 pounds and for the rear axle, 27,000 pounds. Note that this weight rating depends on the size of the tires and rims as well as the tire inflation pressure. (Photo by author.)

You can easily meet the requirement for annual weight certification by contacting your local police department or state truck enforcement agency. Most agencies will be glad to assist you in weighing your vehicle and making sure that it meets the manufacturer’s weight recommendation and your state’s legal weight requirements. Ensure that you properly document this annual inspection and keep it on file for the life of the vehicle.

HOW OLD IS TOO OLD?

Fire departments should be wary of using surplus military and modified civilian vehicles. Many of these vehicles have had a hard life and have been used under extremely arduous conditions. The maintenance records for these vehicles are often nonexistent, and the condition of important components such as suspensions, frames, brakes, tires, and steering parts is suspect.

The age of these vehicles also means that they are not equipped with basic safety features such as seat belts, antilock brakes, and air bags. If not properly modified, these vehicles may also lack such basic lighting components as turn signals and brake lights. Although it is possible to retrofit these vehicles with basic safety features, we must ask ourselves at what point do we decide that a vehicle is too old to become part of our fleet. Would you wear 50-year-old SCBA or turnout gear? Would your town police chief drive a 50-year-old police car?

The issue of obsolete fire apparatus is addressed in Annex D of NFPA 1901. Annex D provides valuable information to fire departments faced with aging fleets. Among the numerous recommendations provided in this document are guidelines that discuss the age at which a vehicle should be considered “obsolete.”

Annex D states that any vehicle manufactured before 1979 should be considered for upgrading or replacement. Apparatus manufactured in accordance with the 1979 and 1985 editions of NFPA 1901 should be placed in reserve status and upgraded to meet as many of the current safety recommendations as possible. Apparatus manufactured to meet the 1991 and later versions of the standard OR apparatus that was refurbished in accordance with NFPA 1912, Standard for Fire Apparatus Refurbishing, should be the only vehicles considered for front-line service (photo 5).

(5) Does your vehicle meet current NFPA standards, or is it considered “obsolete”? Front-line and reserve vehicles should meet the recommendations provided in Annex D. (Photo courtesy of Rick Daly.)

To determine if your apparatus meets these recommendations, Annex D provides the following checklist:

Fully enclosed seating is provided for all members riding on the fire apparatus.
Warning lights meet the current standard.
Reflective striping meets the current standard.
Slip resistance of walking surfaces and handrails meets the current standard.
A low-voltage electrical system load manager is installed if the total continuous load exceeds the alternator output.
Where the GVWR is 36,000 pounds or more, an auxiliary braking system is installed and operating correctly.
Ground and step lights meet the current standard.
Noise levels in the driving and crew compartments meet the current standard.
Engine belts, fuel lines, and filters have been replaced in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule.
Brakes, brake lines, and wheel seals have been replaced or serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule.
Tires and suspension are in serviceable condition.
All horns and sirens are relocated from the roof to a position as low and as far forward as possible.
Seat belts are available for every seat and are new or in serviceable condition.
Sign plates stating no riding on open areas are present.
A complete weight analysis shows the fire apparatus is not over individual axle or total GVWRs.
The fire pump meets or exceeds its original pump rating.
The alternator output meets its rating.
Water tank and baffles are not corroded or distorted.
A transmission shift pump interlock is present and working properly on vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission.
All loose equipment in the driving and crew areas is securely mounted to prevent its movement in case of an accident.
The radiator has been serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule and all cooling system hoses are new or in serviceable condition.
If so equipped, the generator and line voltage accessories have been tested and meet the current standard.
If equipped with an aerial device, a complete test to original specifications has been conducted and certified by a certified testing laboratory.

When considering the possibility of placing a modified vehicle or surplus government vehicle in your fleet, ask yourself if the vehicle meets the above listed recommendations. Most military vehicles and modified civilian vehicles will not meet these standards. If the vehicle doesn’t meet these standards, how much will it cost to bring the vehicle into compliance? Will it be worth it for your fire department to place a modified vehicle in service, or is it better to find a used vehicle that is specifically designed for firefighting and already complies with NFPA standards? These are important considerations should you find yourself purchasing a vehicle for your fleet.

Although NFPA standards are only “recommendations,” consider that you will be held to these standards should you find yourself in a civil court of law as the result of a crash or serious incident. Instead of fighting and arguing these safety recommendations, fire department administrators should embrace them and use the recommendations to convince city managers and financial directors that a new fire apparatus will pay off in the long run.

It is also important to remember that your driving a newer apparatus does not relieve you from the risk of being involved in a serious crash. Volunteer Firemen’s Insurance Services (VFIS) studied 36 fatal accidents that occurred between 1999 and 2005. Of these 36 fatal crashes, 47 percent of the vehicles involved were manufactured after 1990. Further investigation revealed that 83 percent of the vehicles involved were manufactured after 1980.¹⁰ Apparatus operators driving newer fire apparatus must understand that they are still subject to the same laws of physics that cause vehicles to lose control. The vehicle may be equipped with additional safety equipment such as enclosed cabs and occupant restraint systems, but the key to safe driving is to drive responsibly and not crash in the first place.

EDUCATE YOUR COMMUNITY

There are several reasons for the fire service’s operation of vehicles that have served past their useful lifespan. Ironically, I think that our “can-do” attitude, as well as the pride we take in our equipment, hurts us in the end. It is not uncommon to peer inside a fire station and see a gleaming red fire truck that looks as if it just came off the production floor. An experienced eye probably would immediately recognize a vehicle that was fighting fires before we placed a man on the moon. However, the general public and a city council member may fail to recognize an older vehicle because they don’t know anything about fire trucks. Instead of seeing the lack of an enclosed cab, power steering, and ABS brakes, average citizens see a pristine piece of equipment that appears to be in better shape than their car. When the time comes to vote for a large sum of money to replace this outdated fire apparatus, all they can remember is the excellent condition of the vehicle when they looked in the station window or saw it being driven down the street.

Does this mean that we stop taking care of our rigs and let them rust away to nothing? No. It means that we must properly educate our citizens and council members so that they understand the serious issues involved when operating an outdated piece of fire apparatus. I would recommend a PowerPoint presentation of your proposal for a new fire apparatus that you can show to your city council members during a special session. During this presentation, make sure you put the age of your apparatus in the proper perspective. For instance, if you are operating a 1977 engine, go online and try to find a picture of a 1977 Ford police car. Include this photograph in your presentation, and explain that when your apparatus was manufactured, this was a brand new police car. Ask the council members what members of your community would think if they saw the police driving around in a 1977 Ford LTD. Should the fire department be any different (photo 6)?

(6) What would people think if your local police patrolled the streets in this? (Photo courtesy of Rick Daly.)

Don’t stop there. Find some other significant historical events that occurred the year your truck was builti.e., the truck was fighting fires when Nixon was president, the war in Vietnam was at its height, and 65 percent of the members of your fire department hadn’t been born yet. Placing the age of the truck in perspective will help your town management understand how old the truck is. Do you have any black-and-white photographs of a large fire that occurred 25 years ago? If so, are there any photographs that show your current apparatus fighting that fire? I’m sure many lifelong residents of your town will recall that fire, and it will help to put the age of your vehicle in perspective.

Continue to educate the council on the safety features missing from your current vehicle. Take photographs of a neighboring apparatus that has an enclosed cab, air bags, and antilock brakes. Insert a video that demonstrates how side curtain air bags will protect the occupants and prevent costly, long-term injuries. Use this opportunity to explain the outdated safety features of your vehicle and the potential consequences of not updating your fleet.

Also, closely track the maintenance expenditures for each piece of apparatus. Showing a graph or chart demonstrating the rising costs of maintaining an elderly apparatus may make it possible to sell the idea of a new truck simply by demonstrating the money that will be saved on maintenance.

It is up to the fire service to educate citizens on the benefits of modern fire apparatus. By tactfully educating the people who control your budget and showing them the age of your apparatus in perspective, you will have a better chance of securing the necessary funds to purchase a new or newer vehicle.

15-PASSENGER VANS

On June 21, 2002, 11 firefighters were traveling from Oregon to Colorado to fight the Hayman wildfire. After stopping in Parachute, Colorado, for food and fuel, the extended van in which they were riding veered left into a median strip and rolled over four times. Four firefighters were killed immediately; another firefighter succumbed to his injuries three days later. Of the five firefighters killed, only one was wearing a seat belt. The investigation revealed that the driver had become distracted while reaching for a cup and subsequently lost control of the vehicle. The driver of the van was charged with careless driving and was sentenced to performing 50 hours of community service.

(7) Fire departments must recognize the hazards of operating extended passenger vans and train personnel accordingly. (Photo courtesy of Bruce Anderson.)

It is not uncommon to find fire departments and wildfire agencies using 15-passenger vans to transport members. These vans are often used as “troop transports,” shuttling firefighters to and from fire scenes or special events. Although these vehicles are ideal for moving several members at a time, their dangers are often underestimated.

THE STATISTICS

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted numerous studies on 15-passenger vans after noticing a high number of van-related fatalities. The NHTSA statistics indicate that between 1990 and 2002 there were 1,576 fatal van crashes, resulting in 1,111 fatalities to the van occupants.¹¹ Of these fatalities, only 14 percent were properly restrained, indicating that 86 percent were not wearing their seat belts. Ninety-two percent of the passengers who were restrained during a crash survived. (8)

NHTSA studies indicate that the chance of a rollover crash involving a 15-passenger van is 2.2 times higher when the van is loaded to more than half of its capacity. The odds of a rollover crash are five times more likely when the van is fully loaded, compared to when the driver is the only occupant. (11, 2) The odds of a rollover are also five times more likely on a high-speed road (speed limit greater than 50 miles per hour) and twice as likely on a curved roadway. (9)

RISK OF ROLLOVER

Studies show that as more passengers ride in the vehicle, the van’s center of gravity shifts upward and toward the rear of the vehicle. As with any vehicle that has a high center of gravity, this increases the chance of a rollover. Most fire apparatus operators recognize that a vehicle such as a water tanker, an aerial device, or an engine will have a high center of gravity, but few recognize the danger of driving a fully loaded passenger van.

According to the NHTSA, 90 percent of van-related rollover crashes occurred when the vehicle’s operator lost control and left the roadway. The NHTSA provides the following three scenarios as common causes of van-related roll crashes:

The van goes off a rural road. If this occurs, the van is likely to overturn when it strikes a ditch or [an] embankment or when it is tripped by an object or runs into soft soil.

The driver is fatigued or driving too fast for conditions. A tired driver can doze off and lose control. The driver can also lose control when traveling at a high speed, causing the van to slide sideways off the road. The grassy or dirt medians that line highways can often cause the van to overturn when the tires dig into the dirt.

The driver overcorrects the steering as a panic reaction to an emergency or to a wheel dropping off the pavement. Especially at freeway speeds, this situation can cause the driver to lose control, resulting in the van sliding sideways and rolling over. ¹²

REDUCING THE RISK

Another safety issue to consider is that while many fire departments have strict regulations on who can operate larger apparatus, they often allow younger, inexperienced members to drive passenger vans. This lack of experience behind the wheel can lead to a lack of respect for the vehicle and a subsequent tragedy. Treat passenger vans like any other piece of apparatus. Have drivers undergo extensive training and make sure they meet the same requirements as they would for operating larger apparatus.

There are a number of ways fire departments can increase the safety of their passenger vans. The first is to make all operators aware of the dangers associated with driving an extended van. Drivers must understand that as the number of passengers increases, so does the risk of a rollover. As such, take extra care when transporting more than six or seven passengers.

Also, make the use of seat belts mandatory. The majority of van occupants who sustained fatal injuries during crashes were not wearing seat belts and were ejected from the vehicle. Once an occupant is ejected from the vehicle, there is a four-in-five chance that the person will sustain fatal injuries. In addition, it is possible that an unrestrained occupant could become a lethal projectile inside the vehicle while it is rolling over. Imagine that you do the right thing and wear your seat belt, only to be killed when the unrestrained passenger next to you flies across the seat and strikes you in the head. There is no excuse for anyone inside a fire apparatus not to wear a seat belt.

Apparatus operators must recognize that the risk of a fatal van crash increases on high-speed roadways (speed limit greater than 50 mph) and when there are curves in the road. Higher-speed roads provide little margin for error should the driver begin to drift to the side of the road or find himself faced with an emergency situation that requires immediate evasive maneuvers. Sudden steering inputs caused by a “jerk” of the steering wheel will cause the vehicle’s center of gravity to shift. Should the vehicle’s center of gravity shift too far, the vehicle may enter a rollover situation as the tires on one side of the van lift off the roadway. A similar situation could also occur as a van attempts to round a curve. This is because centrifugal force will cause the vehicle to shift downward on its suspension toward the outside of the curve. If the vehicle is traveling too fast and the center of gravity shifts too far, the van will roll over as it attempts to round the curve.

It is also important that drivers be well rested and able to stay alert while driving a van loaded with fellow firefighters. Because extended vans can carry large numbers of members over long distances, it is not uncommon to see these vans traveling several hundred or even thousands of miles in one trip. Long trips can place strain on the drivers, who must stay awake for several hours at a time, often driving through monotonous terrain. Ensure that there is more than one qualified driver during long-distance transports, allowing the operators to take turns at the wheel while the other drivers secure some much needed rest. It is recommended that no driver drive more than two hours at a time. Also, avoid overnight travel.

Once a 15-passenger van loses control, it is difficult, if not impossible, to safely regain control. Distractions such as eating, changing radio stations, or operating lights and sirens could cause you to drift to the side of the road and lose control. Pay strict attention to the road ahead and follow all defensive driving measures.

Additional safety measures include restricting the number of passengers in a 15-passenger van to nine people, including the driver. To prevent more than nine people from riding in the van, remove the rear seat. This will prevent excess loading behind the rear axle, which contributes to reduced stability. Drivers should also ensure that the van is loaded from the front toward the back and nothing is placed on the roof, as this will further raise the center of gravity. Do not use vans to tow trailers or equipment.

According to NHTSA statistics, 74 percent of the involved 15-passenger vans had tires that were incorrectly inflated. Van operators must check tire pressures regularly to ensure that they are properly inflated. As mentioned earlier, underinflated tires can lead to blowouts and subsequent crashes.

•••

Modified civilian vehicles, used military vehicles, and 15-passenger vans present unique safety hazards. Fire departments must recognize these issues and take steps to correct safety deficiencies and prevent tragedies. There is no excuse for firefighters to lose their lives while en route to or returning from a call. By properly equipping our firefighters and educating our apparatus operators, we can reduce the staggering number of firefighters and civilians who lose their lives or are injured in apparatus crashes each year.

Note: Please visit www.drivetosurvive.org for additional information on Annex D and 15-passenger van safety, as well as general driver safety information.

Thanks to Bill Peters for providing information related to the NFPA standards and to Bill Troup and Jack Sullivan for providing information related to the Hayman wildfire tragedy.

Endnotes

1. NIOSH Firefighter Fatality Report #2003-23, “Volunteer Assistant Chief Dies in Tanker Rollover New Mexico.”

2. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) states that these vehicles can carry only 3¾ tons, or 7,500 pounds, on paved roads.

3. For a more in-depth explanation of “Brake Fade,” see “Drive to Survive,” Fire Engineering, February 2006.

4. NIOSH Firefighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program Report #2006-06, “Volunteer Firefighter Dies in Tanker Rollover CrashTexas.”

4. United States Fire Administration, “Safe Operation of Fire Tankers,” 67.

5. NFPA 1901, Chapter 19, ”Water Tanks,” Section 19.2.5.

6. United States Fire Administration“Safe Operation of Fire Tankers,” 68.

7. For a more in-depth explanation of tire blowouts and how to handle one, see “Avoiding Tire-Related Vehicle Crashes,” Fire Engineering, February 2007.

8. National Fire Protection Association 1911, Standard for the Inspection, Maintenance, Testing and Retirement of In-Service Fire Apparatus, Section 7.3.4.

9. NIOSH Firefighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program Report F2005-27, “Volunteer Fire Chief Dies from Injuries Sustained During a Tanker RolloverUtah,” July 24, 2006.

10. Jenaway, William, “Safety 101 Lesson 17: Vehicle Safety: The Big Picture,” http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/Vehicle-Operations-and-Maintenance, November 22, 2007.

11. NHTSA, “Analysis of Crashes Involving 15-Passenger Vans,” May 2004, 1.

12. NHTSA Informational Flyer, “Reducing the Risk of Rollover Crashes in 15-Passenger Vans.”

CHRIS DALY, an 18-year veteran of the fire service, is a member of the Goshen Fire Department in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and a full-time police officer specializing in the reconstruction of serious vehicle crashes. He developed the “Drive to Survive” training program (www.drivetosurvive.org) and lectures nationally on the prevention of emergency vehicle crashes. He has a master’s degree in safety from Johns Hopkins University and will be presenting the “Drive to Survive” classroom session at FDIC 2008.