NFPA 1904: A LOOK FROM THE INSIDE
The furor has abated and a quiet hush of resignation and bewilderment has fallen on the ever-diminishing community of fire apparatus manufacturers, particularly those involved in the construction of aerial devices.
The fire service, as a whole, however, is unaware of the changes it is about to encounter when ordering new aerial devices from these manufacturers—changes wrought by the acceptance and implementation of the new National Fire Protection Association Standard 1904.
The NFPA Fire Department Equipment Committee, which is responsible for the creation of standards pertaining to the construction of fire apparatus, has just completed the process of dividing the old 1901 standard into four separate standards, each dealing exclusively with a particular type of apparatus. Standard 1904, the subject of this article, pertains to aerial ladders and elevating platforms.
For those unfamiliar with the makeup of that NFPA committee, it is composed of 30 voting members and eight alternates. Voting members are approximately equal numbers of manufacturers, independent participants (researchers, consultants, etc.), and fire service personnel.
Just as the new NFPA 1500 standard was developed to ensure firefighter safety to the greatest extent possible, so, too, were many of the changes in this standard made in the name of firefighter safety. Some of these changes accomplish that goal; others, I believe, thwart it. Manufacturers’ growing concern about product liability is a factor that has merited strong consideration.
Let’s examine some of the changes that will be incorporated into your aerial apparatus.
Rated capacity. All new aerial ladders will have to meet or exceed a rated capacity of 250 pounds, defined as the weight of personnel, tools, and equipment that will have to be supported at the tip of an aerial ladder or elevating platform at full extension. The ladders must be able to operate in any position while carrying this load. This standard probably is the most debated revision —and with good reason. The opposition raised over this point was loud and varied; it centered around a few main points, such as the following:
- A response to low bidders? The question that arose was: Is this an attack on particular manufacturers whose “standard” aerials have no rated capacity at all and, because of this, are able to underbid larger, heavier aerials?
- Why rated capacity? If this feature is so important to the fire service that
- it must be incorporated in the new NFPA standard—over the objections of many large and small fire departments—why do virtually all the major cities in the United States (New’ York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit, for example) use aerials with no rated capacity almost exclusively? New York City, in fact, is experimenting with four new aerials that have a rated capacity of more than 500 pounds because it needs greater vertical reach in residential buildings and additional horizontal reach in olfice and commercial buildings where new codes require large setbacks and because lower-floor fires call for operations at lower angles than previously had been encountered.
- Weight of apparatus. With the advent of rated capacity comes the inevitable greater overall weight of the apparatus. Since the aerial structure itself is heavier, the supporting structure of the chassis must be stronger, leading to increased gross vehicle weight (gvw) and, in many cases, tandem rear axles in lieu of a single axle. In addition, in view of the growing concern over maximum axle weight in many states, the rated capacity ladder could affect future purchases of apparatus. Since a number of states already have enacted axleweight laws that prohibit an axle to carry more than 20,000 pounds, it is conceivable that newly purchased apparatus will not be allowed on the highways because they violate the axle standard. Some states are enforcing this regulation so strictly that they will not provide for any “grandfathering” that could exempt some apparatus from complying.
- Cost. Nothing is free in this nation, and the rated capacity with its attendant weight and structural demands will add to the cost of your next aerial. I believe that there are many circumstances in which the rated capacity aerial feature can be useful and even necessary, but 1 do not believe that it will significantly improve firefighter safety. While some videotapes and photographs document horror stories about failed aerial ladders, we must remember that although these incidents are dramatic, they are miniscule in number when compared with the number of times aerial ladders are used. In addition, even many of these failures on closer examination clearly show that they resulted from human error and/ or maintenance neglect.
Fully enclosed crew cabs. If rated capacity were not the most hotly debated point in the revised standard, the fully enclosed crew cab certainly would be. Much of the resistance to this change came from areas with warmer climates where a completely enclosed cab means additional costs not only for the enclosure but—with the advent of bunker suits—also for cab air-conditioning and its attendant maintenance. The committee decided, however, that a firefighter in a fully enclosed cab with seat belt fastened stands a much greater chance of surviving an accident than a firefighter in an open cab. Many trucks available now have three-point belts in the crew cab.
This change hopefully also will end tailboard riding by providing interior belted seats for up to 10 firefighters.
Elevating platforms. If the bucket has an escape ladder, it must meet all the requirements for a full aerial ladder. Thus, if you plan to order a boomtype elevating platform and want an escape ladder from the bucket, be prepared to pay for and have installed a full aerial ladder with 12-inch handrails.
Again, debate on this point was centered on the possibility that the revision may be an attack on specific manufacturers and on the added cost of the feature. This change is the least verifiable with regard to its intent of increasing firefighter safety. It was adopted because someone made the argument that if only a small escape ladder exists, firefighters would send or lead rescued civilians down this obviously unsuitable ladder rather than lower them to the ground in the bucket.
It seems incomprehensible that a well-trained firefighter would place a person he has rescued into another dangerous position when a safer path — bucket descent—is available; apparently the committee was not so convinced of this. The City of New York Fire Department has been using elevating platforms of this type for more than 25 years and has more than 75 of them in service. There is no evidence that a civilian ever was led to leave the bucket to descend the escape ladder— despite the thousands of fire victims who have been removed from harm’s way by this equipment.
This change must be reevaluated, but if you are now’ ordering this type of platform, you must decide between a full aerial ladder escape device and none at all. Choosing the ladder adds considerable weight, height, and cost to your vehicle. Eliminating it places your firefighters in danger, since they would have no escape should something happen to the bucket or should flaming debris fall into it. Numerous examples point to the need for an escape device on these apparatus. They include inadvertent contact between the bucket and a wall and hydraulic failure in the middle of a fire. These factors attest to the need for personnel to find a way out of the basket in a hurry, but they do not justify adding a full aerial ladder.
Engine cutoff switch in the tiller seat of tractor-trailer apparatus. This is my favorite. A built-in switch in the tiller seat of all tractor-trailer apparatus will prevent the operator from starting the vehicle’s motor unless someone is seated in the tiller and is depressing the switch. Obviously, this revision prevents the driver from leaving quarters without a tillerman, but talk about electronic overkill! This option not only is unnecessary, but it can be downright dangerous in some scenarios, such as the following:
a)Children are at a window screaming for help. The chauffeur begins to raise the aerial and because of poor fuel, lack of maintenance, or other problems, the engine stalls while the aerial is halfway up. How does the chauffeur explain to the children that he must first find someone to sit at the rear of the truck before he can save them?
b)You pull up to the front of a building with no fire obvious and everyone leaves the vehicle to investigate. Suddenly a fire is discovered and the aerial must be raised. The chauffeur returns to the apparatus, but the tillerman doesn’t. How does the chauffeur raise the ladder?
c) The ever-present fire apparatus electrical malfunction attacks this switch or its wiring and although the tillerman is present, the engine won’t start. You sit the fire out in quarters, hoping no one needed rescuing by your unit.
When 1 was a probationary firefighter in 1962, one of the very first lieutenants I encountered had a foolproof method for ensuring that we always left with a tillerman. He would don his turnout gear, open his door, and stand on the apparatus floor looking rearward until the tillerman was in position. You may drive away without a tillerman, but you don’t dare drive away without the lieutenant!
If the manufacturer insists on building this feature into your apparatus, demand that he install an override at the driver’s position to prevent some of the scenarios mentioned.
Safety belts in the basket of an elevating platform. For all the rhetoric about firefighter safety, this one absolutely stuns me. A proposal was made to the committee to have the manufacturer install safety belts in the basket of an elevating platform to prevent the firefighters from being thrown from the basket in the event that it failed. I know because l wrote the proposal, and it was fresh in my mind since 1 had just returned from Toronto, Canada, where a basket failure had caused the death of one man and the crippling of two others.
The proposal was turned down on the grounds that the standard’s appendix calls for the shipping of four loose (uninstalled) fall protection harnesses with the vehicle. Despite the committee’s purported outcry for safety, this basic lifesaving device is absent from the standard. If you wish to protect your members, you yourself must install the belts in the basket of the elevating platforms.
A flowmeter required if a waterway is supplied. In the future all aerial devices equipped with waterways must have a flowmeter (not a pressure gauge) installed, with the display at the operator’s position. Flowmeters have proven quite useful for motor-pump operators when flowing to multiple handlines at different locations on the fireground. It always has been my understanding, however, that nozzle pressure and reach—not the quantity of water leaving the nozzle—are the important features of an elevated stream. Since this is not an either/or requirement (i.e., either a pressure gauge or a flowmeter), you will, therefore, get the flowmeter (it costs S700 to S 1,000 installed) and pay extra for a pressure gauge, which is what you needed in the first place.
Capacity rating for elevating platforms. Under the new standard, the rated capacity of an elevating platform shall be a minimum of 750 pounds. Iliis is in addition to any manufacturer-installed firefighting equipment — and with the waterway uncharged. The good news is that regardless of the number of remote-control nozzles or other gear you order installed by the manufacturer, you still can add 750 pounds and maintain the basketcapacity rating.
The bad news is that if you flow water through these nozzles and then shut down for ventilation or rescue purposes, the water remaining in the piping (which can weigh up to 300 pounds) reduces your rated capacity by that amount. Now, if you place two fully outfitted firefighters each weighing 250 pounds in the basket, you will be at a total of 800 pounds, 50 pounds over the rated ~50-pound capacity.
Obviously, we operate over capacity many times and get away with it due to the safety factors built into apparatus. If. however, the manufacturer were to make us aware of capacity limits, then we would know that adding additional persons to the basket would be placing us close to the safety limit, and we would act accordingly. So that firefighters could be aware of this safety issue, it would be more appropriate if the rated capacity were measured with a charged waterway and all manufacturers were mandated to print the capacity in the basket; a more realistic decision then could be made at the fireground before loading a basket. If safety is the motivating factor behind the proposed changes, why not give the fireground commander the true facts about his apparatus?
Ladder interlock system. A provided interlock will prevent the ladder’s rising from the travel position until all stabilizers are set in position. While this feature is to prevent raising the aerial without proper support, possibly leading to apparatus turnover, be aware that firefighting is not the best of all possible worlds. Those of us who must negotiate narrow streets sometimes must raise the aerial with stabilizers partly extended or, on the side opposite the operation, not at all. Insist on override capability if you have this problem, or you will find yourself with a serious problem at a fire on a narrow street or on one with double-parked cars.
The problem encountered when dealing with NFPA standards of this type is that the requirements are unilaterally applied to the entire country and in some states are adopted as laws. The NFPA is universally recognized and accepted as the authority on the fire service, and if you or your apparatus suppliers intentionally choose to ignore its recommendations, you had better be prepared with a good explanation in court should any injury-producing accident occur.
We are faced with a moral dilemma, however. Does the NFPA have the right to convene a committee that imposes the same apparatus standards on New York City’: Los Angeles; Plano, Texas; and Missoula, Montana? Can it tell all these diverse locations that they must meet the same standard regardless of climatic conditions, operational differences, manpower requirements, funding capabilities, and so on? Or should the cities determine their own requirements based on need?
What it really comes down to is how far the NFPA can go in the name of firefighter safety. Some say that it went too far with the adoption of NFPA 1500; others insist that they would not have been able to pry even minimum funding from city councils for safety equipment without 1500.
Some of that same type of controversy will, no doubt, surround this standard, particularly given the large increases in the cost of apparatus.
If you look closely at the changes made by this standard, you will see that a great many are being made in an attempt to make fire apparatus “idiotproof.” If you purchase a 250-pound tip load ladder and use it incorrectly, someone will die or be very seriously injured. Do not be lulled into a false sense of security by the rating. If you place four firefighters on it and swing it around, unsupported, there is a good chance you are endangering their lives.
The safety features built into new apparatus can never take the place of training and discipline. Teach your members the correct and safe way to use apparatus, and discipline them when they abuse or misuse it or when they ignore safety rules.
This is only an overview of the types of changes that you w’ill be forced to accept under NFPA Standard 1904. If you agree with the changes, you will have a much more acceptable piece of apparatus rolling through your door in the future. If you do not, then the answer is to participate in the standard-making process. Urge your chief to join the NFPA so that your department will receive information on forthcoming standards changes. Send in your comments when public input is solicited by the committees. The standards can be only as good as the amount of input the committees have received from you, the end user. Get involved.
