[AT] Can you hear me now?

[Steve W.]

Gunnells, Bradley R wrote:
> I can understand that concern. I didn't think about fire and EMS
> personnel and their equipment. There was a topic of redundancy
> earlier in aircraft.
> 
> The small volunteer departments and municipalities would have a hard
> time funding specialty rigs with redundancy since it's not mainstream
> in the market.
> 
> Brad
> 

I have already seen a couple of newer rigs shut down during drills when
a sensor decided something was wrong.

We picked up a tanker from a local department who just got a new rig
that is all computer controlled. They called the other night asking if
we would like to swap back. The new rig has been in the shop more than
it has been on the fire ground. Seems that they keep having problems
with the computer controls.

With the new stuff they are adding this year it is only going to get worse.
This year they are adding the new emissions rules to the engine, new
spec rules for the pump system, seat belt interlocks (if the seat has
weight in it and the seat belt isn't connected the engine won't start!)
Continuous data recording (just like aircraft black boxes) plus new
impact requirements and striping. Total added cost over an engine from
last year is around $60,000.00.

Last year a new standard went into effect about our turn out gear. As it
stands now when the gear is 10 years old you are required to throw it
out. Regardless of what the gear has actually been through. We are
getting 20 sets of new gear this year. Total cost $35,478.00. Thankfully
this time we are getting a grant for it.

Well I'd better shut up and get off the soap box.....

-- 
Steve W.