About the General Discussion category

General Discussion
#21

Hey TW,
If CalFire is theeir name, then why on their home page does it say California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection ?
My opinion is, it’s just a nickname just as CDF was (California Division of Forestry).
Have to keep up with CalTrans (California Department of Transportation).

Done with that, would it not be better to have engines that are the most useful for the type of work they are doing instead of creating equipment that is not best for either type of work ? In years past I seem to remember they had equipment designed more for wildland and then equipment better designed for structure. These seem to be not as well suited for either. Especially the higher center of gravity on the newer type 3’s.
Not condemning, just conversation.
.

#22

Agreed…BRD, FETCH, ARF

1 Like
#23

Same reason you don’t call CalTrans the “The Transportation Agency” (Official name). As you know a few years ago “CDFFP” officially changed their “nickname” to “CalFire”. I understand people might have their own opinion about that and have a hard time changing their view, doesn’t negate the fact you won’t find “CDF” on their website, but you will find “CalFire” littered throughout. Done with that.

I’ve got no problem w/type 6’s. Buy 'em of that’s what you want/need. I’m saying based upon my experience the model 34s are fine engines (quality of the manufacturer not withstanding). They allow me to do everything my model 15 did and more, with very little negative consequences. The added benefit is I could do other things significantly better. In the past I’ve rolled up on many a structure fire with a weak pump and inadequate lines. I’ve been at MVA’s trying to cut someone out w/a pulaski. Always did the best I could, but why would I not embrace an improvement. Working on both models extensively, I completely disagree that my engine is not suited for both fire situations better than my previous model 15. Not sure how to respond your “seems” position.

Never had an issue with the center if gravity. Tilt table bears that out. I would agree sitting higher up it “feels” a lot different (especially when sitting on the downhill side) , but that is where driver training come in.

To reiterate, I’m not anti type 6s. I’m anti- anti model 34s :grinning:

3 Likes
#24

You should’ve used a brush hook, not a Pulaski :grin:

4 Likes
#25

FIRESCOPE minimum staffing for a Type 6 is 2 personal.
FIRESCOPE staffing for a FOXTROT S/T is 11.

So for the bodies it takes to staff 3 Charlie S/T, you can get 4 Foxtrot S/T

So in the labor argument is you can do more with less😬
Which seems to be the trend these days.

I agree the T6 has its place. I also wouldn’t trade my Model 34 in for a T6 after a structure fire a few weeks ago that extended into the Vegetation. We went HARD FROM THE YARD with a hydrant and pulled our 2.5" blitz line😳 Put the pump into volume and handled business.

2 Likes
#26

It is hard to think of this T-6 as all risk. At least it is has a 500 GPM pump, albeit single stage. I hope State of California is getting a nice discount for buying in bulk

#27

Arff,
I’m not sure why you are asking me about cal fire vs cdf. I really don’t care whichever name you call them. I would think the guys that work for them would be the ones that have that preference and I would honor whatever they prefer.
As I said before there is a time and place for each engine type. We have type 6’s in service at just about every station (about 45 of them) with a few exceptions. But we also have type 1’s at those stations and or type 3’s at about 15 of those stations. There is no perfect engine for all scenarios. That’s why we have type 1’s, 3’s, and 6’s on the front line every day. Our type 6’s supplemental pieces that are meant to be used as brush rigs, not to replace a type 1 or 3, as the front line engine at any station. I agree with tumbleweed, I worked off the new model 34’s and think they work great, I personally haven’t had any issues with their size.

1 Like
#28

You answered my question and I thank you for that.

#29

You can sure tell it’s a slow season

15 Likes
#30

So if the OES is OOS they local agency that the OES ride is assigned to will have to take out their own apparatus? Doesn’t make much sense

#31

Yes. That’s part of the agreement you make when you except free equipment from OES.

2 Likes
#32

Anyone have a list of what departments are getting the new OES type 6’s

#33

I believe San Mateo County is getting 5 total. I know two are coming to San Mateo Consolidated, not exactly sure where the remaining three are going.

#34

I want to say SF is slotted for 4!

1 Like
#35

I wish it was a slow season. Been running hard for the past few weeks with little rest.
Although, this thread is helping me take my nap in between calls…

Carry on.

7 Likes
#36

The 34’s are great Engines, but T3s just keep getting bigger. They are as big as some of the smaller T1s. I think T6s do have a place. How many times are we laying hose because the T3 can’t get in closer. I’ve been to tons of fires were I haven’t donned an SCBA, used jaws or even pumped a single drop of water. A T6 would be great.

My 1 issue, the “electromagnetic siren”. Come on…do the really need a growler?

#37

Yeah, I thought they were getting 5 for their own strike team but it’s been a while since I heard about it.

#38

Did you really just complain because they have a growler? You must be used to working on an ambulance.

7 Likes
#39

The reason that the type 3s are big is not by choice of the agency. Cab and chassis standards along with power plant and emission requirements just require a bigger platform.

2 Likes
#40

I agree, the size is no ones fault or poor design, its just a factor that needs to be worked around. They are great for all-risk, The T6 mission is wildland fire, not all risk, in wich case they can be effective.

Twigpig, your comment drips with irony. I love growlers on T1 engines and trucks, on a glorified pick-up (which is basically and ambulance) seems like over kill.

1 Like