close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

FEMA Wants All SCBA Replaced

Discussion in 'Firefighter/EMS Talk' started by aspartz, Oct 21, 2005.


  1. aspartz

    aspartz
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    3,273
    128
    Location:
    Sandstone, MN 55072
    Source

    I always thought the NFPA specs were designed for safety, not for some panacea of "interoperability".

    Can you imagine the CF of adapters that are going to be used to connect a brand "A" facepice to a brand "B" regulator? Can you imagine the CF of lawsuits and counterclaims if someone is killed while wearing a collection of various manufacturers pieces?

    Can you department afford to replace all of your SCBAs and tanks?

    Does this mean everybody will be required to upgrade to 4500psi systems? What about those departments that do not have a compressor/cascade that is capable of high pressure?

    Will everyone have to replace their fill station whips to attach to the "new" connector?

    IMHO this program is a ton of prevention for an ounce of cure. In all reality, how many incidents have had an interoperability problem with SCBA? Are you going to do interior work wearing an SCBA from an unknown department who's maintenance records are also unknown?

    ARS
     
  2. nam02G

    nam02G
    Expand Collapse
    Angry Bunny

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    1,106
    56
    Location:
    Vancouver USA
    I think that part of the irony here is that the NFPA is really a toothless lion. It's not a government body it's a conglomeration of representatives from companies that make firefighting gear. NFPA 1981, and all the others, is a guideline not a law. Most departments follow NFPA guidelines to avoid liability problems. I know my department and all the surrounding departments will be less than thrilled about this. We all just bought the same brand and model of SCBA with government grants to ensure interchangeability. This is a very expensive solution to a nearly non-existant problem.
     

  3. Tvov

    Tvov
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2000
    4,456
    308
    Location:
    CT,USA
    Well, you know, the government knows best. ;Q

    Now, this a proposal, so things might be different down the road. What is strange to me is that not only are they proposing this pork barrel boondoggle, but that the new equipment will not be compatible with perfectly good existing equipment. As the article states, new air packs are designed for "sharing air", why couldn't the proposed new packs have "universal" connectors?

    Looks like I have some searching to do to find out more about this!
     
  4. ClydeG19

    ClydeG19
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    5,181
    898
    Location:
    Arizona
    Oh well...we already do plenty of non-NFPA compliant stuff. It's guidelines, not standing order.