Seat mounted SCBA brackets

[pauloghia 5]

I've heard several times that either NFPA or OSHA is trying to make seat-mounted SCBA brackets a thing of the past, because of the danger of packing up urging a response. I've seen the crew portion of the LAFD Seagraves and they lack seat brackets. Their SCBA's are mounted facing the seat instead. Is this rumor true? I was thinking that's the reason why the brackets have been manufactured now to lock the SCBA in place. Can anyone who's involved with manufacturing or drawing specifications shed some light on this, or anyone else who knows?

[antiquefirelt 994]

There is certainly a lot of talk on this topic. Many FD's have switched to non-SCBA seats, presumably for the exact reason you noted, firefighters donning them while enroute and not being buckled in. In my view, this is a local FD disciplinary problem not an industry changing necessity. I'm highly confident my FD that uses seatmounted SCBA has at least 98% of it's personnel belted on every run before the apparatus leaves the apron. It's not been an option and all personnel know they will be disciplined for any violation. This could include the offender, the driver and the officer.

One problem with removing the SCBA from the seats is where to put them? As has been said, storage space on new fire apparatus is some of the most expensive real estate in the world.

[hfd745 8]

Our dept recently switched to the seat mounted brackets that require the pack to be strapped and locked in. We no longer have the clips on the brackets that hold the pack in the seat. Our older pack mounts had the clip to hold the bottle and the locking strap. I was told the clips were removed because guys were not strap locking the packs in and were only using the clips. (i have seen it first hand) I was told that that the is a law that requires some sort of lock to be on the pack do that it is secured in the event of an accident. I understand the thought process behind it but personally don't care for it. I find the pull cord to release the pack a hindrance. I am still able to don the pack and then buckle in. Even if the pack is locked in front of you I believe that most everyone will be scrambling to put it on (unbuckled) when that reported fire comes in. Bronging us right back to were we started. Just my opinion

[Bnechis 3,961]

Our dept recently switched to the seat mounted brackets that require the pack to be strapped and locked in. We no longer have the clips on the brackets that hold the pack in the seat. Our older pack mounts had the clip to hold the bottle and the locking strap. I was told the clips were removed because guys were not strap locking the packs in and were only using the clips. (i have seen it first hand) I was told that that the is a law that requires some sort of lock to be on the pack do that it is secured in the event of an accident. I understand the thought process behind it but personally don't care for it. I find the pull cord to release the pack a hindrance. I am still able to don the pack and then buckle in. Even if the pack is locked in front of you I believe that most everyone will be scrambling to put it on (unbuckled) when that reported fire comes in. Bronging us right back to were we started. Just my opinion

The regulation is NFPA 1001 and it basically says all equipment (and personnel) in the cab shall be secured and remain secured in a crash. The old style SCBA clips (without the strap) no longer meets the standard and more importantly are very dangerious in a crash.

I remember a national fire mag. cover pic about 25 years ago of a rig involved in a t-bone accident. Their was an airpack infront of the headlights hanging from 1 strap that was caught on something on the dash infront of the officer. The discription said that that pack was in a forward facing jump seat. This means it flew 10-12 feet before passing the officers head, then continued thru the windshield (which was lying on the front bumper) if the strap did not snag something it would have made it to the ground infront of the rig. It would have killed the officer if it had hit him/her.

We had rigs with the strap arraingment and found they are useless. Members hate using them as they get tangled in the straps & seat belt and prevent smooth deployment. Often they would not be used or even disabled. Starting in 2008 we debated what to do and found that there are SCBA seats that have mechanical locks that are easy to use and do not creat any problems. They can be retrofitted into older apparatus. Most important they prevent the unit from becoming a missle and harming our members.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I've heard several times that either NFPA or OSHA is trying to make seat-mounted SCBA brackets a thing of the past, because of the danger of packing up urging a response. I've seen the crew portion of the LAFD Seagraves and they lack seat brackets. Their SCBA's are mounted facing the seat instead. Is this rumor true? I was thinking that's the reason why the brackets have been manufactured now to lock the SCBA in place.

NFPA reviewed it and came up with a crash rating for brakets instead. OSHA follows NFPA and does not make its own rulings.

There is certainly a lot of talk on this topic. Many FD's have switched to non-SCBA seats, presumably for the exact reason you noted, firefighters donning them while enroute and not being buckled in....One problem with removing the SCBA from the seats is where to put them? As has been said, storage space on new fire apparatus is some of the most expensive real estate in the world.

When working on the spec for an engine in 2008 we debated this issue at length. There are a couple of issues here.

1) The type of brackets must meet the crash ratings AND be firefighter friendly, straps are not.

2) Rear facing SCBA seats w/ forward nonSCBA seats (often fold up). Due to space, this arraingment is common and the members prefer to ride facing forward. We found it common that a forward facing member would often switch mid route to the call to get there pack.

Solution - we tried the west cost 5 man seating (3 forward facing SCBA seats, no rear facing seats). We found some brands at the time (ALF & Spartan were very comfortable that way), but Pierce won the bid and their cab was not good for it. One comment on the forward only seats that we heard from the West coast, was they like it particularly when they have long responses, including statewide mobilization.

3) Once the brackets are determined, enforcing the seatbelt rules is critical (and #2 covers some of that).

4) Another problem that a couple of major depts. told us was a high number injuries from slips, trips, falls and twisted ankles when mounting and dismounting apparatus. They felt that the weight of the airpack, particularly when the member is stooped down as they start to dismount, can throw the member off balance and increase the chance of a fall. Removing the pack from the cab does remove this issue. We determined that the raise roof (eliminates stooping) and additional handrails would limit this situation.

[pauloghia 5]

NFPA reviewed it and came up with a crash rating for brakets instead. OSHA follows NFPA and does not make its own rulings.

When working on the spec for an engine in 2008 we debated this issue at length. There are a couple of issues here.

1) The type of brackets must meet the crash ratings AND be firefighter friendly, straps are not.

2) Rear facing SCBA seats w/ forward nonSCBA seats (often fold up). Due to space, this arraingment is common and the members prefer to ride facing forward. We found it common that a forward facing member would often switch mid route to the call to get there pack.

Solution - we tried the west cost 5 man seating (3 forward facing SCBA seats, no rear facing seats). We found some brands at the time (ALF & Spartan were very comfortable that way), but Pierce won the bid and their cab was not good for it. One comment on the forward only seats that we heard from the West coast, was they like it particularly when they have long responses, including statewide mobilization.

3) Once the brackets are determined, enforcing the seatbelt rules is critical (and #2 covers some of that).

4) Another problem that a couple of major depts. told us was a high number injuries from slips, trips, falls and twisted ankles when mounting and dismounting apparatus. They felt that the weight of the airpack, particularly when the member is stooped down as they start to dismount, can throw the member off balance and increase the chance of a fall. Removing the pack from the cab does remove this issue. We determined that the raise roof (eliminates stooping) and additional handrails would limit this situation.

Sounds like your company did their homework and made an A. This has been very helpful and I appreciate it. The thought of an airpack flying by my head and going through the windshield is haunting.

[antiquefirelt 994]

4) Another problem that a couple of major depts. told us was a high number injuries from slips, trips, falls and twisted ankles when mounting and dismounting apparatus. They felt that the weight of the airpack, particularly when the member is stooped down as they start to dismount, can throw the member off balance and increase the chance of a fall. Removing the pack from the cab does remove this issue. We determined that the raise roof (eliminates stooping) and additional handrails would limit this situation.

I definitely can attest to the SCBA making the dismount far more challenging from a cramped Officers' seat. I much prefer donning the pack on arrival front the relative safety of the ground.

[pauloghia 5]

Now that I look back, I can laugh at this but on an engine I would run on, I would open the door, grab hold of a handrail and swing myself around and land on my feet. I felt like the firefighter George of the jungle. I'm still young, but I miss being that young now.