Emergency services - A fire truck able to withstand

Author

A fire truck able to withstand

Alan Erskine

2004-08-29, 7:11 pm

A fire truck able to withstand temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees
Celsius was today delivered to the South Australian government.

It was the first of 15 FireKing vehicles bought by the government,
with the remaining 14 to be delivered over the next 18 months.

"FireKing represents a total approach to firefighter survival in a
country prone to bushfires," manufacturer ADI's managing director
Lucio Di Bartolomeo said in a statement.

"It will not only save the lives of firefighters caught in the worst
of bushfires, but can be driven through such fires to safety if the
situation demands it."

SA Forests Minister Rory McEwen today took delivery of the truck in
Mount Gambier, in the state's south-east.

"These vehicles are designed to save the lives of firefighters,"
Mr McEwen said.

The FireKing, built in Bendigo, Victoria, is based on the Australian
Army's Bushmaster troop transport vehicle, also made by ADI.

dcbryan

2004-08-30, 7:12 pm

So how does the engine keep running when the oxygen is all gone from the
fire?

"Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@goggo.com.au> wrote in message
news:223b89ba.0408290807.106db1c@posting.google.com...
> A fire truck able to withstand temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees
> Celsius was today delivered to the South Australian government.
>
> It was the first of 15 FireKing vehicles bought by the government,
> with the remaining 14 to be delivered over the next 18 months.
>
> "FireKing represents a total approach to firefighter survival in a
> country prone to bushfires," manufacturer ADI's managing director
> Lucio Di Bartolomeo said in a statement.
>
> "It will not only save the lives of firefighters caught in the worst
> of bushfires, but can be driven through such fires to safety if the
> situation demands it."
>
> SA Forests Minister Rory McEwen today took delivery of the truck in
> Mount Gambier, in the state's south-east.
>
> "These vehicles are designed to save the lives of firefighters,"
> Mr McEwen said.
>
> The FireKing, built in Bendigo, Victoria, is based on the Australian
> Army's Bushmaster troop transport vehicle, also made by ADI.

firechief

2004-08-30, 10:11 pm

dcbryan wrote and asked:

> So how does the engine keep running when the oxygen
> is all gone from the fire?

Good question. And what type of tires that will withstand
1,000 degrees C/1832 degrees F are being uses? I find
it difficult to believe any army vehicle - especially a troop
transport - would be spec'd to that temperature.

A Blaze

2004-08-30, 10:11 pm

All info can be found at the following site.

http://www.abc.net.au/southeastsa/stories/s1152062.htm

"firechief" <firechief@jjfpd.gov> wrote in message
news:EbQYc.117287$Lj.68504@fed1read03...
> dcbryan wrote and asked:
>
>
> Good question. And what type of tires that will withstand
> 1,000 degrees C/1832 degrees F are being uses? I find
> it difficult to believe any army vehicle - especially a troop
> transport - would be spec'd to that temperature.
>
>

Brian Humphrey

2004-08-31, 2:11 am

"dcbryan" <dcjunkbryan@hotmail.com> wrote...

> So how does the engine keep running when the oxygen is all gone from the
> fire?

Lest I be mistaken... the vehicle in question, like similar models under
development and/or lightly deployed for testing Stateside, is *not* designed
to "operate" under such extreme temperatures. Rather, it designed to
(hopefully) shield the occupants to the point they (but not necessarily the
vehicle) are able to survive an extreme thermal encounter.

Brian

Aaron Hicks

2004-08-31, 7:15 pm

AU$600,000 for a fire truck works out to about $425,000 American
bucks. "Expected to last 20 years" is an amusing notion as well; the first
time I ever saw a Hum-V fire truck ($60,000), it was next to brand new and
the pump refused to prime. Any guesses how expensive the parts are going
to be for the "FireKing" rigs?

The Ozzies are going down the same road the United States has for
over a century- putting out the fires so they get BIGGER fires. The
concept of fire is unpalatable- as has been suggested by one expert, the
image of a singed koala on the TV merits the financial outlay and
expenditure of funds to try to put out every fire.

And, as we've discovered with painful clarity in the past few
years on the domestic front, the fires get bigger, more intense, and more
expensive to manage.

Fire is a natural thing, and the intensification of the "battle"
to military proportions (as Australia seems to be doing) is expensive and
intensive. Anyone taking bets on how long it'll be before they realize
it's the wrong path to take?

-AJHicks
Chandler, AZ

Alan Erskine

2004-08-31, 7:15 pm

"Aaron Hicks" <ahicks@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
news:733244054.653607@irys.nyx.net...

> The Ozzies are going down the same road the United States has for
> over a century- putting out the fires so they get BIGGER fires. The
> concept of fire is unpalatable- as has been suggested by one expert, the
> image of a singed koala on the TV merits the financial outlay and
> expenditure of funds to try to put out every fire.

2003: Australian Capital Territory (our version of DC) - fires started nine
days before entering Canberra - 500 homes destroyed, four people killed.
Estimated cost of fire runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. Fires
originally started by lightening and were initially only lightly attacked
until a weather change occurred.

2003 - Great East Victorian Fire - 1,000,000 hectares (2.5 million acres)
destroyed over a 77 day period - fires started by lightening and initially
only lightly attacked (defensive for most of the 11 weeks) until a weather
change occurred. One firefighter killed at end of campaign (drowned in
flash flood), several homes destroyed, great losses to the tourism industry.

1997 - Dandenong Ranges fire - 40+ homes and three lives lost - cost in the
millions. 110 fire appliances attended. Fires were suspected to be arson
and eventually joined.

1982 - Ash Wednesday - 2,000+ homes and 76 lives lost - cost today would be
about 1 billion dollars.

Every fire gets attacked; when it starts it's easier than waiting for
hours/days/weeks and will cost less in the long run. This is a lesson that
is learned _every_ time there is a major fire, but only in the post-mortem
analysis - Every fire is attacked at the start with maximum effort.

In Australia, we use prescribed burns extensively. I agree with you, fire
is a natural event, but people took fire out of the equation for over 100
years and we found that out to our disadvantage.

The financial cost (plus risk of lives lost) is enormous when a waiting game
is played.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge
Alanterskine1@bigpond.com

Aaron Hicks

2004-08-31, 10:12 pm

"Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com> spaketh thusly:

>Every fire gets attacked; when it starts it's easier than waiting for
>hours/days/weeks and will cost less in the long run. This is a lesson
>that is learned _every_ time there is a major fire, but only in the
>post-mortem analysis - Every fire is attacked at the start with maximum
>effort.
>
>In Australia, we use prescribed burns extensively. I agree with you,
>fire is a natural event, but people took fire out of the equation for
>over 100 years and we found that out to our disadvantage.
>
>The financial cost (plus risk of lives lost) is enormous when a waiting
>game is played.

I think we agree that there is a large problem, in both the United
States and Australia. Similarly, I'd agree that if there were a fire,
extinguishing it quickly is a good idea as an acute measure. Lastly, I'd
agree that the removal of fire has caused extensive problems that have no
clear end in sight. This is particularly problematic in those ecological
systems that are fire-friendly (eucalypt forests, and southern Californian
shrublands, for example).

What I am saying is that an entire industry has formed around the
"heroic" aspects of keeping forests from burning. It is a bit alarming to
see how "Elvis" (among other helitankers) and other extreme measures have
suddenly came on the scene in .au, and the fanfare that followed. After
all, fires are *expected* to be controlled, regardless of ramifications in
the future, in the public's eye.

Of course, the organic material and detritus don't disappear on
their own. If they do, it's because there is sufficient rainfall and
moisture to allow natural decay processes ameliorate the condition- a
situation that does not naturally sustain devastating fires, and normally
does not sustain fire at all except for drought or annual dry seasons.

Even a hundred years ago, it was generally recognized that
stopping all forest fires was a bad idea here in the United States. Into
the 1950's, the policy was that all fires were to be extinguished by ten
AM. If not out by ten AM that day, they were to be out by ten AM the next
day, and so on. This policy was to protect US forests and keep timber from
being destroyed. Fifty years later, the problem is an order of magnitude
worse, fires are more expensive than ever, and property losses haven't
dropped. All this despite huge investments on the local, state, and
federal levels to the contrary.

I mean- hey, more power to you. Keep the life and property losses
to a minimum. I'm all for that. I'm just saying that without some serious
intervention (by which I mean something additional to a strict
extinguishment policy), it's just going to escalate, and you'll end up
losing more lives and more property yet. Eventually, all the hellicopters
and tankers and manpower you throw at a problem will cease to do any good
at all. We're at that stage on some fires here in the United States; I
don't know specifically how bad it is in .au, but if your eucalyptus
forests are anything like those euc tangles that people have created in
California, I feel for you. I really do.

The e-mail address in the header doesn't work. Spam trap.

-AJHicks
Chandler, AZ

dcbryan

2004-09-01, 2:14 am

I was just going from the info from the OP where it stated:
> "It will not only save the lives of firefighters caught in the worst
> of bushfires, but can be driven through such fires to safety if the
> situation demands it."
Dave

"Brian Humphrey" <brian.humphrey@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:z%QYc.9258$Y94.2747@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> "dcbryan" <dcjunkbryan@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
>
> Lest I be mistaken... the vehicle in question, like similar models under
> development and/or lightly deployed for testing Stateside, is *not*
designed
> to "operate" under such extreme temperatures. Rather, it designed to
> (hopefully) shield the occupants to the point they (but not necessarily
the
> vehicle) are able to survive an extreme thermal encounter.
>
> Brian
>
>

dcbryan

2004-09-07, 7:09 am

firechief

2004-09-07, 7:09 am

Brian Humphrey

2004-09-07, 7:09 am