(UPDATE: we received a response from the California National Guard. Scroll down.)
I can’t believe we are still hauling wildland firefighters in the open backs of California National Guard cargo trucks. If the truck rolls, all of the firefighters will be ejected, and the truck may roll over on them.
I observed four California National Guard trucks like this one traveling down State Highway 3 in Yreka, California all loaded with firefighters in the back on August 13, 2014, between 6:40 and 6:45 p.m. PDT. They were heading toward the staging area at the fairgrounds.
Can this still be legal in 2014? The U.S. Forest Service did this in the 1970s, not knowing better, but in the 21st Century, this is Third World Country crap.
Military trucks do roll over. We found a GAO report about one of the predecessors of the truck seen in the photo, the M939 five ton truck, which had a much higher accident and fatality rate than other military vehicles, including the 2.5 ton truck. Between 1987 and 1998 there were 320 accidents in which the truck rolled over, killing 62 people.
In 1998 a newer version of the 2.5 ton truck was restricted to 30 mph because of its record of rolling over.
While it may save money to use cargo trucks to carry firefighters, that is not sufficient justification for putting them in the back of an open truck traveling on highways and narrow dirt roads that lead into forest fires.
****
We sent a Tweet to the California National Guard, asking about this, and received this reply:
@wildfiretoday Troop strap in place and tarps can catch fire. It is not allow near the fire line due to floating embers.
— CaliforniaGuard (@theCaGuard) August 14, 2014
Neither a strap or a tarp are going to provide much rollover protection.
I don’t even know what to say. Disappointed in this post and line of nanny thinking. While you’re nitpicking, you might look into gasoline powered vehicles being used on fires because diesel is safer. Electric vehicles may even be safer than diesel. Ah, the safest, getting back to the issue, would be walking. You solved it.
Bob
I, in no way want more “safety” items to contend with either.
Many an organization have hamstrung the transportation industry to a point that is too regulated for our common sense. I get your point.
I was being pretty sarcastic, but, when it comes to troop transport, whether or not military or LMA firefighters are riding, the fact is, when one orders up the resources, this is what they get when one orders up the US Army
To expect every resource, to come “safety equipped with every safety bell and whistle” in the name of one organization with “operational control” (and that term gets batted around freely) is going overboard.
I say if USFS wants safety items in these 2.5 and 5 ton…..pay the US Army to pay the contractors of these machines. Some folks will argue the low bid process, always been that way…….can’ t build ’em like crew buggies and fire trucks.
Maybe their ought to be a cost comparison between a crew buggy and the “newer” series truck just for S’s and G’s……..the GI gets no air conditioning and separate areas to stow gear, where as I would bet crew buggies get air and caged areas to stow equipment from flying around…….probably a ” safety item” right there that the GI does not get the pleasure of….
But as stated earlier these were probably Guard folks in place in their trucks……but never doubt there have been LMA firefighters toted around in FINE military equipment without very many creature comforts!!!!
Being an old guy that has owned a business and tried to operate under the ever increasing burden of rules and regulations,I say this.Look around at where jobs have gone. Safety definitely has its place but common sense needs to play apart.OSHA and other orgs have crippled the American industrial machine.Please don’t encourage them further.I have far less freedoms now than i did 20 years ago,all in the name of “Safety”
Well Bill
Here is a solution……..
SOFR at EVERY fire says no go on to US Army and Guard resources
THEN…… Go Greyhound …….leave the driving to them!!!!!
See more busted up bus frames than a few years ago pictures of WFF fire trucks and crew buggies that have met their match with drivers vs nature and sometimes common sense!
If riding in the back of open top trucks was generally considered to be safe, wouldn’t Greyhound and Trailways be doing it? Their expenses and fares could be MUCH lower than what they charge for their coaches now. How many passengers could fit into the back of a dump truck?
In the 1990 – 2013 period, vehicle accidents were the #2 cause of death on wildland fire operations, ahead of Medical events and burnovers.
Seems that on a large Incident, the SOFR and a good ICS-215A should address transportation as a well-known risk, and be able to mitigate the risk consistent with the Incident Objectives?
Maybe we need to realize that the ARNG has become one of those 911 resources of choice by both Fed and State Forestry offices and like jumping into any aircraft or helicopter…..
One learns how accept and hopefully mitigated those risks ahead of time.
Know your getting the Guard in a few hours? GREAT!!!!!
Now you know what they are coming with!!!!
Guard does not ask Hotshots for their buggies…….we sure could use ’em BITD……but we KNEW we were not going to EVER get anything that fancy.
So when the Guard rolls in……..either ride or walk……there are choices to be made…
There sure have been many rollovers of crew buggies and engines in the last few years to indicate that there are some training issues in both the fire world and the military
Jus sayin….
Hi Bill
The fire Emmett cites was the Anderson fire, Boise NF from August 1986. 4 firefighters from a Jemez Pueblo crew died in the rollover of an Idaho NG 2 1/2
Ton vehicle. Mitigations implemented in FS Region 4 following the accident included insertable seats with restraints, driver training, road recon by Transportation folks to verify road and bridge capacity. The off pavement bus business grew quickly after Anderson.
Pat Kelly
Seems like I remember a NG roll-over in Idaho during the 1980-1990 period that killed a firefighter or 2 in the back? Anyone else remember the event?
Some places it is a helluva long walk……
Why walk when you can ride
Why ride when you can fly……
We could be chirping about troop transport all day long in Deuces and 5 tons……
But the reality is……firefighter in KS, NE, and probably SD are doing stupid stuff like riding out in front of Type 6’s on some old modified tractor seat running hardline with some East Jababie concocted seatbelt system hoping not to find out what the underside of that Type 6 looks like……….
I would say that the two “safety systems” are about on par with each other and some soldiers would probably write about how cockamamie those old firefighting methods don’t appear to be much safer….
Troop straps or riding out front with a hardline……Hmmmmm
Isn’t the whole purpose of that 6 wheel drive, high ground clearance vehicle to go off road, up and down steep hillsides? It should be possible to change out the cargo bed for an enclosed crew hauler.
Looks safer than a deuce and a half… but agree… we can do better transporting firefighters.
Yeah, but a bus has a roof on it.
I’m not sure that this is statistically dangerous. Sort of like worrying how school busses don’t have seatbelts until you find that statistically there is no accident history to supports their need.
With the low CG I’m not sure it is even possible to roll one unless you side hill XC.
We added to the article a response from the California National Guard.
We have been having conversations like this for a while now. We decided that firefighters will no longer ride on the outside of an engine, ever. Not popular. When we do something because it is easier, more efficient or cheaper at the expense of safety we are looking for trouble, and often find it.
They could be hauling NG troops. But that is beside your question, should we still be doing this?. I agree with you, NO! The job is already inherently dangerous, no need to add to the possibility or serious injury.
A larger concern might be that with over-seas wars coming to a close, maybe the military is looking at an alternative use for the troops. On first glance this may seem like a good idea. However as a retired career FF with over 39 years in the biz, I don’t think the military should play a larger role than they have. This potentially is a huge issue, we should watch it closely.
But, Bill! Looks like a 2″ or 3″ nylon webbing “tailgate” to keep the FFs safely in the bed upon rapid acceleration…. only when sitting of course. Forget laws! Isn’t thoughtful safety planning sufficient?
But really, Bill? How many of us ’60s & ’70s guys, back then, ever heard of FFs being injured in a crew-haul vehicle accident? I always thought it was cool riding in the back of a 6X seated on a hard plank seat. Heck! If FFs are being led into the inferno by the ever-possible incompetent, why not settle for the ever-possibility of never making it to the lines.
I gest…. to a degree. But then again, who back then had a SPOT or GPS or cell phone with, no less, a digital camera let alone a computer or answering machine? Modern times!! Where is its reality leading us?
Ranting against burgeoning technology….. LR
Military personnel work and train this way all the time, should that be outlawed as well?
Yes.
The military is way different than firefighting: folks in the military are sometimes expected to die while on a mission; this is NEVER the case in wildland fire suppression. There have been volumes written about wildfires being “the moral equivalent of war” and they all discount that premise. Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines will continue to die in militray operations, but we in the wildfire world don’t have to follow their lead blindly in “the moral equivalent of war.”