SAFE 

OPERATION 

OF FIRE 

TANKERS 
U.S. Fire Administration 

Mission Statement 

As an entity of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, the mission of the 

United States Fire Administration is to reduce 

life and economic losses due to fire and related 

emergencies, through leadership, advocacy, 

coordination, and support. We serve the 

National Independently, in coordination with 

other Federal agencies, and in partnership with 

fire protection and emergency service 

communities. With a commitment to 

excellence, we provide public education, 

training, technology, and data initiatives. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1


1 Causes of Fire Department Tanker Crashes ............................................................. 5


HUMAN FACTORS ..................................................................................................... 6


Insufficient Training ................................................................................................ 6


Insufficient Driver Experience ................................................................................. 7


Overconfidence in Driving Ability ........................................................................... 7


Excessive Speed ..................................................................................................... 8


Inability to Recognize Danger Signs ....................................................................... 8


Failure to Have or Follow Departmental SOP'S ....................................................... 9


Disobeying Applicable Traffic Laws and Posted Regulations .................................... 9


Failure to Yield Right-of-Way by Civilian Drivers.................................................... 11


APPARATUS DESIGN FACTORS ................................................................................. 11


Weight of Apparatus ............................................................................................ 12


Age of Apparatus ................................................................................................. 12


High Center of Gravity ......................................................................................... 13


Design of New Fire Apparatus .............................................................................. 14


Improper Modification of Apparatus .................................................................... 16


Retrofitting of Non-Fire Service Apparatus ............................................................ 17


Liquid Surge ........................................................................................................ 19


Poor Apparatus Maintenance ............................................................................... 19


DRIVING SURFACE FACTORS .................................................................................... 19


Poor Road Design ................................................................................................ 20


Severe Grades ...................................................................................................... 21


Sharp Curves ....................................................................................................... 22


Unimproved Road Surfaces .................................................................................. 22


Adverse Weather Conditions ................................................................................ 24


Lack of/Soft Road Shoulders ................................................................................. 24


Limited Weight Capacity Bridges.......................................................................... 25


EMERGENCY SCENE FACTORS ................................................................................. 25


Emergency Scene Congestion .............................................................................. 25


Oncoming Traffic at the Emergency Scene ........................................................... 27


Maneuvering at Water Shuttle Fill/Dump Sites ..................................................... 27


SEATBELT USE .......................................................................................................... 29


CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 31


2	 Fire Department Tanker Crash Statistics ............................................................... 33


TANKER CRASH FREQUENCY .................................................................................... 33


WHO IS INVOLVED IN TANKER CRASHES?................................................................ 34


TIME OF DAY ........................................................................................................... 36


CAUSAL FACTORS FOR TANKER CRASHES ................................................................ 36


CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 38


3	 Fire Department Tanker Crash Case Histories ....................................................... 39


TRAVELING AT AN EXCESSIVE SPEED ....................................................................... 39


RIGHT WHEELS LEAVE ROAD SURFACE/OVERCORRECTION...................................... 40


iii 
POOR APPARATUS DESIGN ...................................................................................... 41


FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT-OF-WAY ............................................................................ 41


MECHANICAL FAILURE -- TIRE BLOWOUT ................................................................ 42


MECHANICAL FAILURE -- BRAKE SYSTEM FAILURE .................................................... 43


POOR ROAD CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 43


FAILURE TO FOLLOW POSTED SPEED SUGGESTIONS ON A CURVE ......................... 44


CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 44


4 Preventing Fire Department Tanker Crashes ......................................................... 45


DRIVER TRAINING PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 45


Applicable NFPA Standards .................................................................................. 45


NFPA 1002 ...................................................................................................... 46


NFPA 1451 ...................................................................................................... 46


Components of the Driver Training Program ........................................................ 47


Training Frequency .......................................................................................... 47


Instructor Qualifications ................................................................................... 48


Classroom (Theoretical) Instruction .................................................................. 48


Applicable Laws and Liabilities ..................................................................... 49


Departmental Policies and SOP'S ................................................................. 49


Vehicle Dynamics......................................................................................... 49


Emergency and Nonemergency Driving Procedures .................................... 51


Crash and Injury Prevention Measures ......................................................... 51


Apparatus Care Procedures .......................................................................... 52


Practical Driving Training and Evaluation ......................................................... 52


Training Safety ............................................................................................. 53


Driving Course Exercises .............................................................................. 53


Over-the-Road Training ............................................................................... 56


APPARATUS MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS.................................................................. 58


Preventive Maintenance ....................................................................................... 58


Repairs ................................................................................................................. 60


APPARATUS DESIGN ................................................................................................. 61


New Apparatus .................................................................................................... 61


NFPA 1901 ...................................................................................................... 62


Braking Systems ............................................................................................... 63


Chassis and Vehicle Weight Considerations ...................................................... 65


Water Tank Design and Mounting.................................................................... 67


Used/Retrofit Apparatus ....................................................................................... 68


Chassis and Vehicle Weight Considerations ...................................................... 69


Braking System Considerations ........................................................................ 70


Water Tank Design and Mounting Considerations ............................................ 71


Apparatus Visibility Issues ..................................................................................... 73


Apparatus Color ............................................................................................... 73


Warning Lights ................................................................................................ 74


Reflective Markings .......................................................................................... 76


SAFE APPARATUS DRIVING PRACTICES ..................................................................... 77


Driving at an Appropriate Speed .......................................................................... 77


Safe Stopping Distances ....................................................................................... 78


iv 
Unimproved Road Surfaces .................................................................................. 80


Avoiding Skids ..................................................................................................... 81


Negotiating Curves .............................................................................................. 82


Traversing Grades ................................................................................................ 82


Tankers Equipped with Manual Transmissions .................................................. 83


Tankers Equipped with Automatic Transmissions .............................................. 83


Adverse Weather Conditions ................................................................................ 83


Regaining Control When Right-Side Wheels Leave the Roadway .......................... 84


Right-of-Way Issues .............................................................................................. 85


Intersections ........................................................................................................ 86


Rotaries/Roundabouts .......................................................................................... 88


Railroad Crossings ................................................................................................ 89


Congested Areas .................................................................................................. 89


High-Risk Areas .................................................................................................... 90


Backing the Apparatus ......................................................................................... 91


Staffing ................................................................................................................ 92


ONSCENE OPERATIONS ........................................................................................... 93


Safely Positioning the Tanker(s) ............................................................................ 93


Surface Streets and Roads ................................................................................ 93


Limited-Access Highways ................................................................................. 95


Water Shuttle Operations ..................................................................................... 97


Dump Site Considerations ............................................................................... 98


Fill Site Considerations ..................................................................................... 99


Selecting the Route of Travel ............................................................................ 99


CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 100


5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 101


Appendices 

A Case Histories of Tanker Crashes Involving Fatalities -- 1990 to 2001 ................ 105


B Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................. 133


C References/Bibliography ...................................................................................... 137


D Sample Apparatus Maintenance and Inspection Forms ...................................... 139


E Additional Information on Fire Apparatus Antilock


and Auxiliary Braking Systems and Operation .................................................. 145


v 

INTRODUCTION


One needs to look no further than the name of our profession, the fire service, 

in order to gain a keen insight into some of its most basic tenets. First is the 

notion that the primary mission of our profession always has been to protect 

the public against the ravages of fire. Obviously, in recent years that role has 

been expanded to include the delivery of a multitude of other emergency services, including emergency medical services, nonfire rescue services, hazardous materials incident mitigation, and others. Even though today’s fire departments respond to more of these nonfire events than they do fires, the word 

fire still remains our “middle name” in most cases (for example, the Anytown 

Fire Department). 

Just as important as the word fire is the word service when examining our 

mission. Our most basic mission is to deliver a vital service to our customers or 

constituents. When they have a fire, become ill, or are entrapped, we respond 

to mitigate the situation as much as possible. The key principle here is that we 

must respond to the constituent’s location. Rarely do they bring the problem to 

us. 

Because we understand the urgency of their need, it is our goal to respond to 

their location as expeditiously as possible. To that end, emergency responders 

are given many liberties that are not afforded other members of the driving 

public. Emergency vehicles are equipped with warning devices that signal other 

drivers to clear the way. Emergency vehicles are given the option of continuing 

through intersections when other vehicles must heed a signal to stop. In some 

cases, emergency vehicles are even allowed to travel against the normal flow 

of traffic or at speeds above the posted limits. 

Each of these liberties, along with a myriad other factors that will be detailed later in this report, increases the amount of risk imposed upon firefighters 

and the apparatus in which they ride. In fact, apparatus crashes that occur 

when responding to or returning from emergency incidents are historically the 

second leading cause of firefighter deaths in the United States. Each year approximately 25 percent of all firefighters deaths are attributed to apparatus 

crashes. 

When reviewing the statistics regarding fire apparatus crashes, it becomes 

very apparent that a disproportionately high number of these crashes involve 

fire department tanker apparatus. The reasons for the disproportionate number of crashes involving fire department tankers will be detailed in the main 

body of this report. 

For the purpose of this report, the term tanker is used to describe ground 

vehicles that are used to supply firefighting water to rural and suburban locations not equipped with a fixed water supply system. In jurisdictions that use 

the Incident Command System, these types of vehicles are referred to as tenders or water tenders. The generic term applied to these vehicles by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is “mobile water supply 

apparatus.” 

To meet the definition of a mobile water supply apparatus according to the 

NFPA Standard 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, a vehicle must 

1
carry a minimum of 1,000 gallons of water. The most common water capacities of tankers in the United States range from 1,500 to 3,000 gallons. However, 

capacities of up to 5,000 gallons on a straight chassis and 10,000 

gallons on a tractor-trailer apparatus are not unheard of. 

The alarming rate at which fire department tankers are involved in serious 

crashes led the United States Fire Administration (USFA) to commission this 

report. Since its inception, the USFA has been committed to enhancing the 

health and safety of emergency response personnel. Fire service personnel across 

the United States rely on the USFA for current information and state-of-the-art 

guidance on critical fire service operational issues. The purposes of this report 

include: 

•	 documenting all fatal crashes involving fire department tankers since 

1990; 

• analyzing the causes and common factors associated with these crashes; 

•	 highlighting pertinent case histories that show examples of the 

problem; 

• providing information on reducing the frequency of these crashes and 

minimizing their severity/impact when unavoidable crashes occur; and 

• providing example procedures and checklists to assist departments in 

reducing the likelihood of tanker crashes. 

The USFA enlisted the help of several groups of fire service professionals in 

order to develop this report. The effort was led and coordinated by IOCAD 

Emergency Services Group. Providing invaluable assistance to this effort was 

the staff of Volunteer Fireman’s Insurance Services (VFIS). VFIS has long been a 

leader in the area of safe fire apparatus operation and training. The group of 

subject-matter-experts and other Federal agencies listed below also provided 

information, feedback, and encouragement that led to this final product: 

Gene P. Carlson, Volunteer Fireman’s Insurance Services (VFIS) 

Jeffrey M. Dickey, National Association of Emergency Vehicle Technicians 

Stephen N. Foley, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

Paul S. Lukas, National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) 

Glenn McCallister, Semo Tanks, Rep. Fire Apparatus Manufacturer’s 

Association (FAMA) 

Robert Murgallis, FEMA/United States Fire Administration (USFA) 

Eric D. Nagle, IOCAD Emergency Services 

Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Department (Principal Project Researcher) 

Bill Troup, FEMA/United States Fire Administration (USFA) 

Michael A. Wieder, Oklahoma State University, Fire Protection 

Publications (IFSTA) (Principal Project Writer) 

Michael Wilbur, Emergency Vehicle Response/Firehouse Magazine 

Fred C. Windisch, IAFC, Volunteer & Combination Chief Officers Section 

Michael L. Young, Volunteer Firemen’s Insurance Services (VFIS) 

2 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
The USFA would also like to acknowledge and thank the following agencies 

and individuals who assisted by providing photographs, illustrations, and 

information used to complete this report: 

Edmond, Oklahoma, Fire Department 

IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications, Oklahoma State University 

Ron Jeffers, Union City, New Jersey 

Ron Bogardus, Albany, New York 

Volunteer Firemen’s Insurance Services (VFIS), York, Pennsylvania 

Bob Barraclough, Plano, Texas 

Joel Woods, Maryland Fire & Rescue Institute (MFRI) 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

National Fallen Firefighters Foundation 

Firehouse Magazine 

It is hoped that fire department leaders and training officials will use the 

information contained in this document to reduce the risk of their fire 

department tankers becoming involved in some type of a crash. Some of the 

information in this document pertains to apparatus design issues. Other 

information pertains to driver training and standard operating procedural 

issues. All of the information, when analyzed and implemented appropriately, 

can lessen the frequency and severity of crashes involving fire department 

tankers. 

INTRODUCTION 3

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT 

TANKER CRASHES 

In order to implement a program to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes 

involving fire department tankers, it is necessary to review and understand 

the factors that have influenced such incidents in the past. When reviewing 

the various reports and case histories of tanker crashes that have occurred in 

the past 10 years or so, numerous common factors or trends begin to emerge. 

With this information in hand, fire department officers and training personnel are able to effectively develop standard operating procedures, policies, and 

training programs that address this issue. 

The purpose of this chapter, as well as the chapter that follows, is to highlight the factors that research has proved play a significant role in tanker 

crashes. The remainder of this document will then be focused on strategies for 

reducing and minimizing these incidents in the future. 

In their manual titled, Pumping Apparatus Driver/Operator Handbook, the International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA) suggests that the causes 

of all fire apparatus crashes can be grouped into one of five categories: 

1.	 Improper backing of the apparatus -- Backing crashes are among the most 

frequent of all types of fire apparatus crashes. While they are seldom 

serious in terms of injury or death, they do account for a significant 

portion of overall damage costs (Figure 1-1). 

2.	 Reckless driving by the public -- This category includes a variety of reckless 

actions, including failure to obey traffic signals, excessive speed, failure 

to yield to emergency vehicles, and other common civilian driving behaviors. 

3.	 Excessive speed by the fire apparatus driver -- Excessive speed may result in 

the driver losing control of the ve1


hicle or being unable to stop the 

vehicle before hitting another vehicle or object. 

4.	 Lack of driving skill and experience by 

the fire apparatus driver -- This may 

be due to insufficient training of the 

driver or unfamiliarity with the exact vehicle being driven. 

5.	 Poor apparatus design or maintenance --

While this can be the case with 

custom-built fire apparatus, it is a 

more significant problem in departments that use retrofitted or 

home-built apparatus. 

Figure 1-1 Backing crashes are among the most common types of fire apparatus 

crashes. Courtesy of Ron Jeffers 

5
These five categories account for the vast majority of all crashes involving 

fire department tankers. In reality, there are a number of subfactors within 

each of these categories that are worthy of exploration. In this chapter, we will 

explore each of these subfactors in depth. This report loosely categorizes these 

causal factors into five broad classifications: 

1. Human Factors 

2. Apparatus Design Factors 

3. Driving Surface Factors 

4. Emergency Scene Factors 

5. Other Factors 

HUMAN FACTORS 

A significant portion, if not the majority, of causes of fire department tanker 

crashes can be traced to at least one human factor. Depending on the situation this error in judgment may be attributed to the driver of the tanker, the 

driver of another fire department vehicle, or a civilian motorist. Of all the 

factors that we will review in this document, human factors are the most difficult to correct and control. Apparatus and roads can be designed and 

maintained properly, and emergency scenes can be managed in an orderly 

fashion. However, it is much harder to control the actions of humans on a 

consistent basis. This section looks at the more common human factors associated with fire department tanker crashes. 

Insufficient Training 

Perhaps the most unfortunate human factor associated with fire department 

tanker crashes is a driver who has not been appropriately trained to drive that 

type of apparatus. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1500, 

Standard on Fire Department Occupational Health and Safety Program (2002 

edition), clearly states in requirement 5.1.2 that “The fire department shall 

provide training and education for all fire department members commensurate with 

the duties and functions that they are expected to perform. Members shall be 

provided with training and education appropriate for their duties and responsibilities 

before being permitted to engage in emergency operations.” Requirement 5.1.1 of 

that same standard requires the fire department to provide training that 

assures their members will carry out their assigned duties in a 

safe manner. Finally, requirement 5.2.2 of the standard requires 

all fire apparatus drivers to meet the applicable chapters of NFPA 

1002, Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional 

Qualifications, for the type of apparatus they are expected to 

drive. 

All drivers must complete a thorough training program 

before being allowed to drive a fire department tanker under 

nonemergency or emergency conditions. The training needed 

prior to driving the apparatus on a public roadway includes a 

combination of classroom and practical instruction. The student driver should demonstrate the ability to operate the tanker 

Figure 1-2 Initial practical training should be safely on a controlled driving course before being allowed to
 conducted on a closed course, not a public

roadway. begin test drives on unrestricted public roadways (Figure 1-2).


6 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
They also should demonstrate knowledge of the use of all of the various controls and equipment that are a part of the apparatus. Only after successfully 

completing all of this training should the driver be permitted to drive the tanker 

outside of training. 

Departments also must resist the temptation to allow drivers who have 

been trained on other types of apparatus to automatically be allowed to drive 

tankers. The other types of apparatus (pumpers, rescue vehicles, brush apparatus, etc.) that the driver may have been trained on are considerably smaller 

and lighter than a fire department tanker. Those other apparatus may not be 

prone to the extreme operational considerations posed by tankers, including 

dramatic load/weight shifts, high centers of gravity, and increased stopping 

distances as a result of their heavy weight. They may also be unaware of simple 

tanker characteristics such as the fact that the apparatus is lighter and will 

travel faster when the water tank is empty, which makes the vehicle more 

likely to skid under certain conditions. If a previously trained driver is going to 

be expected to drive a fire department tanker, the driver must receive additional training on the tanker before being allowed to operate that vehicle. 

Detailed information on designing appropriate training programs for drivers of fire department tankers can be found in Chapter 4 of this document. 

Insufficient Driver Experience 

Many tanker crash investigations note that the driver involved in the crash 

had a limited amount of experience driving that vehicle. In reality, there is no 

way of avoiding putting new drivers behind the wheel of a tanker at some 

point in time. Everyone must have a starting point in his or her career. Hopefully, ensuring that drivers complete a thorough training program prior to 

being allowed to operate the vehicle under response conditions can minimize 

the dangers associated with limited experience. The training program should 

emphasize the fact that even though the drivers may complete the program 

and be certified to drive under emergency response conditions, they need to be 

extra cautious until they have a reasonable amount of experience to back up 

their training. 

Overconfidence in Driving Ability 

The goal of any training program is to motivate students to feel confident in 

their abilities once they are turned loose into the real world. However, the 

training program should be geared toward tempering the students’ natural 

tendency to feel overconfident in their abilities when they are placed in reallife conditions. The driver’s inflated sense of his or her own abilities can be 

especially problematic during the adrenaline rush of an emergency response. 

This may lead them to drive too fast or attempt maneuvers that they are not 

yet capable of safely completing, leading to a crash. 

Another factor that can lead to overconfidence is the driver’s perception 

that, because he or she has a clean, crash-free driving record to this point in 

his or her life, he or she will automatically be a good driver of the fire apparatus. Training of new drivers must reinforce the significant difference between 

driving a passenger vehicle versus driving a 15- to 30-ton fire department tanker. 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 7
Excessive Speed 

In reviewing the records and reports on fire department tanker crashes that 

have occurred over the years, a large percentage of these reports list excessive 

speed of the apparatus as one of the primary contributing factors to the cause 

of the crash. There exists an old adage that “speed kills.” This certainly seems 

to be the case when applied to fire apparatus crashes, in particular those involving tankers. The problems associated with excessive speed manifest 

themselves in a number of ways: 

1. The vehicle is unable to negotiate a curve in the road. 

2. The vehicle is unable to stop before hitting another vehicle or object. 

3.	 The vehicle is unable to stop before entering an intersection or railroad 

crossing. 

4.	 A weight shift occurs when the vehicle is slowed, causing it to skid or 

overturn. 

5.	 Control of the vehicle is lost after hitting a pothole, speed bump, or similar defect in the driving surface. 

6.	 Control of the vehicle is lost as a result of swaying outside the lane of 

travel and striking a median or curb, or the tires on one side of the vehicle (usually the right side) leave the road surface. 

7. Tire traction is lost on wet, icy, snowy, or unpaved road surfaces. 

Fire departments must develop and enforce policies that establish maximum speed criteria for all types of apparatus, including tankers. Drivers must 

be familiar with these policies and also understand that they are maximums. 

The policy should contain a provision that allows a riding company officer or 

superior to demand that the driver slow down, but never give them the right to 

force the driver to go faster than the driver’s comfort level allows. Detailed 

information on driving at appropriate speeds is covered in Chapter 4 of this 

manual. 

Inability to Recognize Danger Signs 

A lack of training and/or experience on the part of the driver may result in an 

inability to recognize obvious signs of possible or impending danger in sufficient time to avoid the hazard. Training programs should 

emphasize looking ahead while driving and anticipating 

hazardous situations so that they may be avoided. This 

includes situations such as traversing busy intersections, 

anticipating ice on elevated road surfaces during borderline 

freezing conditions, and approaching curves that will require 

slowing the apparatus to negotiate them safely (Figure 1-3). 

As reported in the IFSTA Pumping Apparatus Driver/Operator 

Handbook, a study conducted by the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) determined that in 42 percent of all crashes 

involving commercial truck drivers, the driver was not aware 

Figure 1-3 Drivers must be able to anticipate the of a problem until it was too late to correct it. This finding 

hazards posed by a severe curve long before the would most likely be mirrored if a similar study had been apparatus enters the curve. 

8 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
undertaken involving fire apparatus drivers. The principles of fire prevention 

and crash prevention are the same: it is much more effective to recognize and 

correct the hazards before they occur than it is to deal with them after it is too 

late. 

Failure to Have or Follow Departmental SOP's 

This category actually describes two different scenarios. The first covers those 

departments that have failed to formalize and implement standard operating 

procedures (SOP's) pertinent to the operation of fire department vehicles. This 

is most common in small, volunteer fire departments. However, crash investigations involving larger fire departments also have uncovered this reality. In 

these cases, any direction that had been provided to apparatus drivers was in 

the form of on-the-job training or word of mouth. Lacking any formal training 

or policies to follow, the tanker driver operates the vehicle in an unsafe manner and becomes involved in a crash. 

The second scenario involves appropriately trained fire apparatus drivers 

failing to follow established departmental policies and SOP's. These SOP's must 

be enforced on a regular, consistent basis in order for them to be effective. 

Failure to follow SOP's should result in repercussions for the driver, whether or not they 

result in a crash. 

One of the most common types of crashes 

that can be traced to failure to follow SOP's are 

those that involve backing the apparatus. In 

fact, backing crashes are among the most common of all types of fire apparatus crashes. 

While they rarely result in injury or death 

(though they have from time to time), they account for a significantly high portion of fire 

department insurance claims and damage repair costs. Most departments have established Figure 1-4 At least one and preferably two guides should be used anytime 

policies for apparatus backing maneuvers, in- the apparatus needs to be backed up. 

cluding using safety guides equipped with 

portable radios (Figure 1-4). However, in the haste to move a vehicle on the 

emergency scene or in the security of simply backing the apparatus into the 

fire station, oftentimes the driver will attempt the maneuver without getting 

appropriate help. The end result is often backing the apparatus into another 

vehicle, a stationary object, or even a person. In virtually every case, the crash 

would have been avoided if the SOP's had simply been followed. 

Disobeying Applicable Traffic Laws and Posted Regulations 

Because of the perceived urgency during an emergency response, tanker drivers sometimes disobey traffic laws, including posted regulations. These include 

actions and consequences such as: 

•	 Exceeding the speed limit -- This may result in losing control of the vehicle 

or the inability to stop before hitting another vehicle or object 

(Figure 1-5). 

Figure 1-5 Fire apparatus 

drivers should always follow 

the posted speed limit or 

departmental policies on 

appropriate speed. 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 9
•	 Continuing through intersections against a red light or other stop signal -- Failure to ensure that all lanes of traffic have yielded to the emergency vehicle 

may result in another vehicle entering the intersection at the same time 

and colliding with the fire apparatus. 

•	 Crossing the centerline of the road -- This may be done when passing slowed 

or stopped vehicles. It is also commonly performed at intersections where 

stopped vehicles are blocking all lanes in the apparatus’ direction of travel. 

Failure to ensure a clear path before crossing the centerline may result in 

a head-on crash with an approaching vehicle. 

•	 Passing vehicles in a no passing zone -- No passing zones often are so designated because there is a limited sight distance for vehicles approaching 

in the opposite direction. Failure to respect this situation may result in the 

apparatus colliding head-on with an approaching vehicle. It also may 

force the vehicle being passed off the roadway. 

• Passing vehicles on their right side -

- Reports show that on occasion 

fire apparatus drivers attempt to 

pass stopped or slowed vehicles on 

that vehicle’s right side. This is 

dangerous because all civilian 

drivers are told to move over to 

the right when they recognize that 

an emergency vehicle is 

approaching. In some cases the 

civilian driver will panic at first 

and come to a dead stop wherever 

he or she is. Then the driver will


suddenly remember the old rule Figure 1-6 Fire apparatus should never pass another

and move to the right. If the vehicle on its right side. 

apparatus is in the process of passing that vehicle on its right side, a 

crash may occur (Figure 1-6). See section on right-of-way issues for 

additional information. 

•	 Going the wrong way on a one-way street -- In order to avoid going around 

the block, the apparatus may be driven the wrong way up a one-way 

street. If total control of the street cannot be ensured, a head-on crash 

with a legally operated vehicle may occur. 

•	 Driving in the wrong direction on a limited-access highway -- In some cases it 

may be necessary to access a crash or fire scene on a limited-access highway by traveling in the wrong lanes of that roadway. This should only be 

done if law enforcement personnel can ensure that those lanes have been 

closed to oncoming traffic. Otherwise a head-on crash may occur. 

•	Traversing an activated railroad crossing -- Apparatus crashes have occurred 

in situations where the driver of the fire apparatus failed to yield to an 

activated railroad crossing. In other cases, the apparatus driver will fail to 

come to a complete stop and check in both directions before traversing a 

railroad crossing that is not equipped with lights or crossing arms. The 

end result is a train versus fire apparatus crash in which the train will be 

the victor on every occasion. 

10 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Driver training programs must reinforce the need to follow posted traffic 

regulations as much as possible. Information on exceptions granted to emergency vehicles by State motor vehicle codes and the circumstances in which 

these exceptions may be exercised also should be covered. 

Failure to Yield Right-of-Way by Civilian Drivers 

Not all of the human factors that result in tanker crashes are attributable to 

the driver of the tanker. In some cases, civilian drivers operate their vehicles in 

a reckless, irresponsible, or otherwise improper manner leading to a crash 

involving the fire apparatus. The fire apparatus may collide with the offending vehicle, or it will crash trying to avoid the offending vehicle. Some of the 

more common problems caused by civilian drivers include: 

1.	 Unpredictable behavior created by a panic reaction to an approaching 

emergency vehicle 

2. Failure to obey posted traffic regulations or directions 

3. Failure to stop for a red signal light or stop sign 

4. Failure to yield the right-of-way to emergency vehicles 

5. Excessive speed 

6.	 Inattentiveness or inability to hear approaching emergency vehicles because of vehicle air conditioning, loud music, etc. 

Fire apparatus drivers must always be cognizant of the fact that they have 

little control over the way members of the public react toward them. With this 

in mind, drivers must always drive defensively and never put themselves, or 

the public, in a situation where there is no alternative (other than crashing 

into each other). There is virtually no action by a civilian driver that cannot be 

compensated for in a manner that will avoid a crash if the fire apparatus is 

driven cautiously and defensively. 

Fire departments, in their public fire education programs, may wish to include information on proper driving techniques for civilians who are being 

approached by emergency vehicles. By better educating the public on how to 

react properly when encountering an emergency response, potential hazards 

to both the public and emergency responders can be noticeably reduced. 

APPARATUS DESIGN FACTORS 

The second group of factors that are commonly found to be at least partially 

involved in the cause of fire department tankers are apparatus design factors. 

The design of the apparatus may be the major factor leading to the incident. 

However, in reality, some human factor is generally involved as well. Even if 

the apparatus does have some design or mechanical design issues, cautious 

and appropriate operation by the driver can usually overcome these. 

Apparatus design factors that lead to a crash are most commonly associated with inadequacies associated with home-built or modified apparatus. This 

is not always the case, however. Even custom-built fire apparatus, conforming 

to Department of Transportation (DOT) and NFPA requirements, have characteristics that may contribute to a crash. This section will explore the most 

common apparatus design factors that can contribute to fire department tanker 

crashes. 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 11
Weight of Apparatus 

Quite commonly, fire department tankers are the heaviest apparatus to be 

operated by any particular fire department (Figure 1-7). Straight-chassis fire 

department tankers weighing in excess of 25 tons are common. Tractor-trailer 

tankers may weigh considerably more. Drivers who are 

driving these vehicles must take the heavy weight of these 

apparatus into account. 

The driver must remember that the tanker does not 

handle the same, or stop as fast, as the privately owned 

vehicle he or she drove to the fire station. Because of the 

huge weight difference, it takes a much greater distance 

for a fire apparatus to stop than does a smaller passenger 

vehicle. The brake systems used on fire apparatus may take 

Figure 1-7 Fire department tankers are very large, heavy a little longer to activate and stop a vehicle than do the 

vehicles. Courtesy of Joel Woods, Maryland Fire & Rescue brake systems on smaller passenger vehicles. Because of 

Institute these factors, drivers must be reminded that following distances and speed that they maintain in their private 

vehicles, or even smaller fire apparatus, will not be sufficient for safe operation of the tanker. In most cases, their following distances must be increased 

and the speed decreased in order to operate the vehicle safely. 

The heavy weight of the apparatus may also be a factor on marginal driving surfaces. Surfaces that safely carry the weight of smaller vehicles may give 

way under the extreme load imposed by a tanker. This is particularly true 

toward the edge of a road’s surface. If the tanker’s right wheels get too close to 

the edge of a weak road surface, that surface may crumble or otherwise fracture. This could immediately cause the apparatus to begin a rolling motion 

toward the right. In other cases, the driver might overcorrect in trying to get 

the wheels back on the driving surface. This often results in the apparatus 

shooting across the opposite lanes of traffic or beginning a rolling action in 

the opposite direction. More information of dealing with these situations is 

contained later in this document. 

Age of Apparatus 

Numerous investigations have attributed part of the cause of a crash to excessive age of the apparatus. Fire apparatus tend to deteriorate with age and the 

associated wear and tear that comes with it. If the apparatus deteriorates past 

the point of being safe, it may lead to a crash. 

Age of the apparatus alone generally is not the factor responsible for a crash. 

In most cases where age is cited as a crash factor, it is really a combination of 

age and improper maintenance that leads to the problem. Properly maintained apparatus may still be in a safe condition after many years of service. 

However, in many jurisdictions, there is a tendency not to pay as much attention to the care of older apparatus, especially if they are reserve apparatus or 

are not used on a frequent basis. Thus, when the apparatus is placed into 

service, a mechanical failure occurs and age is cited as the reason. In reality, it 

was the combination of age, poor maintenance, and metal fatigue that led to 

the failure. 

12 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
The age of the apparatus could be a crash factor even if the apparatus has 

been perfectly maintained and is in “normal” operating condition. Suppose 

the fire department operates a fleet of modern apparatus, equipped with all 

the latest features including power steering and antilock, air-operated brakes. 

The exception to this rule is the 30-year-old tanker that the department maintains for those rare instances when a fire occurs outside the hydranted area of 

its response district. The older tanker does not have power steering and is 

equipped with mechanical/hydraulic brakes. If the driver of the tanker does 

not recognize the different handling characteristics of the older tanker (harder 

to turn, increased stopping distance, etc.), a crash may be the result, even 

though the apparatus was functioning as designed. In this case, proper operation of the tanker was so different from that of the newer apparatus that the 

failure to recognize this difference could be cited as a crash factor. 

High Center of Gravity 

The further away from the ground that the vehicle’s center of gravity is, the 

less stable that vehicle will become (Figure 1-8). Vehicles that have a high 

center of gravity are often referred to as “top heavy.” Vehicles that are top 

heavy are more severely affected by quick turns and maneuvers than are vehicles with lower centers of gravity. In addition to tankers, there are several 

other types of fire department vehicles that have been known to have high 

centers of gravity and the problems that result from this condition. These vehicles include aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) vehicles, aerial apparatus, 

brush fire apparatus, command vehicles, ambulances, and even some fire department pumpers. 

Vehicles that have a high center of gravity are dangerous from 

several standpoints related to the 

driver’s ability to control the vehicle. Top-heavy vehicles have a 

tendency to want to tip over if 

they are driven through a curve 

at an unsafe speed. This tendency 

is a matter of simple physics involving inertia and momentum. 

As the vehicle negotiates the turn 

in one direction, momentum and 

inertia cause the weight of the vehicle to lean in the opposite 

direction to which the vehicle is 

turning (in reality toward the 

same direction the vehicle was 

traveling before the curve was 

started). If the speed of the vehicle 

is too great, this inertia may cause Figure 1-8 Some tankers, by design, have a high center of gravity. Courtesy of Ron Bogardus 

the vehicle to leave the road or


roll over toward the outside of the curve (Figure 1-9).


CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 13
Even if the vehicle does not roll over, this inertia going away from the direction the vehicle is being driven may result in the vehicle’s tires losing a solid 

grip with the road surface. This could result in a skid or slide that leads to a 

crash if the driver is unable to correct it. 

The problems associated with a high center of gravity are magnified when 

dealing with tankers because of the large amount of weight the vehicles carry. 

Again, simple physics dictates that the forces of a momentum arm are increased if the arm is lengthened or the weight at the end of the arm is increased. 

In the case of a fire apparatus, the momentum arm extends from the road 

surface to the apparatus’ center of gravity. While the length of the momentum 

arm associated with a tanker may be no longer than that of a pumper or 

aerial apparatus, certainly in most cases the weight at the center of gravity 

will be considerably greater for the tanker (Figure 1-10). If the center of gravity is too high, this greater weight will increase the tanker’s tendency to want 

to turn over when driven under the same conditions as the lighter vehicles. 

Design of New Fire Apparatus 

Issues related to apparatus design are not limited to home-built or retrofitted 

apparatus. In many cases, new apparatus have design elements that may 

make them susceptible to being involved 

in a crash from the time they are delivered from the factory. Most fire 

apparatus manufacturers do a fine job 

of adhering to DOT and NFPA requirements for apparatus design. However, 

one must keep in mind that those standards and regulations are considered to 

be minimum standards. Vehicles that 

meet these requirements may still have 

Momentum 

Arm 

Center of Gravity 

Figure 1-9 Inertia may cause the tanker to exit the roadway to the outside of the

Figure 1-10 The arm extends from the tanker’s 

momentum center of gravity down to the road surface. curve. 

14 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
some characteristics, such as a high center of gravity, that makes the vehicle 

more susceptible to being involved in a crash. In other cases, in order to suit 

the specifications of the fire department purchasing the vehicle, the manufacturer may end up building an apparatus that has some inherent design 

disadvantages. 

One of the most common design problems associated with new apparatus is 

a vehicle that is over its legal weight. In order to suit the purchaser’s desire to 

carry a specified amount of personnel, water, and equipment, the result may 

be a vehicle that has too much weight to be safely carried by the chassis, axles, 

and braking system of the apparatus. While it is not always an accurate indicator, these overweight vehicles are often visible to the naked eye. Apparatus 

that have an unusual amount of sagging on their rear ends are often overweight. Overweight vehicles are more susceptible to steering, braking, and 

other problems than vehicles of legal weight. 

One of the most common weight-related design problems associated with 

fire department tankers is trying to carry too much water on a specific chassis. 

Pumper-tankers and square-side tankers equipped with T-shaped water tanks 

on a single rear-axle chassis should carry no more than 1,500 gallons of water 

(Figure 1-11). Single rear axle chassis equipped with elliptical water tanks 

should be limited to about 2,000 gallons of water (Figure 1-12). Tankers with a tandem rear 

axle are generally limited to about 4,000 gallons of water (Figure 1-13). All of these figures 

will vary depending on the gross vehicle weight 

rating of the chassis, the type of fire pump (if 

any) carried on the apparatus, and the amount 

of hose and other equipment expected to be carried on the apparatus. 

Another common design disadvantage is a 

vehicle with an excessively high center of gravity. The hazards of a high center of gravity were 

discussed in the previous section. New appara- Figure 1-11 Tankers with T-shaped tanks and single rear axles should 

tus tend to have excessively high centers of be limited to 1,500 gallons of water. Courtesy of Ron Bogardus 

Figure 1-12 Tankers with elliptical tanks and single rear axles 

should be limited to 2,000 gallons of water. 

Figure 1-13 Straight chassis, tandem-axle tankers may carry as much as 

4,000 gallons of water. 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 15
gravity when the apparatus is built with a shorter wheelbase than that which 

would be normally used for the amount of water and equipment to be carried 

on the apparatus. Fire departments often specify restricted wheelbases because 

of space limitations in the fire station (Figure 1-14). In other cases, the shorter 

wheelbase is intended to assist vehicle maneuvering in congested response 

districts. 

To exemplify this problem, consider the following 

scenario. Suppose that a 

pumper-tanker that carries 

3,000 gallons of water normally ends up being 35 feet 

long. However, the purchasing fire department wishes 

to locate a new 3,000-gallon 

pumper-tanker in a fire 

station that limits the length 

of the vehicle to 30 feet. Figure 1-14 Tankers with shortened wheelbases tend to have 

Apparatus manufacturers higher centers of gravity. Courtesy of Ron Jeffers 

are able to find a way to put 

all the features the fire department wants on a vehicle that is 5 feet shorter. 

However, because expanding the vehicle’s width is not practical, the vehicle 

will have to be designed to be taller than the standard apparatus. A shorter, 

taller vehicle translates into a higher center of gravity. It can also result in a 

vehicle that does not meet Federal bridge gross weight requirements. These 

requirements are detailed in Chapter 4 of this document. 

Improper Modification of Apparatus 

In some circumstances, perfectly safe, well-designed fire apparatus are turned 

unsafe when the owner modifies the apparatus. Common examples of this 

scenario include 

•	 The fire department decides to add a considerable amount of heavy equipment to an existing apparatus. 

•	 The fire department increases the size and capacity of the vehicle’s existing water tank. 

•	 The fire department changes the function of an apparatus by significantly 

modifying the body of the apparatus. An example would be changing an 

aerial apparatus into a tanker by removing the aerial body and equipment and replacing it with a tanker body. 

These changes or added weight may push the vehicle over its designed or 

legal weight limit. The result is often a crash that occurs because of a mechanical failure or the inability of the vehicle’s braking system to stop the 

vehicle before a crash occurs. 

There is an old adage that states “you can pay me now, or pay me later.” 

Well-intentioned efforts to save money when retrofitting an apparatus may 

16 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
end up costing the department significantly more money when some type of 

accident or failure occurs. These additional costs sometimes end up equaling 

or exceeding the cost of having the work professionally done or a new apparatus being purchased. More unfortunately, in some cases the additional costs 

are in terms of human injury and death. 

Retrofitting of Non-Fire Service Apparatus 

Records show that a large percentage of serious crashes involving fire department tankers can be attributed to tankers that were crafted from non-fire service 

vehicles. In some cases, the “new” tanker is placed on a government surplus 

vehicle that is already in questionable mechanical condition. In other cases, a 

reliable vehicle chassis is obtained and then an excessive amount of weight is 

added to it. 

Fire departments with limited financial resources often craft tankers out of 

surplus government vehicles. Military 6x6 transport vehicles, forestry trucks, 

and aircraft servicing vehicles are the most common to be converted into fire 

department tankers (Figures 1-15 a & b). Fire department administrators should 

remember that generally the reason these vehicles are made available through 

surplus equipment programs is because the vehicles have exhausted their usefulness to the agency that was operating them. This is a nice way to say that 

the vehicles are worn out and their previous owners no longer wish to deal 

with their maintenance issues. Thus, fire departments that acquire these vehicles are often beginning with vehicles that are in a questionable mechanical 

and safety condition. If these mechanical issues are not dealt with as a part of 

the retrofitting process, the department may be 

placing a very dangerous vehicle into service. The 

danger of these flaws may be multiplied by placing a large water tank on the vehicle. The added 

weight to the vehicle may accelerate the failure of 

part of the apparatus. 

Another common practice is to develop a fire 

department tanker using a converted fuel oil or 

gasoline tanker (Figure 1-16). Even though these 

vehicles may be in excellent condition when the 

fire department acquires them, these chassis frequently are not designed for the weight of the water 

Figure 1-15b A military fuel tanker converted into a fire department 

tanker. 

Figure 1-15a A military 6x6 vehicle converted into a fire department 

tanker. 

Figure 1-16 Many fire departments have converted civilian fuel tankers 

to fire tankers. 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 17
that will be carried on them. One gallon of water weighs 8.33 pounds. One 

gallon of gasoline weighs 5.6 pounds, and one gallon of fuel oil weighs 7.12 

pounds. Thus, if the vehicle’s tank holds 2,000 gallons, water will weigh 5,460 

pounds more than gasoline and 2,420 pounds more than fuel oil. This added 

weight creates significant safety issues for the vehicle. 

Another problem with converting fuel tankers is that in many cases the 

liquid tanks are improperly baffled for fire department use. These vehicles are 

often designed to be driven completely full or completely empty. Thus, when 

the vehicle is being driven with a partially filled 

tank, liquid surges within the tank can result in the 

vehicle going out of control. 

Another weight-related issue commonly found on 

retrofit tankers is the addition of pumps, piping, 

and other associated equipment to the apparatus 

(Figure 1-17). This equipment may further complicate the overweight problems discussed above. 

The weight of equipment must be considered along 

with the weight of water when determining the safe 

carrying capacity of the equipment. 

Tankers that formerly hauled food products, such 

as milk, commonly do not have any baffles in the 

tank. This is because baffles make the tank exFigure 1-17 Pumps and piping can add a considerable amount of tremely difficult to properly clean and sanitize. Fire weight to the apparatus. 

departments considering converting these vehicles 

for emergency use must add baffles or baffle balls to the inside of the tank 

before placing them in service (Figures 1-18 a & b). 

Regardless of the commodity that the tanker previously was designed to 

haul, another significant impact of the wear and tear on the vehicle is that 

milk and fuel tankers generally only spend a fraction of every 24-hour period 

with a full tank. When parked and not in use they most commonly have empty 

tanks. Fire department tankers are loaded with water 24 hours a day, every 

day. This constant load on the chassis and suspension will increase the amount 

of wear on the apparatus once it is converted to a fire tanker. 

Figure 1-18a A baffle ball. Courtesy of Snow 

Equipment Sales 

Figure 1-18b Baffle balls are inserted into the tank through the tank vent. Courtesy of 

Snow Equipment Sales 

18 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Liquid Surge 

The problems associated with improperly baffled water tanks have been discussed in several of the sections above. Because they have shown to be a causal 

factor in a significant number of fire department tanker crashes, it is worthy of 

a more detailed analysis. 

NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, contains specific requirements for the proper baffling of water and foam concentrate tanks on fire 

department tankers. In short, baffles are strategically placed divider walls inside the water or foam concentrate tank. These dividers are intended to prevent 

the liquid in the tank from sloshing front-to-back or side-to-side when the vehicle is in motion. More details on proper baffling are contained in Chapter 4 

of this report. 

Liquid surge results from the movement of liquid in a partially full, unbaffled 

tank. There are two common times when liquid surge becomes a problem. The 

first is when the vehicle changes directions, such as when negotiating a curve 

in the road. If the vehicle enters the curve too fast, centrifugal force will cause 

the liquid in the tank to surge against the wall of the vehicle on the outside of 

the curve. In severe situations, this surge can be sufficient to push the vehicle 

off the roadway or cause it to roll over. If the vehicle is also overly top heavy, 

the chances of a rollover are even greater. 

Liquid surges can also be troublesome when the driver attempts to stop the 

vehicle rapidly. When the vehicle’s brakes are applied hastily, the liquid surges 

toward the front of the tank (Figure 1-19). This additional force surging forward can further increase the stopping distance of the vehicle. Once the vehicle 

comes to a stop, the liquid in the tank will continue to slosh back and forth in 

the tank. On slippery road surfaces, this could cause the vehicle to be pushed 

forward into an intersection or a railroad crossing. 

Poor Apparatus Maintenance 

Poor maintenance of apparatus can result in vehicle system failures that lead 

to crashes. This is particularly true of braking systems. Several of the fatal fire 

apparatus crashes covered in the case history section of this report had their 

causes traced back to improperly maintained apparatus braking systems. The 

dangers associated with faulty brakes, or for that matter any improperly maintained vehicle system, are accentuated by the heavy weight of a tanker. Failures 

will usually occur faster and more dramatically the heavier a vehicle is. By 

following an effective apparatus maintenance program using certified mechanics, the likelihood of mechanical failure leading to crash can be reduced. 

Detailed information on establishing an effective apparatus maintenance program can be found in Chapter 4 of this report. 

DRIVING SURFACE FACTORS 

Up to this point we have focused on crash causes that may be controlled by the 

driver or the fire department. Unfortunately, not every factor that causes fire 

department tanker crashes is within the driver’s control. One such factor is the 

surface on which the vehicle is being driven. There is little the fire department 

can do to improve the condition of the roads in its response area. 

T57 

Liquid 

Surge 

Figure 1-19 Liquid surge can 

work to propel the vehicle 

forward. 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 19
There are a variety of driving surface factors that may increase the likelihood of a crash occurring. It must be noted, however, that virtually every adverse 

road surface condition can be compensated for by a properly trained driver 

who drives the vehicle appropriately for the given conditions. 

This section explores some of the more common adverse driving surface 

conditions that have historically been noted in fire department tanker crash 

investigations. Techniques for safely driving fire department tankers over these 

adverse conditions are covered in detail in Chapter 4 of this report. 

Poor Road Design 

In some cases, the actual driving surface may be in satisfactory condition, but 

the design of the road is such that it creates a hazard for vehicles driving on it. 

Some examples of situations like this are: 

•	 Roads with high center crowns -- Roads are often designed with a crown in 

the middle to facilitate water runoff during rainy weather. However, 

sometimes the center crown of the road is so elevated that vehicles driving 

on it have a considerable amount of lean toward the outside of the road 

(Figure 1-20). This makes it more difficult to handle any vehicle driven 

on that surface. It is particularly hazardous for tankers with improper 

baffling or high centers of gravity. The outward lean of the driving surface 

will increase the vehicle’s tendency to want to tip over. 

Momentum 

Figure 1-20 An excessive crown on the road may tend to cause the tanker to lean towards the shoulder. 

•	 Curves that are banked toward the outside of the turn -- Again, in order to 

facilitate adequate drainage of the road surface, curves in the roadway 

are often banked. As long as the road is banked toward the inside of the 

curve, like turns on a racetrack, this does not create any significant hazard. In fact, inward-facing curves increase the safety of a vehicle moving 

on the curve as they help to counteract the tendency of centrifugal force 

to push the vehicle toward the outside. On the other hand, if the roadway 

is banked toward the outside of the turn, the vehicle is more likely to 

become unstable and overturn because of the combined force of the outward lean and centrifugal force. 

20 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
•	 Curves that are not banked at all -- Flat curves are nearly as problematic as 

curves that are banked toward the outside of the turn. Flat curves will not 

assist the apparatus in overcoming centrifugal forces or in the tires maintaining contact with the road surface. Flat curves require the apparatus 

operator to slow the apparatus to avoid sliding off the road surface. 

• Roads that are unable to support the weight of heavy fire apparatus -- Some 

roadways are not designed to support the weight of heavy vehicles. These 

types of roads may be found in private residential developments, commercial or 

industrial properties, or rural areas. The road 

surface may be a thin layer of asphalt laid 

directly over light grade gravel (Figure 1-21). 

While these surfaces are more than adequate 

for supporting passenger vehicles and light 

duty trucks, frequently they are inadequate 

for heavy trucks such as fire apparatus. When 

the apparatus drives onto one of these surfaces, the potential for breaking the surface 

and bogging down occurs. If only one side of 

the apparatus punches through the surface, 

a rollover situation could occur. Be particularly alert for these types of surfaces during 

periods of hot weather. The hot weather weak- Figure 1-21 Some road surfaces do not stand up to the weight of

ens asphalt and may be the factor that allows heavy fire apparatus.

a marginal driving surface to fail.


Fire departments should assess their response districts to determine roads 

that pose potential hazards. These thoroughfares should be noted in preincident 

planning and fire department response route policies. When possible, roads of 

questionable design should be avoided. If it is not possible to avoid the routes, 

drivers should be cognizant of the hazards they pose and operate the vehicle 

accordingly. 

Severe Grades 

Roads that contain severe grades, whether they be uphill or downhill grades, 

pose challenges for drivers of fire department tankers. Of the two, severe downhill grades pose the greatest amount of danger. The influence of gravity on the 

vehicle creates the tendency for the vehicle to accelerate as it travels down 

grade. Unless the driver exercises appropriate safety measures (shifting to a 

lower gear, applying the brakes periodically, etc.), the vehicle may reach speeds 

that render it uncontrollable. This can result in a number of consequences, 

such as being unable to negotiate a curve at the bottom of the hill or striking 

a vehicle or other object because of the inability to stop the vehicle. 

Uphill grades also challenge the driver, particularly when driving apparatus equipped with a manual transmission. As the apparatus climbs the grade, 

the drivetrain labors increasingly to keep the vehicle moving. In most cases it 

will be necessary to shift the vehicle into a lower gear in order to continue 

forward progress. Should the driver miss or slip a gear during the shifting proCAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 21
cess, he or she may be unable to get the apparatus back into gear. Eventually, 

the vehicle’s forward progress will stop and the vehicle could begin to roll backwards. The rolling vehicle could strike other vehicles following the laboring 

apparatus too closely. 

Sharp Curves 

Sharp curves in and of themselves are not a danger. The danger factor is added 

when the driver attempts to guide the apparatus through the curve at an excessive speed. If the inertia of the vehicle exceeds the tires’ ability to hold the 

road surface, the vehicle will slide off the road and/or roll over. Drivers should 

be aware of all sharp curves in their response area and the maximum speeds 

at which they may be safely negotiated by a tanker. The 

speed will need to be reduced even further when the road 

surface is wet or icy. 

In many cases, the highway department posts yellow 

signs that warn drivers of an approaching sharp curve. 

A smaller sign that lists a suggested reduced speed 

through the curve is often located beneath the primary 

sign (Figure 1-22). The suggested speed on these signs 

is intended for passenger cars under ideal, dry road conditions. The speeds on these signs may be too high for 

safe negotiation by larger vehicles, including fire department tankers. Drivers of all large fire department 

vehicles, including tankers, must consider these “sugFigure 1-22 Many road signs indicating a curve are gested” speeds as the absolute maximum for their 

accompanied by a suggested maximum speed limit. vehicles. They must adjust accordingly when driving in 

less than ideal conditions or when the characteristics of 

the apparatus make the suggested speed unsafe. The case studies covered later 

in the report will show several instances where these signs were ignored and 

fatal crashes occurred. 

Unimproved Road Surfaces


The term unimproved road surfaces is used to describe roads that have not been


paved with a hard surface such as asphalt or concrete. Unimproved road sur­


faces include dirt, gravel, sand, stone,


and similar road materials. Unim­


proved road surfaces can be hazardous


for vehicles of any size and weight. The


heavy weight of fire department tank­


ers magnifies the dangers posed by


these roads. Some of the prevalent haz­


ards of unimproved road surfaces


include


•	 Instability of the road surface -- The 

road may have sections that wash 

out or become otherwise impassible after heavy rainfalls (Figure Figure 1-23 Be alert for signs that a road may be 

subject to washouts. 1-23). Should the apparatus be 

22 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
unable to avoid a washed-out section, the apparatus may be forced off 

the road surface and overturn. In other circumstances, the road may simply be weakened by weather conditions or heavy vehicle traffic. When the 

heavy tanker travels across the weakened area, the road surface gives 

way beneath the tanker. 

•	 Rough road surfaces -- Unimproved roads typically contain numerous 

bumps, potholes, and other deformities (Figure 1-24). Apparatus that strike 

these deformities while traveling at an unsafe speed may 

be difficult for the driver/operator to control. The sudden 

jar of the bump or pothole may throw the vehicle to one 

side or the other. If the vehicle bounces as a result of the 

jar, it may be difficult to steer or brake, causing the vehicle to go into a slide. Of particular danger are dirt and 

gravel roads that contain sections with a series of ridges 

that create a “washboard” effect. Vehicles that traverse 

these sections of washboard will begin a rhythmic bouncing that will reduce the driver’s ability to steer and/or slow 

the vehicle. The vehicle may go into an uncontrollable 

skid caused by the loss of contact with the road surface. Figure 1-24 Unpaved roads may contain serious

Or, this bouncing may damage the tire or the wheel and deformities. 

result in a blowout or slow leak leading to a flat tire. 

•	 Reduced tire traction -- The actual driving surface of an unimproved road is 

usually either loose dirt or gravel. Each of these provides limited traction, 

particularly when attempting to stop the vehicle. Even vehicles with antiskid braking systems are more susceptible to skids on these loose road 

surfaces. Vehicles that strike a bump or pothole -- as described in the previous paragraph -- are more susceptible to skids on these surfaces because 

there is less traction for the tires to prevent sideward movement of the 

vehicle. 

•	 Mud -- Dirt roads can become more problematic following periods of precipitation. Depending on the type of soil and quality of the road to begin 

with, the result can range from the road becoming more slippery to being 

completely impassible. If the muddy road has a center crown, there will 

be a tendency for the vehicle to slide toward the shoulder, which often 

contains a ditch. In severe cases, the road may become so soft that the 

weight of the tanker causes it to sink and become stuck. 

•	 Reduced visibility -- Quite the opposite from the problems created by muddy 

roads are those created by roads that have been exposed to prolonged 

periods of dry weather. Dry unimproved roads tend to produce large quantities of dust when vehicles drive over them. This dust can remain suspended 

in the air for a considerable amount of time and can severely reduce visibility for drivers of vehicles that enter into the cloud. At times, visibility 

can be reduced to zero. This reduced visibility could cause the driver to be 

unable to determine his or her exact position on the road. The results can 

include driving the vehicle off the road surface, crossing the center of the 

road and striking another vehicle head-on, or driving into the rear of a 

slower moving or stopped vehicle. 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 23
Fire departments should identify unimproved road surfaces in their preincident planning activities. Roads that are particularly unstable or subject to 

extended periods of muddiness should be identified. When possible, unimproved 

roads should be avoided for emergency responses. It may be safer, and even 

faster, to take a paved road to an emergency scene, even if that route is slightly 

longer, than using the unimproved road. Drivers must be trained to exercise 

additional caution when driving on unimproved roads following periods of 

rain or extended dry weather. 

Adverse Weather Conditions 

Numerous fire department tanker crashes over the years have been attributed 

to loss of control of the vehicle while driving during adverse weather conditions. Adverse weather conditions include rain, ice, snow, and fog. There are 

two primary hazards associated with adverse weather conditions: reduced road 

surface traction and reduced visibility. 

Water, snow, and ice on the road surface each reduce the vehicle’s ability to 

secure maximum traction. Of those three, water will have the least impact on 

traction and ice or hard-packed snow will have the greatest. All three must be 

respected and compensated for by the driver of the tanker. According to IFSTA, 

the addition of any form of precipitation to the road surface may increase the 

vehicle’s safe stopping distance by anywhere from 3 to 15 times the distance 

required to stop the same vehicle on a dry surface. Drivers must compensate 

for this by slowing down and increasing their following distance behind other 

vehicles. 

Fog, blowing snow, and heavy rain can also severely reduce the driver’s ability to see a safe distance in front of the vehicle. The hazards associated with 

reduced visibility were described above in the section on dusty unimproved 

roads. Drivers must also compensate for these conditions by slowing down 

and increasing their following distance behind other vehicles. They should 

also avoid the use of high-beam headlights and reduce the amount or intensity of warning lights being used in order to cut down on the amount of light 

reflected back toward the apparatus driver. 

Lack of/Soft Road Shoulders 

As this report will detail in the chapters to follow, one 

of the most common causes for serious fire department 

tanker crashes is overcorrection by the driver when the 

vehicle’s right side tires leave the roadway. Roadways 

that are not accompanied by paved shoulders outside 

of the driving lanes serve many jurisdictions (Figure 

1-25). If a vehicle traveling on this type of road moves 

too far to the right, the vehicle’s right side tires can 

leave the road’s surface. Typically there is a drop-off of 

several inches or more where the paved surface ends. 

Drivers get into trouble when they attempt to return 

the vehicle to the paved surface by quickly turning the Figure 1-25 Be alert for paved roads that do not have paved steering wheel toward the left while still traveling at a shoulders. 

24 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
high rate of speed. Often the result of this action is the vehicle lurching severely toward the left when the right side wheels jump back onto the paved 

surface. This may cause the tanker to travel into oncoming lanes of traffic, 

travel completely over to the opposite side of the roadway, or to simply overturn. Procedures for dealing with this situation are detailed in Chapter 4. 

Some roads that do not have paved shoulders may have dirt shoulders built 

up to the road’s surface. If the ground is dry, hard, and compact, these dirt 

shoulders may eliminate some of the hazards described in the previous paragraph. However, if the dirt shoulders are not in good condition, the heavy 

weight of a tanker could cause the vehicle to sink into the ground should the 

right side tires leave the paved roadway. The result will be the same as if the 

road had no shoulder at all. 

Limited Weight Capacity Bridges 

Though not a common cause of fire department 

tanker crashes, limited weight capacity bridges 

must be considered as a potential hazardous driving surface factor. Many jurisdictions, particularly 

rural ones, have thoroughfares that include 

bridges with weight limit restrictions (Figure 

1-26). Weight restrictions are imposed on bridges 

that are of lightweight construction, old, or in 

poor condition. In many cases, the maximum 

posted weight for these bridges is considerably 

less than the weight of a fire department tanker. 

Even in emergency situations, never drive a fire 

department tanker over a bridge whose weight 

restriction is less than the weight of the appara- Figure 1-26 Always heed bridge weight limit restrictions. 

tus. The chance of a bridge collapse is significant


in these situations. Fire departments should identify these bridges in pre-inci­


dent plans and response SOP’s. Alternative routes around these bridges must


be used whenever possible. In other cases, it may be preferable to summon


mutual aid from the other side of the bridge.


EMERGENCY SCENE FACTORS 

To this point in the chapter, the content has generally focused on the causes of 

fire department tanker crashes during road travel (including the response and 

returning to quarters). On occasion fire department tankers are involved in 

crashes while operating at the emergency scene itself. These crashes may be a 

result of maneuvering the apparatus at the emergency or by being struck by 

another vehicle while parked. This section highlights some of the more common types of incident scene crashes. 

Emergency Scene Congestion 

A significant portion of fire department tanker crashes that occur on the emergency scene can be attributed to congestion of the scene. The immediate area 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 25
around an emergency incident may be cluttered and congested prior to the 

arrival of the first emergency vehicle. Sources of this congestion include 

•	 narrow streets, roads, and 

lanes; 

• parked vehicles; 

• utility poles, signs, and trees; 

• bystanders; 

•	 backed-up vehicular traffic; 

and 

•	 debris from the incident itself 

(wrecked cars, fallen building 

materials) (Figure 1-27). 

As if the potential obstacles listed 

above were not enough, the response of emergency personnel to Figure 1-27 In some cases, roads near the incident scene 

may be choked with debris. the scene only adds to the congestion. In particular, poor positioning 

of initially arriving emergency vehicles can greatly affect and restrict the movement and positioning of later-arriving vehicles. Because tankers are usually 

not the first emergency vehicles to arrive on the scene of an incident, some of 

the added congestion that drivers of these vehicles may encounter include 

• police or other non-fire department responder vehicles; 

• ambulances or other EMS vehicles; 

•	 earlier-arriving fire apparatus (engines, aerial apparatus, rescue companies, command vehicles, etc.); 

• hoselines laid or portable water tanks deployed by earlier-arriving fire 

apparatus (Figure 1-28); and 

•	 personal vehicles 

driven to the scene by 

volunteer or call-back 

firefighters (the impact of this can be 

lessened by requiring 

all of these vehicles to 

park on the same side 

of the street). 

Tanker drivers, particularly those with little 

experience or training, 

may find it extremely difficult to maneuver such a Figure 1-28 Water tanks and hoses can easily block access to a scene 

if proper planning in their placement is not used. 

large apparatus around


all of these obstacles. During a period of adrenaline-driven haste, the driver


may attempt to squeeze the tanker into a scene where it will not fit. This may


result in a crash with one of the obstacles, or worse, with other personnel on


26 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
the scene. As will be seen later in this report, cramming a tanker into a congested incident scene is unsafe, and poor from a firefighting tactical standpoint. 

Once the tanker is squeezed into the scene, it becomes boxed in or slowed 

should another load of water be needed. 

Oncoming Traffic at the Emergency Scene 

While it would always be the first choice to close all roadways around an 

incident scene, this is not always possible. In some cases, the incident may be 

on a major highway that cannot be shut down. In other cases, such as EMS 

calls or small fires, the activity at the scene does not warrant completely closing the street. Regardless of the situation, any time the fire apparatus is exposed 

to moving civilian vehicular traffic, the threat of a crash is very real. 

Civilian drivers are prone to poor decisions and errors when passing an 

emergency scene. A review of previous onscene fire apparatus crashes shows 

that the following causes of crashes by civilian drivers are somewhat common: 

• In an effort to determine the nature of the emergency incident, the driver 

takes his or her eyes off the road and strikes an emergency vehicle or 

oncoming traffic. 

•	 Excessive emergency vehicle warning and floodlights blind the driver during nighttime operations. 

•	 Annoyed by the delay of a traffic backup, the driver travels through the 

scene too fast and causes a crash. 

The tanker driver should always try to position the apparatus in a manner 

that minimizes its exposure to oncoming traffic as much as possible. The exception to this rule is when it will be required for emergency responders to 

work on or near the roadway. In these situations, the apparatus should be 

positioned between oncoming traffic and the responders to act as a shield. 

Detailed information on appropriate apparatus placement relative to oncoming traffic is discussed in Chapter 4 of this manual. 

Maneuvering at Water Shuttle Fill/Dump Sites 

One of the most common tactical uses for fire department tankers is to shuttle 

loads of water between a supply location, called the fill site, and the emergency scene, referred to as the dump site. Both of these sites tend to be rather 

congested with emergency apparatus, hose and appliances, portable water 

tanks, and personnel. In some cases, the need to maneuver the tanker into the 

necessary position increases the likelihood of a crash. Crashes at water shuttle 

fill and dump sites typically fall into the category of being relatively minor in 

damage. They are low speed events that generally result in minor bumps, 

dents, and scrapes to the apparatus. The exception to this is when a firefighter 

gets caught between the maneuvering tanker and another object. Even at low 

speeds this type of accident can have deadly consequences. 

The water shuttle fill site is typically located at either a fire hydrant or a 

suitable drafting location at a static water supply source. At least one pumper 

will be stationed at this location and connected to the water supply source in 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 27
order to speed the filling of the tanker (Figure 1-29). Hoselines are laid out 

from the pumper in advance of the first tanker’s arrival. When the first empty 

tanker arrives at the fill site, it parks in close proximity to the discharge ends of 

the hoselines being supplied by the fill site pumper. Connections are quickly 

made, the tanker’s water tank is filled, the hoses are disconnected, and the 

tanker drives off back to the emergency scene (Figure 1-30). Fill site crashes 

occur for a variety of reasons, including 

• During positioning of the tanker at the fill hoses, the driver maneuvers 

the apparatus into an object (such as a utility pole, guardrail, etc.). 

•	 When pulling away after the tanker has been filled, the driver pulls out in 

front of another emergency vehicle or a civilian vehicle that is not anticipating the tanker’s departure. 

•	 An empty tanker approaches the fill site at an excessive rate of speed and 

is unable to stop before hitting the last tanker in the line waiting to be 

filled. 

•	 The site is wet and/or icy from water that has spilled during the course of 

operations, and the apparatus skids as it approaches or enters the fill site. 

Figure 1-29 A proper fill site has all of the hoses laid out and ready Figure 1-30 “Make and break” personnel connect the hoses to the tanker 

for connection to the tanker. at the fill site. 

The water shuttle dump site is located somewhere near the emergency scene. 

The dump site consists of one or more portable water tanks into which the 

tankers dump their loads (Figure 1-31). Water is then drafted from the tank(s) 

by a dump site pumper. The dump site pumper can either be the actual apparatus that is supplying attack lines for the fire, or it can be a dedicated water 

supply unit that relays water to the attack apparatus. The cause of accidents 

at the dump site are fairly similar to those described for fill site operations. 

They include 

1.	 During positioning of the tanker to align its dump valve with the portable tank, the driver maneuvers the apparatus into an object such as 

the water tank, the dump-site pumper, or another tanker in the process 

of dumping its load. 

28 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
2.	 When pulling away after the tanker has been emptied, the 

driver pulls out in front of another emergency vehicle or a 

civilian vehicle that is not anticipating the tanker’s departure. 

3.	 A full tanker approaches the dump site at an excessive rate 

of speed and is unable to stop before hitting the last tanker 

in the line waiting to dump. 

Proper fill and dump site operations and safety precautions 

are also covered in Chapter 4 of this manual. 

SEATBELT USE 

The bulk of this chapter has focused on the causes of fire department tanker accidents. The purpose of this discussion has been 

to focus on the safety issues that most greatly influence the tendency of fire department tankers to become involved in crashes. 

Certainly any discussion relative to safety issues as they affect 

tanker crashes would not be complete if the issue of passenger 

restraint or seatbelt use were not reviewed. While the failure of 

the tanker driver and/or occupants to wear seatbelts is rarely 

established to be the cause of a crash, it is often a mitigating 

factor in the severity of the outcome of the crash. 

Figure 1-31 A properly designed dump site 

should allow for quick dumping and an expedient 

departure. 

In the case histories and statistics that are contained later in this report, you 

will not see instances where failure to wear a seatbelt was listed as a cause for 

a crash. Some crash reconstruction specialists have speculated that particular 

incidents may have occurred after the unrestrained driver of a truck was 

bounced out of an effective driving position following the initial contact with 

a bump in the road or another object. In other cases, the driver came out of the 

seat after an overcorrective action to return a truck to the roadway after the 

right side wheels had slipped off the edge. No records of this being the primary 

causal factor in a fire department tanker accident have ever been documented. 

On numerous occasions, the failure to wear seatbelts has been determined 

to be a significant factor in the death of the tanker driver and/or occupant(s). 

As the case studies will show, tanker drivers and/or occupants being seriously 

injured or killed after being partially or totally ejected from the vehicle following a crash is a common theme. This occurs despite the fact that information 

and studies on the benefits of wearing seatbelts have been available for more 

than 20 years. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have been compiling data and statistics on seatbelt use for more than 30 years. While they have not reported data 

specific for fire department tankers, or any fire apparatus for that matter, the 

information they have reported on all types of vehicles should be considered 

relevant for fire apparatus. A 1999 DOT report (DOT HS 809 090; available at 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov) indicates that the proper use of seatbelts by truck occupants reduces the risk of fatal injury by 60 percent and moderate-to-critical 

injury by 65 percent. 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 29
The 1999 DOT report also indicates that 75 percent of all occupants who are 

totally ejected from a vehicle suffer fatal injuries. In Chapter 2 of this report, it 

will be shown that this percentage holds true for fire department tanker accidents. While that figure is applied to all types of crashes, seatbelts show their 

most dramatic effects on safety when rollover crash statistics are reviewed. As 

mentioned earlier in the chapter, fire department tankers historically have 

been involved in a high incidence of rollover crashes. DOT records indicate 

that nearly 80 percent of all fatalities in truck rollover accidents involved the 

ejection of an unbelted occupant from the vehicle. 

These fatalities in rollover accidents are highly preventable. Again, the DOT 

report shows that 22 percent of all unrestrained occupants involved in a rollover 

crash are totally ejected from the vehicle. Dramatically, only one percent of 

properly restrained occupants are totally ejected from the vehicle in a rollover 

crash. Fire apparatus drivers and firefighters should be reminded of the above 

facts in these simple terms: 

1. Three out of four people who are ejected from a vehicle will die. 

2.	 Eight out of ten fatalities in rollover accidents involve occupant ejection from the vehicle. 

3.	 Occupants are 22 times more likely to be thrown from the vehicle in a 

rollover accident when they are not wearing their seatbelts. 

Fire personnel have no excuse for failing to wear seatbelts when driving or 

riding on fire apparatus. NFPA 1901 requires all new fire apparatus to be 

equipped with a proper seatbelt for each riding position. Most States that have 

vehicle inspection programs for fire apparatus also require seatbelts to be 

present. Furthermore, since its first adoption in 1987, NFPA 1500 has required 

all riders on fire apparatus to be seated and belted prior to the movement of 

the apparatus. Again, many States have enacted mandatory seatbelt usage 

laws in recent years, and in some cases, they apply to fire apparatus as well as 

civilian vehicles. 

Despite these facts and evidence, the case studies will show that a significant number of fire service personnel still fail to wear seatbelts when riding on 

the apparatus. In some of the cases reviewed, not only were the occupants not 

wearing seatbelts, but the vehicles were found to have the seatbelts removed 

or tucked away beneath the seat cushions. Given the benefits that seatbelts 

have proved to hold time and time again, these omissions are unforgivable. 

Fire department leadership must enforce seatbelt usage for all members of the 

department. 

All fire departments must have in place SOP’s that require all members riding 

on the apparatus to be seated and belted any time the vehicle is ready to begin 

road travel. The driver should not proceed until this fact has been verified. 

These policies must be enforced strictly. The benefits of adhering to such a 

policy have been noted numerous times in recent years. Highly publicized 

apparatus rollover crashes in Los Angeles (California) and Phoenix (Arizona) 

resulted in the properly seated and belted firefighters walking away relatively 

unscathed. As seen in the next chapter, many of their fire service counterparts 

who failed to follow this policy were killed. 

30 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
CONCLUSION 

In this chapter we have conducted a thorough review of the many reasons 

that fire department tankers are involved in crashes and why the occupants 

are injured or killed. In general, these causes include human error, poor apparatus design and/or maintenance, poor road conditions, inclement weather, 

emergency scene factors, and failure to wear seatbelts. It is important to understand why these accidents occur and why they are so serious so that we can 

begin to put together a program for reducing their frequency and severity. In 

the next chapter, we will further examine the problem by applying a statistical review of fatal crashes to determine which causal factors are most significant. 

CAUSES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 31

FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER 

CRASH STATISTICS 

Much can be gained by performing and reviewing a statistical analysis of any 

problem. Through this review one can learn valuable information regarding 

the causes of the crashes and the conditions that were present at the time the 

crashes occurred. This information, in turn, provides direction in determining 

strategies to help prevent these incidents in the future. Strategies that may 

become apparent after reviewing these types of statistics include improving 

driver training, improving apparatus design and construction, better 

preincident planning, development and enforcement of standard operating 

procedures SOP’s, better maintenance programs, more stringent licensing requirements, and similar necessary measures. 

The statistics and case histories featured in this report are limited to fire 

department tanker crashes between the years 1990 and 2001 that resulted in 

the fatality of at least one firefighter. Through a variety of sources, including 

insurance company records, U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) records, U.S. Department of Justice Public Safety Officers’ Benefit (PSOB) data, and a variety of 

other private and governmental sources, 38 fatal crashes involving fire department tankers were identified during that time period. These crashes resulted 

in the deaths of 42 firefighters. There were 34 crashes that each involved a 

single fatality and four that each involved two firefighter fatalities. 

Certainly, it is realized that for every crash that resulted in a fatality, there 

were probably a dozen or more that were significant but that did not result in 

a fatality. Unfortunately, there exists no comprehensive database or data source 

on these nonfatal crashes. However, the database on fatal incidents is large 

enough to provide valuable information on the most serious of tanker crashes. 

Thus, it can be assumed that the information gleaned from these case histories will also be relevant to assessing and preventing nonfatal crashes. 

This chapter provides a variety of statistical data regarding fire department 

tanker crashes. As mentioned above, these data are presented for the purpose 

of identifying the problem and directing fire service leaders toward strategies 

for addressing the problem. 

TANKER CRASH FREQUENCY 

Through data that are provided each year by the USFA and the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA), it is known that approximately 25 percent of 

all firefighter fatalities occur during traffic crashes. Next to cardiovascular ailments, this is the second largest leading cause of firefighter deaths. It is also a 

similarly large cause of firefighter injuries. In a report that was jointly developed by the NFPA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), the types of vehicles that were involved in these fatal crashes were 

identified. This information can be found in Table 2-1. 

2


33
TABLE 2-1 

Types of Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes 

Type of Vehicle Percentage of Crashes 

Firefighters’ Personal Vehicles 42.3% 

Tankers 21.9% 

Engines/Pumpers 20.0% 

Ambulance/Rescue Vehicles 6.5% 

Others 9.3% 

(Source: NFPA) 

The largest category in Table 2-1, firefighters’ 

personal vehicles, can be attributed to volunteer 

or call-back firefighters who are involved in crashes 

while responding to or returning from the fire station or incident scene while operating their own 

vehicles. The fact that this category is so much 

higher than those for actual emergency vehicles 

should not be surprising. It is based on simple 

mathematics and level of risk. For example, if a 

volunteer fire department gets dispatched for a reported vehicle fire, as many as 10 to 20 firefighters 

may initiate a response in their personal vehicles. Once at the fire station, a 

single pumper responds to extinguish the vehicle fire. Thus, the chances of a 

personal vehicle being involved in a crash in this case was 10 or 20 times 

greater than the single pumper being involved in one. 

When the review is limited to traditional fire department vehicles, tankers 

account for the largest percentage of crashes. While this fact in and of itself 

may seem significant, consider that the actual number of tankers in service is 

the smallest of the three types of vehicles (tankers, pumpers, and ambulance/ 

rescue vehicles) highlighted in the table. The USFA estimates that tankers account for only 3 percent of all fire apparatus in the United States. This dramatizes 

the need to reinforce tanker operation safety. Perhaps no other statistical information contained in this report more clearly states the problem or need 

than this one: while tankers account for only a small percentage of the overall number of vehicles operated by fire departments, they are the most likely type of vehicle to 

be involved in a fatal crash. 

WHO IS INVOLVED IN TANKER CRASHES? 

In the 38 case histories that could be located and reviewed for this report, all of 

the individuals involved in the crashes were volunteer firefighters. No fatal 

tanker crashes involving career firefighters were reported during the time period of this study. The fact that volunteer firefighters account for all of these 

crashes and fatalities should not be a surprise because volunteers generally 

protect rural areas where tankers are needed. 

The areas protected by volunteer firefighters are more likely to be rural and 

without the benefit of a fixed water supply system than do those protected by 

career firefighters. Therefore, it must be assumed that although some career 

fire departments do operate tankers, the overwhelming majority of all fire 

department tankers in service in the United States are operated by volunteer 

fire departments. Road conditions in the areas protected by volunteers also 

tend to be more challenging (more hills, sharp turns, poor road conditions) 

than those in areas protected by career firefighters. Therefore, it is only natural that volunteers would account for the most crashes involving 

tankers. 

Age and experience may also play a factor in the likelihood of a tanker 

crash. In the cases that were reviewed, the age group of 20- to 29-year olds 

accounted for the largest number of fatal tanker crashes. This would tend to 

34 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
show that inexperience might be a significant causal factor in tanker crashes. 

This is also reflective of standard insurance industry actuary rates for correlating age and crash frequency. A complete accounting of the ages of drivers 

involved in fatal crashes is contained in Table 2-2. 

The case histories also revealed that 37 of the 42 firefighters killed in tanker 

crashes were male (Table 2-3). This figure is probably not overly statistically 

significant as this also accounts for the approximate percentage of males versus females in the fire service. If there is any significance to this figure, it is to 

simply state that neither gender has a greater likelihood of being involved in a 

tanker crash above and beyond the percentage of that gender’s representation 

in the overall fire service. 

Lastly, the reports were reviewed to determine where the victims who were 

fatally injured were riding on the apparatus at the time of the crash 

(Table 2-4). Approximately three-quarters of the victims were the drivers of 

the apparatus. This is probably due to the fact that it is quite common for a 

tanker to respond with only the driver on board. Four of the documented crashes 

involved the death of both the driver and the right front seat passenger. There 

were only seven crashes in which the passenger 

was killed but the driver survived. 

The report also documented the States in which 

these crashes occurred. It was no surprise that 

States that have expansive rural areas and volunteer fire departments led the list of fatal tanker 

crashes. A complete listing is contained in 

Table 2-5. 

TABLE 2-2 

Ages of Drivers Involved in Tanker Crashes 

Age of Driver Number of Fatal Crashes 

Under 20 3 

20-29 10 

30-39 6 

40-49 4 

50-59 4 

60-69 4 

70 and over 2 

Unknown 5 

TABLE 2-3 

Gender of Firefighters Fatally Injured in 

Tanker Crashes 

Gender Number of Deceased 

Male 37 

Female 5 

Total 42 

TABLE 2-4 

Seating Position of the Deceased 

at the Time of the Crash 

Seating Position at Time of Crash Number of Decedents 

Driver 31 

Right Front Seat 11 

TABLE 2-5 

States in Which Fatal Tanker Crashes Occurred 

State Number of Fatal Crashes 

Texas 6 

California 3 

Virginia 3 

Kentucky 3 

Tennessee 3 

Mississippi 3 

Pennsylvania 3 

Arkansas 2 

Louisiana 2 

Missouri 2 

Alabama 1 

Indiana 1 

Michigan 1 

North Carolina 1 

Oregon 1 

South Carolina 1 

Washington 1 

West Virginia 1 

FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASH STATISTICS 35
TIME OF DAY 

A review of the reported 

times of day that the 

crashes occurred shows 

that most tanker accidents 

occur during daylight 

hours (Table 2-6). The 

most common three-hour 

time frame in which 

tanker crashes occurred 

was the noon to 3 p.m. period. That time period 

accounted for 32 percent 

of all fatal tanker crashes. 

When one combines that 

TABLE 2-6 

Time of Day When Crashes Occur 

Time of Day Number of Fatal Crashes 

Midnight to 2:59 am 1 

3 a.m. to 5:59 3 

6 a.m. to 8:59 0 

9 a.m. to 11:59 2 

Noon to 2:59 p.m. 12 

3 p.m. to 5:59 p.m. 9 

6 p.m. to 8:59 4 

9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. 5 

Not Reported 2 

a.m.

a.m.

a.m.

p.m.

time period with the 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. period, 55 percent of all tanker crashes 

occurred during the afternoon. This is despite the fact that historically USFA 

and NFPA annual fire loss reports show that the greatest percentage of 

working fires occur at night. 

The statistical significance of this information is not totally clear. One possibility is that drivers are more confident when driving in daylight than in dark. 

This confidence may translate into greater speed or overconfidence in one’s 

driving ability. Both of those factors have historically been shown to be significant causes of emergency vehicle crashes. The reduced visibility that occurs 

during nighttime driving may actually save lives, as it forces the driver to slow 

down. Other causal factors that may be responsible for more daytime collisions include more civilian vehicles on the road during this time of the day 

and the greater use of mutual and automatic aid in many jurisdictions on 

daytime responses. 

CAUSAL FACTORS FOR TANKER CRASHES 

The case history information that was available for the 38 incidents that were 

studied did contain extensive information on the various causes and factors 

that led to the crashes. In virtually every case, there was more than one cause 

or factor listed as having played a significant role in the occurrence or the 

seriousness of the crash. Table 2-7 shows a compilation of the contributing 

causes for the 38 cases that were studied. 

Failure to wear a seatbelt was noted in 31 of the 42 fatalities. While failure 

to wear a seatbelt is rarely the cause of a crash, it often plays a significant role 

in the severity of injury to the victims. Nearly three-quarters (actually 73.8 

percent) of the firefighters killed in tanker crashes were not wearing seatbelts. 

While there is no conclusive manner to determine how many of these victims 

would have been saved had they been wearing their seatbelts, it is a safe assumption that a large majority of them would. This assumption applies 

especially to the 20 victims who were partially or totally ejected from the apparatus. As stated in Chapter 1, the chances of surviving a crash are many 

times greater if the victim is confined to the inside of the vehicle. 

36 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
When one examines the true causes of tanker 

crashes, four major factors become apparent in 

Table 2.7: 

• the apparatus wheels leaving the right side 

of the road; 

• excessive speed; 

• overcorrection/oversteering by the driver 

when attempting to bring right wheels back 

onto the road surface; and 

• Failure to negotiate a curve. 

From those four major factors, two pairs of interrelated causes may be discerned. The first is the 

combination of allowing the apparatus wheels to 

drift off the right-side of the road and overcorrection or oversteering when trying to bring the 

wheels back onto the road surface. In nearly twothirds (65.8 percent) of the crashes that were 

studied, the apparatus drifted off the right side of 

the road. Once the right side wheels were off the 

roadway, in three-quarters (76 percent) of the 

cases, the crash then occurred as a result of the 

driver attempting to bring the vehicle back onto 

the roadway and then losing control. In the remaining cases, the vehicle either rolled over or 

struck an object (pole, guardrails, bridge rails, etc.) 

TABLE 2-7 

Contributing Factors in Fatal Crashes 

Contributing Factors Number of 

in Fatal Crashes Fatal Crashes 

Failure to wear seatbelts 31 

Wheels left the right side of the road 25 

Excessive speed 21 

Fatally injured individuals ejected 

from the apparatus 20 

Overcorrection when attempting 

to bring right wheels back onto the 

road surface 19 

Failure to negotiate a curve 17 

Loss of control while descending 

a grade 6 

Failure to follow posted speed 

recommendations on a curve 3 

Mechanical failure 2 

Poor road condition 1 

Poor apparatus design 1 

Driver inattention 1 

Unknown 1 

Impairment by prescription 

medication 1 

Failure to stop at an intersection 1 

once the wheels were off the right side of the driving surface. Information on 

how to avoid these types of crashes and safely bring a vehicle back onto the 

driving surface are covered in Chapter 4 of this report. 

The other pair that is typically interrelated is excessive speed and failure to 

safely negotiate a curve. In most cases, the reason that the curve was not 

safely negotiated was because the apparatus entered the curve at an unsafe 

speed. In several of the cases that were studied, it was noted that the apparatus was well above the posted recommended speed for the curve on which the 

crash occurred. However, excessive speed is not only a problem when trying to 

negotiate curves. It is often the reason that the right wheels drift off the road 

surface, that the apparatus is unable to come to a stop at intersections, or that 

the driver is unable to control the vehicle when a mechanical failure occurs. 

Simply slowing down and driving the apparatus at a reasonable speed will 

prevent a significant number of crashes from occurring. 

It should be noted that the incident reports used in this document typically 

did not directly address the road conditions at the time of the crashes. In only 

one case did they mention that the road was wet at the time of the crash. It 

must be assumed that, if adverse road conditions were a significant factor in 

any of the crashes, they would have been mentioned in the report. It can therefore be concluded that most of the crashes occurred on clear, dry, paved roads. 

FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASH STATISTICS 37
CONCLUSION 

As stated above, much useful information can be gained by studying the records 

of past tanker crashes. Through this study it was learned that most crashes 

occur in daylight hours, on clear, dry, paved roads. It has been deduced that 

driver inexperience may play a role in the crashes because of the large number of young drivers who were operating the tankers at the time of the crashes. 

This confirms the fact that wearing their seatbelts while driving will save a 

significant number of drivers. Lastly, by slowing the apparatus down during 

the response and knowing how to react in the event the right-side wheels leave 

the roadway will prevent a significant number of crashes from occurring. These 

facts will serve as the foundation for the information on improving tanker 

safety that is covered in Chapter 4 of this manual. 

38 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER 

CRASH CASE HISTORIES 

The first two chapters of this report have spent a considerable amount of time 

and effort to detail the common causes of crashes involving fire department 

tankers. However, for many people this information is not relevant unless it 

can be applied to real-life incidents. In this chapter we will examine case histories of fire department tanker crashes over the past decade that have involved 

fatalities to firefighters onboard the apparatus. 

Pertinent case histories have been selected from insurance company records, 

U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) records, U.S. Department of Justice Public Safety 

Officers’ Benefit (PSOB) data, and a variety of other private and governmental 

sources to highlight some of the major causes of crashes that have been discussed to this point in the report. These case histories are highlighted to show 

the reader that these causal factors have previously resulted in a tragic outcome. Providing these case histories is in no way meant to demean or be critical 

of the individuals and departments involved in these incidents. It is hoped 

that these departments would want to share this information with the fire 

service so that other personnel and jurisdictions could avoid suffering the same 

tragedy. 

Only a small selection of case histories is reviewed in this chapter. For a 

complete compilation of case histories involving fatal fire department tanker 

crashes since 1990, see Appendix A. 

TRAVELING AT AN EXCESSIVE SPEED


Date of Incident: April 17, 1995


Time of Incident: 3:34 a.m.


Location of Incident: Castella, California


The Incident: 

A 50-year-old female driver lost control of a 1,000-gallon tanker while 

responding to a barn fire in an unfamiliar location. A 47-year-old male 

firefighter was also riding in the right-front seat. 

After receiving directions from a local citizen at the roadside, the driver made 

a wrong turn and eventually descended a steep 1⁄2-mile hill. At the 

bottom of the hill, the tanker failed to negotiate a sharp left turn, struck a 

bridge guardrail, and either went through the guardrail or rolled over the top 

of it. The tanker fell into a rain-swollen creek below. 

After all other fire department units had returned to the station from the 

dispatched barn fire, the absence of the tanker and two firefighters was noted. 

Firefighters fanned out to search for the missing tanker. The tanker was found 

upside down in the creek about 2-1⁄2 hours after the original 

dispatch. 

3


39
Both firefighters were found deceased inside of the cab of the apparatus; 

neither had been wearing a seat belt. The cause of death for the passenger 

was listed as drowning, and the cause of death for the driver was listed as 

exposure and hypothermia. 

Tire marks, not skid marks that would indicate braking, were found at the 

bottom of the hill. Causal factors cited in the law enforcement traffic crash 

report and coroner’s report included driver inattention, driver unfamiliarity 

with the road, and excessive speed for the vehicle and road. 

RIGHT WHEELS LEAVE ROAD SURFACE/OVERCORRECTION


Date of Incident: January 14, 1995


Time of Incident: 5:20 p.m.


Location of Incident: Salisbury, North Carolina


The Incident: 

A 49-year-old male firefighter was the driver of a tanker responding to a report 

of a smoke odor in a manufactured home. A second firefighter rode as the 

front-seat passenger in the vehicle. 

Members of the first fire apparatus unit to arrive at the manufactured home 

were told by other firefighters -- who had responded directly to the scene in 

their personal vehicles -- that there was no emergency. The operator of the first 

unit informed other responding units by radio to reduce their response mode 

to nonemergency. Firefighters standing near the truck heard the sound of the 

tanker’s crash at approximately the same time as this transmission was being 

made. 

It was later determined that the right wheels of the tanker left the roadway. 

The driver steered the truck back onto the pavement, but the rear end of the 

tanker came around and the apparatus began to slide. The tanker exited the 

left side of the road, rolled, and collided with a natural gas distribution substation. 

A second tanker -- that was following the one that crashed -- alerted other 

firefighters to the crash. When firefighters arrived on the scene, they found the 

tanker entangled in the natural gas substation with large amounts of natural 

gas being released. A hazardous materials response team from a nearby city 

was called to the scene. Once the team arrived, the two firefighters were removed from the tanker and transported to the hospital. The driver was 

pronounced dead at the hospital, the firefighter who had been a passenger in 

the tanker received serious but non-life- threatening injuries. Neither firefighter 

was wearing a seatbelt. 

The cause of death for the driver was listed as multiple blunt force injuries to 

the head, chest, and abdomen. The law enforcement report on this incident 

cited excessive speed as a contributing circumstance to the crash. 

40 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
POOR APPARATUS DESIGN


Date of Incident: November 5, 1997


Time of Incident: 2:25 p.m.


Location of Incident: Danville, Virginia


The Incident: 

The 30-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was a passenger 

in a 1,000-gallon tanker that responded to the scene of a mutual aid structure fire. Upon arrival at the scene, the initial driver was ordered to perform 

other tasks, and the passenger became the driver of the tanker. Water from 

the tanker was unloaded at the fire scene, and the tanker left to refill at a 

nearby fire hydrant. A third firefighter accompanied the new driver to the 

fill site. 

After the tanker had been refilled, the tanker headed back to the fire scene. 

As the apparatus exited a curve, the right wheels left the roadway and ran 

onto the shoulder. The driver overcorrected to the left, which brought the apparatus briefly into the oncoming lane of traffic. The driver corrected again to 

the right and the rear of the apparatus began to slide around. The tanker 

continued to slide and began to roll at some point. The vehicle came to rest on 

its roof, off of the right side of the road. 

Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt and both were ejected from the 

tanker at some point in the rollover. The driver received fatal traumatic injuries, and the other firefighter survived his injuries. 

While at first glance this incident involves failure to keep the apparatus on 

the roadway, the investigation revealed that the water tank was only baffled 

to prevent forward and backward motion of the load. It did not have baffles to 

prevent sideward sloshing. It is believed that this accentuated the difficulty in 

regaining control of the vehicle once it began to slide sideways. 

FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT-OF-WAY


Date of Incident: November 2, 2000


Time of Incident: 2:30 a.m.


Location of Incident: Overisel Township, Michigan


The Incident: 

The 41-year-old female firefighter who was fatally injured in this crash was 

the passenger in a 2,000-gallon tanker responding to a mutual-aid structure 

fire involving a turkey farm. As the apparatus approached an intersection, a 

pickup truck approaching the intersection from the other street was thought 

by the occupants of the tanker to be yielding the right-of-way to the tanker. 

The tanker may have slowed before going through the stop sign, but it did not 

come to a complete stop. As the tanker proceeded through the intersection, it 

was struck by the pickup at the left rear axle. 

The force of the impact deflated the right rear tires of the tanker and the 

apparatus began to swerve from side to side. The tanker left the left side of the 

roadway, rolled over, and the water tank separated from the chassis 

FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASH CASE HISTORIES 41 
(Figure 3-1). The tanker came to rest upside down with both firefighters 

trapped in the cab. Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at the time of 

the crash. 

Firefighters from other departments responding to the fire came upon the 

crash scene and provided aid. Both firefighters were extricated from the cab 

(Figure 3-2). The passenger was pronounced dead at the scene as a result of 

crushing blunt force chest injuries; her cause of death was listed as mechanical and positional asphyxiation. The injuries to the tanker driver and the driver 

of the pickup were not life threatening. 

Figure 3-1 The water tank separated from the chassis after the vehicle 

left the roadway. 

Figure 3-2 Occupants required extrication from the crushed cab. 

MECHANICAL FAILURE -- TIRE BLOWOUT


Date of Incident: August 19, 2001


Time of Incident: 12:45 p.m.


Jurisdiction of Incident: Odell, Oregon


The Incident: 

The 52-year-old male driver was returning to his fire district with a 2,000-

gallon tanker that had undergone water tank repairs. The driver was the sole 

occupant of the tanker. The water tank was empty. 

While going down the freeway at a speed estimated at 60 miles per hour, 

the right front tire of the tanker experienced a blowout. The tanker veered to 

the right, crossed the shoulder, and went into a level field of grass and rocks. 

The tanker traveled at an angle through the field for about 300 feet before 

striking a number of large boulders and a tree. 

The cab of the tanker was severely damaged and the driver -- who was not 

wearing a seatbelt -- was trapped in the vehicle. Responding firefighters removed the driver from the tanker, however he was pronounced dead at the 

scene. The cause of death was listed as blunt force trauma to the head, abdomen, and upper and lower extremities. 

42 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
MECHANICAL FAILURE -- BRAKE SYSTEM FAILURE


Date of Incident: May 25, 1997


Time of Incident: 1:22 p.m.


Location of Incident: Jacksboro, Tennessee


The Incident: 

The 41-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the rightfront-seat passenger in a tanker that was responding to a crash with fire on a 

local highway. Neither the driver nor the passenger was wearing a seatbelt at 

the time of the crash. 

As the apparatus approached an intersection, the driver attempted to slow 

the vehicle but the brakes failed. The tanker proceeded through the intersection at a speed later estimated to be 30 miles per hour. 

On the other side of the intersection, in the tanker’s path, a child was playing in the road. In order to avoid hitting the child, the driver was forced to 

swerve left. The tanker exited the left side of the roadway and began to roll 

onto its right side after coming into contact with a power pole guide wire. The 

tanker then slid and rolled to the other side of the roadway, struck another 

power pole, and came to rest on its roof. The passenger was ejected when the 

tanker collided with the guide wire. The tanker crushed the firefighter’s head 

as it rolled. 

An inspection of the tanker’s braking system after the crash found a hole in 

a brake line near the rear axle differential. 

POOR ROAD CONDITIONS


Date of Incident: May 12, 1995


Time of Incident: 2:40 p.m.


Location of Incident: Jacksonville, Arkansas


The Incident: 

The 22-year-old female firefighter who was fatally injured was 

the right-front-seat passenger in a 1,000-gallon tanker that was 

engaged in driver training. Both the driver and firefighter were 

wearing lap-type seatbelts. 

As the tanker proceeded on a small local road, the asphalt 

on the right side of the road crumbled (Figure 3-3). The driver 

of the tanker oversteered in an attempt to recover control, the 

apparatus left the roadway on the left side of the road, and it 

struck a driveway culvert. The apparatus vaulted slightly and 

began to rotate. The vehicle rolled and came to rest upside down, 

partially in the roadway (Figure 3-4). 

The passenger received fatal traumatic injuries; the driver of 

the apparatus was injured but his injuries were not life 

threatening. 

Figure 3-3 Note the cracks in the asphalt at the 

road’s edge. 

Figure 3-4 The vehicle came to rest on the opposite 

side of the road. 

FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASH CASE HISTORIES 43 
FAILURE TO FOLLOW POSTED SPEED SUGGESTIONS 

ON A CURVE


Date of Incident: April 8, 1996


Time of Incident: 9:36 p.m.


Location of Incident: Moses Lake, Washington


The Incident: 

The 19-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 

3,000-gallon tanker responding to a structure fire. The right-front seat was 

occupied by another firefighter. Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at 

the time of the crash. 

A local bridge was out of service for repair so the response route taken to the 

fire was unfamiliar to both firefighters. The fire chief, who was following the 

tanker in his vehicle, was more familiar with the route. As the tanker approached a curve, the fire chief realized that the driver was accelerating and 

ordered the tanker, by radio, to slow down. The order came too late and the 

tanker entered the curve at a speed estimated to be 40 to 60 miles per hour. 

The recommended speed in the curve is 35 miles per hour. 

The tanker skidded, rotated counterclockwise, and then left the right side of 

the roadway. The tanker rolled first onto its right side, then onto its roof. The 

cab was crushed as it slid for a distance. The tanker rolled again and came to 

rest on its left side. 

The fire chief and another chief officer who was riding with him immediately requested assistance. They found the passenger attempting to self-extricate 

and helped him out of the vehicle. They had a great deal of difficulty removing the driver due to his position in the cab of the truck. He was eventually 

removed with the assistance of a passing motorist. CPR was begun immediately and continued while the driver was transported to the hospital. The driver 

was pronounced dead shortly after his arrival at the hospital. The cause of 

death for the driver was listed as a lacerated heart and major vessels. 

CONCLUSION 

The first two chapters of this publication focused on generalized data and statistics regarding fatal fire department tanker crashes. While that information 

is highly useful in allowing us to understand the overall problem better, it is a 

review of case studies that “personalizes” these crashes. By looking at the circumstances surrounding individual crashes, it is often possible to put oneself 

in the position of the tanker driver or relate to the conditions that faced the 

unfortunate driver in the case study. This, in turn, will allow current and future tanker drivers to more easily recognize more easily the causes of crashes 

and avoid them in the future. 

44 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT 

TANKER CRASHES 

The preceding chapters in this manual have covered the causes of fire department tanker crashes, statistical information on their frequency and severity, 

and pertinent case studies to highlight the problem. While all of this information is interesting, it is not particularly useful unless it is used to construct a 

plan of action directed at reducing the frequency and severity of these events. 

To paraphrase a popular old saying: those who fail to recognize and deal with 

their past may be doomed to repeat it. 

It is the goal of this document to recognize the problems associated with 

tanker crashes that have occurred in the past and to provide strategies for 

their avoidance in the future. Using the information provided to this point in 

this manual as a basis, this chapter is intended to provide fire department 

personnel with information that can be applied directly toward developing 

programs, procedures, and strategies that lead to safer operation of fire department tankers. Information covered in this chapter includes driver training, 

apparatus maintenance programs, apparatus design issues, proper driving 

techniques, and onscene operations. 

DRIVER TRAINING PROGRAMS 

Any fire department, whether career, volunteer, or industrial, must have an 

established and thorough training program for prospective fire apparatus 

drivers, including those who will be required/allowed to drive tankers. Simply letting a firefighter drive the tanker around the block a few times and 

showing him or her how to engage the fire pump or operate the tank dump 

valve is not adequate. An effective training program consists of appropriate amounts of classroom (theoretical) instruction, practical training in 

the field (application), and testing to ensure that the person is ready for 

the responsibility in a real-world setting. In this section of the chapter, we will 

examine the important elements of a training program for prospective 

drivers of fire department tankers. 

Applicable NFPA Standards 

Before getting into any detailed discussion on fire department tanker driver 

training, it is necessary to recognize the two primary National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) standards that relate directly to this issue. These standards 

are only considered “the law” if they have been formally adopted by some 

authority having jurisdiction. However, their status as nationally recognized, 

consensus-developed documents has historically been upheld in civil legal 

proceedings in all levels of the court system. Thus, there is an impetus on fire 

departments and training organizations to follow these standards in order to 

avoid being subjected to civil liability in the event of a lawsuit. 

4


45
NFPA 1002


NFPA 1002, Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications,


establishes the minimum job performance requirements for personnel who


drive and operate fire apparatus. This standard covers a wide array of fire


department vehicles, including tankers. Drivers are not necessarily expected


to meet the entire standard. Rather, drivers are only required to meet those


portions of the standard that apply to the particular type of apparatus they


will be expected to drive.


In the case of personnel being trained to drive fire department tankers, at a 

minimum these personnel must meet the requirements contained in the following chapters of NFPA 1002: 

•	 Chapter 1: Administration -- This chapter contains mostly information 

on procedural issues for administration of the standard. The only two 

substantive requirements contained in this chapter are that the candidate be appropriately licensed according to State or Provincial motor 

vehicle codes and that they meet the medical requirements contained in 

NFPA 1582, Standard on Medical Requirements for Fire Fighters and Information for Fire Department Physicians. 

•	 Chapter 2: General Requirements -- This chapter contains requirements 

for performing and documenting routine vehicle maintenance functions, 

for driving the vehicle under a variety of conditions, and for being able to 

operate any fixed equipment (generators, floodlights, etc.) that is on the 

vehicle. 

•	 Chapter 8: Mobile Water Supply Apparatus -- This chapter contains requirements for performing and documenting routine vehicle maintenance 

functions specific to tankers and for being able to establish and operate 

water shuttle fill site and dump site operations. 

If the tanker that the driver will operate is equipped with a fire pump, the 

candidate also must meet the requirements contained in Chapter 3, Apparatus 

Equipped With an Attack or Fire Pump. This chapter contains requirements for 

maintaining pump components, pumping supply and attack lines, and operating the pump from a pressurized or static water supply source. It should be 

noted that both Chapters 3 and 8 of NFPA 1002 require that the candidate also 

be certified as a Fire Fighter I in accordance with NFPA 1001, Standard for Fire 

Fighter Professional Qualifications, before being certified to NFPA 1002 to drive a 

tanker. 

NFPA 1451


NFPA 1451, Standard for a Fire Service Vehicle Operations Training Program, pro­


vides direction to fire departments on establishing and maintaining emergency


vehicle driver training programs. This standard requires departments to have


a fully documented training program for anyone who will be allowed or re­


quired to drive fire department vehicles, including tankers. According to NFPA


1451, the driver training program should include the following elements:


• general rules and considerations; 

•	 training and education requirements, including information on training 

frequency, instructor qualifications, and training program safety; 

46 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
• information on applicable laws and liabilities; 

•	 detailed information on departmental procedures for emergency response 

situations; 

• crash and injury prevention measures; 

• crash review and documentation procedures; and 

• vehicle and apparatus care procedures. 

It is strongly recommended that any fire department developing a driver 

training program consult this standard and follow it as much as possible. The 

remainder of this section highlights, in detail, the important components of 

the driver training program. 

Components of the Driver Training Program 

Establishing an effective fire apparatus or tanker driver training program is 

not a quick and simple process. There are multiple components of a properly 

designed driver training program, including both classroom (theoretical) and 

practical (hands-on) training sessions. In order to bring all of these elements 

together into an effective training program, considerable planning, organization, and preparation will be required. This section highlights some of the 

more important aspects that must be considered when putting together a training program for personnel who will be expected to drive tankers, or for that 

matter any other fire apparatus. 

TRAINING FREQUENCY 

One of the first issues that must be considered in developing a driver training 

program is determining when personnel must be put into the program and 

what the frequency of continuing training should be. According to NFPA 1451, 

drivers must receive training as follows: 

• before being certified to become a fire apparatus driver; 

• not less than twice per year after being certified as a driver; 

•	 anytime the apparatus they drive has undergone significant mechanical 

changes; and 

•	 anytime the driver operator will be expected to drive a new or unfamiliar 

vehicle. 

The first bullet point above seems very obvious. As has been stated previously in this document, no firefighter should ever drive a fire apparatus on a 

public thoroughfare unless he or she has been previously trained and certified 

to do so. When the firefighter receives the training to become a driver depends 

on local fire department protocols. Some fire departments include fire apparatus driver training as part of their basic recruit training. These firefighters 

become qualified fire apparatus drivers from the very beginning of their career on the fire department. Other fire departments require firefighters to gain 

one or more years of experience as a firefighter before being qualified to enter 

into the driver training program. Whatever the case, remember that if your 

fire department wishes to meet the intent of the NFPA 1002 standard, the candidates will also have to have their Fire Fighter I certification per NFPA 1001 

prior to being able to certify as a fire apparatus driver. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 47
NFPA 1451 also specifies that all qualified fire apparatus drivers complete 

as least two continuing education driver training classes per year following 

their initial training and certification. These classes are necessary to ensure 

that the drivers’ skills have not deteriorated, that they have not picked up any 

bad habits since their initial training, and to update them on changes in technology or departmental procedures that affect their driving chores. At least 

part of this training must include on-the-road driving exercises. Operating in 

a driving simulator, while an effective learning tool, is not considered a suitable substitute for actual driving time. 

If the apparatus that the driver has been previously trained to drive undergoes some type of major change or renovation, the driver should be retrained 

on these aspects of apparatus operation before being allowed to drive the 

apparatus again under live conditions. For example, if the tanker was previously equipped with a gasoline engine and a manual shift transmission but 

has under gone a rehabilitation that included the installation of a diesel engine and automatic transmission, the driver should be retrained on that 

apparatus. 

Lastly, it goes almost without saying that if a previously certified driver’s 

station is assigned a new vehicle, or the driver is assigned to a new station with 

vehicles that are unlike those he or she was trained on and accustomed to 

driving, proper training on the new vehicle must be completed before the driver 

is allowed to operate the vehicle in the field. 

INSTRUCTOR QUALIFICATIONS 

The fire department must ensure that only qualified personnel are allowed to 

serve as instructors for driver training programs. It is recommended that all 

instructors be certified at least to the Instructor I level 

contained in NFPA 1041, Standard for Fire Service Instructor Professional Qualifications. The instructors themselves 

should also be qualified drivers of the apparatus being 

used for training. Instructors that will be teaching fire 

department tanker operations should also be familiar 

with water shuttle operations, in addition to vehicle operation, so that safe operating principles for these 

operations can be incorporated into the training program (Figure 4-1). 

CLASSROOM (THEORETICAL) INSTRUCTION 

In recent years, there have been those in the fire service 

Figure 4-1 Tanker driving instructors must be familiar with 

water shuttle operations. training field who have advocated the reduction or elimination of classroom or theoretical instruction. The theory 

behind this philosophy is that available training time is limited and that most 

of the skills a firefighter requires are physical tasks. Though this training philosophy has been successfully implemented in some jurisdictions, the majority 

of the fire service still recognizes the value of classroom instruction as an important part of the overall training of prospective fire apparatus drivers. 

Providing personnel with the theory and background information on driving 

fire apparatus will better prepare them to get behind the wheel of the 

48 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
apparatus and begin training on the physical tasks of operating a fire department tanker. At a minimum, classroom instruction for prospective tanker drivers 

should include 

• applicable laws and liabilities; 

• departmental policies and standard operating procedures (SOP’s); 

• vehicle dynamics;


• emergency and nonemergency driving procedures;


• crash and injury prevention measures; and 

• Vehicle and apparatus care procedures. 

Applicable laws and liabilities. This portion of the class should include a thorough review of all of the local, State, and Federal laws and regulations that 

apply to emergency vehicle drivers. The candidates must receive specific instruction on regulations and departmental policies that allow emergency 

vehicles to disregard specific regulations, such as speed limits, passing through 

stop signals, and crossing the centerline of the roadway. All fire departments 

must have written copies of policies that allow for these waivers. The candidates should also be informed of the conditions and limitations of their personal 

and civil liability and the degree to which the fire department provides such 

protection for them. The candidates should also be informed of any licensing 

requirements they need to meet in order to drive fire apparatus. Some States 

require fire apparatus operators to obtain a commercial driver’s license (CDL) 

and others do not. Fire departments located in States that have exempted fire 

apparatus drivers from CDL requirements may wish to consider a departmental policy that requires obtaining such a license. This extra step will help to 

ensure the competence of the driver and provides an extra measure against 

liability issues should the driver ever be involved in a crash. 

Departmental policies and SOP’s. Drivers cannot be expected to follow departmental policies and SOP’s unless they know what they are. Any training 

program should include a thorough review of this information. Deviations 

from applicable local, State, or Federal laws should be highlighted in particular. All departments should be able to provide their members with written 

copies of these procedures, usually in the form of an SOP manual or similar 

document. The classroom training program should assist the students in becoming familiar with searching for and interpreting the pertinent regulations 

for tanker operations that are contained in these documents. 

Vehicle dynamics. Theoretical instruction should include basic information 

on the physical dynamics of fire department tankers and their operations. 

This knowledge can then be applied to actual driving situations when the 

practical, hands-on portion of the training program is reached. Some of the 

vehicle dynamics issues that are of particular importance in tanker driver training programs include 

• The relationship of weight and speed to the stopping distance of the vehicle -- Tankers are heavier than most other types of apparatus, and it 

should be expected that it will take a greater distance to bring them to a 

complete stop than it would for a smaller vehicle traveling at the same 

speed. It also goes without saying that the faster the vehicle is going, the 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 49
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

UCK 960 TR TRUCK 960 TRUCK 960 

TRUCK 960 

7 

URT 9 KC 0 6

TRUCK 960 

TRUCK 960 

Final Position of Truck 960 

in a Concrete Culvert 

Impact With Metal Guardrail 

Impact With the Median 

Impact With the Roadway Sign 

Numbers indicate the position 

of Truck 960 as the 

control and the truck rolled 

into a concrete culvert. 

(Not to Scale) 

STOP 

victim lost 

more distance it will take to bring it to a complete stop. The driver must be 

familiar with the stopping characteristics of the tanker in order to ensure 

that appropriate following distances are used when driving the tanker. 

•	 The extreme weight difference between driving a tanker with a full water 

tank and an empty tank -- Each 1,000 gallons of water carried on a tanker 

weighs approximately 4 tons. Thus, a 3,000 gallon tanker weighs 12 tons 

more when it is traveling to a fire scene than it does after it dumps its load 

and heads for more water at a fill site. The vehicle handles significantly 

different when it is empty than when it is full. For example, the empty 

tanker will be more likely to skid on a wet road surface than would a full 

tanker. No other type of apparatus is subject to more drastic amounts of 

weight differences during normal operations. 

• The effects of a partially full water tank on vehicle handling -- Driving


tankers can be most dangerous when the water tank is only partially filled.


This danger is magnified if the tank is not properly baffled. The effects of


water sloshing back and forth within the tank, often referred to as liquid


surge, can overwhelm the driver’s ability to handle the vehicle. For ex-


ample, when the driver applies the brakes in a harsh manner to attempt


a quick stop, the water in the tank will surge to the front of the tank and


create additional momentum. This added momentum could override the


braking system’s ability to stop the vehicle and push it further forward. If


the tank is not properly baffled according to requirement of NFPA 1901,


Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus,


it should be driven only when the tank


is completely full or completely empty.


• The effects of a high center of gravity -- Tankers tend not only to be 

heavier than most other fire vehicles, they also tend to have a 

higher center of gravity. This can be 

a particular problem when attempting to negotiate severe curves or 

sharp turns at high rates of speed. 

Momentum could cause the tanker 

to leave the roadway or roll over 

(Figure 4-2). The driver should be 

instructed about these dangers and 

how to avoid them when they are 

driving the vehicle. The best way to 

avoid them is to slow down and 

drive the vehicle at a safe speed. The 

safe speed will vary for each vehicle 

depending on its size and design. 

The driver needs to find out the handling characteristics of the tanker he 

or she will be driving, and learn the 

appropriate speeds at which curves 

and turns may be negotiated. 

Figure 4-2 Momentum may cause the tanker to leave the roadway. Courtesy of NIOSH 

50 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Emergency and nonemergency driving procedures. The classroom training


session should provide an overview of the proper procedures that should be


followed when driving the tanker during emergency responses and


nonemergency conditions. Some of this information may already have been


covered during the portion of the lesson that covered departmental policies


and SOP’s. However, this portion of the class also should reinforce common


driving techniques and safety procedures that may not be contained in the


departmental SOP’s. Issues that should be reviewed


include


•	 Situations that demand the vehicle be brought 

to a complete stop and when it is safe to proceed. 

These situations include posted stop signs, red 

traffic signals, activated railroad crossings, blind 

intersections, and intersections where right-ofway for all lanes of traffic cannot be determined 

(Figure 4-3). 

• Requirements related to encountering stopped 

school buses with activated warning flashers. 

Most States require apparatus to come to a complete stop in these situations unless the apparatus Figure 4-3 Be extremely cautious when approaching railroad 

is traveling in the opposite direction on a divided crossings that are protected only by passive warning signs. 

roadway. 

• Safe following distances behind other fire apparatus or civilian vehicles. 

• Overtaking and passing other vehicles during an emergency response. 

• Predetermined response routes used in that jurisdiction. 

More detailed information on addressing each of these situations is contained later in this chapter. 

Crash and injury prevention measures. The classroom training session should 

include information on crash and injury prevention that has been gleaned 

from both local and fire service-wide experiences. By addressing common hazards that are encountered by fire-service personnel -- in particular apparatus 

drivers -- and the mitigation of these hazards, a significant reduction in the 

frequency and severity of accidents can be realized. Some of the information 

that should be included in this portion of the program includes 

•	 Risk identification and correction procedures used by your 

fire department. 

• Avoiding operating vehicles in reverse whenever practically possible. 

• Operating vehicles equipped with manual brake limiting 

valves, often referred to as wet/dry road switches, with 

the valve in the “dry road” position at all times 

(Figure 4-4). Federal law now requires these switches to 

be disconnected in the dry road position. 

• Proper apparatus positioning techniques that provide a Figure 4-4 Wet/Dry road switches should be left in 

barrier between firefighters and oncoming traffic. the dry road position at all times.

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 51
•	 Safe procedures for riding apparatus, including wearing seatbelts, wearing head and eye protection when riding in open seating areas, and 

hearing protection in riding positions that exceed 90 decibels (dBa). 

• Safe methods for loading firehose onto a moving apparatus. 

Again, details on these procedures are contained later in this chapter. If 

available, State Police accident reconstruction or highway enforcement personnel may be invited to present case study information on previous crashes. 

This type of firsthand information is very effective in implanting the importance of safe and responsible vehicle operation in the prospective driver’s mind. 

Apparatus care procedures. The classroom portion of the training class should 

provide the driver with information on the department’s procedures for vehicle care and maintenance. The driver’s role in inspecting the apparatus and 

correcting minor deficiencies should be explained. Procedures for reporting 

significant defects and conditions when the apparatus should be removed from 

service should also be highlighted. 

PRACTICAL DRIVING TRAINING AND EVALUATION 

While providing prospective fire apparatus drivers with a solid theoretical background on the requirements of the job is very important, the most important 

part of the candidate training program, from a safety prospective, is the practical driving portion of the program. It is during this portion of the program 

that the candidates will learn and develop the skills necessary to safely operate the apparatus in emergency and nonemergency response situations. 

The practical driving portion of the program should be progressive in nature. That is, the drivers begin with basic vehicle familiarization tasks. The 

next step might then be completing simple tasks or maneuvers at slow speeds 

in a very controlled atmosphere. After they have mastered the simpler skills, 

they may then progress to more complicated procedures and over-the-road 

driving. By using this approach, the candidates will become increasingly familiar and comfortable with the handling characteristics of the vehicle before 

they will be expected to operate it in a more challenging environment. 

It is very important that the vehicles used during the training program be 

the same or very similar to those that the driver will be expected to operate 

when he or she completes training and is released into the field. This is particularly true when preparing drivers to drive fire department tankers because 

of their large size and unique handling characteristics. Simply stated, a driver 

candidate who completes a training program while operating a minipumper 

or standard fire department pumper will not be safely prepared to drive a 

3,000-gallon tanker once he or she is in the field. If the drivers will be expected 

to drive the large tanker in the field, they should complete all portions of the 

practical training program using that tanker or one that is similar. 

It is also important that the training program include preparing the driver 

to operate under special conditions that may be particular to that jurisdiction. 

This may include conditions such as wet or icy roadways, unpaved roadways, 

and driving on severe grades. 

52 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Training safety. Every effort must be made to ensure that the practical training program is conducted in as safe a manner as possible. Remember, you are 

dealing with candidates who previously may have never driven anything larger 

than a pickup truck. Making the transition to a large fire department tanker 

will be a dramatic one for most candidates. By following basic safety procedures and common sense, we can ensure that their learning experience is a 

safe and effective one. Some of the basic safety procedures that should be followed during practical driver training include 

• Training administrators and organizational safety officers must review 

the training program and lesson plans to ensure that they comply with 

departmental policies and safety procedures. 

• Training officials and safety officers should inspect the training course 

prior to the commencement of training exercises to make sure that the 

training area is in proper repair and all appropriate safety equipment is 

in place. 

•A safety officer should be designated during training exercises, and he or 

she must have the authority to stop all activities and apparatus movement when he or she notices a condition or event that poses the imminent 

threat of crash or injury. 

• All candidates should be under the direct supervision of a qualified driving instructor at all times when operating vehicles on the training ground. 

•	 Designated areas should be cordoned off for conducting driving exercises. 

No other vehicular traffic should be allowed in the training area while 

candidates are operating vehicles. 

•	 If multiple vehicles are being used for training at the same time, the training agency should have procedures in place to ensure that the vehicles 

stay a safe distance apart during the exercise. 

• All instructors and candidates should be instructed in hand and radio 

signals that may be used during the training exercise and the actions 

that should be taken when particular 

signals are given. 

Driving course exercises. The driver’s initial 

opportunities to get behind the wheel of the 

apparatus and drive it should be limited to 

exercises that are conducted in a strictly controlled environment. The common term for 

this controlled environment is a driving 

course. Some jurisdictions are fortunate to 

have a specially designed driving course as 

part of their training facilities (Figure 4-5). 

These driving courses may be either a grid 

or circuit of roadways that simulate public 

thoroughfares, a large paved driving pad 

on which various driving courses may be 

laid out, or a combination of both. Figure 4-5 Many training academies have specially designed apparatus driver 

training courses. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 53
Most jurisdictions are not fortunate enough to have this type of driving course 

on their own property. In these cases the fire department needs to arrange with 

a property owner in its jurisdiction to use their driveways or parking lots for 

these exercises. Suitable facilities may be found at schools, churches, sports 

facilities, shopping centers or malls, and industrial plants. The fire department should obtain permission from the property owner prior to conducting 

these exercises, and it should also make sure that the area used for training 

can be segregated from any other vehicular or pedestrian traffic or activities 

that may be taking place at the facility. 

Prior to conducting driving exercises on acquired facilities, the training officer should ensure that the composition of the driving surface is substantial 

enough to support the weight of heavy fire apparatus. Some parking lots and 

driveways are not constructed to the same specifications as public thoroughfares. If the driving surface is not substantial enough to handle the weight of a 

maneuvering tanker, significant damage could be done to the property. The 

potential for this danger is magnified on asphalt surfaces during periods of 

extremely hot weather. The asphalt will become soft and the tires of the apparatus will create ruts in the driving surface. 

The practical driving exercises may start with a variety of simple procedures. The drivers may be allowed to drive around the course at a slow speed 

so that they can begin to build confidence in their ability to handle the vehicle. Making the drivers stop at various intervals will allow them to begin 

becoming familiar with the braking characteristics of the vehicle. Over time 

they may be allowed to operate the vehicle at increasingly higher speeds so 

that they begin to develop vehicle handling skills at the speeds that they will 

be expected to operate when they are in the public. 

In addition to simply driving the vehicle around the training area, there are 

a variety of obstacle and training courses that may be laid out using traffic 

cones that will increase the drivers’ ability to maneuver the vehicle skillfully. 

These exercises are designed to simulate conditions that the drivers will commonly encounter in the performance of their duties. There are literally dozens 

of different courses that can be set up. Many are based on specific conditions 

that are found within the response district of that particular jurisdiction. However, at a minimum, it is recommended that the driver be required to successfully 

master the four exercises that are required for certification under NFPA 1002. 

These exercises are 

•	 The Alley Dock Exercise: This exercise measures the driver’s ability to pull 

past a simulated dock or stall, back into the space provided, and stop 

smoothly. Real-life situations that this exercise simulate include backing 

the apparatus down an alley or backing the apparatus into its fire station 

bay (Figure 4-6). 

•	 The Serpentine Exercise: This exercise measures a driver’s ability to steer 

the apparatus forward and backward around fixed objects, within close 

limits, without stopping. It simulates moving around parked vehicles or 

other objects at a fire scene (Figure 4-7). 

54 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Figure 4-6 The Alley Dock Exercise. Courtesy of IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications 

Serpentine Exercise 

Forward Travel 

Backward Travel 34 ft 

(10 m) 

1 2 3

Figure 4-7 The Serpentine Exercise. Courtesy of IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications 

•	 The Confined Space Turnaround Exercise: This exercise measures the 

driver’s ability to turn the vehicle around in a confined space without 

striking any objects. This maneuver is often required when the apparatus 

approaches a congested fire scene and then is ordered to reverse lay a 

supply line from a pumper on the scene to a water supply source 

(Figure 4-8). 

• The Diminishing Clearance Exercise: This exercise measures the driver’s 

ability to steer the apparatus in a straight line, to judge distances from 

the vehicle’s wheels to fixed objects, and to stop at a finish line. For tanker 

drivers, this exercise is particularly useful in preparing to approach a water 

shuttle dump site and prepare to off load water through a side-mounted 

discharge chute (Figure 4-9). 

For more specific directions on constructing these courses and the dimensions that should be used, consult NFPA 1002 or the IFSTA Pumping Apparatus 

Driver/Operator Handbook for directions. 

To meet the intent of NFPA 1002, these exercises may be laid out separately and conducted 

one at a time. However, it is perfectly acceptable 

to combine two or more of them into a single exercise that requires the driver to accomplish multiple 

tasks. For example, the nationally recognized EmerFigure 4-8 The Confined Space Figure 4-9 The Diminishing Clearance Exercise. Courtesy of IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications 

Turnaround Exercise. Courtesy of 

IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 55
gency Vehicle Driver Training Program produced by Volunteer Fireman’s Insurance Services (VFIS) contains directions on setting up a single driving course 

that incorporates all of these exercises into one (Figure 4-10). 

Over-the road-training. Once it has been determined that the driver candidate has sufficiently mastered the basics of handling the fire department tanker, 

the next progression in the training program should be to begin allowing the 

candidate to operate the vehicle in live traffic situations on public roadways. It 

is recommended that the candidates first successfully demonstrate their ability to perform all of the required maneuvers on the driving course before they 

are allowed to begin over-the-road training. As well, consult departmental 

policies and State motor vehicles codes to determine whether it will be necessary for the driver to obtain a CDL before operating a fire department tanker 

on a public thoroughfare. It is recommended that a certified driving instructor 

accompany the candidate at all times when performing over-the-road driver 

training. 

As with the driving course exercises, it is recommended that the driver begin 

his or her over-the-road driver training by operating the vehicle over a simple 

route that contains minimal hazards and light civilian traffic. As the driver 

becomes more comfortable with handling the vehicle in public, an increasingly challenging route may be taken. Before the end of the training program, 

the driver should be expected to operate the tanker on the most challenging 

routes within the jurisdiction. If at any time the driver becomes uncomfortable 

with a situation or shows signs of losing control of the vehicle, the instructor 

should order the driver to stop the vehicle immediately, but safely. 

Each jurisdiction should map out suitable driving courses within its response 

district. The hazards and challenges presented along these courses may vary. 

However, it is recommended that various routes include the minimum elements required for certification according to the NFPA 1002 standard. Most 

CDL testing programs also use a similar list of conditions through which the 

driver must show the ability to safely operate the vehicle. These elements include 

• four left and four right turns; 

•a straight section of urban business street or two-lane rural road at least 1 

mile long; 

•	 one through intersection and at least two intersections where a stop must 

be made; 

• one railroad crossing; 

• one curve, either left or right; 

•a section of limited access highway that includes conventional entrance 

and exit ramps and a section of roadway long enough to make two proper 

lane changes; 

•a downgrade steep and long enough to require downshifting and 

braking; 

•	 an upgrade steep enough to require gear changing to maintain speed; 

and 

• one underpass or low clearance bridge. 

56 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Figure 4-10 The VFIS driving course is used for training in many jurisdictions. Courtesy of VFIS, York, Pennsylvania 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 57
Once the candidate has successfully completed all of the classroom and pracÄ

tical portions of the training program, he or she should be required to complete 

a final examination prior to being certified to drive the apparatus in the perÄ

formance of his or her duties. This should include a written test and practical 

tests that include driving the vehicle; operating the fire pump and any other 

mechanical equipment on the apparatus; and, in the case of tanker drivers, 

establishing and operating water shuttle fill and dump sites. It is recommended 

that either the National Professional Qualifications Board (NPQB) or the InÄ

ternational Fire Service Accreditation Congress (IFSAC) accredit the testing and 

certification programs. 

APPARATUS MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS 

Fire apparatus must be capable of performing in the manner for which it was 

designed at a moment’s notice. In order to ensure this, certain preventive mainÄ

tenance functions must be performed on a regular basis. History has shown 

that performing routine maintenance checks on a regular basis could have 

prevented most apparatus or equipment failures. Most fire departments require drivers to be able to perform routine maintenance checks and functions. 

NFPA 1002 also requires the driver to have certain preventive maintenance 

skills in order to be certified. 

Before continuing, it is important to differentiate between the terms mainteÄ

nance and repair. Maintenance, as used here, means keeping apparatus in a 

state of usefulness or readiness. Apparatus or equipment that is said to be in a 

good state of repair has probably been well maintained. Preventive mainteÄ

nance ensures apparatus reliability, reduces the frequency and cost of repairs, 

and lessens out-of-service time. The purpose of preventive maintenance is to 

try to eliminate unexpected and catastrophic failures that could be life and/or 

property threatening. 

Repair means to restore or replace that which has become inoperable. In 

almost all cases, repair functions are carried out by qualified mechanics who 

meet the requirements of NFPA 1071, Standard for Emergency Vehicle Technician 

Professional Qualifications. NOTE: Repair functions are done by a qualified meÄ

chanic -- not the driver. 

Preventive Maintenance 

Every fire department should have SOP’s for a systematic apparatus mainÄ

tenance program. The SOP’s should identify who performs certain 

maintenance functions, when they are to be performed, how problems that 

are detected are corrected or reported, and how the process is documented. 

Fire apparatus maintenance programs should meet the requirements set 

forth in NFPA 1915, Standard for Fire Apparatus Preventative Maintenance Program. 

The SOP should clearly dictate those items that drivers are responsible 

for checking and which conditions they are allowed to correct on their own. 

Most departments allow the driver to correct certain deficiencies such as 

low fluid levels and burned-out lightbulbs. More detailed repairs need to 

be made by a certified mechanic. Large fire departments have their own 

repair shops and mechanics for this purpose. These mechanics may have 

58 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
their own vehicles and be able to come to a fire station or incident scene to 

perform a repair. Smaller fire departments may have a local automotive/ 

truck repair business that assists them with these functions. 

NFPA 1002 requires drivers to be able to perform basic preventive mainteÄ

nance functions by inspecting the following portions of the fire department 

tanker: 

• batteries; 

• braking system; 

• coolant system; 

• electrical system; 

• fuel system; 

• hydraulic fluids; 

• oil; 

• tires; 

• steering system; 

• belts; 

• tools, appliances, and equipment; 

• water tank and extinguishing agent levels; 

• pumping system (if so equipped); 

• rapid dump system (if so equipped); and 

·• foam system (if so equipped). 

Drivers should be trained to determine the seriousness of any leaking fluids 

that may be noticed during the inspection. This includes being able to identify 

exactly what type of fluid is leaking and whether or not the amount that is 

leaking constitutes a problem. Some apparatus components regularly leak by 

their very nature or design. The driver must be able to tell the difference between what is normal and what is not. Some guidance on this issue is provided 

in NFPA 1915. The standard defines leakage as “the escape of fluid from its 

intended containment, generally at a connection” and categorizes leaks into 

one of three classifications: 

• Class 1 Leakage -- Seepage of fluid, as indicated by wetness or discoloraÄ

tion, not great enough to form drops. 

• Class 2 Leakage -- Leakage of fluid great enough to form drops, but not 

enough to cause the drops to fall from the item being inspected. 

• Class 3 Leakage -- Leakage of fluid great enough to cause drops to fall 

from the item being inspected. 

The fire department must establish, through its SOP’s, to what extent the 

driver is responsible for checking and correcting deficiencies in each of these 

areas. On critical safety components, such as braking systems, the driver should 

not attempt to repair the problem. In these cases, the driver should simply 

report the problem according to departmental procedures and allow a qualiÄ

fied mechanic to make the repair. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 59
The schedule for performing maintenance functions and checks varies from 

department to department. Typically, career fire departments require drivers 

to perform apparatus inspections and maintenance checks at the beginning 

of each tour of duty. They may also specify that more detailed work be comÄ

pleted on a weekly or monthly basis. Volunteer fire departments should establish 

a procedure by which all apparatus are inspected and maintained on at least 

a weekly or biweekly schedule. These inspections may be made by drivers or 

designated departmental apparatus officers. 

All drivers must be trained to use their department’s recordkeeping system. 

Each fire department apparatus and equipment inspection and maintenance 

SOP should dictate how maintenance and inspection results should be docuÄ

mented and transmitted to the proper person in the fire department 

administrative system. Written forms or computer programs may be used to 

record the information. Appendix D contains several examples of apparatus 

inspection forms that may be used. Fire departments should maintain an efÄ

fective filing system that allows the information on these reports to be reviewed, 

stored, and retrieved when required. 

Apparatus maintenance and inspection records serve many functions. In a 

warranty claim, these records may be needed to document that the necessary 

maintenance was performed. In the event of a crash, maintenance records are 

likely to be scrutinized by the accident investigators. Proper documentation of 

recurrent repairs can also assist in deciding whether to purchase new apparaÄ

tus in lieu of continued repairs on an older unit. Lastly, proper recordkeeping 

is required by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in order to receive the available credits when a jurisdiction is being evaluated for its fire insurance rating. 

Repairs 

In general, fire apparatus drivers are not responsible for performing signifiÄ

cant repairs to the apparatus. Each fire department must establish a policy for 

who will perform major repairs. As mentioned above, larger fire departments 

may have their own repair facilities and mechanics within the control of the 

fire department. This is an ideal situation. This allows the fire department to 

hire and/or train mechanics who are qualified to work on all of the special 

systems that may be contained on a fire apparatus. Contrary to the beliefs of 

some, all trucks are not created equal. Because a particular individual is a 

certified diesel mechanic does not mean that he or she is necessarily adequately 

prepared to perform the full gamut of required maintenance on fire apparaÄ

tus. Fire apparatus, including tankers, contain complex electrical systems, 

pumping and foam proportioning systems, rapid water dumping systems, and 

any number of other special devices that standard mechanics may not be faÄ

miliar with. 

In jurisdictions where fire apparatus repair is performed at a centralized 

motor vehicle pool repair facility, it is recommended that the facility employ 

special mechanics who are trained to work on fire apparatus when the need 

arises. Again, while the drivetrains used on garbage, dump, and fire trucks 

may all be similar, little else is. Mechanics trained to work on the special sysÄ

tems contained on fire apparatus are an absolute must. 

60 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Smaller jurisdictions commonly use privately owned repair facilities and 

personnel to perform repairs on their fire apparatus. Rarely are these people 

certified to work on anything other than the drivetrain of the apparatus. If 

one of the firefighting systems on the truck is in need of a repair, the manuÄ

facturer of the apparatus or the particular system (such as the fire pump) 

should be contacted to determine where the closest suitable repair facility or 

personnel may be located. 

Numerous serious fire apparatus crashes over the years have been attribÄ

uted to failure to properly repair noted deficiencies. In all cases, any apparatus 

that has an identified mechanical deficiency should be removed from service 

and properly repaired as soon as possible. According to NFPA 1915, each 

jurisdiction must develop a written policy with criteria for when the apparaÄ

tus is to be taken out of service. The criterion should be based on the 

requirements set forth in 49 CFR, part 390, “Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations,” as well as other local, State, and Federal requirements. The 

apparatus manufacturer also may have direction on when the apparatus 

should be removed from service. The repairs must be performed so that the 

apparatus is brought back to a state of readiness as recommended by the 

manufacturer of the apparatus. 

APPARATUS DESIGN 

Numerous crash investigations and reports have cited one or more apparaÄ

tus design elements as (a) factor(s) in the cause of the crash. These are perhaps 

among the most tragic of all crash causes, because they are also the most 

easily preventable causes. It is difficult to predict an apparatus driver’s beÄ

havior or reactions given a certain circumstance. Humans make mistakes 

and sometimes these mistakes lead to a crash. That fact can only be controlled to a certain extent. However, the design and construction of the 

apparatus is completely controllable. Fire department administrators and 

apparatus officers must understand the impact that various design elements 

have on the safe operation of the apparatus. Apparatus should be specified 

and constructed with maximum safety in mind. This is particularly crucial 

with fire department tankers because of their large size and weight. 

The following section highlights some information concerning the most 

important design factors for both new and used fire department tankers. The 

factors that are covered here are the ones that are most commonly cited as 

problematic in tanker crash investigations and reports. The final portion of 

this section contains relevant information on apparatus visibility issues. 

New Apparatus


For the purposes of this report, the term new apparatus is intended to mean

apparatus that has been constructed by a reputable fire apparatus manufacÄ

turer and is ready to be placed in service with a fire department. New

apparatus must be built to conform to all applicable NFPA standards, DOT

requirements, and other State and Federal motor vehicle regulations. All of

these standards and regulations are designed with both safety and function-

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 61
ality in mind. Before being placed in service, the apparatus should be required 

to pass the acceptance tests that are listed in these standards and regulations. 

It is a good idea to hire an independent, third-party testing firm to perform 

these tests whenever possible. 

NFPA 1901 

The standard that most applies to the design and construction of new fire 

department tankers is NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus. NFPA 

1901 is a broad standard covering the design and construction of almost all 

types of fire apparatus, except for aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) veÄ

hicles (covered in NFPA 414) and wildland fire apparatus (covered in NFPA 

1906). The standard is divided into 24 chapters. Some chapters are pertinent 

to all types of apparatus and others are pertinent to specific types of apparaÄ

tus, such as tankers. New fire department tankers are only required to meet 

the portions of the standard that are pertinent to the equipment that is carried 

on that apparatus. For example, if the tanker is not equipped with an aerial 

device, it does not need to address the requirements in Chapter 18, Aerial Devices, of the standard. 

Within NFPA 1901, Chapter 5, Mobile Water Supply Apparatus, contains some 

of the most basic requirements for the design of new fire department tankers. 

The following is a summary of the major requirements contained in this chapÄ

ter 

• In order to be considered a fire department tanker, the apparatus must

have a water tank with a capacity of at least 1,000 gallons.

•The tanker must have a minimum of 20 cubic feet of compartment storÄ

age space.

• All tankers must carry at least the following pieces of equipment:

— One 6-pound flat- or pick-head axe,

— One 6-foot or longer pike pole,

— At least 200 feet of 21⁄2-inch or larger fire hose,

— Two portable handlights,

—A portable dry chemical fire extinguisher with a rating of at least

80-B:C, 

— A 21⁄2-gallon or larger portable water fire extinguisher, 

— At least two SCBA and one spare cylinder for each,

— A first aid kit,

— Two spanner wrenches and a hydrant wrench,

— One each double male and double female hose adaptors, at least

21⁄2-inches in diameter, and 

— Two wheel chocks that fit the vehicle’s tires properly. 

If the tanker is equipped with a fire or transfer pump, the following minimum 

provisions also apply 

•The pump should meet the requirements of either Chapter 14 (Fire Pumps) 

or Chapter 16 (Transfer Pumps), whichever applies. 

62 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
•A minimum of 15 feet of soft intake or 20 feet of hard intake hose with an 

intake strainer of the appropriate diameter for the pump must be carried 

on the apparatus. 

• At least 400 feet of 11⁄2-, 13⁄4-, or 2-inch firehose and two combination 

spray nozzles capable of flowing at least 95 gpm. 

• One gated swivel intake connection. 

• One rubber mallet. 

All fire departments should consult NFPA 1901 when developing the specifiÄ

cations for a new tanker. The requirements listed in the standard should be 

followed as closely as possible. In reality, most reputable apparatus manufacÄ

turers will be hesitant, if not completely unwilling, to construct an apparatus 

that does not completely meet the letter or intent of the standard. To do so 

would expose them (and the fire department) to civil liability should a crash, 

injury, and/or death occur as a result of the deviation. 

BRAKING SYSTEMS 

One of the most important mechanical systems related to safe operation of a 

fire department tanker is the vehicle’s braking system. The ability to slow and 

stop the vehicle safely and efficiently is crucial. Numerous tanker crashes over 

the years have been attributed to the driver’s inability to slow or stop the veÄ

hicle when the need arises. While in some cases this is a result of excessive 

speed for the given conditions, cases have been cited where a poorly designed, 

poorly maintained, or otherwise inadequate braking system was the culprit. 

When discussing apparatus braking systems, it is important to differentiate 

between the three different terms or types of braking systems that enter the 

discussion: 

•Service Brakes -- The primary brakes that are manually actuated by the 

driver via the brake pedal and used to slow or stop a moving apparatus. 

•Parking Brakes -- Brakes that are applied by the driver to prevent the moveÄ

ment of a parked apparatus. 

•Auxiliary Braking Systems -- Braking systems, in addition to the service 

brakes, that are used to assist in slowing the apparatus when the driver 

removes his or her foot from the throttle pedal. 

NFPA 1901 requires new fire apparatus to be equipped with all-wheel, antilock 

service braking systems, if such systems are available from the manufacturer 

of that chassis. In today’s market virtually all chassis manufacturers, both 

custom and commercial, offer these systems. Antilock braking systems prevent the vehicle’s wheels from locking up when the brakes are applied harshly 

or on slippery surfaces. By allowing the wheels to slow, without locking up, the 

vehicle will not skid, and the driver will be more able to control the path of 

travel. 

NFPA 1901 recommends that all fire apparatus whose gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) exceeds 25,000 pounds (which almost all tankers do) have airactuated braking systems. Air brake systems must have quick air buildup 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 63
capabilities and dual storage tanks. The air braking system must be equipped 

with an air dryer and automatic moisture ejector to prevent the buildup of 

water in the system. Water in the system can be a particular problem in freezÄ

ing temperatures. Frozen moisture can cause the system to fail and make the 

driver unable to stop the apparatus. The air braking system must also be 

equipped with a pressure protection valve that prevents the use of all other 

air-actuated systems, except for the air-powered windshield wiper and steerÄ

ing systems, should the system’s air pressure drop below 80 psi. 

Whether or not the apparatus is equipped with an automatic moisture ejecÄ

tor or air drying system, it is strongly recommended that the brake system be 

manually bled of water at least weekly. This will ensure that any water missed 

by the automatic equipment will be removed from the system. On apparatus 

not equipped with dryers or ejectors, manually bleeding the brake system is 

absolutely essential for ensuring that water buildup does not adversely affect 

the operation of the braking system. 

In particular, fire departments must ensure that commercial chassis vehicles 

that are used for fire department tankers have adequate braking systems 

(Figure 4-11). Custom fire apparatus are designed for the special needs of the 

fire service, but commercial truck chassis may 

not be. Fire apparatus frequently are required 

to make successive brake applications within a 

short period of time. The heating of the brake 

system can result in momentary loss of brakÄ

ing ability, sometimes referred to as “brake 

fade.” Brake fade at a critical time could result 

in a crash if the need to stop the vehicle is imÄ

minent. In some cases, the standard braking 

system offered with a particular commercial 

truck chassis is not sufficient to prevent this 

problem. The fire department should specify a 

Figure 4-11 Make sure that the commercial chassis has sufficient braking beefed up braking system to ensure that the veÄ

power for use as a tanker. hicle can always be safely stopped. 

The standard also specifies a variety of other 

requirements for service braking systems, including: 

• All brakes on the vehicle must operate at the same time when the brake 

pedal is applied. This includes trailer brakes if the tanker is of the tractortrailer type. 

• The service brakes must be able to bring a fully loaded vehicle traveling 

20 miles per hour to a complete stop in a distance not exceeding 35 feet 

when operating on a level, dry, hard-surfaced road. 

NFPA 1901 requires the apparatus parking brake system to be independent 

of the service braking system. This feature allows the parking brakes to be 

applied and stop the vehicle should there be a failure of the service brakes. It 

should be noted that while most modern apparatus are equipped with brakes 

on all of the wheels, activation of the parking brake only affects the rear wheels. 

When the parking brake is applied, the service brakes are released on the front 

wheels. 

64 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
On new apparatus, the parking brake must be able to hold a fully loaded 

apparatus in a steady position on a 20-percent grade. Departments may specify 

that the parking brake control be located in a position that is accessible to 

both the driver and the front-seat passenger. This is beneficial in the event the 

driver becomes incapacitated while driving the vehicle. In this event, the front 

seat passenger can reach the parking brake control, apply it, and bring the 

vehicle to a stop. 

NFPA 1901 requires apparatus with a GVWR exceeding 36,000 pounds to be 

equipped with an auxiliary braking system. The standard also recommends 

them on all vehicles over 32,000 pounds GVWR. These systems may be reÄ

quired on lighter apparatus if the department’s response districts contain severe 

grades, congested driving/traffic conditions, or if the apparatus makes a high 

number of responses. Depending on their design, auxiliary braking systems 

begin to slow the apparatus as soon as the driver removes his or her foot from 

the throttle pedal or when pressure is applied to the brake pedal. By beginning 

the process of slowing the vehicle, the auxiliary brakes reduce the amount of 

effort required by the service braking system to slow or stop the vehicle. This 

also helps to reduce the problems associated with brake fade that were disÄ

cussed earlier in this section. If the antilock braking system senses that the 

vehicle’s wheels begin to lock up and a skid is imminent, it will automatically 

shut down the auxiliary braking system to help avoid this situation. There are 

a variety of auxiliary braking systems available on fire apparatus, including: 

• engine retarders; 

• transmission retarders; 

• exhaust retarders; and 

• driveline retarders. 

These systems must be operated as specified by the manufacturer of the 

system or the apparatus. This includes disabling those systems that are not 

safe when operated on slippery road surfaces. For more information of types of 

auxiliary braking systems, see the manufacturer’s information or IFSTA’s Pumping Apparatus Driver/Operator Handbook. 

CHASSIS AND VEHICLE WEIGHT CONSIDERATIONS 

An important aspect of fire apparatus design is to make sure that the weight 

bearing capacity of the apparatus chassis is sufficient for the load that is to be 

placed on it. Apparatus that have loads exceeding the vehicle’s GVWR (for 

straight chassis tankers) or GCWR (gross combination weight rating for tracÄ

tor-trailer tankers) are subject to excessive wear, poor steering, brake failures, 

and a reduced life span. In addition to the GVWR and GCWR, manufacturer’s 

should also ensure that neither front or rear axles are individually overloaded. 

Front axles must not exceed the front gross axle weight rating (FGAWR), and 

the rear axle(s) must not exceed the rear gross axle weight rating (RGAWR). 

When discussing the vehicle’s GVWR or GCWR, it must be understood that 

we are not simply talking about the vehicle’s chassis frame by itself. The vehicle’s 

rated weight capacity is based on a combination of factors, including each of 

the following: 

• chassis frame; 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 65
• axles (including the FGAWR and RGAWR); 

• atires and wheels; 

• spring and suspension system; and 

• weight distribution between the front and rear axles. 

The manufacturer of the apparatus must carefully match each of these comÄ

ponents during construction so that the resultant system has a sufficient weight 

rating for the finished apparatus. When considering the weight of the finished 

apparatus, the following elements must be included in the equations: 

• The cab and body of the apparatus. 

•The amount of water and/or foam concentrate to be carried on the appaÄ

ratus. 

•The amount of portable equipment to be carried on the apparatus (NFPA 

1901 requires tankers to allow for at least 1,000 pounds of portable equipÄ

ment). 

•The weight of personnel riding on the apparatus (NFPA 1901 uses 200 

pounds per person for each riding position on the apparatus). 

NFPA 1901 requires the apparatus to have a weight GVWR or GCWR and a 

gross axle weight rating (GAWR) label affixed to the apparatus. Before acceptÄ

ing delivery of a new apparatus, the purchaser should verify that the vehicle’s 

weight does not exceed the posted limits. 

While most fire service personnel are familiar with the concepts and reÄ

quirements concerning gross vehicle weights and axle weight requirements, 

less known but equally important is the vehicle’s bridge gross weight. The bridge 

gross weight rating combines the vehicle’s weight with the spacing between its 

axles. From an apparatus design standpoint, when crossing bridges the axle 

spacing is equally as important as axle weights. Simply stated, the farther a 

load is spread out, the less likely it will be to cause damage to a bridge or, for 

that matter, any road surface. This concept is exemplified in 

Figures 4-12 a & b. In both of these illustrations the truck is carrying the same 

amount of weight. However, as Figure 4-12a shows, the long truck causes much 

less stress on the bridge than that caused by the short truck in 

Figure 4-12b. 

Long 80,000 lb. Truck Short 80,000 lb. Truck

Figure 4-12a By spreading the weight out over a long chassis, there is 

less stress placed on the bridge. 

Figure 4-12b An excessive amount of weight on a short chassis may 

overstress a bridge. 

66 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) uses a bridge gross weight 

formula to determine the safe bridge weights for trucks. Calculation of this 

data is too detailed to be covered in this report. However, apparatus purchasÄ

ers should be familiar with the concept of bridge gross weights and attempt to 

keep their apparatus within these parameters. For more information on bridge 

gross weights and their calculation, obtain the document entitled Bridge Gross 

Weight Formula (HTO-33/Rev.4-84) from the DOT (www.dot.gov). 

WATER TANK DESIGN AND MOUNTING 

Because tanker’s primary missions are to haul large quantities of water to 

emergency scenes, the design and mounting arrangements for their water tanks 

are of greater interest than they are on other types of fire apparatus. As menÄ

tioned earlier in this manual, each gallon of water weighs approximately 8.3 

pounds. Thus, each 1,000 gallons of water that the truck carries adds approxiÄ

mately 41⁄2 tons of weight to the apparatus. That means a 3,000-gallon tanker 

is carrying nearly 13 tons of water. 

Keeping in mind that water is very fluid, it becomes obvious that we must 

design water tanks to control the movement of the water being stored within 

them. Otherwise inertia and other forces can cause the water to force the veÄ

hicle in the same direction that the water is moving. In almost every case, this 

will work against the driver’s ability to control the vehicle. When going around 

a curve in the road, this motion may cause the tanker to leave the road’s 

surface and/or overturn. When trying to stop the apparatus, it may overpower 

the vehicle’s braking system and cause it to skid or lurch forward. 

Water tanks for tankers must be constructed of a noncorrosive material. If 

the tank is an integral part of the apparatus body, sometimes referred to as a 

“wet side” tanker, it must also be resistant to condensation. The tank should 

be mounted securely to the apparatus chassis and is cushioned or cradled in 

such a manner as to prevent excessive stress on the tank during road travel. 

The exact shape of the tank will vary depending on the design of the apparaÄ

tus. Common water tank shapes include 

• elliptical; 

• t-shaped; 

• rectangular; and 

• round. 

Round and elliptical shaped tanks are most commonly found on standard 

tankers. Rectangular and T-shaped tanks are more commonly found on 

pumper-tankers, though exceptions to both rules are somewhat common. In 

either case, the purchaser and the manufacturer should select a tank that alÄ

lows for the lowest possible mounting and travel height. This will help keep 

the apparatus’ center of gravity as low as possible and reduce the apparatus’ 

tendency to want to tip over when taking sharp curves in the road. 

However, the most crucial aspect of water tank design relative to the safe 

operation of the apparatus is the use of dividers, called baffles or swash plates, 

within the tank to control the movement of water during road travel. Properly 

installed baffles prevent excessive longitudinal and lateral movement of 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 67
water within the tank. This prevents a liquid surge from occurring and causÄ

ing the loss of control of the apparatus. There are two primary design methods 

for installing dividers with any fire apparatus water tank: 

• The Containment Method -- This method uses a series of swash plates to 

divide the tank into a series of smaller, interconnected compartments. 

•The Dynamic Method -- This method uses a series of baffles to disrupt the 

movement of water by changing its direction of travel. These baffles are 

often in a staggered so that the changing direction of the water creates a 

turbulent motion that results in the water absorbing much of its own 

energy. 

In either method of tank design, the dividers that are used within the tank 

must cover at least 75 percent of the area of the plane that contains the diÄ

vider. In no case should the distance between dividers or between a divider 

and a tank wall exceed 48 inches. By following these simple requirements, all 

of which are contained in NFPA 1901, most accidents caused by liquid surge 

within the tank can be prevented. 

Used/Retrofit Apparatus 

As mentioned earlier in this report, rarely are design issues the cause of crashes 

involving new or manufacturer-built tankers. In contrast, numerous tanker 

crashes involving used, retrofit, or homebuilt apparatus have had their roots 

traced back to design concerns or flaws on the apparatus. Most often, these 

crashes involve tankers from small or rural fire departments that have the 

need for tankers, but not the funds to purchase new or custom-built apparaÄ

tus. In an effort to develop a useable tanker within the budget constraints of 

the their department, the end result is often building a tanker that is not parÄ

ticularly roadworthy or safe. Three scenarios that often lead to problems are 

• Converting an existing fire apparatus, such as a pumper or rescue veÄ

hicle, into a tanker (Figure 4-13). This often occurs when a department 

acquires a new pumper or rescue vehicle and decides that the vehicle 

being replaced could be made more useful by converting it into a tanker. 

Removing or modifying the vehicle’s original fire body so that it will acÄ

cept a larger water tank accomplishes this. 

• Converting a fuel, milk, or other type of tanker into a fire department 

tanker (Figure 4-14). This is often accomplished with little significant 

modifications to the vehicle. 

• Converting a military surplus vehicle, such as 6x6, 21⁄2 ton, or aircraft 

refueling trucks into a tanker (Figure 4-15). This is often accomplished by 

adding a homebuilt or other non-fire service designed tank to the bed of 

the apparatus. 

Converting any vehicle, whether it be a piece of fire apparatus, a non-fire 

service tanker, or a military surplus vehicle is not the preferred manner for 

obtaining a reliable fire department tanker. As much as possible this practice 

should be avoided. The reason that most of these vehicles are being made 

available to the fire department is because they have outlived their useful 

service life with the original owner. In other words, the vehicle is probably 

68 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Figure 4-13 In this case, the FDNY converted 

pumpers that originally carried 500 gallons of 

water to foam tankers that carry 1,000 gallons 

of foam concentrate. This conversion did 

include chassis and brake system upgrades. 

Courtesy of Ron Jeffers 

Figure 4-14 A civilian fuel tanker converted 

for fire department use. 

Figure 4-15 A surplus military 6x6 vehicle 

converted into a fire department tanker. 

already worn out. To then take this worn-out vehicle and place the enormous 

amount of weight on it that a fire department tanker carries further comÄ

pounds the questionable roadworthiness of the vehicle. If the fire department 

does not have the means to purchase a properly engineered tanker, any 

homebuilt or retrofit tanker they construct should be designed so that it meets 

the intent of the NFPA 1901 standard. 

In reviewing the crash statistics and case studies covered earlier in this 

manual, a number of particular areas of concern regarding retrofit and 

homebuilt tankers emerge. The following sections highlight some of these conÄ

cerns and provide information on how they can be avoided. 

CHASSIS AND VEHICLE WEIGHT CONSIDERATIONS 

Perhaps the most common safety issue affecting tankers made from used or 

retrofit vehicles involves the tendency for them to be seriously overweight when 

filled with water. Many agencies fail to design and build the vehicle so that it 

stays within its designed GVWR. In some cases, the vehicle grossly exceeds the 

GVWR. The result is a vehicle that will be subject to frequent mechanical breakdowns, will be difficult to steer, and will have insufficient braking abilities 

when fully loaded with water. Unless the vehicle’s suspension system, chassis, 

axles, tires, and braking system are upgraded during the conversion process, 

the vehicle must be designed so that its original GVWR is not exceeded. This 

type of upgrading is a very complex and expensive process; in most cases, it is 

more effective to simply buy a new chassis. 

Converting an existing fire apparatus, such as a pumper or aerial apparaÄ

tus, into a tanker can result in immediate problems. In its previous life, the 

vehicle was engineered specifically to carry the weight of the pumper body, 

equipment, and water, or the rescue body and equipment. In both cases, this is 

typically substantially less weight than that associated with a tanker. If the 

existing fire body is removed and a large capacity tank is mounted onto the 

chassis, in almost every case the vehicle will greatly exceed its GVWR. If you 

wish to convert an existing apparatus to a tanker, consult the original manuÄ

facturer of the fire apparatus to determine how this can be done safely. The 

manufacturer may be able to provide you with information on the maximum 

tank capacity and body size that may be suitable for the existing chassis or 

how the chassis can be upgraded to accept a larger water tank and body. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 69
Small fire departments often acquire used tankers from fuel companies or 

the military. In theory, this allows them to make a fairly quick and simple 

conversion to a fire apparatus. However, even though these vehicles come ready 

equipped with a large capacity tank, they may not have the GVWR sufficient 

to allow them to operate safely as a fire department tanker. Water weighs 

approximately 8.3 pounds per gallon. Most fuel products hauled by tankers 

have a weight ranging from 6.75 to 7.5 pounds per gallon. For purposes of 

example, suppose a 3,000-gallon tanker was designed primarily to haul a 

grade of fuel that weighs 7.3 pounds per gallon. Thus, when filled with water 

this vehicle weighs 3,000 pounds more than when it was filled with fuel. Again, 

before converting these vehicles for fire department use, determine the vehicle’s 

GVWR and do not exceed it. 

Very serious overweight situations and accidents have occurred involving 

tankers that were constructed from surplus military 21⁄2-ton (often called deuce 

and a half) vehicles. First of all, keep in mind that the reason these vehicles are 

offered at surplus auctions is because they are usually worn out and no longer 

suitable for military use. Secondly, these vehicles were originally designed to 

be personnel carriers, not heavy-load- hauling vehicles. To greatly overload 

any vehicle is dangerous; however, to overload one that was not particularly 

roadworthy or designed to carry heavy loads to begin with is a recipe for disasÄ

ter. 

The reason these types of vehicles are called 21⁄2-ton or deuce and a half 

vehicles is because that is their rated maximum load capacity. That means 

that the combined weight of the water, tank, equipment, and people riding on 

the apparatus must not exceed 5,000 pounds. Because water weighs 8.3 pounds 

per gallon, 5,000 pounds of water equals about 600 gallons. However, the 

amount of water that may be safely carried will be substantially less than that 

when factoring in the other elements. Some fire departments have placed these 

deuce and a half vehicles into service with water tanks that carry 1,000- to 

2,000-gallon water tanks on them. This is extremely dangerous as it could 

result in a vehicle that is 300 to 400 percent over legal or safe weight. Vehicles 

that are this much overweight should be removed from service immediately. 

BRAKING SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS 

When converting or retrofitting a vehicle to become a fire department tanker, 

the capabilities and condition of the vehicle’s braking system is as important 

as the chassis and weight limit considerations. As discussed in the section on 

new fire apparatus, the braking system is perhaps one of the most important 

mechanical systems related to operating the vehicle safely. This system must 

be thoroughly analyzed before placing a retrofit or converted vehicle into serÄ

vice as a tanker. 

In much the same manner as described above for chassis and weight carryÄ

ing capacity, the braking system on a vehicle that is intended to be converted 

into a tanker was probably designed for the vehicle’s original use. The system, 

as it was originally designed, may not have sufficient braking capabilities to 

safely serve as a fire department tanker. Typically, fire department vehicles 

brake more frequently and more harshly than standard commercial vehicles. 

70 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Standard braking systems may overheat or have insufficient air pressure caÄ

pacities to allow safe operation during the conditions associated with an 

emergency response. Either of these conditions may cause the brakes to become “mushy” or fade and lose their capability to safely slow or stop the vehicle. 

Even vehicles that previously served as fuel or milk tankers may not have a 

braking system suitable for an emergency vehicle. 

The manufacturer of the vehicle’s chassis and/or braking system should be 

consulted when retrofitting a vehicle to become a fire department tanker. These 

sources should be able to provide reliable information on what adjustments or 

system upgrades will be needed in order to ensure that the vehicle will be safe 

once it is placed in service as a fire department tanker. 

WATER TANK DESIGN AND MOUNTING CONSIDERATIONS 

Because it will carry the most significant part of the vehicle’s load once the 

tanker is placed in service, significant consideration must be given to the design of the water tank and how it will be mounted on the vehicle. Numerous 

fire department tanker accidents can have their causes traced back to probÄ

lems associated with the vehicle’s water tank. 

Fire departments must ensure that any tank that is constructed to be placed 

on a retrofit vehicle is designed in accordance with the water tank requireÄ

ments contained in NFPA 1901. The most common deficiency associated with 

tanks that have been constructed for use on retrofit tankers is improper and 

insufficient tank baffling. The hazards associated with improper baffling were 

discussed in the section on water tanks for new apparatus. Most reputable 

companies that build water tanks for fire apparatus on a regular basis will be 

familiar with the baffling requirements contained in NFPA 1901, and they will 

follow them in every case. However, this may not be the case with a local 

welding firm or other type of business that may offer to assist a fire departÄ

ment operating on a limited budget by building a tank for them. If the party 

seeking to build the tank is unable to construct it to the requirements of NFPA 

1901, their offer should not be accepted. 

It must also be noted that it is quite common for fuel or milk tankers that 

are being converted for fire department use to have insufficient tank baffling 

to allow them to safely operate as an emergency vehicle. Some fuel tankers 

may have limited baffling, but not enough to control water during the rigorÄ

ous conditions of an emergency response. This is often the case with tankers 

that are intended to carry two or more different types or grades of fuel. In some 

cases, the only baffles that these tanks have are the divider walls between the 

different storage compartments. Fuel tanks must be inspected prior to use as a 

fire department tanker to ensure that the baffling is adequate. If it is found not 

to be adequate, corrections must be made before placing it in service for fire 

department use. 

It is quite common for milk tankers to have no baffles inside their tanks 

whatsoever. The lack of baffles is related to sanitary concerns for hauling milk. 

The presence of baffles makes complete sterilization of the tank increasingly 

difficult. Obviously, sterilization is a huge concern for dairy companies, so the 

baffles are omitted from their tanks. Drivers of milk tankers are aware of the 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 71
lack of baffles and operate the vehicle accordingly. Again, before these veÄ

hicles can safely be converted for fire department use, a thorough analysis of 

the tank’s interior must be conducted, and it must be brought into compliance 

with the baffling requirements contained in NFPA 1901. 

The next design consideration that must be analyzed before placing a conÄ

verted vehicle into service as a fire department tanker is the location the tank 

is to be mounted on the vehicle. This is particularly true if the vehicle was not 

equipped with a tank during its previous use. The following is a synopsis of the 

mounting location arrangements that must be considered 

•The tank should be mounted so that the weight of the tank and water is 

distributed over the entire length of the vehicle as much as possible. If the 

tank is mounted in such a manner as to place an inordinate amount of 

weight on the rear axle(s), it could result in a vehicle that is difficult to 

steer or otherwise control (Figure 4-16). 

•The tank should be mounted in a manner that results in the vehicle’s 

center of gravity being maintained as low as possible. Creating vehicles 

with a dangerously high center of gravity is particularly a problem when 

retrofitting surplus military vehicles into use as fire department tankers. 

Often, the fire department places the tank on top of the flat bed body that 

the vehicle came equipped with. Some tanks have a cradle or legs that 

keep the bottom of the tank several inches to more than a foot above the 

bed of the vehicle. This results in a vehicle with an exceptionally high 

center of gravity and one that may not handle safely when making quick 

movements during an emergency response (Figure 4-17). All efforts must 

be made to make the vehicle’s center of gravity as low as possible. 

Again, even vehicles that previously served as fuel or milk tankers may 

have center or gravity problems when operated as a fire department tanker. 

Those vehicles were not designed for the type of driving conditions encounÄ

tered by emergency vehicles. They may have a high center of gravity that 

causes the tanker to overturn when operated in an emergency response 

condition. 

Figure 4-16 Although not always the case, one sign of an overloaded Figure 4-17 Note that the cradle legs between these tanks and the truck 

chassis is excessive sagging of the body over the rear wheels. bed actually raise the vehicle’s center of gravity even further. 

72 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
The last factor that needs to be evaluated relative to water tanks on retrofit 

fire department tankers is the manner in which they are attached to the veÄ

hicle. Fire department must ensure that the tank is completely secured to the 

vehicle. Cases have been noted where tanks were not properly secured to the 

vehicle and came loose during road travel. 

Apparatus Visibility Issues 

For most of the North American fire service’s first 200 or so years, the issue of 

apparatus color and visibility could more accurately have been described as a 

nonissue. However, beginning in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, a number of 

factors led the fire service to explore the issue of visibility. These factors inÄ

cluded rising incidences of fire apparatus crashes and research that was being 

conducted on how vehicle visibility affects its chances of being involved in a 

crash. The primary issues associated with fire apparatus visibility include apÄ

paratus color, warning lights, and reflective marking. The following sections 

highlight the important facts involving each of these. 

APPARATUS COLOR 

In the first 200 years or so of the North American fire service, the vast majority 

of fire apparatus was painted red as part of a tradition whose roots traced to 

the first days of the fire service. There is disagreement on how the color red 

became associated with fire apparatus. Some theories state that people associÄ

ate the color red with fire. Others involve the fact that most early vehicles were 

black in color and red would stand out. This was particularly important in the 

days before warning lights were widely available and used. 

By 1970, it was estimated that 85 percent of all fire apparatus in the United 

States was painted red. Communities that did deviate from the industry-wide 

tradition of red apparatus generally did so in favor of recognizing a local traÄ

dition. Many of these local traditions have remained intact for 100 years or 

more. 

In the mid-1970’s, research conducted by a New York eye doctor indicated 

that the best color choice for fire apparatus and emergency vehicles was yelÄ

low or lime-yellow. This was based on the fact that the human eye is most 

sensitive to a narrow band of colors between the wavelengths of 510 mμ (milÄ

limicrons) and 570 mμ . Yellow and lime-yellow fall into this range. These 

colors are highly visible and distinguishable from background clutter during 

both day and night conditions. Few other vehicles on the road were painted 

these colors (because most people thought lime-yellow, in particular, was ugly), 

so most people would learn to identify them with an emergency vehicle. NuÄ

merous departments were influenced by this research, and it is estimated that 

somewhere between 20 and 50 percent of American fire apparatus constructed 

in the 1970’s and early 1980’s bore the lime-yellow color scheme. 

Over time, fire departments that experimented with the conversion to the 

lime-yellow color determined that it had little measurable effect on improving 

their response times or reducing their accident rates. By the mid 1980’s many 

of the departments that had experimented with or completely switched over to 

lime-yellow apparatus were making the conversion back to their traditional 

colors (usually red). 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 73
In summary, scientific evidence proves that red is not the most visible color 

to the human eye. Technically, lime-yellow fire apparatus are more visible 

than other colors. However, there is no conclusive evidence showing that the 

color of fire apparatus has a dramatic effect on the likelihood of the apparatus 

being involved in a crash. Therefore, most fire departments have chosen to 

base the color of their apparatus on the traditions that exist in their communiÄ

ties. Most experts agree on one fact: how the apparatus is driven has a much 

larger impact on the likelihood of the apparatus being involved in a crash 

than does the color. If the driver places the vehicle in a position where the 

color of the vehicle will be the deciding factor on whether or not it will be 

involved in a crash, one or more serious, usually preventable errors has 

already occurred. 

WARNING LIGHTS 

NFPA 1901 contains detailed requirements for warning lights that are to be 

placed on fire apparatus. Because of the detailed nature of these requirements, 

it is not possible to summarize them in the space allotted in this publication. 

However, we can look at some of the basic issues surrounding apparatus and 

firefighter safety with respect to warning lights and basic steps that can be 

used to improve that safety. 

Early fire apparatus were typically not equipped with a significant amount 

of warning lights. In reality, the need for warning lights was not particularly 

crucial because the amount of traffic on the road in those days was relatively 

light and background clutter and lights were not nearly as substantial as is in 

today’s society. By the 1980’s 

and the 1990’s, fire apparatus 

were typically equipped with 

a dazzling array of rotating 

lights, flashers, alternating 

headlights, and strobe lights 

covering every portion of the 

apparatus, top to bottom, corÄ

ner to corner (Figure 4-18). 

The addition of all of these 

warning lights resulted in little 

or no improvement in fire apÄ

paratus crash rates. Fire 

departments began to recogFigure 4-18 Apparatus with large numbers of warning lights may pose hazards when nize that the abundant use of parked on the emergency scene. Courtesy of Joel Woods, Maryland Fire & Rescue


Institute warning lights could have acÄ

tually contributed to some 

crashes. Numerous minor and major apparatus crash investigations cited blindÄ

ing of the oncoming civilian driver by flashing headlights or excessive warning 

lights as a reason for the crashes. 

During this period, the Phoenix, Arizona, Fire Department conducted a study 

involving the use of warning lights when parked on the emergency scene. This 

study was initiated following the death of a firefighter while loading a patient 

74 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
into the back of an ambulance on a “routine” medical response. A drunk 

driver struck the firefighter. The Phoenix study developed several important 

conclusions: 

• The use of the full array of warning lights during the emergency response 

does improve the visibility of the vehicle, as long as none of those lights 

blind other drivers. 

• The use of the full array of warning lights while parked on the emergency 

scene may create a hazardous condition for personnel operating on the 

scene. A large amount of warning lights overpowers the oncoming driver’s 

ability to see personnel standing around the vehicles. Furthermore, the 

excessive amount of light flashing toward the oncoming driver negates 

the effectiveness of retroreflective markings on the firefighters turnout clothÄ

ing or safety vests. 

•When parked on the emergency scene, it is advisable to turn off most of 

the warning lights used on the emergency response. One or two small 

rotating amber lights should be left on to draw the attention of oncoming 

drivers, without blinding them or neutralizing firefighter reflective 

markings. 

• Headlights facing oncoming traffic should be turned off. 

The following is a summary of good practices related to emergency vehicle 

warning lights, apparatus, and firefighter safety. These measures should be 

implemented as much as possible by each jurisdiction. 

•If possible, all new, existing, and retrofit fire apparatus should have emerÄ

gency warning lights conforming to the standards contained in NFPA 1901. 

•Jurisdictions should ensure that the warning lights on its apparatus conform to their State’s motor vehicle code. Each State has different 

requirements for warning lights on emergency vehicles. These requireÄ

ments may include things such as limiting the colors of warning lights 

that may be used on particular vehicles, limiting the use of white flashing 

lights or flashing headlights, or other similar issues. 

• Apparatus should be equipped with a combination of rotating incandesÄ

cent and flashing strobe lights. The rotating lights are more visible than 

strobes during daylight hours and the opposite is true at night. 

•Apparatus should be equipped with one or two small rotating amber lights 

that can be left on when the apparatus is parked on the emergency scene 

during night operations. All other warning lights should be turned off. 

• Headlights should be turned off when parked on the emergency scene if 

there is a possibility that they could blind oncoming drivers. 

• Alternating or otherwise flashing headlights should be used for daytime 

responses only. They are very effective in gaining the attention of oncomÄ

ing drivers in daylight. However, they may blind oncoming drivers at night 

and may also make operating the apparatus more difficult. 

•When responding in snow or fog, forward-facing strobe or oscillating lights 

should be turned off to reduce visual disorientation of the apparatus driver. 

Again, consult NFPA 1901 for more detailed information on apparatus warnÄ

ing lights. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 75
REFLECTIVE MARKINGS 

Reflective markings, sometimes referred to as retroreflective markings, are a 

third means used to increase the visibility of the fire apparatus (Figure 4-19). 

NFPA 1901 contains the following requirements for reflective markings to be 

placed on all new fire apparatus: 

Figure 4-19 All new fire apparatus are required to have 

reflective trim down the side of the apparatus. 

Figure 4-20 Reflective graphic designs may take the place of 

simple reflective trim. Courtesy of Ron Bogardus 

•A reflective stripe, or combination of stripes, totaling 

minimum width of 4 inches conforming to the stanÄ

dards set forth in ASTM D 4956, Standard Specifications 

for Retroreflective Sheeting for Traffic Control, Type I, Class 

1 or 3, must be used. More information on this stanÄ

dard is available at www.astm.org. 

• The stripe should run at least 50 percent of the cab and 

body length on each side of the apparatus. 

• The stripe should run at least 50 percent of the body 

width on the rear of the apparatus. 

• The stripe should run at least 25 percent of the body 

width on the front of the apparatus. 

•A graphic design may be used in place of a plain stripe 

as long as the coverage of the design is equal to or 

exceeds the minimum area required covered by the 

standard (Figure 4-20). 

It must be kept in mind that reflective striping is only 

effective during nighttime operations and only when the 

headlight beams of the oncoming vehicle come into range 

of the reflective material. The effectiveness of the reflecÄ

tive marking is reduced if the civilian vehicle is 

approaching the apparatus from an angle as opposed to 

straight on. The general practice is to locate these stripes 

on the fire apparatus at about same height as the typical 

headlights for oncoming vehicles. 

In recent years some fire departments 

have started using extensive reflective 

markings on the rear of the apparatus to 

increase visibility and safety (Figure 

4-21). These markings generally cover the 

entire rear of the apparatus with a comÄ

bination of luminescent orange paint and 

retroreflective black cross-hash markings. 

This style of marking is common on EuroÄ

pean fire apparatus and U.S. highway 

department and public utility vehicles. 

The practice was too new at the time of 

this article to note if any significant effect

on crash rates will be realized by these Figure 4-21 Some newer apparatus are being

outfitted with European-type reflective

changes. markings on the back of the apparatus. 

Courtesy of Bob Barraclough 

76 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
SAFE APPARATUS DRIVING PRACTICES 

Certainly, the apparatus design and maintenance issues discussed to this point 

in the chapter are important from the overall standpoint of fire apparatus 

crash avoidance and firefighter safety. However, the single most important 

issue that affects crash avoidance and safety is the manner in which the veÄ

hicle is driven to and from the emergency scene. As stated above, only 5 percent 

of all apparatus crashes are caused by mechanical failures. A few more are 

caused when a parked fire apparatus is struck by another vehicle. The vast 

majority of apparatus crashes occur while the apparatus is moving. In this 

section of the chapter, we will examine safe driving practices that can be used 

to significantly lower the chance of an apparatus being involved in a crash. 

Driving at an Appropriate Speed 

A significant percentage of crashes involving fire department tankers is attribÄ

uted to the vehicle being driven at an excessive speed for the given conditions. 

Driving the tanker at an excessive speed may result in any one of the followÄ

ing scenarios occurring: 

• The tanker is unable to stop before hitting another vehicle or fixed object. 

• The tanker leaves the roadway when negotiating a curve. 

• Centrifugal force or a load shift causes the tanker to overturn when negoÄ

tiating a curve. 

The potential for any of these scenarios to occur may be increased by road 

surfaces that are wet, icy, unpaved, contain loose impediments, or are banked 

in one direction or the other. Drivers must recognize these dangerous condiÄ

tions and adjust for them accordingly. The vehicle must always be driven at a 

speed that allows it to be maintained under control, on the roadway, and able 

to stop within a reasonable distance. This speed will need to be reduced if the 

road is wet, icy, or unpaved. 

During training, the driver should develop a sense of what the safest maximum speed for operating the tanker is under a variety of conditions. Training 

should begin at low speeds and increase only as the driver becomes more comÄ

fortable driving the apparatus. Difficult routes of travel within the response 

district should be included in road testing so that the driver will understand 

how the vehicle will handle when making an emergency response. 

Many fire departments have established policies on the maximum speed at 

which the apparatus may be driven during an emergency response. Drivers 

should be reminded that the established maximum speed is not the required 

maximum speed. In other words, the driver should not drive at the maximum 

speed if he or she does not feel that he or she can safely control the vehicle at 

that speed. While many State motor vehicle codes or fire department operatÄ

ing procedures allow emergency vehicles to exceed the posted or cautionary 

speed limit during an emergency response, this practice is not recommended 

for fire department tankers. 

In many cases the fire department tanker is the 3rd or 4th due piece of appaÄ

ratus on the scene. It is a support vehicle, not an attack vehicle (unless it is a 

pumper-tanker being operated as an attack pumper). It is better to arrive a 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 77
few seconds later than not at all. If first-arriving units determine that no seriÄ

ous condition exists, the Incident Commander (IC) should order all en route 

apparatus, including tankers, to proceed at a nonemergency rate of speed. It is 

irresponsible to have vehicles continue an emergency response when no 

emergency exists. 

Figure 4-22 By placing a speedometer on the right side of the 

dashboard, the apparatus officer can more easily monitor the apparatus 

speed. 

The driver also should never heed any 

request by the fire officer on board the apparatus 

to increase its speed beyond the point that the 

driver is comfortable controlling it. On the 

contrary, the officer, or any other passenger riding 

next to the driver, also should be observant to the 

speed the vehicle is being driven and recommend 

that the driver slow down if it is felt that the 

apparatus may be in danger. Some fire 

departments place a second speedometer on the 

officer’s side of the vehicle so that the passenger 

can more accurately keep an eye on the actual 

speed the vehicle is being driven (Figure 4-22). 

Safe Stopping Distances 

Closely tied to the concept of driving the apparaÄ

tus at an appropriate speed is the driver’s 

understanding of the braking and stopping caÄ

pabilities of the tanker. A driver should have a working knowledge of the total 

stopping distance of the tanker. The total stopping distance is the sum of the 

driver perception distance, the driver reaction distance, the brake lag distance, 

and the vehicle braking distance (Figure 4-23). These distances can be sumÄ

marized as follows: 

•The driver perception distance is the distance a vehicle travels between when 

the need to brake occurs and when the driver recognizes this need. 

•The driver reaction distance is the distance a vehicle travels while a driver 

is transferring the foot from the accelerator to the brake pedal after perÄ

ceiving the need for stopping. 

Location when need 

to stop occurs 

Driver realizes 

need 

Driver applies 

brake 

Brake lag 

distance 

Braking 

distance 

Direction of travel TOTAL STOPPING DISTANCE 

Figure 4-23 A diagram of the total stopping distance for a vehicle. Note that in reality these portions are not equidistant. 

78 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
• The brake lag distance is the distance the apparatus travels from the time 

the driver applies pressure to the brake pedal and the brake system begins 

to slow the apparatus. 

• The braking distance is the distance the vehicle travels from the time the 

brakes begin to slow the apparatus until the apparatus comes to a comÄ

plete stop. 

Each department should conduct braking distance tests with its own appaÄ

ratus. As well, drivers should test the apparatus on their own so that they have 

a firsthand understanding of the apparatus’ capabilities. 

There are a number of factors that influence the driver’s ability to stop the 

tanker: 

• condition of the driving surface; 

• speed being traveled; 

• weight of the vehicle; 

• type and condition of the vehicle’s braking system and tires; 

• whether the vehicle is being driven uphill or downhill; 

• water surge that occurs within the water tank; and 

• whether the vehicle has a manual or automatic transmission. 

A dry, paved road provides the optimal stopping ability from a driving surÄ

face standpoint. The ability of the apparatus to stop is negatively affected by 

wet, snowy, icy, or unpaved roads. As mentioned above, drivers must compenÄ

sate for these conditions by reducing their speeds by an appropriate amount 

to match the conditions. 

The correlation between vehicle weight and speed and stopping distance is 

simple. At an equal speed, it will take a greater distance to stop a large tanker 

than it will a brush pumper. It will also take a greater distance to stop a vehicle 

that is going 50 mph (80 km/h) than the same vehicle when it is traveling 30 

mph (48 km/h). These two factors exemplify the need for the driver to train on 

the exact vehicle he or she will be expected to drive under emergency response 

conditions. A driver who certified on a pumper may not have a working unÄ

derstanding of the handling characteristics of a large tanker. 

The type and condition of the braking system has a tremendous impact on 

the ability to stop the fire apparatus. For example, in the case of air brakes, 

there is a slight delay in the time from which the driver pushes down on the 

brake pedal until sufficient air pressure is sent to the brake to operate. This 

must be considered when determining total stopping distance. 

Several serious fire apparatus accidents have been traced to poor mainteÄ

nance of the braking system and/or tires. Obviously, a vehicle that has a 

properly maintained braking system will stop faster than one that has a sysÄ

tem in disrepair. Tires that are in good condition will also provide better traction 

and reduce the stopping distance. Braking systems and maintenance programs 

were discussed earlier in this chapter. 

The forces of gravity will affect the tanker’s ability to stop depending on 

whether the tanker is going up or down a hill. Gravity will assist the tanker in 

stopping quicker when traveling uphill. Conversely, the tanker’s stopping disÄ

tance will be increased when traveling downhill. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 79
Water surge within the apparatus water tank will also work against the 

stopping ability of the tanker. When the apparatus brakes are applied, water 

in the tank will surge toward the front of the truck. This effect will be greater in 

improperly baffled tanks, but it occurs in all tanks to some extent. Keep in 

mind that a 3,000-gallon tanker is carrying roughly 25,000 pounds of water. 

The force of this moving weight will cause inertia that increases the stopping 

distance of the vehicle. In severe cases, it has been known to cause the vehicle 

to skid or lunge forward even after the vehicle’s wheels have stopped turning. 

Unimproved Road Surfaces 

Many fire departments, particularly those in rural areas, have unpaved or 

otherwise unimproved roads within their jurisdictions. Through preincident 

planning and response district surveys, the fire department should determine 

which roads will safely handle the weight of the fire department tanker and 

which roads are unsuitable to be used for an emergency response. The district 

should be surveyed during dry and rainy conditions, as some roads that may 

be suitable during dry weather may become impassable during wet weather. 

It is also very common for unpaved roads to contain low weight restriction 

bridges at locations where the road crosses bodies of water or trenches. Many 

of these bridges will not support the weight of a fire department tanker (or any 

other large fire apparatus for that matter). These bridges must be identified in 

preincident planning and alternative routes around them must be made known 

to the drivers. It may actually be quicker to have mutual or automatic aid 

tankers located on the opposite side of the bridge to respond than it would be 

for the closer tanker to take an alternative route around the bridge. AlternaÄ

tive water supply sources on the far side of these bridges should also be noted 

in preincident plans. 

Even if an unpaved road is deemed safe for operation of the tanker, the 

driver generally must drive the vehicle at a considerably slower speed than the 

tanker would be driven on a paved road. Some of the reasons this is necessary 

are: 

• The unpaved road surface will consist of dirt, loose gravel, or similar 

material. These surfaces 

may enhance the 

vehicle’s tendency to skid 

or slide in marginal conÄ

trol situations. 

• These roads often have 

ruts in the locations that 

vehicle wheels most comÄ

monly travel. These ruts 

can adversely affect the 

control of the tanker if 

the vehicle moves in and 

out of them (Figure 

4-24). 

Figure 4-24 Ruts can easily develop over time in unpaved roads. 

80 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
•

Poorly maintained unpaved roads may have seÄ

rious potholes, gulleys, or other deformities 

(Figure 4.25). Striking these deformities at an 

unsafe speed may cause the driver to lose conÄ

trol of the vehicle. Some roads develop a sort of 

“washboard” pattern in their surface that will 

cause the apparatus to go into a rhythmic bouncÄ

ing if driven too fast across them. This bouncing 

adversely affects the driver’s ability to slow or steer 

the vehicle. 

Because of their large size and heavy weight, it is 

generally not recommended that fire department 

tankers be driven off the road. If they are being used 

to resupply wildland fire apparatus that are engaged 

in off-road firefighting, the wildland apparatus should 

drive out to the road to meet the tanker when they 

need to be refilled. 

Avoiding Skids 

Figure 4-25 Be alert for serious deformities in 

unpaved roads. 

The most effective way to combat apparatus skids is to avoid them altogether. 

The most common causes of skids involve driver error, including: 

• Driving too fast for road conditions. 

• Failing to properly appreciate weight shifts of heavy apparatus. 

•Failing to anticipate obstacles (these range from other vehicles to aniÄ

mals). 

• Improper use of auxiliary braking devices. 

•Improper maintenance of tire air pressure and adequate tread depth. Tires 

that are overinflated or lacking in reasonable tread depth make the apÄ

paratus more susceptible to skids. The proper tire pressure should be 

obtained from the Tire and Rim Year Book published by the Tire and Rim 

Association, Inc. Do not obtain tire pressure from the sidewall of the tire. 

Most newer, large fire apparatus are equipped with an all-wheel, antilock 

braking system (ABS) that is powered by air pressure. These systems minimize 

the chance of the vehicle being put into a skid when the brakes are applied 

forcefully. An onboard computer that monitors each wheel controls air presÄ

sure to the brakes, maintaining optimal braking ability. A sensing device 

monitors the speed of each wheel. When a wheel begins to lock up, the sensing 

device sends a signal to the computer that the wheel is not turning. The comÄ

puter analyzes this signal against the signals from the other wheels to determine 

if this particular wheel should still be turning. If it is determined that it should 

be turning, a signal is sent to the air modulation valve at that wheel, reducing 

the air brake pressure and allowing the wheel to turn. Once the wheel turns, it 

is braked again. The computer makes these decisions many times a second, 

until the vehicle is brought to a halt. Because of this mechanical capability, 

when driving a vehicle equipped with an ABS, maintain a steady pressure on 

the brake pedal (rather than pumping the pedal) until the apparatus is brought 

to a complete halt. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 81
Figure 4-26 Skid pads can be used to train drivers in 

controlling the vehicle under adverse weather 

conditions. 

On vehicles that are equipped with both an antilock braking 

system and an auxiliary braking system, the computer 

controlling the antilock braking system will shut off the auxiliary 

braking system during a skid condition. This will help to reduce 

the vehicle’s tendency to continue the skid. 

If an apparatus that is not equipped with an ABS goes into 

a skid, the driver should release the brakes and allow the wheels 

to rotate freely. Turn the apparatus steering wheel so that the 

front wheels face in the direction of the skid. If using a standard 

transmission, do not push in the clutch pedal until the vehicle 

is under control and just before stopping the vehicle. Once the 

skid is controllable, gradually apply power to the wheels to 

further control the vehicle by giving traction. 

Skid control skills may be learned through practice on skid pads. These are 

specially designed, smooth surface driving areas that have water directed onto 

them to make skids likely (Figure 4-26). All training should be done at slow 

speeds to avoid damaging the vehicle or injuring participants. Some 

jurisdictions choose to use reserve apparatus or other older vehicles for this 

part of the training process. 

Negotiating Curves 

As we saw in Chapters 2 and 3, tankers have a high incidence rate of being 

involved in crashes when they are unable to negotiate a curve in the roadway. 

Almost all of these crashes occur because the tanker enters the curve at an 

unsafe speed and the driver loses control of the vehicle. This loss of control 

may result in a number of scenarios: 

• The tanker enters oncoming lanes of traffic and strikes another vehicle. 

• The tanker partially or completely leaves the roadway. 

•A weight shift occurs in the water tank causing the driver to lose control. 

• Centrifugal force and/or inertia causes the tanker to overturn. 

Specific strategies for dealing with each of the listed scenarios are covered 

elsewhere in this report. However, once again the best strategy for safely negoÄ

tiating curves is to maintain control of the vehicle by entering the curve at a 

reasonable, safe speed. Drivers should be familiar with tricky curves in their 

response district or potential mutual aid areas and know what the safe speeds 

are for negotiating them. When driving on unfamiliar roads, be alert for yelÄ

low road signs indicating upcoming curves and pay attention to the suggested 

speeds that are usually found on the bottom portions of these signs. Keep in 

mind that these suggested speeds are intended for passenger cars traveling on 

a dry road. Most likely these suggested speeds will be too high for a fire departÄ

ment tanker to safely negotiate the curve. Speeds will need to be further reduced 

if the road surface is wet or icy. 

Traversing Grades 

The large size and heavy weight of tankers make driving them up and down 

hills a little more challenging than with smaller vehicles. The safe practices for 

operating tankers on hills differ depending on whether the vehicle has a manual 

or automatic transmission and whether it has an auxiliary braking system. 

82 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
TANKERS EQUIPPED WITH MANUAL TRANSMISSIONS 

Most people do consider driving uphill to be a risky proposition. However, 

when driving a tanker equipped with a manual transmission uphill, if proper 

gear shifting principles are not followed, it is possible that the driver will be 

unable to get the vehicle into any gear. The result could be the vehicle starting 

to drift backwards down the hill. To prevent this, shift the transmission to a 

lower gear. This practice provides adequate driving power and enables the 

driver to keep the apparatus under control. 

When driving downhill, select a lower gear and remain in gear at all times. 

A commonly followed rule of thumb is to use one gear less going downhill 

than you would use to go up the same hill. The engine provides braking power 

when the vehicle is in gear. To prevent engine damage, limit downhill speed to 

lower than maximum governed rpm. The engine governor cannot control 

engine speed downhill, as the wheels turn the driveshaft and engine. Engine 

rotation faster than the rated rpm can result in damage to the vehicle’s engine 

and loss of control of the vehicle. For this reason, it is best not to allow the 

vehicle to coast while going down the hill. 

TANKERS EQUIPPED WITH AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS 

Traversing up or down grades with a tanker equipped with an automatic 

transmission is considerably easier than with an apparatus equipped with a 

manual transmission. Whether going uphill or downhill the transmission 

system will generally will select the appropriate gear for the apparatus 

automatically. However, the driver should not overrely on the apparatus to 

maintain control of the vehicle and should still exercise caution, particularly 

when going downhill. The driver should use the vehicle’s service and auxiliary 

braking systems to ensure the vehicle maintains a safe speed for the given 

road conditions. 

Adverse Weather Conditions 

Though statistics show that the majority of tanker crashes occur on dry roads, 

weather can play a factor in safe driving. Rain, snow, ice, and mud make 

roads slippery and more dangerous to negotiate. A driver must recognize these 

dangers and adjust apparatus speed according to the crown of the road, the 

sharpness of curves, and the condition of road surfaces. The speed should be 

decreased gradually when necessary. The driver also should slow down while 

approaching curves, keep off low or soft shoulders, and avoid sudden turns. 

Areas that first become slippery include bridge surfaces, northern slopes of 

hills, shaded spots, and areas where snow is blowing across the roadway. 

It is a good policy to try the brakes while in an area free of traffic to find out 

how slippery the road might be. This will allow the driver to adjust accordÄ

ingly when operating in traffic. Speed must be adjusted to road and weather 

conditions so that the apparatus can be stopped or maneuvered safely. During 

slippery-road conditions, the safe following distance between vehicles increases 

dramatically. Remember that it takes 3 to 15 times more distance for a vehicle 

to come to a complete stop on snow and ice than it does on dry concrete. 

Snow tires or tire chains will reduce the stopping distance and considerably 

increase starting and hill-climbing traction on snow or ice. Apparatus may be 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 83
Figure 4-27 Automatic tire chains work fairly well in snow 

up to about 6 or 8 inches deep. 

equipped with the traditional, manually applied tire chains 

or the newer automatic variety. Automatic tire chains conÄ

sist of short lengths of chain on a rotating hub in front of 

each rear wheel (Figure 4-27). The hubs swing down into 

place when a switch on the dashboard is activated. The 

rotation of the hub throws the chains underneath the rollÄ

ing tires. These chains tend to lose their effectiveness in 

snow that is deeper than 8 inches. 

It is also recommended that fire departments allow, if 

not require, tanker drivers to perform driver training during periods of inclemÄ

ent weather and adverse road conditions. It is not reasonable to expect the 

drivers to do all of their training on dry roads and then control the vehicle 

during an emergency response in a snow or rainstorm. Controlled driver trainÄ

ing during these conditions is invaluable in providing experience and 

confidence for the driver during adverse weather. 

Regaining Control When Right-Side Wheels Leave the Roadway 

A significant number of tanker and other fire department apparatus crashes 

have occurred as a result of the apparatus drifting off the right side of the road 

surface. This has occurred both on straight sections of road as well as curves. 

This situation develops when, for whatever reason, the apparatus drifts too far 

to the right and the front, rear, or both sets of tires leave the paved surface. 

Generally, the simple act of the tires leaving the paved surface does not 

create a significant hazard in and of itself. It is possible that, if the shoulder is 

very soft, it could throw the vehicle toward the right into an object along the 

roadway or perhaps into a rollover situation. However, most crashes that ocÄ

cur when the right side wheels leave the paved surface are as a result of an 

“overcorrection” and the resultant panic by the driver when attempting to 

bring the right side wheel(s) back onto the paved surface. Often, there will be 

a lip of 4 to 8 inches where the paving drops off onto the soft shoulder. When 

the driver attempts to bring the right-side tires over this lip back onto the paved 

surface at too high of a speed, the common reaction is for the vehicle to shoot 

quickly (in some cases violently) toward the left. This could cause the apparaÄ

tus to enter opposing lanes of traffic, go completely off the left side of the road, 

or to begin a rocking motion that results in loss of control of the vehicle. In 

other cases, the vehicle may stay on the roadway, but the jerking action of 

jumping back onto the paved surface causes the rear end of the vehicle to 

swing out in a counterclockwise motion, causing the vehicle to overturn. 

Drivers must be trained regarding the hazards of drifting off the right side of 

the paved surface. When either or both of the right-side wheels/tires drift off of 

the paved surface, the driver should be instructed to slow the vehicle gradually 

to a safe speed before attempting to bring the wheel back onto the paved surÄ

face. There is no defined speed at which this is always safe as it will depend on 

many factors, including the size of the lip, the characteristics of the vehicle, 

and driver skill. However, most experts agree that the appropriate speed to 

remount the paved surface is 20 mph or less. 

84 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Right-of-Way Issues 

Most State motor vehicle codes provide exceptions to standard right-of-way 

regulations for emergency vehicles responding to an emergency. However, drivÄ

ers must realize that the safe implementation of these right-of-way waivers is 

dependent on the mutual recognition of the situation by both the driver of the 

emergency vehicle and the civilian motorist(s) in question. In other words, 

drivers must realize that they do not automatically have, nor can they demand, the right-of-way. By using warning devices that can gain the recognition 

of the civilian motorist(s), the driver is requesting the right-of-way. Actions such 

as ignoring approaching apparatus, refusing to yield, and driving erratically 

due to panic may be expected from the public. At all times, the driver must be 

prepared to yield the right-of-way in the interest of safety. One philosophy 

that is common is to drive as you would during nonemergency situations and 

take advantage of the room that clears for you on the road. While the number 

of right-of-way situations that may be encountered is almost endless, the two 

most common involve passing other vehicles and negotiating intersections 

(covered in the next section). 

Safe passing of vehicles in order to gain the right-of-way is a situation that 

all fire apparatus drivers will encounter on nearly every emergency response. 

In general, it is best to avoid passing vehicles that are not pulling over to yield 

the right-of-way to the tanker. However, in some instances, the need to pass 

will occur, and the driver must be prepared to do it in the safest manner posÄ

sible. The following guidelines should be used to ensure safe passing. 

• Always travel on the innermost or left lane on multilane roads. Wait for 

vehicles in front of you to move to the right before proceeding. 

• Avoid passing vehicles on their right sides 

(Figure 4-28). Most civilian drivers’ natuÄ

ral tendencies are to move to the right when 

an emergency vehicle is approaching. Thus, 

they could turn into your path if you are 

passing on the right. Some departments 

have strict SOP’s prohibiting this practice. 

The exception to this would be in States that 

require vehicles to pull to the closest shoulÄ

der. In some cases, this may be the median, 

and passing those vehicles on their right

side would be appropriate. Figure 4-28 Never pass a vehicle on its right side.

• Make sure you can see that the opposing 

lanes of traffic are clear of oncoming traffic if you must move in that 

direction. 

• Avoid passing other emergency vehicles if at all possible. However, in some 

cases, it may be desirable for a smaller, faster vehicle (such as an ambuÄ

lance) to pass a larger, slower vehicle (such as a tanker). In these cases, 

the lead vehicle should slow down and move to the right to allow the 

other vehicle to pass. This maneuver should be coordinated by radio if 

possible. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 85
Intersections 

Statistics show that intersections are the most likely place for a crash involvÄ

ing all types of emergency vehicles. The case studies in this report do not 

appear to reflect that reality for tankers. However, this is probably a result of 

the fact that the cases studied here involved fatalities of firefighters. IntersecÄ

tion accidents involving tankers are most often not fatal to firefighters because 

more times than not, the vehicle the tanker strikes is considerably smaller 

than the tanker. In reality, intersections are just as dangerous for tankers as 

they are for any other emergency vehicle. 

When approaching an intersection, the driver should slow the apparatus 

to a speed that allows a stop at the intersection if necessary. Even if faced with 

a green signal light, or no signal at all, the apparatus should be slowed to a 

speed that would allow for an expedient stop if necessary. Situations where 

an expedient stop may be required include if there are any obstructions, such 

as buildings or trucks, that block the driver’s view of the intersection, or the 

driver cannot ensure that all other vehicles have stopped to give the tanker 

the right of way. At busy intersections, the driver should remove his or her 

foot from the throttle pedal and place it on the brake pedal so that there will 

be no delay if the need to stop occurs. 

Depending on the motor vehicle statutes and departmental SOP’s within a 

particular jurisdiction, tankers on an emergency response may proceed 

through a red traffic signal or stop sign after coming to a complete stop. Do 

not proceed into the intersection until you are certain that every other driver 

sees you and is allowing you to proceed. Simply slowing when approaching 

the intersection and then coasting through is not an acceptable substitute for 

coming to a complete stop. When proceeding through the intersection, attempt to make eye contact with each of the other drivers to ensure that they 

know you are there and about to proceed. This method is not foolproof. The 

only sure way is to visually ensure that all other vehicles have come to a 

complete stop. 

Traffic waiting to make a left-hand turn may pull to the right or left, depending upon the driver. In situations where all lanes of traffic in the same 

direction as the responding apparatus are blocked, the apparatus driver should 

move the apparatus into the opposing lane of traffic and proÄ

ceed through the intersection at an extremely reduced speed 

(Figure 4-29). Oncoming traffic must be able to see the apÄ

proaching apparatus. Full use of warning devices is essential. 

Driving in the oncoming lane is not recommended in situaÄ

tions where oncoming traffic is unable to see the apparatus, 

such as on a freeway underpass. Be alert for traffic that may 

enter from access roads and driveways. Approaching traffic 

Figure 4-29 In some cases it may be necessary to on the crest of a hill, slow-moving traffic, and other emergency 

enter the opposing lane of traffic at an intersection. apparatus must be closely monitored. 

The driver should also try to note if a green signal he or she is approaching 

has been in that position for a considerable amount of time. This could mean 

that it is ready to change to yellow at any moment. Anticipate this change 

and be prepared to stop if the change occurs as the apparatus nears the inter86 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
section. Another indicator of an impending signal change would be the presÄ

ence of flashing “Do Not Walk” signs at pedestrian crossings. These lights 

typically begin flashing about 15 seconds or so before the green signal turns to 

yellow. 

Some jurisdictions use traffic control or preemption devices to assist emerÄ

gency vehicles in negotiating intersections during their response. The driver 

must be aware of the traffic control devices used in his or her jurisdiction and 

how they operate. There are at least three different technologies that are used 

to help emergency vehicles gain control of traffic signals. 

The most common preemption system, called an optical system, uses a speÄ

cial strobe light called an emitter that is mounted to the fire apparatus and an 

optical receiver that is installed at the intersection. The emitter produces a 

flashing light at a precise frequency. When the receiver detects the presence of 

the flashing light, it sends an electronic request to the traffic signal controller 

to either prolong the green light for the approaching emergency vehicle or to 

cycle the intersection signal and provide the approaching emergency vehicle 

with a green light. These systems are capable of detecting the special strobe 

light at great distances, allowing time for pedestrians that may be in a crosswalk to complete their trip and for traffic approaching the intersection to stop 

and make way for the emergency vehicle to pass safely. 

Some optical preemption systems provide a green light for the emergency 

vehicle only and display red lights to the other three directions of travel, and 

other systems give a green light to the emergency vehicle and to traffic travelÄ

ing in the opposing direction. In some jurisdictions, the traffic light standard 

may be equipped with a clear light that indicates to the tanker driver that the 

signal has been received and a green light is forthcoming. The tanker driver 

should not overly rely on this white light, as they have been known to fail at 

times due to mechanical or electrical problems. On some apparatus, the emitÄ

ter is wired into the parking brake system. When the parking brake is set, the 

emitter will be turned off. On apparatus that do not have this feature, the 

driver should remember to turn off the emitter when the apparatus is parked 

on the scene of an emergency. Otherwise, the emitter could affect any traffic 

signals that are within reach and disrupt the normal flow of traffic. 

Another technology used for emergency vehicle preemption is a system that 

is activated by the emergency vehicle’s siren as it approaches an intersection. 

A microphone on the traffic signal “hears” the siren and sends a signal to the 

traffic signal controller, ordering a preemption of the current traffic signal phase 

or a temporary hold on a green light that will allow the emergency vehicle to 

proceed. The microphone may be adjusted to order the preemption from disÄ

tances of anywhere from a few hundred feet to about 1⁄2 mile. Intersections 

equipped with this system may have 3-inch clear and blue lights in each direcÄ

tion of travel, somewhere to the side of the regular traffic signals. As soon as 

the microphone sends the preemption signal to the signal controller, the direcÄ

tion of travel for the emergency vehicle gets a white light indicating that the 

signal was received and that a green traffic light is forthcoming. All other 

directions of travel get a blue light that indicates an emergency vehicle comÄ

ing from one of the other directions has gained control of the signal first. This 

is extremely important when emergency vehicles are approaching the 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 87
intersection from more than one direction. Vehicles getting the blue light know 

that they will have to come to a stop because a green signal is not immediÄ

ately forthcoming in their direction of travel. 

The latest technologies in traffic preemption systems are those that use GloÄ

bal Positioning Systems (GPS) to activate traffic lights in favor of the responding 

apparatus. In these systems, the apparatus are equipped with GPS output devices that are tracked by satellite. Most GPS systems are able to track a moving 

apparatus accurately to within several yards of its actual position. It also will 

track the direction of travel and speed of apparatus. This information is reÄ

layed back to a monitoring system that determines which traffic lights the 

apparatus is approaching and changes the traffic light’s signal to green (or 

keeps it green if it already was) to allow for safe passage of the apparatus. 

Regardless of which type of traffic control devices are used in any jurisdicÄ

tion, they are not substitutes for using proper defensive driving techniques. 

When traversing an intersection with a green signal, the driver must maintain 

a speed that will allow for evasive actions in the event another vehicle enters 

the intersection. If for any reason the fire apparatus does not get a green sigÄ

nal, the driver should bring the vehicle to a complete stop at a red signal. Keep 

in mind that if two apparatus equipped with signal control devices approach 

the same traffic signal from different directions, only the apparatus whose 

sensor affects the signal first will get a green light. The later-approaching apÄ

paratus gets a red signal. Do not assume that just because you did not get a 

green light that the system is not working. Approach the intersection with 

caution and come to a complete stop. 

Rotaries/Roundabouts 

Fire departments whose response districts include rotaries or roundabouts must 

include safe driving tactics for these intersections in their driver training program. Though the terms rotary and roundabout are often used interchangeably, 

in reality they are two different types of circular intersections. Circular intersections are those in which vehicles traverse by circulating around a center 

island, as opposed to crossing each other’s path. 

A roundabout is a circular intersection with yield control of all entering trafÄ

fic, channelized approaches, counterclockwise circulation, and appropriate 

geometric curvature to ensure that travel speed within the intersection is less 

than 30 mph. 

The term rotary (also called a traffic circle) is most commonly used in the 

eastern United States to describe older-style circular intersections that are missÄ

ing one or more of the characteristics of a roundabout. Often, they have large 

diameters in excess of 100 yards and allow for speeds significantly greater 

than 30 mph. 

Tankers must approach circular intersections with extreme caution. Most 

likely, the apparatus will have to yield to or completely stop for vehicles that 

are already within the intersection. When a safe opening becomes available, 

the tanker may enter the intersection using the designated direction of travel 

(almost always counterclockwise). No apparatus should ever be driven against 

the flow of traffic in a circular intersection. The apparatus should maintain a 

safe speed during the entire time it is in the intersection, and the driver should 

88 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
use the right turn signal when the tanker reaches the street it will be turning 

onto. 

For more information on circular intersections, see the report by the U.S. 

Federal Highway Administration entitled Roundabouts: An Informational Guide 

(FHWA-RD-00-067) on the web at www.tfhrc.gov. 

Railroad Crossings 

Drivers must exercise caution when encountering railroad crossings during 

the emergency response. Crashes between fire apparatus and trains can be 

catastrophic events that result in serious injury or death to the firefighters on 

the apparatus. Much attention was focused on how fire apparatus should neÄ

gotiate railroad crossings following a fatal collision in Catlett, Virginia, in 1989 

(see the report at www.fema.usfa.gov/pdf/usfapubs/tr-048.pdf). These crashes 

are easily preventable as there is little mystery as to the route or direction a 

train is coming toward the apparatus. 

In general, railroad crossings should be negotiated in much the same manÄ

ner as described above for intersections. In reality, a railroad crossing is just 

another type of intersection, albeit one that has the potential to place the 

tanker in the travel path of a moving vehicle that is significantly larger than 

the fire apparatus. When approaching a railroad crossing that has an actiÄ

vated signal, the driver should bring the tanker to a complete stop, even if 

there is no train passing at that time. Once the vehicle is stopped, the driver 

should look up and down the track in both directions to determine if there is a 

train approaching. If one is approaching, no effort should be made to cross 

the tracks. In some cases, a signal will be stuck in the “on” position. If no train 

can be seen for a significant distance, the tanker may proceed across the tracks. 

In other cases, a train may be parked close to the crossing and keeping the 

signal activated. Again, as long as the driver can ensure that there are no 

other moving trains approaching the crossing, the tanker may proceed across 

the tracks. If a parked train is blocking the driver’s view, it may be necessary 

for one firefighter to exit the apparatus and cross the track(s) on foot to determine if it is safe for the apparatus to proceed. 

Many railroad crossings in rural areas or industrial complexes are not 

equipped with active warning signals. A simple sign may note their location. 

In the case of crossings over private driveways there may be no marking whatsoever. Drivers should treat these crossings as though they have an activated 

warning light. The tanker should be brought to a complete stop and the track(s) 

visually checked for train traffic before proceeding across the crossing. 

Valuable information on driver safety in relation to railroad crossings, as 

well as fire department operations in proximity to railroads, can be obtained 

from the national program entitled Operation Lifesaver (www.oli.org). This program was originally developed in Idaho and quickly spread to other States. 

Eventually, it was operated by the National Safety Council. Since 1986 it has 

been a self-standing organization. Its mission is to educate drivers and pedesÄ

trians in making safe decisions around railroad crossings and tracks. Most of 

the information available from this organization can be applied to fire service 

situations. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 89

Congested Areas 

Tankers that are operated by fire departments located in suburban areas may 

at times need to be driven through areas that are congested with civilian moÄ

tor vehicle traffic. These situations require the driver to exercise significant 

skill in handling the apparatus. The driver must remember that driving a large 

tanker in these conditions is much different than driving a smaller passenger 

vehicle. The tanker will not change lanes as easily as a smaller vehicle, and it 

will have a significantly longer stopping distance than smaller vehicles. Attempting to weave in and out of different lanes and following other vehicles 

too closely will likely place the tanker in a precarious situation. 

Drivers who operate tankers, or any emergency vehicles for that matter, in 

congested traffic conditions must balance the urgency of their emergency reÄ

sponse with the patience necessary to maintain the vehicle safely under control 

at all times. In some cases it will be best to slow down and wait to take advanÄ

tage of openings that develop in the traffic. The driver cannot assume that all 

of the vehicles they are approaching will pull over and grant the tanker the 

right of way. In extremely congested areas, there may be nowhere for the other 

drivers to pull over. It may be necessary for a traffic signal to change or a 

similar action before the civilian vehicles can make room for the tanker to 

proceed. The driver of the tanker should never try to force his or her way through 

the congestion. This action increases the likelihood of a crash and may further 

increase the congestion problem. 

The tanker may also need to be driven through areas that are congested 

with parked vehicles or other objects. Again, the driver should reduce the 

tanker’s speed to one that allows the vehicle to negotiate the objects without 

striking them. If possible, have parked vehicles moved if it is necessary to acÄ

cess a particularly tight location. It is generally quicker to move the obstruction 

than it is to spend a considerable amount of time going forward and back to 

get around it. 

Areas of congestion should not be a surprise to the tanker driver. Through 

experience and preincident planning, the driver should be familiar with secÄ

tions of the response district that tend to be problematic. The driver should 

also be knowledgeable about certain days of the week or times of the day that 

have a tendency to be more problematic than others. Rush hours in the mornÄ

ing and afternoon tend to increase traffic in business districts. Roads around 

malls and shopping centers tend to be busier on weekends and around holiÄ

days. All of these factors should be taken into account before going en route to 

an emergency. It may actually be more time efficient and safer to take a slightly 

longer, but less congested, route to the incident scene. Again, preincident planÄ

ning will greatly aid these types of decisions. 

High-Risk Areas 

Within any jurisdiction there may be found one or more areas that pose a 

higher level of risk and require added judgment by the tanker driver. These 

areas may be permanent or temporary situations. Permanent high-risk areas 

include school and hospital zones. Temporary situations include fairs, carniÄ

vals, auctions, sidewalk sales, and yard/garage sales. 

90 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS

When approaching an active school zone during an emergency response, 

the driver must slow the vehicle to the speed indicated on the warning signs. 

Under no circumstances should the tanker be driven through the school zone 

faster than the posted speed limit. It is also advisable to curtail the use of 

audible warning devices in these areas as they may either frighten small chilÄ

dren or cause them to run toward the street creating an additional hazard. 

The same principle should also be applied to hospital zones. 

Temporary high-risk areas pose both vehicular and pedestrian hazards. They 

are often quite congested with parked vehicles, slow vehicles, and vehicles enÄ

tering and exiting lanes of traffic. Pedestrians crossing the street between parked 

vehicles and from other dangerous locations compound this hazard. In the 

case of fairs, carnivals, and auctions, these events are typically planned and 

advertised in advance allowing the fire department to preincident plan and 

avoid these areas when possible. Sidewalk, yard, and garage sales may not be 

known to the fire department and will have to be dealt with by sound judgÄ

ment when they are encountered. In most cases, treating these areas as was 

described above for school zones is a safe way of approaching the situation. 

Backing the Apparatus 

A significant portion of fire apparatus crashes occur while the apparatus is 

being driven in reverse. While these are rarely serious in terms or injury or 

death, they do account for a high percentage of fire apparatus crash repair 

costs. All fire departments should have firmly established procedures for backÄ

ing the vehicle, and these procedures must always be followed by fire apparatus 

drivers. NFPA 1500 contains specific information on safe backing of the appaÄ

ratus and should be consulted when developing a departmental backing policy. 

As with most things in life, the easiest way to prevent a problem is to avoid 

the conditions that lead up to it. Whenever possible, the driver should avoid 

backing the fire apparatus. It is normally safer and sometimes quicker to drive 

around the block and start again. It is most desirable that new fire stations be 

designed with drive-through apparatus bays that negate the necessity to back 

the apparatus into them. 

There are situations when it is necessary to 

back fire apparatus. This operation should be 

performed very carefully. When backing, there 

should be at least one firefighter -- and preferably two -- with a portable radio assigned to 

clear the way and to warn the driver of any 

obstacles obscured by blind spots (Figure 4-30). 

If portable radios are not available, flashlights 

may be used at night to signal (but not blind) 

the driver. The department should establish preset signals for using the flashlights. If two 

spotters are used, only one should communiÄ

cate with the driver. The second spotter should 

assist the first one. This is a very simple proceÄ

dure that can prevent a large percentage of the 

crashes that occur during backing operations. Figure 4-30 At least one of the guides should be equipped with a 

Very simply, if you are the driver and you do portable radio during backing operations. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 91

Figure 4-31 Note the mirror next to the rear 

warning lights that allows the driver to view the 

backstep area of the apparatus. 

not have or cannot see the spotters behind you, do not back the apparatus! All fire apparatus should be equipped with an alarm system 

that warns others when the apparatus is backing up. 

There are several devices that may be attached to the apparatus 

to make backing operations safer. Some departments place a mirÄ

ror at the rear of the apparatus that is visible through the driver’s 

rearview mirror (Figure 4-31). The second mirror is angled toward 

the rear step area of the vehicle and allows the driver to see if the 

end of the tailboard is approaching an object. Some apparatus are 

equipped with a camera that is mounted on the rear of the apparaÄ

tus (Figures 4-32 a & b). This camera transmits a significant view 

of the area behind the apparatus to a monitor in the cab. This alÄ

lows the driver to view the rear of the apparatus while the apparatus 

is backing up. Both of these devices improve backing safety but 

neither are substitutes for having spotters assisting the driver durÄ

ing backing operations. 

Some newer apparatus may be equipped with automatic sensing 

devices, often referred to as backstops, that will cause the vehicle’s brakes to 

lock up and stop the apparatus when the device senses contact with an obÄ

ject. These devices are no substitute for having spotters assist with backing 

the apparatus. Backstop devices simply minimize the damage to the apparaÄ

tus when it strikes an object. They do not prevent the crash. If the object 

being struck is a person, that person is still likely to be injured or killed. 

Figure 4-32a A camera is mounted on the rear of the apparatus.	 Figure 4-32b The monitor in the cab allows the driver to view the 

area behind the apparatus. 

Staffing 

While staffing may not appear to be an apparatus driving issue, in reality it is. 

In many jurisdictions, it is common for a fire department tanker to be operÄ

ated by a lone driver. This is especially true of tankers that are equipped with 

automatic dump valves that can be operated without having to leave the apÄ

paratus cab. However, this report recommends that tankers being used to shuttle 

water be staffed by a minimum of two personnel (one driver and one passenÄ

ger) at all times. The second person in the cab will act as a second set of eyes to 

monitor potential hazards as well as operate warning devices, check maps, 

and act as a spotter for backing operations when necessary. The second person 

can also assist with hose connections, portable tank deployment, and other 

necessary tasks on the emergency scene or at the fill site. 

92 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS

If the tanker is going to be used as an attack apparatus, the staffing requireÄ

ments contained in NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of 

Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations 

to the Public by Career Fire Departments; or NFPA 1720, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, 

and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments should be folÄ

lowed depending on whether the department is career or volunteer. 

ONSCENE OPERATIONS 

The majority of this document has focused on the safe operation of fire departÄ

ment tankers during road travel. Certainly, most serious crashes or injuries 

and deaths involving the use of tankers occur during road travel. However, 

drivers of tankers also should be trained in positioning and operating the tanker 

in a safe manner while parked on an emergency scene. Drivers should keep in 

mind that their ultimate responsibility is the safety of the personnel assigned 

to the apparatus (as well as other personnel operating on the scene). Thus, 

while it is always desirable to locate the tanker in a position where it will not 

be subject to being hit by another vehicle, there are cases where the best opÄ

tion might be to use the tanker as a shield to protect firefighters from oncoming 

traffic. This section explores the various strategies that may be used to protect 

the apparatus and the personnel during onscene operations. 

Because this document is focused primarily on safety issues, extensive inforÄ

mation on tactical positioning for tankers on the emergency scene will not be 

covered. Tactical positioning information can be obtained from most of the 

training manuals listed in the bibliography contained in Appendix C of this 

document. 

Safely Positioning the Tanker 

As mentioned above, the driver of a tanker has two primary options when 

determining where to park the apparatus on an emergency scene: 

1.Park the apparatus in a manner that reduces the chance of the vehicle 

being struck by oncoming traffic. 

2.Park the apparatus in a manner that shields firefighters and the operaÄ

tional work area from being exposed to oncoming traffic. 

The procedures for performing each of these options will differ depending 

on the type of road and surroundings at which the emergency scene is located. 

Drivers must be versed in the appropriate positioning procedures for all of the 

possible environments that they may be expected to operate within. 

SURFACE STREETS AND ROADSThe term surface streets and roads refers to all thoroughfares that are not diÄ

vided or limited-access highways. They range from rural, unpaved roads to

busy, urban and suburban avenues. As mentioned above, most often the tacÄ

tical needs of the incident will dictate the positioning of the tanker. If the tanker

is to be used in a water shuttle operation, it will not really be positioned at all.

At most, it will be staged until it can access the dump site to drop its load.

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 93

However, in many cases, the tanker will be used at a stationary location on 

the incident scene. This is particularly common in the case of pumper/tankers 

that are used as attack apparatus. In these situations, the tactical needs of the 

incident will dictate its position. However, there are some safety principles that 

should be followed as much as possible: 

•Park the apparatus off the street in a parking lot or driveway. This may 

not be as easy with tankers as it is with other vehicles because of their 

large size. The driver needs to make sure that the parking lot or driveway 

is adequate enough to support the weight of the apparatus. 

• Close the street that the emergency is located on to through traffic. This 

eliminates the potential of a civilian vehicle driving into the apparatus or 

firefighters. 

•Do not park the apparatus within the collapse zone of a building involved 

in a structure fire. The collapse zone is commonly considered to be equal 

to one and one-half times the height of the building. 

• Do not block access to the scene for later-arriving emergency vehicles. 

Oftentimes crashes occur when one vehicle is parked in a poor position 

and another attempts to squeeze around it. 

•If the emergency scene is in the street, such as with a vehicle fire or motor 

vehicle crash, and the street may not be closed to all traffic, park the 

tanker in a manner 

that uses it as a shield 

between the scene 

and oncoming traffic. 

It would be better for 

a stray vehicle to 

drive into the fire apÄ

paratus than it would 

be for it to strike a 

group of responders 

(Figure 4-33). 

• On EMS calls, use the 

tanker to shield the Figure 4-33 The apparatus may be used to shield the scene. Courtesy 

patient loading area of IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications 

behind the ambuÄ

lance (Figure 4-34). This area is particularly vulnerable to oncoming traffic. 

•Never park the apparatus on railroad tracks. Keep the apparatus far 

enough away from the tracks so that a passing train will not strike it. Park 

the apparatus on the same side of the tracks as the incident. This negates 

the need to stretch hoselines across the tracks or for personnel to be traÄ

versing back and forth between each side. 

The United States DOT publishes a document entitled Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices that provides excellent information for setting up and marking 

work zones. It also gives guidance on when and how to reroute traffic. The 

94 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS

Figure 4-34 Shield the ambulance loading area with the tanker. Courtesy of IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications 

information should be applied to emergency scenes whenever possible. It is an 

excellent source of reference for developing fire department SOP’s/guidelines 

on incident scene safety. 

LIMITED-ACCESS HIGHWAYS 

Some of the most dangerous scenarios faced by firefighters are operations on 

highways, interstates, turnpikes, and other busy roadways. There are numerÄ

ous challenges relative to apparatus placement, operational effectiveness, and 

responder safety when dealing with incidents on limited-access highways. 

Simply accessing the emergency scene on a limited-access highway can be 

a challenge to emergency responders. Apparatus may have to respond over 

long distances between exits to reach an incident. In some cases, apparatus 

will be required to travel a long distance before there is a turnaround that 

allows them to get to the opposite side of the median. Apparatus should not 

be driven against the normal flow of traffic unless police units have closed the 

road. 

The driver should use common sense when responding to an incident on a 

highway or turnpike. A fire apparatus usually travels slower than the normal 

flow of traffic, and the use of warning lights and sirens may create traffic 

conditions that actually slow the fire unit’s response. Many fire departments 

have SOP’s that require the driver to turn off all warning lights and audible 

warning devices when responding on limited-access highways. The warning 

lights are turned back on once the apparatus reaches the scene. However, as 

discussed earlier in the chapter, only select warning lights should be used to 

prevent the blinding of oncoming civilian drivers. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 95

It is important that police and fire department personnel have a good workÄ

ing relationship and compatible SOP’s when operating at highway incidents. 

At a minimum, at least one lane next to the incident lane should be closed 

(Figure 4-35). Additional or all traffic lanes may have to be closed if the extra 

lane does not provide a safe barrier. Fire apparatus should be placed between 

the flow of traffic and the firefighters working on the incident to act as a shield. 

The apparatus should be parked on an angle so that the tailboard protects the 

operator from traffic. Front wheels should be turned away from the firefighters 

Figure 4-35 Attempt to close the lane next to the incident when operating on multilane highways. Courtesy of 

IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications 

96 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS

working highway incidents so that the apparatus will not be driven into them 

if struck from behind. Also consider parking additional apparatus 150 to 200 

feet behind the shielding apparatus to act as an additional barrier between 

firefighters and the flow of traffic. 

All firefighters must use extreme caution when getting off the apparatus so 

that they are not struck by passing traffic. The firefighters should only mount 

and dismount the apparatus on the side opposite flowing traffic whenever 

possible. Similarly, drivers are extremely vulnerable to being struck by motorÄ

ists if they step back beyond the protection offered by properly spotted 

apparatus. 

At the time of this report, a significant amount of research and work on 

responder safety on highways was underway by organizations such as the U.S. 

Fire Administration (www.fema.gov/usfa), Cumberland Valley Volunteer 

Firemen’s Association, and the Emergency Responder Safety Institute 

(www.respondersafety.com). Each of these sources can provide additional information on this topic. 

Water Shuttle Operations 

Water shuttle operations, sometimes referred to as tanker shuttles, are used to 

supply water to emergency scenes that are so remote from the water supply 

source that relay pumping is not practical. Water shuttles involve a process in 

which tankers deliver their load of water to the emergency scene (the dump 

site), travel to a filling site, reload with water, and then return to the emerÄ

gency scene to dump again. Water shuttle operations are among the most 

common types of uses for fire department tankers. 

Water shuttle operations involve a significant amount of maneuvering and 

driving on the part of the tanker driver. Most of the maneuvering occurs when 

the tanker is preparing to be filled or unloaded. Any measures that can be 

taken to reduce the amount of fine maneuvering that must be done at the fill 

or dump site will accordingly increase the level of safety at each location and 

will reduce the fill and dump times. Selecting an appropriate route of travel 

between the two sites also has an impact on safety. Because the first tanker 

driver or crew on the scene will often be responsible for establishing the fill 

and/or dump sites and the shuttle route of travel, it is important for tanker 

drivers to understand the selection of these sites and route. It is preferable that 

many of these decisions be made in preincident planning for target hazards 

and geographical areas within each jurisdiction. The preincident plan can 

contain the best fill site, alternative fill sites, the dump site, and desired route 

of travel for all shuttle apparatus. 

Some jurisdictions have SOP’s that limit the number of tankers that may be 

assigned to a single fill or dump site location to four or five tankers. In theory, 

this reduces congestion at the sites and the down time waiting to load and fill. 

This procedure may not work in all jurisdictions or situations. In particular, 

where there is a very long distance between the fill and dump sites, limiting 

the operation to four or five tankers may not ensure that a continuous supply 

of water is available at the dump site/scene. More tankers may need to be 

added in order to make up for the long haul distance. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 97

Water shuttle operations must be integrated into the incident management 

structure. Mostly commonly, they will be assigned their own group or sector in 

the incident management system. The Water Supply Supervisor will be in charge 

of the overall shuttle operation. One individual each should be placed in charge 

of fill and dump sites. These people may be referred to as the Fill Site Manager 

and the Dump Site Manager. 

DUMP SITE CONSIDERATIONS 

The location of the dump site obviously should be in close proximity to the 

incident scene. However, the front and center of the incident may not alÄ

ways be the best location for the dump site. An example of this situation is 

when the fire scene is located down a narrow lane, driveway, or dead-end 

street. In these cases, it would be advantageous to locate the dump site at 

the intersection where the lane, driveway, or dead-end street meets a thorÄ

oughfare. The dump site pumper then relays water to the attack pumper located 

at the fire scene. 

Even when the fire scene is located on a through street, early arriving appaÄ

ratus may block the front of the fire scene. Because they have committed 

hoselines or aerial devices, it is not practical to reposition the trucks to provide 

Figure 4-36 Side dumps require the least positioning of 

apparatus at the dump site. 

Figure 4-37 Rear dumps may be modified to discharge to 

either side of the apparatus. 

through access for a water shuttle. In this case, the dump 

site may be established at an intersection close to the 

scene, again with the dump site pumper supplying water 

to attack apparatus at the scene. Large parking lots near 

the fire scene also make excellent dump sites. 

Tanker drivers should use extreme caution when pullÄ

ing into the dump site. There tends to be a significant 

number of apparatus parked at this location and nuÄ

merous personnel moving around. The driver must 

anticipate the need to stop the apparatus in a short 

distance and should gauge his or her speed accordingly. 

Generally, it is best not to approach the portable water 

tanks until receiving a verbal or visual signal to do so. 

Personnel at the dump site should assist the arriving 

tanker driver with positioning the apparatus so that 

the tank discharge is properly located to dump water 

into the portable tank (Figure 4-36). The most efficient 

apparatus have tank discharges located on either side 

of the vehicle. This allows the tanker to simply be driven 

next to the tank and unloaded. Some tankers have their 

sole tank discharge located on the rear of the apparaÄ

tus. This requires the tanker to be backed into the tank 

in order to dump its load. When this is the case, the 

proper procedures for safe backing of the apparatus 

described earlier in this chapter should be followed. It 

may also be possible to modify the rear discharge by 

constructing a chute that directs the water to one side 

or the other (Figure 4-37). 

98 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS

FILL SITE CONSIDERATIONS 

Each fire department should have knowledge of appropriate fill sites in its

jurisdiction before an incident occurs. Drivers and fire officers should have a

good knowledge of all the water system hydrants, dry hydrants, and suitable

drafting locations within their response district. When the need to establish a

water shuttle occurs, the IC or water supply group/sector supervisor should

select the closest suitable water supply source to the scene.

Depending on the situation, the closest suitable water

supply source may not necessarily be the actual closest

water supply source. For reasons of travel safety or waÄ

ter flow requirements, it sometimes may be better to

establish a fill site at a location that is somewhat farther

from the dump site than the closest source.

When selecting a fill site, try to pick a location that 

requires a minimum of maneuvering or backing of tankÄ

ers when they arrive at that location. This speeds the 

operation and lessens the chance of a crash. The best fill 

sites are those in which the tankers drive straight in from 

one direction, fill, and then proceed straight out the other 

end (Figure 4-38). If some maneuvering of the appara- Figure 4-38 Fill and dump sites that allow the apparatus to 

drive straight in and out, without backing or maneuvering, tus is unavoidable, remember that it is always easier to are the most desirable. 

maneuver apparatus before the tank is filled than after. 

If at all possible, locate the fill site at a location closed to 

civilian traffic. This lessens the chance of crashes occurring while tankers are 

being maneuvered. As described above for dump sites, the driver should apÄ

proach and enter the fill site with caution and be prepared to stop immediately, 

if necessary. 

SELECTING THE ROUTE OF TRAVEL 

A key safety decision in setting up the water shuttle operation is establishing 

the route of travel for tankers going between the fill and dump sites. Driving 

the shuttle route is one of the most hazardous tasks for tanker drivers. The 

route of travel for the shuttle operation should take both safety and operaÄ

tional efficiency into consideration. 

•A circular route of travel is considered to be the optimum method for 

conducting a water shuttle operation. When a circular pattern is emÄ

ployed, the full tankers leaving the fill site follow one route of travel 

toward the dump site. The empty tankers leave the dump site and proÄ

ceed to the fill site using a different route of travel. This method eliminates 

the possibility of large trucks needing to pass each other on narrow, rural 

roads. This method also can be employed on incidents that occur on 

limited-access or divided highways. 

•If possible, roadways used during shuttle operations should be closed to 

all traffic other than emergency vehicles. This is particularly important 

when it is not possible to use a circular shuttle pattern. In these cases, fire 

apparatus traveling back and forth on the same road will cause a lot of 

confusion for members of the public driving on the same road, and drivÄ

ers in the shuttle must exercise additional caution. 

PREVENTING FIRE DEPARTMENT TANKER CRASHES 99

A number of other safety issues must be considered when selecting a parÄ

ticular route of travel. These include the following: 

•Narrow roads. The problems posed by these roads include difficulty passÄ

ing other vehicles and the possibility of getting the apparatus tires off the 

road surface and causing a crash. 

•Long driveways. These driveways often require tight maneuvering of the 

apparatus by the driver. Improper coordination also can result in appaÄ

ratus approaching each other from opposite directions. At worst, this could 

result in a serious accident. At best, one of the rigs would be forced to back 

out all the way because of its inability to pass the other rigs. 

•Blind curves and intersections. Vehicles may cross the centerline on blind 

curves and enter the path of another vehicle. Blind intersections pose an 

extreme danger when the driver cannot see oncoming cross traffic. The 

reverse may also be true when drivers of civilian vehicles cannot see oncoming apparatus. When possible, use police officers, fire police, or other 

qualified personnel to control the flow of traffic at dangerous intersecÄ

tions along the shuttle route. 

•Winding roads. Winding roads require a lot of concentration on the part of 

the driver. One slight slip in attention level can result in a crash. 

•Steep grades. Steep grades, both uphill and downhill, can cause problems 

for drivers. Uphill grades slow the shuttle operation and cause excessive 

wear on the vehicle. Driving on downhill grades also can be dangerous. 

Brake fade can result in the driver being unable to slow or stop the vehicle 

at the bottom of the hill. 

•Inclement weather conditions. Roads that have not been cleared of ice, snow, 

standing water, mud, or storm debris should be avoided. 

CONCLUSION 

There are many actions that can be taken to reduce the incidence of fire deÄ

partment tanker crashes. These include better driver training programs, better 

apparatus design, proper maintenance programs, and responsible behavior 

on the part of the tanker driver. By following and implementing the informaÄ

tion that was covered in this chapter, there is no doubt that the fire department 

will be successful in reducing the likelihood of a tanker crash within its departÄ

ment. 

100 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS

CONCLUSION 5


Tankers account for the largest number of firefighter crash deaths of all types 

of fire department vehicles. This figure becomes even more disproportionate 

when one considers that tankers account for only an estimated 3 percent of all 

fire apparatus in the United States. These facts signal the need to analyze the 

problem and take prudent corrective actions to avoid these situations in the 

future. This report is part of the United States Fire Administration’s effort to 

begin corrective action in this regard. 

This report has examined the various causal factors that have been identiÄ

fied as problematic for tankers and their drivers. Through statistical analysis 

we identified the most common of these causes. Case studies of fatal tanker 

crashes were reviewed for the purpose of learning from the mistakes that were 

made. Finally, an extensive overview of the training, technological, and proÄ

grammatic means for preventing future tanker crashes was undertaken. 

Although all of the information in this report is pertinent to the problem of 

tanker crashes and their prevention, certainly there are some factors that stand 

out as being especially crucial. Since the purpose of this report is to avoid these 

crashes in the future, there is no better way to end it than by restating the most 

important actions that can be implemented to reduce the frequency and seÄ

verity of tanker crashes: 

1.	 Operate the tanker at a safe and reasonable speed. Never drive the 

tanker faster than a speed at which it can be fully controlled. Never 

exceed the posted speed limit when driving under nonemergency response 

conditions. 

2.	 The cautionary speed signs that accompany road signs indicating 

curves in the road should be considered the maximum speed for a 

tanker driving on these curves in any condition. In many cases, the 

suggested speed may be too high for tankers as they are developed for 

passenger cars on dry roads. It most cases, it will be necessary for the 

tanker to take the curve at a speed slower than what is posted. 

3.	 It is recommended that new tankers exceeding a GVWR of 32,000 

pounds be equipped with antilock braking systems. NFPA 1901 requires antilock brakes for all vehicles exceeding 36,000 pounds. 

4.	 Keep all of the wheels on the primary road surface at all times. HavÄ

ing the tanker’s right-side wheels drift off the edge of the road is one of 

the most common causes of tanker crashes. If the right-side wheels do 

get off the edge of the road, do not try to bring the apparatus back onto 

the road surface at a high speed. Slow the apparatus to 20 mph or less 

before trying to bring the wheels back onto the road surface. 

5.	 Travel with the water tank either completely empty or completely 

full. This minimizes the effects of liquid surge within the tank. This is a 

good idea even if the tank is properly baffled, and it is crucial if the tank 

is not properly baffled. 

101
6.	 Avoid operating retrofit tankers if at all possible. Every attempt should 

be made to place in service tankers that were specifically engineered 

and designed for fire department operations. Serious accidents have been 

attributed to poorly designed, retrofitted, or homebuilt tankers. 

7.	 Know the weight of your apparatus. All tankers should be weighed 

completely full and that weight should be posted (in units of pounds 

and tons) on a plaque on the vehicle’s dashboard. This will help the 

driver to determine if it is safe to drive the vehicle on a road or bridge 

that has posted weight restrictions. 

8.	 Require mandatory training for tanker drivers. This must include exÄ

tensive training before being allowed to drive the tanker on public 

roadways and refresher training on a regular basis according the reÄ

quirements of NFPA 1451 and NFPA 1500. 

9.	 Establish an effective maintenance program for the tanker and all 

other fire department vehicles. Many mechanical failures that lead to 

crashes can be prevented if the apparatus is inspected and maintained 

on a regular basis. Guidelines for establishing proper maintenance programs can be found in NFPA 1915. It is recommended that apparatus be 

inspected at least weekly. 

10.	 Use spotters when backing the apparatus. Even though cameras and 

other devices for assisting with backing the apparatus do provide some 

measure of safety, there is no substitute for having at least one, preferably two, spotters to guide the driver while the apparatus is being operated 

in reverse. NFPA 1500 requires spotters for backing, regardless of whether 

the apparatus is equipped with cameras or other backing safety equipÄ

ment. One spotter should be equipped with a portable radio in the event 

that they need to contact the driver during the backing operation. 

11.	 Retrofit all tankers with back-up alarms. These devices warn other 

people in the area that a tanker is backing up. This will allow them to 

get out of the way before a crash occurs. 

12.	 Come to a complete stop at all intersections containing a stop sign 

or red traffic light in your direction of travel. The most likely place to 

collide with another vehicle under emergency or nonemergency condiÄ

tions is in an intersection. Nearly all of these crashes can be prevented if 

the tanker comes to a complete stop when faced with the signal to do so. 

The tanker may proceed through the intersection after assuring that all 

other vehicles have granted them the right of way to proceed. If the tanker 

driver cannot be certain that all vehicles are stopping to allow the tanker 

passage, the apparatus should not proceed. 

13.	 Wear your seatbelt whenever the apparatus is in motion. While wearÄ

ing a seatbelt may not prevent a crash from occurring, it certainly can 

minimize the risk to the driver (and the other occupants) in the event 

one does occur. A significant percentage of tanker accidents involves the 

vehicle rolling over and the driver and/or passenger(s) being thrown from 

the vehicle. The chance of serious injury or death is greatly multiplied 

when the occupant is thrown from the vehicle. Wearing of seatbelts will 

prevent nearly all ejections from the vehicle. 

102 SAFE VEHICLE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS 
14.	 Keep the windows rolled up. This will add an extra measure of security 

in preventing the occupant(s) from being ejected from the apparatus in 

the event of a rollover crash. 

15.	 Be familiar with your response district and the roads within it. By 

being familiar with the various routes within the response district, the 

driver will be able to anticipate when approaching hazardous sections 

of roads, dangerous curves, and other hazards to safe vehicle response. 

16.	 Avoid poorly constructed or unpaved roads whenever possible. Again, 

familiarity with the response district will aid the driver in this objective. 

It may be safer (and faster) to take a paved route that is longer than the 

shorter unpaved route to an emergency scene. 

17.	 Limit the number of apparatus responding to an emergency to a 

reasonable, prudent number. Dispatching three engines, two tankers, 

a heavy rescue squad, and three chief officers to a reported car fire on 

the interstate is overkill. The more vehicles that are on the road, the 

greater the odds of one of them being involved in a crash. 

18.	 Do not respond at an emergency rate (Code 3) when no emergency is 

known to exist. Apparatus have been involved in collisions while reÄ

sponding with lights and sirens to perform a cover up at a neighboring 

station. This is not an emergency. As well, fourth or fifth due apparatus 

have been involved in crashes well after the initial apparatus arrived on 

the scene and found no fire or emergency condition. As soon as it is 

determined that no emergency exists, or that the initial arriving appaÄ

ratus can handle the emergency, all other responding apparatus should 

be directed to reduce their response to a nonemergency rate. 

19.	 Always have at least one firefighter accompany the driver of the 

tanker. The passenger can assist by operating warning devices, hanÄ

dling radio transmissions, and being a second set of eyes. The passenger 

should not hesitate to warn the driver when they feel that the tanker is 

being operated at an unsafe speed. 

20.	 Practice driving the tanker in adverse road conditions. It is not reaÄ

sonable to expect that a driver who has only been trained in daylight 

hours, on clear dry roads will be qualified to operate the vehicle safely at 

night on in adverse weather. 

CONCLUSION 103

CASE HISTORIES OF A 

TANKER CRASHES INVOLVING 

FATALITIES -- 1990 TO 2001 

The following is a compilation of all locatable incident reports on fire department tanker crashes involving firefighter fatalities during the period of 1990 

through 2001. 

CASE NUMBER 1

Date of Incident: May 7, 1990


Time of Incident: 10 p.m.


Location of Incident: Long Creek, Mississippi


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 70-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 

tanker responding to an intentionally set trash container fire. A second 

firefighter rode in the right-front seat of the apparatus. The driver had 17 years 

of fire department experience and was a regular driver of the tanker. Neither 

firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the incident. 

As the apparatus exited a curve in the road and approached a railroad 

bridge, the tanker left the right side of the roadway. The driver apparently 

overcorrected and the rear end of the tanker came around in a counterclockwise motion causing the tanker to roll. The tanker rolled several times, left the 

opposite side of the roadway, fell into a 75-foot gorge, and landed on railroad 

tracks at the bottom. 

A firefighter notified the railroad company and an approaching freight train 

was stopped before it could collide with the tanker. Other responding firefighters 

made access to the scene using a series of ground ladders and extricated the 

injured firefighters. Since removal back up to the roadway above was impossible 

with the available equipment, a train carried the injured firefighters to the 

nearest road crossing. The driver died instantly of massive head and chest 

trauma and was pronounced dead at the scene. The other firefighter recovered. 

105
CASE NUMBER 2

Date of Incident: May 17, 1990


Time of Incident: 2:17 p.m.


Location of Incident: Cresson, Pennsylvania


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individuals ejected from the apparatus 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 2 

The Incident: 

Two firefighters had been working at the fire station since early in the morning, making sandwiches for a fundraiser. At 2:17 p.m., a mutual-aid request 

was received for a tanker to respond to a vehicle collision to provide additional 

water on the scene of a large gasoline spill. The two firefighters responded in 

the department’s 1,800-gallon tanker. A 62-year-old male (past chief, 45-year 

member) was the driver and a 77-year-old male (50-year member) rode in the 

right-front seat. Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the 

incident. 

As the apparatus descended a hill and entered a left-hand turn, the driver 

lost control of the tanker. The vehicle crossed over the centerline into the opposing lane, came back into the proper lane, and struck a guardrail on the 

right side of the road. The back end of the tanker came around against the 

guardrail and the apparatus began to roll. The tanker continued to roll and 

came to rest in a shallow creek bed off the right side of the road. Both firefighters 

were ejected as the tanker rolled. Both were killed instantly. 

CASE NUMBER 3

Date of Incident: October 24, 1990


Time of Incident: 2 p.m.


Location of Incident: Spillway, Texas


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 (also 1 civilian fatality) 

The Incident: 

A 26-year-old female firefighter was the driver of a 1,000-gallon tanker responding to a reported structure fire. The fire chief’s 3-year-old daughter, who 

the driver was caring for at the time the fire was reported, was a passenger in 

the tanker. 

While responding to the incident, the driver lost control of the truck, careened from side to side on the road for 650 feet, flipped over, and then crashed 

into a 20-foot ditch. The apparatus burst into flames when it came to a halt. 

The driver died of smoke inhalation and the child died of burns. Both were 

pronounced dead at the scene. 

106 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Fire department members reported that a blown tire had caused the driver 

to lose control of the vehicle but law enforcement members who investigated 

the collision found all of the tanker’s tires to be intact. A state police investigator attributed the loss of control to the fact that the tanker left the right side of 

the pavement at the top of a hill. The water rolling from one side of the tank to 

the other caused the tanker to swerve from side to side until it left the roadway. 

CASE NUMBER 4

Date of Incident: June 19, 1991


Time of Incident: 4:30 p.m.


Location of Incident: Blacksburg, Virginia


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Wheels left the right side of the road


• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road


surface 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 30-year-old male firefighter (15-year veteran of the fire department) who 

was fatally injured was the driver of a 1,500-gallon tanker responding to the 

report of a fire in a manufactured home. A second firefighter was riding in the 

right-front seat. About one-quarter of a mile from the scene, the right wheels 

of the apparatus left the roadway. The driver steered the vehicle back onto the 

road but oversteered. The apparatus veered to the left and went off the roadway surface on the left. The driver again attempted to get control of the tanker 

and was steering to the right when the tanker overturned and ended up on its 

top. 

The driver was not wearing a seatbelt and was ejected from the vehicle. The 

front seat passenger in the vehicle was wearing his seatbelt and was able to 

extricate himself from the tanker. Once free, he began to search for the driver. 

The driver was pronounced dead at the hospital 45 minutes after the collision. 

APPENDIX A 107
CASE NUMBER 5

Date of Incident: June 19, 1991


Time of Incident: 4:30 p.m.


Location of Incident: Troy, Pennsylvania


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Loss of control while descending a grade 

• Failure to negotiate a left curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 24-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 

tanker that had been moved up to another fire department’s station while that 

department fought an arson fire in an illegal dump. After arriving at the fire 

station, the tanker was called to respond to the scene. A second firefighter was 

riding in the right-front seat. Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at the 

time of the collision. 

As the apparatus descended a hill during its response, it failed to negotiate 

a sharp left turn. The truck skidded off the road, struck a metal culvert pipe, 

went airborne for 24 feet, and then traveled for another 40 feet. The truck 

began to roll sideways down a hill and struck a tree. The driver was ejected 

and the tanker rolled over on top of him. The tanker continued to roll for 

another 12 feet and came to rest with the front wheels on the ground and the 

rear wheels at a 45-degree angle from the ground. The driver was pronounced 

dead at the scene. The firefighter who was the passenger received non-lifethreatening injuries. 

CASE NUMBER 6

Date of Incident: July 5, 1991


Time of Incident: 3:50 p.m.


Location of Incident: Hendersonville, Tennessee


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Loss of control while descending a grade 

• Failure to negotiate a left curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 20-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 

tanker that was responding to a grass fire with structural exposures threatened. The fire had originated in a trash-burning barrel. A second firefighter 

rode on the right-front seat of the tanker. 

108 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
The fire chief and two pumpers were on the scene of the fire and the fire 

chief radioed responding units, including the tanker, to reduce their response 

to a nonemergency mode. 

As the tanker descended a hill and entered a left curve, the apparatus ran 

off the right side of the road. The tanker struck a telephone pole before returning to the road. The rear of the truck came around and the apparatus rolled at 

least twice before coming to rest. The total distance traveled from the point at 

which the tanker left the road until it came to rest was 312 feet. 

The driver was ejected from the tanker. Emergency medical assistance was 

provided at the scene and en route to the hospital. The driver was pronounced 

dead shortly after arriving at an emergency room. The firefighter who was the 

passenger received non-life-threatening injuries. 

CASE NUMBER 7

Date of Incident: December 9, 1991


Time of Incident: 10:55 a.m.


Location of Incident: Biloxi, Mississippi


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 20-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 

1,600-gallon tanker that was returning to the fire station after fueling the apparatus at the county work center. The truck’s water tank was also full. 

As the tanker neared the fire station, it negotiated a sharp curve. After coming through the curve, the right wheels of the apparatus left the road. The 

driver steered the truck back onto the road, but the vehicle traveled into the 

oncoming lane. The driver steered again and the truck returned to the proper 

lane, but it continued to the right and went off the road again. The truck 

began to roll and flipped onto its left side. The driver was wearing a lap-type 

seatbelt but he received fatal head injuries. 

APPENDIX A 109
CASE NUMBER 8

Date of Incident: June 19, 1992


Time of Incident: 11:14 p.m.


Location of Incident: Lightstreet, Pennsylvania


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Driver inattention 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 63-year-old male firefighter (a 48-year member of the fire department) 

who was fatally injured was the driver of a 1,500-gallon tanker that was responding to a vehicle fire. A second firefighter was riding in the right-front 

seat of the tanker. Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the 

collision. 

As the tanker ascended a hill at a slow to moderate speed (25 to35 mph), the 

driver attempted to activate the unit’s warning lights. The driver’s attention 

was drawn to the switches (located to the left and below the steering wheel) 

because he was having difficulty finding the switches. As he searched for the 

switches, the tanker drifted off the right side of the road. 

The passenger in the tanker, who was donning his protective trousers at the 

time, looked up and saw that the tanker was approaching a telephone pole. 

The passenger alerted the driver but it was too late to avoid a collision. The 

tanker impacted the telephone pole in front of the right-front tire and sheared 

the pole off at the base. The tanker continued over a private driveway and 

began to tip as it climbed a sloped embankment. The tanker struck a stone 

and cement retaining wall and then turned over onto its side and then onto its 

roof. 

The driver died of skull and neck fractures. The passenger received nonlife-threatening injuries. 

CASE NUMBER 9

Date of Incident: July 12, 1992


Time of Incident: 2:50 p.m.


Location of Incident: Potosi, Missouri


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 22-year-old male firefighter (a 5-year member of the fire department) was 

responding as the lone occupant and driver of a 1,200-gallon tanker en route 

to a vehicle collision. The tanker’s speed was estimated at between 50 and 55 

miles per hour. The driver was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

110 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
The right side wheels of the tanker left the roadway and the vehicle struck a 

culvert. The steering assembly was sheared off, and the rear axle was broken 

loose from the chassis. The tanker came back onto the roadway, turned sideways, and rolled three times. The driver was ejected from the vehicle and was 

thrown into a gully on the left side of the roadway. 

CASE NUMBER 10

Date of Incident: December 1, 1992


Time of Incident: 1:15 p.m.


Location of Incident: Bryan, Texas


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Loss of control while descending a grade 

• Failure to negotiate a right curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts (disputed) 

• Fatally injured individual partially ejected from the apparatus 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 33-year-old female firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 

2,000-gallon tanker that was responding to a mutual-aid request for assistance at a 200-acre grass fire. A second firefighter was riding in the right-front 

seat. The law enforcement report on the incident does not indicate any seatbelt 

use by either firefighter; the fire department report maintains that lap belts 

were used by both firefighters. 

The first mutual-aid apparatus arrived on the scene and ordered all other 

responding apparatus to discontinue their emergency response and continue 

to the scene in a nonemergency mode. The tanker involved in the collision 

acknowledged the order. 

As the tanker approached the scene, it descended a steep hill with a bend in 

the road to the right. The tanker crossed the centerline and traveled for a short 

distance in the opposing lane. The driver steered right and the truck returned 

to the correct lane briefly and then traveled back into the opposing lane of 

traffic. The tanker continued through the opposing lane, went off the left side 

of the road, fell into a ditch, and then the rear of the tanker swung around as 

the vehicle flipped and came to rest on its wheels. The law enforcement report 

reflected a speed of 68 miles per hour when the tanker left the road. 

The passenger was fully ejected and driver was partially ejected. The driver 

was pronounced dead at the scene. 

APPENDIX A 111
CASE NUMBER 11

Date of Incident: January 2, 1993


Time of Incident: 3:01 p.m.


Location of Incident: Nicholasville, Kentucky


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 2 

The Incident: 

A 37-year-old male fire chief was the driver of a 2,000-gallon tanker returning 

from a car fire in a garage. A 27-year-old male firefighter was a right-frontseat passenger in the vehicle. Both firefighters were wearing their seatbelts. 

The vehicle drove off the right side of the roadway onto a grassy area of the 

shoulder. The tanker traveled on the shoulder for approximately 60 feet. The 

driver steered the truck left and back onto the roadway, but the rear end of the 

truck came around and the vehicle left the left side of the road. As the tanker 

began to overturn, the truck impacted a tree. The tanker then spun around 

and came to rest partially in the roadway on its right side. The impact of the 

roof of the apparatus with the tree crushed the cab and delivered fatal head 

injuries to both firefighters. 

Other firefighters who had just returned to the station or were en route to 

the station responded to a radio report of a fire apparatus collision. Firstarriving firefighters assessed both injured firefighters and then called for extrication equipment, ambulances, and air ambulances. Access to the injured 

firefighters was limited and both were extricated using hydraulic rescue tools. 

112 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
CASE NUMBER 12

Date of Incident: April 2, 1994


Time of Incident: 8:10 p.m.


Location of Incident: Montevallo, Alabama


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Loss of control while descending a grade 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 17-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was a right-frontseat passenger in a 1,200-gallon tanker responding to a report of a woods 

fire that was threatening to extend to structures. The route to the incident 

included a road with a number of curves and hills. According to the law enforcement report, seatbelts were not present in the vehicle. 

As the tanker descended a hill, it left the right side of the roadway and 

traveled approximately 159 feet on the shoulder. The reflected lights of a car 

following the tanker in the tanker’s mirrors may have blinded the tanker driver. 

The driver steered the truck to the left and back onto the road surface but was 

then faced with another sharp curve to the right. As the driver turned the 

wheel to the right to negotiate the curve, the right side of the apparatus came 

around and the truck began to roll. The tanker left the roadway and struck a 

tree, finally coming to rest on its wheels. 

When the vehicle came to rest, the passenger was thrown halfway out the 

rear window opening on the driver’s side of the apparatus. The driver of the 

tanker did not suffer any major injuries and was able to provide care to the 

firefighter. The firefighter was extricated by other firefighters and pronounced 

dead at the scene by the coroner. The cause of death was listed as head and 

chest trauma. 

CASE NUMBER 13

Date of Incident: August 8, 1994


Time of Incident: Not reported


Location of Incident: California


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Unknown 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

A male wildland firefighter for the United States Forestry Service was killed in 

this collision. No additional information was available for this incident. 

APPENDIX A 113
CASE NUMBER 14

Date of Incident: September 22, 1994


Time of Incident: 7 p.m.


Location of Incident: Livingston, Texas


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Possible impairment by prescription medication(s) 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 41-year-old captain was responding to a kitchen fire as the driver and sole 

occupant of a 3,000-gallon tanker. He was not wearing a seatbelt at the time 

of the collision. 

As the apparatus attempted to make a right-hand turn onto a main road, 

the vehicle failed to negotiate the turn and rolled twice. The driver was ejected 

from the vehicle and was pronounced dead at the scene. Cause of death was 

listed as multiple traumatic injuries. Law enforcement reports cited unsafe 

speed (though under the posted speed limit) as a factor in the rollover. There 

was also some indication that the driver may have been taking prescription 

medication that impaired his judgment at the time of the collision. 

CASE NUMBER 15

Date of Incident: December 29, 1994


Time of Incident: 4:28 p.m.


Location of Incident: Melfa, Virginia


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to negotiate a curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 18-year-old firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 2,000-

gallon tanker responding to the report of a structure fire in a poultry house. 

Another firefighter rode as a passenger in the right-front seat. Both the driver 

and the passenger were wearing seatbelts. 

After the apparatus negotiated a curve, the driver lost control of the vehicle, 

and the tanker went off the left side of the road. The tanker struck two trees 

before it became airborne, struck another tree, and rolled two to four times. 

The driver was killed due to a dislocated cervical spine; the other firefighter 

was severely injured but survived. The police report cited excessive speed as a 

factor in the collision. The reported structure fire turned out to be a controlled 

burn. 

114 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
CASE NUMBER 16

Date of Incident: April 17, 1995


Time of Incident: 3:34 a.m.


Location of Incident: Castella, California


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Loss of control while descending a grade 

• Failure to negotiate a left curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 2 

The Incident: 

A 50-year-old female driver/operator lost control of a 1,000-gallon tanker while 

responding to a barn fire in an unfamiliar location. A 47-year-old male 

firefighter was also riding in the right-front seat. Neither was wearing a seatbelt 

at the time of the collision. 

After receiving directions from a local citizen at the roadside, the driver/ 

operator made a wrong turn and eventually descended a steep 1⁄2-mile hill. At 

the bottom of the hill, the tanker failed to negotiate a sharp left turn, struck a 

bridge guardrail, and either went through the guardrail or rolled over the top 

of it. The tanker fell into a rain-swollen creek below. 

After all other fire department units had returned to the station from the 

dispatched barn fire, the absence of the tanker and two firefighters was noted. 

Firefighters fanned out to search for the missing tanker. The tanker was found 

upside down in the creek about 2-1⁄2 hours after the original dispatch. 

Both firefighters were found deceased inside the cab of the apparatus. The 

cause of death for the passenger was listed as drowning and the cause of death 

for the driver/operator was listed as exposure and hypothermia. 

APPENDIX A 115
CASE NUMBER 17

Date of Incident: May 12, 1995


Time of Incident: 2:40 p.m.


Location of Incident: Jacksonville, Arkansas


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

• Poor road conditions 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 22-year-old female firefighter who was fatally injured was the front rightseat passenger in a 1,000-gallon tanker that was engaged in driver training. 

Both the driver and firefighter were wearing lap-type seatbelts. 

As the tanker proceeded on a small local road, the asphalt on the right side 

of the road crumbled. The driver of the tanker oversteered in an attempt to 

recover control, and the apparatus left the roadway on the left side of the road 

and struck a driveway culvert. The apparatus vaulted slightly and began to 

rotate. The vehicle rolled and came to rest upside down, partially in the roadway. 

The passenger received fatal traumatic injuries; the driver of the apparatus 

was injured but his injuries were not life-threatening. 

CASE NUMBER 18

Date of Incident: July 30, 1995


Time of Incident: 10:30 a.m.


Location of Incident: Aberdeen, Mississippi


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 29-year-old male fire chief was the driver and sole occupant of a water 

tanker responding to a mutual-aid request for assistance at a barn fire. He was 

not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

A witness who was following the tanker reported that the apparatus was 

proceeding at an estimated speed of 65 miles per hour. The vehicle was seen to 

go off the right side of the roadway, come back onto the road, then roll over at 

least three times. The driver was ejected from the vehicle during the rollover. 

A nurse who came upon the scene started CPR. Medical care was continued 

on the way to the hospital, but the driver was pronounced dead shortly after 

his arrival there. The cause of death was listed as internal injuries. 

116 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
CASE NUMBER 19

Date of Incident: January 14, 1995


Time of Incident: 5:20 p.m.


Location of Incident: Salisbury, North Carolina


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 49-year-old male captain was the driver of a tanker responding to a report 

of a smoke odor in a manufactured home. A firefighter rode as the front seat 

passenger in the vehicle. Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at the time 

of the collision. 

Members of the first fire apparatus unit to arrive on the scene of the reported 

fire were told by other firefighters who had responded directly to the scene in 

their personal vehicles that there was no emergency. The operator of the first 

unit informed other responding units by radio to reduce their response mode 

to nonemergency. Firefighters standing near the truck heard the sound of the 

tanker collision at approximately the same time as this transmission was being made. 

It was determined that as the unit responded, the right wheels of the tanker 

left the roadway. The driver steered the truck back onto the pavement, but the 

rear end of the tanker came around and the apparatus began to slide. The 

tanker left the left side of the road, rolled, and collided with a natural gas 

distribution substation. 

A second tanker following the one that crashed alerted other firefighters to 

the collision. When firefighters arrived on the scene, they found the tanker 

entangled in the natural gas substation with large amounts of natural gas 

being released. A hazardous materials response team from a nearby city was 

called to the scene. Once the team arrived, the two occupants were removed 

from the tanker and transported to the hospital. The driver was pronounced 

dead at the hospital; the firefighter received serious but non-life-threatening 

injuries. 

The cause of death for the driver was listed as multiple blunt force injuries to 

the head, chest, and abdomen. The law enforcement report on this incident 

cited speeding as a contributing circumstance to the collision. 

APPENDIX A 117
CASE NUMBER 20

Date of Incident: April 8, 1996


Time of Incident: 9:36 p.m.


Location of Incident: Moses Lake, Washington


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to negotiate a curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Failure to followed posted speed recommendations on a curve 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 19-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 

3,000-gallon tanker responding to a structure fire. The right-front seat was 

occupied by another firefighter. Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at 

the time of the collision. 

A local bridge was out of service for repairs, so the response route taken to 

the fire was unfamiliar to both firefighters. The fire chief, who was following 

the tanker in his vehicle, was more familiar with the route. As the tanker approached a curve, the fire chief realized that the driver was accelerating and 

ordered the tanker, by radio, to slow down. The order came too late, and the 

tanker entered the curve at a speed estimated to be 40 to 60 miles per hour. 

The posted recommended speed in the curve is 35 miles per hour. 

The tanker skidded, rotated counterclockwise, and then left the right side of 

the roadway. The tanker rolled first onto its right side, then onto its roof. The 

cab was crushed as it slid for a distance, and the tanker rolled again and came 

to rest on its left side. 

The fire chief and another chief officer who was riding with him immediately requested assistance. They found the passenger attempting to self-extricate 

and helped him out of the vehicle. They had a great deal of difficulty removing the driver due to his position in the cab of the truck. He was eventually 

removed with the assistance of a passing motorist. CPR was begun immediately and continued while the driver was transported to the hospital. The driver 

was pronounced dead shortly after his arrival at the hospital. The cause of 

death was listed as a lacerated heart and major vessels. 

118 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
CASE NUMBER 21

Date of Incident: April 26, 1996


Time of Incident: 1 p.m.


Location of Incident: Beebe, Arkansas


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Failure to negotiate a left curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 53-year-old male firefighter was the driver and sole occupant of a 1,200-

gallon tanker responding to a structural fire. The driver was not wearing a 

seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

As the tanker entered a left curve in the road, it went slightly off the right 

edge of the road. The driver overcorrected to the left, and the apparatus entered the oncoming lane of traffic. The driver steered right to bring the truck 

back into the proper lane but began to lose control. The tanker reentered the 

oncoming lane of traffic, rolled several times, and came to rest just off the 

right side of the roadway. The total distance traveled from the first corrective 

turn to the left to the final resting place of the apparatus was 223 feet. The 

driver was ejected from the vehicle, and his body was found approximately 53 

feet from the final resting place of the tanker. 

APPENDIX A 119
CASE NUMBER 22

Date of Incident: May 25, 1997


Time of Incident: 1:22 p.m.


Location of Incident: Jacksboro, Tennessee


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Mechanical failure (brakes) 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 41-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the front rightseat passenger in a tanker that was responding to a collision with fire on a 

local highway. Neither the driver nor the passenger was wearing a seatbelt at 

the time of the collision. 

As the apparatus approached an intersection, the driver attempted to slow 

the vehicle but the brakes failed. The tanker proceeded through the intersection at a speed later estimated to be 30 miles per hour. 

On the other side of the intersection, in the tanker’s path, a child was playing in the road. In order to avoid hitting the child, the driver was forced to 

swerve left. The tanker exited the left side of the roadway and began to roll 

onto its right side after coming into contact with a power pole guide wire. The 

tanker then slid and rolled to the other side of the roadway, struck another 

power pole, and came to rest on its roof. The passenger was ejected when the 

tanker collided with the guide wire. The tanker crushed the firefighter’s head 

as it rolled. 

An inspection of the tanker’s braking system after the collision found a hole 

in a brake line near the rear axle differential. 

CASE NUMBER 23

Date of Incident: July 9, 1997


Time of Incident: 6:24 p.m.


Location of Incident: Sandia, Texas


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 54-year-old male firefighter was the driver and sole occupant of a 1,000-

gallon pumper/tanker responding to a grass fire. The driver was not wearing a 

seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

As the pumper/tanker approached another fire truck, the driver applied the 

brakes and skidded 58 feet. The right wheels of the pumper/tanker left the 

roadway and produced approximately 91 feet of skid marks on the right shoul120 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
der. The driver steered left, leaving 27 feet of right wheel skid on the pavement. 

The rear end of the truck came around in a counterclockwise direction, and 

the pumper/tanker began to roll. 

The pumper/tanker crossed the centerline of the roadway and rolled into 

the opposing lane, the water tank separated from the truck, and the chassis 

continued into the ditch on the left side of the road. The driver was ejected 

during the process and was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. The cause of death was severe head injuries. 

CASE NUMBER 24

Date of Incident: November 5, 1997


Time of Incident: 2:25 p.m.


Location of Incident: Danville, Virginia


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to negotiate a curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

• Poor apparatus design (improperly baffled water tank) 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 30-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was a passenger in a 

1,000-gallon tanker that responded to the scene of a mutual-aid structure fire. 

Upon arrival at the scene, the initial driver/operator was ordered to perform 

other tasks, and the passenger became the driver/operator of the tanker. Water from the tanker was unloaded at the fire scene, and the tanker left the 

scene to refill at a nearby fire hydrant. A third firefighter accompanied the 

new driver to the fill site. Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at the time 

of the collision. 

After the tanker had been refilled, the tanker headed back to the fire scene. 

As the apparatus exited a curve, the right wheels left the roadway and ran 

onto the shoulder. The driver/operator overcorrected to the left, which brought 

the apparatus briefly into the oncoming lane of traffic. The driver/operator 

corrected again to the right, and the rear of the apparatus began to slide around. 

The tanker continued to slide and began to roll at some point. The vehicle 

came to rest on its roof, off the right side of the road. 

Both firefighters were ejected from the tanker at some point in the rollover. 

The driver/operator received fatal traumatic injuries, and the other firefighter 

survived his injuries. 

While at first glance this incident involves failure to keep the apparatus on 

the roadway, the investigation revealed that the water tank was only baffled 

to prevent forward and backward motion of the load. It did not have baffles to 

prevent sideward sloshing. It is believed that this accentuated the difficulty in 

regaining control of the vehicle once it began to slide sideways. 

APPENDIX A 121
CASE NUMBER 25

Date of Incident: December 17, 1997


Time of Incident: 3:40 a.m.


Location of Incident: Cleveland, Tennessee


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Wheels left the right side of the road 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 33-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 

1,250-gallon tanker that was responding without lights and siren to a field 

fire. A second firefighter was occupying the right-front seat. Both were wearing 

seatbelts. 

During the response, the right wheels of the tanker left the right side of the 

road and went into a ditch. After striking a driveway culvert, the tanker came 

back onto the roadway and swerved right into an embankment. The tanker 

turned over and the cab was crushed all the way down to the doors. The distance from the point at which the tanker left the roadway to its final resting 

place was 362 feet. The driver was crushed and died of asphyxiation. The passenger survived the incident. 

The field fire report ended up to be a boat that had been brought into a field 

and burned. The owner of the boat and an accomplice were charged with 

arson and other crimes. 

CASE NUMBER 26 

Date of Incident: May 5, 1998


Time of Incident: 5:45 p.m.


Location of Incident: Colorado City, Texas


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 72-year-old male firefighter (50-year veteran) who was fatally injured was 

the driver of a 1,000-gallon converted tanker that was responding from one 

brush fire to another. A second firefighter was riding in the right-front seat. 

Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

As the tanker crossed a narrow bridge, the driver yielded to the right to 

allow a vehicle headed in the opposite direction to pass. The right rear wheels 

of the tanker struck a concrete bridge support, and the driver lost control of the 

apparatus. The tanker rolled three times, ejecting both firefighters. The force 

of the collision broke the water tank from its mounts, and it separated from 

the tanker. 

The driver was pronounced dead at the scene, and the other firefighter was 

transported to the hospital. 

122 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
CASE NUMBER 27

Date of Incident: August 31, 1999


Time of Incident: 4:47 p.m.


Location of Incident: Center Rock, South Carolina


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to negotiate a curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 34-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 

1,000-gallon pumper/tanker responding to a motor vehicle collision. A lieutenant rode in the right-front seat, and a firefighter was seated in the jump 

seat behind the driver. None of the three firefighters aboard the pumper/tanker 

was wearing seatbelts at the time of the collision. 

As the apparatus responded around a curve in the road, it encountered a 

service truck headed in the opposite direction. The pumper/tanker’s speed was 

estimated at 55 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. The pumper/tanker 

pulled to the right to accommodate the service truck, and the right wheels of 

the pumper/tanker left the roadway. The pumper/tanker traveled approximately 169 feet before the driver steered the apparatus back onto the road. 

The driver overcompensated or oversteered and the pumper/tanker crossed 

into the oncoming lane of traffic. The apparatus left the left side of the roadway, crossed through a yard, and traveled through a small ditch. The apparatus 

rolled once, became airborne, crossed another road, rolled again, and came to 

rest on its roof in a field. 

The fire chief had been responding to the fire station but turned around to 

follow the pumper/tanker to the call. He lost sight of the pumper/tanker as it 

entered the curve and was alerted to the collision by a witness as he rounded 

the curve. The fire chief left his vehicle, encountered the injured lieutenant 

and firefighter, and was directed by those firefighters to the driver’s location. 

The fire chief found no sign of life in the driver, who was trapped in the pumper/ 

tanker. The driver was later extricated by other firefighters. 

The lieutenant and firefighter received serious injuries but they recovered. 

The cause of death for the driver was listed as traumatic head injuries. 

APPENDIX A 123
CASE NUMBER 28

Date of Incident: October 7, 1999


Time of Incident: 10:13 p.m.


Location of Incident: Pollock, Louisiana


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Failure to negotiate a curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 49-year-old male firefighter was the driver and sole occupant of a 3,000-

gallon tanker responding to a mutual-aid structure fire. The driver was not 

wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident. The road conditions were wet, 

and it was raining. 

As the driver negotiated a curve, the right wheels of the tanker left the pavement on the right side of the road. The tanker traveled on the shoulder for 

approximately 98 feet. The driver steered left to bring the truck back onto the 

road, but the rear of the apparatus came around counterclockwise and the 

tanker began to roll. The tanker rolled and slid for approximately 57 feet and 

came to rest in the center of the road. 

An EMS unit en route to the fire came upon the scene and discovered the 

driver still inside the vehicle with no vital signs. ALS procedures were administered at the scene and en route to the hospital. The driver was pronounced 

dead in the emergency room. The cause of death was listed as massive internal injuries, fracture of C-3, and transection of the spinal cord. 

CASE NUMBER 29

Date of Incident: October 18, 1999


Time of Incident: 1:54 p.m.


Location of Incident: LaPorte, Indiana


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to negotiate a curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts (one victim) 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus (one victim) 

• Failure to follow posted speed recommendations on a curve 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 2 

The Incident: 

The 23-year-old male driver and 57-year-old male captain were responding in 

a 2,000-gallon tanker to a mutual-aid brush fire. The driver was not wearing a 

seatbelt at the time of the collision; however, the captain was properly belted. 

The tanker failed to negotiate a curve in the road. The apparatus left the 

right side of the road and crossed into a cornfield, where it rolled several times. 

The speed of the tanker was estimated at 55 miles per hour. A caution sign 

124 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
before the curve recommended a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour. The 

driver was ejected from the vehicle, and the vehicle rolled on top of him. The 

captain was trapped in the tanker, which was on its roof, until he was extricated by other firefighters. 

The captain died on November 4, 1999. He had been released from the 

intensive care unit to a regular hospital floor. The captain was seemingly 

well and recovering from his injuries. He was discovered pulseless and nonresponsive; emergency care was provided but was not successful. The autopsy 

concluded that the captain died of a cardiac arrhythmia. 

The driver died on January 22, 2000. He was making a slow recovery. The 

cause of death was listed as sepsis. 

CASE NUMBER 30

Date of Incident: November 14, 1999


Time of Incident: 4:45 p.m.


Location of Incident: Richmond, Texas


Significant Causal/Severity Factors: 

• Excessive speed 

• Failure to negotiate a curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the 

road surface 

• Failure to follow posted speed recommendations on a curve 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 46-year-old male firefighter was the driver and lone occupant of a 1,180-

gallon tanker that was responding to a fire involving 200 round bales of hay 

that were near a home and a propane tank. The driver was not wearing a 

seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

The tanker entered a curve at a speed above the posted limit. It was hugging the centerline and drove off the right side of the road as it completed 

the curve. The driver steered the truck left in an attempt to bring it back on 

to the road, but he oversteered and lost control. The driver locked up the 

tanker’s brakes, and the tanker crossed the centerline and dug into the soft 

shoulder on the right side of the road. The truck rolled and came to rest 

upside down in a field. The driver was partially ejected and was trapped 

under the truck between the cab and the ground. 

Firefighters arrived and extricated the driver with the use of airbags and 

hydraulic rescue tools. The extrication took about 40 minutes. The driver 

was pronounced dead at the hospital. The cause of death was listed as fractured ribs and sternum (flail chest). 

Two 14-year-old boys were arrested, and one was charged with seconddegree arson for setting the fire. As a part of a plea bargain, the boy was 

placed on probation until he turns 18. 

APPENDIX A 125
CASE NUMBER 31

Date of Incident: December 15, 1999


Time of Incident: 1:30 p.m.


Location of Incident: Zwolle, Louisiana


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to negotiate a left curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 28-year-old male firefighter was the sole occupant and driver of a 1,500-

gallon tanker responding to a report of a brush fire. The driver was not wearing 

a seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

The radio in the tanker was off, so the driver did not hear a message from 

the dispatcher canceling the call and ordering responding units to return to 

quarters. As the tanker completed a left curve in the road, the right wheels of 

the tanker left the paved roadway and went onto a substandard shoulder. The 

driver attempted to steer the truck back onto the road, but the tanker began to 

rotate counterclockwise. The tanker then rolled over, ejecting the driver. The 

tanker came to rest in the middle of the road, and the driver landed off the left 

side of the road. From the point at which he was ejected to his final resting 

place, the driver traveled 141 feet. 

The driver was pronounced dead at the scene. The cause of death was listed 

as multiple trauma. Careless operation of the vehicle was cited as a factor 

related to the collision in the law enforcement report. 

126 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
CASE NUMBER 32

Date of Incident: February 11, 2000


Time of Incident: 3:30 p.m.


Location of Incident: Hoopa, California


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to negotiate a left curve 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the 

road surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 26-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was responding as 

the driver of a 1,000-gallon pumper/tanker en route to a motor vehicle crash 

on a narrow two-lane road. Another firefighter rode in the right-front seat. 

Neither firefighter was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

While the pumper/tanker was about to negotiate a slight left curve, a car 

approached from the other direction straddling the line between the two 

lanes. The driver moved the apparatus to the right side of the road to avoid 

a collision; the pumper/tanker’s right tires left the pavement and drove onto 

a soft grassy shoulder. The truck continued on the shoulder for about 230 

feet. In order to avoid a collision with a utility pole, the driver steered sharply 

to the left. The pumper/tanker began to fishtail, glanced off the power pole 

on the right side of the road, veered to the left out of control, and struck a 

large oak tree. The driver was trapped behind the steering wheel, and the 

passenger was ejected. The driver was extricated after almost an hour of 

effort. 

Although he was alert and conscious during the extrication, the driver 

entered a coma in the hospital. He never regained consciousness and died 

on February 14th, which happened to also be his 27th birthday. The passenger who was ejected eventually recovered. 

APPENDIX A 127
CASE NUMBER 33

Date of Incident: November 2, 2000


Time of Incident: 2:30 a.m.


Location of Incident: Overisel Township, Michigan


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

•	 Failure of the fire apparatus to come to a complete stop at an intersection 

with a stop signal. 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 41-year-old female firefighter who was fatally injured in this collision was 

the passenger in a 2,000-gallon tanker responding to a mutual-aid structure 

fire involving a turkey farm. Neither the passenger nor the driver was wearing 

seatbelts at the time of the collision. 

As the apparatus approached an intersection, a pickup truck approaching 

the intersection from the other street was thought by the occupants of the fire 

apparatus to be yielding the right-of-way to the tanker. The tanker may have 

slowed before going through the stop sign, but it did not come to a complete 

stop. As the tanker proceeded through the intersection, it was struck by the 

pickup at the left rear axle. 

The force of the impact deflated the right rear tires of the tanker, and the 

apparatus began to swerve from side to side. The tanker exited the left side of 

the roadway, rolled over, and the water tank separated from the chassis. The 

tanker came to rest upside down, and both firefighters were trapped in the 

cab. 

Firefighters from other departments responding to the fire came upon the 

accident scene and provided aid. Both firefighters were extricated from the 

cab. The passenger was pronounced dead at the scene as a result of crushing 

blunt force chest injuries. Her cause of death was listed as mechanical and 

positional asphyxiation. The injuries to the tanker driver/operator and the 

driver of the pickup were not life-threatening. 

CASE NUMBER 34

Date of Incident: November 16, 2000


Time of Incident: 8:05 p.m.


Location of Incident: Oakland, Kentucky


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Failure to wear seatbelts


• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus


• Wheels left the right side of the road


• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road


surface 

128 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 19-year-old male firefighter who was fatally injured was the driver of a 

1,500-gallon tanker participating in a water shuttle drill. The passenger in 

the right-front seat was a 17-year-old trainee. Neither the driver nor the 

trainee was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

As the tanker traveled down the road, the vehicle’s right wheels dropped 

off the roadway. The driver overcorrected to the left and came back on the 

road, riding the centerline. He corrected again and went off the roadway 

on the right-hand side. The tank separated from the vehicle, and the cab 

came to rest on its top. The driver was partially ejected from the vehicle, 

and the trainee was fully ejected. 

The driver was removed from the vehicle and transported to the hospital 

by ambulance. He was pronounced dead at the hospital approximately 1 

hour after the collision. The trainee was severely injured. 

CASE NUMBER 35

Date of Incident: January 12, 2001


Time of Incident: 2:20 p.m.


Location of Incident: Hillsboro, Kentucky


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Failure to negotiate a right curve 

• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the 

road surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 29-year-old male firefighter was the sole occupant and driver of a tanker 

responding to a grass fire. The driver, who was the fire chief’s son, was not 

wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

As the tanker came through a right curve, the tanker left the right side of 

the road. The driver steered it back onto the road surface, crossed the road, 

and exited the left side of the roadway. The apparatus struck an embankment and a telephone pole and rolled over. The driver was ejected from the 

vehicle, and the tanker came to rest on top of him. 

APPENDIX A 129
CASE NUMBER 36

Date of Incident: June 2, 2001


Time of Incident: 4:15 a.m.


Location of Incident: Edgerton, Missouri


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Fatally injured individual ejected from the apparatus 

• Wheels left the right side of the road 

• Overcorrection when attempting to bring right wheels back onto the road 

surface 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 30-year-old male firefighter was the right-front seat passenger in a tanker 

responding to a mutual-aid request for assistance at a structure fire. The 

firefighter was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. 

As the tanker responded, it met another fire department vehicle responding 

in the other direction. Although the approaching apparatus stayed in its lane, 

the driver of the tanker moved to the right to allow the other vehicle to pass. In 

the process of moving to the right, the right wheels of the tanker left the roadway. The tanker traveled 140 feet on the right shoulder before the driver steered 

left to bring the truck back on the road. The tanker crossed the road and left 

the left side of the road and impacted a grassy/rocky hill. The tanker overturned and came to rest 105 feet from the point at which it left the roadway. 

The firefighter was ejected from the tanker and died at the scene. The driver of 

the tank was seriously injured but remained in the cab of the tanker during 

the rollover. 

Tragically, a firefighter from a different local fire department was charged 

with setting the structure fire. 

CASE NUMBER 37

Date of Incident: August 19, 2001


Time of Incident: 12:45 p.m.


Location of Incident: Odell, Oregon


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Failure to wear seatbelts 

• Mechanical failure (tire blowout) 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 52-year-old male driver was returning to his fire district with a 2,000-

gallon tanker that had undergone water tank repairs. The driver/operator was 

the sole occupant of the tanker. The water tank was empty. 

130 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
While going down the freeway at a speed estimated at 60 miles per hour, 

the right-front tire of the tanker experienced a blowout. The tanker veered to 

the right, crossed the shoulder, and went into a level field of grass and rocks. 

The tanker traveled at an angle through the field for about 300 feet before 

striking a number of large boulders and a tree. 

The cab of the tanker was severely damaged, and the driver/operator was 

trapped in the vehicle. Responding firefighters removed the driver/operator 

from the tanker; however, he was pronounced dead at the scene. The cause of 

death was listed as blunt force trauma to the head, abdomen, and upper and 

lower extremities. 

CASE NUMBER 38

Date of Incident: November 19, 2001


Time of Incident: Not reported, other than daylight hours


Location of Incident: Cameron, West Virginia


Significant Causal/Severity Factors:


• Excessive speed 

• Loss of control while descending a grade 

• Failure to negotiate a curve 

Number of Firefighter Fatalities: 1 

The Incident: 

The 21-year-old firefighter was the passenger in a 2,000-gallon tanker responding to a mutual-aid brush fire. The driver of the tanker negotiated several 

turns and changes in grade during the initial response. As the driver attempted 

to slow down in a turn, the brake pedal went to the floor and no braking effort 

was accomplished. The driver tried to pump the pedal but was not able to slow 

the vehicle. The driver told the victim to jump from the vehicle, but he refused 

and buckled his seatbelt. 

The driver drove into a ditch on the side of the road in an attempt to slow 

the truck while he increased the engine rpms in an attempt to get the truck 

into gear. The tanker came to the end of the ditch at a sharp turn and jumped 

back up onto the roadway. The apparatus crossed the roadway and then 

plunged down a 40- to 50-foot embankment. The truck flipped end over end, 

and the chassis and the water tank separated. The driver and the victim were 

trapped in the cab. 

An engine company was responding on the same incident and was nearly 

struck by the water tank as it rolled downhill. After witnessing the crash, the 

engine company firefighters went to the aid of the trapped firefighters. Both 

trapped firefighters were talking when the engine company members reached 

the truck; however, the passenger stopped breathing shortly thereafter. Both 

firefighters were extricated from the crushed cab. The driver was transported 

to the hospital by medical helicopter. An autopsy revealed that the passenger 

died of internal trauma. 

The police report cited excessive speed and failure to maintain control as 

contributing factors in the crash. An inspection of the remains of the tanker 

found that the rear brakes were out of adjustment. 

APPENDIX A 131

GLOSSARY OF TERMS B 

The following definitions apply to terms as they are used in this report. They 

may not be industry-wide terms or definitions in all cases. 

Antilock Braking System. A computerized braking system that is designed to 

monitor the spinning of the apparatus wheels and release them when the 

wheels lock up and begin to force a skid. 

Auxiliary Braking Systems. Braking systems, in addition to the service brakes, 

that are used to assist in slowing the apparatus when the driver removes his or 

her foot from the throttle pedal. 

Baffles. Dividers within a liquid tank that are designed to prevent liquid surges 

from occurring when the tank is partially full. 

Brake Fade. Heating of the brakes that can result in momentary loss of braking ability when the brakes are applied in rapid succession. 

Braking Distance. The distance a vehicle travels from the time the brakes are 

applied until the apparatus comes to a complete stop. 

Bridge Gross Weight. A weight rating assigned to a vehicle based on the combination of the vehicle’s weight and the distance between its axles. 

Call-Back Firefighters. Career or part-paid firefighters who respond from their 

homes or other locations to the fire station or fire scene when notified of the 

need to do so. 

Candidate. A firefighter who is in training to be come a fire apparatus driver 

operator. 

Career Firefighters. A firefighter who is employed full-time by a fire service 

organization. The primary occupational mission of the career firefighter is the 

provision of emergency services to people served by the fire service organization. Career firefighters are most often based in fire stations and deploy from 

these stations when an emergency occurs. 

Causal Factors. Factors that are responsible for the incidence or severity of a 

collision or accident. 

Center of Gravity. The point at which the entire weight of the fire apparatus is 

considered to be concentrated so that, if supported at this point, the apparatus 

would remain in equilibrium at any position. 

Crash. An event in which an apparatus rolls over or collides with another 

fixed or moving object. 

Driver Reaction Distance. The time period between when a driver recognizes 

the need to brake and when the braking is actually started. 

133
Driving Course. A grid or circuit of roadways that simulate public thoroughfares. A large, paved driving pad on which various driving exercises may be 

laid out for the purpose of driver training. 

Dump Site. The location in a water shuttle where tankers drop their load of 

water so that it may be pumped onto the fire or other emergency. 

Emergency. An incident in which the potential for death, injury, or property 

loss are substantial unless expedient actions are taken. 

Fill Site. The location in a water shuttle operation where tankers are quickly 

refilled with water before returning to the emergency scene. 

Fire Police. Members, usually of a volunteer fire department, who respond 

with the fire department and assist the police with traffic control, crowd control, and scene preservation and security; common only in the mid-Atlantic 

states of the U.S. Also called Special Police. 

Fire Pump. A water pump mounted on an apparatus with a rated capacity of 

at least 250 gallons per minute at 150 psi net pump pressure and used for fire 

fighting. 

Front Gross Axle Weight Rating (FGAWR). The chassis or axle manufacturer’s 

specified maximum load-carrying capability of a vehicle’s front axle. 

Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR). The chassis manufacturer’s specified maximum load-carrying capacity of a combination (tractor-trailer) vehicle. 

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). The chassis manufacturer’s specified 

maximum load-carrying capability of a vehicle having two axle systems. 

Law. A rule of conduct in society that has been adopted by an authority having jurisdiction; there are criminal penalties for failure to abide by such rules. 

Liability. The risk of civil damages that may be taken from an individual, 

organization, or both for failure to act in a reasonable, prudent manner. 

Limited-Access Highway. An interstate highway, freeway, turnpike, or other 

similar thoroughfare in which entrance and exit are only possible from access/egress ramps. 

Liquid Surge. The force created by fluid within a tank when the direction or 

speed of a vehicle carrying the tank changes. 

Maintenance. The act of keeping an apparatus in a state of usefulness or 

readiness. 

Mobile Water Supply Apparatus. A vehicle designed primarily for transporting water to fire emergency scenes to be applied by other vehicles or pumping 

equipment. This term is used primarily by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 

Nonemergency. Any condition in which the apparatus is being driven other 

134 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
than when responding to a reported emergency. 

Overcorrection. Actions taken by an apparatus driver to correct a problem 

that in fact lead to a second or larger hazardous situation occurring. 

Oversteering. Excessive manipulation of the vehicle’s steering system when 

trying to regain control of an apparatus that is out of control. 

Parking Brakes. Brakes that are applied by the driver to prevent the movement of a parked apparatus. 

Passenger. A firefighter riding in any position of the apparatus cab other 

than the driver’s position. 

Preincident Planning. The process of making plans for an emergency at a 

given location in advance of an actual emergency. 

Pumper-Tanker. Term used to describe a fire department pumper with a water tank of 1,000 gallons or larger. This apparatus may function as either a 

pumper or a tanker, depending on the needs of the incident. 

Reaction Distance. The distance a vehicle travels while a driver is transferring the foot from the accelerator to the brake pedal after perceiving the need 

for stopping. 

Rear Gross Axle Weight Rating (RGAWR). The chassis or axle manufacturer’s 

specified maximum load-carrying capability of a vehicle’s rear axle(s). 

Repair. To restore or replace that which has become inoperable. 

Safety Officer. A fire department official charged with the responsibility for 

implementing and monitoring the department’s overall occupational safety 

and health program. 

Service Brakes. The primary brakes that are manually actuated by the driver 

via the brake pedal and used to slow or stop a moving apparatus. 

Spanner Wrench. A hand-tool used principally to make or break coupling 

connections and other simple tasks. 

Standard. A document of rules or practices that are adopted by an organization that has an interest in a particular topic. 

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). An organization’s written plan for 

carrying out the routine daily functions of that organization. 

Surface Streets (Roads). Refers to all those thoroughfares that are not divided 

or limited-access highways. 

Swash Plates. See Baffles. 

Tanker. See Mobile Water Supply Apparatus. 

Tender. The Incident Command System (ICS) term for Tanker. See Mobile Water 

Supply Apparatus. 

Total Stopping Distance. The sum of the driver reaction distance and the 

APPENDIX B 135
vehicle braking distance. 

Training Ground. Facility on which firefighter training occurs. 

Transfer Pump. A separate engine or PTO-driven water pump mounted on an 

apparatus with a minimum capacity of 250 gpm at 50 psi net pump pressure 

and used primarily for water transfer. 

Unimproved road surfaces. Used to describe roads that have not been paved 

with a hard surface such as asphalt or concrete. Unimproved road surfaces 

include dirt, gravel, sand, stone, and similar material roads. 

Volunteer Firefighters. A firefighter who may or may not be compensated for 

the service he or she provides. Volunteer firefighters provide emergency services to the people served by their organization and generally respond from 

their home or place of work when an emergency occurs. Depending on 

department policy, volunteer firefighters may respond to their fire station or 

directly to the scene of an emergency. Paid-on-call firefighters, since their work 

is not full-time, are included in this definition. 

Water Shuttle. An organized process to move water between a supply source 

and an emergency scene using fire department tankers. 

136 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY C

TRAINING MANUALS AND RELEVANT BOOKS

Emergency Vehicle Driver Training (FA-110); United States Fire Administration,


Emmitsburg, MD 21727; www.usfa.fema.gov or 1-800-561-3356


Introduction to Fire Pump Operations by Thomas Sturdevant; Delmar, P.O. Box 

15015, Albany, NY 12212; 1-800-998-7498 or www.firescience.com 

Pumping Apparatus Driver/Operator Handbook; IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications, 

930 North Willis Street, Stillwater, OK 74075; 1-800-654-4055 or www.ifsta.org 

The Tire and Rim Year Book; The Tire and Rim Association, Inc., 175 Montrose 

West Avenue, Suite 150, Copley, OH 44313; 1-330-666-2121 or www.us-tra.org 

APPLICABLE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION 

STANDARDS 

National Fire Protection Association 

One Batterymarch Park 

Quincy, MA 02269 

1-800-344-3555 

www.nfpa.org 

NFPA 1001, Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications 

NFPA 1002, Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications 

NFPA 1041, Standard for Fire Service Instructor Professional Qualifications 

NFPA 1071, Standard for Emergency Vehicle Technician Professional Qualifications 

NFPA 1142, Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting 

NFPA 1451, Standard for a Fire Service Vehicle Operations Training Program 

NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Health and Safety Program 

NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus 

NFPA 1911, Standard for Service Tests of Fire Pump Systems on Fire Apparatus 

NFPA 1915, Standard for Fire Apparatus Preventive Maintenance Program 

NFPA 1932, Standard on Use, Maintenance, and Service Testing of Fire Department 

Ground Ladders 

Training Programs 

Emergency Vehicle Operations Course; Volunteer Firemen’s Insurance Services, 

P.O. Box 2726, York, PA 17405; 1-800-233-1957 or www.vfis.com 

National Association for Professional Driving, 1001A South Interstate 45, P.O. 

Box 649, Hutchins, Texas 75141-0649; (214) 225-7366 or www.napd.com 

Pumping Apparatus Driver/Operator Handbook Curriculum Package; IFSTA/Fire 

Protection Publications, 930 North Willis Street, Stillwater, OK 74075; 1-800-

654-4055 or www.ifsta.org 

137
San Bernadino County Sheriff’s Emergency Vehicle Operations Center, 18958 

Institution Road, San Bernadino, CA 92407; 1-909-887-7550 or www.evoc.org 

Videotapes

Aerial Apparatus Driving Techniques; produced by Action Training Systems, avail-


able through IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications, 930 North Willis Street,


Stillwater, OK 74075; 1-800-654-4055 or www.ifsta.org


Emergency Vehicle Driving series (13 tapes); Fire and Emergency Television Net-


work; 1-800-932-3386 or www.fetn.com


Safe Operation of Emergency Vehicles; produced by Action Training Systems, avail-


able through IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications, 930 North Willis Street,


Stillwater, OK 74075; 1-800-654-4055 or www.ifsta.org


Websites 

Dr. Driving’s Page for Driving Emergency Vehicles; www.aloha.net/dyc/ 

emergency.html 

Other Sources of Information Used for this Report

America’s Experience with Seat Belt and Child Seat Use; National Highway Trans­


portation Safety Administration, Washington, DC; August, 2001;


www.nhtsa.dot.gov


Apparatus Accidents: Causes and Circumstances; Solomon, Stephen S.; Fire Engineering Magazine, May, 1983 

Apparatus Color Update; Solomon, Stephen S.; Fire Chief Magazine, February, 

1982 

Bridge Gross Weight Formula; United States Department of Transportation 

(HTO-33/revised 4-84), Office of Traffic Operations 

The Case For Lime-Yellow: Can It Reduce Serious Apparatus Accidents?; Solomon, 

Stephen S.; Firehouse, May, 1991 

Firefighter Fatalities in the United States in 1999; United States Fire Administration, Emmitsburg, MD, June, 2000; www.fema.gov/usfa 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Federal Highway Administration; 2001 

Edition; www.fhwa.dot.gov 

Press Release: U.S. Transportation Secretary Mineta Announces Results of Seat Belt 

Study (NHSTA 10-01); National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Washington, DC; www.nhtsa.dot.gov 

Traffic Safety Facts 1999: Large Trucks (DOT HS 809 088); National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration, Washington, DC; www.nhtsa.dot.gov 

Traffic Safety Facts 1999: Occupant Protection (DOT HS 809 090); National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Washington, DC; 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov 

Wear Your Seat Belt; Capital District Commuter Register, Washington, DC; August 5, 2001; www.commuter-register.org 

What Color Is Best?; Solomon, Stephen S.; Fire Chief Magazine, 1971 

138 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
SAMPLE APPARATUS MAINTENANCE D 

AND INSPECTION FORMS 

Year No. 

Inspector Braking System

Electrical System,

Lights & Sirens 

Lubrication 

Pump & Ladder

Booster Tank

Level

Doors -

Compartment & Cab

Portable

Equipment

Tires &

Wheel Lugs 

Fuel Level 

Oil Level Eng & Hyd

Hydraulic System

Pump Check 

Cooling System

Engine Check

Special Remarks On Road Test Inspection Use Other Side 

Date Inspection Completed 

Required Tire Pressure: 

Weekly Emergency Vehicle Report 

Type 

Name of Company 

Address 

Emergency Vehicle MFG. 

Page No. 

Battery Check 

Serial 

139
REMARKS: (Please itemize procedure taken on unsatisfactory inspection items noted on opposite side) 

Inspection 

Date: 

Repair 

Date: 

Comments: Repairs Completed -

By: Date: 

Printed in U.S.A. 

Item No. C10:007 

140 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Model Year 

Make Odometer Warranty (Life)

Date Filter Remarks

Date Date Remarks

C10:005 Printed in U.S.A.

Remarks

Months

Or

Miles

Quarts

Of Oil

Date

Installed

Lubrication Record

Motor Oil & Oil Filter Record

Tire Record

Battery Record

Plate No. 

Vehicle

Description 

Manufacturer's

Serial No. 

Emergency Vehicle

Maintenance Record Card

APPENDIX D 141
Cost Repaired By Nature Of Repairs & / Or Maintenance Service Date

Maintenance And Repair Record

142 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Date 

Pre-Trip Inspection Post-Trip Inspection

Only Items Checked Require Attention

Gauges - Ammeter, Oil Pressure, Fuel,

Water Temperature, Air Pressure or

Vacuum

Windshield Wipers

Windshield & Windows

Heater & Defroster

Mirrors

Brakes (Foot & Parking)

Engine Noises

Horn & Sirens

Steering

Vehicle Body

Wheels, Tires, Lugs

Fuel Tank & Cap

Leaks - Water, Fuel, Oil

Head Lights

Tail Lights

Stop Lights

Turn Signals & 4-Way Flasher

Reflectors

Emergency Equipment

 Other - If Applicable

Clearance Lights

Emergency Warning Lights

Side Marker Lights

Brake Hoses

Compartment Door Locks

Drain Air Tanks of Moisture

Air Systems

Mounted Equipment

Remarks (explain unsatisfactory items noted above)

Signature of Driver 

To Be Completed by Repair Shop

Mechanic's Report (If defects are noted)

Signature of Repair Shop

Foreman or Mechanic Date

(Use back of form for additional remarks.)

Item No. C10:006

Emergency Vehicle

Driver's Safety Check

Date 

Pre-Trip Inspection Post-Trip Inspection

Only Items Checked Require Attention

Gauges - Ammeter, Oil Pressure, Fuel,

Water Temperature, Air Pressure or

Vacuum

Windshield Wipers

Windshield & Windows

Heater & Defroster

Mirrors

Brakes (Foot & Parking)

Engine Noises

Horn & Sirens

Steering

Vehicle Body

Wheels, Tires, Lugs

Fuel Tank & Cap

Leaks - Water, Fuel, Oil

Head Lights

Tail Lights

Stop Lights

Turn Signals & 4-Way Flasher

Reflectors

Emergency Equipment

 Other - If Applicable

Clearance Lights

Emergency Warning Lights

Side Marker Lights

Brake Hoses

Compartment Door Locks

Drain Air Tanks of Moisture

Air Systems

Mounted Equipment

Remarks (explain unsatisfactory items noted above)

Signature of Driver 

To Be Completed by Repair Shop

Mechanic's Report (If defects are noted)

Signature of Repair Shop

Foreman or Mechanic Date

(Use back of form for additional remarks.)

Item No. C10:006

Emergency Vehicle

Driver's Safety Check

Unit No. Odometer Reading Unit No. Odometer Reading 

APPENDIX D 143

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON E


FIRE APPARATUS ANTILOCK AND


AUXILIARY BRAKING SYSTEMS AND


OPERATION


The following articles were written by Michael Wilbur of Emergency Vehicle 

Response, Inc. and the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) and 

originally appeared in Firehouse magazine. They are reprinted here with the 

magazine and author’s permission. 

EMERGENCY BRAKING: CAN I REALLY 

STOP THIS FIRE TRUCK? 

(SEPTEMBER, 1997 ISSUE) 

In my July 1997 column, I compiled a top 10 list for emergency vehicle operators. One item on the list involved emergency braking. This column will expand 

your knowledge of emergency braking procedures. 

Emergency braking is probably the least known and the most misunderstood 

operation that we perform behind the wheel of an emergency vehicle. Yet it is 

probably the most important factor in accident avoidance. But why? 

When I teach an emergency vehicle operators’ class, I will ask the question: 

“How many apparatus operators in this class have ever had to make a life-ordeath emergency stop in the fire apparatus?” Inevitably, two or three operators 

will raise their hands, in a class of 30 operators. That means only about 10% 

or less of the operators that I have surveyed have ever had to make an emergency stop. 

You will have a better understanding of this phenomenon if we examine events 

closely and in chronological order. We start at the fire station and find the 

apparatus backed into the bay, positioned similarly to a NASA rocket, ready to 

blast off. Then we add the next component, the apparatus operator – in this 

case a nervous operator; the next alarm will be his first as an emergency vehicle operator. 

The alarm sounds. He feels a rush of adrenaline as he mounts the apparatus 

and begins to respond. He is tentative, even nervous, as he responds at a respectable 20-30 mph. Time passes, he drives to a few more alarms, his 

confidence builds, his speed increases to 30-40 mph. 

Then, his attitude changes. This apparatus driving is easy; people get out of 

his way when he turns on his lights and sirens (theoretically), the fire apparatus handles like a car, speed increases to 40-50 mph. A few months, then a few 

years go by. 

145
As time passes, his confidence increases proportionally with speed and safety 

decreases, as complacency sets in. Now the driver has 10-15 years’ driving 

experience, everyone gets out of his way and there is no situation that his 

driving abilities cannot handle. EXCEPT – he has never had to make a sudden 

serious emergency stop. 

Think about it. How many emergency stops have you had to make in your 

driving career? Have there been any? If you’ve never had to make a sudden 

stop, it now becomes much easier to respond at 50-60 mph. Maybe if apparatus operators had the awesome experience of bringing a 40,000-, 50,000- or 

60,000-pound fire apparatus to an emergency stop at 50 mph maybe they 

would not do 50 mph any more. It becomes really easy in a modern fire apparatus to go really fast if you have never really had to stop. 

How do you train operators on emergency braking procedures? First, you must 

identify the correct braking procedure. Three braking procedures come to mind. 

The first emergency braking procedure is brake lockup. This occurs when the 

vehicle operator panics, holds the brake pedal to the floor in a vehicle not 

equipped with antilock brakes. When lockup occurs, the driver loses all operational and steering control. Why? It’s a matter of physics. The driver’s ability 

to keep the vehicle under control is a direct result of friction between the vehicle’s 

tires and the road surface. 

When the brakes lock up, most of the friction is lost, causing the apparatus to 

skid out of control. If you are trying to steer when the brakes are locked, you 

will continue to straighten even if the wheels are turned to the left or right. 

Also with the brakes locked up, the friction is drastically reduced and it takes a 

much greater distance to stop. This braking procedure is obviously not the 

answer. 

Next, we investigate the stab braking procedure. Stab braking occurs when the 

operator continually activates the brake with quick brake depressions or by 

pumping the brakes. With stab braking, there are multiple brake applications 

in a short period of time, thereby depleting the air supply for the brakes. This 

in turn could prematurely activate the maxi-brakes on the apparatus which 

could cause the brakes to lock up. Remember, under U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) standards maxi-brakes on the apparatus will begin to activate 

at 60 psi. Although stab braking is better than locking up the brakes, the most 

efficient, safe, braking procedure is threshold braking. 

Threshold braking is accomplished when the operator depresses the brake pedal 

until just prior to wheel lockup. Then, the operator is supposed to ease up on 

the brake pedal, keeping the tires rotating, which causes friction. When the 

operator is assured the wheels are moving, he or she again depresses the brake 

and keeps repeating the procedure until the vehicle comes to a complete stop. 

This is a great procedure in theory; the reality is that the driver will probably 

panic, lock the wheels and lose control of the apparatus. The threshold braking procedure is the manual equivalent of antilock brakes. Although antilock 

brakes will be covered in a future column, there are several things you need to 

know about antilock brakes. 

146 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Antilock brakes are now required on most fire apparatus as per National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, the motorized fire apparatus standard 

(August 1996). 

Antilock brakes must be applied with steady, even pressure on the brake pedal 

and not the threshold braking procedure. It is imperative that the operator 

identify antilock brake equipped apparatus, prior to the movement of the apparatus. 

I recently taught an emergency vehicle operators’ course for a department 

that had a rescue truck that was 6 months old. Very few drivers knew that the 

rescue truck was equipped with antilock brakes and nobody understood how 

antilock brakes work. This was an accident waiting to happen. 

Unfortunately, this situation is not unique to that fire department. I have said 

it before and I will say it again: in many cases we simply just do not know 

enough about what we are trying to do. With the introduction of electronics, 

technology and special systems, fire apparatus have become more complex 

and the fire service has fallen behind in understanding these complexities. 

What are the answers? Emergency braking training sessions and a driver’s 

manual. 

What preparation is necessary for emergency braking exercises? First and foremost, all apparatus must have successfully completed a DOT heavy-duty truck 

inspection and must be in top mechanical shape. 

Next, find an appropriate location in which to conduct the test. We found a 

school with long, flat entrance and exit roads. We received permission to use 

the school facilities on a Sunday. We also arranged to have the emergency 

braking drill videotaped from two different angles. 

We assigned a driver and one firefighter to be seated and belted in the cab. The 

first apparatus was sent down the entrance road attaining a speed of 50 mph. 

Upon passing the first set of traffic cones, the driver began to threshold brake. 

Drivers were given prior instruction that locking the brakes up was unacceptable and an unsafe act. Prior to the test, information had been compiled on 

the apparatus, including engine size, horsepower, transmission type, pumping size, booster tank size and auxiliary braking devices, if the apparatus was 

so equipped. Other information included vehicle height, overall length, width, 

weight, and wheelbase. 

All the information and the distances needed to stop each of the apparatus 

were recorded. These measurements represent the total stopping distance for 

each of the apparatus included in the testing. Two emergency braking tests 

were completed on each of the seven apparatus that took part in the exercise. 

The average stopping distance was 154.83 feet, at an average speed 

48.91 mph, during the 14 emergency braking tests that were done. 

The drivers who took part in the exercise now realize the limitation put on 

them by apparatus, their environment and even themselves. These limitations include, but are not limited to, the size of the vehicle, vehicle weight, 

speed, water surge, condition of the brakes and tires, road conditions, and the 

APPENDIX E 147
driver’s ability and experience. Drivers also learned that these limitations are 

all interconnected and that they drastically affect the driver’s ability to stop in 

an emergency. 

What about the videotape of the emergency braking test? The tapes can be 

used for indoor driver training. Also, the tape could be invaluable in any future litigation. Although the test results are valid only for that date and time, 

they will prove to an outside third party that the department has some degree 

of competence and knowledge in the operation of its emergency vehicles. 

I have another idea that may be helpful to apparatus manufacturers and 

apparatus operators. The apparatus manufacturer should provide a driver’s 

manual. Unlike the owner’s manual that is long, technical, and confusing 

and usually locked in the chief’s office, the driver’s manual would be made 

available to all persons involved in the light maintenance and the operation 

of each vehicle. The driver’s manual would be well organized, easy to understand, and easy to read. 

Why would the apparatus manufacturers look positively on this idea? It could 

save them hundreds or thousands of dollars on warranty work that could be 

avoided if the drivers had a better understanding of what they were trying to 

do. It would make the operation of emergency vehicles safer, which would 

benefit everyone. Anyone from the NFPA 1901 committee interested? 

BRAKING PROCEDURES 

(NOVEMBER, 1997 ISSUE) 

This month, we continue with the second part of a series of columns on braking procedures for emergency vehicle operators. Part 1 looked at emergency 

braking procedures (September 1997). Now, we will examine in chronological 

order those events that must occur to bring a fire apparatus to a safe stop. To 

do this we must first define the terms used in braking. 

The first point that must be made is that a fire apparatus will travel a great 

distance from the point where the operator first realizes the need to stop and 

where the fire apparatus actually comes to a complete stop. The first part of 

that distance traveled is referred to as the “perception distance” – the distance 

your apparatus travels from the time you spot a problem until you decide 

what corrective action to take. Another way to describe this is as the distance 

the apparatus will travel from the time your eyes spot a problem until your 

brain receives this signal, processes the information, and then makes a decision on what action or actions to take. 

The next part of that distance traveled is referred to as “reaction distance,” or 

the distance your apparatus will travel while you move your foot from the 

accelerator to the brake pedal. This distance can be substantially reduced if 

the operator puts his or her foot over the brake at the first sign of a potential 

problem. This is also called “covering the brake.” 

If the operator covers the brake, the vehicle can save 1.1 feet for every mile per 

hour of speed. For example, if the fire apparatus is traveling at 50 mph and 

the driver covers the brake as danger is perceived ahead, the fire apparatus 

148 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
will save 55 feet (50 mph x 1.1 feet = 55 feet). The distance saved by covering 

the brake could be the difference between having and not having an accident. 

If your apparatus is equipped with auxiliary braking devices, you will stop 

even sooner, as many of these devices are activated when you lift your foot off 

the accelerator. The time it takes for the operator to move his or her foot to the 

brake from the accelerator is the driver’s reaction time. The average driver’s 

reaction time is three-quarters of a second. However, if the driver is drunk, on 

drugs, fatigued, or has aged to the point that hearing, eyesight or reflexes are 

affected; the reaction time is going to be substantially longer. Accident investigation experts have said that at night the average driver’s reaction time could 

be as much as 11⁄2 seconds. 

The next distance traveled is “brake lag distance”; that is the distance the 

apparatus travels after you apply the brakes and before they actuate. Brake 

lag distance is applicable only for vehicles equipped with air brakes. If you 

have a vehicle equipped with hydraulic-type brakes, there is no brake lag because depressing the brake pedal compresses a liquid that has an instantaneous 

reaction on the brakes. Air brakes are extremely reliable and completely safe. 

However, when the brake pedal is depressed in a vehicle equipped with air 

brakes, there is a momentary delay. This delay occurs when the brake pedal is 

depressed. It then triggers a release of air from the air-holding tanks, which in 

turn travels through the brake lines and actuates the brakes. 

The last distance we travel is the “braking distance” – the distance your apparatus travels after the brakes take hold until the apparatus comes to a complete 

stop. 

By adding all the distances together you have the “total stopping distance.” 

The equation looks like this: 

PERCEPTION DISTANCE + REACTION DISTANCE + BRAKE LAG DISTANCE 

+ BRAKING DISTANCE = TOTAL STOPPING DISTANCE 

Although this is the standard formula for computing stopping distances, many 

other factors can affect how long it will take to bring your fire apparatus to a 

complete and safe stop: 

Brake fade. When there are multiple brake applications in a short period of 

time, particularly when the vehicle involved is carrying a lot of weight going 

down a steep grade, the brakes overheat. As the brakes overheat, they are said 

to be glazed over, which reduces friction; this in turn will cause the brakes to 

fail. 

Speed. The faster the apparatus is moving, the longer it takes to stop the apparatus. 

Weight. Too much weight could cause the weight to overrun the brakes (brake 

fade) and could cause brake failure. Not enough weight; driving a tractortrailer combination without the trailer (bobtailing). Many tractor-trailer drivers 

who have had to bobtail a tractor will be able to tell you about harrowing 

experiences, this writer included. 

APPENDIX E 149
The forward surge of the water in your tanks. With water weighing eightplus pounds per gallon and with most tank sizes ranging from 1,000 to 4,000 

gallons, one would only have to do the calculations to realize that we are 

trying to stop 8,000 to 32,000 pounds of water weight in motion. This water 

weight in motion is not only front to back but also side to side. 

Hills. It takes longer to stop going down a hill than it does to stop going uphill 

or on level pavement. Forward momentum and gravity. 

Wet or slippery surfaces. Driving in any kind of inclement weather will affect 

your ability to stop. One good example comes to mind for this time of year is 

driving on wet leaves. It’s like driving on ice. 

Type of road surface. It takes a greater distance to stop on gravel, dirt or a 

sandy surface than it does to stop on concrete or blacktop. I recall in accident 

investigation and reconstruction classes at which much time was spent describing the coefficient of friction for each surface and how it affects a vehicle’s 

ability to stop. 

Condition of brakes and tires. New brakes and new tires mean less distance it 

takes to stop. Worn brakes and worn tires mean more distance it takes to stop. 

The driver. A driver who is drunk, on drugs, fatigued, lacks good reflexes, has 

a poor attitude, or has a lack of experience will affect the stopping distances. 

There are some braking tips that can be offered here: slower is safer. You must 

control the apparatus, don’t let the apparatus control you. All apparatus must 

be kept in top shape. Train your drivers so that they may handle specific traffic 

situations, such as hills, different road surfaces, slippery road surfaces, or any 

other situations specific to your jurisdiction. 

AUXILIARY BRAKING SYSTEMS 

(JANUARY, 1998 ISSUE) 

The two previous columns investigated emergency braking (September 1997) 

and braking procedures (November 1997). The braking series has now grown 

from three parts to four parts. This month, we will learn about auxiliary braking systems and in the next column we will discuss traction control systems. 

Auxiliary braking systems are not anything new, having first been developed 

in Europe in the early 1930s. However, these systems did not gain wide acceptance in the U.S. until the 1970s and ’80s. Now, auxiliary braking systems are 

the general rule rather than the exception on modern heavy trucks. 

Fire apparatus are no exception as it relates to auxiliary braking systems. In 

the current National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901 fire apparatus 

standard, all apparatus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 36,000 

pounds or greater shall be equipped with an auxiliary braking system. The 

standard also states that the purchaser of apparatus with a GVWR of 31,000 

pounds or greater should consider equipping it with an auxiliary braking system. 

Fire apparatus commonly make repeated stops from high speeds, which cause 

rapid brake lining wear and a brake fade, sometimes leading to accidents. 

150 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Auxiliary braking systems are recommended on apparatus that are exposed 

regularly to steep or long grades, are operating in congested areas where repeated stops are normal or respond to a high number of emergencies. 

Some auxiliary braking devices should be disconnected when the apparatus is operated on slippery surfaces. Follow the auxiliary braking device 

manufacturers’ recommendations for proper instructions. Section 35002 (2) of 

the California Vehicle Code states, “Any fire apparatus exceeding 31,000 pounds 

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) shall be equipped with a retarder”. Also of 

interest – California requires special driving licenses for fire apparatus operators. It would appear California is years ahead of most states in fire apparatus 

driving safety. 

Why are retarders mandated today, when they were not even considered 40 

years ago when the technology first became available in the U.S.? What has 

changed in apparatus design to require the use of auxiliary braking devices? If 

you have followed the evolution of fire apparatus, the answer becomes quite 

apparent: the increase in engine horsepower. 

Engine horsepower has more than doubled in the last 30 years, from less 

than 250 hp to modern-day electronic diesels that can develop more than 500 

hp. This increase in horsepower has raised average speed dramatically. When 

I drove our 1947 Mack pumper it could not go over 50 mph; now, our 1992 

pumper would have no trouble going over 70 mph. 

Gross vehicle weight also plays an important role in the need for auxiliary 

braking systems. Prior to 1960, a typical pumper had a 300- to 500-gallon 

booster tank, three or four compartments, and carried three firefighters safely. 

Pumpers from this era had GVWR of 20,000 to 30,000 pounds. Present-day 

pumpers have 750- to 1,500-gallon booster tanks; 10 compartments or more 

are not uncommon; and enclosed cabs capable of carrying 5 to 10 firefighters 

are now the norm. Today, pumpers have GVWR of 30,000-50,000 pounds and 

many ladder trucks, tankers, and heavy rescue apparatus exceed 70,000 pounds 

GVWR. 

With better drive trains, tires and aerodynamics, there is less wind resistance or other passive resistance that would hold the apparatus back or act as 

a natural brake. There have been great developmental strides made in standard service brakes but their capacities are limited. The performance achieved 

in endurance braking has improved dramatically over the recent past, due to 

significant increases in engine power, vehicle speeds and payload, coupled 

with reduced engine retarding, rolling resistance and aero-dynamic drag. Service brakes, however, have not been able to match the increase in demand 

upon them as a result of several limitations. 

One limitation on service brakes is the size of the wheels, which are becoming smaller; this in turn creates less surface area for braking. Another limitation 

is the width of the brakes which are restricted due to the spring; and suspension components, again reducing surface area. Auxiliary braking devices have 

been designed to provide safe, long-duration braking that conventional brakes, 

in spite of their superior performances in emergency or stopping situations, 

APPENDIX E 151
cannot provide. For these reasons, it is necessary that auxiliary braking systems provide the greater part of the braking effort, thus leaving the service 

brakes free to operate under full efficiency when required for emergency stopping. 

There are four types of auxiliary braking systems: 

• Exhaust brakes 

• Engine brakes 

• Hydraulic retarders 

• Electric retarders 

The exhaust brake, also known as a compression brake, is an auxiliary braking device used to help slow a vehicle’s forward momentum. This slowing power 

is achieved by restricting the flow of exhaust gases and increasing back pressure inside the engine (you may have done this by putting an apple, snowball, 

or other obstruction in an exhaust pipe). This increased back pressure creates 

resistance against the pistons in the engine, slowing the crankshaft’s rotation, 

and ultimately helping to slow the vehicle’s forward momentum. 

The exhaust brake is usually activated by a dashboard switch. The switch needs 

to be in the off position before the vehicle can be started. With the dashboard 

switch in the on position, the vehicle operator need only lift his or her foot off 

the accelerator and/or clutch, if the vehicle is so equipped, to make the system 

operate. Engine speed has a major effect on exhaust brake performance. 

As with all auxiliary braking systems, the exhaust brake is not intended to 

stop the vehicle but to aid in controlling speed. On an uphill climb with the 

exhaust brake on, taking your foot off the accelerator will result in rapid vehicle slowdown because of the uphill grade and the retarding power of the 

exhaust brake. Manufacturers recommend never using the exhaust brake on 

wet or icy road surfaces and only using the exhaust brake only when you have 

good, dry traction with the road’s surface. 

Before shutting off your engine, always turn your exhaust brake off or you 

may not be able to restart the engine. It is also recommended that if you are 

going to leave your vehicle idling for more than three minutes, the exhaust 

brake must be shut off. The exhaust brake must also be shut off prior to engaging the pump. It would appear the exhaust brake is better suited for 

over-the-road trucking rather than the stop-and-go driving of fire apparatus. 

The engine brake is a diesel engine auxiliary braking system that uses the 

engine itself to aid in slowing and controlling the vehicle. When activated, the 

engine brake alters the operation of the engine’s exhaust valves so that the 

engine works as a power absorbing air compressor. This provides a retarding 

action to the wheels. The operation of the engine brake is fully automatic once 

it is turned on. 

Depending on the type of engine, the controls for the engine brake consist of 

one or two switches mounted on the dashboard. The one-switch system usually has three positions – off, low, and high. The off position is self-explanatory. 

152 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
The low position will give you auxiliary braking in half the engine’s cylinders. If you have a six-cylinder diesel, you will receive auxiliary braking in 

three of the six cylinders. When the switch is in the high position, you will 

receive auxiliary braking from all six cylinders. This system is often referred 

to as the two-speed system. 

The three-speed system, used on in-line diesel engines, is controlled by two 

switches. The master switch turns the engine brake on and off; the second 

switch, which performs the progressive braking function, controls the amount 

of retarding. The number 1, or low, position gives the operator auxiliary 

braking from two cylinders; the number 2, or medium, position provides 

auxiliary braking from four cylinders; and the number 3, or high, position 

provides auxiliary braking from all six cylinders. If the engine brake does 

not have the progressive braking feature, your vehicle will be equipped with 

one switch, with on and off positions that control all of the engine’s cylinders. 

There are many safety concerns that you must be aware of before using the 

engine brake. Be sure that the vehicle is maintaining traction and stability 

using the natural retarding of the engine alone. Because the operation of 

any vehicle under slippery conditions is unpredictable, be sure you have 

plenty of distance when testing service brakes of your engine brake. 

If you have never driven a vehicle equipped with an engine brake, it is 

recommended that you do not use it on slick roads until you have some 

experience with it on dry pavement. When you have that experience, you 

can use the following operating sequence as a guideline for inclement 

weather. Make sure the apparatus is maintaining traction before activating 

the engine brake. If the apparatus is maintaining traction, the engine brake 

switch can be turned to the low setting. If the apparatus continues to maintain traction, and there is no tendency for the drive wheels to lose traction, 

you can move the switch to the high position. If the drive wheels tend to 

lock, immediately switch the engine brake into the low position. Do not 

attempt to use the high setting until road conditions improve. Never skip 

steps, i.e.: going from off to high in inclement weather or chances are you 

will lose control and get into an accident. If you have only an on/off switch 

and the vehicle fails to maintain traction, turn the engine brake off. 

Now that safety concerns have been addressed, you can turn the engine 

brake on and begin to operate the apparatus. If the vehicle is equipped with 

an automatic transmission, the engine brake is activated when you move 

your foot off the throttle, and is deactivated when you reapply pressure to 

the throttle. There is a pressure-sensing switch that deactivates the engine 

brake when the apparatus slows to about 10 mph to prevent stalling the 

engine. However, with the new electronic transmissions this may not be the 

case. Check your owner’s manual to be sure. Also, an engine brake with a 

pressure-sensing switch must be turned off prior to engaging the pump or 

you risk stalling the engine. Remember, the apparatus is only being slowed 

by the engine brake to 10 mph; you must apply the service brakes to come 

to a complete stop. 

APPENDIX E 153
The hydraulic retarder is located in or around the automatic transmission 

housing. It is important to note that the hydraulic retarder is also referred to as 

a transmission retarder. Hydraulic retarder braking is accomplished when transmission oil is directed into the retarder housing. The oil causes a resistance to 

rotation of the vaned rotor that is then transferred to the rotor shaft. The retardation power is transmitted through the transmission to the drive train and 

then to the drive wheels, slowing the vehicle. 

Partial braking can be done by moving the manual control valve part way to 

regulate the oil pressure to the retarder. This manual control valve is located 

in or around the dash by the steering wheel. With the manual control valve in 

the off position, oil is removed from the retarder, leaving no drag on the rotor 

and no auxiliary braking. The heat generated by the absorption of the horsepower within the transmission is dissipated by the transmission oil being 

circulated through a transmission oil cooler. 

There are two types of hydraulic retarders: output and input. It would appear 

that the output retarder is better suited for fire apparatus use, because of our 

lower speeds and the stop-and-go traffic that we must contend with. There are 

several ways to activate a hydraulic retarder: manually by a dashboard switch; 

letting off on the throttle; applying the service brakes; or a combination of 

these. Engine exhaust brakes cannot be operated simultaneously with a hydraulic retarder, as that could damage the transmission. 

As with the other auxiliary braking systems, caution must be exercised with 

hydraulic retarders. Manufacturers recommend not using hydraulic retarders 

in inclement weather or when road surfaces are slippery. The retarder must be 

turned off by the dashboard switch. However, if the apparatus is equipped 

with an anti-lock braking system (ABS), it should be equipped with a sensor 

that interacts with the hydraulic retarder. This sensor will detect wheel lockup 

and automatically cut back or turn off the retarding force before wheel lockup 

occurs. If the apparatus is equipped with this ABS interface, it should not have 

a dashboard on/off switch. 

The electric retarder, also known as a driveline retarder, can be mounted on 

the driveshaft, the transmission, or the rear axle. Three main systems make 

up the electric retarder: the operator controls, the electronic controller and the 

rotor/stator assembly. The operator controls consist of using a dashboard switch, 

letting up on the throttle, depressing the service brakes, or a combination of 

these. 

On apparatus without ABS, but ones that have foot controls, there is also a 

system on/off switch. The electronic controller is a device that connects the 

electric retarder to the operator controls and the electrical system of the vehicle. The controller incorporates an electronic speed switch and the ABS 

interface. To prevent unnecessary discharging of the vehicle’s batteries, the 

electronic switch automatically shuts off the driveline brake when the vehicle 

has come to a complete stop. The ABS interface deactivates the electric retarder when the ABS system detects imminent wheel lockup. 

154 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
How does the electric retarder work? By relying on a force as old as gravity, 

electromagnetism. A stator carrying electromagnets is attached the vehicle 

chassis or a vehicle drive train component. Two discs are connected to the 

vehicle drive shaft, resting on each side of the stator, separated from the stator 

only by a narrow air gap. When the operator activates the driveline brake, 

coils are energized and produce magnetic fields with alternate polarities. Magnetic flux flows through the coils and rotating discs, creating electromagnetic 

eddy currents. These currents create a drag on the rotors, without the use of 

friction. The braking energy is converted into heat that is dissipated through 

the self-air-cooled discs. A light bar is mounted on the dashboard to indicate 

the level of retarding power selected. There are generally four lights; each one 

represents 25% of the available retarding force being used. 

There are many advantages to equipping emergency apparatus with an auxiliary braking system: having two braking systems increases safety increases 

the life of the service brakes, decreases brake maintenance and associated costs, 

and is effective for city or highway driving. 

This column was written to give you an overview of the auxiliary braking 

systems available today and to provide fire apparatus operators with basic 

knowledge of the operation of an auxiliary braking system. If your apparatus 

is equipped with an auxiliary braking system, you need to consult the owner’s 

manual for specific operational guidelines. I would like to thank all of the 

auxiliary brake manufacturers that provided information for this column. 

ANTILOCK BRAKES, TRACTION CONTROL,


OTHER GIZMOS, & GADGETS


(March, 1998 Issue)


In our continuing series on emergency vehicle brakes, this month we will look 

at the dashboard switches that control braking, traction, and other special 

systems. 

The apparatus operator’s position could rival the cockpit of a jumbo jet, with 

all of the switches, gizmos, and gadgets inherent in today’s fire vehicles. Technology has increased apparatus safety, yet many people in the fire service 

have become overwhelmed, including apparatus assemblers, mechanics, driver 

trainers, and the drivers themselves. Driver trainers with whom I have spoken 

are struggling to have drivers meet minimum driving standards without introducing specialized topics such as these. Moreover, where would driver trainers 

look for the information? Unless you have hours to look through the owners’ 

manuals – and if you could find or understand them – very little has been 

written on the subject. I hope this column fills that void. 

There are two switches that are commonly found on apparatus dashboards 

that we should discuss. One switch controls the operation of the front brakelimiting valves (the slippery-road/dry-road switch). Its original intent was to 

help the driver maintain control of the apparatus on wet or slippery surfaces. 

This was accomplished by reducing the air pressure by 50% on the front steering axle when the limiting valve was placed in the slippery-road position. This 

APPENDIX E 155
in turn would prevent the front steering axle from locking up, letting the apparatus operator steer the vehicle even if the rear wheels were locked up and 

skidding. 

That sounds good in principle but in fact it doesn’t work. The apparatus loses 

25% of its braking capabilities – and that’s a vehicle with new or wellmaintained brakes. If the brakes are worn or out of adjustment and you have 

only 60% of the vehicle’s original braking capability, by activating the slippery-road switch you diminish the vehicle’s ability to stop by an additional 

25%. The odds are not in your favor for completing a safe response. 

Furthermore, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), after investigating many apparatus accidents, concluded that using manual brake-limiting 

valves can diminish a rig’s stopping capability and, therefore, use of the valves 

should be discontinued. To be safe, put the switch in the dry position and 

disconnect it so that accidental activation does not occur. Front brake-limiting 

valves were standard equipment before the adoption in 1975 of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard 121. That does not mean, however, that the limiting 

valves were discontinued after 1975; I have seen them on apparatus constructed 

as late as 1984. 

The second switch controls the inter-axle differential lock on the rear tandem 

axles of the tanker. The inter-axle differential is also known as a “power divider” or “third” differential. 

The inter-axle differential is a driver-controlled switch, usually air activated, 

for a traction device that allows for speed difference between the forward and 

rear tandem axles while providing equal pulling power from each axle of the 

tandem. By activating the switch, improved traction is provided for each axle. 

How does the system work? The inter-axle differential divides the power equally 

between the two axles of a tandem. It does not allow the total torque of both 

axles to exceed twice the torque of the least amount of traction. The inter-axle 

differential lock mechanically deactivates the inter-axle differential providing 

maximum traction potential from both axles of a tandem. 

Under normal operating conditions, the inter-axle differential switch should 

be in the unlocked position. Lock the inter-axle differential when approaching 

or anticipating poor driving conditions to provide improved traction. Always 

unlock the inter-axle differential when the road conditions improve. When 

engaging the inter-axle differential lock, you must provide an interruption in 

torque to the drive train (lift your foot from the accelerator). 

Activating the inter-axle differential switch is similar to shifting a manual 

transmission with a clutch. Do not actuate the inter-axle differential switch 

while one or more wheels are actually slipping, spinning, or losing traction, or 

damage to the axle can result. Do not spin the wheels with the inter-axle 

differential unlocked, or damage to the axle could result. 

Unmatched tires on tandem drive axles will cause tire wear and scuffing as 

well as possible damage to the drive units. The four largest tires should never 

be installed on one driving axle or the four smallest tires on the other axle. 

156 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS
Such tire mounting will cause an inter-axle “fight” and could damage the 

drive units. Consequently, experts recommend tires be matched to within 

1⁄8-inch of the same rolling radius and 1⁄8-inch of the same rolling circumference. This procedure should not be tried on the first response after reading 

this; however, it’s an excellent subject to cover in an inclement-weather 

driving drill. 

Automatic traction control (ATC) is an option available on vehicles equipped 

with antilock braking systems (ABS). It helps improve traction when vehicles 

are on slippery surfaces by reducing drive wheel overspin. 

The ATC works automatically in two ways. The first way occurs when a drive 

wheel starts to spin; the ATC applies air pressure to brake the wheel. This transfers engine torque to the wheels with better traction. The second way occurs 

when all the drive wheels spin. In this case, the ATC reduces engine torque to 

provide improved traction. The ATC turns itself on and off; drivers do not have 

to select this feature. If drive wheels spin during acceleration, the ATC green 

indicator light comes on, indicating the ATC is engaged and working. Also, 

the engine speed will be decreased as needed until traction is acquired to move 

the chassis. 

A snow-and-mud switch option is included with the ATC. This function increases available traction on extra-soft surfaces like snow, mud, or gravel by 

slightly increasing the permissible wheel spin. When the apparatus operator 

activates the snow-and-mud switch, the ATC light blinks continuously. To deactivate the snow-and-mud switch, the operator can press the switch again or 

turn off the ignition. When this feature is deactivated, the ATC light stops 

blinking. The snow-and-mud switch must be turned off once the vehicle regains normal traction. 

If it is desired to rock the apparatus and the ATC has cut the throttle back, 

depress the mud-and-snow switch. Caution must be used when depressing the 

mud-and-snow switch; if the wheel suddenly regains traction, axle damage 

can occur. The green ATC light will go out when the drive wheels stop spinning. (Older apparatus may be equipped with a manual traction control switch. 

If that is the case, consult the owner’s manual.) 

Antilock braking systems are now mandated on all vehicles, on all wheels, if 

such a system is available from the chassis manufacturer, as per National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1901 (1997 edition). Antilock brakes, 

like the ATC, are automatic and not activated by the driver. 

The ABS works using digital technology in an onboard computer that monitors each wheel and controls the air pressure to the brakes, maintaining optimal 

braking ability. At each wheel in each axle, a sensing device monitors the 

wheel speed. The wheel speed is converted into an electronic signal that is sent 

to the onboard computer. When the apparatus operator begins to brake and 

the wheel begins to lock up, the sensing device sends a signal to the computer 

that the wheel is not turning. The computer then analyzes this signal against 

the other wheels to determine if the tire should be turning. If the tire should be 

turning, a signal is sent to the air modulation valve on that wheel, reducing 

APPENDIX E 157
the air brake pressure and allowing the wheel to turn. Once the wheel turns, it 

is braked again. The computer makes these decisions many times per second 

and commands the air modulation valves to reduce, increase, or hold the air 

brake pressure in each wheel. 

These decisions are based on the status of each wheel. But why is it so important to keep the wheels turning? The braking process is based on friction between 

the tires and the pavement. The physics of braking indicate that when applying the brakes to stop the apparatus, the operator can achieve the maximum 

braking force as long as the wheels are still turning. If the wheels lock up, most 

of the braking force is lost and the apparatus operator will lose steering control. The installation of an antilock braking system will prevent wheel lockup 

in an emergency braking situation, resulting in shorter stopping distances and 

the apparatus operator will be able to maintain steering control. 

When an ABS-equipped apparatus is started, the ABS warning light will stay 

on for a short period of time. If that light remains lit or comes on while driving, there is a problem with the system that must be fixed. Generally, when a 

system failure occurs, the affected wheel and the diagonal wheel will return to 

normal braking function while the remaining wheels will operate with the 

ABS. (Warning: It is not advisable to pump the brake pedal in the vehicle 

equipped with air brakes. Instead, keep steady pressure on the pedal and modulate intensity as required for safe deceleration.) 

One advance achieved by using the computer is the ability to interface the 

ABS, ATC, and auxiliary braking systems. What does that mean? 

With the introduction of computers, antilock brakes are now compatible with 

auxiliary braking devices. In the event of a wheel lockup, the auxiliary braking system is automatically within milliseconds, shut off by the ABS computer. 

When the wheel sensors detect the wheel is no longer locked up, it sends a 

signal to the ABS computer, which in turn restores the auxiliary braking system. The ATC is interfaced in the same manner using this new digital 

technology. 

At a recent trade show, I asked a representative of an auxiliary brake manufacturer why there is an on-switch for the auxiliary brake when its function is 

controlled automatically by the onboard computer. His reply was because the 

fire department wanted it that way. That’s not a very good reason, considering 

most fire departments have limited knowledge of their systems. Perhaps the 

NFPA 1901 apparatus committee could take a look at this issue and eliminate 

driver controls for auxiliary braking systems. 

This is just an overview of these systems. If your department has questions 

about a piece apparatus or equipment, consult the owner’s manual or contact 

the manufacturer. 

I’d like to thank all the manufacturers that contributed material to this column. 

158 SAFE OPERATION OF FIRE TANKERS