Tri-Circle-D 2,059 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 But curt posted that he saw them coming in through the front gate from the right. They must have done test runs and know what they're doing.I've timed going from the WL to the front of the Fort, that's a standard run.I've also timed going from the WL to the Settlement. That's also a standard run. But there is no direct run from the Settlement to the Outpost, so it's hard to say what the total time is to go from the WL to the Outpost using the back way.Traffic and idiot guests are supposed to move over if there is a fire truck blasting their siren behind them. You left off the idiot bus drivers that drive 15mph under the speed limit. They are much worse than guests in that regard. A truck must have come in from the front and through the check-in lanes, because there's a truck there in that video that FWF posted, and it didn't pass by coming from the back. You don't see the truck until the ding-a-ling CM moved his van. So, what happened to the trucks that the two other Fiends saw? I really haven't noticed too many bad bus drivers at WDW. TCD Quote Link to post Share on other sites
djsamuel 322 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 A truck must have come in from the front and through the check-in lanes, because there's a truck there in that video that FWF posted, and it didn't pass by coming from the back. You don't see the truck until the ding-a-ling CM moved his van. So, what happened to the trucks that the two other Fiends saw? I really haven't noticed too many bad bus drivers at WDW. TCD the trucks entering into Wilderness Lodge may have been unrelated. They also may have been called in as backup in case the fire spread into the woods. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wak648...Bill 94 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 You would think the "Rangers" would carry fire extinguishers with them.If he does, he was probably busy investigating a bent blade of grass on one of the sites. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AC in A2......Aaron 693 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 If he does, he was probably busy investigating a bent blade of grass on one of the sites.I understand. We all have priorities in life. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grumpy and Grandma 739 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 So, what happened to the trucks that the two other Fiends saw?. TCDThe two trucks that came through the back gate were brush/grassfire trucks not a full size engine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
devores 382 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 That's Fire Station #3, but it is a little further away from the Fort than the other two mentioned. Fire Station #3 is 3.7mi from the location of the fire. The DTD Fire Station, station #4, is 3.6mi from the location of the fire. The Fire Station across from Hollywood Studios, station #1, is 3.5mi from the location of the fire. Station #2 is 6.5mi from the location of the fire. So it seems the responders could have been from any of the stations, but more likely station 3. Station 3 has the responsibility of MK and surrounding hotels. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigdisneydaddy 9 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 You would think the "Rangers" would carry fire extinguishers with them.My bet would be that for liability reasons they are not allowed to intervene in most circumstances. Also, the pickup truck was likely a command vehicle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AC in A2......Aaron 693 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 My bet would be that for liability reasons they are not allowed to intervene in most circumstances. Also, the pickup truck was likely a command vehicle.So youre saying they were following regulations that keep them from just doing the right thing. Par for the course these days I suppose. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigdisneydaddy 9 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 A lot of companies chose to limit the actions that their employees take for a variety of reasons. Training is expensive, they may opt to use the rangers as spotters or observers and not allow them to act due to the danger and the exposure to injury. Although vehicle fires are not atom splitting events, the potential for injury for someone with no safety equipment and little or no training is very high. Disney IIRC is self insured on a lot of things. Even though there are some very real hazards, vehicle fires are generally not what you see portrayed on TV (I know its shocking that TV is inaccurate) and explosions are rare other than tires.The truck was away from any structures and the conditions of the vegetation was supposedly not dry due to recent rain so theres really little hazards with exposures, it looked a lot worse than what it really was. As an example of companies shielding themselves from liability, the municipality I just retired from has several elder care facilities with varying degrees of care that would call the Fire dept for public assists so that we could come and pick people up off the floor and help them back into bed or their chairs. These were businesses with sufficient staff on duty that should have been capable of the task but due to their insurance did not allow employees to lift residents. Its a crazy world we live in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
arthuruscg 34 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 One fire extinguisher would not out or a truck fire. If the people are out, just let the sucker burn and haul away the ashes later. Also think about all of the toxic chemicals that is found in a car fire that have the ability to mess you up for life. Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Daverene 14 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I was told by a ford tec that any ford more than 10 yrs old the ethanol in the gas is eating the rubber gas lines it's not a matter of if but when it will burn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mmfancipher 31 Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 I was told by a ford tec that any ford more than 10 yrs old the ethanol in the gas is eating the rubber gas lines it's not a matter of if but when it will burn I've heard this almost all my life. But I've owned 3 or 4 vehicles in my life, so far, and I've always put ethanol in my cars and have neverhad a fuel line problem. And I drive my cars until they die. Transmision (230K miles), engine block and death by deer. My current caris a 2003 Ford Taurus wagon with 258k miles on it and I always use ethanol. Now if you want to talk about the hatch door design I'm there!That person I'd like to meet in a dark alley and "discuss" it with him! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
h2odivers...Ray 952 Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 My son, the mechanic, and I were talking about ethanol gas. Mainly my concern was putting it n the boat. He asked around about how ethanol breaks down the rubber hoses and how it breaks down the oil. He found out that E-85 is 85% ethanol and should not be used in a 2-stroke motor, ethanol is alcohol and it burns very hot, and can break down rubber and plastic in older motors. He said E-10 will not break down rubber and plastics in newer cars and there's not enough ethanol that it shouldn't affect any rubber or plastic parts in older cars. However, he found out that you should not use E-10 in older vehicles or equipment that sits for along time with out being used. Almost all new cars and equipment is made to except E-10 gas and Flex Fuel vehicles are made to except higher ethanol blends. He also said that E-10 can be used in modern 2-stroke motors. I have an Echo trimmer and checked Echos website and they said you can use E-10 and it doesn't void the warranty. But they don't recommend any gas in excess of E-10(10% ethanol blend). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mmfancipher 31 Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Yes, do not use E-85 in a non flex fuel vehicle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.