The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Now THIS is a Tanker
http://www.firefighternation.com/photo/photo/show?id=889755%3APhoto...
(This one is for you, Mike) :-)
(This one is for you, Mike) :-)
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Not in most of the real world, they don't. Tankers fly only in the NIMS and FIRESCOPE Bizzarro World alternate universes where you need a commercial driver's licens with a "Tanker Endorsement" to drive a "tender".
We just need to change the NIMS and FIRESCOPE terminology to reflect reality, not force their alternate reality terminology on the 40,000 or so fire department TANKERS that pre-existed either FIRESCOPE or NIMS.
-
Permalink Reply by Greenman on
-
So what do we call those things that fly and drop wet stuff on fires.
Trucks that haul water to fire ground have been call Tenders for decades out west, where both Tenders and Tankers are used very often at the same fire.
Since we now have a standardized National terminology people should stop using old local names for various things and use the same terminology everywhere. This whole debate is eerily similar to the debate over whether to continue to use Ten-codes, or plain English on the radio.
Firefighters talk about following Standards, so why the resistance to using standard terminology? NIMS is not some "alternate relaity" it is a National Standard.
Would you let a Firefighter wear gardening gloves for firefighting simply because that is what he preferred, even though the standard calls for NFPA approved Firefighting gloves? How far do we go in selectively following standards?
GM
-
-
Greenman,
To answer your points one at a time...
1) We call the planes "Air Tankers" or BADLOWS (Big Aircraft Dropping Lots Of Water). BADLOW, by the way is an Al Brunacini term, and they don't come any more "West Coast" than old Al.
2) Sorry for the left-coast-centric view of tankers vs. tenders at the same fire, but that point doesn't wash. The simple weight of numbers tells us that trucks hauling water, called "Tankers" have fought fires on the east coast, in the south, and in the midwest for a lot longer than the FIRESCOPE "tender" term has been around, and in much larger numbers. It doesn't matter who adopted it, the simple fact is that the "tender" term is the tail wagging the dog.
3) NIMS terminology can and should be changed to reflect the reality that there are thousands of firefighting "Tankers" that carry water to fires in most of the U.S. There are maybe 40 or 50 aircraft that do the same thing. That's Wag the Dog, taken to a ridiculous extreme.
4) The fact that we have a national standard doesn't make the standard correct. Standards change all of the time...look at the NFPA. The reason to change them is to improve them. We can improve the tanker/tender terminology by changing it.
Your 10-code analagy actually supports my point, too. The reason for getting rid of 10-codes was that they mean different things to different people. Most people don't inherently understand what 10-46 means in every jurisdiction. The reason for doing away with them is that everyone understands what "Send another ambulance" means. The same goes for "Tankers". Many more ground-based "Tankers" exist than the airborne ones. It would make more sense to standardize the term based on how the majority of the people that use the term understand it. That calls for renaming the flying ones.
5) There is no resistance to standard terminology in this discussion. There is resistance to a standard term that doesn't make sense to the majority of the people who are forced to use it.
6) The NIMS "tanker" term as applied to aircraft may be a national standard, but it is also very definately an alternate reality to most of the country. That's why it doesn't make sense. The National Fire Academy is located in Fredrick County, Maryland. Guess what Fredrick County calls the fire apparatus that haul water to fires..."TANKERS".
7) There are probably a few firefighters that do wear gardening gloves to fight fires...probably around the same number of firefighting "Tankers" that fly.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott on
-
nor do they exist over here hey look even across the pond they call them tankers why is it only on the west coast they get called tenders
-
-
On the West Coast, when the hazmat team runs a wreck where a truck carrying a lot of liquid gasoline, acid, or solvents overturns, I find it funny that they don't respond to a gasoline/acid/solvent "Tender" wreck.
-
-
Ben,
LOL, some good points.
But of course terminology changes all the time too. Golly-gee we don't use the same language today we did 50 or a 100 years ago.
We could roll the Steamers and Pompiers back out too. Or we could start riding on the Tailboard and grow six-inch beards again.
Times change and so does terminology. So if NIMS doesn't do a reverse double-whammy on the Tanker/Tender issue, how long will the old guard hold out before they accept the Twenty-first century terminology?
As for calling Tankers "BADLOWs" maybe we should call ground-based water tranporters "SNAFUs." :-)
GM
-
-
Sorry, you can't use your Jedi mind tricks on me.
But...if they worked, we could change the term "Engine" to "RiverOfLifeOnWheels", we could call ambulances "Garbage Trucks", and we could call portable dump tanks "Sand Castles". After all, new terminology just HAS to be better than the tried-and-true terminology, right.
Pack as many non-sequiturs as you want into your view - it won't change the fact that on the tanker/tender issue, the tail is indeed wagging the dog. It's not just an old school issue, either. It's what the majority use. If it's good enough for the county where the National Fire Academy resides, it's good enough for the majority of U.S. firefighters who don't use the term "tender" and don't appreciate the minority who cram it down everyone else's throats.
When is the last time you carried water in the "tend" on your "tender"? Most of us know how to carry water in the "tank" on our "tanker".
-
-
In the end, it doesn't really matter.
I will call the apparatus by the name it supposed to be called. If you do get the NIMS temrinology changed to the way you want it I will called water trucks "tankers."
That's the point of a standardized system of terminology, not what any one particular piece of equipment is called, or who created the system from the which basic terms were drawn, but that everyone calls it the same name. If someone besides the U.S. Forestry Service had developed a unified system different terms would have been adopted at the time it was implemented.
Bully for Frederick County! Eventually they will change the designation of their Tenders like everyone else. Or NIMS will change the term back to Tankers and everyone who already comlies with NIMS will change back.
So, for now I'll call them Tenders, but will call them Tankers if NIMS changes.
GM
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
ewwww... Ben finds the achilles heal in the tender vs tanker discussion!
The gasoline tanker terminology I believe was taken directly from DOT language which is a solid argument for NIMS folks to discuss with the ICS folks. I took a quick look online at want ads for truck drivers and noted that the word "tanker" seems to be what the DOT referes to as a vehicle that carries a liquid.
Highway Transport Chemical, LLC is hiring CDL Drivers with Tanker and HazMat endorsements.
Bottom line, we all need to call something by the same name and stick to it. Should the time come when there is a disaster that requires resources to be provided between the two coasts, it will be a disaster if we aren't all speaking the same language.
-
-
I'm still up for either Air Tanker or BADLOW. Iagree that the terminology should be consistent. It is consistent with the majority usage to use Tanker for the ones that don't fly.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
