On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 16:47:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <1k7bghld8pk95qghqk3abq5q22fec3kbm7@4ax.com>, at 04:50:00 on
>Wed, 24 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 12:08:22 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 23/08/2022 10:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>> I would imagine the confusion came from the original 999 call from the Uber
>>>> driver who witnessed it.
>>>
>>>If the railway / underground station was mentioned then would that not
>>>immediately escalate it to a "major incident".
>>>
>>>Years ago someone was driving home from the garage when his car started
>>>smoking, various vehicles stopped to help including a coach. Very soon
>>>most of the emergency services were there because of the report of the
>>>involvement of a coach. It was further complicated by a passing SAR
>>>helicopter landing to see if he could help!
>>>
>>Many premises (e.g. hospitals) will get a usual emergency service
>>attendance based on what could happen rather than what usually
>>happens. When I worked at the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead, the
>>LFB attendance was usually at least three appliances.
>
>aka "Pumps three"
>
or "two pumps, one escape" which could sub-divide to e.g. "make pumps
three" etc. but that is going back a few years.

>>As well as the railway, the Tesla service station possibly has its own
>>particular risk assessment affected by the presence of lots of
>>electricity used by non-professionals and the tendency of some
>>batteries to catch fire.
>
>Most sites they send two, and the first to arrive assesses the situation
>and potentially requests more. Unless there's a specific default for
>more than two. It's probably at least a dozen for somewhere like
>Westminster Abbey.

"Charles Ellson" <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cm1jghd9bvqb04jstvesgjiq9o7f10cqv3@4ax.com...
>>aka "Pumps three"
>>
> or "two pumps, one escape" which could sub-divide to e.g. "make pumps
> three" etc. but that is going back a few years.

I've always wondered at the terminology: why is the adjective "three" always
*after* the noun "pump", and what's the significance of the verb "make"
(which I interpret in the sense "fabricate") when "send" might seem better?

I'm sure the origins of the fire-brigade jargon are lost in the mists of
time.

On 27/08/2022 10:57, NY wrote:
> "Charles Ellson" <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:cm1jghd9bvqb04jstvesgjiq9o7f10cqv3@4ax.com...
>>> aka "Pumps three"
>>>
>> or "two pumps, one escape" which could sub-divide to e.g. "make pumps
>> three" etc. but that is going back a few years.
>
> I've always wondered at the terminology: why is the adjective "three"
> always *after* the noun "pump", and what's the significance of the verb
> "make" (which I interpret in the sense "fabricate") when "send" might
> seem better?

IIRC from uncle in LFB "Make pumps 3" is as in "make 3 the number of
pumps assigned" so the control centre knows that's the total called for

If the message was "send 3 pumps" then the scope for misunderstanding is
wide:

send 3 in total?
send 3 more than the 1 on scene?
send 3 more than the 1 on scene and the further 1 already on its way?

> I'm sure the origins of the fire-brigade jargon are lost in the mists of
> time.

When I meet odd terminology I tend to start with an open mind to the
possibility that there may be very good reasons for it which aren't
necessarily apparent. Another example of that is why in the forces if a
radio message is unclear you ask the sender to "say again" rather than
"repeat".

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message <f2cee732-81d5-a1bf-4f9f-b8f2e1749a84@outlook.com>, at
11:33:36 on Sat, 27 Aug 2022, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> remarked:

>When I meet odd terminology I tend to start with an open mind to the
>possibility that there may be very good reasons for it which aren't
>necessarily apparent. Another example of that is why in the forces if
>a radio message is unclear you ask the sender to "say again" rather
>than "repeat".

And we don't want people sending three-and-fourpence.

I'm always intrigued why USA cops in Hollywood say "Copy That" all the
time. Nobody sees to paste anything.

Meanwhile, a light plane in north west Cambs reports its position: "I'm
over Over; over".
--
Roland Perry

On 27/08/2022 10:57, NY wrote:
> I've always wondered at the terminology: why is the adjective "three" always
> *after* the noun "pump", and what's the significance of the verb "make"
> (which I interpret in the sense "fabricate") when "send" might seem better?
>
> I'm sure the origins of the fire-brigade jargon are lost in the mists of
> time.

THe fire brigades have always had very good radio procedure using formal
messages, rather like the military.

By comparison, the police always sounded like a bunch of CBers.

"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:f2cee732-81d5-a1bf-4f9f-b8f2e1749a84@outlook.com...
> IIRC from uncle in LFB "Make pumps 3" is as in "make 3 the number of pumps
> assigned" so the control centre knows that's the total called for

Ah, so it doesn't instruct a given fire station to send 3 pumps, and instead
requires a knowledge of how many pumps from other sources are already on
their way or at the site.

Looking at it with an open mind, you'd think that control would send
instructions to each station in the form

Town 1 - send 2 pumps and a ladder
Town 2 - send 3 pumps

Without Town 1 having to know how many pumps Town 2 is sending, so they can
interpret "Make pumps 5" correctly.

Or have I misunderstood what you were saying?

They evidently thought their way was clearer and less ambiguous, and it's
never changed, so it must work OK for them. Who are we, non-firemen, to
quibble? ;-)

On 27/08/2022 12:51, NY wrote:
> Ah, so it doesn't instruct a given fire station to send 3 pumps, and instead
> requires a knowledge of how many pumps from other sources are already on
> their way or at the site.

Around here (when we used to be able to hear them), it could be musical
chairs. The local appliances could be both turned out so Kinlochleven
would sometimes come up to Fort William and Oban would send one to park
up around Ballachulish to cover that area.

For larger incidents or longer term ones, they would be brought in from
all over the place.

Most interesting locally was when the large bulk carrier caught fire at
Glensanda, several appliances were sent over on the quarry's ferry and
the Coastguard tug came down from Stornoway. The quarry canteen was
kept open around the clock with everything free so they were living on
steaks. :-)

On 27/08/2022 12:44, MB wrote:
> On 27/08/2022 10:57, NY wrote:
>> I've always wondered at the terminology: why is the adjective "three"
>> always
>> *after*  the noun "pump", and what's the significance of the verb "make"
>> (which I interpret in the sense "fabricate") when "send" might seem
>> better?
>>
>> I'm sure the origins of the fire-brigade jargon are lost in the mists of
>> time.
>
> THe fire brigades have always had very good radio procedure using formal
> messages, rather like the military.
>
> By comparison, the police always sounded like a bunch of CBers.
>

BD to Z-Victor 2…

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ted29h$9r5l$3@dont-email.me...
> On 27/08/2022 12:44, MB wrote:
>> On 27/08/2022 10:57, NY wrote:
>>> I've always wondered at the terminology: why is the adjective "three"
>>> always
>>> *after* the noun "pump", and what's the significance of the verb "make"
>>> (which I interpret in the sense "fabricate") when "send" might seem
>>> better?
>>>
>>> I'm sure the origins of the fire-brigade jargon are lost in the mists of
>>> time.
>>
>> THe fire brigades have always had very good radio procedure using formal
>> messages, rather like the military.
>>
>> By comparison, the police always sounded like a bunch of CBers.
>>
>
> BD to Z-Victor 2…

I was about to ask what you've sort-of answered: do ambulance and police use
similar protocols when the first person to arrive on the scene and to assess
the scale of the problem tells control "send a total of X vehicles - you
work out how many of them to call from each station".

On 27/08/2022 12:51, NY wrote:
> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
> news:f2cee732-81d5-a1bf-4f9f-b8f2e1749a84@outlook.com...
>> IIRC from uncle in LFB "Make pumps 3" is as in "make 3 the number of
>> pumps assigned" so the control centre knows that's the total called for
>
> Ah, so it doesn't instruct a given fire station to send 3 pumps, and
> instead requires a knowledge of how many pumps from other sources are
> already on their way or at the site.
>
> Looking at it with an open mind, you'd think that control would send
> instructions to each station in the form
>
> Town 1 - send 2 pumps and a ladder
> Town 2 - send 3 pumps
>
> Without Town 1 having to know how many pumps Town 2 is sending, so they
> can interpret "Make pumps 5" correctly.
>
> Or have I misunderstood what you were saying?

I think you have misunderstood from the outset who is sending the
message to whom. "Make pumps 3" is not a message from control to
station(s). It is a message /to/ control from the incident. (At
Grenfell e.g. there was "make pumps twenty five".)

>
> They evidently thought their way was clearer and less ambiguous, and
> it's never changed, so it must work OK for them. Who are we,
> non-firemen, to quibble? ;-)

What changes do you think would improve the speed and reliability of
their procedures for requesting appliances?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message <ted0g1$9mpc$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:51:24 on Sat, 27 Aug
2022, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
>news:f2cee732-81d5-a1bf-4f9f-b8f2e1749a84@outlook.com...
>> IIRC from uncle in LFB "Make pumps 3" is as in "make 3 the number of
>>pumps assigned" so the control centre knows that's the total called for
>
>Ah, so it doesn't instruct a given fire station to send 3 pumps, and
>instead requires a knowledge of how many pumps from other sources are
>already on their way or at the site.
>
>Looking at it with an open mind, you'd think that control would send
>instructions to each station in the form
>
>Town 1 - send 2 pumps and a ladder
>Town 2 - send 3 pumps
>
>Without Town 1 having to know how many pumps Town 2 is sending, so they
>can interpret "Make pumps 5" correctly.
>
>Or have I misunderstood what you were saying?

The pumps are dispatched by a central control room who know how many
have been deployed, and from where. "Make pumps X" from a firefighter in
the field is therefore never sent to an individual station.
--
Roland Perry

On 27/08/2022 13:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
> BD to Z-Victor 2…

In practice it was more likely to be just names with a few expletives.
One local Plod got an earful because he did not realise that the PR
channel could be linked through onto the main channel and heard at
headquarters.

On 27/08/2022 13:52, NY wrote:
> I was about to ask what you've sort-of answered: do ambulance and police use
> similar protocols when the first person to arrive on the scene and to assess
> the scale of the problem tells control "send a total of X vehicles - you
> work out how many of them to call from each station".

Aren't there protocols that first on scene becomes Incident Officer or
something like that and might put the appropriate tabard on.

On 27/08/2022 14:26, Robin wrote:
> I think you have misunderstood from the outset who is sending the
> message to whom. "Make pumps 3" is not a message from control to
> station(s). It is a message/to/ control from the incident. (At
> Grenfell e.g. there was "make pumps twenty five".)

It would normally be from a person at the incident but there are
probably occasions when someone else, control or Fire Officer on way to
the scene, might increase it.

Fire always used to have a scaled response with 3 immediate, another 3
within 5 minutes etc etc.

Of course if it is Manchester then it if 3 in a few hours time.

And a road accident with Plod Scotland is send a car in a couple of days
time like when they left the woman to died in her car.

On 27/08/2022 11:33, Robin wrote:
> On 27/08/2022 10:57, NY wrote:
>> "Charles Ellson" <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:cm1jghd9bvqb04jstvesgjiq9o7f10cqv3@4ax.com...
>>>> aka "Pumps three"
>>>>
>>> or "two pumps, one escape" which could sub-divide to e.g. "make pumps
>>> three" etc. but that is going back a few years.
>>
>> I've always wondered at the terminology: why is the adjective "three"
>> always *after* the noun "pump", and what's the significance of the
>> verb "make" (which I interpret in the sense "fabricate") when "send"
>> might seem better?
>
> IIRC from uncle in LFB "Make pumps 3" is as in "make 3 the number of
> pumps assigned" so the control centre knows that's the total called for
>
> If the message was "send 3 pumps" then the scope for misunderstanding is
> wide:
>
> send 3 in total?
> send 3 more than the 1 on scene?
> send 3 more than the 1 on scene and the further 1 already on its way?
>
>
>> I'm sure the origins of the fire-brigade jargon are lost in the mists
>> of time.
>
> When I meet odd terminology I tend to start with an open mind to the
> possibility that there may be very good reasons for it which aren't
> necessarily apparent.  Another example of that is why in the forces if a
> radio message is unclear you ask the sender to "say again" rather than
> "repeat".
>
>
>

As happened in a drill that I was involved with. In the main control
centre, where I was stationed, a call from an on-site commander was
heard as "the fire is out" and the exercise then moved on to the
anti-pollution element. In fact the on-scene commander had said that
"the fire is out of control" but the walkie talkie was not powerful
enough and failed part way through the transmission.

--
Colin

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 27/08/2022 10:57, NY wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure the origins of the fire-brigade jargon are lost in the mists of
>> time.
>
> When I meet odd terminology I tend to start with an open mind to the
> possibility that there may be very good reasons for it which aren't
> necessarily apparent. Another example of that is why in the forces if a
> radio message is unclear you ask the sender to "say again" rather than
> "repeat".
>

That one's also in the railway rule book, and I seem to have adopted it for
everyday use too.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 15:38:26 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 27/08/2022 14:26, Robin wrote:
>> I think you have misunderstood from the outset who is sending the
>> message to whom. "Make pumps 3" is not a message from control to
>> station(s). It is a message/to/ control from the incident. (At
>> Grenfell e.g. there was "make pumps twenty five".)
>
The specific format with the sequencing of the words distinguishes it
from being "just another message" and pre-sorts the required detail of
the required appliances otherwise the person on control has to
remember the quantity while looking for the type of vehicle required
on the (previously paper) form being filled in. Radio messaging in
various services has distinct words, sequencing etc. to aid
understanding and avoid delay.

>It would normally be from a person at the incident but there are
>probably occasions when someone else, control or Fire Officer on way to
>the scene, might increase it.
>
>Fire always used to have a scaled response with 3 immediate, another 3
>within 5 minutes etc etc.
>
That depends on the premises or place. Standard attendance for a house
where I live is two appliances; other premises will be in accordance
with their assessment.
<snip>

On 28/08/2022 14:52, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 27/08/2022 10:57, NY wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sure the origins of the fire-brigade jargon are lost in the mists of
>>> time.
>>
>> When I meet odd terminology I tend to start with an open mind to the
>> possibility that there may be very good reasons for it which aren't
>> necessarily apparent. Another example of that is why in the forces if a
>> radio message is unclear you ask the sender to "say again" rather than
>> "repeat".
>>
>
> That one's also in the railway rule book, and I seem to have adopted it for
> everyday use too.
>

I also use other terminology, especially on the phone such as:-
"Standby"
"xxxx hours"
"understood"
"affirmative"
"negative"

Its surprising how many people's spelling is so poor they don't know the
spellings for the NATO phonetic alphabet. Using something like "alpha
yankee figure seven" sometimes ends up as "AYF7"

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 28/08/2022 14:52, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On 27/08/2022 10:57, NY wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure the origins of the fire-brigade jargon are lost in the mists of
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> When I meet odd terminology I tend to start with an open mind to the
>>> possibility that there may be very good reasons for it which aren't
>>> necessarily apparent. Another example of that is why in the forces if a
>>> radio message is unclear you ask the sender to "say again" rather than
>>> "repeat".
>>>
>>
>> That one's also in the railway rule book, and I seem to have adopted it for
>> everyday use too.
>>
>
> I also use other terminology, especially on the phone such as:-
> "Standby"
> "xxxx hours"
> "understood"
> "affirmative"
> "negative"
>
> Its surprising how many people's spelling is so poor they don't know the
> spellings for the NATO phonetic alphabet. Using something like "alpha
> yankee figure seven" sometimes ends up as "AYF7"

I don’t think standard aviation communications would use “figure” in that
context, just “alpha yankee seven”.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 30/08/2022 17:08, Sam Wilson wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/08/2022 14:52, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>> On 27/08/2022 10:57, NY wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure the origins of the fire-brigade jargon are lost in the mists of
>>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> When I meet odd terminology I tend to start with an open mind to the
>>>> possibility that there may be very good reasons for it which aren't
>>>> necessarily apparent. Another example of that is why in the forces if a
>>>> radio message is unclear you ask the sender to "say again" rather than
>>>> "repeat".
>>>>
>>>
>>> That one's also in the railway rule book, and I seem to have adopted it for
>>> everyday use too.
>>>
>>
>> I also use other terminology, especially on the phone such as:-
>> "Standby"
>> "xxxx hours"
>> "understood"
>> "affirmative"
>> "negative"
>>
>> Its surprising how many people's spelling is so poor they don't know the
>> spellings for the NATO phonetic alphabet. Using something like "alpha
>> yankee figure seven" sometimes ends up as "AYF7"
>
> I don’t think standard aviation communications would use “figure” in that
> context, just “alpha yankee seven”.
>
> Sam
>

Using the IMO system it would be "alpha yankee setteseven"
https://www.adducation.info/how-to-improve-your-knowledge/phonetic-alphabet-list/

--
Colin

On 30/08/2022 19:26, ColinR wrote:
> Using the IMO system it would be "alpha yankee setteseven"

> https://www.adducation.info/how-to-improve-your-knowledge/phonetic-alphabet-list/

I have heard plenty of vessels, of a range of nationalities, on Marine
VHF and never heard SETTESEVEN etc used (or used anywhere else).

The previous comment on using "FIGURE", I would have expected it to be
"FIGURES" rather like a teletype and probably only if there was going to
be a lot of figures.

On 30/08/2022 19:43, MB wrote:
> On 30/08/2022 19:26, ColinR wrote:
>> Using the IMO system it would be "alpha yankee setteseven"
>
>> https://www.adducation.info/how-to-improve-your-knowledge/phonetic-alphabet-list/
>>
>
>
> I have heard plenty of vessels, of a range of nationalities, on Marine
> VHF and never heard SETTESEVEN etc used (or used anywhere else).
>
> The previous comment on using "FIGURE", I would have expected it to be
> "FIGURES" rather like a teletype and probably only if there was going to
> be a lot of figures.
>
>

Totally agree - and I served some 28 years as a deck officer. But this
code is there in the case where there is no language compatability
between ships. These days that is very rare!

--
Colin

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 30/08/2022 19:26, ColinR wrote:
>> Using the IMO system it would be "alpha yankee setteseven"
>
>> https://www.adducation.info/how-to-improve-your-knowledge/phonetic-alphabet-list/
>
>
> I have heard plenty of vessels, of a range of nationalities, on Marine
> VHF and never heard SETTESEVEN etc used (or used anywhere else).
>
> The previous comment on using "FIGURE", I would have expected it to be
> "FIGURES" rather like a teletype and probably only if there was going to
> be a lot of figures.

Aircraft flight numbers and registrations, US civil registrations at least,
often have up to 4 digits, and registrations potentially 5. After many
hours of watching VASaviation and other channels on YouTube I’ve never come
across anyone saying “figures”. Maybe 4 or 5 isn’t lots, or maybe everyone
understands enough context to know that digits are coming.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 31/08/2022 14:30, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Aircraft flight numbers and registrations, US civil registrations at least,
> often have up to 4 digits, and registrations potentially 5. After many
> hours of watching VASaviation and other channels on YouTube I’ve never come
> across anyone saying “figures”. Maybe 4 or 5 isn’t lots, or maybe everyone
> understands enough context to know that digits are coming.

Probably more a military usage.

Common Military Prowords:
FIGURES: Used to signal that numbers will follow.

It is probably for when there are lots of number as in met reports.

I did wonder if the might end with "LETTERS" if on a Teletype but can't
see any indication of that.

On 30/08/2022 19:26, ColinR wrote:
> On 30/08/2022 17:08, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Its surprising how many people's spelling is so poor they don't know the
>>> spellings for the NATO phonetic alphabet.  Using something like "alpha
>>> yankee figure seven" sometimes ends up as "AYF7"
>>
>> I don’t think standard aviation communications would use “figure” in that
>> context, just “alpha yankee seven”.

I have used the phonetic alphabet for a long time if I need to spell out
a non-obvious word or give my postcode on the phone. Nowadays, a lot of
call handlers seem to understand and even welcome it, but you get the
odd one who thinks I'm taking the piss. I had one phone call where the
woman I was talking to used her own alphabet when she was confirming
something to me - and it was made up entirely of animal names: Anteater
Bear Cat Duck Elephant...