"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 12:51, 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 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 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>

"NY" wrote in message news:ted0g1$9mpc$1@dont-email.me...

"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.

The central control know who is there and who is travelling, and can
interpret accordingly.

Ok - this is largely based on Norfolk where I live and know a couple of
firefighters. Almost certainly differs elsewhere. Have a feeling I am
going to regret writing this in a flood of pedantry and whatabouterry,
that's why I don't post much anymore!

Norwich has 2 stations, a both full time crewed; same Kings Lynn
Gt Yarmouth has 1 station, part full time and part retained.
Dereham and Thetford haves day crew - covering roughly 8-6 Mon-Fri, and
retained outside these hours - lots of factories mean higher day risk
Everywhere else is retained, usually 1 pump, but 2 in the larger towns, and
at Sandringham.

Retained crews can only operate if at least 4 FF, and all the following are
met: 1 qualified driver/BA control, 2 qualified BA set user, 1 Crew
Commander or above, or FF fully competent with the leadership course. (i.e.
1 to drive, 2 to go in, 1 to command)

Standard to a house fire is 2 pumps, and they cannot enter until both arrive
and ready - first pump can commence jets from outside.

In message <tfcg5j$1ql$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:29:04 on Thu, 8 Sep
2022, James Heaton <heatonandmoore@gmail.com.invalid> remarked:
>"NY" wrote in message news:ted0g1$9mpc$1@dont-email.me...
>
>"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.

The call isn't being made from control to any fire station, it's being
made by the commander at the incident to control. Where control gets the
appliances from isn't their concern, they just know how many are
required on site.

>The central control know who is there and who is travelling, and can
>interpret accordingly.
>
>Ok - this is largely based on Norfolk where I live and know a couple of
>firefighters. Almost certainly differs elsewhere. Have a feeling I am
>going to regret writing this in a flood of pedantry and whatabouterry,
>that's why I don't post much anymore!
>
>Norwich has 2 stations, a both full time crewed; same Kings Lynn
>Gt Yarmouth has 1 station, part full time and part retained.
>Dereham and Thetford haves day crew - covering roughly 8-6 Mon-Fri, and
>retained outside these hours - lots of factories mean higher day risk
>Everywhere else is retained, usually 1 pump, but 2 in the larger towns,
>and at Sandringham.
>
>Retained crews can only operate if at least 4 FF, and all the following
>are met: 1 qualified driver/BA control, 2 qualified BA set user, 1 Crew
>Commander or above, or FF fully competent with the leadership course.
>(i.e. 1 to drive, 2 to go in, 1 to command)
>
>Standard to a house fire is 2 pumps, and they cannot enter until both
>arrive and ready - first pump can commence jets from outside.

But only if sufficiently manned I suspect.

What I think was reported in the incident in an Oxfordshire village I
mentioned earlier was their retained-crew pump was under-manned, and
they just had to park outside the shop-on-fire, sat on their hands until
a second pump arrived from some considerable distance away.

They also held some sort of speed record for attending a fire, because
it broke out at a house only a few yards from the fire station, one
evening when they were all attending training there.

The shop-on-fire was also only a few hundred yards from their station.
--
Roland Perry

On 08/09/2022 11:29, James Heaton 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.

From what I remember reading years ago, there was a scaled response
with a number immediately sent then more in stages - they might want to
ensure cover from further afield before committing all resources.

There was a serious RTA on the Oban road a couple of weeks ago with
three fatalities. The local paper had a letter from the local Port
Appin fire station (Retained) that they responded immediately but it
took twenty five minutes for others to arrive.

On 08/09/2022 13:54, Roland Perry wrote:
> What I think was reported in the incident in an Oxfordshire village I
> mentioned earlier was their retained-crew pump was under-manned, and
> they just had to park outside the shop-on-fire, sat on their hands until
> a second pump arrived from some considerable distance away.

Some appliances are specialist ones for road accidents, some of these
are at small retained fire stations because they are near main roads
(usually rural ones) that regularly have serious accidents.

In message <tfcps2$nim1$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:14:42 on Thu, 8 Sep
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 08/09/2022 13:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>> What I think was reported in the incident in an Oxfordshire village I
>> mentioned earlier was their retained-crew pump was under-manned, and
>> they just had to park outside the shop-on-fire, sat on their hands until
>> a second pump arrived from some considerable distance away.
>
>Some appliances are specialist ones for road accidents, some of these
>are at small retained fire stations because they are near main roads
>(usually rural ones) that regularly have serious accidents.

Not sure what that's got to do with an under-manned ordinary appliance,
but hey!
--
Roland Perry

On 08/09/2022 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
> Not sure what that's got to do with an under-manned ordinary appliance,
> but hey!

A lot of rural fire stations use small appliances with a small crew.

I wondered if the letter was put in the paper because there had been
suspicion that the fire station might be closed.

In message <tfcteg$o58r$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:15:44 on Thu, 8 Sep
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 08/09/2022 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:

>> Not sure what that's got to do with an under-manned ordinary appliance,
>> but hey!
>
> A lot of rural fire stations use small appliances with a small crew.

But hopefully rarely an under-manned crew. Isn't the usual number five?
When I see reports in the press of big fires, they often quote the
number of appliances and firemen (because they can cut and paste that
from the Fire Service press release).
--
Roland Perry

On 08/09/2022 11:29, James Heaton wrote:

<snip>

> Have a feeling I am
> going to regret writing this in a flood of pedantry and whatabouterry,

don't see why you should: this /is/ Usenet

PS

there's only one "r" in "whataboutery :)

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

"Robin" wrote in message
news:cdd484d1-6327-4894-f49b-99b13c0a0803@outlook.com...

On 08/09/2022 11:29, James Heaton wrote:

<snip>

> Have a feeling I am going to regret writing this in a flood of pedantry
> and whatabouterry,

>don't see why you should: this /is/ Usenet

>PS

>there's only one "r" in "whataboutery :)

Chuckle...

On 08/09/2022 13:54, Roland Perry wrote:
> They also held some sort of speed record for attending a fire, because
> it broke out at a house only a few yards from the fire station, one
> evening when they were all attending training there.

Speed record fpr attending afore probably goes to the crew at a fore
station in Philadelphia round the corner from the hotel I was staying
in. The fire was at the fire station.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <tfg4ip$14619$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:35:51 on Fri, 9 Sep
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 08/09/2022 13:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>> They also held some sort of speed record for attending a fire,
>>because it broke out at a house only a few yards from the fire
>>station, one evening when they were all attending training there.
>
>Speed record fpr attending afore probably goes to the crew at a fore
>station in Philadelphia round the corner from the hotel I was staying
>in. The fire was at the fire station.

There was a fire at a Fire Station in Sussex perhaps, which caused a lot
of damage, because it wasn't manned at the time.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 07:02:06 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <tfg4ip$14619$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:35:51 on Fri, 9 Sep
>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>On 08/09/2022 13:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> They also held some sort of speed record for attending a fire,
>>>because it broke out at a house only a few yards from the fire
>>>station, one evening when they were all attending training there.
>>
>>Speed record fpr attending afore probably goes to the crew at a fore
>>station in Philadelphia round the corner from the hotel I was staying
>>in. The fire was at the fire station.
>
>There was a fire at a Fire Station in Sussex perhaps, which caused a lot
>of damage, because it wasn't manned at the time.
>
Chip fans left on the cooker during a callout have featured more than
a couple of times over the years.

I heard on the BBC TV Local News that the driver (who was released from
hospital last month) has been charged with manslaughter, and released on
bail. I've not yet seen it in print.

"Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tjscpc$siid$5@dont-email.me...
> I heard on the BBC TV Local News that the driver (who was released from
> hospital last month) has been charged with manslaughter, and released on
> bail. I've not yet seen it in print.

Is the penalty for manslaughter greater or else than for causing death by
dangerous driving? Or does DBDD only apply for deaths of people who are not
in the driver's car - pedestrians, other motorists etc.

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tjscpc$siid$5@dont-email.me...
>> I heard on the BBC TV Local News that the driver (who was released from
>> hospital last month) has been charged with manslaughter, and released on
>> bail. I've not yet seen it in print.
>
> Is the penalty for manslaughter greater or else than for causing death by
> dangerous driving? Or does DBDD only apply for deaths of people who are not
> in the driver's car - pedestrians, other motorists etc.
>
>

Manslaughter can be life.
DBDD. max 14 years.
DBDD does apply to causing the Death of a an occupant of the vehicle.
An occupant can also be charged if something they have done causes a death,
eg playing silly buggers and grabbing the wheel or putting their hands over
the drivers eyes.

GH

"Marland" <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jseuqsFpkdfU1@mid.individual.net...
> DBDD does apply to causing the Death of a an occupant of the vehicle.
> An occupant can also be charged if something they have done causes a
> death,
> eg playing silly buggers and grabbing the wheel or putting their hands
> over
> the drivers eyes.

Or yanking on the handbrake which will cause a rear-wheel skid. I read years
ago of a case where a passenger thought the driver was going too fast so she
pulled hard on the handbrake, causing the rear wheels to lock and making the
car go irretrievably out of control - the driver was too busy trying to
counter-steer into the skid to have a free hand to release the handbrake.
She was charged with something serious - not sure what since I don't think
anyone was killed. I remember it involved points on her licence (even though
she wasn't driving) which was an interesting ramification.

Interesting that there doesn't seem to have been any newspaper update since
early September on the Park Royal crash (eg state of driver, whether he had
been charged). I wondered whether things had gone sub judice.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 11:21:04 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Marland" <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jseuqsFpkdfU1@mid.individual.net...
>> DBDD does apply to causing the Death of a an occupant of the vehicle.
>> An occupant can also be charged if something they have done causes a
>> death,
>> eg playing silly buggers and grabbing the wheel or putting their hands
>> over
>> the drivers eyes.
>
>Or yanking on the handbrake which will cause a rear-wheel skid. I read years
>ago of a case where a passenger thought the driver was going too fast so she
>pulled hard on the handbrake, causing the rear wheels to lock and making the
>car go irretrievably out of control - the driver was too busy trying to
>counter-steer into the skid to have a free hand to release the handbrake.
>She was charged with something serious - not sure what since I don't think
>anyone was killed. I remember it involved points on her licence (even though
>she wasn't driving) which was an interesting ramification.
>
>Interesting that there doesn't seem to have been any newspaper update since
>early September on the Park Royal crash (eg state of driver, whether he had
>been charged). I wondered whether things had gone sub judice.

Mostly just the media getting bored with the story, I expect.

Mark

On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 17:29:30 +0000, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 11:21:04 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Marland" <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:jseuqsFpkdfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> DBDD does apply to causing the Death of a an occupant of the vehicle.
>>> An occupant can also be charged if something they have done causes a
>>> death,
>>> eg playing silly buggers and grabbing the wheel or putting their hands
>>> over
>>> the drivers eyes.
>>
>>Or yanking on the handbrake which will cause a rear-wheel skid. I read years
>>ago of a case where a passenger thought the driver was going too fast so she
>>pulled hard on the handbrake, causing the rear wheels to lock and making the
>>car go irretrievably out of control - the driver was too busy trying to
>>counter-steer into the skid to have a free hand to release the handbrake.
>>She was charged with something serious - not sure what since I don't think
>>anyone was killed. I remember it involved points on her licence (even though
>>she wasn't driving) which was an interesting ramification.
>>
>>Interesting that there doesn't seem to have been any newspaper update since
>>early September on the Park Royal crash (eg state of driver, whether he had
>>been charged). I wondered whether things had gone sub judice.
>
>Mostly just the media getting bored with the story, I expect.
>
A lot of stuff goes quiet until a trial commences or just seems to
disappear if there is nothing special to report later (e.g. a
spectacular crash producing no significant injury or serious charges).

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 17:29:30 +0000, Mark Goodge
> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 11:21:04 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "Marland" <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:jseuqsFpkdfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> DBDD does apply to causing the Death of a an occupant of the vehicle.
>>>> An occupant can also be charged if something they have done causes a
>>>> death,
>>>> eg playing silly buggers and grabbing the wheel or putting their hands
>>>> over
>>>> the drivers eyes.
>>>
>>> Or yanking on the handbrake which will cause a rear-wheel skid. I read years
>>> ago of a case where a passenger thought the driver was going too fast so she
>>> pulled hard on the handbrake, causing the rear wheels to lock and making the
>>> car go irretrievably out of control - the driver was too busy trying to
>>> counter-steer into the skid to have a free hand to release the handbrake.
>>> She was charged with something serious - not sure what since I don't think
>>> anyone was killed. I remember it involved points on her licence (even though
>>> she wasn't driving) which was an interesting ramification.
>>>
>>> Interesting that there doesn't seem to have been any newspaper update since
>>> early September on the Park Royal crash (eg state of driver, whether he had
>>> been charged). I wondered whether things had gone sub judice.
>>
>> Mostly just the media getting bored with the story, I expect.
>>
> A lot of stuff goes quiet until a trial commences or just seems to
> disappear if there is nothing special to report later (e.g. a
> spectacular crash producing no significant injury or serious charges).
>

Surely manslaughter is a significant charge?