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