Barn Burner
It was a cold and snowy night on the road to Wisconsin when flashing red lights appeared in my rear-view mirror. After I pulled over, the red lights and siren whine of an elliptical tanker sped by.
I was surprised to see how quickly the rig became a dot in the distance. I sped up to see just how fast the tanker was going and guessed 60 mph in the straight-aways and 50 mph on the curves. I thought, “This must be some fire.”
But I also thought of the high rate of tanker rollovers and the pleas from attorney Jim Juneau at the Fire Department Safety Officers‘ Apparatus Symposium to “take the lights and sirens off tankers and don‘t let [engineers] drive over 40 mph.”
The tanker finally slowed at a roadblock. When my car approached, the sheriff gruffly asked if we were first responders and why we were speeding behind the fire truck. I was well over 500 feet behind the rig, but I was trying to stay close enough to read the department‘s name on the back. Then it was my turn to ask a question. “There‘s a big fire, that‘s why they were speeding,” said the cop before he diverted our car.
It turned out to be a barn fire at a dairy farm. As we circled around the roadblock, I saw firefighters positioning a large-diameter hose truck to draft from a creek. Several other firefighters were positioned to fill tanks and carry water to the barn fire. Fire departments from around the county responded.
I later heard that all the cows made it out of the barn and the fire was controlled quickly. I also heard of a conversation between some firefighters and a sheriff about the first tanker to arrive on scene. From their comments, it seems that the same tanker driver always is the first to arrive because “he drives like his wheels are on fire.”
If the fire were contained, wouldn‘t responding vehicles hear that on their radios? Wouldn‘t that mean that later-responding vehicles could slow down?
Nineteen firefighters were killed in vehicle accidents in 2006. In most cases, the deaths were preventable. Five crashes involved water tenders, which are involved in a disproportionate number of fatal crashes. As a result, the U.S. Fire Administration developed Safe Operation of Fire Tankers.
While waiting for the first water tender to be refilled from the creek, I heard a firefighter say, “Not too many dairy farms left up here anymore.”
I stared at him that cold, late night. I could feel the urgency to save the barn, the dairy cows and the farmer‘s business. When you train for the big fires, the adrenalin rush causes firefighters to want to enter into battle with a raging fire. Yet speeding with a water tender can be deadly — there are too many statistics to prove it.
Note: In Service Senior Editor Chris Cavette recently wrote about water-carrying emergency apparatus in his newsletter. “It‘s Tenders, not tankers,” Cavette wrote. “The Incident Command System nomenclature for fire apparatus is now in effect for all departments in the United States. Under the ICS system, wheeled vehicles with large tanks of water are called water tenders, not water tankers. The term tanker applies to water-dropping aircraft. Manufacturers and departments alike should start using the new terminology.”
March 7th, 2008 at 10:37 am
if it was the fire a few weeks ago almost all of the cows were lost in the fire
March 7th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I’m not sure if the previous comment went through or not so I will repeat it here. This is a subject that I am passionate about in our business and we are not handling this as responsible caretakers. So, it’s time that law enforcement took the reins and started charging firefighters with speeding, careless driving, wreckless driving, driving too fast for conditions and anything else that applies. Maybe then we’ll start to think about driving with more due regard. We continue to kill ourselves and innocent citizens with our negligent driving practices. There is no acceptable reason for the speeds some of the people are driving apparatus and POVs. We need to SLOW DOWN and arrive safely.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
We keep saying the same things over and ove again, butthe word is not filtering down to everyone. Why the speeding tender? WE just lost another firefighter in Pennsylvania.
According to Pennsylvania Fire Commissioner, Ed Mann, so for this year we have experienced 26 Firefighter fatalities and 5 of them were in Pennsylvania.
At this rate there will be over 150 FF fatalities in the USA and 29 in Pennsylvania.
“150 and 29 is not our goal”
March 7th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I understand your point and while speed is an issue, most tanker accidednts involving fatalities involve inexperienced drivers or modified vehicle that lack proper design and features such as engine or transmission braking.
As for the tanker/tender issue. I am insulted that the term tender was simply adopted without discussioin, While FIRSCOPE and the feds may have used it for year prior to NIMS, most of the departments in the USA call it a tanker (and I know many are changing due to NIMS. But here’s my point: With thousands of departments have vehicles that haul water, there are relatively few such aircraft. Why did we simply not call the aircraft something else? Most departments in the USA will not ever operate at an incident where firefighting AC will operate.
And if we are really worried about NIMS terminology and typing, when will the feds type common structural apparatus such as ladders and heavy rescues? The NIMS typing document does not recognize any ladder over 75 feet nor does it recognize articulating platforms. FInally, squad and rescues, light-medium-or heavy, are not even mentioned.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Go article Janet-as always–I have even suggested that we not run lights or siren and proceed non-signal 9 to grass fire with NO exposures. My guys grumble but I don’t care–better than having a funeral or work comp claim. Problem on this one lies with the dispatcher either not passing this info onto our units or not asking the callers if there are exposures or such at the fire scene. Same principle as the barn on fire with all animals being out..RISK alot to save a life, Risk alittle to save property and RISH NOTHING to save something which is already gone.
Stay safe and thanks for your insights…
Chief Whalen
Williamstown FD, KY
March 7th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Although many of us are not fond of calling our tankers a tender, maybe the change might remind us to drive it with a little tenderness!
March 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Ms. Wilmoth wrote - “When you train for the big fires, the adrenalin rush causes firefighters to want to enter into battle with a raging fire.” The fact is, if you’ve been trained that the arrival of a single piece of equipment, or a single crew will be the difference between overcoming an incident or not, then what are we training people?
Firefighters are team members and team players. If one unit is going to make or break an incident, then either the IC has not ordered enough resources or your local Fire Chief needs to have a serious discussion with his local council as to the resource needs of his organization.
Anyone driving a responding unit as described in the article is, in my opinion, suffering from one of the most serious illnesses our profession has to deal with. It’s the “I’m so important it can’t be done without me” or the “no matter what happens in life from this point forward, I will not miss out on the ‘BIG ONE”" physiology.
This manner of thinking, which is somewhat more prevalent among volunteer ranks but is in no way exclusive to that demographic, kills and maims more firefighters each year then, seemingly, anyone in the fire service would like to admit to. Why is this fact not spoken of openly? Because it shows the “chink in our armor” which screams loudly and clearly that we are not professionals.
In fact, what it says is we have people among our ranks that shouldn‘t be there because they are either too immature or mentally unstable to be trusted with the lives of others or the equipment for which the public has invested. For the volunteer ranks, this is an especially difficult reality to face as it can be hard enough to find enough people who want to fight fire for free, or for expenses and a little extra, to fill their ranks yet alone admit that many who are drawn to the avocation are just the “lights & siren” junkies we should be avoiding.
Not until “professional” in the fire service means that we don‘t “adrenalin rush” and loose or minds responding to or fighting fires as if our job and responsibility to extinguish that fire is the sole most important thing to be considered will be truly become a professional service which can consider ourselves on a par with professional in other fields.
The time for excitement is after the fire is extinguished, or after a successful stop or a life has been saved on a major incident or operation. Not before you‘re even engaged. That‘s the time for the “high-fives” and maybe to retire to the local pub for a celebration (of course only if you don‘t have to go back to your station to finish your shift).
If you have people working for you like this, you need to weed them out, wise them up, or remove them from areas of responsibility where their actions affect the safety of others. Your organization or jurisdiction can‘t afford not to.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Excellent article. With their instability tankers (yes, I deliberatly used the word tanker) should have the highest trained, best drivers on the department operating them. Sadly, on most departments that is not the case. Many times the tanker driver is the person you don’t want doing anything else!
Note: Rather than wasting efforts arguing about what trucks should be called, and spending millions of dollars to train everyone to call them the same thing, we should be training officers how to make decisions and lead at major incidents. Most firefighters are bright enough to know that something can be called by two different names.
Another note: I have never been so disappointed as when I sat through another ICS 300 class and learned all about managing a command structure, and nothing about actually making decisions and ledading at an incident. I now know every possible node in a command structure, and all the correct terminology, but no more about how to actually mitigate a major incident than when I walked in the door.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:31 am
I agree the Tenders need to slow down. There always seems to be an urgency to get there. But you have to drive at a safe speed for you vehicle. Tenders are large and cannot take curves and rough roads at high speeds. There also should be better communtcation to all responding units that they can slow down when coming to a fire that has been controled. We have to watch ourselves not only at a scene but while responding to that scene as well.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I have to wonder why the “tender” term is being mandated for wheeled vehicles. Every other liquid carrying vehicle with wheels is referred to as a “tanker” - fuel, milk, chemicals, rail “tank” cars; and fire service wheeled water-carriers far outnumber aircraft. It would seem to me that changing the designation for a relatively few aircraft would be more sensible than trying to force a name change on tens of thousands of firefighting vehicles with wheels.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I prefer to continue to call them tankers, as that is what they are. I used to design and build fire department tankers, and based my design on several facts: Many fire service tanker drivers are not truck drivers, Responding to fires involves adreeenline and someitmes risks, Roads are not always good when responding to fires. Liquids are never fun to haul.
With this all in mind, I designed the only LOW PROFILE Fire Tankers and they felt like they were hauling bricks (solids) not liquids. Although I am no longer a fire apparauts manufacturer, I still believe in the low profile edge the fire fighters need to allwo them to do their water movement safe.
My expereince started when at the age of 16 drove a farm fuel delivery truck on less than solid roads, and then mixing into the equasion the fire tankers that were being herded down the road like a cannonball by inexperienced, adrenelin enhanced driver, regardless of training, mistakes do occur. Besides low profile, proper training and seatbelt use will indeed prevent tragedies.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I agree the tanker (yes,tanker) was going to fast for conditions.Its snowing and the driver’s doing over 60?? He needs to be sat down and re-trained in driving when in inclimate conditions..The failure to do so lies with the dept’s leadership for not impressing the concept of safe driving upon its members.
As far as what we call them who died and left the Feds in charge of what we call our apparatus?? we have had to change our phonetics we’ve used for decades(Adam,Boy Charles) to the military version(Alpa,Beta,Zulu),We’re supposed to change our apparatus designations because of a few fire bombers(Why can’t they change??)Oops Tankers. The NFPA design standards are for tankers. I guess next we’ll have to start caliing every pumper down to a brush truck an engine (type,1,2,3,4,etc) and then there is the issue of what do we call when a firefighter is down. Can we say Mayday? or does that to intrude on what the aircraft call when in trouble?? I think its time to sit back down with DHS/FEMA and straighten out this before it becomes a bigger mess than it is!
March 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I enjoyed your article and you high lighted a point that needs to be addressed and that was the tanker was going too fast for the road conditions. I believe that the dept. as a whole may need to re-evaluate their SOP’s on responses it is up to the dept. as awhole to remind each other that it is better to arrive than not to arrive at all due to a preventable mistake. Let us understand without that particular piece of equipment we just might run out of water, but this incident was contained.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Janet; when one goes hunting, there is better fortune when you hunt where the rabbits are; this article, not amongst your finest, preaches the obvious; safer vehicles, more training makes more sense than accusatory remarks about insane light and siren boys; as for the “tanker” vs. “tender” controversy, you can have an issue if you want to; not one of the major fire service issues today; certainly, however as crucial as the “sector” vs. “group” and/or “division” disputation;
how do you identify a combination unit on the fireground such as second floor search and rescue? I have read most of your articles with applause; this one, however, was not amongst them.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Good article. I drove a tender/tanker in western Kansas for
a small township FD about 35 years ago as a volunteer.
We used our siren only to clear a ‘busy’ intersection and
lights so folks could see us coming.
Those old Army 6 x 6’s couldn’t go too fast. Maybe 40 or
45 tops.
Tender fits. Reminds me of the water tenders behind the old
steam locomotives, of course they were high speed and on
rail and could make a mess of any vehicle or anything else
that got in their way.
I also agree with the response from one of the readers about
some dispatchers not passing along good information to the
responding units. This is inexcuseable and shows a lack of
good training or gross neglience. I can speak from an
experiential point of view having been a public safety
emergency communications dispatcher for almost 40 years.
Training, training, training then train some more and always
watch out for the other guy because someone else isn’t.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Where to start? (1) A paycheck has nothing to do with having a heavy foot. I wrote the specs for an aerial apparatus and called for a speedometer for the officer’s seat. A few firefighters were offended by that, but it did raise awareness about speed in a truck of that size. Oooops! Is it acceptable to say truck? (2) Tender or tanker? When DHS pays for it and covers maintenance they can call it what they want. Has law enforcement given up the 10-codes as instructed by DHS? I lost track of that issue years ago. (3) A resounding YES to applying “risk vs. gain” with the understanding it is problematic. Using it requires a degree of experience and judgment. Today there are chiefs, officers, and firefighters who simply do not have the experience or training to make such a call. The words of a SOP or SOG (insert acronym that makes you happy) are only an aid. The “rules of engagement” for structural fire attack are guidance, not gospel, and we apply them in each situation with a dose good judgment. High-risk activity will always carry with it death and injury, even for professionals. (4) Do you wish to be considered a professional? How about a challenge? Compare a publication from a traditional profession (you pick one) to any contemporary fire service publication. Look at the advertising, especially the photographs. How many ad photos depict a macho firefighter with smudge marks on his or her face? See an SCBA-ring on the face? Or this one…we tell firefighters they need to protect themselves and others from contaminated turnout gear and then we see firefighter/EMTs attending to a patient while wearing contaminated gear. Do you think advertisers in a medical journal would show their product promoted by a surgeons and nurses smeared and dripping with blood? Want to be a professional? Tell the manufacturers to stop with the “fire hero” advertising. (5) The pressure is on to put this thing in the lap of fire chiefs and call it a leadership issue. The words of chiefs too often fall upon deaf ears and worse there is retribution against those who may try to implement change. No doubt, that today that is the price of playing the game. Have we talked about steroid use in the fire service? Have we talked about the image thing of the fire-decimated leather helmet? Can someone define “acceptable” fire service-related death and injury levels?
Leave a Comment
Your Account
Advertisement
Categories
Archives by month
Archives by contributor
Subscribe
© 2009 Penton Business Media, Inc.