« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Tanker vs BWC  (Read 6361 times)

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Tanker vs BWC
« on: July 11, 2006, 06:39:14 PM »
What's the deal with the call signs of tankers?   A  couple of years back it was decided to rename all tankers to BWC(capacity)...  Then followed a bit of confusion, and it was my understanding that the name had been changed back...
However it seems different groups are doing things differently - Heysen call their tanker 'Heysen BWC 12' but Mount lofty call their tanker 'Mount Lofty Tanker'.

Is there a directive somewhere that states what is correct?
Logged

Toast

  • Guest
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2006, 07:14:52 PM »
Its a goddamn tanker. None of this bullshit Victorian/NSW "Bulk Water Carrier" crap.
Logged

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2006, 07:22:28 PM »
theyll always be tankers to me
Logged

Offline Camo

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Compton CFS Website
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2006, 08:02:10 PM »
BWC was created because when we go interstate or people come from interstate there was some uniformity.
Logged
Compton CFS Website
http://www.compton.sacfs.org

Toast

  • Guest
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2006, 08:04:57 PM »
The eastern states call anything with water a "tanker'. Hence confusing when we bring one tanker per strike team....
Logged

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2006, 08:12:02 PM »
So... are they Tankers or BWC's?   State headquarters call them tankers... and they are always correct.. right?
Logged

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2006, 08:33:37 PM »
I understand that AFAC want all 24/14/34 to be called tanker and all tankers to be called BWC,Now I can't remember where i heard that but it was not long ago....
Logged

Offline Alan (Big Al)

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,609
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • CRUMPETS
    • View Profile
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2006, 12:45:42 AM »
Honestly the amount our appliances go to the eastern states is it really worth changing tankers to BWC's. It wouldn't be that hard to retain the way we work now and then if and when we cross the border we can then adopt the "Tanker", "BWC" callsigns???
Logged
Lt. Goolwa CFS

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2006, 02:38:17 AM »
How about call use "Tanker 12" rather than "BWC12"?
And as spoilt brat as it sounds, why do we have to change our naming system to adopt theirs? Why don't they start using the Capacity / Wheel drive naming system... its great! :lol: :P
Logged

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2006, 07:29:55 AM »
I like our system better and was talking to some CFA friends about it and they also agree ours is better and you know hwta you are getting rather than a tanker 1 or tanker 2...
Logged

Offline Darius

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2006, 01:27:47 PM »
Quote from: CFS_firey on July 11, 2006, 06:39:14 PM
However it seems different groups are doing things differently - Heysen call their tanker 'Heysen BWC 12' but Mount lofty call their tanker 'Mount Lofty Tanker'.

not officially they don't, it's just the writing on the side of it hasn't been changed yet.
It makes me laugh though when you say on the radio to SHQ: "Mt Lofty BWC responding ...." and they reply: "...Mt Lofty tanker..."

Quote from: CFS_firey on July 11, 2006, 06:39:14 PM
Is there a directive somewhere that states what is correct?

BWC apparently.
Logged

Toast

  • Guest
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2006, 02:48:04 PM »
Stirling Tanker 1 is still Stirling Tanker.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2006, 03:07:55 PM by Toast »
Logged

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2006, 09:07:40 PM »
mmm strange one there... didnt know we were changing just to keep the east coast happy...

personally ive always thought it was a bit dumb that almost everything over there is just a 'tanker' and then they are categorised further....

our system = better
Logged

Offline CyberCitizen

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Fire Fighter
    • View Profile
    • http://myspace.com/cfsfirey
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2006, 09:02:35 AM »
Get 100 Vollies In A Room & Get Them To Put Their Hand Up If They Know What A BWC Is.  Then Get The Same Group To Put There Hand Up If They Know What A Tanker Is.

From That Result I Think You Will See That The Word Tanker Has Alot More Meaning To The Members.
Logged

Offline Robert-Robert34

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,429
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2006, 11:53:18 AM »
It has always been tankers and if you go changing the name to BWC then other CFS affiliated services like Forestry SA & NPWSA would start calling their tankers Bulk Water Carriers

Personally i'd laugh my head off if i heard Forestry SA come over my scanner using BWC instead of tanker
 
Example 1

Mt Burr Forest:"South East Forestry Base Mount Burr BWC is rolling with a crew 2"
SE Forestry Base: Message Recieved Mount Burr BWC is rolling with 2 crew SE Foresty Base out"

That wouldnt sound right on the radio at all where as this does

Example 2

Penola Forest: " South East Forestry Base Penola Tanker is responding with crew of 2 to forest fire at Comaum"
SE Forestry Base: Message recieved Penola Tanker you are rolling with a crew of 2 South East Forestry Base out"

See the differences in my 2 examples 1 sounds better than the other
Logged
Kalangadoo Brigade

Offline Darius

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2006, 02:15:11 PM »
Quote from: Robert34 on July 14, 2006, 11:53:18 AM
It has always been tankers and if you go changing the name to BWC then other CFS affiliated services ...

it's already happened, about a year ago or thereabouts.
Logged

Toast

  • Guest
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2006, 02:47:51 PM »
Robert are you suggesting that "Bravo Whiskey Charlie One Two (or whatever)" is longer on the radio than "Tanker", it IS laughable.
Logged

Offline Crankster 34

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Tanker vs BWC
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2006, 05:35:22 PM »
Robert - you are priceless  :roll:
Logged
Crankster on scene, you can take a stop...
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
 

anything