Tankers/tenders account for many of the apparatus crashes that occur. Although there are a variety of reasons for the incidents, some people have suggested that they should not “respond lights and sirens.” This month, we asked Bill Adams and Ricky Riley, “Should tankers/tenders be driven at emergency speed?”
Define Emergency Speed First!
BY BILL ADAMS

Recent fire apparatus accidents including those involving tankers/tenders are no doubt the impetus for this question. I thought this could be easily answered: “Depending on road conditions and weather, common sense should be used when driving any emergency vehicle including tenders/tankers at emergency speeds.”
Common sense, aka good judgment, is hard to define. Exercising good judgment is hard to prove in scenarios resulting in damage, disciplinary action, or litigation. Additionally, there is no single definition for the term emergency speed.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1900, Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Vehicles, Automotive Fire Apparatus, Wildland Fire Apparatus, and Automotive Ambulances, in Chapter 3 Definitions, Section 3.3.176 Mobile Water Supply Apparatus (Tanker, Tender) defines this apparatus as: “A vehicle designed primarily for transporting (pickup, transporting, and delivering) water to fire emergency scenes to be applied by other vehicles or pumping equipment.” Obscuring the issue is that the NFPA does not establish the requirements for one.
Accidents, more appropriately called incidents, are not solely caused by excessive speed. Besides operator error, there could be sudden unforeseeable mechanical issues with the vehicle, unexpected failure of the roadway, or other motorists’ actions. All three can affect the emergency vehicle operator’s reaction.
TRAINING
Emergency vehicle operator (aka chauffeur and driver) error can be attributed to the lack of common sense, negligence, or improper or lack of training. Proper training is essential, and I defer to fellow writer Ricky Riley, whose byline includes being president of Training Traditions, LLC. It is also addressed in Chapter 10 of the former NFPA 1002, Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator, which was recently incorporated into NFPA 1010, Standard on Professional Qualifications for Firefighters.
LIABILITY EXPOSURE
I’ll address the question from the perspective of NFPA 1900. Why? If an accident or incident occurs where liability and legal charges are possible, the fire department may find itself defending—under oath—the apparatus involved. Did you purchase the proper apparatus?
Visualize after an incident with your apparatus operator being questioned by law enforcement or testifying in court and being asked questions such as the following: Do you know what a tanker/tender is? Is there a maximum amount of water it should be carrying? What was your vehicle classified as? Is there a maximum speed your vehicle is limited to? Was your vehicle designed to be operated off-road? Is there a difference in road handling characteristics between oval, semielliptical, and square water tanks? Do you know what the fire service rating means on the tires on your vehicle? Common sense or a lack thereof might not help you.
NFPA 1900
The following are my interpretations of NFPA 1900. Remember, it is the written word that counts.
- NFPA 1900 Table 8.1 Requirements by Apparatus Type specifies a minimum 1,000-gallon tank capacity (including all suppression liquids such as foam and water) on mobile water supply apparatus.
- NFPA 1900 does not mandate specific tank configurations for “large” water tanks on mobile water supply apparatus. Although it does require specific accoutrements for tanks larger than