Author Topic: MFS in Mt Barker (Read 28704 times)

fireblade · « **on:** May 21, 2007, 08:17:29 AM »

So whats the go up at Mt. Barker when are MFS building a station there. Will there be a full-time MFS crew there 24/7 or full-time during the day and retained after that?

Zippy · « **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2007, 11:01:27 AM »

Probably just Retained...probably not enough callouts for 24/7 or even a fulltime during the day.

The development near steamranger and st francis college seems to be huge...some multistorie retail stores down there....might warrant further pumper...or hence MFS with 2 pumpers...

Camo · « **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2007, 11:31:41 AM »

ok going off track but anyway.

A Retained station will never take over a volunteer station. Why?

There is no improvement in service.

If MFS ever take over Barker it will be 24/7. Now back to the stations.

Hicksflat14 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 21, 2007, 05:34:53 PM »

Quote

There is no improvement in service

So going by that statement, all retained stations could be converted to volunteer run as there would be no loss in service with the benefit being that there is no need to fork out for wages? Thats going to make a couple of Compton members unhappy wouldn't it?

Quote

If MFS ever take over Barker it will be 24/7

That's right, because the Mets station down in the mount went straight to 24/7 didn't it? Oh wait it didn't and still isn't. Then again Mt Barker is larger than Mt Gambier... Oh wait its not.

Camo · « **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2007, 06:33:12 PM »

Like i said this isnt the place for it but if you persist.

Sure a volunteer service in Mt Gambier may not provide as good as service as a retained service. but if you look to the north of adelaide at places like burra where the cfs provide a better service then the mfs.

Just depends on the location and who is willing to volunteer. In Barkers case who have no problems getting out the door then where is the improvement going to be in a retained service?

In relation to your 2nd comment. The MFS wont move into Mt Barker for a long time until they could sustain a full time service...you would have pretty hard time convincing the government otherwise....why spend the extra money when its not needed?

and Mt Gambier has nothing to do with it....Mt Gambier was orginally a retained station....Mt Barker would be a brand new station.

mack · « **Reply #5 on:** May 21, 2007, 09:59:34 PM »

cant imagine there would be any new retained stations around the place...

butthen again who knows... everything is crazy.

probly worth remembering though, retained doesnt garauntee a crew will roll, same as vollie...

24P · « **Reply #6 on:** May 21, 2007, 10:50:20 PM »

Quote from: Camo on May 21, 2007, 11:31:41 AM

ok going off track but anyway.

A Retained station will never take over a volunteer station. Why?

There is no improvement in service.

If MFS ever take over Barker it will be 24/7. Now back to the stations.

I think the point Camo is trying to make is they (a retained station) wouldnt get out any quicker than a CFS brigade. I think Mt Barker do an excellent job of looking after the town. Why change to a similar system if it costs more?

fireblade · « **Reply #7 on:** May 22, 2007, 09:30:16 AM »

See your point 24P, probably would be a waste of time and money putting a retained MFS station there. If Mt. Barker is getting so big a single 24/7 MFS station would be worth it but I'm guessing it wouldn't take to much pressure of the CFS there as they would have to still respond. The positives I guess is the public are always guaranteed a quick response and more fire stations = full-time jobs for people that want to head that way.

I guess the real invasion of MFS into CFS area is Seaford.

Smallflame · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2007, 09:40:32 AM »

Quote from: 24P on May 21, 2007, 10:50:20 PM

I think the point Camo is trying to make is they (a retained station) wouldnt get out any quicker than a CFS brigade. I think Mt Barker do an excellent job of looking after the town.

Thanks

We do try!

Hicksflat14 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2007, 11:29:20 AM »

There are several stages between a full volunteer station and a fulltime staffed station, look at the CFA for example. In fact there was an interesting article last week in the Hills and Valley Messenger where the Sturt Group was asking for a paid daytime crew. This was in response to an article the week before by an independent politician whose argument was that the locals pay full ESL and thus deserve a fulltime staffed station both in the Sturt Group and another in Mawson Group's area.

Anyway the point here is that Sturt Group is pushing for a day time staffed crew, however the article didn't make it particularly clear that it would be a staffed CFS crew running CFS appliances not an MFS station. As we known, unlike the CFA (that the CFS basically follows and rips everything off), the CFS doesn't have such a system for retained or paid staff instead leaving that to the MFS. In the coming 2-5 years, the line between CFS and MFS will become so blurred you wont know which is which aside from the colour of their trucks. The first step in this process is CFS closing its operations centre and moving it across to the MFS in a couple of months time. Also its now looking like the CFS will start getting work done at the MFS workshops and a lot of the admin will go to a combined SAFECOM. So while at the moment there is a paid service and a volly service soon it will basically be one service with a range of crewing models.

Ever wondered why the SAFECOM logo looks so much like a service logo?

TillerMan · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2007, 12:25:10 PM »

Yes it is about time we became one service, the money saving would be huge.

E.g Mt barker are due for a new station so SAFECOM should build a station that is able to house full time crews so that when the day comes paid staff can just move in with only a few minor changes. Thats what CFA are doing in larger towns that may go full time in the next few years. Also places like Mt Barker could have the same appliances as full timers so that instead of buying 2-3 new trucks when they go full time they can use the existing trucks.

Camo · « **Reply #11 on:** May 22, 2007, 04:40:45 PM »

Like i have said before why not have 1 full time truck and the rest crewed by vollies.

In Barkers case this would be perfect. There is no need for a 2 or 3 truck MFS station because of lower call numbers but they would need back up at decent jobs and this is where the vollies get the gig.

Also anything that is rural could be done by the vollies instead of sending the fulltimers out of the city and the vollies having to do COQ.

This model could be applied in a few areas of the state. Seaford for one.

5271rescue · « **Reply #12 on:** May 22, 2007, 04:50:59 PM »

Camo,not sure if the union would agree to paid and volunteers in the one station like they have in CFA. Mind you not sure why CFS has not looked at having paid CFS staff and Volunteers in some of its stations.

Pixie · « **Reply #13 on:** May 22, 2007, 05:02:12 PM »

In my opinion, the issue with Part time staffed CFS/MFS/SAFECOM stations is what this would do to the brigade moral.

I can tell you, I would not be showing up duiring the day if i know that there is a team of paid firefighters that are more than capable of doing the job waiting to go. I think we would be much better offering incentives for the current vollies to turnout more often, eg. CFS retained style system, paid part time for time spent at calls ONLY. Providing funding to employeers that allow worker to leave for firecalls. actually listen to vollies in terms of what they want (if burnside want a scania, give them a scania - dont just play the copout line of "the funding doesnt allow it" we work for free for F&*^s sake!! If people are physically and mentally apt to undertake training - let them, if they are old enough to see dead bodies at car accidents, why cant they participate in a BA course???

End Rant*

Just my humble opinion,
Pixie

Pipster · « **Reply #14 on:** May 22, 2007, 05:41:12 PM »

Quote from: Pixie on May 22, 2007, 05:02:12 PM

In my opinion, the issue with Part time staffed CFS/MFS/SAFECOM stations is what this would do to the brigade moral.

I can tell you, I would not be showing up during the day if i know that there is a team of paid firefighters that are more than capable of doing the job waiting to go. I think we would be much better offering incentives for the current vollies to turnout more often, eg. CFS retained style system, paid part time for time spent at calls ONLY.

That might not be a bad idea - but it would seem in some areas of the state, where MFS utilise this system, they still have trouble raising crews - while the CFS in the same area generally don't have the same trouble....so will it get more people to calls?

Quote from: Pixie on May 22, 2007, 05:02:12 PM

Providing funding to employers that allow worker to leave for firecalls.

I like that idea....not sure how it will work, but if employers don't lose money, or there is some incentive to allow staff to go, than just feeling good about it, it may assist in getting more crews out to incidents

Quote from: Pixie on May 22, 2007, 05:02:12 PM

actually listen to vollies in terms of what they want (if burnside want a scania, give them a scania - don't just play the copout line of "the funding doesn't allow it" we work for free for F&*^s sake!!

Cool. I'd like an aerial appliance. I reckon it'd be good fun to play with. Makes a good platform for taking photos. So, when do I get it? Oh yeah. there are no buildings more than 2 stories in my area, and getting the appliance into most of the driveways & half of the roads around the district, but I want one because I'm a volunteer

Pip

Camo · « **Reply #15 on:** May 22, 2007, 05:55:27 PM »

Quote from: 5271rescue on May 22, 2007, 04:50:59 PM

Camo,not sure if the union would agree to paid and volunteers in the one station like they have in CFA. Mind you not sure why CFS has not looked at having paid CFS staff and Volunteers in some of its stations.

Doesnt really matter what the CFS or Union say as it will be SAFECOM and known as the South Australian Fire & Rescue Service

SA Firey · « **Reply #16 on:** May 22, 2007, 10:46:47 PM »

Well if we are all going to become one Fire Service start dishing out the RED TRUCKS

5271rescue · « **Reply #17 on:** May 23, 2007, 07:36:16 AM »

I did hear someone say that we will all be called MFS the other night not sure if he was joking??? But if MT BARKER are happy doing the number of calls they do and can get out the door what is the problem??? Just because there is large housing going up in the area does not mean an opening for MFS,if the current brigade can meet their requirements then good on then. Lets face it the MFS are having more problems getting some of their country brigade's out the door and that is why we are seeing a lot of dual respose from CFS at the moment....

fireblade · « **Reply #18 on:** May 23, 2007, 11:04:36 AM »

I heard from a little birdy that MFS are seriously looking obviously at Seaford, Mt. Barker and maybe even a station somewhere in between Glen Osmond and Mt. Barker so there is not such a gap between stations.

In one way i guess more paid stations are not a bad thing. More paid jobs for CFS guys that want to turn what they like doing into a career. Plus a quicker turnout for the public.

I know both MFS/CFS brigades sometimes have trouble getting crews it's just the nature of the beast unfortunately. If it's not their full-time job hard to get there sometimes.

Pixie · « **Reply #19 on:** May 23, 2007, 01:28:23 PM »

a little birdy... i have heard from a very high up birdy (not mfs, cfs or safecom)(think even higher than the individual services) that the seaford MFS station wont be hapening in the near future...

fireblade · « **Reply #20 on:** May 23, 2007, 01:39:47 PM »

Maybe not the near future but it will happen.

bittenyakka · « **Reply #21 on:** May 23, 2007, 03:11:33 PM »

in between glen Osmond and Mt Barker has such a high density of CFS brigades as the population is spread over a large area an MFS brigade would be pointless.

Camo · « **Reply #22 on:** May 23, 2007, 03:27:37 PM »

What the MFS want and what the MFS get are two different things. All comes down to what SAFECOM & the government have to say.

Considering Stirling are doing 300ish? calls that really isnt a big warrant for a paid crew sitting there 24/7. Considering a 1 truck MFS station requires about 16-20 staff at roughly $40,000 a year (Maybe more maybe less but its a benchmark) $40,000 x 16 = $640,000. Thats alot considering the CFS costs $0!

So MT Barker MFS, Crafers MFS & Seaford MFS are probaly further away than most people think.

RescueHazmat · « **Reply #23 on:** May 23, 2007, 04:55:29 PM »

Quote from: Pixie on May 23, 2007, 01:28:23 PM

a little birdy... i have heard from a very high up birdy (not mfs, cfs or safecom)(think even higher than the individual services) that the seaford MFS station wont be hapening in the near future...

The only person higher who is not in the CFS/MFS/SAFECOM is the Minister for Emergency Services, who reports to the Premier.

24P · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2007, 05:29:01 PM »

Quote from: Camo on May 23, 2007, 03:27:37 PM

Considering Stirling are doing 300ish? calls that really isnt a big warrant for a paid crew sitting there 24/7.

Consider that Gawler MFS (24/7 station) did less calls last year than some CFS stations i wouldnt think call rate would come into it.