Felling

[Zippy]

Department for Environment and Heritage.

[Alan J]

inregards to a prior post a question was asked "who siad they didnt need to come down" the trees im talking about are in the middle of a paddock its burnt for miles around and they are just surface burnt not right through no risk of candle sticking and when you see the pics of them on the ground they are still solid.

Thankyou for that. What was their condition when the felling crews came to them ?
Were they still burning higher up ?  We saw a lot of crowns & higher branches burning
from embers dropping into them at Willunga. Despite the minimal risk location, there
must have been something about them that the crew leader thought a problem. Rightly
or wrongly.

It still doesn't change the stupidity of a blanket ban on an essential part of
restoring normality after fire or storm. Or even of direct fire-fighting.

To the person who suggested isolating the burning tree/s...
Would have been nice  to have done so. However the trees we dropped were standing
on the unburnt side of the road, and were spotting 30-50M further into the scrub.
Two crews could barely keep up with the spotting, & running out of water fast. We
were about to lose that flank. As the head fire was still uncontained & running,
I decided to drop them immediately so we could secure that flank & move on.

I both did, and taught the EMA chainsaw course, which includes (or included) basic
felling. It was a bit disappointing to discover that the course offered to CFS & SES
now presumes all trees are already down. In my view, it is another example of desk
warriors adjusting reality to suit their fears & budget/s.  :x

cheers

[ltdan]

Enough is enough!!

I attended a meeting last week discussing this issue with answers for the CFS.  Questions were raised at this committee relating to tree felling.  The question went back to CFS corporate (OH&S) with some questions relating to tree felling the questions and our responsibilities as a fire service.

Q:  Does CFS or SES at this current time qualified to fell trees.
A:  Currently CFS or SES are not qualified to fell trees.

Q:  If a member of the CFS has the qualification to fell trees with their work   are they able to fell trees.
A:  Yes if they have the formal & recognised qualification through their work CFS will accept this competency and will be able to undertake tree felling operations if required.

Q:  Are CFS personnel allowed to remove branches from trees to gain access via access roads to a fire.
A:  Yes, personnel are allowed to remove branches from trees etc using the "crosscutting" method which is taught on the "Operate Chainsaw" course via LITA.

Q:  Are DEH personnel able to cut trees on the fire-ground.
A:  Yes, if they have the correct qualification.

Q:  Will CFS introduce the "Tree Felling" course to CFS.
A:  No

I hope these answers help.  I look at it like this.  It clearly indicates in the SOP's for CFS not to fell trees.  But it also indicates that if hazard is required to be removed or a potential risk can be reduced.  Risk management techniques may be used to make a decision by the Incident Controller.

I will admit I have felled trees before after been given the directive to by a Sector Commander and I have also given the decision and directive  fell trees to other CFS personnel also.

But these decisions were only given due to risk management.  Why do we need to do it?  What are the potential risks if we leave the risk?  Do we have any alternative solution, with the time of the risk to occur?

I have been to plenty of large fires in my time where I have seen felling of trees for no apparent reason.  Why fell a tree in a middle of a burnt paddock, where is it going to go etc.  Especially when all you can see is black dirt around you.

From this meeting it is now apparent that CFS IMT now are aware of the problems and will ensure that Tree felling capabilities are established from the immediate start of the fire.  Therefore, you might see DEH personnel being called in to a fire to be on standby to perform these duties.

I have 2 members in my brigade with the Tree felling qualification, and I will now make sure their qualification is now recognised by the CFS, in case we need to use their specific skills.


I can not give you the answer of SES view but I can at least give you the insight of CFS.  I would see in the very near future to see something written about this.  Please don't perform actions now as you have read it on SA Firefighter, that would be silly.  Wait till you see something in writing for the agency.

[RescueHazmat]

Watch out. Next they will have an SES member felling a tree on Mcleods..

[chook]

Call us we will BE in it no worries :-D Might have to convert the fast response back into a ute & fit a couple of big HF antennas roll bar in the back & some big spotys - just to fit the cowboy image :wink:

[bajdas]

Call us we will BE in it no worries :-D Might have to convert the fast response back into a ute & fit a couple of big HF antennas roll bar in the back & some big spotys - just to fit the cowboy image :wink:

Maybe in NSW, but no budget at Berri for spot lights & antenna     :lol: :-D :lol:

[chook]

Nah Andrew the budget is all fixed :-D We just cost it all out to essential OHS items! Mind you we would also need to get the chainsaw we were promised last grant year, & I forgot the blue singlets & thongs (the foot kind).
cheers

[Alan J]

Enough is enough!!

I attended a meeting last week discussing this issue with answers for the CFS.  Questions were raised at this committee relating to tree felling.  The question went back to CFS corporate (OH&S) with some questions relating to tree felling the questions and our responsibilities as a fire service.

<big snip>

I hope these answers help.  I look at it like this.  It clearly indicates in the SOP's for CFS not to fell trees.  But it also indicates that if hazard is required to be removed or a potential risk can be reduced.  Risk management techniques may be used to make a decision by the Incident Controller.

Thankyou Lt.Dan
I will state now that I think it is Not good enough.  Two reasons....

Decision Ownership and Timeliness.

Incident Controller is already swamped with high-level damands & decisions.
Moving tree-dropping decision is forcing bureaucrat micro-management into a situation
where those decisions need to be taken at a much lower management layer - STL or sector
commander. Pushing it up to an already swamped IC is plain stupid in my view.
A CYA decision by paid staff which has no place on a fire-ground.

The decision to bring qualified DEH people to fires early is a good one, but I have $10
on the table that calling them early enough to be useful won't happen because it costs
money.  All very well & good to bring them in for mop-up when things are settled down &
everyone can take a breather & look at what needs doing.  Whole 'nuther story in the
first hour or two when actions need to be "NOW", in real time, not public service
office CYA time.

cheers

[OMGWTF]

lol, worried about DEH not being there early??

we all know they sit around waiting for calls all day, turn themselves out to jobs miles from parks and then over resource it... aaahhh.... good times.

[Zippy]

DEH are effectively the Paid CFS after all....but yeh i agree with OMGWTF, seeing them at some jobs is just weird...

[ltdan]

Alan

I can see the same process like asking to light up a backburn.

Divcom to IC request to fell tree.
IC to Divcom standby
Divcom to SC standby
SC to STL standby
STL to appliance IC standby
Appliance IC to STL etc - too late done the job, can't wait for you guys to make a decision.

:-D 8-) :roll:

[chook]

sounds the same for a tree job I did last year in Newcastle " tree unsafe need to drop it, wait for the cherry picker & crane, what was that? I say again wait for heavy equipment (long pause) base can you cancel the heavy equipment , job done, returning to base, out"
It's still a crock of filtered in my opinion!
But not my problem!
cheers

[bittenyakka]

Around here DEH are rolling on the initial call. if they haven't started it :-D :-D

[jaff]

So with the fire season less than a month off, has there been a definitive answer as to "tree felling protocols", or is it standard emergency service SOP 1.1 NFI.!!

[Alan J]

Just saw the SAFECOM OH&S newsletter last night which dealt with this.
In a blinding flurry of activity, the pen pushers have thought of 7 or
13 dot-points which will be thunk through into a protocol or SOP.

The photos of the trees downed in the middle of the paddocks showed, as
someone stated earlier, that the techniques used were at best, woeful
and dangerous.

There was also a photo of our little lopping job extracted from some
poor quality ABC footage and given an almost completely false set of
captions & statements.  In fact the only two correct fact were that
it was CFS people, and the cut was being made >2M above ground (almost
2.5M if I recall correctly...)

Firstly the ladder was secured AND footed throughout.

Secondly dynamic risk assessment HAD been done, by two experienced
current officers and a former captian.

Thirdly the lopping was occurring on the opposite side of the tree
to protect the operator and the ladder. Damned inconvenient for the
operator, who had to reach through the top of a chimney that we
couldn't extinguish to make the cut. (Cut a bit, cool it a bit, cut
more, chase spot fire started from the chimney, cool it more, cut
more, chase another spot fire, etc.)

Finally, whoever wrote them blatantly lied when they stated that the
incident had been investigated.   At no time has anyone in my brigade
been asked about the job, and to the best of my knowledge, no-one else
who was present has been asked either. This despite the brigade's &
person's names being in the public domain (here) since July.

My opinion is that when decisions are being made on our operating
processes using that degree of utter slackness and contempt for we
volunteers in the field, those making them deserve at best, our
suspicion, if not our contempt.

Now, let's see who actually is reading this forum.

[Zippy]

sorry, i skim-readed...maybe tommorow :P

[bittenyakka]

nice post Al

[OMGWTF]

Alan, which job was this mate?

[Alan J]

Willunga fire, eastern flank, Bishop Rd, about 200M SW of Range Rd, & approx
90-120 minutes after ignition.

Google maps has satelite and street views - search on "bishop rd willunga sa".

Bishop Rd was the control line. Tree was on wrong side of road & spotting futher
into scrub with gusty NW swinging SW. Most other appliances were chasing the head
closer to Meadows Rd at that stage. We were fast running out of water & puff
chasing the spots it was throwing in 90 deg arc down wind up to 50M.  Came -very-
close to losing it into the scrub.

Initially left most of the tree standing - just lopped the burning branches &
opened the first fork enough to get water into its hollow trunk. Unable to
extinguish it so brought that down too.

I noted with interest that in another writing I saw (not sure if CFS or here) that
CFS will consider RPL of felling qualifications gained as part of ones job. 
Therefore any non-employment qualifications are considered null & void, even if
earnt via an ES/FS interstate ?  If so, that is a highly conditional interpretation
of RPL...  Hope the wording was wrong, or that it is not actual CFS policy..

[chook]

Nice post Al totally agree with your closing statement oon the previous post!
cheers