This thread is starting to give me a headache.
The original post suggested that a move to three services Paid/Vol Urban/Vol Rural would be a way to move forward while still keeping the separate interests of CFS and MFS intact. We now have people throwing SA Fire & Rescue service into the mix and the big budget items such as USAR which is muddying the waters.
To get things back on track and to perhaps strike the heart of the CFS/SES rescue argument, there is room in the state for
all most of us.
The brigades ,and at a more local level, the individual volunteers that only want to turn out to wildfires should be able to do so.
I was a big fan of the old Lvl 1, lvl 2, lvl 3 split system. Lvl 1 taught you everything that you needed to know to get on a fire truck and turnout to an emergency, even basic MVA/HAZMAT was taught. Things like pumps (which are generally specific to appliances and brigades) were taught at a Brigade level and it was not expected that a lvl 1 trained firefighter would be operating the pump, but if need be, they could. Then at lvl 2, you were provided with a more in depth look at most of your lvl 1 teachings, and got a whole afternoon on pumps!
Fitting the old courses into a single weekend was a good thing in terms of personal commitment, as well as for brigades/groups being able to run a few courses a year if need be. The move to the BFF 1 course that is huge and is run in a disjointed manner was certainly a step, if not a jump backwards. Don't get me wrong, I'd love the basic firefighting course to be weeks long and incorporate CABA, RCR and HAZMAT, but that doesn't fit 99% of brigades, nor is it practical in any way shape or form.
When people bring up Pumpers, Rescue and USAR and the fun things like that, even when I whine and moan, it needs to be understood that these circumstances and gripes only apply to a
very small number of brigades. Even I forget this quite often. Take USAR for example, if the CFS took on USAR then you would only have a handful of CAT II operators, a smaller number of stations with major stockpiles of USAR gear and this would all happen to brigades that are already rescue, busy and have the associated risk and strategic placement. Cat I operators would no doubt be something that would be open to more brigades, both rescue and not, but that is more about USAR awareness than actually getting stuck into the guts of an incident.
I think that if there were Urban/Rural working parties that were allowed to deviate from the CFS line that one size fits all, you would find brigades having less to complain about, as long as real answers and solutions are provided. The complaints from rural brigades and urban brigades are not greater or lesser than the other, they are just different. Yes, the brigade with two pumpers, a rescue and a single bushfire truck may appear to be well off, but if those resources aren't able to cover the brigades risk, then their complaint is as valid as a rural brigade who have a 20 year old truck needs replacing and could do with a 14.
I still don't know what the harm in having a single service that provides Fire, Rescue, Hazmat, Storm/Tempest coverage is. Lets face it, when the brown stuff hits the fan with Storm and Tempest, the SES can't keep up and the local firies (MFS/CFS) are out helping. Why not have everything incorporated, with larger stations, more appliances and the ability for people to only do rescue, or only fight fires? As I have said before, very little firefighting equipment can be used in rescues, but a whole lot of rescue equipment can be used and is vital in firefighting operations. It makes sense to have it all available in the one package.
This idea would also be a good time to challenge the CFS/MFS idea that rescue = RCR. Go ahead and throw your hydraulic equipment at that meat grinder entrapment... enjoy it!
Might also be worth trying to introduce some CFA/MFB terminology into the system aswell like "Make Tankers 10" instead of having to rattle off brigade names and etc. Then again...the Alarm system is meant to the same job, but i don't hear it used too often outside of Peri-urban brigades........
Utilising Regional headquarters as a centre of "incident upgrading" might be worthwhile, they will have more precise knowledge of what resources can come from where...and run more effective fire cover when resources are depleted.
Noticing Region 1 HQ was open all day...they could listen into jobs directly...all the incident controller would have to do is inadvertently call out to Region 1 HQ to upgrade the call...
Yes! Lets wind back the clock! That sounds just dandy. The idea behind alarms levels is that you get a set amount and variety of appliances - if you need more, just special call them. With your old school "Make tankers 10" line of thought, don't forget that turns into a mess REALLY fast. Think about this: A fire encroaching on houses requires you to call say "3rd alarm, 3 pumpers for asset protection" OR "Make tankers 4, Make pumpers 3, Make BWC 2 and notify the DGO"
Why people still sit around requesting brigades by name I don't know. Ask Adelaide Fire/Station/Group Base for and alarm upgrade and bang, there you go. Leave it to the guys in the airconditioned office to determine who is closer. Of course if you need a specific resource, ask for "Burnside to be responded for State Hazmat"
R1HQ...we'll don't get me started. For their resource tracking ability you may as well be talking to mushy clay.
While it seems like a good idea on paper, while the fire service is fighting fires (this week in Vic & NSW area classic example)who is going to do everything else?
And the topic of USAR was raised (again?) how many of your members really want to do that skill? (Which is a whole new ball game)
Now this may seem like a controversial idea - maybe two services who cover fire 1)SAFire service both full time & retained (NSWFB model or the CFA model with both paid & volunteer) & 2)Country fire service (RFS style rural & village), seems to me that would suit both camps.
While the Fire service is out fighting fires, brigade/groups/regions need to ensure that they can still provide rescue coverage. THAT is a whole nother discussion. I know what you're saying, but in the metro area we have many more resources to play with than you dudes in the sticks and hence its easier, when common sense is used, to cover brigades that are tied up at fires.
The Vic/NSW model are pretty good, although they would need to be reworked a little to fit here.
Who wouldn't want a Fire and Rescue service!
Already got one, it's called the South Australian Country Fire Service. Although you need to define 'rescue'.
A proper rescue service? (not just RCR)
Yeah good luck getting that into the mind of the CFS. Rescue equipment = Hydraulics and a Halligan tool (that has little business being anything but a structural forcible entry tool!)
Secondly the metro area SES are brilliant at their flood/storm/non P1 stuff. But largely they can't get to any real emergency stuff until it's over. So they have a rather dull image in the eyes of lots of current emergency service workers.
You need to get out and experience the "glory" that is the Adelaide Hills/Sturt SES then.
In closing, if you have a rural brigade, then you should have a Rural Fire working group looking out for your issues and R&D. If you have an Urban brigade, you should have an Urban working group looking out for your issues and R&D. Maybe we could even add a Rescue working group to the mix.
With all this talk of one service, did we all forget about
SAFECOM ? We're already there. It's only a matter of time until you see it at a ground level.
EDIT: One Service, not ONCE Service
