Author Topic: SAMFS Response Paging (Read 20587 times)

corocfs · « **on:** September 11, 2005, 09:51:29 PM »

noticed on the station pager today:

MFS: RESPOND To (date/time) (road) (locality) (map) UNKNOWN CHEMICALS IN DRUMS, 5724*CFSRES:

obviously this incident is a HAZMAT yes??? so why wasnt a HAZMAT response filled!!!! ridiculous... looks to me like the dispatch officer did this specifically as a"respond to" to avoid having to do a HAZMAT response (2 hazmata, one local), and has only responded the local....

1.5 minutes later a hazmat brigade was responded...

still the response page only said "respond to" and didnt even state the thing they were responding to....

anyone have similar problems... surely this needs to be jumped on and fxed...

TillerMan · « **Reply #1 on:** September 11, 2005, 10:14:45 PM »

Yes all the time. Even goes the other way, sometimes for domestic's or rescue's just over the border they will not put domestic in so that a C.F.S truck doesn't come, for example....

MFS: RESPOND TO (DATE/TIME)(ROAD)(LOCATION)(MAP) POSSIBLE HOUSE FIRE 201 203.

It just goes to show it isn't a fully automated system and there are ways around it.

We always get hazmat's as reduced responces from m.f.s.

corocfs · « **Reply #2 on:** September 11, 2005, 11:13:01 PM »

mmm loved the one i saw once... not sure if MFS CAD is still using it...

MFS: RESPOND HAZMAT Reduced

what the hell is a HAZMAT reduced... basically from the page message i read... its a HAZMAT call but no hazmat brigade included in resoponse....

TillerMan · « **Reply #3 on:** September 11, 2005, 11:31:36 PM »

Yes, it's still used. It came out of all the white powder incidents a few years ago. Instead of responding half the M.F.S they would respond a gp pump and a D.O to investigate.

oz fire · « **Reply #4 on:** September 12, 2005, 10:18:38 AM »

Are you saying the professionals get it wrong?

?

Never.........

Funny really, sure it must have been a slight oversight by the operator due to workload, another call waiting, radio comms or new additions to the database...... I'm sure the list goes on!!

The old saying rings true "Professionalism is a state of mind, not a rate of pay".

Maybe one day, a central CAD facility with either all services represented or a neutral provider will overcome these obvious and blatant oversights

Wagon 1 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 12, 2005, 01:12:05 PM »

Its called "care factor" if the SOC did that I am sure we would all bash them and they would get a beating from all and sundry, but when SAMFS screw it up it never seems to go anywhere.

corocfs · « **Reply #6 on:** September 12, 2005, 09:19:18 PM »

i dont think SOC would do that, they actually seem to care about CFS brigades/responses, where as since MFS dont have anything to do with the job after dispatch, they dont give a toss..

Roger · « **Reply #7 on:** September 13, 2005, 08:59:55 AM »

The Hazmat reduced is meant to be for the mercury thermometer spills, the chemical in a drum scenario, and the other little things like that. In most areas the CFS have customised the MFS computer to recommend a hazmat brigade as part of this.
Depending on how the call was received, it is not unusual for the MFS to send one GP to investigate a call like a chemical in a drum, as it is usually a drum that is not leaking, is full of water or rusty brown water, and the caller wants the fire service to dispose of it (because they rang the council or cleanaway who said they had to pay a lot of money to get rid of it...) It is then up to the OIC of the appliance to upgrade if he/she deems it necessary.

Quote from: oz fire on September 12, 2005, 10:18:38 AM

Maybe one day, a central CAD facility with either all services represented or a neutral provider will overcome these obvious and blatant oversights

This is meant to be on the way, but last i heard it was all going to be handed over to the MFS. We must have CFS representation in a combined CRD/Communications Centre. Push the barrow.

Wagon 1 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 13, 2005, 09:12:40 AM »

Quote

This is meant to be on the way, but last i heard it was all going to be handed over to the MFS. We must have CFS representation in a combined CRD/Communications Centre. Push the barrow.

I agree totally Roger, why would we hand over to SAMFS, I think the Chief would have a whole lot of problems on his hand if he agreed to that. Also, a bit of a kick in the guts for the SOC staff "we like what your doing, but we are going to shaft you anyway" hmmmm, I for one would not be impressed!

oz fire · « **Reply #9 on:** September 13, 2005, 09:24:04 AM »

Well get ready - coz the move is there to hand CRD to SAMFS Comcen - we will have to wait and see if staff go and how many - imagine being the only staff member working in the SAMFS building!!!
Luckily though they would all have dignity and diversity training and would show total respect and empathy to the CFS staff member!!!

The government CAD program seams to have been caught behind closed doors - according to their web site a recommendation and plan should have been delivered by now?

?

Wagon 1 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 13, 2005, 09:33:52 AM »

Quote

Well get ready - coz the move is there to hand CRD to SAMFS Comcen - we will have to wait and see if staff go and how many - imagine being the only staff member working in the SAMFS building!!!
Luckily though they would all have dignity and diversity training and would show total respect and empathy to the CFS staff member!!!

The government CAD program seams to have been caught behind closed doors - according to their web site a recommendation and plan should have been delivered by now??

Again, I will beleive it when I see it, I have heard so many on again off again stories in the last year, and CAD was going to take longer than anyone thought as the size of the project is a little bigger than first imagined, for starters, a large number of roads don't have names!! So its things like that which will drag the projest out. You may see the CBD and suburbs online sooner, but the whole state is a looooong way off!! Also, this is going to be such a specialised field that I doubt very much that SAMFS can use it as a dumping ground as they do now, once your a CAD operator, you will have to stay a CAD operator, its not a job for a 6 month fill in person, the only way it will work is to have a SAFECOM call centre and have permenant CAD staff, much as the SOC is now.

Toast · « **Reply #11 on:** September 13, 2005, 12:31:19 PM »

In reply to the first post, they did state what you were responding to - "Unknown Chemicals in Drums". Respond To is used when the response type does not fit into one of the set types. We have been turned out many times as a single brigade to things that fall into an 'Unconfirmed' category. Yes, these should have been a dual response but they werent...

I dont understand the MFS > CFS bias especially in the commcen, I once made the mistake of calling MFS for any further details and asking the 'silly' question of "Any confirmed entrapments?" on a simple RCR page with no details. Well, I managed to upset someones apple cart as I was quite firmly told "OF COURSE there are entrapments, it IS an RCR response" but nothing further detail wise.

Wagon 1 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 13, 2005, 01:19:48 PM »

I wouldn't worry about it to much, we all get a mouthful on occasions, they don't understand the whole volunteer thing, and it also depends which shift you get, C shift have a lot of volunteers amongst their ranks so it helps, some other shifts don't want to know about it!!

Toast · « **Reply #13 on:** September 13, 2005, 05:33:20 PM »

Well, after MFS commcen making a rather interesting mistake of turning us out to the local HIGH School when the alarm was from the PRIMARY School, we seem to have learnt that we are both human...

corocfs · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2005, 01:47:41 AM »

Quote from: Toast on September 13, 2005, 12:31:19 PM

In reply to the first post, they did state what you were responding to - "Unknown Chemicals in Drums". Respond To is used when the response type does not fit into one of the set types. We have been turned out many times as a single brigade to things that fall into an 'Unconfirmed' category. Yes, these should have been a dual response but they werent...

I dont understand the MFS > CFS bias especially in the commcen, I once made the mistake of calling MFS for any further details and asking the 'silly' question of "Any confirmed entrapments?" on a simple RCR page with no details. Well, I managed to upset someones apple cart as I was quite firmly told "OF COURSE there are entrapments, it IS an RCR response" but nothing further detail wise.

i was actually stating that they had used the "respond to" instead of "hazmat" to avoid having to send a HAZMAT brigade to a hazmat job.

Wagon 1 · « **Reply #15 on:** September 14, 2005, 03:28:30 AM »

I guess thats where the problem of having another fire service do your response, the CFS SOP's are not always the same as the SAMFS SOP's, whilst they might not think it matters a whole lot about having a HAZMAT station on a maybe call, CFS sure wants one on it, in fact I think its supposed to be 2 HAZMAT stations on each call, a lot easier for volunteers to go home than to have to respond after the event. Also, most, if not all their people are HAZMAT trained to some degree, where as the CFS are not.

corocfs · « **Reply #16 on:** September 14, 2005, 09:07:05 PM »

CFS response to hazmat should be instant 2 HAZMAT brigades plus the local.

if the proper incident type is entered into the MFS CAD system the pre-organised response for that area (if your group has its stuff together) should occur.

strikeathird · « **Reply #17 on:** September 15, 2005, 12:34:22 PM »

It should have said RESPOND HAZMAT. I agree F/Truck.

strikeathird · « **Reply #18 on:** September 15, 2005, 12:36:42 PM »

Quote from: oz fire on September 12, 2005, 10:18:38 AM

Are you saying the professionals get it wrong??

Never.........

Funny really, sure it must have been a slight oversight by the operator due to workload, another call waiting, radio comms or new additions to the database...... I'm sure the list goes on!!

The old saying rings true "Professionalism is a state of mind, not a rate of pay".

Maybe one day, a central CAD facility with either all services represented or a neutral provider will overcome these obvious and blatant oversights

I have seen the error in response etc. happen on a number of ocasions!

oz fire · « **Reply #19 on:** September 15, 2005, 01:49:00 PM »

Quote from: strikeathird on September 15, 2005, 12:36:42 PM

I have seen the error in response etc. happen on a number of occasions!

Quote

As have I on numerous occasions over the years - but get them to admit that it was their error - they always have an excuse or will counsel the operator and they frown at the SOC saying they can't do it properly???

Roger · « **Reply #20 on:** September 15, 2005, 02:32:30 PM »

I have not heard the MFS say that the SOC can't do the job properly.. i have seen on occasions that both services have not got it right. Let's face it... it won't matter who is doing the job, there will be occasions when it doesn't get paged to the brigades' satisfaction. Sad, though, that the SOC & MFS probably get 99% calls out perfectly, but it's that 1% that stands out in people's minds. (we like to bitch)
On a side issue, it was the CFS that said the MFS can takeover the CRD function (Euan told his staff this himself), whereas the MFS (and even the UFU) have proposed now for some time that the CFS and MFS have operators working together.

Wagon 1 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 16, 2005, 12:48:59 AM »

Yeah, under what working conditions, you can work with us, so long as you join our union, Roger, it wouldn't be that simple!!

Roger · « **Reply #22 on:** September 16, 2005, 01:00:59 AM »

Quote from: David on September 16, 2005, 12:48:59 AM

Yeah, under what working conditions, you can work with us, so long as you join our union, Roger, it wouldn't be that simple!!

I don't pretend for a second that it would be a simple matter of moving across... but perhaps joining the UFU might be good for the SOC operators...pay equity for one, so they get paid their worth, job security too. (The PSA is doing nothing for them now..) Lots of things to learn about each other - cultures, SOP's etc.

corocfs · « **Reply #23 on:** September 16, 2005, 01:30:15 AM »

Quote from: Roger on September 16, 2005, 01:00:59 AM

Lots of things to learn about each other - cultures, SOP's etc.

hahahahaha hah...

oz fire · « **Reply #24 on:** September 16, 2005, 08:56:10 AM »

Roger sounds like you must be in the know?

Funny that others on the floor of both facilities don't share your thoughts.

As for Euan saying MFS can have it, mmmmmmm my source says he looked at it, but at no stage said to MFS here you go have it!!!!

Re the error rate, when we (CFS) did measure it, some time ago, the error rate for some groups was closer to 8% - maybe the Sturt, Mt Lofty and East Torrens Groups are less, however a number of brigades who documented all issues had between 8 & 10%, and that was documented

Author Topic: SAMFS Response Paging (Read 20587 times)

corocfs

corocfs

Wagon 1

corocfs

Wagon 1

Wagon 1

Toast

Wagon 1

Toast

corocfs

Wagon 1

corocfs

strikeathird

strikeathird

Wagon 1

corocfs