I think this a bad move. Starting up a CABA set at an incident in no way proves that an operator is still a competent BA operator. The purpose of an annual, (or 5 yearly), re-accreditation is to ensure BA operators are still donning and starting up correctly and still know the correct procedures for safety and equipment maintenance. Do they really think a tick in a box on a fire reports proves an operator is competent and removes a need for them to be assessed?
I would have hoped that it would be more geared toward ensuring that operators are actually wearing at incidents, thus if a person claims to have worn at every job a brigade has had in the past year, according to their little operator book, it can be confirmed/denied in TAS. It would be nice to be able to log 3 monthly training wears in this fashion too. God forbid if we had to actually log what we all did for training. That could destroy some Brigades. But I digress, I don't think, as CFS_Firey had said, that operational use and re-accreditation should EVER mix. They are two very different entities. How many Brigades/Operators do we know that have been doing xyz for 1000 years, but their knowledge and skills base is horribly out of date?
I'm also curious about the definition of RCR and HAZMAT operators...
"HAZMAT OPERATOR - Actually used hazmat equipment at a hazmat incident". So if I turn on the PID at a house fire, does that make me a Haz Op?
"RCR OPERATOR - Actually used RCR equipment at the incident". If I use a haligan to pop a bonnet at a car fire am I an RCR Op? All seems a bit vague...
As for equipment used, it depends on your definitions really... Is a Gas Detector Hazmat equipment? It can be used for a variety of things, and detecting for an IDLH atmosphere is not necessarily Hazmat. In the same way that CABA is used in an IDLH atmosphere, but would you call it Hazmat gear? A Halligan most certainly isn't RCR equipment either. Both examples are stowed on appliances that are normal "General Purpose" fire appliances, so that further muddies the waters... Are we looking at the primary role of the equipment or the context in which it is used?
Again, haven't we been filling out fire reports for years? Is the inclusion of some extra details about an alarm call really going to get us extra funding or cut down on false alarms? You can already get the stats from the previous version of the forms - if it says we went to an alarm, it means it was an unwanted alarm, if it legit, we'd put it down as a fire...
But then a "legit" alarm is not necessarily a fire...
Again, simulated condition is an example of an alarm operating correctly. Unwanted, yes, legit, yes. What the gathering of further stats can do, in terms of false alarm reduction is demonstrate where the problem lies. Is it faulty equip? Is it occupier error? Can we curtail the number of false alarms with some basic fire alarm education? Do we need to suggest that the building change the location/type of detectors? Without detector location/cause information this is impossible. How many allegedly "faulty" smoke alarms are there in CFS at the moment? An impossibly large number, as simulated condition/contractor negligence tends to go down as "Alarm Fault".
As for extra funding, etc, we can now track exactly WHO does WHAT. It just helps again, to build a case for the future. If you have busy brigades that are always using their equipment, then perhaps they will need a larger equipment replacement budget, etc etc...
As well as the mistakes Matt already pointed now, there seem to be quite a few other fields that are vague or confusing.
For example,
Who is the "Officer in Charge"?
Does "Spare cylinders used" really mean spares used, or total used?
"Charge code: Yes/No" How do we answer that?
"Name of Brigade/Station/Unit who conducted Rescue". What counts as the rescue? If the RCR brigade cuts up the car, but then the local brigade carries the stretcher to the ambulance, is that a team effort?
Or the fact you only get to choose one type of mobile property for an incident, but can enter details for 3 vehicles...
I'm also curios as to why lowercase and uppercase options are mixed. Is there a difference between them?
As per CFS SOP, the whole thing appears to have been publicly released very early in the development stage. I hope someone didn't get paid or seconded to produce this. It is appalling. Poorly edited, not proofread, sloppy use of upper/lowercase. (much like this post...)
"Charge Code" is easy, there is a list of the 700 codes (sit found for AFA's) that list which ones are chargeable... do we plebs on the fire trucks get this? Of course not...
"Name of Brigade/Station/Unit who conducted Rescue" perhaps if we look at a definition of rescue? I'd wager that it is the brigade/station/unit that actually removed the person from danger, rather than those that walked them to the meat wagon.
Another question, why the use of IN/OUT (of your Brigades fire response area)? What happens if you arrive into another brigades area first, give them a stop? Who does the report? Why can't we use "First Arrival" and "Attended" that way, the first arriving (and in theory IC) takes the details and does the report. Also goes to show who actually gets to where first. Not to mention that we only track arrival times of agencies and not individual appliances - no way to ensure that each brigade is meeting required response times (although this really only applies to Rescue brigades that have response times specified)
If in the "Incident/Activity Response Attendance Record" it tell us to only place the details of "You brigade only" does this mean that Group Officers have to do ANOTHER report?
Why under roles do we have SFF (even though it is "not an assigned role at present time") and not have Lt/Capt? One would have thought rank information is contained under the rank heading in the Attendance Report?
C'mon CFS, is it THAT HARD to do something properly the first time? Have some pride, grow up and try to become a real Fire Service...
