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...
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.
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....
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.
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 :-D
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.
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..
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, 09:18:38 AM
Maybe one day, a central CAD facility with either all services represented or a neutral provider will overcome these obvious and blatant oversights :-D
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.
QuoteThis 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!
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?????
QuoteWell 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.
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 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!!
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...
Quote from: Toast on September 13, 2005, 11:31:19 AM
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.
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.
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.
It should have said RESPOND HAZMAT. I agree F/Truck.
Quote from: oz fire on September 12, 2005, 09:18:38 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 :-D
I have seen the error in response etc. happen on a number of ocasions!
Quote from: strikeathird on September 15, 2005, 11:36:42 AM
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???
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.
Yeah, under what working conditions, you can work with us, so long as you join our union, Roger, it wouldn't be that simple!!
Quote from: David on September 15, 2005, 11:48:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Roger on September 16, 2005, 12:00:59 AM
Lots of things to learn about each other - cultures, SOP's etc.
hahahahaha hah...
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
Yeah, might be pretty well done for the urban CFS brigades, but you ask the South East brigades that happened to get paged by SAMFS and its closer 8-10% correct and the rest wrong, but I understand they are not supposed to be on direct paging as there is not info to page them with and BOMS doesn't allow for an easy plain language pager message, as we all know. At least SOC can write a plain language message, even if it says Behing John Schmidt farm on the Two Wells to Gawler Road. But hey, merge the 2 I say, and use dedicated comms staff that are not affiliated to any service, just SAFECOM.
I would prefer not to see a civillian staffed centralised CAD service. From my understanding they have not worked very well in other states/countries. Happy to be proven wrong :-D
This is my opinion only - why no let SAMFS take calls and dispatch for SAMFS and Let SACFS do likewise for SACFS. As we know 000 can be routed to anywhere a service requests, for example urban fringe residents living within SACFS boundaries report a fire and they talk to a Career call taker at SOC, who then dispatches the correct response.
In my mind this would help stop two SAMFS and one or Two SACFS trucks going to every bin fire in SACFS areas.
Of course there will be the Mobile phone anomaly.
Centralisation is possibly good for cost savings etc. but bad from an emergency perspective. We need multiple CRD centers for redundancy if the worst happens.
Ah yes but from what i have heard the minister doesn't want 2 data bases in the state so therefore cfs may not have the capability's to do all areas.
Maybe Alex can shed some light on this.
The problem is the state government doesn't want to pay for a 4th CAD, they only want 3, so good luck getting a 4th, the CFS misses out again as per usual!! I think the original plan was to have both services in WAkefield street but still operate as a seperate identity, but then the talk was interegrate them so everyone rotates through the booths. Then I was told there was union issues, pay rates, etc etc, SAMFS didn't want all the work CFS does, they just want to take calls and do radio, etc etc. (PS, how do I know this, some vollys went on a tour to Victoria and this was some of the talk that came out of it, I know one of them, and no, I won't say who because I know what happens :roll:)
I am sooooo glad I don't work for the CFS or MFS, sounds like all they do is go round in circles, hard enough being a volly!!
Do we need 3 CAD liocenses????
Maybe we could amalgamate the CFS, SAAS and MFS CRD and comms facilities, using staff from each service - would also save time lag between call transfer, ensure accurate info and allow questioning.
To date this option has not been considered seriously. Sure SAAS were in Wakefield street, however they were behind a glass wall and might as well have been in Victoria - so my suggestion would be put the three services togehter, in a greenfields site (which would allow one of the current sites to be a contingency site)to undertake CRD for 4 services for all of SA - problems solved and what a great way to start the services working together.
Good luck
The only major problem we have is when we request samfs to an incident they have not received there page. They argue with us that its our area when we are in there town ship. :? :?
They seem to have a problem with the old boundaries unless its in the main street they do not get called out. I have been on the phone when we get the call from them and they argue with us so we go to the incident and keep on calling them to attend. :x
Wow, thats a first, knocking back a response.
only when it suits them though :-D
Its been 3 m v a this financial year one car went into a shed. So if they argue on the phone I will always respond cfs as soc have agreed to it as well. Get help there first then have discussions later if needed. Well thats what i say anyway. :wink:
All of the services signed off on the RCR Directory so that, (outside Metro Adelaide) Fire, Rescue, SAPol & SAAS will all attend MVAs whether persons trapped or not.. i.e. MFS and/or CFS should now be dispatching Fire AND Rescue for ALL MVA's.
Some CFS Groups are not happy that this was signed off without consultation, and want to reserve the right to decide the response in their gazetted area of responsibility... should rescue go if there is absolutely no need? Who should be able to make this decision? Who is legally responsible for these response plans (CFS Heirarchy or Group Officers)?
(see also the topic on RCR Directory)
TO many screw ups by the "she'll be right" group of people have resulted in this happening. I have heard some terrible stories, I say, you can always turn them back, a lot easier than going, "oh sh*t better call rescue"
i know for a fact that SOC will respond fire cover and a rescue brigade (wether this adds up to one or two brigade depends on locality obviously) to any and all MVAs, wether there are reported entrapments or not.
Good to know. Would hate to think that I could be trapped in a car some where, and because of a G.O or I/C's complaicency (spelling) that i would be stuck in their for half hour longer than i had to because they thought it would all be fine without a Rescue brigade !
Exactly right strikeathird, to many stuff ups, so take the choice away and you have less screw ups.
All good, but the question remains the same...who is legally responsible for the response plans?
Under the CF Act Regulations 2004, Part2, 4 (1) states the CFS Board is responsible to prepare and maintain an overall plan for fire fighting and dealing with other emergencies. Part 4, 2 (3) states each CFS organisation must prepare a plan (hence Group and Brigade).
Subsequent to this then the responsibility for Response plans and operations falls to a GO and then ultimately a Captain, who is responsible for all operations within their brigade area.
If its the green book, then all agencies are responsible for the end result as they all signed off on all responses. As for the normal fire brigade response, it falls to the chief I would think, the buck stops there in the end.
So, quite simply, if you are tasked to an MVA, and it is 'Unknown' if persons are trapped or not, play it safe and ensure a Rescue brigade is on its way. You can always say the words " STOP FOR CALL ", however, the words to a family informing them of a deceased loved one, are not so easy !
Not sure if this is the right thread but can anyone tell me when SOC recieve a call for a CFS brigade why do they pass it off to MFS to do the dispatch instead of responding the appropriate brigade themselves? Im sure there is a logical answer but i thought if they got the call they would automatically respond the brigade?
ps wasnt in soc busy that day either.
Nothing logical about it.
Some groups don't trust the SOC guys to do the response paging and have decided that all response messages must come from MFS.
Even when someone calls CFS direct they have to pass it on to MFS to do the paging, definately a case of double handling and increasing response times.
Dont know why they wouldnt trust them, most of the time you get more accurate info from a SOC page than a generic page from MFS. Could mean valuable time wasted relaying the details.
all comes down to MFS wannabe groups sometimes i think..
there are a fair few fringe brigades that get both... it depends on what the peferance is of the primary brigade as to where the page comes from... it is absoloutely rediculous
Not fussy where the page comes from but i feel if SOC get the initial call then they should do the responding not pass it off.
its a time waster put in place by certain people/groups/brigades...
why would you trust MFS comms more than CFS Comms... when CFS comms is full of people that do that as there full time job, where as MFS comms quite regularly has FFs doing the work, with a few fulltijmers....
You see alot of brigades being paged by MFS but if a brigade calls for backup does that mean that SOCC has to then ring MFS for a page?? I think that is ridiculous surely this wouldn't be happening.
I don't know what brigades/groups have this in place i presume a busy one but looking at the pager site nearly all brigades are responded by SOCC at some stage??
Can anyone enlighten us on what brigades/groups have this arrangment (only if able to without reprocussions)
i think it is generally those that have there triple zero calls answered by SAMFS Comms... (alerts systems not used by brigades for turnouts)... now in saying this i believe there are brigades that have amixture of there triple zero calls both answered by SAMFS and put through to there alerts (i have no idea how/why this happens.. mixing the two)
QuoteYou see alot of brigades being paged by MFS but if a brigade calls for backup does that mean that SOCC has to then ring MFS for a page?? I think that is ridiculous surely this wouldn't be happening
if a brigade asks SOCC for a backup brigade, then this page should be sent by SOCC as it is an upgrade of an alarm...
QuoteCan anyone enlighten us on what brigades/groups have this arrangment (only if able to without reprocussions)
believe sturt, para, mt lofty.. heysen.. groups have an agreement that there paging is done by MFS...
Quote from: nomex_nugget on February 02, 2006, 01:36:19 PM
Some groups don't trust the SOC guys to do the response paging and have decided that all response messages must come from MFS.
What a load of crap! Look back a little while and you will see that the groups who use MFS, have done so now for many years.
It is these same Groups who many, many years ago used a commercial paging service to respond their brigades which MFS activated, as MFS had the software on their computers to zone areas, allocate appliances to streets etc, etc, etc that CFS now has! It was these groups who set up the systems the rest of us now take for granted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All these groups have done is continue what they started years ago, before GRN and before we all adopted what they were doing as standard.
Maybe some 'wannabes' on this forum should check before they write ill informed or airy fair posts - sure have an opinion, but before making an accusation check your facts and do your research!
We where paged the other morning to a tree down 10kms out of town in the wee small hours,when I got home i looked at the grn site only to see that mount gambier SES had been paged for the same call but 10kms out of the mount?????
good point Oz...
worth noting that a benefit of MFS doing response paging is the CAD system... it already knows which brigades to send to which streets and how many brigades for differant fire alarms/structure classifications etc... whereas SOCC has to either make up there own decision or trust vollies on the phone.