I have a beef about the Road Crash Rescue Resource Directory..
It still recommends rescue response based on suburb or council boundaries.
Surely in this computer age we can remove this antiquated selection criteria and base the responses on nearest resources. :?
Granted, this will not change for much of the state, but there are plenty of examples where the nearest rescue resource is not being sent because it lies on the wrong side of an imaginary line...this might apply to other types of responses too.
Ask the RCR commitee, made up of SAAS, SAPOL, SAMFS and SACFS. Unless they all agree to a change nothing will happen. But I had noticed some issues, stations like Aldgate being listed as a rescue resource but only carrying a combi tool, bit of a worry, actually more of a worry that CFS doesn't even know what equipment its own stations have!!
Roger, currently due to the CRD systems we are limited to suburbs and geographic locations. Maybe the new CAD, if it adopts a GEO system, with intergrated mapping and alike will allow the exact response to be made - ie location/address specific not just road and suburb - we can only wait in hope.
The other option though, if the area you are talking about is dispatched by the MFS Comcen, they can put in two rescue resources - there are groups in the hills who have two rescue resources responded to all RCR's and specific towns where the MFS data base shows two rescue resources as the town is 15km from both and unfortunately a number of the roads run right through the town, this way both resources are dispatched at the same time and if one is not needed a stop is issued.
So if the MFS database can deal with nearest resource or multiple resources based on the fact that each road is in a "zone" then the council boundaries are inconsequential. Why doesn't the RCRRD Committee move away from their system in favour of the MFS system? Seems to be, although not perfect, much better than the existing council/suburb based document. :|
SOC can do that to if you give them the info, my group has given them a complete response directory for every road in the group, much the same as we have done with SAMFS comms, so all they do is enter a road name, and bang it tells them who to respond, but they can't be expected to be perfect without the info!
Roger a location is in a zoe, usually not just a road.
The basic premis several years ago when CFS started establishing zones on the MFS computer was to have four zones (N,S,E,W) to allow the various resources that surrounded a brigade to be incorporated - no point having the northern neighbouring resource travel to the southen boundary, if there is a brigade there (sounds like several areas in the hills, where the freeway is the boundary lol).
Zoning on the MFS database is a very lengthy task, although once complete is fantastic, at this stage, this state doesn;t have the resources or appropriate system to zone all areas for RCR, Hazmat and alike, hence the geographic locations/suburb use.
When CAD eventually gets here then there won't be an issue, it will go on nearest most appropriate resource, but until that happens, we have to put up with human interventian and someone's idea of what is best.
Wagon 1, does that mean that you ignore the RCRD? and go against interservice agreements? If so, even though it would be in the best interests of the public, what might be the consequences in the coroner's court? "Why did you not send the agreed resource..." worms...
Oz, the MFS street search database zones list each station in sequence from nearest to furthest, at least for the first 6 brigades or so...as i understand it. Using the callsign differences, (19 rescue, 28 hazmat etc), as long as those brigades are listed in the sequence they will be picked up as the nearest reource of that type. So, effectively, all areas should be zoned for any type of incident, removing the human intervention & ergo the subjectivity.
Where did I say that? I abide by the RCR directory, not that I am the one doing the response, what I am saying, is its still someone's idea of what is best, and a coroner is not going to chew me out for following a directory signed off by the Chiefs of SAAS, SAPOL, SAMFS and SACFS. He will chew the chiefs out.
I acknowledge that you did not say that...i perhaps read more into it than was there. sorry to infer.
It is rather interesting to look at the designations of who is to respond where from years ago. Also the placement of fixed alarms and the order of turnout to those. I think that the whole system needs to be looked at. Even on just a brigade level fot the time being. For example, we noticed in a fixed alarm response (the first time to the bulding in years) that two brigades in the adjacent group were much closer than the currently listed 2nd and 3rd responce brigades. Is this a hangover from the times of coucil districts doing things on their own rather than using the closest resource?
Also, with birgades like Aldgate being listed as a rescue resource, is this the brigades own doing? It does seem odd as the entire freeway from Glen Osmond to Mt. Barker has Heavy Rescue brigades covering it, Burnside/Glen Osmond MFS at the bottom, Stirling in the middle and Mt. Barker at the top. If this is brigade freelancing I think it is terribly dangerous as the time it takes to realise that a rescue cannot be completed with an omni tool could be the difference between life an death.
No, its in the official Green RCR directory, which means it was submitted by CFS HQ via region 1, so thats is what I mean when I say its a worry that CFS region 1 doesn't even know what brigades are doing what or have what equipment!!
I understand that is how it comes to be in the resource directory, I was actually wondering where the initial push came from for brigades like Aldgate to have equipment and capabilities that appear to be surplus to the groups requirements.
Well you would have to ask that brigade, if they pushed to get in then they really need to be slapped around a bit, that is assuming it came from them.
Quote from: Wagon 1 on September 13, 2005, 09:05:08 AM
When CAD eventually gets here then there won't be an issue, it will go on nearest most appropriate resource, but until that happens, we have to put up with human interventian and someone's idea of what is best.
CAD is here.... unfortunately there are only three liscences for it in the state.. so of courseone has to go to ambos, one to police, and one to fire.... the liscenece for fire dispatch is held by SAMFS. so wont be geting any joy there, unless the whole of CFS CRD goes to SAMFS comms and SOC becomes purely a supporting role for brigades (resource tracking/admin/etc...)
The "license" is held by SAFECOM not SAMFS, just happens that it will be going into SAMFS comms in wakefield street.
u r correct david, sorry my bad... but still stands that there is one liscence held for the fire services in SA, so dont hold ur breath waiting for CFS to get a CAD system
Quote from: Roger on September 13, 2005, 09:10:33 AM
Oz, the MFS street search database zones list each station in sequence from nearest to furthest, at least for the first 6 brigades or so...as i understand it. Using the callsign differences, (19 rescue, 28 hazmat etc), as long as those brigades are listed in the sequence they will be picked up as the nearest reource of that type. So, effectively, all areas should be zoned for any type of incident, removing the human intervention & ergo the subjectivity.
Roger yes, you are right in the zone set up, six brigades though is purely a CFS thing, BOMS is capable of acceptijng allot more than that and MFS have set it up to allow allot of changes for their stations - large enough job you can see CFS appliances in most MFS stations - not that that ie ever likely to happen as they would be sent to the incident.
Zoning can be changed by the individual operator on the day, as the dispatch occurs. Once they are logged into BOMS they can and do make changes as required - the issue here is if and when those changes are made and they effect CFS - trust me it has happened and on several shifts it regularly happened out north and down in the deep south - hopefully though this is changing, personalities are changing and slowly their is becoming an acceptance - slowly.
As for CAD - we need to remember the Government owns the system and administers the licenses and there are very, very strict conditions - the best option, I think is for one facility for CRD for Fire, Rescue and Medical - would make life easier and examples for overseas prove it is extremely effective, cost efficient and provides the ultimate service to the community
There must be some recourse to change the Green book.
We've had some changes made to accommodate local knowledge in the far past.
For example second rescue to a certain area came from a Brigade that appeared closer on the map (by a mere few kms) but the road was narrow, unsealed and terrible. This was changed to the Brigade a km or two further away but on a main sealed highway.
I wouldn't have any hesitation calling what I considered to be the appropriate resource as an OIC regardless of what the green book said and would stand in any court to defend a choice based on sound reasoned judgement and knowledge.
You can call whoever you like Kat, so long as the Green book was followed first, don't think anyone will crucify you for that.
But the fundamental problem with the green book is that is still based on suburbs... street by street might be a more accurate way to go. Obviously not feasible to list each street in a green book, so a common CAD database would be the bible. Following the green book in the first place doesn't guarantee the nearest brigade, and may delay the most appropriate turnout by a few minutes.
But surely it's designed to be a general type thing?
For example if it says Tailem Bend 2nd Rescue XYZ Brigade that's an automatic type alarm but locally we know if it's 5km East then it would be XYZ Brigade, but 5 kms West and it's ABC Unit, 5kms South and it's DEF Unit, 20kms up the Mallee and it's GHI Brigade, out the other way JKL Brigade. All these locations are only covered by the "Tailem Bend" entry in the directory but realistcially there are three CFS Brigades and two SES units that may be the appropraite second rescue in the area known as "Tailem Bend" depending on which side!!! These are documented in our risk and response plans.
except for the times that SOC operators have refused to act on requests...
I think the SOC issue has been resolved. Any new instances of this?
Anyway, as an example, an MVA 25km from Tailem Bend on the Princes Highway (an area that could only be covered by the "Tailem Bend" entry in the green book) that required a second rescue would see an automatic response from the green book of Murray Bridge SES. The Meninige SES would be 30km closer, not have to come a LONG way through a built up area and would be the moral, ethical and sensible second rescue response. I would immediately request that this resource be called and not the other. We have this opportunity if we have accessed the ALERTS call, otherwise I guess we end up with the unfortunate situation of standing down a page response on arrival at station.
Any CAD system would have to address these issues and include much more specific location information to determine appropriate resources.
In the past we had a few examples like an operator refusing to turn us out to a MVA when requested twice by police (actually told them it was a council issue). On third call argued with a Brigade member on scene who insisted we be called.
I believe these issues have been fully resolved and appreciate the excellent work being done by our current SOC staff.
Quote from: kat on September 28, 2005, 08:26:03 PM
In the past we had a few examples like an operator refusing to turn us out to a MVA when requested twice by police (actually told them it was a council issue). On third call argued with a Brigade member on scene who insisted we be called.
wow... that sounds like a monumental -up by the operator.. what were the circumstances on that one?? how can an MVA possibly be a council issue....
I think that issue has been solved in SOC Kat, long time since I have been abused!! :-D
But think about being in the SOC shoes for a minute, they have rules to follow, each time a brigade or group makes something up causes them no end of hassle. If I was them, I would follow the Green book, because if I do that I can't get into trouble, but if someone requests something additional then sure, go ahead. But as I have said time and time again, the Green book has been researched and signed off by all agencies, so that is what needs to be followed, I swear sometimes group and brigade people just don't get it, and are blind to the rules that need to be followed. Think about that before abusing SOC staff, and I think they are much more helpful now than they have ever been.
Dunno, seemed operator thought that because MVA was car vs cow that fire service was not required. Long, scary story but really, this issue has been resolved.
We got a list of all streets within our area, listed the most logical responses.... seems to be working well so far. Still get local input from Alerts on occasions as well.
Question is though...
who actually "polices" the following of this directory.
Wish I had a dollar for every accident that happens around here that we are not called to. Many of them have had not only police but ambulance in attendance.
And what about where the "other" rescue service calls the nearest rescue unit from their own service when they require assistance, bypassing one if not two closer CFS rescue resources?
I doubt very mcu (apart from what you already mentioned Kat) that CFS SOC would not turn someone out to an incident, its more likely taht they were never told, and unless the have a crystal ball they are not going to be able to turn you out.
As for the other service turning there own out, well, it must be done locally, because all comm centre's should be following the RCR resource directory. But I am not saying it doesn't happen.
Kat we have used the issues form from the SOP's and gone through the regional duty officer. They told us it was going up to the comittee that manages the RCRRD for resolution and about a month later we had a letter stating that it was a local error by a particular service - soon rectified. The issue that we have problems is SAPol and SAAS attending and them 20 mins latter responding fire and rescue - again this also we pass through to the region to follow up - lucky region, they would get a few, so I'm guessing sooner or later the offending services will get the message - I was hoping that things may be better in the country where the local copper may know the fire and rescue crews ...... obviously not always the case
Our local cops aknow us well and are excellent but I think they try not to "bother us" if it's deemed unecesary. Also it's more often than not cops from the next larger town where there are way too many to get to know :-)
Ozfire I'm glad your Region are prepared to follow it up to that extent. Perhaps we should try again - has been passed on to the Region through Group for raising many times in the (distant) past.
just for a second... im a member of the public, i witness a motor vehicle accident... my first thought "OMG they need an ambulance."
i ring triple 0 and ask for ambulance service, and they turn there guys out... it is then up to the ambulance comm cen to advise sapol and sacfs/samfs of the incident.. very rarely inside urban areas do the fire/rescue authorities get told about mva's until sapol or saas have arrived and deemed a response necessary...
this shouldnt happen but unfortunately it does.
i quite often drive on my way to work or wherever and notice a car smashed up on the side of the road... and think, "wtf??? why didnt we get responded to that." i have even driven past an accident that sapol where in attendance at, in our area.. stopped, identified myself to the officer on scene and asked why fire/rescue hadnt been responded, and he simply stated that they didnt need/want us. i looked at the car and could see liquid leaking from under it, so what did i do? i rang triple 0 asked for fire, and reported the MVA stating there was noone trapped but "something" leaking from under the car. easy fixed, and perfectly fine thing to do.
Yes, well, you CAN turn yourself out to an MVA IF you happen to be aware of it (doesn't need to have anything leaking). But the real question is why are the other services not following the memorandum of understanding? And at least out here in small country townsville we would look pretty "tossy" pulling up and turning ourselves out to an incident that the local, well respected coppers (that we don't wanna upset)tell us we're not required at.
I have seen the ambos working around and in a rolled over car without fire cover and think surely this is an OH&S issue for them?