SA Firefighter

General Discussion => Country Fire Service => Topic started by: pete on May 07, 2006, 12:21:59 PM

Title: Money verses Safety
Post by: pete on May 07, 2006, 12:21:59 PM
I may ruffel a few feathers at headquaters but i reckon the new Isuzu 4x4 twin cabs are a dangerous vehicle.They are very high in regards to access in and out for older firefighters and also could roll over easier than other models of 4x4 on the market.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Toast on May 07, 2006, 01:41:11 PM
Im pretty sure we could conduct a Rope Rescue operation out of the cab, to the ground.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Alan (Big Al) on May 07, 2006, 02:05:02 PM
It's not that bad we've had ours on some steep sideways inclines and was like any other appliance, they're not much different than the earlier gen isuzu 4x4's as far as handling goes?? But each to their own opinions i suppose. :|
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: probie_boy on May 08, 2006, 11:02:08 AM
FYI, safety in the new trucks is also being discussed in another thread on this forum
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: medevac on May 08, 2006, 06:20:50 PM
hmmm i take it we are all motor vehicle engineers??? not that i have any idea either...
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 08, 2006, 08:31:23 PM
Cant those london double decker buses go over 40degree's before they tip over?
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: probie_boy on May 09, 2006, 08:37:15 AM
yeah, I think so. Too late to find out now though, they got rid of them!
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: rescue5271 on May 09, 2006, 07:20:00 PM
Yes they are high,it gets back to training and that those driving the beast drive to the conditions of the time..
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: oz fire on May 17, 2006, 10:27:07 AM
Yes they are high - but I'm sure they were engineered accordingly and that they have gone through the appropriate T & D phases!

Hard to keep everyone happy all of the time - when general purpose appliances are produced.

Haven't heard to many old people complain about getting in - usually it's the younger fitter ones who have nothing better to do than complain - the older ones seam to 'get on with the job'
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: probie_boy on May 17, 2006, 01:23:20 PM
hey, I'm enjoying my complaining! :evil:
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Mike on May 17, 2006, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: oz fire on May 17, 2006, 10:27:07 AM
Yes they are high - but I'm sure they were engineered accordingly and that they have gone through the appropriate T & D phases!

Hard to keep everyone happy all of the time - when general purpose appliances are produced.

Haven't heard to many old people complain about getting in - usually it's the younger fitter ones who have nothing better to do than complain - the older ones seam to 'get on with the job'

stereo typing isnt it???
They are nice trucks.... but its possible to "generalise" tooo much!
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: pete on May 17, 2006, 07:46:32 PM
On the good side of things the fire service got more vehicles for their money.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: rescue5271 on May 17, 2006, 08:40:39 PM
Really?????
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: probie_boy on May 18, 2006, 10:04:36 AM
(in best Dr Evil voice) really!
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 18, 2006, 10:09:54 AM
Is it true CFS are phasing out 14, 24, 24P  in favour of having standardised appliances as 34 and 34P?
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: probie_boy on May 18, 2006, 11:28:52 AM
24 and 24p's yes. not sure about 14's though. They're pretty important in their own way
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 18, 2006, 03:30:02 PM
Yeah, hadnt heard anything about the 14.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: probie_boy on May 19, 2006, 12:25:19 PM
then why'd ya say it assclown???
(more trashtalk for our showdown!)
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 19, 2006, 01:09:05 PM
me was assumin dat it included the 14 too and said it so so someone clear it up, cause IM the man, and the peoples poster!
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Alan (Big Al) on May 19, 2006, 02:34:33 PM
U two need your heads banged together :evil:
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 19, 2006, 04:41:12 PM
:lol:  Theyre will be lots of head banging, mostly probies!

(how long is this gonna go on, haha)
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: probie_boy on May 22, 2006, 11:14:15 AM
biatch, you've got amnesia and dillusion, and I ain't even slugged ya yet. Wait till the battle PF, I'll make you tap out faster than mr bojangles on speed!
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 22, 2006, 05:28:45 PM
Ill knock you out faster than Wendell Sailor got knocked of rugby from spped or E or whatever the filtered he used!  The only speed on the figt will be my hands, see if you can spot them hitting you.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Robert-Robert34 on May 22, 2006, 06:51:52 PM
Why phase out CFS 14 QAV appliances to make way for 34 & 34P's remember the 14 QAV's are best suited for Adelaide Hills and open flat farming areas where access is limited during a fire

I admit that 34's and 34P's carry alot more water but there are certain limitations as to access in hard to get areas as well as certain problems that could arise

A few years ago my brigade was called out to a burn off which had gotten out of hand being that there was no other way to get to it we had to cut fences but this resulted in barbed wire disabling our appliance because it got entangled around the wheel and tail shafts
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 22, 2006, 06:56:47 PM
There is no talk of getting rid of 14's as far as I know.  But I have heard 24 and 24P's are going.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: 24P on May 23, 2006, 12:55:58 PM
Quote from: P F on May 22, 2006, 06:56:47 PM
There is no talk of getting rid of 14's as far as I know.  But I have heard 24 and 24P's are going.
When you say 24 and 24p's are going you mean they are'nt building anymore dont you? They were once looking at phasing out 34's at one stage.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Mike on May 23, 2006, 01:05:56 PM
that was a long time ago 24P. when they upgraded the chassis there was so much "room" weight wise, they thought why not put the extra 1000 litres on there!
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 23, 2006, 01:21:19 PM
I read in a recent "volunteer" and have heard they are wanting to have standard trucks again as it is getting a bit crazy with so many different kinds. SO there will be one brand (Hino, Isuzu etc) of 34 and 34P and no 24's.  Might be i September, December or April Volunteer mag.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: probie_boy on May 23, 2006, 02:01:52 PM
Quote from: P F on May 23, 2006, 01:21:19 PM
I read in a recent "volunteer" and have heard they are wanting to have standard trucks again as it is getting a bit crazy with so many different kinds. SO there will be one brand (Hino, Isuzu etc) of 34 and 34P and no 24's.  Might be i September, December or April Volunteer mag.

yeah, the first step to success here...get rid of the Dennis! oh that would be sad seeing that go :cry: :cry:

from what I have heard the CFS are going to stop making 24's and 24ps so we'll only have 34s, 34p's and 14's
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 23, 2006, 02:10:48 PM
Yeah good point, surely they wouldnt get rid of Dennis.  I wonder brigades should get Scania's as urban pumpers.  They can get them from the same place as MFS does and save money, plus they can recycle them with each other, maybe.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: medevac on May 23, 2006, 02:52:11 PM
this tpoics been bashed before somewhere... cant find the thread tho'

i personally believeCFS should adopt a standard pumper, pump-rescue, rural/urban appliance, heavy rural appliance and QAV....

cant see it really happening, but there ya go anyway...
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Robert-Robert34 on May 23, 2006, 03:19:51 PM
You are right on the money there medevac those 5 types of appliances should be adopted by the CFS

Come to think about it those 5 types of appliances arent they already utilized by the MFS  :?
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: F.B.R.T on May 23, 2006, 05:35:27 PM
If an urban CFS brigade does plenty of calls and can justify heavy pumpers and heavy pump rescues like our Scania's, then it would make financial sense to order the same vehicles from the same body builders all at once.

Even taking into account different color of these vehicles, it would have to give the two services bigger buying power.

As long as they have both vehicles the same specs and positioning of gear in the lockers etc. it would take the guess work out of working out what gear was in what locker when an urban brigade with the same vehicle turns up to assist you at a job!

It would take some brigades a while to get used to sending only 4 crew in Scania to a callout instead of 10! :-D

Anyhow, Just an idea.
Regards, Mat
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 23, 2006, 05:41:08 PM
Do the scania's only hold four crew?  I thought they would have at atleast 5.

Just curious, how does it work with 4 crew having to have 2 extra back up BA crew when 2 are inside.  If the 2 back up crew need to go in to help where is the other back up if its a one truck job?

Also does MFS have set out locker set-ups on the Scanias and other appliances?
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: medevac on May 23, 2006, 05:52:19 PM
I belive the standard pumpers have a set out stowage...
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Alan (Big Al) on May 23, 2006, 11:01:18 PM
Scania's can take 5 people, 3 BA seats in back, one in front passenger and one driver
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: F.B.R.T on May 23, 2006, 11:07:48 PM
The Scania's have only 3 seats with BA sets built in.
That is the officers front left,rear right and left.
There is a BA set often referred to as the "drivers set" in the rear middle, but this is not set up for use as an extra seat whilst the vehicle is being driven and has different bracket holding the set in place.

The drivers seat for obvious reasons does not have a air set built in.

The rear of the cab could probably be set up for an extra seating position but this hasn't been an issue for us.

Backup BA is generally the second responding appliance which isn't usually too far behind the first.

As for the locker setup, most MFS appliances whether it be  GP pump or pump rescue are fairly standardized throughout the fleet, which makes it a lot easier if you are tasked to grab equipment out of another stations appliance.

Regards, Mat
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Alan (Big Al) on May 23, 2006, 11:11:29 PM
Sorry Mat I must've seen a different one, i think it was a spare Scan. from Adelaide it had all three in the back but i think i'll believe someone who rides in one first. :oops: :-D
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: F.B.R.T on May 23, 2006, 11:15:43 PM
I think there may of been a earlier model Scania with BA seating for three in the rear and one in the front left as the first prototype.

This hasn't continued with the rest of the fleet however.

Regards, Mat
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Alan (Big Al) on May 23, 2006, 11:34:54 PM
Yeah could've been it Mat it was an earlier 90's Scania.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 24, 2006, 06:59:04 AM
Does MFS have a 2 appliance to every fire rule also?
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: medevac on May 24, 2006, 07:41:57 AM
no.

pumps quite regularly go to rubbish fires lone ranger, aslo vehicle fires i believe (?) and grassies... i guess it depends on the circumstance though... as ive heard a rubbish fire get a full commercial fire response, probly just incorrect detail from caller tho'...

besides, theres quite a few retained stations with only one truck, and they turn out by themselves most of the time...
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: F.B.R.T on May 24, 2006, 11:46:39 AM
I can't speak of what happens at one appliance country stations, but we generally respond two appliances to most jobs even if the second one is responding priority two.

This gets a second crew out and about to assist the first if needed and also gives the appliances a run.

The other night we had an industrial bin fire which the Scania responded priority one and the Skyjet which I was driving almost arrived at the job priority two, when we received a call to a factory fire.

This allowed the first crew to finish their job whilst we then responded direct to the factory fire which ended up being a good second alarm job.

Felt a bit weird though, arriving first with the Skyjet as it only carries around 900 litres of water and that doesn't last long when you have 64MM lines to work straight away!

Regards, Mat
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 24, 2006, 12:01:25 PM
Was that the timber factory?
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: medevac on May 24, 2006, 12:03:01 PM
hah - good times...

better than nothing i guess. was there a decent source to plumb into tho'?
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: F.B.R.T on May 24, 2006, 02:05:21 PM
Yep, that was the timber mill!
Almost 12 months to the day since the last one!!
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: rescue5271 on May 24, 2006, 02:18:26 PM
That was a good save matt-----
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: F.B.R.T on May 24, 2006, 04:01:13 PM
Yep,Job well done by all services involved.

We did have have a practise run 12 months ago though!! :-D

Cheers, Mat
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Toast on May 24, 2006, 04:03:52 PM
Quote from: P F on May 24, 2006, 06:59:04 AM
Does MFS have a 2 appliance to every fire rule also?

Does your CFS group?
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 24, 2006, 04:25:56 PM
yeah

Isnt it an all CFS ruling?
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: medevac on May 24, 2006, 04:48:32 PM
there are state SOPs for levels of response to incidents...

not that nyone likes state SOPS  :-D
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: Toast on May 24, 2006, 05:27:31 PM
Quote from: P F on May 24, 2006, 04:25:56 PM
yeah

Isnt it an all CFS ruling?

Depends what the job is. The SOP's have a nice listing of appliances required at certain incidents I think.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: medevac on May 24, 2006, 05:41:11 PM
1st alarm - first response

rural - 2 app
total fire ban rural - auto second alarm (4 app)
structure fire - 2 app min. including at least 1 BA brigade
RCR - 1x RCR app & 1x Fire app
HAZMAT - 2 HAZMAT apps & 1x Fire app & DGO/GO/GDO & RDO
Vehicle Fire - 1x app minimum (minimum 1 BA brigade)
Special Service - 1 app (p2)


hope that is laid out easy enough to understand... btw that is taken directly from the State SOPs
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: medevac on May 24, 2006, 05:44:27 PM
by the way...

an appliance is defined as a minimum of a 22 or larger appliance or
with two light rural (14 or QAV) appliances considered one appliances

RCR - as per directory, eg. heavy rescue
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: PF_ on May 24, 2006, 06:40:26 PM
I asume those SOP's include MFS appliances as we turned out to an MVA on Monday night with MFS as the RCR brigade (I assume)  they werent needed though when we got there as all we mainly did was direct traffic.
Title: Re: Money verses Safety
Post by: medevac on May 24, 2006, 07:07:27 PM
takes into account both fire service and SES rescue, as all three services have there respective RCR areas...

re; fires, i believe CFS will still send enough CFS for the full SOP... eg. EMA area (but CFS turf)2x CFS for rural jobbie, plus whatever MFS feel like sending... i dont know the specifics, but it ensures that the minimum amount of appliances per SOP are sent...