SA Firefighter

not at all... a tree can drop a limb on a nice still warm day... how, prey tell, is that a storm event?

So where does it say that SES are the control agency for trees down when its not stormy?

Rusty is spot on. If people choose not to respond on the first message why are they there at all? Slack, no-interest, good-for-nothing, waste of SFEC spacers. Public would love to know that Bill didn't feel like driving today, so his family died in a house fire. That's OK though, Bill. No worries.. We'll page for someone else to come. Maybe after 15 mins we'll ask for another brigade, then wait while they page for more crew.
If members don't get the first page then FIX THE PAGING SYSTEM.

Quote from: Toast on July 27, 2006, 12:35:12 PM
I'd suggest that 98% of people here are overopinionated idiots, who frankly, don't know what the #!$%&* they are talking about.

I think that's a bit harsh a a bit high... perhaps 94%... now, as for the other 6%ers...

The sooner the MFS build their stations down there the better. For everyone.

Quote from: bajdas on February 06, 2006, 08:33:03 AM
New standards for SES are being trialled by volunteer ops staff before the move to MFS call-taking. Below is still being formulated so not totally accurate.

Basically if:
* tree on ground and not causing danger or risk=caller to contact commercial tree lopper.
* council tree not causing danger/risk=caller to contact council.
* tree on house=SES or CFS.
* tree on power lines=ETSA then SES or CFS

If the tree is on a road and a road accident is possible because of the tree, contact SAPOL for coverage of road then SES will page a Unit.

The 'tree branch threatening to fall on house' is the difficult one to assess. Sometimes we will request that a SES Unit recce first.

The times when the rules are sometimes bent are when a disabled/elderly person calls requesting assistance.

So who do you think should go in MFS (Full-time) areas? MFS are there (and being paid to be) or SES vols?

the SES will get the "crap" jobs IF that is what THEY want. If they decide that the fire services should be first response then so be it. It will come back to SLAs and legislated responsibilities, not what a CRD operator thinks.

Quote from: David on December 01, 2005, 08:50:58 AM
Just a tip, I hope your contract with MFS is written very well,

The SES are putting together a Service Level Agreement, and this will include things like which service gets responded to tree jobs, animal rescues etc. Whilst at the moment the MFS would send a BRT to a tree job and let the Station Officer call for SES if required, in the future the computer will be programmed to respond the agreed service.

Quote from: oz fire on November 23, 2005, 02:00:44 PM
Interesting thought - MFS assigned appliance numbers to CFS appliances with prior knowledge as to the equipment carried - hence a 22, 24, 34 for standard CFS appliances and a 19 for rescue.

Not necessarily... some of the callsigns were added to cater for the response customising when they upgraded their software, so that neighbouring brigades weren't necessarily the same, ie 8032 8224 8334, even though that may not match the appliance type they have. (their computer looked for a type 34 or 24 or 32 specifically.)

Quote from: oz fire on November 23, 2005, 02:00:44 PMThey also have at their finger tips in Comms (the area responsible for despatch) appliance stowage listings and a resources folder that states what additional equipment different brigades have ...

the only info the MFS have about brigade stowage kits is our callsigns... if you are a 19 you have rescue. If you have a 42 you have a tanker. If you have a 28 you have hazmat. There is nothing more than that... If you're lucky you'll get a shift that has a CFS vol on it who might know off the top of his head...
BTW, nice to hear another CFS vol has started on D shift! Why don't they put one on each shift?! Maybe SACAD will sort them out!

One of the MFS comms officers once told me that they are allowed to page 3 brigades from any one region before they have to ask the CFS RDO to organise further COQ...does this mean they can bring in 6 brigades (reg 1 & 2)?

Seriously! What's all the fuss about?
So what if a few CFS guys use the dreaded K Codes???
With a bit of common sense (what was that?) surely if they use K Codes regularly and KNOW them, what's the problem? A rule of thumb is that if you're not sure of the correct K code, use plain language. That applies for members of either service.
Medevac, I don't agree that the MFS requested that the CFS stop using K Codes. I'm not sure where you got that info, but I am certain that the push came from within the CFS.
Disclaimer; I am not suggesting that any member deliberately disobey their SOPs, but what a mountain from the mole-hill.
PS the MFS SOP's are under constant review, including Communications, and one thought has been to get rid of K Codes for all but status changes, arrivals and certain "sensitive" messages, eg fatality, bomb found, etc. Requests for police or SAAS, ETSA etc might become plain language anyway. Or so I'm told...

WRT 24P's v Pumpers for COQ... for the most part a CFS 24P will do just fine for COQ. They will deal with just about anything. If there is an incident requiring boosting or aerial appliance feeds then the CFS 24P would not be responding on their own. As backup there would be at least one MFS or CFS pumper. It's then up to the officers on scene to allocate the appropriate resources to the required tasks. No different to somewhere like Mt Barker where the local crews know that if boosting is required there are certain appliances up to the task...

Oakden was having trouble with their station turnout system, so as a redundancy the officers were issued with a pager. They like them.

I think red would be a great idea...keeps us in line with most of the country, enables better purchase power with MFS (Is there really a cost saving in buying red trucks (white is a normally produced colour, red may not be...)), makes it easier to borrow spare pumpers across services without all the "ooh...they wanna be Mets" comments, easier public recognition (after all, aren't all fire engines red? :wink:). But how do you introduce red trucks now when the existing fleet is already white?  :|

"000" CLI (Call Line Indentification) data indicates the billing address of the caller, not necessarily where the call was made from. If the phone bill for the old folks home is sent to the hospital the CLI would have shown up as though it was the hospital calling, and this is what the Telstra "000" operator would have on their screen.

except for the times that SOC operators have refused to act on requests...

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.

All good, but the question remains the same...who is legally responsible for the response plans?

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)

You're right, of course, Oz, there are lots of other orders we could tack on to...
And so what if our trucks look the same as SAMFS? As you said, "The public don't give a toss what we drive." (If image is the problem.) I couldn't care less if our trucks were red.
What I do object to, however, is our troops being told by the staff that they won't consider Scanias just because that's what the MFS have. This stinks of the Us V Them syndrome. Sure, if there are legit reasons for not choosing Scania then fair enough, but it seems typical of some of the players that politics comes before the needs of SA and the Vols.
Blah

If we keep buying stuff that makes us look like the poor cousins then we'll always BE the poor cousins. I agree with the power of bulk purchasing and combining orders to get better value for money. The sooner the Services get together in this area the better we'll all be.

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.

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.

When these groups set up their direct page facilities the CFS didn't have the ability to follow group response plans on a street-by-street and incident type-by-incident type basis. The MFS offered a service that allowed for local response plans, multiple brigade/service simultaneous dispatch, and what's more, a consistent response to like incidents. In some areas, not far south of the city, one person answers the alerts phone and, rather than follow predetermined response plans, will decide off the top of his head who should respond. This is doomed by subjective decisions that will work sometimes, and be way off the scale other times. Even now, as far as I am aware, the CFS doesn't have a decent CAD database to say that this group wants this, and that group wants that for x type of call...

I acknowledge that you did not say that...i perhaps read more into it than was there. sorry to infer.