SA Firefighter

The biggest difference I can see is mycfscrew doesn't have the indial numbes that FFRS does for people to set their status, instead it requires a computer/smartphone and internet to do it.

I know I enquired via official channels about 10 years ago to get a subdomain off the cfs.org.au (that's what it was before the sa.gov one) for my brigade but the answer came back no there's no facility for that.  So we registered and set up our own and have had our own website/email etc ever since.   It's like everything in the CFS, if they can't or won't provide things volunteers will organise it themselves, and that's usually the way things advance too.

Some brigades have a "friends" type group for just such people (sort of like the old auxiliary).  It's tricky until the CFS fix membership categories so you have friends/associates/auxiliary/whatever that do not count as numbers that affect training and meeting quorums etc.

we use Thomas Gas at Aldgate (any BOC agent should be able to supply them)

why doesn't it work on those PCs? what did the SAFECOM IT people have to say? (seeing as they "support" those PCs)
I use wview on linux but that probably won't help you sorry (www.wviewweather.com).

Ah-ha my login came in the post yesterday (I was expecting it by email to the address that has been registered for the last umpteen years in TAS, dunno why I'm a little surprised really).
And yes not much different to the old one except more broken links (eg. most of the SOPs I tried).

you mean the new "CFS Volunteer Portal"?  It says your login has been sent out but I haven't received anything so don't know.

Interesting that the Terms & Conditions say:
4. All members must comply with the CFS Email policy when using the Microsoft Office 365 email system.

I've never heard of a "CFS Email policy" and there's no link to it I can see.

Also not very encouraging to see "Microsoft Office 365 email system" mentioned, if that's the new one schools are now using then good luck! fortunately I gather you can set it to automatically fwd to your home email.

really?? what's the thinking behind a dead reel for 38mm hose? I can see the reasoning for a 25mm layflat dead reel (although remain a bit unconvinced myself, even after having used one during the Vic fires). I agree with Mr Ted that retaining 2 live reels is essential.

I would have thought it should be MFS only going to these.

so what MDT are they?  similar to the MFS MCT?  do they use a radio network (which one? GRN or 800MHz data?) or mobile data (Telstra I presume?)  Got any pictures what they look like?

I too think it's pretty poor given the activity across quite a bit of the state since friday.

Matt and Dave (891) had a local pollie (think it was Michael Pengilly, member for Finiss) on the radio this morning claiming he had media organisations calling his office for info as they couldn't get hold of anyone from CFS Media over the weekend.

I don't believe it's ever been clearly explained by CFS, in the form of a SOP, or even a memo or similar communication, what the terminology to AF should be, particularly "clear of call" or "completed" or <insert all the other variants>.

it's pretty obvious who the person who sent that page was.  But that aside I'm not sure why some of you seem to be assuming Burnside didn't contact AF and so on. For info Burnside24 was dispatched by AF at 20:45 and their BWC at 20:56. Don't assume just cos you didn't see a pager message it wasn't done "properly".  If I was out in the truck at training with a crew and saw a fire, I too would contact the IC and offer my assistance, I don't see anything wrong with this at all, quite the opposite in fact.

Personally I don't begrudge the MFS new stations, they are funded properly and CFS isn't, it's that simple.  CFS and the CFSVA should be lobbying for equivalent funding to MFS for training and equipment.

Just for interest I did some sums based on figures for 2011-2012 from the promo unit website.

There are 5 groups in the CFS that did more than 500 calls each for the year. That's 33 brigades that did a total of 4483 calls for the year.

Assuming on average each of those groups receives around $230,000 annual funding allocation. That figure is based on what I know of my group and extrapolating a bit for the others.  It does not include any amount for brigade stations or trucks (many of which were paid by councils anyway before CFS took it over but nevertheless an amount has to be budgeted for replacement).  It includes some training costs but not all and most equipment but not all.

That means it costs $1.1m to run the busiest 5 groups (33 brigades) doing around 4500 calls per year in some of the highest risk and highly populated areas in the state.  That's quite a bargain the government and taxpayers of the state are getting.

Even if we include the "other costs", say 1 new truck per group per year ($400K), other equipment ($50K), other training ($50K), misc other stuff ($70K) that still only comes to $800K per group, which is $4m per year for those 5 groups (33 brigades) or just over $120,000 per brigade per year.

What's the MFS budget for 1 station per year, ignoring salaries?

Quote from: misterteddy on January 23, 2013, 07:40:24 PM

Quote from: Add a length on January 23, 2013, 03:41:28 PM
Wouldn't SACAD issues be considered "operational"? If so CFSVA won't get involved, because they apparently don't want to get involved in operation issues! Same thing goes for training!  :x

have you got this in writing Adda??.......Flame is this true??

yes it's true but a bit of a grey area. Eg. SACAD problems would be something for the CFSVA but which brigades are listed in which ESZs would not be.  That's my understanding from a group meeting I attending with the CFSVA president and vice president but I'm not part of the CFSVA exec so don't take my word for it.  It would perhaps be useful for the CFSVA exec to put out to all brigades exactly what they are/will get involved in and what they are currently fighting for on behalf of volunteers.  They probably think they already do this via branch and group/brigade reps but I think they are relying on the same flawed process CFS staff do (with the exception of Arthur/Infralog) to disseminate information when they could just publish it on their website for all to see.

as Pip said, my group has put in an enormous effort to SACAD and still the responses we get are worse than under BOMS more than a year after implementation. Personally I've given up "speaking to CFS" about SACAD (although the group officers continue to try to push fixes to the most glaring cockups), we have put our own measures in place to ensure an adequate response to our community.  (PS. my gripe is not with SACAD per se, more with the way CFS totally ballsed up everything to do with SACAD).

Quote from: pumprescue on January 14, 2013, 08:43:04 AM

Quote from: Bagyassfirey on January 11, 2013, 09:17:58 AM
11-01-13 10:40:00   CFSRES RESPOND GRASS FIRE INMAN VALLEY YANK34 :FROM G.C.C 10:41:49 AM - CFS Yankalilla Info

It's funny how we are all quick to bash SACAD and associated things yet things like this still go on!

I also noticed with the FINNIS job the entire Mundoo Group was responded before the alarm level was raised...on all the info/training I have had with SACAD it is drummed in to us the best way to get more appliances is upgrade of alarm...or alternatively if a special resource is required request through A/F.

That's my bitch for today....stay cool  :-D

You are correct, but no one pays attention and nothing the people at Adelaide Fire can do about it...

that might be the way it should be done if SACAD worked properly but the way it is now it seems that upgrading the alarm level just gives you another 2 appliances and usually from the same brigades that have already been sent.  So in many groups (in R1 at least) a 3rd alarm response is no more than 3 brigades paged, where as before SACAD a 3rd alarm meant a whole of group response.

apparently the system doing the repaging for SAAS had crashed and no one had noticed, the Road Crash Research pages are back today.

I thought they were going to fix the way the pager mesages fill up with all that sort of crap: "== Alarm level updated to 2 == Alarm level updated to 3 == Alarm level updated to 4 =="?

Interesting about requesting assistance to empty it, not heard of that before.  Am trying to think when I was a kid we had a pool and I'm sure you just opened the right series of valves and the pool pump pumped it out into the street.  Surely everyone in CFS areas has their own pumps anyway!  Re filling up again, we have once mostly filled a small pool for a brigade member but generally no.

Quote from: Bagyassfirey on July 23, 2012, 09:31:04 PM
Are they getting some work done?

yes a fairly major brigade-funded station extension

Quote from: jaff on June 24, 2012, 08:57:14 AM
Group Officer role is the other touch point...

in my observation it's only a couple of group officers who are vocal about problems and it's a bit disappointing the majority appear happy not to rock the boat so hence not much of any importance gets past the RVMC and goes further up the chain.

I do agree with you though that if those willing to challenge the status quo and come up with new ideas don't stand for positions like group officer then we have no chance.

Quote from: Alex on June 22, 2012, 10:07:28 PM
We can only pass on information if we receive it ;)
If & when stops are received they are passed on to all attending agencies.

as with many things Adelaide Fire, it's highly dependent on the operator at the time (some are switched on, some less so, as you'd know).  I heard Victor MFS all that morning on 124 giving stops and sitreps and action taken codes etc back to Adelaide Fire but didn't hear or see any of that being passed on to the SES.  But again you've kind of latched onto one comment.  If all agencies were responded by a single CRD centre with a single common incident number and single talkgroup for the job (and they used it) then they would all know what was happening and be able to talk to each other.  Less work and more efficient all round I would have thought.

Quote from: Alex on June 22, 2012, 10:04:41 PM
Or are you one of the "fire service should do it all" believers?

no I'm a "don't waste volunteers (of any description) time and make the most efficient use of the volunteers there are" person.  Have you read Peter Wicks (Onka CFS GO and Onka SES UM) paper on combining the SES and CFS in many areas?  He makes very good arguments but unfortunately as I said before, vested interests and empire building has seen it swept under the carpet instead of considering what would be best for the community.

Heard a funny dummy spit this morning by South Coast SES to Adelaide Fire complaining why have Victor MFS been responded to "their" jobs as well and when they (SES) turn up there's nothing to be done.  He said they have wasted an hour this morning doing this.  The Adelaide Fire guy replied that that's the system and he should ring them and speak to a supervisor.

Frankly I'm surprised it seems to have taken someone in the SES this long to notice their time is being constantly wasted.  The SES are responded with different job numbers to CFS/MFS but to the same job, different talkgroups, and each service isn't told the other has also been responded.  Adelaide Fire, who should know who has been responded, don't pass on stop calls or sitreps from the first service to attend to any others. 

I have sympathy for the SES volunteers being mucked around like this and think the SES management have a lot to answer for.  I also think it's about time the SES management realised they are not an emergency service (there are so many examples why this is the case, eg. response pages in some cases just go to a single staff members pager and they chase up people via phone, sending someone out to recce things first before responding, units that respond 30mins, 1hr, 3hrs whatever later, and so on, all these mean it can't be an "emergency"), that doesn't mean the service they provide isn't valuable of course, just not an "emergency".  Unfortunately there's too much vested interest, it needs the safecom chief to smack some sense into them.