SA Firefighter

From the map I have, it's as follows:

Group 1
Athelstone
Basket Range
Carey Gully
Cherryville
Greenhill
Montacute
Norton Summit / Ashton
Piccadilly
Summertown and District
Aldgate
Burnside
Stirling


Group 2
Belair
Blackwood
Cherry Gardens
Coromandel Valley
Eden Hills
Ironbank
Bradbury
Upper Sturt
Happy Valley


Group 3
Brukunga
Echunga
Hahndorf
Littlehampton
Mount Barker
Nairne
Bridgewater
Mylor
Lenswood / Forest Range
Lobethal
Oakbank / Balhannah
Woodside


Group 4
American River
Western Districts
Haines / Macgillivray
Kingscote
Parndana
Penneshaw & District
Wisanger


Group 5
Aldinga Beach
McLaren Vale
Range / Hope Forest
Sellicks
Willunga
Yundi
Blewitt Springs
Clarendon
Kangarilla
McLaren Flat
Morphett Vale
Seaford


Group 6
Mount Compass
Middleton
Port Elliot
Cape Jervis
Hay Flat
Inman Valley
Myponga District
Parawa
Rapid Bay & District
Yankalilla and District
Hindmarsh Valley
Lower Inman Valley
Waitpinga


Group 7
Ashbourne
Blackfellows Creek
Clayton
Langhorne Creek
Milang
Strathalbyn
Woodchester
Currency Creek
Meadows
Macclesfield
Goolwa

Quote from: Cameron Yelland on November 20, 2008, 07:00:17 PM

Quote from: 6739264 on November 20, 2008, 06:10:55 PM
Well then, no need to enforce your crankyness onto others unfairly.

This site wouldn't be a firefighting site without being able to take shots at people when they screw up.

Unfairly?  Personal attacks arent supported on this site and i viewed the post in question as a personal attack....have a problem? take it up with firefrog.

So going by this statement you wont be making any further remarks about Gambier group or your ex-brigade captain?

Quote from: Zippy on September 15, 2008, 09:17:34 AM
Considering that 204, 249, 409, 439 are the only available MFS Rescues. Burnside are already commited to a hazmat, Athelstone id say are already fully committed.  So Stirling would be the next available COQ for RCR.

Once ya use up Stirling....then ya gonna get into the Morphett Vale, Seaford, Balhannah, Virginia, Nuriootpa, even Aldinga Beach...

Going on Stirling's recent performances they are used up already. Its time for the white trucks to become red... and Morphett Vale? Do they even carry RIV gear? I don't think MFS recognise RIV as making you an RCR brigade so Seafords out. PS you forgot that Blackwood would be the next closest after Stirling for RCR coverage and Meadows would be closer than Aldinga Beach although yes this would leave large holes in rcr coverage in many groups.

Quote from: Fox Mulder on August 13, 2008, 05:12:10 PM
I belive that the rules are quite clear about who can and can't hold positions in brigades.
You cannot hold 2 ranks at the same time. Meaning if you hold a position of power up the food chain you cannot also hold a position lower in the food chain. If you hold no operational rank as a staff member then you can hold an operational position as a vollie.

CFS and MFS staff can hold an officer position in a brigade or group, all they need to do is get it approved by the relevant people.

Quote from: bittenyakka on July 13, 2008, 12:59:49 PM
hicks

it sounds like you are saying that even though i have got Pbi and want to wear it because it offers me better protection i shouldn't because everyone doesn't have it?

is this right?

I am arguing for a rational, consistent CFS policy which includes choice for volunteers. I am supportive of choice where the individuals are informed, capable and willing to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Your case requires juggling the cost, risk, benefit, and argument that people trained in BA are more valuable and worthy of protection than someone who is not but is undertaking the same function. I would like to see you make such an argument.

Those that argue that they should wear the gear due to improved protection at incidents such as MVAs should be arguing for everyone to be wearing the gear because of this improved protection.

The argument about being "caughtout" without the gear has some merit however ignores several points. Firstly that Nomex may be warn should PBI not be available with circumstances permitting, secondly that there is always a chance of being "caught out" for something somewhere. Not every appliance carries every bit of equipment and not every member is trained in everything.

Quote from: CFS_Firey on July 16, 2008, 01:20:09 PM

Quote from: Hicksflat14 on July 12, 2008, 01:41:00 PM

QuoteIts just old men attitudes, remember most of the people making the choices for us haven't been BA operators since Overalls were all the fad.
Ah well, we all had the same issues when Nomex first came in, "you can't wear it, you can't wear it" Now thats all we wear....give it time, they will get over it.

Whats your point here? I dont think there are any old men saying don't wear PBI when you're doing BA. There are some old men that rightly say you dont HAVE to wear PBI when you're doing BA.

Can you justify why you think that's right please?

Yes I can.

There is no requirement at all for wearing PBI in many instances where BA is used. For example incidents where the fire is in the open or hazmats where there is no risk of fire. So on this fact, the statement that "you dont HAVE to wear PBI when you're doing BA." is correct.

As for internal structural fires, while it may be preferable to wear PBI it is acceptable to wear Nomex where the operator is willing to do so. This was even stated officially by the CFS in relation to what happens when the PBI is out for cleaning. All the appropriate risk assessments have been carried out and lodged on the use of Nomex for internal structural use.

Once again its an individual choice that I fully support.

There is nothing special or unique to a booster. It's the same as relay pumping which is not that different to any other pumping. There does not need to be a specific course for boosters, and pump usage should be continuously covered by your brigade on training nights.

The above list of appliances that can properly boost is wrong. Every appliance can boost it just depends on to what extent. If you can't boost with one appliance, then use two. Boosting isn't really a big issue like it's been made out to be.

Quote from: Zippy on July 13, 2008, 09:26:57 AM
good point pumprescue, just pointing out that burnside pumper will definitely fulfill its COQ requirements to station 20, which has significant high rise risks...id prefer a decent pumper over a 34P for that ;)

There is no requirement for Burnside to for fill. That risk is MFS's problem and they are resourced accordingly. MFS will rarely leave station 20's area without an MFS pump or two. If there is a large enough incident that Burnside are COQ and there is a second incident involving a "high rise" fire then Burnside is not going to be the only CFS brigade involved.

As I said, Burnside pumper has nothing to do with need and everything to do with cash and power. All the best to them for using both to the benefit of their brigade, community and displaying the CFS now has a policy where a brigade can top up on the what state is offering for no other reason than the brigade has some cash. Many, and probably the majority of brigades, will just accept the base CFS design, but those brigades that believe they have a need and the motivation to fundraise and top up now have a clear path to follow for their new appliance.

Quote
The precedent to get a non-standard vehicle to test new ideas or
meet local needs is already well established.  Region 7 have been
doing it for years (Blackwood CAFS, Cherry Gdns 34, Belair 14, etc)
Going even further back I'm sure there are other examples all
around the state - rescue appliances, & special gear to meet local
hazards.

Not so AJ. The significance is in the detail. The precedence here is that the cost was shared between the brigade and state. The state paid for a type two and Burnside super sized it by chipping in the rest. The appliances you name above were paid for entirely by either the state OR Region 7. No super sizing involved. Cherry 34 and Cherry/Belair 14 were both purchased entirely by Region 7 and Cherry brigade funds. Blackwood CAFS was paid for entirely by state. There will be an example of State and Region 7 combining funds for an appliance to be delivered later this year although under a different arrangement and circumstances to Burnside Pumper.

Quote from: Cameron Yelland on July 12, 2008, 03:39:18 PM
I agree with HF14 but on the other hand why should brigades have to put in the money to achieve what they should of got in the first place? 

Well here is the great thing about this precedence. What Burnside did had nothing to do with their need and everything to do with cash. Burnside doesn't do more calls or have a higher risk than any other urban CFS brigade. These other urban brigades are told they can get by with just a 34P or in the case of HV then the type two Burnside rejected. Without any requirement for such a vehicle, Burnside pushed forward with their cash to get this great result for us all. So the CFS can't even use "need" as an argument as to why a brigade can't use the cash they have to option up on what the CFS were going to pay for as a stock appliance.

Want a skyjet? Well start saving because now you can get one for the price difference between it and a 34P.

Why does it need to involve large sums of money? As i said, the precedence has been set. The CFS pays for the base grade and brigades can option it up with the money they have.

Quotei wish it was feasible for everyone to take both sets of gear to every job

Not everyone has both sets of gear which is what the issue here really is. The majority of people here are saying that they want the choice of wearing their PBI to things that dont require PBI. Why shouldn't everyone have that choice?

QuoteIts just old men attitudes, remember most of the people making the choices for us haven't been BA operators since Overalls were all the fad.
Ah well, we all had the same issues when Nomex first came in, "you can't wear it, you can't wear it" Now thats all we wear....give it time, they will get over it.

Whats your point here? I dont think there are any old men saying don't wear PBI when you're doing BA. There are some old men that rightly say you dont HAVE to wear PBI when you're doing BA.

Nomex is worn everywhere now because EVERYONE in the brigade can wear it to everything. At this stage not everyone can wear PBI to everything by the very fact they're not issued with it. Why shouldn't everyone have that choice if as some people claim on here that it provides better protection. Shouldn't everyone have the very best possible protection regardless of the cost? The fact is at some stage there needs to be a decision that any particular bit of equipment is adequate for the function it is intended to provide. Nomex/Proban provides adequate protection for responses to MVA, grass fires, external BA and even internal BA in many instances. So if Nomex/Proban is adequate for MVA's and everyone can wear Nomex/Proban then why shouldn't everyone wear Nomex/Proban? PBI was given to BA trained people for use with BA. If it was intended for anything else it would have been issued to everyone else.

QuoteOne set of pants....and a rural or structure jacket choice when it comes to dressing.

So what your arguing over here is just a pair of pants? At the moment you have both rural and structural gear its just that they have different sets of pants? Personally I wouldnt want a liner in my rural pants so what we have at the moment is what I want. Two sets of gear with two different functions. I see that as a good thing.

QuoteMay look silly to some but I guess were not out there to look good but to protect ourselves to the best standard available.

The majority of posts makes some reference to looks in one way or another, and I agree it does look good. But I suspect peoples passion for the uniform and being able to wear it to everything has more to do with wanting to look like a beefcake MFS firefighter and less like a scrawny hick than for functional requirements. If it was about the functional performance of this uniform at "non rural" incidents then people should be jumping up and down about why doesn't EVERY fire fighter have it! But the people with the uniform are more fixated on their own looks rather than the safety of other members.

Burnside Pumper sets an excellent precedence for brigades to argue for individual equipment. The CFS offered a Type 2 which was rejected. Burnside was able to obtain the additional cash (by the sounds of it $140k) and so has built a custom appliance. Now this precedence has been set everyone can build up / customise their appliance. You don't need to have $140K laying around, but $500 for a upgraded light bar and siren or perhaps $5000 for a different pump or drive train maybe all that's needed for someone's brigade. In fact, moving the equipment storage around shouldn't cost anything extra, so brigades should be able to just pick where they want to put what.

Why stop there. Progressing with this idea, everything should be optional and individual. Here's an idea, why doesn't SAFECOM just cut down on the bureaucracy and give brigades the money to select the best equipment that suits their needs? I bet nothing that smart has ever happened in the past.

So let's all thank Burnside for taking this step, cause now we all can point the finger to their example and go shopping for what we want by telling CFS to stick it up their filtered. Pimp my appliance - here I come.

Quote from: Fox Mulder on May 19, 2008, 09:16:08 PM
I find it more than ammusing that the people that are issued with PBI Gold carry around metal objects in their pockets. Being that they heat up when put into a fire like any other metal object!!!!!!!!!!

As opposed to the exposed metal object I strap to my back?

I was just about to post and Red Message beat me to it. My calculations support his, assuming you expand the cylinder to atmospheric pressure which is actually a bit more than 1 bar, but close enough.

For the 9L 207 bar cylinder:
1.863m^3
For the 8L 300 bar cylinder:
2.4m^3

In short, (depending on the usage rate), it turns into 37 minutes for the 200 bar cylinder and 48 minutes for the 300 bar cylinder... Close enough to what Red worked out.

Maybe Dan was actually thinking of the 6L or 6.8L 300 bar CFW cylinders which I thought some services are going to, in which case:

6.8L = 2.04m^3 = 40 minutes
6L = 1.8m^3 = 36 minutes

So the 6.8L 300 bar cylinder holds slightly more than a 9L 200 bar cylinder but the 6L 300 bar holds slightly less.

Quotego do the plantation course and you will see just how useful this can be for firefighting both in a urban and rural firefighting.

Well for starters unless your regional office thinks your local area has a plantation in it and likely to be a first responder you can't actually get on a plantation course. Hicksflat brigade has responded to many plantation fires and has a small plantation in its area, yet our member's nominations are rejected for the plantation courses as its not deemed necessary by region for the local risk profile.

Secondly how is a plantation course going to indicate how well it works in urban areas? Plantation areas are mostly reasonably flat (yes I know there are plantations on steep grades too) with little undergrowth. For metro work and many urban jobs I don't think you can beat a decent pump with a high pressure stage and good HP line.

QuoteIf you think having a dead reel is a good idea then start asking CFS to put them on appliances if SA WATER can have them why can't we?Huh??

Personally I don't want one but there is nothing stopping a brigade taking a live hose off and putting on layflat if they think that it is better for their situation. There is nothing unique about the current spools that makes it not suitable to act as a dead reel. But thank you for a bit of diversity, its good to hear a refreshing take on the "If MFS can have them why can't we?" argument usually played out here.

Quote from: Zippy on April 09, 2008, 03:26:35 PM
Further to that...i did forget to outline the positives of it at a Road crash incident.   Protection from fluids either from the car and/or casualties,  Sharps from the car,  The Winter coldness and its rain...

So why should someone who has done BA have a higher level of protection from from sharps, fluids and rain than a member that hasn't?

Actually if it's done by the book it should not be spent as they wish as snr1 suggests. Since Angaston have used the "CFS" name (look at Venue Tix ) to promote this fundraising event, they have to give all the money raised back to the state whether they know it or not.

The money should go into the brigades/group's state controlled fundraising account. Using money from this account comes with all the usual limitations that come with all CFS/state accounts including the standard operating accounts. That is, to draw from this fundraising account they need to follow all the same purchasing and tendering procedures as they would if they were drawing from their main operating budget. Just like the operational budget, state and regional staff get the final say on if and what the money can be spent on. If its a bit of non standard kit or event that the CFS/SAFECOM staff don't what the brigade to have, they just don't approve the spending. There is also no appeals process because technically the money is the state governments... While the CFS have verbally given a commitment that it will not happen, SAFECOM (if they wanted) could reduce the group's annual operational budget by the amount in the fundraising account. This would effectively move the fundraising money back to general revenue. Yes it's all stupidly bureaucratic but that's the state system where working in (for free) these day.

So in short, since the "CFS" name was used their technically fundraising for the state, that's assuming Angaston Group are doing things by the book and not embezzling money. I'm sure the group would have this all sorted out or else they would be risking a visit from state auditors with the lawyers and threats of prosecution. Local firefighters may have been better off registering their own charity that does not include "CFS" in the name and fundraising for that. Perhaps something along the lines of the "Angaston fire fighters welfare association". While it involves more paperwork it does provide more freedom in the way the Angaston fire fighters welfare association supports Angaston fire fighters.

Could all those people who answer yes explain why?

Is it the old argument of "but we may get called to go to something else", or is it more the case that it provides better protection from something at an MVA be it a hazard or the environment?

If it's the latter, could someone explain why non BA trained people should not be afforded the same level of protection?

The fact that people are still debating this after this length of time since PBI was first issued, is a joke. The CFS should have put out a policy BEFORE the uniform was even introduced! The fact they haven't would indicate you can wear it to what you want absent of any other documented procedure laid down by the Group or the brigade.

Does anyone know if the CFS has done the risk assessment yet on the PBI? You know the one that should have been undertaken and lodged before it was purchased...

Quote from: Zippy28 on February 27, 2008, 08:05:34 PM
Being a pumper that does COQ into Station 20 as per EMA, youd hope it to be of a MFS pumper standard.

Well then should every CFS brigade that borders MFS such as Eden Hills, Salisbury, Belair, TTG, Athelstone, Stirling, HV, MV etc who do COQs get one?
How about the regional CFS brigades that do COQ? I bet COMP00 would love a MFS standard pumper in their new shed.
Lets face it though, Burnside pumper has less to do with requirement and more to do with them having the money and will to do it.

Quote from: sesroadcrashrescue on February 27, 2008, 12:44:46 PM
back rear underneath the fact that one of our so called highly trained drivers put in into an embankment wouldn't have helped but in the bending of the tray the rivets etc had broken and with the impact it fell of one night after going over a bump
 

So it was driver related more so than faulty manufacturing.

Was it an SEM or Mills-Tui build?

Quote from: sesroadcrashrescue on February 23, 2008, 11:04:00 AM
the last CFS brigade i was in had a 34P while responding to a job at 3am one of the lockers fell of the truck. the tray was bent from the weight of the whole back end and the locker had stress fractures in it which we couldn't see so go belting down the road at 3am get to the job and wonder why our 24 is so far behind us the we noticed a missing locker 24 had found it and hadn't told us we had lost it the #34P went back that day to be fixed only the third time a locker had been broken on that brigades trucks  

Are you sure it was a 34P? Which locker was it? Theres only two individual lockers I can think of that if they actually did come away may have fallen off, otherwise you'd be losing 2 lockers in one (ie the BA and RCR locker) and I think you'd notice the side of your truck had suddenly disappeared.

Na just been busy with Brandine and the inbred young-ins

This SOP really only matters if you're the first arriving appliance.

23 mins to get going and arrive = the building is now a carpark or mets have arrived long before Compton

Quote from: rescue5271 on January 23, 2008, 07:28:05 PM
909262 20:43:30 23-01-08 NO CARRIER ALARM, NO CARRIER, BUNNINGS, CNR O'LEARY RD JUBILEE HIGHWAY WEST ... Here we go again that new station better be two bay long at this rate.....

You do realise that a no carrier alarm is a one appliance or vehicle response (priority 2) for investigation only?

Actually it sounds like the long time Sturt/Mitcham group saying being:
"Professionism is a state of mind not a rate of pay".

Quote from: 6739264 on January 11, 2008, 10:47:34 AM
Something that can see through smoke and soot hmm.... Three words anyone?

Yeah, Thermal Imaging Cameras in the CFS? Another pipe dream like Blues'.

We don't have as many as the NSWFB but if you did some research you'd find CFS do have TIC.

http://www.ypct.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1865&Itemid=1