SA Firefighter

try contacting the primary brigade or group, they might have some info and personal stories

Quote from: Darren on March 13, 2010, 05:25:09 PM
Oh I realise that, but they aren't going out and buying old trucks though.

Unless its from the UK via NZ :)

Howdy Edster,

I personally believe that "Rapid Intervention" can be quiet a valuable tool in RCR situations and can quiet capably do a large number of rescue incidents (although generally slower than the full kit)- Although the powers that be in SA currently clearly say that a combi tool does not constitute a suitable RCR resource.. another debate there.. 

Quote from: Edster on September 22, 2009, 06:16:03 PM
Is it worth having RIV in a briagde i.e. Seaford, Bridgewater etc
How d briagdes like Burnside and stirling manage to have both heavy and light rescue?

How did they get it? was it brigade purchase or funded by the state?

(people may look down upon me for thinking this) but in the other post on "Burnside responding into East torrens it was said that Burnside do cover a fair amount of East Torrens turf but Athelstone and Burnside both are about 15 minutes away from certain parts of Norton Summit and our responding areas i.e. Teringie, Woodforde, Skye (look on SACFS promo site for more info), I had an idea of having light rescue in my briagde. Posotive views much appriciated  :mrgreen:

From what i understand some of the brigades with RIV had it provided by CFS as a pseudo replacement for the full RCR kit they formally carried in a rationalisation of resources (eg Eden Hills). Some of the brigades you mention are existing RCR brigades and have probably self funded RIV and other are not RCR brigades and self funded RIV. I also presume that there are brigades that have state funded and provided equipment.

As to the second part of your question "is it worth is?" Do the benifits outweigh the cost & risk? There is not only an initial financial outlay of the equipment (and i'de only be guessing $15k) plus the ongoign training. Now if a brigade funds the equipment initially and takes on the ongoing maintenace costs there is also the issue of training. This isnt as much of a problem, for existing RCR brigades as it would pose little or no impact upon the already tight state training resources. However if a non rescue brigade were to become RIV there is not only the initial but ongoing skills maintenance and replacing trained operators who leave, who covers this cost? I know some brigades get a private company to provide the (nationally recognised) training initially, but then rely on CFS beyond that. Now as CFS training budgets are tight and we have all heard and discussed here the stories about lack of specialist training spots available, so are full rcr brigades then missing out due to riv brigades taking rcr course spots???

Now using the specific examples you have given Edster, looking at Google maps  it appears that the 3 suburbs you listed are about equal distances from your brigade and the rescue brigades (in some cases the rescue brigade closer), so your brigade outlaying the cost & training commitment for RIV may not get used  as it would appear that these rescue brigades would be there around the same time if not before. Add to that from a job i recently saw on the pager site that MFS 211 also attend (i presume this is not an isolated incident) and as they have RIV also, do they arrive first?

So overall I believe RIV has a place, as someone already stated provided that it is at strategic locations. However with out the full details I'de think that on the surface the cost and risk probably dont outweigh the benifits as it would appear there are already close rescue brigades, and MFS with RIV and full RCR.

Hope this helps, but probably not the answer you were after.

24p

Quote from: Hazmat206 on August 01, 2009, 03:01:22 PM
Numpty,
You start of as a "firefighter", then after 6 years you to progress to a "senior fire fighter", after 2 years in that role, you are eligible to apply for a "station officer" when the job is open for applicants, then after 2 years in that role you can apply for "district officer" when the job is open for applicants.
Other roles that can be progressed in include fire commander, chief incident commander e.t.c

Hope this helps :wink:

Chief Incident Commander, where does this fit into the picture?

Howdy,

Not wanting to complicate things even further for you Darius, but i recall a few years back Dr Paix in his research into burn-over saying something about not wanting large amounts of flammable plastic stowed near the crew haven in the case of a burn-over?? Not sure if this helps.

24p

Quote from: chook on January 29, 2009, 05:07:06 AM
(now that I am living in a state that has 4 rescue services & see what a mess that can cause).
Anyway have a safe day & keep cool :-D

4 rescue services, What happened to the 5th??

24p

Quote from: 6739264 on January 20, 2009, 10:24:15 PM

Quote from: bittenyakka on January 20, 2009, 09:31:08 PM
So how do you fix this? other than buying more rescue gear?

This is the other (cheaper) option. Using the above response for example, if Burnside are turning out to cover a lack of crew with Stirling, then they should be stopped as soon as Stirling is on the road and can confirm the have sufficient rescue operators.

Interesting point. have come across this scenario before (not in a rescue situation though) where my brigade have been sent as a default brigade, then when the inital brigade got mobile been given a stop. Interesting situation, do we then stop a resource that is now a closer rescource (after being on the road for 5 mins driving towards the incident) when there is yet no truck on scene at the job??

Sorry but can someone please help me here, i must be hiding under a rock, what is the issue with these jobs and / or the people doing them??? There seems to be some strong opinions from ppl here about them?

Quote from: Alan (Big Al) on October 14, 2008, 11:05:41 AM
It is extremely rare for them to default through lack of crew. But they did call for SES pretty quickly for the earlier job, so maybe one of those days when no one is around.

Strange that they didnt go through Adelaide Fire to default to SES, as they did with CFS. As it appears both times SES have been responded its come from a local page from SES people???

Quote from: bajdas on September 05, 2008, 06:01:21 PM
I like the CFS Mt Barker system of UHF portables. Simply to use & accurate.

I assume the UHF CB's can also be used at the tasking because everyone in the crew is already carrying one.

I would hope they aren't using it as a fireground radio, when there is an existing VHF & GRN simplex system in place for firegound communication. What happens when the next brigade turn up but crews cant communicate as one brigade has a different system?

.

Quote from: pumprescue on August 22, 2008, 01:41:25 PM
I know some groups have negotiated having minimum of 2 BA due to CFS persisting on putting a cap on BA operators, often they have people willing to train in BA but can't get on a course.

"negotiated"

I'm not sure if a local negotiation can override the SOP's COSO's?

Quote from: Zippy on August 21, 2008, 02:43:35 PM
Or you could just live anywhere...and serve the community you live in, by transfering to the local CFS, without being picky lol...

Interesting I know of a number of brigades who have members who dont belong to the brigade closest to them, be it for a number of reasons; perhaps staying with original brigade after moving, wanting a specialty (eg RCR), fall-out with members, personality, seeing a bigger need for members at another brigade, being in a snr possition they dont want to loose, etc etc etc...

While it probably doesnt result in trucks getting out the door quickly when you have to drive past another stn when going to a call, if it results in ppl staying in the CFS and helping where they can its better than members leaving all together.

Quote from: Alan J on August 18, 2008, 01:55:31 AM

Anyway, fancy life-support gear is ambo responsibility. (see (1) above)

So should we take the, advanced fire fighting equipment currently on ambulances off (read dry powder extinguisher) as its a fire service responsibility.

AED's should not be viewed as super dooper advanced life support equipment, when they are put on walls in airports, shopping centres and other public places to assist in saving lives, that may be used by ppl with limited or no training, why are trained FF's less capable of using common sense than your average member of the public.

24p

I always thought in the past it was a minimum crew of 4 with Level 3 and BA (as level 3 is no longer relevent, ide presume that isnt applicable) so making it 4 BA operators, the same as an MFS crew. Although if you are responding on an appliance with 2 BA sets waiting for 4BA may be wasting time. As for RCR ide say it would be the same if it was MFS or CFS area, as per the RCR directory, minimum 3 RCR operators (but crew of 4).

24p

Quote from: Zippy on July 28, 2008, 01:08:56 PM

Quote from: G D on July 28, 2008, 02:37:10 PM


there is much more to every situation than what you read on the pager site!

A good bit of advice perhaps a few ppl on this site seem to forget.... But then again what would we talk about then?

Quote from: Cameron Yelland on July 20, 2008, 07:53:28 AM

Quote from: CFS_Firey on July 19, 2008, 08:38:50 PM
There's no "YES" in your poll... was that deliberate?

I would support using private contractors at incidents, particularly at Hazmats.  Why waste volunteers time when there are people out there trained to do the same job that are trying to make a living doing it?

Thats almost like saying why waste vollies time at all at any incident.  Just call the MFS in at the start and let the CFS go home.

Vollies have done the courses to deal with these situations and if they werent prepared to put in the long hours they wouldnt volunteer.

Why is it everyone assumes vollies need assistance just because we arent paid?

Cammo,

I dont think it was refering to MFS coming to save us as we arent capable at all. I think the reference was to HazMat incidents that are not an emergency any more, eg no threat to life property or environment. Should it not be the responsibility of a private contracting company specialising in Hazardous material clean-up to take over from the fire service (MFS or CFS[or WES]). Should vols be spending hours of their own time cleaning up a chemical spill where no danger to life/property exists, thus leaving their own communities with a reduced ability to deal with other emergencies.

24p

Quote from: bajdas on July 07, 2008, 10:15:55 AM

Quote from: Zippy on July 07, 2008, 07:07:52 AM
Its interesting that SES seems to has similar problems to CFS regarding 'doing the same thing'.

As for dealing with life threat or non-life threat, heres a possible good practice for ses units:

P1 - Life Threat. Immediate response to station on receipt of page. Full Emergency Driving Conditions Allowed.
P2 - no immediate life threat, Equivalent of CFS Priority 2. Upgraded if required after initial arrival - respond to station after page from Duty Officer.

And id think every response would start at P2 unless otherwise stated by Adelaide Fire, or the resource first on scene.

Current SES priority codes are:

P1 = life threat, responding with MFS or CFS = lights/sirens
P2 = potential life threat = lights/sirens
P3 = serious infrastructure = no lights/sirens
P4 = minor tasking = volunteers respond at convenient time
NIL = no response

They can be altered when received by the Unit.

I find it interesting that a P2 "potential life threat" = lights and sirens doesnt involve a responce from fire service if they are the closest most appropriate resourse???

Quote from: bill - Hynam CFS on June 24, 2008, 07:05:22 AM
Just turn the monitor on and sit back,it will go out sooner or later.....

Monitor?

Quote from: bajdas on May 01, 2008, 12:18:55 PM

Quote from: Footy on April 30, 2008, 12:36:17 PM
MFS: *CFSRES INC038 30/04/08 12:27,RESPOND GRASS FIRE,146 MAIN SOUTH RD,MORPHETT VALE MAP 176 K 14 TG182,AT REAR OF WOOLWORTHS TOASTING MARSHMALL,OWS,SAIR55 CDN431 CFS State Air Desk

I hope those marshmallows were purchased at Woolies and not the coles

I love how the dispatch is for MFS, not CFS....they must have been hungry for the marshmellows & not willing to share.

Sorry Andrew You have lost me, how does MFS v CFS come into this?

Hi All,

I initially didnt like the idea of RCR competitions, i saw it as a lot of carry-on that didnt have much relevence to day-to-day operations.

HOWEVER then i actually participated in one! I found it a great training oportunity, excellent to partake in a challenging scenario and then recieve feedback from experienced RCR operators from a range of background (both SA and interstate-Ambulance, SES, mines, paid and vol FF's). I also found it very beneficial to stand and watch other brigades/stations/units faced with a scenario and how they tackled it and the associated problems. I often found myself stading next to a member of CFS/SES/MFS discussing options. Many new techniques, ideas and even equipment was taken back to the brigade and tried, some worked for us some didnt. The oportunity to work on new cars was a great, soemthign we dont usually have the luxury of.

I think my brigade (I certainly did) gained a lot from the experince, even if it was just the motivation to put in a few extra training sessions locally and are very thankfull to those people who helped organise and run the event.
24p

Chook,
I believe CFS has to terms they use 1) stadard stowage. eg. meets the minimum requirements (usually very minimum) and is payed for or supplied by CFS, 2) approved stowage- equipment that CFS think is a good idea and has a use, has had a risk assessment done etc. However will not fund so it is up to individual brigades, groups to pay for. I can see pro's and con's either way, however generalising accountants/ aministrators and mangers might find the standard stowage list suitable however operational Fire-fighters will alays find little bits and pieces that they find add great benefit tho their ability to provide a service to the community.

On another thing re- fundraising- I have heard of some brigades/ groups out there who are paying for their own training, i think it was rcr but may be wrong, to ensure they can crew trucks appropriatly.
24p

MFS: *CFSRES INC052 07/03/08 13:56,RESPOND BUILD IMPACT,462 GREENHILL RD,LINDEN PARK MAP 131 A 1 TG182,TUSMORE BAKERY,EAS020 BURN19 MIT020 GLO441 SES Metro South Response

task has been passed to central region do as power outage at lynton makes roller doors...a manual proposition. SES Metro South Response

I find this concerning that an agency concerened with disaster response doesn't have contingencies to do with power outages, or has a high reliance on electricity to be able to operate and respond.

Do any other brigades out there have similar relainces on electricity, or do they have back up power etc.

Any thoughts

 Better more than having a going fire and no one turn up!

Quote from: RescueHazmat on March 04, 2008, 11:30:39 AM
I would suggest the "concern" has been hyped up a little more in the article.. - 10-15 years ago it got used Australia wide on a near daily basis..

and so was asbestos!