SA Firefighter

Interesting concept.
Some comments from a Volly NOT in Region 1.
i understand the concerns raised re some body looking after brigades doing 1500 jobs a year and perhaps loosing some command cars etc.
on the other side some good comments re the number of GO regions would have to "deal" with etc. might make it easier for all to operate

When you have such a large diversity in number of brigades in groups i can understand why such a proposal has been floated (i expect it to go to all regions in due time)I think one of the smallest groups has 4 brigades(5 appliances) (2 command/ logistical vehicles) up to the largest with i think 20 brigades (23 appliances) and 4 command/ logistical vehicles. The "balance" is just not there.

The point raised re no one would want to be the GO etc in "super" groups all boils down to 2 words

Delegation and
Management

The GO needs to Manage the group, and he needs to delegate responsibilities out to others.(not happening in some groups)

Now i know these comments will cause some discussion but that is what this forum is for isn't.?

took a while, finally got the right brigade paged for the tree job at Penola
(perhaps couldnt wait 90 min for them to turn up)
some jobs have come in closer to home

SCC: *CFSRES TASK NO 55. RESPOND TREE DOWN. CASTERTON ROAD PENOLA 5277. ON MAIN RD. SAPOL MT. GAMBIER. P1. BWN. SES Bordertown Response


interesting response. They are at least 100k away from Penola.
There would be 40+ CFS brigades closer, including Penola who would do this job many times a year.

I would like to see the $900 shed considering the cost of buildings the CFS do. It might just hold 1 drum of foam :-D :wink:

 I agree with Fireygal and others.
This, if true should not happen.
If it happens it will cause issues for all, the same as the suggestion of "different" types of fire fighters that has had a run on another thread.

cheers

I agree with Pip, Bagy and the rest of the comments,
Do the audit to see where we are. I am sure that some people will be surprised at how "bad" some stations are.
Most people however know this already.

My concern is however, when the figures are compiled and the dollars worked out to bring the stations up to a basic standard, one of 2 things is going to happen
.. Ops we haven't got the money to do this to x number of stations we need to lower the standard or
.. We have the money to do the work to X-y number, we can leave some out or heaven forbid amalgamate or wind some up.
In my group i would estimate that 15% would be ok
65% would need quiet a lot of work (ie BA areas toilets etc) and
20% you wouldn't do any work to as the cost would be more than the station is worth (replace the lot)
cheers

Quote from: Bagyassfirey on June 21, 2009, 04:14:22 PM
15:33:15 21-06-09 MC81 CatB Int Beachport-penola Rd, Kangaroo Inn SAAS Road Crash Research

16:03:15 21-06-09 MFS: *CFSRES INC039 21/06/09 16:02,RESPOND Vehicle Accident,PRINCES HWY,MILLICENT MAP 0 0 0 TG231,CNR BEACHPORT RD AND KANGAROO INN INTERS,ECTION - NO ENTRAPMENTS,ARGY00 THOR00 CFS Argyle Response

Quote from: Bill Corcoran on June 21, 2009, 05:25:07 PM
Thats not bad 30min delay......Hope the group follows up on that one.......

I believe the group is following this up

Our group issues PPE during the course, before the practical aspect of the course is done, so at the successful completion of the course they are able to respond.

Well done Army,
what events?

I agree with Bill,
The course length is about right, perhaps the content could be "jigged" a bit.
There has been a push by some people however to "split the course" in 2.
My memory of the proposal is
First day would be enough to get the new members "on the truck" and attending "rural" incidents.
They would have to then complete the remainder of BFF1 in the next 6 months.

There has been lots of variations to this as well "floated" around eg people who only want to "fight" rural fires only need to do the 1 day etc.

My personal view is we have a course set up as the minimun for new people, perhaps it needs some work on the content but the length is fine.

By introducing some of the variations of the minimum course as suggested would only cause chaos not only for the training section/ record keepers but can you imagine at a rural incident if you had to go into asset protection and 1/2 of your appliances couldn't legally do it because they had members on the units who had only done the 1 day and something happened?? :-o

We have a system in place that seems to work fairly well, refine it a bit but lets use and promote it as the course to do, because I, like Bill, think its the older members who haven't done a course for years who don't actively support such a course.

Posted on: May 31, 2009, 10:20:44 PMPosted by: malleefire  
I heard this at a community event that a brigade which leases it building could be closed as the CFS does have the money to either lease a building or construct one. Is the new CFS motto safety first only if it financial viable



I find it hard to believe they would do this unless there were other circumstances that haven't been put out in the public domain.

In the group i am in we have had several leased buildings that the owners over the past years have expressed their views on "doing other things" with the buildings.
In All cases the CFS has relocated the brigades.
(this is also one of the factors that lead to brigades "jumping the Que" in regard to replacement stations) Much to the ire of other brigades who are waiting for replacement stations.
We still have at least 2 buildings currently being leased that i am aware of, one has a pepper corn lease amount and the other, well, lets say you have a whole condiment range of lease amount.

the group i am in would have on average 4 or 5 spare pages per brigade for a couple of reasons
A lack of members in some brigades and
An order for spares placed some time ago being filled.

I agree with CFS_firey, (well part of it) it is not about one or 2 brigades it is about the whole service.
I think we all agree that we need more money, how much, where it comes from etc i don't know but when we get it, then the allocation of funds to what will be a "purler" of a debate.

My understanding is we have 2 "systems" in place to guide the decision makers in who gets what out of the money "bucket"
first is the SFEC (which is being reviewed i believe) and
the funding matrix that has been developed in the past few years to allocate funds per brigade based on many line items including no of calls.

It seems that the 2 systems have worked to some degree in the sense that the limited finances available to us is spread around the state.
Not only to provide essential equipment to brigades and members but to start and provide some new or updated stations to those brigades who, for whatever reason are lacking in the most basic of facilities i.e. power and toilets etc.

Surely no one would deny such brigades such basic items?
As i have said before i believe the construction of some of the stations that have occurred in the past few years has exceeded the requirements of individual brigades in regard to providing of facilities to meet the CFS responsibilities in regard to the workplace under the OHS act.

I believe now that this is being addressed.

It would be remiss of any manager of a brigade or group not to try and get more money or equipment for their brigade or group and sometimes the "squeaky wheel gets the oil" but in our case to the detriment of some other "project" within the CFS.

It would be nice to find say $50 mill to get ALL of the brigades up to a standard (what ever it might be) and where ever they might be, and then be able to then look at other areas to improve the service.

cheers

I agree bill,
we need to get away from building "great monuments" for fire stations for brigades that average less than 10 calls a year.(ie there one in the south east that would put most stations that have been built in the last few years for a lot more active brigades to shame)

On the other hand we shouldn't just "plonk" a shed down for these brigades.

"basic" facilities need to be provided for the members as we need to attract members and retain them.
i.e. there would be no incentive for people to train or remain around if you have to pull the truck out every time to have an area to train in or lay the gear out or just sit around and talk etc in.

Off the top of my head i think the minimum for any station needs to be a 2 bay "shed".
One bay for the appliance and the other split for a toilet/ kitchen area and a open area for training, lay out area etc.
This would provide the basics for all brigades to function in some comfort. Also in some areas as the brigades are the focal points for the area, who knows they might just attract new members. :-D

My hope, like malleefire is that the review of the SFEC does cover ALL brigades fairly and we end up with a workable document that progresses this organisation in future years.
cheers

for those brigades lacking in crew numbers, lets go for a gun mounted on a Hummer ( there is one in the clips) then you would only need a crew of 2 or 3 (or 1 group person) to handle the initial attack  :wink: :wink:

nice one footy and boardy,
it doesn't take long for the comments to come. Even in a situation like this we have to smile and laugh, keep them comming :-D :-D

This sounds good, let us get one for next year. :-D

Then as it will only be able to be used from Adelaide, that is OK too.
This will then allow the current "crop" of aircraft we contract each summer to be dispersed across the state to supplement the rural firefighting capacity.
Wait a minute, where is the money going to come from, from the current "air" budget, or from one of the other "buckets" the CFS has.
(i am being sarcastic tonight, its been one of those days) :wink: :wink:

I am sure that the CFS powers that be would weigh up all the options before committing to such an arrangement.

Ben Who :-D

hi,
just going through some old posts and came across this one.
very interesting in the numbers, numbers said about the calls they had especially in 98-99 (48)
I did some digging and this brigade was called Wattle Range before it was re named Mt. Graham.
It was about the same time that the W Range support brigade was formed, thus i suspect that many of the 48 calls were actually "jobs" that the WR support brigade did and not the Wattle Range / Mt Graham brigade. (would go for the average of 2-3 per year as much closer to the mark)

i hope the group gets to use it (when any issues are resolved) to its full potential although being only 6800 Lt capacity i would have hoped it would have been 4wd to enable it to go to the units in the field, not to be restricted to hard surfaces.

couldn't agree more zippy and mac13, looks like an ideal low crew number unit for struggling brigades, lets get it over for a proper "look see" and try out  :-)

hope he makes a full recovery and the rest of the firefighters remain safe

2 comments come to mind when thinking about GO and DGO attendance at incidents.
they are
Mentoring and
Succession planning.

Are they attending to do this ? in some cases i believe so but in some other cases i don't believe this is the case.

In my region we have some groups who this is defiantly not the case, eg the most senior person there is 99% of the time in charge. (i know they can but at "simple" one or two appliance jobs do they have to)

Several groups don't have rotational duty officers thus you get multiple group people responding  both physically and on the radio.

I know some of the comments have been written re you voted them in etc and if you are not happy vote them out. This has been tried at one group i know of to the detriment of the people and brigades who supported them.

in some of the groups people are happy just to fight fires and leave every thing up to the GO to do.
this is fine for some but brigades need to look for future leaders as well as groups. what happens when it is tie for these Group/Brigade  people to retire after 30 + years in a position if you don't practice Mentoring and succession planning. Who is capable of picking up the pieces, who will want to without some experience.

thanks mattb
i agree a great read :-o
every one should read it (i read it twice to fully grasp what they went through)
bring on the duel cabs.:-)

The groupies are not ment to go to any fire/incident that is under a second alarm and at all times the local brigade is still in charge of the job. our groupies will only roll to second alarm and up but will mann the base for a single brigade who has a job. works ok here...

I Agree Bill re the Groupies are not meant to attend fires etc under a second alarm and that the local brigade is in charge, but as you know within your region most groups work differently.
ie we have up to 3 groupies attend a single brigade response and almost always they will take command at every job they attend, thus not giving the local brigades a chance to develop skills etc.
No wonder, when the situation arises and no group people can attend it can be a bit chaotic and disjointed. :roll: