Courier article 1/08/07 about hills CFS

[Pipster]

Now, that's a good idea - let's replace all the busy CFS stations with 1 MFS appliance & full time crew.  Now we can guarantee an immediate 1 appliance response to all calls.  Bad luck if we need two or more appliances - oh well, we'll just have to call the next MFS station along the way.  Pity they are 15 minutes drive away, when the next door CFS brigade is only 4 minutes away, and has a truck on the road in 4 minutes....

What happens when there is a COQ, when the only MFS appliance in the former CFS station is called into the city for a change of quarters....who then covers them....at least in the current situation, if an appliance goes for the busy stations, there is another option, should a call out occur in the immediate area.

And, if we replaced all of the busy CFS brigades with an MFS station, crew & appliance, who is going to pay for it?  I doubt the Government could realistically fund that many new set ups across the state.

Should another "bad" fire day occur (and there is no doubt, it will, sometime) if one MFS crew were there, it is only one crew.  On a really bad fire day, I have found many CFS volunteers take the day off from work, or work from home, or sneak out early from work, or stay around home, and put off a job until tomorrow, - whatever they can, just to be around...so if a fire gets started, there are enough crew to crew all of the appliances in those busy brigades -even on a weekday...

On Black Tuesday, my brigade put out a page for members to respond to the station, priority 2, for active standby...in 4 minutes, there were 9 people there, on a weekday, lunchtime...more followed shortly after....I know many other brigades were in a similar position...

I think to simply say put 1 MFS crew into the busy CFS area, so that we can always guarantee a response,  is taking a very simplistic, and unrealistic view - the replacing of CFS Volunteers, with a paid MFS crew, is far more complex problem, than just substituting crews.

Pip

[rescue5271]

Well said pip..........

[6739264]

Its got nothing to do with single one for one swap. Its not been suggested that you replace entire groups with a single SAMFS appliance and crew, nor has it been suggested that SACFS crews would not be there when required by SAMFS.

Brigades may meet the standard for response times, which is all well and good, but  there are two standards written, one for Professional services and one for Volunteer services. They are very differing standards, allowing for the fact that most vollies need to drive to the station first, then get the appliance on the road.

Pip, by the same token of response times, what happens when the first station is turned out, and has to default to the next station... 4 minutes away and can get a truck out the door in 4 minutes, thats another 8 minutes on top of all other times associated with the initial response.

I was merely suggesting that a full time crew (note: not necessarily only a single pump) is able to get to the job and get to work much faster than most volunteer brigades. They can also guarantee an RCR crew when needed, a full compliment of CABA and HAZMAT trained personnel when needed.

[AJ]

The problem is Pip that no one is saying replace CFS with MFS.

People are just saying that we add another level of protection. CFS still remains, and will still have a job.  THe problem is that some people in CFS want to protect their organisation more than they want to protect the community.

The problem is that the reason why there is so much scepticism around new stations and service models is because there is so much patch protection and turf wars and empire building going on.

If MFS move into an area previously covered by CFS all I care about is 'is the community getting a serrvice' and in that case they get an extra service, MFS plus CFS.

The problem is that many people see this whole debate as CFSvMFS. It isnt.

It shouldnt be that way. If they decide to put an MFS station somewhere it just means there is more, it doesnt mean the CFS wont be working, cause as Pip pointed out there will still be a need for more than one appliance.
And if volunteers have to do less to protect the community because the Govt has realised there is a need for a paid service then isnt that a good thing? Or again is it not about the community and more about the organisation?

I think that when we get to the point where all this empire building turf war crap is over we willbe able to examine a decent service model. And sad as it is to say - its our fault. Because everytime someone talks about it the old cackles get up and people go into 'protect the organisation' mode and in the long term this does nothing to 'protect the community'.

There are some areas where there is a need for MFS presence where there isnt one now. But I am sure if the Govt tried to put one there there would be hell. Eg Seaford.

The CFS need to realise we are a volunteer service and we are never going to be given paid fire fighters. The VFBA need to realise its not their job to advocate for paid fire fighters - cause they get paid to advocate for the volunteers - not the CFS as an organisation!!!!!!!

The MFS need to realise they are not replacing CFS when move into an area they are just adding a level of protection and altering the service delivery model. When we can get both MFS and CFS accepting their role and not trying to step on the toes of the other and work together then we might have some progress.

AJ

[RescueHazmat]

Some good points.

I also agree with AJ in regards to this statement..

People are just saying that we add another level of protection. CFS still remains, and will still have a job.  THe problem is that some people in CFS want to protect their organisation more than they want to protect the community.

I put an onus on the word SOME. - But I agree.

[SA Firey]

Volunteers are the lifeblood of our community and we must receive the support from the very organisation we are working for.

If the SFEC says we are required the volunteers will stay until the end

[Crank]

Ive got no beef with MFS taking over if thats what is required to provide an adequate service to the community as that is why we are all here.

What we need to establish is a serviceable median between paid and volunteer station.  As it has been said we can not afford to have paid stations all over the place but there also needs to be a point at which the work load is to big for the vollies and maybe too much risk.  The CFS can provide an urban service as good as MFS but not with our current appliances.

If Mt Barker is at that stage then i dont see why a full time service should not be implemented.  But why cant vollies and paid staff work out of one station?  As it is not feasible to completely disband Mt Barker CFS and replace them with one or two MFS appliances.

[JC]

There are some areas where there is a need for MFS presence where there isn't one now. But I am sure if the Govt tried to put one there there would be filtered. Eg Seaford.

The problem isn't about MFS moving to Seaford, cause this was always going to happen, its the way the process happened when the moved was confirmed thats the problem, hence the whole nature of this forum, lack of communication from HQ/REG.

[SA Firey]

Cut a long story short Seaford got shafted by the very organisation that they represent

[6739264]

The CFS can provide an urban service as good as MFS but not with our current appliances.

In terms of response times, appliance capabilities, training and quality of crew, CFS can simply not compete with SAMFS for Urban response.

[rescue5271]

I know I have asked this before but why cant we have a staff/volunteer station like other state's have?? You would not need a full crew but 3 paid staff during the day and have volunteer back up then at night go back to full volunteer call outs.Works in other state's and the UFU back it....... I guess the big issue is that we need to have consultation and the UFU needs to step back and let the CFS/MFS come to a better system that provides better protection to the community but also allows Volunteers to still be involved in their local community fire service.

[AJ]

Actually I dont think it is the UFU that needs to step back is the VFBA - and I am a CFS Member
The VFBA are too busy trying to advocate for paid CFS fire to boot the CFS as an organisation.
SAFECOM have made it clear there will not be paid CFS firefighters.
So they VFBA need to step back and workj out a way to have integrated stations with paid MFS fire fifghters and volunteers - perhaps a joint station.

So rather than protecting and trying to boost their patch we actually need less of the attempts at empire building from the people whou are supposed to represent us.

[Crank]

The CFS can provide an urban service as good as MFS but not with our current appliances.

In terms of response times, appliance capabilities, training and quality of crew, CFS can simply not compete with SAMFS for Urban response.

All correct except maybe training.  As far as im concerned MFS/CFS training in Urban firefighting is pretty much the same.

Intergrated stations must be the way of the future.  Its the most efficient way to provide a fire service to the community.

[rescue5271]

So where has the VFBA been offering to help the paid staff?? I have not read or heard any of this and I have been getting emails from the VFBA that support Volunteers not the paid staff.....

[Pipster]

The CFS can provide an urban service as good as MFS but not with our current appliances.

In terms of response times, appliance capabilities, training and quality of crew, CFS can simply not compete with SAMFS for Urban response.

I don't intend to debate that comment, (which I disagree with on many counts...)  other than to say the bulk (almost all? - maybe all?) of the busy CFS stations have a major rural area to cover - including rural / urban interface...

Pip

[6739264]

Pip, you don't seem to understand that no-one is saying that if SAMFS move into an area that SACFS currently covers then you'll lose multiple stations and multiple appliances and the end of SACFS would be coming.

Lets say, for example, SAMFS move into Heysen group. They set up a station at Mt. Barker housing a GP Pump and a Telesquirt. Pretty basic set up for a mix of domestic/industrial buildings as well as being primary rescue for the area. Mt Barker CFS then keep a Pumper(with some rescue capability eg: RIK) and a 34/34P rural appliance. Other brigades in the area stay the same. All this does is increase the level of service provided to the community and has little impact on the surrounding brigades. SACFS can still handle rural jobs, and still backs up SAMFS for all your urban needs.

You seem to be of the opinion that entire groups would be replaced by a single appliance SAMFS station..?

[Pipster]

6793264 - I was replying to one of your earlier posts, in which you stated the following:

 "The same thing holds true in all built up urban areas, Mt. Barker, Seaford, Mt. Lofty Group. Nothing can guarantee service like stations staffed 24/7."

My understanding of that is that you suggest that these brigades / Groups can't provide a guaranteed service, and from that,  a suggestion that a paid crew replace them

You went on to say in further posts :

"I was merely suggesting that a full time crew (note: not necessarily only a single pump) is able to get to the job and get to work much faster than most volunteer brigades."

So isn't that replacing a CFS crew?

In reading your last posting, I think it shows a lack of understanding about what actually motivates many volunteers to be part of the CFS

You said  " SACFS can still handle rural jobs and still back up MFS for all your urban needs"  -  so CFS are put back to not a lot more than a rural services who sometimes are allowed to play in the urban area.....?


I also think it is naive to think that all the current volunteers will automatically stay around, should their brigade be replaced by an MFS Station - many of them may well, but I suspect some wouldn't

Pip

[safireservice]

Lets say, for example, SAMFS move into Heysen group. They set up a station at Mt. Barker housing a GP Pump and a Telesquirt. Pretty basic set up for a mix of domestic/industrial buildings as well as being primary rescue for the area. Mt Barker CFS then keep a Pumper(with some rescue capability eg: RIK) and a 34/34P rural appliance. Other brigades in the area stay the same. All this does is increase the level of service provided to the community and has little impact on the surrounding brigades. SACFS can still handle rural jobs, and still backs up SAMFS for all your urban needs.

Isnt this duplicating resources? Especially where you say Barker keep a Pump, like posted in previous threads? Oh i forgot, if you put the MFS in its all for the better but if it's a CFS brigade there it's a duplication of services.

[mack]

Pip, you don't seem to understand that no-one is saying that if SAMFS move into an area that SACFS currently covers then you'll lose multiple stations and multiple appliances and the end of SACFS would be coming.

yay!!!! lets duplicate more resources....

[6739264]

A town that will grow to the size of Mt. Barker and that has no brigade out to areas like Wistow certainly needs more than a single pump and a telesquirt to cover it properly. It's not a duplication of resources when you look at the number of persons within the area they are covering.

All you hear from most vollies is how they want to serve the community and put something back into it. One would think that they would be more supportive of a move to provide better protection to their community, and that still gives them a hands on role.

Pip, you seem to think that the two services cannot exist together in the one area and work together for a better outcome for the community they serve. It doesn't have to be one or the other, they can both exist in the one area. I can understand you may not quite realise this from an East Torrens point of view, where a SAMFS station probably would handle the workload of multiple brigades rather easily, but its different in other areas of the state.

Crank, tell me, are all SACFS personel rescue, CABA and Hazmat trained... no.

[Zippy]

Im "for" MFS being in heavily developed area's like Mt Barker. BUT not replacement, leaving the volunteers having to find sumthing else to do.

an MFS in Mt Barker would change the resourcing arrangements of surrounding brigades as well...perhaps even improving them.   Mt Barker CFS would be a support/Rural brigade, while probably still having 125~ calls a year, which in the mind of all volunteers is a very comfortable number of callouts.  It would relieve the pressure that volunteering with the CFS gives upon the persons work and family life.

MFS mt barker should have an Pumper and Skyjet since the nearest Aerial Resource is 30 minutes away, and the recent/upcoming multistory developments.

CFS mt barker would support the MFS and respond to Rural Callouts with perhaps a 24 and 24P. While the current CFS mt barker pumper would move to a nearby brigade.

Not a duplication, but a supportive rural orientated shift in roles done by the CFS.

[bittenyakka]

6793264 Do you prefer urban or rural jobs? If yo u are a permo i would guess you must like the urban work a lot. Many CFS members are like that and these days CFS is not a bushfire brigade it is a service that is capable of handling many emergency's and i believe that less that one third of CFS jobs last year where bushfires.

the thing is in the great scheme of things if CFS brigades are capable of looking after their patch then let them do it and put the money into other areas that need it. Like or Health or education departments which altho are good can use any money they get

[SA Firey]

MFS Mt Barker should have an Pumper and Skyjet since the nearest Aerial Resource is 30 minutes away, and the recent/upcoming multistory developments

Simple solution give Mt Barker CFS a Skyjet as they can get two appliances out the door.It will only be a matter of time before CFS need to get some aerial appliances to cover the increased urban and industrial risks in CFS area.

Food for thought CFA has 58,000 volunteers and 1200 CFA brigades,not that Adelaide has the same population,but majority of those are volunteer stations.

Instead of being filtered over and taking it lying down the volunteers of the communities they serve and protect still have something worth fighting for.

[Mel]

As i understand it, Seaford still have not been told where they will fit in when MFS move in. Just a tad annoying, an email was sent about the options two of them included shutting Seaford down Nice HUH!!! Also out of curiosity the dennis didnt cope in mt barker, how will the mfs appliances go? At a recent hazmat incident with the MFS. (NB:We Did work well with them) there one gadget didnt help, and they didnt exactly follow any hazmat protocols, both MFS and CFS should have tapped it up and waited for a hazmat brigade but both services sent ba operators in with the mfs officer walking in the part we had taped of with no protection. so you cant garentee they can handle hazmat better than cfs. and threats have been made of Replacing seaford

[mack]

Also out of curiosity the dennis didnt cope in mt barker, how will the mfs appliances go?

so your comparing Dennis a 15 or so year old appliance to new MFS appliances?