Author Topic: Heavy use of appliances  (Read 17517 times)

Offline mack

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2007, 07:09:21 AM »
if its on the bridge would be CFS area

Offline JC

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2007, 08:25:59 AM »
That would be seafords area, and it looks like seaford have defaulted.
Roxby Downs CFS
Lt 2
BHP ESO

Offline fireblade

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2007, 07:00:54 AM »
Hmmmmmm interesting stuff. Being in one of those urban fringe brigades  and speaking to other's in neighbouring brigades most have told me they are happy with the appliances they have got and some like the versatility of the 24P's and 34P's compared to Type 2 pumps that cant go off road if needed.

These brigades as you all would be aware of have strategic planning in place to replace appliances when required and  when their appliances have done enough hours and Km's, we get new ones and the old ones are retro fitted and sent to brigades that don't do many calls a year.

Burnside have only looked into replacing their Volvo over the last few years and T.T.G. have recently got rid of their R.F.W. that had been in service for 20+ years that they were happy with but she was just getting to old.

I've seen a lot of the other states appliances I think we do pretty well considering the services size. Just my opinion!

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2007, 09:48:51 AM »
Just love that RFW drives well and it would not take much to get it back into action if needed....

Offline car31

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2007, 11:48:06 AM »
Salisbury could give up some area that would drop there calls down dalkeith did it others have done it i understand that some times they are required but do cfs brigades in urban areas need such a big urban primary area mfs can get there faster.

 it sucks that the busy brigades dont always get what they want but least they have something that can do the job. i know quorn ses require a new truck well there first truck they have a hilux and a trailer and they have to wait till 08/09 to get a truck so i think cfs has it pretty good when it comes to trucks etc.
     

Salisbury could do well to be shut down. Its surrounded by MFS stations.


On face value lots of people say Salisbury is in the middle of MFS stations and so should be shut down or not receive new pumpers etc. What people dont see is the following, the amount of times Salisbury are covering for MFS who at Salisbury are out of area more than they are in area, the amount of jobs CFS run as the primary pump, the amount of jobs that they support MFS at, often at the request of MFS who dont seem to be able to effectively manage their resources in the northern suburbs without a significant reliance on CFS running as the second pump etc. With all this in mind if these urban interface brigades are being used the way they currently are they need to be equipped with the right equipment, regardless to what MFS stations are based around them.

Offline Crank

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 47
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2007, 11:56:12 AM »
In regards to that G D is it best to supply the CFS with a new pumper for Salisbury or provide the MFS with more funding and a 4x4 Pumper? And close or downgrade Salisbury to a completely rural station?

This is looking at reducing duplication & improving coverage/response times - not a CFS vs MFS thing.

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2007, 12:36:26 PM »
Why not build a new station with mfs/cfs in it?????? save money on paying rent on the cfs station....

uniden

  • Guest
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2007, 04:22:58 PM »
MFS have a shortage of firies at the moment and are flat out just replacing retirements and trying to recruit for new stations. MFS utilise CFS so much in Adelaide as they probably need more appliances of their own but funds and resources just dont allow for it. CFS urban brigades will continue to be relied upon , you just cant shut them down that is ludicrous.

Offline Crank

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 47
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #33 on: November 26, 2007, 05:29:47 PM »
MFS have a shortage of firies at the moment and are flat out just replacing retirements and trying to recruit for new stations. MFS utilise CFS so much in Adelaide as they probably need more appliances of their own but funds and resources just dont allow for it. CFS urban brigades will continue to be relied upon , you just cant shut them down that is ludicrous.

Which is why i stated that MFS be given more funds to acomplish this.  There is no shortage of potential recruits, just need the machine to print more money.

Offline SA Firey

  • Forum Group Officer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,967
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #34 on: November 26, 2007, 07:30:16 PM »
Well check this out courtesy of the UFU website

SAMFS At Breaking Point


As reported in the latest Wordback, budgetary adjustments continue to cut into our ability to deliver services to the public of South Australia.

The sorry saga of the Operational Training Relief (OTR) shift is well documented in the wordback mentioned above. As well as the eight OTR positions disappearing, we have also lost one or more officers from USAR and CBR. All of these positions were deemed absolutely essential to the efficient running of this fire service only two or three years ago.

In fact, as recently as August 07, the commitment to "recall if necessary to maintain OTR numbers" was given. Sounds very similar to the commitment, "Mr ....... has our full backing", just before a political party dumps it's leader!!

As well as these staff cutbacks, various departments have had to make cuts to their previously approved funding - just speak to anyone in the Training Dept.

One ridiculous example of this is the recent email request for Departments to come up with a "Budget Efficiency Dividend" (corporate-speak for your funding has been cut by $50 or $100 thousand dollars!!!!!) If it wasn't so serious you would laugh your guts out at this inability to just face up to your employees and say 'Are you able to trim your budget?'

The only Budget Efficiency Dividend we can see is the possibility in the future of some bureaucrat or executive staff-member getting a performance bonus for reducing the budget of SAMFS??

The next episode in this tragic dismantling of one of the oldest and proudest fire services in Australia is to use an appliance from Adelaide (202) to staff the new Beulah Park station - due to open early in 2008! We are not so sure that the people who live or work in city buildings would accept this as an improvement.

In what way are the people of South Australia advantaged by opening a brand new station and using an existing appliance to staff it? Refusing to increase the Global Manning by four to enable the station to be properly staffed reduces even further the ability for firefighters to receive scheduled training.

Another station is due to open at Seaford in approx 2009. Are we to assume that it will be staffed by sending a Christies or St Marys appliance there? It wouldn't be surprising given the logic of the last couple of decades.

Currently we have approx 20 'pods' carrying essential equipment (portable hospital, CBR, etc) which need to be transported to incidents via the 'pod truck'. Will this be the next target for Budget Efficiency Dividends?

Bear in mind that all this comes after serious cuts to staffing ten or so years ago. At that time SAMFS lost a couple of front-line pumpers from the system as well as quite a few officer positions - mainly from the DO rank.

Also, the fireboat had it's crew reduced and this has had a detrimental effect on the ability to keep a pumper available for the protection of the residents of Lefevre peninsula (as well as the huge commercial development that is taking place there).

The ironic part of the last couple of decades is that the area and population covered by SAMFS has increased by around 10%. Is this all we can offer our community??

I think it is time that the SAMFS management and, more importantly, the SAFECOM board were called to account over these large deficiencies that have been allowed to build up over the last ten or fifteen years. The people of South Australia want and deserve much better allocation of SAFECOM funds to SAMFS thereby ensuring that they are properly protected from fire and other emergencies.

If SAFECOM & SAMFS are unable to improve the level of protection given by firefighters to the residents of SA, we believe some of these residents will start to apply pressure to instigate the required improvements.
Images are copyright

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2007, 08:30:16 PM »
So at the same time the volunteer services are suffering from recruitment, retention & training problems - due to budget cuts, the one paid emergency service who by default support the current government (being union members and all)are suffering there own budget problems, this is a disgrace if its true.
If the SAMFS people can't improve the situation, what hope do the vollies have?
Another question though, why did the UFU members support the creation of the Seaford station if that means stripping appliances & personnel from existing Stations or departments?
Do they /would they support new stations being opened in the future?
Does that put the retained stations under further threat?
Does this truely put the community of Adelaide at increased risk?
What are the solutions? Obviously political pressure doesn't work, it certainly hasn't so far.
Finally is this situation putting the volunteer services under increased pressure &placing them in an unenviable position?
As I said before this is a disgrace if it is true, hard to believe from a Labour Government.
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline safireservice

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2007, 09:00:21 PM »
They want their cake and be able to eat it as well! They are whining about low numbers and thinly spread resources, but they want to increase their workload by taking over CFS areas in the outer suburban areas. Why dont they stop constantly running their pumps into CFS areas to piddly litte bin fires in the middle of parks and the like? Maybe that might releive some of the pressure? It would save them some money also! (Looks like another thread gone off track again!!!!!!!!!)
Treat everyone as if they are an idiot, until they prove you otherwise.

Offline SA Firey

  • Forum Group Officer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,967
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2007, 09:31:58 PM »
Not really because all these calls that they are responding to increases the workload on an appliance,which going by the UFU letter is becoming increasingly unworkable.

But wait CFS will do a change of quarters for us :-P
Images are copyright

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2007, 07:44:42 AM »
Another question though, why did the UFU members support the creation of the Seaford station if that means stripping appliances & personnel from existing Stations or departments?

Its not meant to. A new station should come with an appliance, and 12FF and 4SO positions. Along with all other necessary equipment.

Does that put the retained stations under further threat?

In all honesty there are only a couple of retained stations that should be kept, whereas as the others (eg: doing 30 jobs a year) should be cut. They are a waste of money.

What are the solutions?

If I was the UFU, I'd be going on strike, in a big way, about losing appliances and they kind of thing.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline safireservice

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2007, 08:21:19 AM »
It would be interesting to find out where these appliances were "lost" from.
Treat everyone as if they are an idiot, until they prove you otherwise.

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2007, 09:35:55 AM »
 (Looks like another thread gone off track again!!!!!!!!!)
Slightly off topic :wink:. But on the one hand CFS brigades are talking about appliances (theirs) being heavily used and the need to rotate.
This links with other threads about payment for CFS vollies which some want.
And yet here are the paid full timers, claiming they are under manned, under equipped etc. I think they sought of fall in together, don't you?
I agree Retained stations that are under utilised should be closed, conversly CFS brigades who are heavily tasked - should have a full time component (SAMFS?). We as volunteers need to remember that these guys earn a livelyhood from this type of work. Also we must think of our employers etc, everytime we take off on a callout - it cost them money.
Maybe there needs to be a total review on how services are provided in the Adelaide metro area -- conducted by people who don't have hidden agendas.
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline fireblade

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2007, 03:25:12 PM »
I thought you lads were talking about appliances!!!

Not kicking around the CFS/MFS football again.

Offline Firey9119

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2008, 01:29:47 PM »
to all the people that think closing stations like salisbury down heres something to thinks about----------------

at this point in time where mfs is jumping up and down saying why are working to hard and dont have enought money to pay our fire fighters wing wing wing etc.............


salisbury cfs (and others eg mv) are always in the top 5 call getters every year. do you hear us complaining "we are doing to many calls" "we are under paid"
the answer NO

why would you close us down which would make mfs work harder, going to more calls, and cost mfs more money!!

we are doing this job for free and all we are asking is for the right equipment to do the job BETTER, to be able to support mfs better and to be better able to cover our own area.

and as for duplication of resources, there must be a need for that many resources as mfs are calling for support from pumpers, rcr equipment to do coq to cover their area when needed. How are we going to cover their are correctly with what they require if we dont have the equipment needed.


I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD THINK/LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE BEFORE SPITTING OUT "LET JUST CLOSE DOWN STATIONS AND THAT WILL SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS, as this would create more problems..............






my ideas only
firey9119
« Last Edit: January 20, 2008, 01:34:51 PM by Firey9119 »
Phillip H
Salisbury CFS (Para Group)
FireFighter
(Firey9119)

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2008, 02:13:40 PM »
The whole Emergency Services is a mess!
Currently you have volly ff's doing more work than SAMFS retained.
SAMFS short of staff, that short that they can't do all of their roles properly(as claimed by the UFU)
CFS payed staff saying that lessons have been learnt, when in fact I'm not so sure. And some aledgedly even deliberately trying to thwart efforts by units & brigades to work together by placing road blocks to stop co-operation
Some in SES & others within the community not really sure what its role is (in fact there are two SES's one metro one rural). Some SES units due to internal issues not even bothering to meet their standard of emergency response.
And everyone fighting over the same pot of gold.
I wasn't saying shut you down and all problems would be solved. What I was saying was that if you are so busy maybe there is a need for additional SAMFS resources. After all every time a volly leaves work/ self employment then it costs. Now for low to medium areas the costs aren't that high, however for brigades/units who have a high to very high call out rate then the costs to the employers/ self employed are massive and thats on  top of ESL!
It is government cost shifting - simple. So unless there is significant improvements/ incentives to employers & the self employed, then there needs to be a higher full time presence.
And if you really need more rescue out there then SES Northern districts needs to be strenghtened.
By the way how many members do you have that regularly ride the trucks?
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline Master of Disaster

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 61
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Heavy use of appliances
« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2008, 12:42:26 AM »
bahaha northern ses do rescue haha was that a joke you would be waiting an hour :roll:

 

anything