So Pip you are saying Eucla was responded from WA & rescue was responded from Ceduna along with SAAS?
Makes sense maybe Adelaide Fire may have mentioned that by radio.
And as Eucla is a volunteer emergency service unit i.e. not a FESA fire & rescue, they are both fire & SES & would be RCR rescue so why wasn't rescue responded from there? Short of crew perhaps?
Seems to me Pip it was a bit of a mish mash.
As I said above the one size (or ideas dreamed up in Adelaide)fits all approach does not work in remote & rural areas, so maybe SAFECOM needs to workout how the government is going to provide Emergency coverage across the state because the current system will collapse its only a matter of time.
Eucla was a CFS brigade until a few years ago, despite being a 12km over the WA border. There is also a Eucla SES and Eucla ambos. A couple of years ago, the responsibility for the funding / operations etc was handed over the FESA.
I believe the fire truck is still a standard issue CFS 24......
I figure that perhaps Eucla SES AND Ceduna SES were both sent, as initial reports perhaps mentioned two trucks involved, and the potential for TWO rescues being needed
I believe the fire truck is still a standard issue CFS 24......
In this case, I figure ambulance & rescue resources were sent from either end of the call, with fire resources being sent from the closest resource (Eucla). With further information being obtained re the load in the trucks, THEN hazmat units were dispatched from the next few closest hazmat brigades....
Of course, Eucla is no longer on the GRN paging system, so we don't see their pager messages.......
The Eucla fire truck used to have a GRN radio fitted...they may still do, considering their proximity to the border.....
Pip