Full time CFS?

[Hazmat206]

I was wondering why we don't have full time cfs stations?
For example, seaford has a mets station being built because of the population and commercial growth in the area, which already has a cfs station. Why couldn't the cfs station operate full time or retained rather than building a mets station?
There already is an existence of paid cfs personnel so why not become a full time responding operation in certain areas?

[SA Firey]

As much as we would like to be. it will only be a pipe dream in this state

[Pipster]

CFS hasn't got a big enough budget to maintain our current fleet & equipment and buildings now.....no way CFS will have enough money in the budget to run a paid station!

Pip

[Alan J]

Would probably require (yet another) re-write of the Act. As far as I can make out,
MFS section is the only part which has stuff in it relating to paid fire-fighters.
CFS section implies all brigades are volunteer except for industry brigades & DEH.

Quite aside from that, everyone knows there's nothing outside Adelaide metro
area that is of enough value to warrant spending $1M per year on a full-time
fire station.  

[Alex]

Hasnt the statement been made that "there will only ever be one paid fire service in SA" ??

[Zippy]

its possible with a merger lol

[Rainer]

Because full time firies in the CFS would undoubtedly be UFU members and be paid to the SAMFS award which would mean that a firefighter/ senior firefighter on station would earn more than the regional staff which is kind of funny considering that the regional staff would technically outrank on shift firies

[SA Firey]

Because full time firies in the CFS would undoubtedly be UFU members and be paid to the SAMFS award which would mean that a firefighter/ senior firefighter on station would earn more than the regional staff which is kind of funny considering that the regional staff would technically outrank on shift firies

Hmm whats that phrase pay peanuts and you get.....

[BundyBear]

Why don't we have full time CFS stations?

The answer is that it would make sense that's why we do not do it.

The benefits would be that the paid CFS stations would have a better response time, be able to supply the community with an excellent urban/rural response. The stations could be strategically placed to benefit responses not only in there busy patch which it would have to be to support paid staff but they could also assist volunteer brigades nearby not just in response but all sorts of tasks.

Instead of handing area over to MFS and still requiring CFS in the area for rural response and like in many areas response for RCR and EMA. As we all know MFS have one big job and their resources are stretched (not their fault just the way the system is!).

I don't think the CFSVA is dead against the idea as for the UFU at the end of the day if this did get up a paid firie is another potential union member.

Plus think of the potential source of employee's the CFS could gather paid members from.

[safireservice]

Hasnt the statement been made that "there will only ever be one paid fire service in SA" ??

And wasnt that statement made by a politician that has long vacated the portfolio of emergency services?

[Baxter]

A CFS with paid staff not people moving paper from the in tray to the out tray is something like what I saw on the box with my kids tonight called evolution.

About time some of the dinosaurs woke up and smelt the new world. People are expecting more as BundyDear inferred that having a paid service will only compliment the volunteers by improving the service that we already deliver.

[Hazmat206]

Why don't we have full time CFS stations?

The answer is that it would make sense that's why we do not do it.

The benefits would be that the paid CFS stations would have a better response time, be able to supply the community with an excellent urban/rural response. The stations could be strategically placed to benefit responses not only in there busy patch which it would have to be to support paid staff but they could also assist volunteer brigades nearby not just in response but all sorts of tasks.

Instead of handing area over to MFS and still requiring CFS in the area for rural response and like in many areas response for RCR and EMA. As we all know MFS have one big job and their resources are stretched (not their fault just the way the system is!).

I don't think the CFSVA is dead against the idea as for the UFU at the end of the day if this did get up a paid firie is another potential union member.

Plus think of the potential source of employee's the CFS could gather paid members from.

That's the reason behind  my question!

[big bronto]

Having paid CFS would not work,CFS seem to want to be the CFA, the CFA have a long history of paid staff and even now Victoria will see one fire service in the future. Maybe MFS need to adapt more to rural fire fighting and then there would be no need for paid CFS in these Urban/Rural settings? CFS have paid staff who as Rainer said outrank on shift fireman but have no fire operations training to be on shift fire fighters, i doubt most of them would pass the testing.

[Baxter]

Having paid CFS would not work,CFS seem to want to be the CFA, the CFA have a long history of paid staff and even now Victoria will see one fire service in the future.

Big Bronto your reply could be seen as creating two questions. The first is what is wrong in adopting a national structure for the volunteer fire fighting based on the best working model we have. They can still be run by each state entities but a more unified approach to emergency management

The second question is that of one emergency service as you indicated allegedly occurring in Victoria within the fire service. We can all testify how hard it is to recruit, retain and then sustain membership beyond five years. This could be as  I said in an earlier post a sign of evaluation of the emergency services not a power grab as some would see it but a sign of survival. If evaluation can occur every where else in nature why can't it occur in the world of emergency services.

[BundyBear]

Having paid CFS would not work,CFS seem to want to be the CFA, the CFA have a long history of paid staff and even now Victoria will see one fire service in the future. Maybe MFS need to adapt more to rural fire fighting and then there would be no need for paid CFS in these Urban/Rural settings? CFS have paid staff who as Rainer said outrank on shift fireman but have no fire operations training to be on shift fire fighters, i doubt most of them would pass the testing.

I'd like to see one fire service in this state in my own opinion as it would stop duplication of services at management, support and training levels or with staff from both services working along a common goal maybe it would introduce a better support structure both services currently seem to want. It may also resolve the current conflict with borders between the both services. It could also sort out the issue of having retained stations in areas that are not so busy and could revert back to volunteer and areas that are currently volunteer and are getting smashed in turn outs could become retained so the volunteers are not out of pocket for travel and lost time. Then once a retained station requires full-time staff that option could be looked at in a number of models.

As for CFS regional staff not having any fire operations training that statement is not truly correct as many paid staff instruct on courses so they have to be current to instruct on the given module and a lot of paid staff belong to brigades and respond with those brigades. As for the pay structure that is a not a huge issue all it requires is a restructure but would involve a budget increase (which seems to be an issue now!). As for most of them passing any formalised testing you could say that about a lot of white shirts in the MFS once these persons reach this level they truly don't need to be operational in the hose dragging sense as they are in a management/ command role so not a huge issue!

[whitecloud]

The problem more than likely lies between the funding the CFS obviously dont have (or there'd be more courses/ training / gear/ appliances you name it...) and legislation. More than that, we already have retained MFS stations, who do perform a very similar function to a paid CFS brigade style of response.

Perhaps extention, or MFS taking over some of the busier CFS stations and retaining current members if possible would take some of the pressure off the volunteer organisation, as well as removing some of the burden of costs for those brigades which do become retained MFS  from the CFS.

Blegh. Day shift brain, apologies if this looks like it's written, transcribed through Babelfish into German and back.

[BundyBear]

The problem more than likely lies between the funding the CFS obviously dont have (or there'd be more courses/ training / gear/ appliances you name it...) and legislation. More than that, we already have retained MFS stations, who do perform a very similar function to a paid CFS brigade style of response.

Perhaps extention, or MFS taking over some of the busier CFS stations and retaining current members if possible would take some of the pressure off the volunteer organisation, as well as removing some of the burden of costs for those brigades which do become retained MFS  from the CFS.

Blegh. Day shift brain, apologies if this looks like it's written, transcribed through Babelfish into German and back.

If MFS took over these busy CFS urban fringe or large rural centre brigades what is the benefit over a CFS retained or paid model. The benefit of CFS is that it could supply the urban response like MFS and also the rural response plus interact effectively with air support and AIIMS. Plus as i stated before these retained or paid CFS brigades could support the local volunteer brigades in a number of different ways. I can tell you now CFS blow MFS out of the water with large incident management and I've seen it and heard it from MFS firies.

Eveyone keeps banging on abour budget yes it is a current concern but if the CFS model ever changes of cause we would need to change the funding structure. If CFS don't look down this path in a long term future analysis they will slowly get gobbled up by the MFS.

[Alan J]

I can tell you now CFS blow MFS out of the water with large incident management and I've seen it and heard it from MFS firies.

Might not last long though.  
The Tassie experience of one fire service was swimmingly good.
For about the first five years.

Since then, Incident Management experience has become a pre-requisite for full-
timers who want promotion to Station Officer or beyond. As IMT scale fires are
relatively infrequent, this means that volunteers are excluded to allow paid
firies to get their tickets punched - irrespective of ability.
IMT competence, knowledge & experience in volunteers is of no value.  For the
volunteer, there is no real role in the Service beyond crew leader/captain, and
then only of small rural brigades. When you are no longer fit to be on a truck,
it's off to meals-on-wheels or whatever.

Like CFA, it is only a recipe for success if volunteers are content to be nothing
"more" than hose-draggers.