For example, say you have a Fire Service that has a house collapse, causing some deaths and injuries. It comes out in investigations that having a "Safety Officer" would have prevented the deaths/injuries by observing the signs of collapse. Now, should our Fire Service (that doesn't use a "Safety Officer") wait until it too suffers deaths and injuries too investigate and then learn that using a "Safety Officer" could have prevented them? Or should our Fire Service implement a Safety Officer based on what has occurred and been previously learn by the other Fire Service?
The MFS would have a safety officer at this particular incident, so I'm not sure about the CFS?
You've totally misunderstood my point. I'm not talking about any services in particular, merely trying to ask why is it that we can't learn from the mistakes made and lessons learnt by other services in the world, rather than wait for the same set of circumstances to occur in our own service. At the end of the day we all do a similar job, are exposed to similar risks, and one would think that we could mitigate these risks in a similar manner. It was an example. You could substitute "Coffe Truck" for "Safety Officer".
It also goes without saying, if you read CFS Operational Management literature, that the CFS
should have a safety officer at incidents, although as we all have experienced, how often does this actually happen?
Certainly no fishing trip, I was looking forward to the discussion, but sadly it seems as though its turned into a SAMFS vs SACFS cock measuring contest.
No one turned this into an MFS vs CFS cock measuring contest.
Are you sure about that? I'm getting a very hostile CFS vs. MFS feeling from certain people.
If this was in MFS area, then there are problems using the CFS due to the equipment compatability with MFS equipment and Vice Versa.
Can you tell me if the CFS log onto their airsets?
Would their DSU work and show up on the tablet that was being used at this incident as a personal activation?
If an entry control board was in use (which I'm presuming it would be), do the CFS set tallies fit into an MFS enrty control board?
Or would an MFS tally fit into a CFS board?
I'm slightly confused here, as you've quoted yourself and then argued against a point that was never made, but anyhow:
(Obviously you well know the answers)
You essentially "log in" to a CFS airset when you fill out a tally tag. No, its not a telemetry system as MFS run, but assuming you have a switched on ECO/BACO it works.
Of course CFS DSU's work, but you well know that they won't show up on the tablet that is monitoring a system that they aren't part of. That's like asking will an Incident Report that you hand write show up on CRIIMSON if you wave it in front of a PC monitor. Of course not.
In a perfect world we would all use one system, but in the meantime, doesn't the system still work using different tally boards? Can't one ECO/BACO monitor multiple boards? It's a basic skill, but the issue should be rectified.
This is perfect example of where CFS can implement a procedure without having to endure a costly lesson. We know that BA tally's don't fit MFS to CFS or even between CFS Brigades in certain groups. Why not work to resolve this before something happens, like we lose a tally, that person gets lost and is thus missed in an accountability check?
Sure, you can pull out your leatherman and try to cut yourself free but there is a procedure that should be followed which would be part of my escape plan.
This is not a CFS vs MFS post. You have asked what would the firefighter do. If an MFS firefighter was stuck, I would hope that they would do the same as a CFS firefighter. All that I have said is that I would instigate a 'Mayday" and take it from there, once again, this is what I would do.
I wasn't suggesting that
you were getting into a CFS vs. MFS post, although small parts of it do read that way. Can't we discuss different methods, including RIT here? Actually having people share personal experiences and what their agency manages to do? God forbid we might all learn something here, both the "professionals" and the "amateurs".
Of you original post, the only part I disagreed with was your assertion that we should not compare ourselves to what occurs in the USA, and we cannot learn anything from their mistakes and the changes to firefighting equipment/policy and procedures that some parts of the USA has implemented. Totally agree with your suggestion of entrapment procedure, etc. Although I'd say that given you follow you agencies SOP for entrapment procedure, there is no reason you can't attempt to effect self rescue, rather than lay like a limp fish in what may end up being an easily escapable entanglement.
Could you enlighten us as to these "RIT Methods" you speak of?
As per a RIT team, a crew (of 4)is put aside and designated as a RIT team that is only used for an emergency rescue with a complete set of rescue resources eg. stretcher, tools, cutting gear and anything that may be needed to effect a rescue. This team is not used for any firefighting.
I was asking the ever so
enlightened name dropper unfknblvable to help us through these MFS RIT methods, but thanks for jumping in. It seems a pretty standard RIT setup, although I'm assuming the RIT officer is completing their own RIT specific size-up and appropriate staging etc etc?
Wind me up and watch me go!
