Author Topic: Groups self responding to SES jobs (Read 8903 times)

mack · « **on:** February 27, 2007, 07:56:47 PM »

anyone else noticed this trend latey???

MFS: RESPOND Tree Down 27/02/07 20:19,12 HOWARD DR,STIRLING, MAP 145 A 10 ,,LARGE TREE COVERING MOST OF THE ROAD - DIMLY LIT STREET - CHARMAINE SMART 8339 7476 P2,DAILY INC. NO. 51,73420*CFSRES:

LOFT: RESPOND Tree Down 12 HOWARD DR,STIRLING, MAP 145 A 10 ,,LARGE TREE COVERING MOST OF THE ROAD - DIMLY LIT STREET - CHARMAINE SMART 8339 7476, WITH SES, FROM LOFTY DGO2 *CFSRES 27/02/2007

SES get called to a job in lofty CFS Group area... and shortly after Lofty group turn themselves out....

they wouldnt be acting on information obtained from a scanner would they? and for gods sake..... why?

SA Firey · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2007, 08:59:04 PM »

A bit of copying and pasting by DGO2 by the looks

Darius · « **Reply #2 on:** February 28, 2007, 09:41:00 AM »

(I've said it before but here goes again - this should be a "sticky" at the top of every page in this thread!):

be very careful about jumping to conclusions based solely on pager messages (especially pages that weren't sent to you).

MATTY · « **Reply #3 on:** February 28, 2007, 10:03:15 AM »

I have to agree with Mack we have been responded by MFS as single response, NO CFS, only to find the CFS in attendance or arrive shortly afterwards. I think it has happend 4 times in the past month that we have responded to in the mt lofty groups area. Don’t know why you would self respond if a resource capable of doing the job has already been dispatched ?

Just my views

Matthew

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #4 on:** February 28, 2007, 12:16:01 PM »

I can't explain for sure why its happening, but looking at the last couple I can find:

Quote

MFS: RESPOND Tree Down 06/02/07 06:13,WILPENA TCE,ALDGATE, MAP 145 M 16 ,,LARGE TREE BLOCKING ROAD - FROM CFS OPS - PRIORITY 1 - POLICE NOTIFIED,DAILY INC. NO. 9,72120*CFSRES:

MFS: RESPOND Tree Down 06/02/07 06:35,WILPENA TCE,ALDGATE, MAP 145 M 16 ,,TREE BLOCKING ROAD - SES RESPONDING - POLICE NOTIFIED,DAILY INC. NO. 9,8824*CFSRES:

CFS responded a good 20 minutes later (perhaps the SES unit defaulted?)

Quote

MFS: RESPOND Tree Down 10/02/07 22:48,POMONA RD,STIRLING, MAP 145 E 12 ,,1 FOOT DIAM TREE 3/4 ACROSS ROAD PRIORITY 2 - CALLER HERMAN XXXXX PHONE XXXXXXXX,DAILY INC. NO. 69,73420*CFSRES:

SHQ: *CFSRES: STIRLING RESPOND TREE DOWN, POMANA RD, STIRLING. TRAFFIC HAZARD. < 10/02/2007 10:52:04 PM

Traffic hazard = life threat, hence CFS response.

Quote

SHQ: *CFSRES: STIRLING RESPOND TREE DOWN ONTO HOUSE, 90 OLD MOUNT BARKER ROAD, STIRLING.NEIGHBOUR TO ASSIST WITH ADDRESS. < 17/02/2007 10:11:20 AM

MFS: RESPOND Tree Down 17/02/07 10:12,90 OLD MOUNT BARKER RD,STIRLING, MAP 145 J 10 ,,P2 WITH STIRLING CFS. HERMAN XXXXXXXX. TREE ONTO HOUSE, NO OTHER DETAILS, CALL RECEIVED VIA CFS,DAILY INC. NO. 30,73420*CFSRES:

CFS responded first...

Quote

MFS: RESPOND Tree Down 18/02/07 16:02,KERSBROOK FOREST RD,KERSBROOK, MAP 76 C 5 ,,APPROX 400M UP FROM ONE TREE HILL RD, BEN XXXXXXXXX, ALREADY PARTLY CUT UP BY CALLER, P1,DAILY INC. NO. 61,73520*CFSRES:

SHQ: *CFSRES: KERSBROOK RESPOND TREE DOWN, KERSBROOK FOREST RD, 400 M UP FROM ONE TREE HILL RD. PERSON ON SCENE. SES RESPONDED. > 18/02/2007 4:07:10 PM CFS - Gumeracha Group

SES P1 = Life threat

Quote

MFS: RESPOND Tree Down 27/02/07 20:19,12 HOWARD DR,STIRLING, MAP 145 A 10 ,,LARGE TREE COVERING MOST OF THE ROAD - DIMLY LIT STREET - CHARMAINE XXXXXXXX P2,DAILY INC. NO. 51,73420*CFSRES:

LOFT: RESPOND Tree Down 12 HOWARD DR,STIRLING, MAP 145 A 10 ,,LARGE TREE COVERING MOST OF THE ROAD - DIMLY LIT STREET - CHARMAINE XXXXXXXX, WITH SES, FROM LOFTY DGO2 *CFSRES 27/02/2007

I suppose a tree covering most of the road on a dimly lit street also = life risk...

So it looks more like services following protocol than trying to poach each others jobs... As i said, i don't know why its happening, but it doesn't look sinister...

Hicksflat14 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2007, 12:18:47 PM »

Because they can get there while the SES are playing pager tag on when they are going to be bothered rocking up to the station. A tree on a poorly lit road sounds like a hazard and requires some priority, not someone heading to LHQ in 30 minutes or unavailable paged in by every member.

I quote the statement by the chief officers of the SAMFS,SACFS SASES RE Principles of Dispatch and Responce to Emergency Incidents dated 4 January 2007.

"Response of emergency services to emergency incidents will be based on the principle that the nearest and fastest appropriate resource will be responded"

Sturt SES are neither the closest or the fastest to that job.

MATTY · « **Reply #6 on:** February 28, 2007, 12:25:36 PM »

We are not the closet unit , but we still beat Stirling CFS by 15mins, we responded p3 to the job as police where on scene and it was a ended road..... cfs responded p2 aswell so i would not have demand it life threat?

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #7 on:** February 28, 2007, 12:45:12 PM »

Regardless of what priority the appliances respond at, the dispatchers have to follow protocol and respond the designated resources for that job... (As discussed elsewhere on these forums).

Also, for the last response, Stirling was responded at 2033 - 14 minutes after SES were responded, so you would expect them to get there a little bit later...

MATTY · « **Reply #8 on:** February 28, 2007, 12:49:52 PM »

I think the point Mack in making has been missed, I have no problem with MFs dispatched both CFS and SES to a tree in a life threat position, the fact that Groups are self reponding is the issue here,,,

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #9 on:** February 28, 2007, 01:04:43 PM »

Quote from: MATTY on February 28, 2007, 12:49:52 PM

I think the point Mack in making has been missed, I have no problem with MFs dispatched both CFS and SES to a tree in a life threat position, the fact that Groups are self reponding is the issue here,,,

I was trying to make the point that it might just be groups trying to follow response protocols rather than 'self responding' to incidents...

bittenyakka · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2007, 01:08:08 PM »

Isn't it simple enough to realise that someone else has been sent and you can continue what you are doing. I' would be happy to let SES come and clean a tree off the road at 1 or 2 in the morning

Alan (Big Al) · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2007, 01:52:09 PM »

Dunno i have seen pages for Sturt SES to respond to MVA's that have come from their own members in an area that CFS cover fire and rescue?

(No i don't have the pager info to back this up)
Soooo i guess the self response thing by certain groups/organisations happens both ways!!!!!

MATTY · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2007, 02:19:38 PM »

We have responded to MVA that our members have been at, but we have also responded the fire service as well. I would also point out that this would have happened once or twice a year, not 4 times within a month.

Firefrog · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2007, 03:03:00 PM »

Careful - Things are being discussed here as fact. There is no basis for some of the assumptions only pager messages.

Just consider what you say and the accusations you make.

mack · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2007, 04:07:23 PM »

Matty is correct, who cares if CFS and SES are both on the response plan and turned out. the issue is people turning themselves out to incidents they obviously arent on the plans to without being requested...

personally i was just pointing out the fact that in some places groups appeared to be turning themselves out to incidents, without actually reciveing a call.... they are purely going off of information obtained from a paging site. and then going running off to play hero (or not in this case since its just a tree) without knowing any background info...

of course Sturt SES go to vehicle accidents, any car v building would result in them getting turned out. however i cant imagine why they would turn themselves out to incidents that did not require there attendance sicne they are not a rescue resource...

anyway, once again an "ammusing pager message" gets turned into a gripe fest and a them versus us....

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #15 on:** February 28, 2007, 04:26:36 PM »

Quote from: mack on February 28, 2007, 04:07:23 PM

personally i was just pointing out the fact that in some places groups appeared to be turning themselves out to incidents, without actually reciveing a call.... they are purely going off of information obtained from a paging site. and then going running off to play hero (or not in this case since its just a tree) without knowing any background info...

Just to be sure we're talking about facts here and not assumptions, how do you know they are turning themselves out without knowing anything about the incident, and without being requested?

mack · « **Reply #16 on:** February 28, 2007, 04:33:59 PM »

its called copy and paste

anyway im not just reffering to this specific jobbie

Stefan KIRKMOE · « **Reply #17 on:** February 28, 2007, 04:53:45 PM »

I think at the end of the day it comes down to....

Closest most appropriate resource!

In half the cases when SES get responded why not send CFS on the initial response.... at the end of the day it comes down to Life / Property and environment and considering CFS trucks have chainsaws why shouldn't they be responded??? The only reason they arn't responded is because they were never consulted when SES data was input into the SAMFS computer.... Oh well....

bajdas · « **Reply #18 on:** February 28, 2007, 07:23:36 PM »

Quote from: skirkmoe on February 28, 2007, 04:53:45 PM

I think at the end of the day it comes down to....

Closest most appropriate resource!

In half the cases when SES get responded why not send CFS on the initial response.... at the end of the day it comes down to Life / Property and environment and considering CFS trucks have chainsaws why shouldn't they be responded??? The only reason they arn't responded is because they were never consulted when SES data was input into the SAMFS computer.... Oh well....

I am going to bite on this one....some CFS brigades do the formal chainsaw course. All SES members qualified have done the tree felling course. I have also been at a training course where CFS staff have stated that no CFS brigade should be felling trees.

So on that basis (& please let me know if I am wrongly informed

), then if it is a potential life threat the dual response from the call-taker organisation should occur. The dual response being closest emergency resource with specialists following.

If non-life threat, then leave it to SES.

No-one should be 'ambulance chasing' other organisations for taskings.

The newly signed agreement now states that 'the closest & most appropriate resource is responded'. This will take sometime to implement in the various computer databases, but I believe that sentence is open to different interpretation on what is an 'appropriate' resource.

My personal thoughts & opinions only.

Stefan KIRKMOE · « **Reply #19 on:** February 28, 2007, 07:41:00 PM »

Your totally right, although sometimes CFS members do get trained to fell trees, our brigade even has a fully employed tree doctor so i guess he probably doesn't know how so..... but if we are felling trees, i guess maybe then it's wouldn't be:

MFS: RESPOND TREE DOWN......

if it's down then does it need to be felled again?

Blue · « **Reply #20 on:** February 28, 2007, 08:00:53 PM »

Quote from: skirkmoe on February 28, 2007, 07:41:00 PM

if it's down then does it need to be felled again?

Ha ha ha!

Love it, true true, there is much skill involved in cutting trees down, especially when you wish to prevent disease and decay in the tree that is still standing and of course ensure that it doesn't drop on someone's head. But cutting a tree up once it is down is another kettle of fish.

Yes I can see you all about to type "but the tree could be hung up" etc etc, and yes it still requires skill, but more in using the chainsaw itself rather than technique

sesroadcrashrescue · « **Reply #21 on:** August 17, 2007, 11:44:14 PM »

why are we bothered unless it poses a risk to public safty then its up to the council to remove the tree not the ses not the cfs not the mfs and you know what if someone is that much of a freak they have to watch a paging site and self respond then im sorry but they realy need a life

ltdan · « **Reply #22 on:** September 04, 2007, 08:59:10 PM »

Quote

I am going to bite on this one....some CFS brigades do the formal chainsaw course. All SES members qualified have done the tree felling course. I have also been at a training course where CFS staff have stated that no CFS brigade should be felling trees.

Just been reading this topic and this is very interesting.

I would be interested Bajdas when all SES volunteers became Tree Felling qualified. Cos I can recall a recent incident where SES attended attended an incident on request of the cfs to fell a tree which had the potential to impact on the house.

The result was that when SES attended they would not fell the particular tree as I quote "we are not qualified to fell trees". When asked what qualifications do you have it was indicated that we cut trees which have fallen down.

Instead CFS got a tree doctor in to cut the particular tree down with 3 others trees felled at the same time which had the potential to do the same damage.

PLEASE EXPLAIN!!

bajdas · « **Reply #23 on:** September 04, 2007, 10:40:05 PM »

Quote from: ltdan on September 04, 2007, 08:59:10 PM

Quote

I am going to bite on this one....some CFS brigades do the formal chainsaw course. All SES members qualified have done the tree felling course. I have also been at a training course where CFS staff have stated that no CFS brigade should be felling trees.

Just been reading this topic and this is very interesting.

I would be interested Bajdas when all SES volunteers became Tree Felling qualified. Cos I can recall a recent incident where SES attended attended an incident on request of the cfs to fell a tree which had the potential to impact on the house.

The result was that when SES attended they would not fell the particular tree as I quote "we are not qualified to fell trees". When asked what qualifications do you have it was indicated that we cut trees which have fallen down.

Instead CFS got a tree doctor in to cut the particular tree down with 3 others trees felled at the same time which had the potential to do the same damage.

PLEASE EXPLAIN!!

I was icnorrect in my statement that all SES members are trained. Sorry & thanks for the information that i did not know.

I think an external provider is completing the training in advanced tree felling that not all SES members have been through. This is to a recognised industry standard.

The SES Unit you mentioned did the right thing in stating they could not complete the job safely because they had not completed the advanced course. So rather than risk members they passed the job to professionals.

The alternative would have been for the SES OIC at the incident to refer the task to another unit that could provide the trained crew.

Given you and the SES crew had removed the life threat & were dealing with potential building damage, it is not much of an 'emergency' incident.

In comparison, I understand that not all CFS members are CABA trained yet they are all firefighters. So I would expect at a large structural fire some CFS volunteers should be saying, sorry cannot enter because I am not trained & thus adding a risk to the rest of the crew. That person I hope would be given another job to do outside of the building within their skill set.

ltdan · « **Reply #24 on:** September 05, 2007, 05:28:11 PM »

Thankyou for the reply & clarification "bajdas"

Author Topic: Groups self responding to SES jobs (Read 8903 times)

sesroadcrashrescue

ltdan

ltdan