Author Topic: New Dispatch Vs old SOC  (Read 36599 times)

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #50 on: November 29, 2007, 03:08:07 PM »
Well I did ask the other day how hard would it be to reopen CFS SOCC as we are all having problems with adelaide fire and the poor buggers in their are also under alot of pressure....Came back you would need to find staff as those CFS socc who went over would not come back as the money is better...

Offline bajdas

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #51 on: November 29, 2007, 06:59:28 PM »
Well I did ask the other day how hard would it be to reopen CFS SOCC as we are all having problems with adelaide fire and the poor buggers in their are also under alot of pressure....Came back you would need to find staff as those CFS socc who went over would not come back as the money is better...

I think you would also have a big problem called the Minister for Emergency Services who would be against the duplication.
Andrew Macmichael
lives at Pt Noarlunga South.

My personal opinion only.

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #52 on: November 29, 2007, 08:47:41 PM »
Like Bajdas said, it wouldn't happen due to the fact it was pushed so hard to merge in the first place. What may happen is the push to civilianise the call taking side of things. But as for seperating it again, I doubt that very much.

As for the old staff, ha, yeah, I can see why they wouldn't come back !

Offline Robert-Robert34

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,429
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #53 on: November 30, 2007, 08:29:53 AM »
I know this seem like an impossible and silly idea but how about allocating a comms room at Adelaide Fire for CFS SOCC staff so it lightens the work load of MFS Comms staff there
Kalangadoo Brigade

Offline mengcfs

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #54 on: November 30, 2007, 09:45:24 AM »
I know this seem like an impossible and silly idea but how about allocating a comms room at Adelaide Fire for CFS SOCC staff so it lightens the work load of MFS Comms staff there

Not necessarily x CFS OCO's, but they do have people monitoring country and metro areas separately at Adelaide fire now. They are trying...they will get there and all sing off the same page eventually.

Offline gj41

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #55 on: December 01, 2007, 02:53:42 PM »
This amalgamation was the Ministers decision - she now needs to take the responsibility for sorting the issues out.
1. No resource tracking now because Adelaide Fire will be too busy to do it, particularly in multiple incidents.
2. Total foul up with talkgroups for incident controllers to contact aircraft. It may be fine for the designer of the "system" who may work with radio communications all the time, but it totally ignores that fact that the only radio work that many volunteers do is with CFS. For crying out loud, simplify the system.
3. During a DEH fire this week, DEH appliances were directed to TG 160. They don't have TG 160 in their appliances.
This amalgamation was introduced with virtually no forethought as to how it would operate.

Offline mack

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #56 on: December 02, 2007, 06:32:56 AM »

2. Total foul up with talkgroups for incident controllers to contact aircraft. It may be fine for the designer of the "system" who may work with radio communications all the time, but it totally ignores that fact that the only radio work that many volunteers do is with CFS. For crying out loud, simplify the system.



honest question... what is the difficulty with the air ops comms?

Offline SA Firey

  • Forum Group Officer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,967
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #57 on: December 02, 2007, 10:10:22 AM »
Main dificulty is for rural brigades who only have one portable on an appliance,otherwise TG108
Images are copyright

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #58 on: December 02, 2007, 01:46:40 PM »
GRN PORTABLE????

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #59 on: December 02, 2007, 03:18:18 PM »
I agree. since pretty much every appliance has only a Mobile..and a Portable..try'll probably be stuck on the Incident Talkgroup.   So theory is, only command vehicles can possibly talk to bombers on 108.

Thats pretty much the only flaw in the system.

Incident ive been to only a short time ago had bombers on the same talkgroup as the incident, worked alright...Incident controller was asked if another drop was required, and all worked out :)

But i can see the Air Ops system, and CRD system..and the IMT system getting strained,  Simply cos the CRD system unfolded it all and repacked it in a bit of a mess.

Offline mack

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #60 on: December 03, 2007, 08:28:20 AM »
every appliance SHOULD have a minimum of a GRN mobile and portable radio (one each), plus VHF. IC should be using VHF for fireground, can relay sitreps via the appliance, and there portable to talk through to the bombers.

i think  the important thing that has been realised with this years air ops comms that some may not pick up on, is the need for clear & concise communications with the bombers, without the regular background cra p that can usually be heard on a groups local TG. Lets all remember the bombers are cruising around in the sky at great speed in less than perfect conditions most of the time.

Offline bajdas

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #61 on: December 03, 2007, 08:37:12 AM »
I have been sitting here reading the frequent postings re 'call receipt & dispatch' and I must be missing something...... I thought they were only doing 'Call Receipt & Dispatch'(CRD), the same as they do for SES.

Yes, the old version of the CFS SOC did extra than CRD (responding extra resources, talkgroup allocations, airops, testing paging, resource, paperwork, hotline, etc, etc).

But SES never got those resources from another service and I do not believe this is expected when SACAD is in place. They just provide initial CRD.

SAFECOM is not to be part of operational activities, just reduce duplication & administration. I also understand SAFECOM are releasing extra funding shortly or already have, to MFS Comcen as they provide CRD until SACAD.

For SES, the other operational requirements come from within SES Unit LHQ, SES Region or SES State. Not MFS CRD.

Has the the question been asked of CFS hierarchy how they are to provide the extra operational services that I though MFS CRD or SACAD will never provide ?

My personal opinion only & please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you people are shooting & blaming the wrong people.....
Andrew Macmichael
lives at Pt Noarlunga South.

My personal opinion only.

Offline mack

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #62 on: December 03, 2007, 08:53:13 AM »
Adelaide Fire took CRD, as well as quite a few other tasks on board, including; upgrading of incidents & resources at request of brigades, resource tracking (although this seems to have changed from the old days), the bushfire hotline, alerts, talkgroup allocations (should be a part of resource tracking anyway), pager testing for brigades, severe weather notifications, specific requests for incidents and a couple of others...

air ops has stayed with the CFS as has all incident paperwork, AIRS.


so no, they are doing more than just CRD.

Offline CaptCom

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #63 on: December 03, 2007, 10:19:09 AM »
Firstly, I know that the operators at Adelaide Fire are doing the best they can but Minister Zollo should go and look at the mess she has created.

We HATE the new system, it has taken us back 20 years....and I am going to tell the Chief Officer today my views on it all...

We so far in the last 2 weeks have been timed out of an ALERTS call because the Adelaide Fire Operator couldn't spell any of the brigades we were trying to respond - this happens on nearly EVERY phone call....I know that this is not their fault but surely they can have some cheat sheets or something...and the time it takes to actually get a page to come through is too long...

We also had a page come through for SES the other night telling them to use our local talkgroup ....they don't have it...

can't wait for a nasty day...we have already implemented some local contingencies to keep us out of the coroner's court....

 :x

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #64 on: December 03, 2007, 11:09:59 AM »
I think we need to keep complaining, some of the mistakes they are making are just them being dumb and useless.

How many times I have heard people ask for an upgrade and it either never happened or they asked 10 mins later if they still need to page an upgrade.

Some of the shifts in there just seem to have no idea and unlikely they ever will, you can pick it, some shifts are great and you have no problem getting what you want, then others its like pulling teeth, some days you hear what shift is on and you may as well do it yourself. MFS agreed to take this role on, its been nearly 6 months, even a monkey could work it out, if the monkey cared and could be bothered learning.

Yes this might seem harsh, but c'mon MFS, pull your socks up, if you don't understand something, ask, and for god sake IF A BRIGADE ASKS FOR AN UPGRADE, DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!! We don't ask just coz we can, 10 mins or so later is not good enough, and THERE IS NO EXCUSE, I don't want to hear "oh we are to busy" just do it ! God, we never had these excuses from the old SOCC staff, they had 2 people and were flat out but they managed to do it, its called managing your prioritys.

But I also want to add that the vols need to do the right thing to, we were issued SOP 10.14, follow it !! Even if we might not agree to it, if we are all reading off the same page then we might have a leg to stand on with our complaints towards MFS. You hear so many people doing it 10 different ways, no wonder they get confused.

This might seem a change of tune to some on my behalf, but I was prepared to give the guys and gals in there some time, but it seems to actually be getting worse not better, in private industry, they give employees time to get used to a role, but after 6 months the manager would be giving them a "don't come monday" , there is no difference here.

End rant (that feels better)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 11:12:29 AM by pumprescue »

Offline mack

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #65 on: December 03, 2007, 11:38:09 AM »

We so far in the last 2 weeks have been timed out of an ALERTS call because the Adelaide Fire Operator couldn't spell any of the brigades we were trying to respond - this happens on nearly EVERY phone call....I know that this is not their fault but surely they can have some cheat sheets or something...and the time it takes to actually get a page to come through is too long...


not standing up for anyone or thing, so dont take this the wrong way. but what a bout being a little proactive and learning (or getting cheat sheets for yourselves) of the brigades new short codes? as i believe it is actually the codes the operators require, not the full names of the brigade.


pumprescue - great rant

Offline CaptCom

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2007, 11:56:54 AM »
No offense taken BUT I suppose we are working in a world of what we were used to...and it's just going with what has been PROMISED>....and we are nowhere near that standard yet...

and I agree with pumprescue....they must be paying peanuts because we've sure heard some of the monkeys...


Offline mengcfs

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #67 on: December 05, 2007, 02:00:21 PM »
MFS: URGMSG (brigade) stand by at station (incident type), (location), (other info.) 05/12/2007 3:19:25 PM CFS Williamstown Response

Looking at this the Monkeys are lazy to :roll: No offence to anyone but c'mon.

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #68 on: December 05, 2007, 02:16:04 PM »
BUT WAIT THERES MORE!!!  XD

MFS: URGMSG (brigade) RESPOND (incident type), (location), (other info.)*CFSRES: (brigade) RESPOND (incident type), (location), (other info.)williamstown 34 standby at springton statiion 05/12/2007 3:32:21 PM

....how about this:

WILLAMSTOWN 34 RESPOND STANDBY AT SPRINGTON STATION  RE:MULTIPLE INCIDENTS IN AREA*CFSRES: 05/12/2007 3:32:21 PM



« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 02:17:55 PM by Zippy »

Offline Sternzee

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #69 on: December 05, 2007, 04:01:48 PM »


can't wait for a nasty day...we have already implemented some local contingencies to keep us out of the coroner's court....

 :x
looks like 2mrw is the first nasty day to test it :-S can always hope it gets better over night haha :-P

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #70 on: December 05, 2007, 04:56:34 PM »
So what would happen if adelaide fire for some reason went offline??? what back up plan do they have in mind run back to CFS H/Q???

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #71 on: December 05, 2007, 05:00:56 PM »
There would be contingincies...and i believe they have been tested in simulations.

If i couldnt get through to Adelaide Fire at all..Just make sure you have someone at your station/group-base running comm's covering ya donkey..and they should be able to undertake the essentials of incidents. **this is probably a worst case scenario**.

Offline mack

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #72 on: December 05, 2007, 05:11:17 PM »
So what would happen if adelaide fire for some reason went offline??? what back up plan do they have in mind run back to CFS H/Q???


of course there are contingency plans

Offline bajdas

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #73 on: December 05, 2007, 06:10:55 PM »
So what would happen if adelaide fire for some reason went offline??? what back up plan do they have in mind run back to CFS H/Q???

The 'business continuancy plans' were tested when the solar power were installed a few months ago in the MFS Wakefield St building. The building had potential power outages, so each service enacted the plan. Well SES SCC moved to another LHQ and did call receipt & dispatch for the day....
Andrew Macmichael
lives at Pt Noarlunga South.

My personal opinion only.

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New Dispatch Vs old SOC
« Reply #74 on: December 06, 2007, 07:13:03 PM »
Today was yet another day full of "can they do it"...from listening to a scanner during the arvo...it seemed: Appliance/Brigade to Adelaide Fire communication did work out too well, Acknowledgements,  Establishing communications, and Establishing ICS as early as possible was todays weaknesses.

Maybe handballing SES CRD to SES SCC for the entirety of a obviously crap fire danger day would be SENSIBLE.

Better luck next time Adelaide Fire.