Author Topic: Felling  (Read 12022 times)

Offline bajdas

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2008, 07:05:06 PM »
Is there anything stopping pulling it over with truck than cutting it up...its an easy way around it...i duno a

Are you serious? Fire trucks are not designed for such a task.

Hmmm...I have seen tree roots test a turfor winch because not all of them were cut, while trying to winch over a cutdown, tree trunk away from a house...I would bet that a truck vs tree tug-o-war scenario would see the tree win    :-)
Andrew Macmichael
lives at Pt Noarlunga South.

My personal opinion only.

Offline David

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • David
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2008, 10:40:23 PM »




As well as DEH we also have the advantage of Forestry SA out here.

I did a arborist course as part of my studies with TAFE. The course included felling trees etc and was a 10 week course, however it was over 5 years ago and I have been informed I need to do a Re-accred with the CFS before I can use a chainsaw again. :? I currently use a chainsaw as a landscaper.
Even though I have the training for felling I have never been allowed to fell at an incident. 
[/quote]

Was this course nationally recognised??
[/quote]

Yes the course is nationally recognised and done as part of my cert 3 in horticulture, and to the best of my understanding there is no time limit to it.  That also applies to the yellow ticket for elevated platform. 
I can understand us not being allowed to fell trees on a fire ground but the 5 year restriction on chainsaw use seems severe especially when I can legally use it for work, and am trained like many other to a higher standard.
Well thats my grip for today :-D
Williamstown
SFF 1
Log off
(formally 38)

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2008, 08:27:36 AM »
Jaff & others, like I have said previously - I agree with the sentiments expressed & if there are other ( and better options) I would of course use those options & if there is an available SES/CFS course that meets the skills required available then again I would have my people do it. I know why we have to have competent people (the court thing), but most of the above isn't availabe (not always anyway). Therefore what do we do?
It seems to me we are rapidly moving from a community based volunteer emergency service, to a quite different animal. There is some stuff going on in our service (& most likely CFS as well), which if it goes ahead will seriously change the services for ever.
And when you look at why we were formed & the interstate take on "resilient self sufficient communities" then stuff like this is slowly moving us away from our reason for being!
And with the current problem of attracting people to our respective services, do we really want to put further "road blocks" in their way?
I can see a time in the future where a storm (similar to Renmark) will hit one of our towns & we will be able to do very little until the various contractors arrive on scene. Because by the time one of our own people is qualified enough to go on Storm operations they would have pulled the pin (its all too hard I just wanted to help my community). 3 months basics type training (minimum), 8 weeks General Rescue course, 2 days storm course, 2 days chainsaw operators course, 80 hours Tree felling course, nail gun course and the list goes on!
As I said at the start it would be a rare occasion (& very unusual circumstances)that I would even consider felling a tree anyway - but I would like to have that option available just in case.
Anyway I think I have said far more than is wise on this subject.
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2008, 02:33:23 PM »
It seems to me we are rapidly moving from a community based volunteer emergency service, to a quite different animal. There is some stuff going on in our service (& most likely CFS as well), which if it goes ahead will seriously change the services for ever.
And when you look at why we were formed & the interstate take on "resilient self sufficient communities" then stuff like this is slowly moving us away from our reason for being!
And with the current problem of attracting people to our respective services, do we really want to put further "road blocks" in their way?

G'day Chook

you didn't perchance attend the critical infrasructure seminar at Glenelg last week did you?  "Resilient, self-sufficient communities" was one thing that stood out like dogs testicles in the keynote speaker's spiel. (David Parsons from Sydney Water - if ever anyone is offered a chance to listen to this bloke, SEIZE IT !!!) It was reinforced by two or three lesss able speakers after him.

However, both Stuart & Euan stood up & talked about our services as centrally run organisations which have risen above their baggy-bottommed local-focus dad's army origins. They are both correct in terms of equipment and training development (I'll leave delivery alone!!). But for both services to be painted by their CO's as external bodies able to come in & assist local government, in much the same way as DOCS or FACS or other state govt departments...

We seem to have lost something important, probably at ministerial level, and we lost it a long time ago, certainly pre either current CO anyway.

That's my observations & opinion FWIW.
cheers
Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2008, 03:17:16 PM »
Quote
(I'll leave delivery alone!!).

haha ;)


Think we lost it when the CEO and a CO became a single entity?  personally wasnt in the service back then, just been doing some reading up.

I know for sure that the Word Amalgamation is one of the filtered words in the politics book.  :x

Agree with you Alan,  the number of hours required to achieve something worthwhile presently in the SES is enormous.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 03:32:15 PM by Zippy »

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2008, 04:24:22 PM »
No mate haven't heard this guy, but interstate that is what the governments through SES say! That was the idea of forming the state emergency services, to raise & train members of local communities to be able to combat Natural Disasters, thereby making communities resilient & self sufficient. EMA says the same thing on its website in relation to SES, remember PPRR?
But with all of this other stuff, all of a sudden this has been lost.
It is just getting harder & harder!
At some point the government needs to remind the community that at the end of the day - they are responsible for their collective safety. Maybe the introduction of the ESL sends the wrong message?
cheers
 
Ken
just another retard!

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2008, 12:54:40 AM »
At some point the government needs to remind the community that at the end of the day - they are responsible for their collective safety.

Nah mate - won't happen.  No votes in it, & gives the opposition an opening to spout
garbage about incompetence & failure to look after the citizens. blah, blah, blah.

Quote
Maybe the introduction of the ESL sends the wrong message?

That was one of the risks discussed at the time. 
My take is that it would not be a problem if there was honesty in government, or more
specifically, honesty in politics.  See comment above about responsibility for community safety.

A bed-time story...
Many, many, years ago, WAD were on the verge of implosion.
About 14 members left on the books, half of whom were virtually useless, & a response area of 200,000 people. 

Decided to run Light Rescue course/s (that tells you how long ago it was!) for the
public. Advertised in the Messenger with a suitably eye-catching disasterish head-line.
Something like "Earthquake. Flood. Disaster. Would you cope?"  The thinking was that
interested people would have a look. We hoped that, if they liked it they'd stay & the
membership problem would go away. If it didn't suit, then we'd have taught some useful
stuff to some of the Great Unwashed, who would be able & willing to help themselves and
others down the track.

Made a point of isolating course participants from the less motivated members -
important to give a positive impression of the Unit to the Public !! 

Only ran one such course. Of 30+ enquirers, 24 started.
22 stayed the distance (12 weeks extended to 14 due to storm damage calls).
21 signed on with the Unit !  Our problem then was development & retention, so we never
ran another public Light Rescue course.   2 years later when I left, around 18 were
still *active* Unnit members . The other 3 had transferred to other Units in SA or
interstate.

So, my point is...
Maybe the inwards focus of recruitment problems is actually hurting us.  Maybe it can
be at least partly solved on a wider scale by adopting an outward-focussed teaching
role in our communities.  I have yet to 'sell' this to my brigade - but am working on
it. No reason at all why a brigade shouldn't offer selected 'home defense & safety' modules from BFF1 to its community. Likewise no reason a Unit shouldn't offer selected
storm damage & safety modules.  It's a BIG change in how most of us volunteers perceive
our role though.

However, once people have come in the door a few times, it's a lot more likely that
they'll keep doing so...

cheers
AJ
Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2008, 09:17:54 AM »
Mate that is filtered brilliant, and that was a long time ago (Light Rescue!) :-D
Maybe you are right, now we are  seen as an arm of the government, we should be doing that sought of education.
Good luck convincing your people though!
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2008, 08:06:59 PM »
Mate that is filtered brilliant, and that was a long time ago (Light Rescue!) :-D
Maybe you are right, now we are  seen as an arm of the government, we should be doing that sought of education.
Good luck convincing your people though!
cheers


We're from the guvvermint and we're here to help....
*sigh*

Probably only needs 3 or 4 good people to make it work,
depending upon maximum class size & how many weeks it runs.
Committing an extra night a week for 10 weeks or so each 
a year is a big cruncher. Especially as those best suited
& most likely to do this are ossifers & the already committed.
Needs to have the whole unit/brigade management on-board
though, & I'm a long way off that.

Long term, I see this as our best option for serving *our*
community of increasing urban escapees. It is certainly
the most effective way I can see to "protect life & property"
on *our* patch.

Farming district brigades/units might find it utterly irrelevant.
Farmers are already generally superbly well equipped to deal
with the unexpected.

But I guess that huge difference between urban & country
units/brigades is what makes CFS & SES so very difficult to
manage.

cheers

Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2008, 08:33:00 PM »
Yeah you are right mate both the storm jobs at Renmark and Pinaroo showed that rural communities can cope with mother nature if they have the resources & a few trained people to show them what to do. And sometimes we just have to drop off plastic or sand bags and they fix things themselves.
We did some community education for SES week & now we hardly get any calls :wink:
So I think its a great idea & hope you can swing it.
Its a lot better than a few specialist "super teams" coming out from the big smoke :wink: (by the way thats not a shot at the shoring teams that came up, what you did was way beyond what we could do)
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2008, 09:12:12 PM »
Its a lot better than a few specialist "super teams" coming out from the big smoke :wink: (by the way thats not a shot at the shoring teams that came up, what you did was way beyond what we could do)
cheers

Probably should have had this discussion in the "Is it time for a re-think" thread...

re: your above comment... My gut feel is that in a resilient self-sufficient community,
the local emergency services should really only be needed for specialist skills like
shoring & change of height rescues. Storm damage & etc should just be a way for us to
keep our hand in at the hard stuff, and keep members interested.
And yes, there will always be a place for the sooper-dooper specialist teams in a
whole range of things from HazMat to USAR to IMT.
cheers
Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2008, 09:55:43 PM »
ha ha you are right mate :-D And I think you found part of the solution too, and chuck in a few community fire teams like Canberra &  welcome  to a safer community & to the future! And we wouldn't need such large teams as well! And I agree on the need for those super teams for special tasks.
Cheers mate!
Ken
just another retard!

Offline 029

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #37 on: July 21, 2008, 05:25:48 PM »
hay guys

sorry this has probably already been said but SES can not fell a tree at all the only time it can felled is if it is a life threat and even then we are not supposed to do it. this has all come about after the last willunga fire where SES were cutting down trees including trees that didn't need to come down. SES has one person that is able by law to cut a tree down and he is from Lincoln

i found all this out at a course on the weekend   

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #38 on: July 21, 2008, 07:26:06 PM »
Welcome aboard -yep mate know the rules, however if you read the intent in my posts I think I covered that felling a tree would only occur in very circumstances you described :wink:
And if guys were just cutting trees down because they were there then that is a management/supervision issue!
I will tell you a secret - I actually hate using chainsaws, noisy smelly things :-D
Anyway thanks for your input & I hope you enjoyed the course.
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2008, 03:25:40 AM »
hay guys

sorry this has probably already been said but SES can not fell a tree at all the only time it can felled is if it is a life threat and even then we are not supposed to do it. this has all come about after the last willunga fire where SES were cutting down trees including trees that didn't need to come down. SES has one person that is able by law to cut a tree down and he is from Lincoln

i found all this out at a course on the weekend   

Who says they didn't need to come down ?
What exactly were their qualifications for doing so ?
If SES can't come through & cut down dangerous trees after a fire, it follows that
CFS can't either. Our emergency powers are nearly identical - you can do what you flamin' well deem necessary to make a site or situation safe for the mug-punter public.
Scorched-earth policy works for me !!  :lol:

Or did some half-wit whinge because my crew was filmed taking down a big old
half-dead tree that was dropping bulk embers into unburnt grass/scrub ?
If so, they got the wrong colour uniform.   Again.
(we left heaps of dodgy trees behind us down the eastern flank - aparently there
was a fire off to our south needed putting out. Or so I heard.)

Seems to me that someone in Bovine Faesces Castle has lost the plot.
Again.
Banning instead of training.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

And no, we're not supposed to drop trees either. Unless trained. Or it's an emergency.
The one occasion I've seen one of these "specialists" at work, I was less than
impressed with his logic. Saw handling was great - learned lots by watching &
questioning.  But he spoilt it by dropping tree #1 into his work-space for dropping
tree #2.   :roll:

cheers


Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline OMGWTF

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2008, 09:13:36 AM »
And no, we're not supposed to drop trees either. Unless trained. Or it's an emergency.


Were not allowed [or trained] to drop trees at all mate, doesnt matter what the circumstances are, ie after a fire or not... We are only trained to chop them up once on the ground.

The trees i saw felled at brown hill creek and willunga made me cringe... Theres certainly a lot of people [all services] seem to think they know what they are doing with a chainsaw...

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2008, 09:37:42 AM »
As I said previously - we are allowed to do anything! as long as it is justified!
We are not trained to do demolition either, but if there is a threat to public safety & that is the only course of action - so be it (We did a bit last Sunday with the assistance of the local SAMFS crew).
If people don't know how to drop a tree then that is a training issue, however I don't think an 80 hour commercial course is required. It is obvious from the above posts there was a problem with this particular task & someone has got a bit nervous, so fix the problem!
If Adelaide is hit with a Newcastle type storm & there was wide spread damage this stupid rule would go out the door! As there would not be enough commercial operators to complete all the tasks in a timely manner & it would cost a fortune!
At the end of the day its a risk management issue & its quite simple to fix!
Interstate are currently developing a felling course suitable for emergency services so I guess its a case of wait & see.
I still stand by my comments eventhough I'm no longer in a position to make such a call if I were & it was justified & it was safe to do so I would still drop that tree :-D
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline OMGWTF

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2008, 10:41:37 AM »
As I said previously - we are allowed to do anything! as long as it is justified!

Hmmm possibly worded my previous post poorly... how about, "not supposed to drop trees at all"

Chook, just because the act says we can do just about anything in the right circumstances, doesnt mean we know how to perform the task safely...

A tree being felled without the correct training, and possibly without the correct safety precautions and pre-thinking would be more hazardous than leaving it as is and isolating the area... full stop.

Would have thought that was obvious.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2008, 10:47:22 AM by OMGWTF »

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #43 on: July 26, 2008, 10:58:53 AM »
Something ive heard along the grapevine, source is pretty reliable, is that SACFS Firefighters may be able to do a external course (up to each brigade if they want to do it),  to enable them to fell trees on firegrounds.

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2008, 02:46:54 PM »
Mate if you read all of my posts - they clearly identify felling trees is a last resort. And I know how to apply the act (our Road Traffic Act exemption allows us to ride on the out side of our appliances but I'm not going to drive around the streets with crew riding on the roof & hanging off the back! - mind you it would be a great photo op :wink: ).
However by blanket banning something just because someone may have done something wrong is just plain stupid!
If I apply that logic then there would be no inland marine rescue as there isn't any formalised training in that area!
This smells of public servants reacting to some adverse findings @ an enquiry (and we know all about that).
And felling a "candling tree" would not be part of any commercial course - in fact they wouldn't go near it! Same as working on a roof after a large branch has fallen on it - thats not taught on the chainsaw course either.
So near my town is a large wild fire & due to the wind direction there is a significant risk of embers crossing the river & getting into some inaccessible reeds near my towns facilities (water filtration plant & pumping station). The wind speed is increasing and it is highly likely there is a major threat to my town by those reeds. Do I a) drop the burning trees (which will drop into the river anyway) or b) let them keep burning and hope for the best as there isn't enough physical resources on the ground to defend the pumping station, road and other structures.
We can't rely on Elvis or it mates because they are committed to some high risk (& high profile) fires nearer to Adelaide. Local private contractors won't do the job as they are away clearing ETSA powerlines on the Yorke peninsular (due to the elevated fire risk caused by the drought. I have two competent operators who even though have not done the commercial course, have plenty of experience felling trees. These guys have a proven track record, they are confident they can do the job & everyone is happy to go with option a). But then comes along "someone" who remembers "We are banned from felling trees", so its decided to go with option b) & despite the valiant efforts of the local CFS, SAMFS & SES boat crew the two plants are lost & most of the resources are trapped on the other side of the river because the road is closed by leaking Chlorine from the filtration plant!
Proper risk management does not mean banning something, it means minimising the risks! And until a course which is suitable for emergency services (not tree harvesting) is developed & rolled out to brigades/units as a matter of urgency then this blanket ban is just well stupid!
Zippy - is that at brigade expense?
Finally this is one of the reasons people don't want join the volunteer emergency services - too much bullshit!
I stand by my original comment - if the situation required to drop a tree & there was no other option, then consider it dropped! ( even if it was by "private citizen" who just happen to be around  :wink: )
cheers - I think I have said more than enough!
Ken
just another retard!

Offline OMGWTF

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #45 on: July 26, 2008, 09:46:28 PM »
Jesus mate... im not going anywhere near Berri this season...  :wink:


I understand your point, but in my opinion my statement and logic is still sound... Its all fun and games until someone drops a tree on your head.

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #46 on: July 26, 2008, 10:35:53 PM »
Nah its not bad :-D & thats not why I'm leaving either :wink:
Yep fraid I will have to agree to disagree but an excellent debate by all.
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline 029

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2008, 01:41:26 PM »
SES are looking at puting a stike team of fellers together to fell trees at this point intime no emergency service is able to fell a tree how ever there is always room to bend the rules

inregards to a prior post a question was asked "who siad they didnt need to come down" the trees im talking about are in the middle of a paddock its burnt for miles around and they are just surface burnt not right through no risk of candle sticking and when you see the pics of them on the ground they are still solid.

Offline SA Firey

  • Forum Group Officer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,967
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2008, 01:55:56 PM »
SES are looking at puting a stike team of fellers together to fell trees at this point intime no emergency service is able to fell a tree how ever there is always room to bend the rules(Quote)

That information is incorrect there are 9 personnel qualified to fell trees in the state, and our first point of contact is DEH.

Luckily we have a qualified "feller" as a member :wink:
Images are copyright

Offline 029

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Felling
« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2008, 01:58:41 PM »
which service is providing 9 personel??????

 

anything