Some interesting internation concepts for Mutual Aid...
The UK utilises a process of the responding Mutual Aid resource will commit to the incident which caused the mutual aid request, releasing the requesting service back to their own area of cover.
Benefits of this process is that the requesting service can then provide coverage to the area that they know. For ambulance services this mean local knowledge of hospitals, nursing home and staff. A local service liaison remains in support of the mutual support service.
For the fire service I see a similar advantage were the requesting service is returned to cover it's area with knowledge of local procedures, FIP's, plans, etc.
This system would not work for resource heavy incidents like the hazmat at Salisbury on Monday, but some other incident come to mind where it could work.
Mitcham Shopping Centre fire, Belair and Burnside committed to the incident, with (from memory) Eden Hills at St Mary's, Happy Valley at the Hill, Morphett Vale at Christies and TTG at Gylnde (please don't lynch me if I'm wrong). It may have been better for Happy Valley, Eden, Morphett Vale and TTG or closer multiple appliance CFS brigades (Stirling, Aldgate, Blackwood, Upper Sturt...) to respond to the incident to release more MFS crews back to there areas.
Similarly the Abattoirs Fire at Port Wakefield, protracted incident where a significant number of CFS brigade were involved for a very long time. Perhap utilising a couple of MFS appliances or crews to release local appliance back to their response area would make some sense.
Just my thoughts, I think there is certainly some benefits to flipping the mutual aid processes. Could be a little politically sensitive and hard on the 'ownership' of incident from local crews, but it is tried and tested in other services.
Comments?