Author Topic: Time for 3 Fire services (Read 38687 times)

Zippy · « **Reply #50 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:32:52 PM »

nah, they are glued to there Tri-Screen Desktop's...with oziexplorer being the closest thing...

6739264 · « **Reply #51 on:** January 31, 2009, 08:05:09 AM »

Quote from: Zippy on January 30, 2009, 11:32:52 PM

nah, they are glued to there Tri-Screen Desktop's...with oziexplorer being the closest thing...

Great, sounds like we have a better mapping capability in our station. Here I was trying to use common sense again. Should've learnt that lesson years ago.

JC · « **Reply #52 on:** January 31, 2009, 08:19:10 AM »

If we are looking at the Paid/Vol Urban/Vol Rural scenario only, what would you classify Roxby, Mooka, Woomera, Coober and the like. We have no rural threats, our only jobs are AFAs, structures, MVAs etc. (oh and maybe the once in a blue moon taskforce we may get asked for crew)

Out to you SAFF crew.

Baxter · « **Reply #53 on:** January 31, 2009, 12:22:43 PM »

Can't agree more with you JC but to give my 2 cents worth to your problems the answer could be give them two appliance one for rural jobs so that they can go off on the deployments and the second one for their core activities either MVA's, and structures.

Now to be a little bit daring the brigade in these areas if no SAAS service is available give them some better training to stabilise a patient till SAAS arrives and maybe a bit of rescue equipment to support the SASES till they arrive.

whiteknight · « **Reply #54 on:** February 02, 2009, 09:58:15 AM »

Quote from: chook on January 29, 2009, 03:45:46 PM

And are some in your service (maybe the silent majority)hinting that they want to be more like the other Rural/country fire service & leave the more complicated stuff to someone else? Interesting NSWRFS aren't even allowed on a roof & no volunteers are allowed to operate over the speed limit & most like it that way.
cheers

I just thought you should know: NSWRFS firefighters are permitted to work on roofs at storm damage and similar incidents if they have the SWR (Safe Work on Roofs) qualification and at structure fires if VF (Village Firefighter) qualified.

In addition, there is no legal difference (Australian Road Rules as adopted by NSW Road Transport Act) in the exemptions afforded to volunteer versus paid emergency service workers when responding in an emergency vehicle, ie there IS an exemption from complying to posted speed limits. In addition the NSWRFS imposes no additional restrictions via SOP's with regard to posted speed limits.

So given your initial two statements are incorrect, I'm having some trouble with the 'most like it that way' bit.

chook · « **Reply #55 on:** February 03, 2009, 01:32:59 PM »

Not according to the State Rescue board Act re:- speed limits.
The work on roof thing - That was from RFS members, as most around here have not got that qualification - at least not here! That is why they wanted to know if the stuff learnt on SES courses was recognised so it could be transferable.
Thanks for the info though - obviously different areas of the state are doing things slightly different then (surprise surprise).
So you don't like the separation of skill sets into different services?
Or would you like to see one huge service doing everything?
I'm interested in your thoughts
cheers

BlackDog · « **Reply #56 on:** February 03, 2009, 02:18:33 PM »

Chook.

Are you saying that a Rescue Service Act over-rides both national and state traffic legislation, not to mention the specific fire service legislation that applies in NSW?

Local hierarchies attempting to make rules that are not supported by legislation, well we've never seen that before, either. [/irony] If such local rules are being promulgated in the part of NSW with which you're familiar... try finding out exactly where the authority to make the decision comes from.

Too many managers have delusions of grandeur.

jaff · « **Reply #57 on:** February 03, 2009, 02:35:37 PM »

Life on the farm is back to normal, with the new blackdog torementing the old chook!

chook · « **Reply #58 on:** February 03, 2009, 03:37:42 PM »

fair call Blackdog, if it is as you say, I will have to agree with your statement of fact (as we are not a rescue resource don't have to follow that act

)
Yep agree with your comment re: management but haven't really struck it in the Premier state - yet except for the "we won't recognise your storm qualification or your General rescue either" even though I lead a team in 2007 Newcastle storm emergency & hold National qualifications in General Rescue & RCR. No matter One has been soughted out & redoing the storm course wasn't bad either!
Nah Jaff - I'm always ready to be corrected - if I'm wrong of course!
Remember the old adage "fight the fights that are worthwhile & fight the fights you can win - but don't fight every fight cause you just sound like a DH"
Here is the section I was quoting:-
"SRB STATE RESCUE POLICY – 3rd Edition 6 June 2007
11 STATE RESCUE POLICY – Version 3.1 11
2.07 Volunteer Rescue Vehicles - Exemptions for drivers of emergency vehicles
The Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management)(Road Rules) Regulation
1999 do not provide exemptions from the provisions of the Australian Road rules
for volunteer rescue vehicles. Specifically, drivers of volunteer rescue vehicles
are to comply with all road signs, traffic lights and posted speed limits, even when proceeding to a rescue incident or emergency situation."
As the peak body for Rescue in NSW - thought it actually counted

sorry for the error - still interested in your opinion on the current situation in NSW Blackdog I find some of it confusing(have heard RFS people are looking at CFS for ideas)
cheers
cheers

SA Firey · « **Reply #59 on:** February 04, 2009, 07:48:01 AM »

Before we even look at 3 Fire Services lets get the one were in sorted out first

Zippy · « **Reply #60 on:** February 04, 2009, 08:13:34 AM »

yeah, filtered load more to do before CFS is ready for join a unified fire service with the MFS. Attitudes, paperwork, logistics of it, etc...

misterteddy · « **Reply #61 on:** February 04, 2009, 09:39:22 AM »

I tend to think that process of changing to One Service would be the impetus (in attitude and finances) to bring about the changes you are looking for

Zippy · « **Reply #62 on:** February 04, 2009, 12:59:31 PM »

http://samfs.sa.gov.au/site/home.jsp

the SAMFS website seems to be incorrect lol...anyone else seeing what im seeing?

where as http://mfs.sa.gov.au/site/home.jsp MFS works...

SA Firey · « **Reply #63 on:** February 04, 2009, 01:04:26 PM »

Quote from: Zippy on February 04, 2009, 12:59:31 PM

http://samfs.sa.gov.au/site/home.jsp

the SAMFS website seems to be incorrect lol...anyone else seeing what im seeing?

where as http://mfs.sa.gov.au/site/home.jsp MFS works...

Yep SES

chook · « **Reply #64 on:** February 04, 2009, 01:15:42 PM »

WOOPS!!! I'm sure it will be fixed soon

BlackDog · « **Reply #65 on:** February 04, 2009, 06:30:19 PM »

Quote from: jaff on February 03, 2009, 02:35:37 PM

Life on the farm is back to normal, with the new blackdog torementing the old chook!

<grins>
This old dog usually leaves that to the pups.
Too busy keeping the sheep in line ....... assuming no-one's silly enough to take that personally.

Dog.

BlackDog · « **Reply #66 on:** February 04, 2009, 07:01:07 PM »

Quote from: chook on February 03, 2009, 03:37:42 PM

fair call Blackdog, if it is as you say, I will have to agree with your statement of fact (as we are not a rescue resource don't have to follow that act )
Yep agree with your comment re: management but haven't really struck it in the Premier state - yet except for the "we won't recognise your storm qualification or your General rescue either" even though I lead a team in 2007 Newcastle storm emergency & hold National qualifications in General Rescue & RCR. No matter One has been soughted out & redoing the storm course wasn't bad either!

Chook.

Last time that I read the book, NSWRFS drivers were entitled to the exemptions applied to Emergency Services vehicles. However it is limited to "urgent duty" and that generally means a demonstrated threat to life and health, or a potentially serious threat to property. Districts are able to trump this, be refusing to authorise " response"(urgent duty driving) and instructing drivers to "proceed" (normal driving). I know of one district (in the Sydney basin, they're not in the real world there) that limited their drivers to 90kph.

I think somebody should remind them that the RFS is an "emergency" service. <snort>

A cynic would point out that the majority of volunteers have only a hazy idea of the regulations governing their services. Add to that the fact that many of the paid administrators don't have a background in formal training in those same regulations, and you end up with a bunch of differing interpretations made to suit different agenda. Not to mention some very odd ideas of who is actually to blame for any unpleasantness as the buck gets passed with more enthusiasm than accuracy.

If you ever do find yourself in a fight, don't stuff about. Get serious by the source documents. Get the legislation, the regulations and whatever else determines who gets to do what. Too many decisions are enacted as bluff and maintained through inertia and misdirected blame. Do your homework.

As for recognition of your quals.
The book says that you are entitled to Recognition of Prior Learning. Any qual should have a list of competencies, and if your current qual has similar competencies , you can apply to have these considered.
The book also says that you can apply for Recognition of Current Competency. Which means that they must offer you a challenge test if you desire to prove that you can do the job.
Most districts tend to default to running everyone through the standard training, because that's what's easiest for them. Often it's the best and easiest thing for you, too, but you do have alternatives if you wish to push for them. At least in theory. [/irony]

Back into my kennel.... Dog.

BlackDog · « **Reply #67 on:** February 04, 2009, 07:17:31 PM »

Quote from: misterteddy on February 04, 2009, 09:39:22 AM

I tend to think that process of changing to One Service would be the impetus (in attitude and finances) to bring about the changes you are looking for

The Taswegian experience has not been positive. Personal report from down there is that all the admin jobs go to paid firies. The admin staff then allocate all of the "interesting" jobs to their mates in the salaried stations, while the volunteers get the boring work.

That's one example.

Anything that really needs to be fixed, can be fixed without amalgamation if the political will is present. If it isn't, amalgamation won't fix it.The less pleasant outcomes can be as mentioned above, while SOP is the creation of another layer of bureaucracy, while things carry on as normal. (For your local value of "normal")

If you're panting for a change of badges and letter-heads, without material benefit to the troops on the ground... then by all means go for it. Not place in that cat-fight for me....

Dog.

chook · « **Reply #68 on:** February 04, 2009, 07:21:39 PM »

Excellent response, have experience with legislation & the interpretation (payed job), & well aware of how individuals tend to "go to ground" when things look grey.
Also know the RPL stuff (qualified trainer assessor), our regional training officer has been excellent in pointing out to certain individuals in the service that as far as National competencies they have no choice, bit harder with non National stuff (SA is a bit behind in that area & NSW lives by it).
Have to admit though that neither of the states are perfect - it would be nice if they could learn from each other a bit more (SA could learn heaps about how to run general rescue training for example).
But yeap agree with your comments though (not unique to NSW either

)
And I tend to agree with you re: one service (thats why I used NSW or Vic as examples)
cheers

Alan J · « **Reply #69 on:** February 06, 2009, 01:59:52 PM »

Quote from: chook on February 03, 2009, 03:37:42 PM

Here is the section I was quoting:-
"SRB STATE RESCUE POLICY – 3rd Edition 6 June 2007
11 STATE RESCUE POLICY – Version 3.1 11

Policy does not equal law.

The exemptions are laid out in each state's enactment of the national traffic regs.
Ar*e-covering by managers is exactly that.

cheers
AJ

chook · « **Reply #70 on:** February 06, 2009, 03:21:33 PM »

Quite true AJ - but breach of policy will get you "de-listed", ergo you don't respond anymore!
It's different here, two VRA units & a couple of SES & they are the ones I know about - SES was voluntry VRA was forced.
Imagine if this was enforced properly in SA, certainly would get rid of the cowboys

Anyway this is taking this thread away from the main point so time to bow out

cheers

Sarge · « **Reply #71 on:** February 22, 2009, 01:29:30 PM »

Quote from: fridgemagnet on January 28, 2009, 11:40:31 AM

Quote from: Zippy on January 28, 2009, 11:07:19 AM
Change Management its called

Hang on there Zippy don't paint all rural / isolated Brigades as something as dinosaurs that still do it the old way and don't adapt to change. Some of us out here in the sticks thrive on changing and improving things for the Brigade and the community so that we can provide the best possible service to the community that we serve.

Quote from: Zippy on January 28, 2009, 11:07:19 AM
Three Fire brigades will be the wrong way to go.

Spot on no need for three services then again the Volunteer is still sitting next to me waiting for me to read when I get boared here at work so I really can't comment till I read the article in question.

Can't wait for a 34P to turn up on our Brigade door step.

Amen to that, we'll take a 34P out here to. (If the CFS would give us one)

whiteknight · « **Reply #72 on:** February 24, 2009, 09:18:09 AM »

Quote from: chook on February 03, 2009, 03:37:42 PM

fair call Blackdog, if it is as you say, I will have to agree with your statement of fact (as we are not a rescue resource don't have to follow that act )
Yep agree with your comment re: management but haven't really struck it in the Premier state - yet except for the "we won't recognise your storm qualification or your General rescue either" even though I lead a team in 2007 Newcastle storm emergency & hold National qualifications in General Rescue & RCR. No matter One has been soughted out & redoing the storm course wasn't bad either!
Nah Jaff - I'm always ready to be corrected - if I'm wrong of course!
Remember the old adage "fight the fights that are worthwhile & fight the fights you can win - but don't fight every fight cause you just sound like a DH"
Here is the section I was quoting:-
"SRB STATE RESCUE POLICY – 3rd Edition 6 June 2007
11 STATE RESCUE POLICY – Version 3.1 11
2.07 Volunteer Rescue Vehicles - Exemptions for drivers of emergency vehicles
The Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management)(Road Rules) Regulation
1999 do not provide exemptions from the provisions of the Australian Road rules
for volunteer rescue vehicles. Specifically, drivers of volunteer rescue vehicles
are to comply with all road signs, traffic lights and posted speed limits, even when proceeding to a rescue incident or emergency situation."
As the peak body for Rescue in NSW - thought it actually counted
sorry for the error - still interested in your opinion on the current situation in NSW Blackdog I find some of it confusing(have heard RFS people are looking at CFS for ideas)
cheers
cheers

The reference to 'volunteer rescue vehicles' actually refers to rescue volunteers private vehicles. SES and VRA vehicles are 'emergency vehicles' as defined by the ARR and respond - that's why they have lights and sirens.

The SRB wording is not very clear, and I can see how the misinformed might interpret it as restricting volunteer emergency vehicles when in fact it does not.

chook · « **Reply #73 on:** February 27, 2009, 05:09:03 AM »

Nice one Whiteknight - then as the informed maybe you can inform the board to clarify that part of the policy

But as you said yourself thats not how it reads.
Thanks for clearing that up cheers

Sarge · « **Reply #74 on:** February 27, 2009, 03:07:46 PM »

Quote from: 6739264 on January 29, 2009, 07:58:45 AM

Apart from using beaters and yellow beacons, is there anything wrong with this? CFS are already trying to streamline the BFF1 Package into a quick Rural Firefighting 101, moreso than it already is (if thats possible), if people only want to deal with rural incidents, then give them a 34, some hose, some lvl 1 gear and let them go wild!

That's fine until we have a hayshed go up or worst still a house fire in town.