Author Topic: CFS using K-codes  (Read 49737 times)

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2011, 04:21:48 PM »
Dont patronise me, im not trying to be arrogant. My CFS station finds itself positioned completely in the urban area so we too see a wide ragne of jobs, but how any k codes do you actually use? we mainly use k 1-5 and k 55-99? so you cant sit there and tell me you use all of the k codes (k 40 for example) As jaff stated they are a universally recognised form of communication and when you are on the way to an incident that the mfs arrive to first, it is always helpful knowing what is happening before you actually arrive at the incident.

I getting the idea that many dont like the codes, but there really isnt that many to get your head around, and im upset that some view them as not appropriate for the cfs, but i believe we should try and be as professional as possible and learning k codes is no different to learning how to operate the radio itself

If you honestly think that "only a handful" of K-codes a relevent to what the CFS does, you've certainly got a very skewed view of the role the CFS plays in emergency management in SA. I find it surprising considering you're from a wholly Urban brigade (Didn't know the CFS had any of those, but sure...)

Lets take your K-40 example... Of course you're not going to use it... Until you are called to a Bomb Threat. You're not going to use K-1 unless you get turned out!

I think you missed the point of Jaff's post. K-Codes are NOT a universally recognised form of communication. Infact, they're not even recognised nationwide or statewide! It's only SAMFS that use them. Everyone can understand plain english and no cheat sheet is required!

If you want to be as professional as possible, stop running your own race, read your SOP's and adhere to them. It's not hard. They're there for a reason.

sorry but the guys ragging on TTG using the k codes....really? i fail to see how this affects you in any way at all? as long as they are used accurately it shouldnt be your problem.

As above, you're not a red truck, you have your own set of rules. Follow them.

It affects me, because if I turn out with a bunch of SAMFS wannabes running their own race, they in turn make it hard for me and my crew to understand what is going on, merely because we don't crack a fat at the first sign of "Sekret Fireman Kodes".

Are you going to start memorising the 700 codes? As well as situation found, action taken, location of detectors and all the other stuff SAMFS love to pass via R/T?

If CFS back the use of K-Codes, then by all means we can embrace them. But is it really that hard to keep it to plain english? As has been said time and time again above, plain english makes things far easier to understand and often times ends up being far quicker than looking at cheat sheets.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2011, 04:47:49 PM »
Havent bothered to read most of this.

But from my point of view [sitting behind a centracom in Adelaide Fire], i would rather CFS and SES [yes they do it on occasion on B001] did not use K-codes as simply put too many don't actually know them well enough and get them wrong on occasion.

Besides, its in the CFS SOPs.

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2011, 05:20:14 PM »
Also stop woffling on, listen to VicFire and learn how to talk on the radio, concise and to the point...and they get told to shutup if they woffle

Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2011, 09:19:04 PM »
As jaff stated they are a universally recognised form of communication



Say what!!!.........Did you actually believe something that I posted........You must be new on here!
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Offline Mic10110

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2011, 08:42:06 AM »
Wasn't "ragging on TTG for using them". I'm be happy to use K-Codes but the rule book clearly says no CFS crew are to use them (CFS, EMA or MFS area)
BTW - Does anyone know the history behind K-Codes? Are the recognised world wide, Australia wide or SAMFS? :wink:

misterteddy

  • Guest
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2011, 10:04:29 AM »
SAFB/SAMFS only

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2011, 10:39:52 AM »
New Zealand Fire Service also use them, in fact I think thats where we got them from, Mr Bruce who was the SAMFS CO back in the early 80's came from there.

Offline vandog

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2011, 11:15:40 AM »
k 40 is an arrival code, so if the cfs appliance was using k codes you would only use that if you were arriving first to an mfs area otherwise you would use k 2 or your normal radio procedure. take change of quaters to an mfs station for example, k codes make it clear and precise for appliance movement. 

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2011, 11:24:03 AM »
k40 is not an arrival code, it is an informative code.

55, 66 ,77, 88, 99 are arrival codes


pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2011, 01:23:49 PM »
k 40 is an arrival code, so if the cfs appliance was using k codes you would only use that if you were arriving first to an mfs area otherwise you would use k 2 or your normal radio procedure. take change of quaters to an mfs station for example, k codes make it clear and precise for appliance movement. 


That is exactly why we don't use K Codes......K40 isn't one, certainly not an arrival !

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2011, 01:54:22 PM »
k 40 is an arrival code, so if the cfs appliance was using k codes you would only use that if you were arriving first to an mfs area otherwise you would use k 2 or your normal radio procedure. take change of quaters to an mfs station for example, k codes make it clear and precise for appliance movement. 

Thank you for proving exactly why the CFS do not, and should not use K-Codes.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline JJD

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2011, 02:49:13 PM »
Why let CFS use K-codes when most can't even use the phonetic alphabet correctly. There's only 26 words in that and the first letter is a dead giveaway, yet so many can't even do that...
Hmmm, a large unused document that is extremely important, but knowone knows what is in it or what it does.

Must be related to some sort of government department... - Footy


Judge me on the service....not my payslip - misterteddy

Offline vandog

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2011, 03:15:49 PM »
sorry my mistake i ment informative after arrival. there are only bugger all codes that the cfs would use anyway. if you dont use them whilst in mfs area you just make it harder for the coms opperator. but it needs to be wide spread you cant have some brigades using them and others not.

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #38 on: January 25, 2011, 07:31:06 PM »
sorry my mistake i ment informative after arrival. there are only bugger all codes that the cfs would use anyway. if you dont use them whilst in mfs area you just make it harder for the coms opperator. but it needs to be wide spread you cant have some brigades using them and others not.

Are you sure about that? After all we just had a comms operator on these forums, in this very thread specifically say:

Quote

But from my point of view [sitting behind a centracom in Adelaide Fire], i would rather CFS and SES [yes they do it on occasion on B001] did not use K-codes as simply put too many don't actually know them well enough and get them wrong on occasion.

Besides, its in the CFS SOPs.

So, vandog, how exactly does it make it harder for comms operators? Your own inability to use K-Codes highlights this more than any academic argument possibly could. If you can't get it right in written form on the internet, how sure can you be that you'll get it right, under pressure on the fireground?

[EDIT: Edited for clarity!]
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 10:49:11 PM by 6739264 »
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #39 on: January 25, 2011, 09:15:53 PM »
If you can't get it right in written form on the internet, how sure can you be that you'll get it right, under pressure on the fireground?

?

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2011, 10:48:09 PM »
If you can't get it right in written form on the internet, how sure can you be that you'll get it right, under pressure on the fireground?

?


In reference to vandog, after using your post as a quote to outline how his "If you don't use them in MFS area it makes it harder for Comms operators" argument has no merit. I then went on to suggest to vandog, that if he could not get the meaning of the K-40 code correct on an internet forum where he has no time restraint and is able to re-read his post as many times as he would like, then the chances of him getting it right in a pressure situation on the fireground were little to none. Thus illustrating the fact that CFS volunteers "don't actually know them well enough and get them wrong on occasion" thus making it far harder for comms operators, as you so well pointed out.

(we're on the same side this time ;) )
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline vandog

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2011, 12:01:36 AM »
I think you missed the point of Jaff's post. K-Codes are NOT a universally recognised form of communication. Infact, they're not even recognised nationwide or statewide! It's only SAMFS that use them. Everyone can understand plain english and no cheat sheet is required!

If you want to be as professional as possible, stop running your own race, read your SOP's and adhere to them. It's not hard. They're there for a reason.


if half the cfs appliances/ stations use them and half dont if course things are going to get ballsed up! and old mate that was 1 comms operator out of how many? and if the cfs would get them right it would be much easier for coms in a pressure situation. either all in or none in. and if the SOP'S say not to use them then y arent there brigades being instructed not to?

And numbers if you cant differentiate from a computer with no codes infront of you to a fire call which you have the travel time to work out your code with the codes should be there infront of you if you are first arrival in mfs area which happens how much?

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2011, 06:19:34 AM »
Why are we continuing to argue that we should only use K-Codes upon entering SAMFS area? We don't live in the good old days of two comcens, we only talk to Adelaide Fire operators (usually). Does it not follow, that if this is the case, and as some allege, poor Adelaide Fire can't handle comms without K-Codes, that we should be using them regardless of response area?

We talk to the same people, so why does an imaginary line on the road matter?

At the end of the day, I would just be happy to get a decent arrival message and informative SITREP in plain english from CFS Brigades. Until people can do that, there is no way in hell the should be allowed to use coded shortcuts.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline boredmatrix

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2011, 07:16:50 AM »
Why are we continuing to argue that we should only use K-Codes upon entering SAMFS area?

the same reason that they want to use the K-codes in the first place? - an inferiority complex perhaps?

two different agencies doing a not dissimilar job....with a slightly different focus in some areas- but happen to use a lot of similar equipment.  Anyone who's ever been in the Army will know what the term "chocolate soldier" means......

(and no..before you jump on me it's not a racially prejudiced slur!)

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2011, 08:19:47 AM »
A concise arrival message would be nice. Rather than "yeah we are here" and nothing more until someone in a group car physically gets on scene.

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #45 on: January 26, 2011, 10:45:51 AM »
If you can't get it right in written form on the internet, how sure can you be that you'll get it right, under pressure on the fireground?

?


In reference to vandog, after using your post as a quote to outline how his "If you don't use them in MFS area it makes it harder for Comms operators" argument has no merit. I then went on to suggest to vandog, that if he could not get the meaning of the K-40 code correct on an internet forum where he has no time restraint and is able to re-read his post as many times as he would like, then the chances of him getting it right in a pressure situation on the fireground were little to none. Thus illustrating the fact that CFS volunteers "don't actually know them well enough and get them wrong on occasion" thus making it far harder for comms operators, as you so well pointed out.

(we're on the same side this time ;) )

No probs, wasn't sure with the way i was qouted originally.

A good point is raised by numbers too, by your logic Vandog, you want to use k-codes in MFS area [GRN 150], but in CFS area you want to use plain english [say GRN124] and yet you are talking to the same operators... And no i am not the only one who would like to see CFS stop 'trying' to use k-codes, just the only one that bothers to read some of this dribble at times.

and if the SOP'S say not to use them then y arent there brigades being instructed not to?

My friend, the SOPs are the instruction.

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #46 on: January 26, 2011, 11:29:44 AM »
Probably has a lot to do with you not reading them or your brigade not advising you and perhaps your part of that generation that thinks writing Y instead of Why is acceptable !

Offline Hazmat206

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Adelaide 206 respond to reduced Hazmat...
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #47 on: January 26, 2011, 03:51:39 PM »
An example of the CFS using k codes would of been last night

Both Roseworthy appliances, 34P & 24P responded to an incident around midnight last night. As you do, they both individually notified adelaide fire that they were responding to the incident. Half an hour later, they were paged to respond to an RCR in Hewett, which 359 were also called to. The issue was that they were still at the first incident (and hadn't notified they had finished their first incident 'cos they hadn't) and had to release one of their appliances to the RCR and then call for assistance from other brigades to assist in the first incident. Maybe if they were allowed to use K codes, Adelaide fire would of known they couldn't respond to the RCR and they would of sent another brigade to assist 359. What happens if the first incident was a k99 and then they were asked to attend a RCR with confirmed entrapments around the same time?
206 to Adelaide fire,Incident #59,situation found 440, action taken 41,K45, over

Offline Mic10110

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2011, 04:31:31 PM »
Contact Adelaide Fire to either upgrade the response to your first job or default your second job to another brigade. (Correct me if I'm wrong please) AdFire will keep sending jobs to a brigade until they say no more. Thats what an OIC does... If your the OIC make sure you have balls and make the decision......

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: CFS using K-codes
« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2011, 04:42:19 PM »
An example of the CFS using k codes would of been last night

Both Roseworthy appliances, 34P & 24P responded to an incident around midnight last night. As you do, they both individually notified adelaide fire that they were responding to the incident. Half an hour later, they were paged to respond to an RCR in Hewett, which 359 were also called to. The issue was that they were still at the first incident (and hadn't notified they had finished their first incident 'cos they hadn't) and had to release one of their appliances to the RCR and then call for assistance from other brigades to assist in the first incident. Maybe if they were allowed to use K codes, Adelaide fire would of known they couldn't respond to the RCR and they would of sent another brigade to assist 359. What happens if the first incident was a k99 and then they were asked to attend a RCR with confirmed entrapments around the same time?

Individual CFS resources are not tracked as part of the current CRD setup. Thus individual CFS appliances updating their response status is useless as Adelaide Fire turnout a brigade rather than individual resources.

As Mic10110 said, that's the role of the OIC to notify Adelaide Fire of their brigades inability to respond to an incident.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

 

anything