Author Topic: New AIRS Reporting forms  (Read 19712 times)

rescue5271

  • Guest
New AIRS Reporting forms
« on: March 03, 2011, 12:00:47 PM »
So has anyone else seen the new airs reporting forms and what do you think of them??? We have gone from 2 pages to 8 pages to fill in,I cant see brigade's filling these in as Volunteers just want to get back to work ASAP after a call out....
« Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 04:53:38 PM by Bill »

Offline mattb

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIR'S Reporting forms
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2011, 12:45:21 PM »
We are using the new electronic version, however our 'IN' report is only three pages. Are you using hard or soft copies ?

EMA brigades need to be aware of a typo in the section that asks about mutual aid, it currently says 'Provided by CFS' and 'Given to MFS' which are the same thing. I checked with Yvette and it needs to be changed to 'Provided by MFS'

Also don't forget that you need a grid reference for each job. Be aware though that the section that you are meant to put the 13 digit grid reference in only has space for 6 figures - easily rectified though.

It will be good to see more information now appearing on our TAS about roles undertaken at incidents.

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: New AIR'S Reporting forms
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2011, 01:04:21 PM »
Matt, We are going to try the Electronic reporting and see how it goes thanks for pointing out the few mistakes...It will take time to get used....

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: New AIR'S Reporting forms
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2011, 02:13:16 PM »
So has anyone else seen the new air's reporting forms and what do you think of them??? We have gone from 2 pages to 8 pages to fill in,I cant see brigade's filling these in as Volunteers just want to get back to work ASAP after a call out....

Firstly, it's AIRS. No need for that errant apostrophy. God help you if you can't fill out 8 pages. AIRS forms aren't hard to fill out, they don't take that long do they? Drop down boxes are hard to use though...

Have the CFS actually started to take note of things like the type and use of building/vehicle, location of detectors, type of detectors, ignition source etc etc?

Don't forget, floors above ground are prefixed with an "A" those below ground get a  "B" ;)
« Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 09:14:52 PM by 6739264 »
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2011, 04:54:11 PM »
There you happy now Numbers....

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2011, 09:14:32 PM »
There, are you happy now Numbers....?

There I happy now Bill.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline Benji

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • MySpace
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2011, 09:31:03 PM »
Where does one get a hold of the electronic version or even just the new forms in general?
Ben(B2)
Crossdressing SES & CFS member

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2011, 05:10:11 AM »
Contact the regional office....

Offline Darius

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2011, 09:05:24 AM »
start with contacting your group officer(s) as it was sent to them

Offline vsteve01

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIR'S Reporting forms
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2011, 09:29:43 AM »
We got them last week.  

Also don't forget that you need a grid reference for each job. Be aware though that the section that you are meant to put the 13 digit grid reference in only has space for 6 figures - easily rectified though.

We were told last night just to use 6 figures.

God help you if you can't fill out 8 pages. AIRS forms aren't hard to fill out, they don't take that long do they? Drop down boxes are hard to use though...

Forms aren't hard to fill in, but it's the time taken which was of concern for our group.  What is likely to happen is people won't fill them in properly meaning garbage in and garbage out.

Have the CFS actually started to take note of things like the type and use of building/vehicle, location of detectors, type of detectors, ignition source etc etc?

Pretty sure that guff is now on the forms.  Region were saying that info will be used so that if if the same detector keeps trigging them increased callouts and fines can start to be applied.  Assuming this is why mfs collects this info.

If there is a benefit for the cfs and the community for collecting additional info then all good, but if it's just doing it coz someone else is doing it, then why bother.

There is also legal issues where this info might cover your arse :D

It needs to be given a chance.  People don't like change, but such is life.






Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2011, 12:18:55 PM »
Just finished setting up the new electronic AIRS for our brigade. Looks the goods to me. 3 pages isnt that much of an ask really. I like the fact that they are now capturing roles of personnel at incidents and feeding it into TAS.


Attached are the electronic copies, all you need to do is unprotect the dolcument then alter the forms in the template to customise to your brigades requirements. Altering the font size of names and there roles also helps to avoid it dropping over pages.

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2011, 01:35:14 PM »
I have heard some group officers are already cracking the sads, and writing nasty letters....mingers

Its about time we collected useful information, its all for the greater good. To be honest I didn't notice it taking me any longer than before.

Its already proven useful for some members as things like wearing BA are going towards the re-accred time.

It will also be good to prove to some of our more useless members that they are tying up specialist spots when they continually shirk attending fire calls and training.

If your doing 10 calls a year, surely the imposition isn't to much....its called being a proper fire service....the term "if you don't like it leave" comes to mind.

Offline Mike

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,045
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2011, 01:51:38 PM »
The original AIRS form was longer, and people dealt with that..... Doesnt look bad at all.

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2011, 10:18:15 PM »
Hmm....

I'm not entirely convinced that those people above us are doing the right thing by us. Why do we still not have access to ALL the AIRS codes? Why do we only get a select few that someone determines 'will be enough'?

We still have "322 - MVA w/Injuries" This being an EMS code that is no use to 99% of CFS brigades. Yet 99% of Brigades list that for any MVA that has someone transported.

Looking beyond that to common calls such as AFA's, we have four options:

FALSE CALL - NO FIRE/NO TESTING
FALSE CALL - ON SITE WORK PRACTICES
FALSE CALL - TESTING/MAINTAINENCE BY COMPANY
FIRE/INCIDENT

What then is a detector activated due to burnt food/hairspray/incense? Simulated condition is NOT a false call, the detector is working as intended. There are PLENTY of codes to cover all forms of activation.

Not to mention, Basements do not exist in CFS AIRS land. The lowest floor you can have an alarm activated on is the Ground floor.

Come one CFS, its not hard, it's a handful of text to put into the document, I'll happily do it for you over a weekend. For free. All things mentioned above are easily edited in... I guess thats where my next weekend will go.

For those complaining, stats are the best way to increase your funding... show the Govt. how much work we are actually doing. If we get stats to back us up we can actually achieve things! Get those false alarms reduced, have a solid argument as to why xyz Brigade needs xyz truck/specialisation/SFEC increase.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2011, 10:33:40 PM »
Numbers, not sure about some of the other comments without looking, but the new AIRS template has all of the Fire Alarm codes available as situation found.

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2011, 10:08:48 AM »
Numbers, not sure about some of the other comments without looking, but the new AIRS template has all of the Fire Alarm codes available as situation found.

Ah ha! So it does... That will teach me to look at documents and criticize them at 0100hrs :(
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2011, 11:48:03 AM »
Alarm information was one of the main reasons it was changed...

Is there an alarm code for "captain attended in his ute and said she'll be right put a stop on the truck"

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2011, 02:42:04 PM »
I have heard some group officers are already cracking the sads, and writing nasty letters....mingers

What are they complaining about?  All I've heard are concerns about using CABA wear info as a basis for re-accreditation, and scorn over the change from Primary/Secondary to In/Out.

Its already proven useful for some members as things like wearing BA are going towards the re-accred time.

I think this a bad move.  Starting up a CABA set at an incident in no way proves that an operator is still a competent BA operator.  The purpose of an annual, (or 5 yearly), re-accreditation is to ensure BA operators are still donning and starting up correctly and still know the correct procedures for safety and equipment maintenance.  Do they really think a tick in a box on a fire reports proves an operator is competent and removes a need for them to be assessed?

I'm also curious about the definition of RCR and HAZMAT operators...
"HAZMAT OPERATOR - Actually used hazmat equipment at a hazmat incident".  So if I turn on the PID at a house fire, does that make me a Haz Op?
"RCR OPERATOR - Actually used RCR equipment at the incident". If I use a haligan to pop a bonnet at a car fire am I an RCR Op?  All seems a bit vague...


It will also be good to prove to some of our more useless members that they are tying up specialist spots when they continually shirk attending fire calls and training.

Can't you do that already from the fire reports you're already filling in?

Hmm....

I'm not entirely convinced that those people above us are doing the right thing by us. Why do we still not have access to ALL the AIRS codes? Why do we only get a select few that someone determines 'will be enough'?

Agreed - we have to make whatever incident we attended fit into the select few options they give us, rather than reporting what we actually attended.  But you have to admit, it does make it a lot easier!

For those complaining, stats are the best way to increase your funding... show the Govt. how much work we are actually doing. If we get stats to back us up we can actually achieve things! Get those false alarms reduced, have a solid argument as to why xyz Brigade needs xyz truck/specialisation/SFEC increase.

Again, haven't we been filling out fire reports for years?  Is the inclusion of some extra details about an alarm call really going to get us extra funding or cut down on false alarms?  You can already get the stats from the previous version of the forms - if it says we went to an alarm, it means it was an unwanted alarm, if it legit, we'd put it down as a fire...

As well as the mistakes Matt already pointed now, there seem to be quite a few other fields that are vague or confusing. 
For example,

Who is the "Officer in Charge"?

Does "Spare cylinders used" really mean spares used, or total used? 

"Charge code: Yes/No" How do we answer that? 

"Name of Brigade/Station/Unit who conducted Rescue".  What counts as the rescue?  If the RCR brigade cuts up the car, but then the local brigade carries the stretcher to the ambulance, is that a team effort? 

Or the fact you only get to choose one type of mobile property for an incident, but can enter details for 3 vehicles...

I'm also curios as to why lowercase and uppercase options are mixed.  Is there a difference between them?

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2011, 08:38:27 AM »
Well after 3 hrs of doing the drop down sections with brigade and group officers names we are now using the new form. The group admin officer has made up a dummy one so that those filling it in know what to do but also they use the correct codes...

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2011, 11:27:44 AM »
I think this a bad move.  Starting up a CABA set at an incident in no way proves that an operator is still a competent BA operator.  The purpose of an annual, (or 5 yearly), re-accreditation is to ensure BA operators are still donning and starting up correctly and still know the correct procedures for safety and equipment maintenance.  Do they really think a tick in a box on a fire reports proves an operator is competent and removes a need for them to be assessed?

I would have hoped that it would be more geared toward ensuring that operators are actually wearing at incidents, thus if a person claims to have worn at every job a brigade has had in the past year, according to their little operator book, it can be confirmed/denied in TAS. It would be nice to be able to log 3 monthly training wears in this fashion too. God forbid if we had to actually log what we all did for training. That could destroy some Brigades. But I digress, I don't think, as CFS_Firey had said, that operational use and re-accreditation should EVER mix. They are two very different entities. How many Brigades/Operators do we know that have been doing xyz for 1000 years, but their knowledge and skills base is horribly out of date?

I'm also curious about the definition of RCR and HAZMAT operators...
"HAZMAT OPERATOR - Actually used hazmat equipment at a hazmat incident".  So if I turn on the PID at a house fire, does that make me a Haz Op?
"RCR OPERATOR - Actually used RCR equipment at the incident". If I use a haligan to pop a bonnet at a car fire am I an RCR Op?  All seems a bit vague...

As for equipment used, it depends on your definitions really... Is a Gas Detector Hazmat equipment? It can be used for a variety of things, and detecting for an IDLH atmosphere is not necessarily Hazmat. In the same way that CABA is used in an IDLH atmosphere, but would you call it Hazmat gear? A Halligan most certainly isn't RCR equipment either. Both examples are stowed on appliances that are normal "General Purpose" fire appliances, so that further muddies the waters... Are we looking at the primary role of the equipment or the context in which it is used?

Again, haven't we been filling out fire reports for years?  Is the inclusion of some extra details about an alarm call really going to get us extra funding or cut down on false alarms?  You can already get the stats from the previous version of the forms - if it says we went to an alarm, it means it was an unwanted alarm, if it legit, we'd put it down as a fire...

But then a "legit" alarm is not necessarily a fire...

Again, simulated condition is an example of an alarm operating correctly. Unwanted, yes, legit, yes. What the gathering of further stats can do, in terms of false alarm reduction is demonstrate where the problem lies. Is it faulty equip? Is it occupier error? Can we curtail the number of false alarms with some basic fire alarm education? Do we need to suggest that the building change the location/type of detectors? Without detector location/cause information this is impossible. How many allegedly "faulty" smoke alarms are there in CFS at the moment? An impossibly large number, as simulated condition/contractor negligence tends to go down as "Alarm Fault".

As for extra funding, etc, we can now track exactly WHO does WHAT. It just helps again, to build a case for the future. If you have busy brigades that are always using their equipment, then perhaps they will need a larger equipment replacement budget, etc etc...

As well as the mistakes Matt already pointed now, there seem to be quite a few other fields that are vague or confusing. 
For example,

Who is the "Officer in Charge"?

Does "Spare cylinders used" really mean spares used, or total used? 

"Charge code: Yes/No" How do we answer that? 

"Name of Brigade/Station/Unit who conducted Rescue".  What counts as the rescue?  If the RCR brigade cuts up the car, but then the local brigade carries the stretcher to the ambulance, is that a team effort? 

Or the fact you only get to choose one type of mobile property for an incident, but can enter details for 3 vehicles...

I'm also curios as to why lowercase and uppercase options are mixed.  Is there a difference between them?

As per CFS SOP, the whole thing appears to have been publicly released very early in the development stage. I hope someone didn't get paid or seconded to produce this. It is appalling. Poorly edited, not proofread, sloppy use of upper/lowercase. (much like this post...)

"Charge Code" is easy, there is a list of the 700 codes (sit found for AFA's) that list which ones are chargeable... do we plebs on the fire trucks get this? Of course not...

"Name of Brigade/Station/Unit who conducted Rescue" perhaps if we look at a definition of rescue? I'd wager that it is the brigade/station/unit that actually removed the person from danger, rather than those that walked them to the meat wagon.

Another question, why the use of IN/OUT (of your Brigades fire response area)? What happens if you arrive into another brigades area first, give them a stop? Who does the report? Why can't we use "First Arrival" and "Attended" that way, the first arriving (and in theory IC) takes the details and does the report. Also goes to show who actually gets to where first. Not to mention that we only track arrival times of agencies and not individual appliances - no way to ensure that each brigade is meeting required response times (although this really only applies to Rescue brigades that have response times specified)

If in the "Incident/Activity Response Attendance Record" it tell us to only place the details of "You brigade only" does this mean that Group Officers have to do ANOTHER report?

Why under roles do we have SFF (even though it is "not an assigned role at present time") and not have Lt/Capt? One would have thought rank information is contained under the rank heading in the Attendance Report?

C'mon CFS, is it THAT HARD to do something properly the first time? Have some pride, grow up and try to become a real Fire Service...
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline mengcfs

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2011, 08:34:28 AM »
Can someone please upload or email the AIRS Reference Sheet and Written version reffered to in Yvettes memo...
Thanks.

Offline vsteve01

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2011, 08:59:06 AM »
Can someone please upload or email the AIRS Reference Sheet and Written version reffered to in Yvettes memo...
Thanks.

Attached.

Did my first one last night.  Wasn't too bad.  Though the reference page refers to it just as mobile property, but it's actually mobile property fire.  RCR is on the next page :D




Offline Sarge

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2011, 08:23:30 PM »
What exactly is AIRS IN & AIRS OUT?

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2011, 08:27:23 PM »
What exactly is AIRS IN & AIRS OUT?

The reports for attending a call IN your primary response area, or OUT of your primary response area.  What used to be called Primary and Support.

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: New AIRS Reporting forms
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2011, 07:09:23 AM »
Also, as an interesting aside, the CFS appear to be "doing their own thing" as per usual, as they are not listed as being a contributing agency to AFAC's AIRS data collection - unlike every other major fire service, volunteer or paid, in the country. No wonder there is no need to adhere to the AIRS core data standards outlined by AFAC, when you don't actually do anything useful with the data.

Oh SACFS, you crazy thing!

EDIT: Too early and too simple to be posting. Note to self, read docs first, comment later. Cheers Alex.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 01:27:18 PM by 6739264 »
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...