Author Topic: ES Reform  (Read 32655 times)

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
ES Reform
« on: July 11, 2014, 04:52:53 PM »
With the current discussion around the Emergency Services Reform I thought I would run an idea past you all to see where it lands.....

Greater Metro area and all prescribed cities in SA be under the control of the SAMFS (fire, rescue and HAZMAT)
All areas outside of these areas would be prescribed CFS area. SES would still look after natural hazard and some rescue events across both areas.
CFS would manage all responses within their gazetted area including the current towns managed by MFS country command. This would give CFS the opportunity to have both full time firefighters and Volunteers. If a town is busy enough to currently warrant a retained brigade then those towns may get a minimum crew of full time day firefighters (CFS) backed up by volunteers (aka Mildura). A realistic risk assessment would need to be done on this before it became reality and most towns would revert to volunteer only.
In the Metro areas MFS would have the opportunity to also have paid firefighters backed up by volunteers if they thought the concept would work within their service. Those volunteer brigades like Salisbury could be used as surge capacity brigades for the CFS if MFS did not use them within their response plans.
In order to save a few dollars as the government wishes (don't look at the shared services model)then a number of services such as prevention, community education etc. could be amalgamated with service delivery via the separate directors (bid for service).

The advantage of this model is that we DON'T become one fire service. We DO become the master of our own destiny and we DO end up looking after our volunteers appropriately. There are cost savings built in, we drop the duplication of services seen in some country towns and we get consistency of service across the state

Anyhow just a thought for discussion....

Offline cfsfirey911

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2014, 06:08:08 PM »
Everyone is entitled to an opinion on this but I see a different scenario developing.

Some bigger towns/brigades becoming MFS retained with possible day crewing eventually, eg Mt Barker, Nuriootpa etc. No such thing as CFS paid firefighters, CFS have already stated they are not overly interested in supporting urban risks nor have the funds to do it. So making these places MFS they get the better equipment and everyone gets trained in BA/hazmat/RCR which cant be done now.

SES will be limited to a few key locations and the fire services will do the rest of the areas. Places like Kapunda that have CFS/MFS and SES will have one service to do the lot creating less demand for volunteers. Ideally no one would lose paid positions.

Whilst CFA have volunteers and paid staff in some of the stations together I believe it would not work here too much of a change.

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2014, 06:18:06 PM »
I don't think CFS has ever said that they are not interested in supporting urban risk??

Retained is nothing more than volunteers getting paid for their service. If a place requires anything more than a volunteer service why would you not make it a full time station with a minimum of 2 firefighters who support the volunteers by responding and triaging the incident as the volunteers arrive. This certainly could happen for Mt Barker and I doubt the excellent men and women at Nuriootpa would want to do anything different than they do now?

Apart for Legislation (which can be changed) there is nothng stoping CFS from having paid firefighters who would get all the gear a MFS paid station would get to mitigate the risk. Realistically what do MFS have that CFS doesnt have or couldn't get if the risk was there?

Unfortunately the Minister has already said that their will be job losses potentially from all services

You have made some good points thanks
« Last Edit: July 12, 2014, 06:21:26 PM by Firedoc02 »

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2014, 08:32:09 AM »
Just ask the Mt Barker guys how interested CFS are in moving forward with urban risk...........

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2014, 01:37:01 PM »
What are the advantage of Mt Barker going to a retained station apart from a few dollars in the pockets of those that are selected ( may not be CFS trained people). Has the brigade put a business case to the region outlining their 5 year plan for responding to incidents as CFS in Mt Barker?  Lyndoch CFS did this about 6 years ago and have achieved their plan. I understand the SFEC process but if unhappy don't whinge about it, put a case to the region and hopefully they will either support you or provide good reasons why this can't be done. Reasoning is much better than an emotional  response.

Offline CFS_fire32

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Karma: +0/-1
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2014, 08:23:18 PM »
Pretty sure Mt Barker did... and they got told to go away and be quiet.

Can't ever see CFS having retained fire-fighters - would be too hard for them.

Moral of the story seems to be 1 Organisation, but still 3 Services. Can't see how this is going to save the $$$ the Government wants.

On a side note... why/what did Lyndoch CFS have to do a 5 year plan for?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2014, 08:31:19 PM by CFS_fire32 »

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2014, 09:32:22 PM »
It was their choice. The Brigade wanted to upgrade their station and appliances so they put a plan together and invited the Regional Commander to a meeting to discuss. The plan was based upon what they saw as their risk and how they would mitigate the risk. The plan was very sound and whilst the commander did not agree with everything, he saw merit in their process so agreed to work with them to progress the plan. The rest, as they say, is history.

CFS should'nt have retained. They should however have full time fire fighters working with volunteer firefighters in high risk or high turnout areas. Retained after all is only a volunteer who pockets a few dollars for his or her efforts, they still go to work and respond on pager same as volunteers. Retained's firefighters must attend a percentage of calls but this is not always possible. Some busy CFS brigades have the same comitment by their firefighters to attend a certain number of calls. I know of Retained Brigades who could not get a truck out of the station due to low numbers of firefighters that could not respond due to work commitments - fact of life, not a critisism

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2014, 05:22:57 PM »
Firedoc02

I don't mean to be rude, but you really have no idea what the Mt Barker guys have been through, and I personally know that every single thing that could be done was done, once you hit that brick wall and no one wants to work with you to improve, then you are left with no choice. The first thing that was done was the process Lyndoch undertook, that went nowhere.

Have you spoken with anyone from Mt Barker to find out whats happened from SFEC review til now?

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2014, 06:06:14 PM »
Pumprescue, you are not being rude, we are having a chat between two equals.

No I haven't spoken directly with the Mt Barker crew nor anyone from Region 1 HQ but I do have some good contacts that are aware of what lead up to the current situation. Has CFS done it wrong - possibly, has some of Mt Barker folk done things wrong - possibly. Was the whole situation handled badly - Yes....

What matters to me is the protection of CFS volunteers and the service in general.

Why can't Mt Barker become a full time day crewed station 9-5 and 5 days a week being backed up by volunteers under the management of the CFS? We have a real good change to change CFS at the moment to something we all want. Go to a reform meeting with the Minister and tell him how CFS should be...

People forget that CFS is the volunteers and staff working together and the only way forward is to work together intelligently but persistently to get what we want.   

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2014, 07:22:21 PM »
Maybe the volunteers don't want to remain with the CFS? Maybe the volunteers have taken the mature approach to work on a solution to move forward before they can no longer handle it, maybe the volunteers have decided that the town no longer fits the volunteer model with the lack of training, equipment, PPE, support, etc etc etc. When there are no other available options then maybe its time to move forward? This was not done on a whim, all options were exhausted by the volunteers and a suitable outcome couldn't be achieved so it was left up to SAFECOM to review the situation. So far the process has taken 12 months, so definitely not a knee jerk process. I would imagine that is rather persistent.

If you are worried about the volunteers, then shouldn't you be worrying about what the volunteers in this specific situation want, seems to me they are doing what they think is best for their community, if CFS aren't interested then what choice do they have? They aren't stupid, they know full well that it may mean they are no longer involved at all. So be it, still going to end up with better fire protection. So many people profess to have their community and volunteers interests at heart, but do they really, in a situation like this progress is the only option. A large portion of the members are just flabbergasted with how the paid staff have dealt with things, several won't be continuing either way, don't forget these people live and work in this town, they know what it needs.

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2014, 10:24:20 AM »
What are the actual benefits of Mt Barker going to the MFS? Going from a volunteer crew to retained won't benefit the community only those that get chosen to receive the retainer. Has a proper risk assesment  been done on Mt Barker. I don't mean a quick risk analysis but a proper risk Assesment taking in all areas of risk including structures, hazmat, rural, rcr, emerging risks etc. if this has been done then I would like to see the model used as it could be used in other areas of SA.

I don't doubt the Mt Barker is frustrated and a lot of what you say I agree with. My point is that if CFS is broken we either leave the service or attempt to fix it. My vote is to try and fix the problems with good argument based upon fact not emotion with CFS staff and volunteers being accountable for their answers.

I know a number of retained firefighters and life there is not always as good as you think, it does have its good points also

I think we have done this to death and possibly won't agree on all points however I think we have both demonstrated that we need to work hard in  getting CFS to a higher level than what it is now.  Thanks

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2014, 12:36:05 PM »
What are the actual benefits of Mt Barker going to the MFS? Going from a volunteer crew to retained won't benefit the community only those that get chosen to receive the retainer.

Is that really what you believe?

  • All retained SAMFS firefighters are trained in all disciplines, so every firefighter on every appliance they respond is trained in BA, RCR & Hazmat.  There is no way CFS can provide that, even in brigades that do all specialities, because our training system doesn't allow it. = benefit to the community
  • Retained stations are required to always have a crew available to respond.  If a full crew isn't available, Adelaide Fire make arrangements so thjat there is (Like a COQ from another station, or sending people up to augment the local crews).  CFS does not, and arguably can not do this. = benefit to the community
  • Retained appliances must respond with an officer, so there is always someone who is qualified (by training, not be election) to manage an incident.  CFS don't even require an officer, let alone have any standards for officer competence. = benefit to the community
  • Appliances provided are fit for purpose.  If a risk needs a pumper with a particular pump capacity, one is provided. If an appliance breaks down, it is replaced by another fit-for-purpose appliance, rather than a 25 year old 24. Equipment is also fit for purpose, rather than the cheapest available. = benefit to the community

I'm sure there are other benefits that I haven't listed here, but a claim that the only ones who benefit are the retained crew is ridiculous.

Many brigades have been fighting for better support, equipment and training for a long time (when was FRAG around? The late 90s?) and have got nothing.  I think this move from Mt Barker is a sign that brigades have given up fighting, not a sign that that they need to start negotiations again.

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2014, 12:48:02 PM »
Firedoc02 = uneducated

Only 6 posts, all of them in this thread = troll?

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2014, 03:26:52 PM »

Agree - all Retained are trained eventually in these disciplines (although they are in-service courses only and are not nationally accredited courses ie. no PUA) - all nine or ten of them. No all CFS members are not trained in all disciplines because there are simply more of us. Each brigade has an SFEC allocation and if that is not suitable for your brigades needs then argue the case but not on emotion but based upon real facts. I know of 2 brigades that have done this and received changes to their SFEC to the point where there numbers are equal to the local retained brigade for CABA and exceed their numbers for RCR and HAZMAT. It can be done. Why it was not done in the case of Mt Barker I am not sure and we need to find out why.

Yes all retained Brigades are suppose to be able to respond to all incidents. However the fact of the matter is that they cannot. I won't name the brigades because that is unfair but in the past 3 years 3 retained brigades that I know of have either defaulted from 0800 to 1700 hrs monday to Friday because they did not have a senior or officer available due to work commitments, defaulted on three occasions over a two week period due to low numbers (CFS Brigade responded to the fixed alarm call on these occasions) and the third for a number of years relied on an automatic response with CFS due to a lack of numbers. Yes this can be handled by  a change of quarters but is normally either not known or in the case of the 1st brigade a near retained station responded bypassing a very competent CFS Brigade. CFS has the same issues and we get around this by either taking the brigade off line or calling in the nearest most appropriate service.  
Your last point is correct to a point. The CFS CO has identified this and is providing each region with a new appliance as their Regional spare appliance. This should alleviate some concerns with old appliances. I know of at least one brigade that when their pumper requires service we borrow one from MFS for that period of time. I would have thought our equipment to the most part is fit for purpose and certainly not the cheapest. If it is not fit for purpose why do you have it. Put a case to the RVMC through your Group Officer to get things changed. As I said previously I know a number of retained people and in some instances they would like to have what some of our brigades have.

I truly hope that the folk at Mt Barker CFS get what they want whether they stay with CFS or move to MFS. My only wish is that if we have identified a problem then we CFS need to fix it. You are part of the collective we call CFS so you have as much right to be heard and represented as any one else. Many years ago a Group took on CFS through the courts and lost - the reason, they went alone. Perhaps Mt Barker needs to get more support from people who want to see changes and not just talk about changes.....
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 04:06:28 PM by Firedoc02 »

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2014, 04:19:34 PM »
Mt Barker has done everything suggested and some, they aren't stupid, this has been going on for many many years, at the end of the day CFS aren't interested, also who mentioned anything about it being retained only?

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2014, 08:12:55 AM »
I believe Mt Barker did in the letter they wrote. Agree it has gone on too long which is very unfair on the folk from the Mt Barker Brigade

Offline cfsfirey911

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2014, 11:49:54 AM »
And another advantage of being is retained is having a genuine heavy pumper or 2. the only proper heavy pump in cfs is Burnside..In Mt Barkers case also the back up for structure jobs could include aerial appliances, BA support etc. AS well as nearby CFS of course.

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2014, 12:48:36 PM »
Under the MOU with  MFS we already have access to all their range of appliances. A number of brigades around SA have appliances with the same pumping capacity as MFS pumpers, Agree however in strategic areas a few more would be ideal

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2014, 02:08:43 PM »
You seem to know a lot about something that is a closed process and wasn't to be spoken about outside of the process? Only a staff member could know details, poor judgement if you are a staff member.

The process was instigated due to the complete lack of interest on the part of the CFS, they don't wish to progress past a certain point and are happy to ignore issues that don't involve bushfires. In fact they insisted the CFS is a rural focused fire service. Isn't it amusing that 6 years ago mt barker was in a better position than they are , why aren't CFS interested, tell me that?

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2014, 03:19:51 PM »
The problem with Cfs is that it is an open book.. If you think confidences are kept then your are sadly mistaken. With a little research most people can find out what is happening in the Cfs, MFS, or SES.

You are CFS! The rules that are made up within the Service either are government mandated or agreed to and approved by volunteers. The RVMC is made up of volunteers, the chief officers advisory forum is made up of volunteers, all committees and working parties have volunteers on them.

I agree with you that Mt Barker has taken too long but to group all CFS into one category and say that CFS is only focused on rural incidents is also wrong - yes it may be the case with some of those connected with the Mt Barker issue but there are a number of volunteers and staff that are trying to progress CFS to be more than a rural fire service.

As I said previously hopefully the folk at Mt Barker get what they are after irrespectively of whether or not that is with CFS or MFS.

The point I am trying to make is that we volunteers are CFS and during the Ministers round table discussions we need to put forward a model for change so that we can improve some of the things we have been discussing in this thread. We can whinge or we can do something about it. It really is our choice!

If I were a staff member why is it poor judgement to put forward a concept and an opinion? I certainly don't look upon staff any differently to a volunteer. Finding out the opinion of another person gives you more wisdom to make the right decision.  Keeping an open mind  helps but unfortunately inaction from CFS on some matters does not also help.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 03:44:44 PM by Firedoc02 »

Offline CFS_fire32

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Karma: +0/-1
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #20 on: July 17, 2014, 05:06:51 PM »
I think we can agree on one thing, the current system is broken!

Minister has asked for any thoughts/ideas/proposals on how we think the Emergency Services (MFS, CFS, SES) should be structured to be submitted in writing and emailed to...  SAFECOM.SectorReview@sa.gov.au
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 05:15:30 PM by CFS_fire32 »

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2014, 12:49:41 AM »
You are CFS! The rules that are made up within the Service either are government mandated or agreed to and approved by volunteers. The RVMC is made up of volunteers, the chief officers advisory forum is made up of volunteers, all committees and working parties have volunteers on them.

I agree with you that Mt Barker has taken too long but to group all CFS into one category and say that CFS is only focused on rural incidents is also wrong - yes it may be the case with some of those connected with the Mt Barker issue but there are a number of volunteers and staff that are trying to progress CFS to be more than a rural fire service.

It's nice to hear such an optimistic view, and I hope you can keep that up because we need more of it in the CFS! Unfortunately though, I think the reality isn't quite as pretty.

RVMC in region 1 can't even get first aid training happening, and 'working safely at heights' has been a standing agenda item for urgent attention for years. With that kind of track record, "on the ground" volunteers can't be expected to have any faith that raising a need for more urban capacity (for example) will get anything more than a note in the minutes. Perhaps it needs some keen and interested volunteers to drive it, but what would that take?  Getting elected as a group officer?
Is there some documented procedure available to members outlining how they get their views heard at RVMC/COAC? How does a volunteer get on these committees that make decisions on their behalf?  Is there even a list of committees and their members available so that volunteers can give their views?  These people may be volunteers, but I doubt they're a representative sample of volunteers.

CFS "management" has made no effort to enhance our urban response capacity in training or equipment, and almost seems to actively discourage it (take, for example, the recent push to cut down on the number of BA sets in service).  I'm told there are even some regional commanders who don't see any benefit in the CFBT program - the only structure fire course the CFS offers. Releasing a poster calling us an "all hazard" fire service, and including a photo of a hayshed fire on the CFS website is all very good, but they don't change the fact that we have very few urban trucks, next to no urban training, and no apparently respect for the urban brigades that have never seen a running grassfire.

A number of brigades around SA have appliances with the same pumping capacity as MFS pumpers, Agree however in strategic areas a few more would be ideal

Would you care to name them?  I don't know of any other than the already mentioned Burnside.

No all CFS members are not trained in all disciplines because there are simply more of us. Each brigade has an SFEC allocation and if that is not suitable for your brigades needs then argue the case but not on emotion but based upon real facts. I know of 2 brigades that have done this and received changes to their SFEC to the point where there numbers are equal to the local retained brigade for CABA and exceed their numbers for RCR and HAZMAT. It can be done.

Why should the number of members affect the amount of training everyone should get?  If we have more members, we should have a larger training facility and training budget to suit!  The fact there are more of use is no excuse to undertrain when it comes to provide the best service to the community.

As for increasing your SFEC maximum, while that's all good in theory, CFS training is so underfunded that once a brigade gets to it's SFEC minimum it's extremely difficult to train any more members, as brigades still under their minimum take priority.

Your last point is correct to a point. The CFS CO has identified this and is providing each region with a new appliance as their Regional spare appliance. 

Well that sounds like a good reason to deliberately break the old 24 ;)

Seriously though - it's good to hear the issue is being sorted! I'm sure, however, that the appliances will not be capable of replacing a fully stowed rescue pumper (like at Mt Barker).

I would have thought our equipment to the most part is fit for purpose and certainly not the cheapest. If it is not fit for purpose why do you have it.

When I say "fit for purpose" I mean "capable of doing the job they need to do".  The most common complaint would be pump capacity. Old 24s simply aren't capable of boosting 2 lines of 64 at 1200  KPa which is pretty standard on a standard booster.  If you think our pumping capacity is fine, you should have a chat to the urban guys at STC next time you're there!

As for cheap, isn't that how the CFS operates?  Put out a tender and pick the cheapest submission?

Put a case to the RVMC through your Group Officer to get things changed. As I said previously I know a number of retained people and in some instances they would like to have what some of our brigades have.

Things like what?

I truly hope that the folk at Mt Barker CFS get what they want whether they stay with CFS or move to MFS. My only wish is that if we have identified a problem then we CFS need to fix it. You are part of the collective we call CFS so you have as much right to be heard and represented as any one else.

I completely agree with you! Tell anyone who'll listen, and hopefully it'll make it's way up to someone who can make changes!


...sorry for the ranting

Offline cfsfirey911

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #22 on: July 19, 2014, 01:04:20 PM »


z







« Last Edit: July 19, 2014, 01:09:58 PM by cfsfirey911 »

Offline cfsfirey911

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #23 on: July 19, 2014, 01:08:55 PM »


Agree - all Retained are trained eventually in these disciplines (although they are in-service courses only and are not nationally accredited courses ie. no PUA) - all nine or ten of them. No all CFS members are not trained in all disciplines because there are simply more of us. Each brigade has an SFEC allocation and if that is not suitable for your brigades needs then argue the case but not on emotion but based upon real facts. I know of 2 brigades that have done this and received changes to their SFEC to the point where there numbers are equal to the local retained brigade for CABA and exceed their numbers for RCR and HAZMAT. It can be done. Why it was not done in the case of Mt Barker I am not sure and we need to find out why.








MFS are changing to nationally recognised courses for BA/RCR. At the end of the day the public who call 000 don't care who comes or who provided the training. As long as someone comes who can cut them out of a car or put out the fire out as long as they are competent does it matter how their training was provided.

Some brigades have pushed for more course training spots but nothing happens as the funds just are not there. Not blaming the CFS but I guess their hands are tied,

Offline Firedoc02

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ES Reform
« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2014, 04:25:56 PM »
It's nice to hear such an optimistic view, and I hope you can keep that up because we need more of it in the CFS! Unfortunately though, I think the reality isn't quite as pretty.

It can be but it is up to us

RVMC in region 1 can't even get first aid training happening, and 'working safely at heights' has been a standing agenda item for urgent attention for years. With that kind of track record, "on the ground" volunteers can't be expected to have any faith that raising a need for more urban capacity (for example) will get anything more than a note in the minutes. Perhaps it needs some keen and interested volunteers to drive it, but what would that take?  Getting elected as a group officer?

There is a paper going to the next COAC meeting I believe that requests CFS provide training for a minimum number of first aiders for a brigade and provides for brigade's to train every member. The paper has also gone to every RVMC.

Is there some documented procedure available to members outlining how they get their views heard at RVMC/COAC?

Yes there is, see your Regional Admin Officer for a copy.

How does a volunteer get on these committees that make decisions on their behalf?

Take an active role in your Brigade and or Group Meetings. If you have a concept for better/different training then from a Brigade level put it to the Group. Get them to endorse it and put it to RVMC in writing. The RVMC should then put it to the other Regional RVMC's and also to COAC. The rep on COAC is voted by the GO's. Get to know who that is and discuss your concerns

Is there even a list of committees and their members available so that volunteers can give their views?  These people may be volunteers, but I doubt they're a representative sample of volunteers.

If they don't represent your views then they should not be on the committee. Be active in understanding who exactly represents you. All committees should have minutes. Get your Captain/GO to ask the region for a copy. Irrespective whether the rep agrees with you or not they should bring your views forward to the meeting for discussion. You should also be allowed to attend to speak to your idea.

CFS "management" has made no effort to enhance our urban response capacity in training or equipment, and almost seems to actively discourage it (take, for example, the recent push to cut down on the number of BA sets in service).

The push to cut down BA sets was not done to restrict brigades from having BA but to rationalise the number of dead BA in the state. A number of Brigades have BA and not the wearers. Some have not had their minimum for some time. If a brigade could demonstrate that they had the wearers or potential wearers then they should have kept their sets.

 I'm told there are even some regional commanders who don't see any benefit in the CFBT program - the only structure fire course the CFS offers.

I would be surprised and disappointed if this was true.

Releasing a poster calling us an "all hazard" fire service, and including a photo of a hayshed fire on the CFS website is all very good, but they don't change the fact that we have very few urban trucks,

I know of one Commander who has spoken to each of his urban brigades and most have said that they are happy with their 34P. Three of those Urban brigades have indicated that they would like an urban pumper to 750GPM for boosting although a 500GPM would do the job in their area. Going to the bigger pump allows for growth within the area. One of these has been ordered with the other two in the plan for when their current appliance is due for a change over.


Would you care to name them?  I don't know of any other than the already mentioned Burnside.

My source was not correct so my apologies. Burnside I believe is rated at 1000GPM? and the new MFS appliances are rated at 1250GPM. There are currently 11 CFS Appliances rated at 750GPM with the normal 34P's rated at 500GPM. I have been told that the majority of establishments outside of the greater Adelaide area only require a maximum of a 500GPM pumper to boost. I stand corrected here as I don't definitively have the facts in front of me. Looking up the Retained brigades they range between 800 and 500GPM

A reliable source has informed me that should a brigade require a pump bigger than what is required on a standard 34P then provided that there is evidence to back this up then a bigger pump can be ordered. The problem we face is how we can get the most appropriate pumper to an area in the shortest possible time frame. This may mean that the Region in consultation with the Group and Brigade need to shift appliances around to suit the need of the community not the ego of the brigade.


Why should the number of members affect the amount of training everyone should get?  If we have more members, we should have a larger training facility and training budget to suit!  The fact there are more of use is no excuse to undertrain when it comes to provide the best service to the community.

In theory it shouldn't but realistically when you have a large number of brigades in a relatively small area then you can multi respond the most appropriate resource/s without compromising the service to the community  

As for increasing your SFEC maximum, while that's all good in theory, CFS training is so underfunded that once a brigade gets to it's SFEC minimum it's extremely difficult to train any more members, as brigades still under their minimum take priority.

This is not necessarily the case. I know dormitory towns that have sought SFEC upgrades and received the training  




Well that sounds like a good reason to deliberately break the old 24 ;)

Seriously though - it's good to hear the issue is being sorted! I'm sure, however, that the appliances will not be capable of replacing a fully stowed rescue pumper (like at Mt Barker).

The appliance will arrive basically stowed. Any additional stowage can be transferred whilst the appliance is being repaired. I believe that it will be a 34P regional spare



When I say "fit for purpose" I mean "capable of doing the job they need to do".  The most common complaint would be pump capacity. Old 24s simply aren't capable of boosting 2 lines of 64 at 1200  KPa which is pretty standard on a standard booster.

Agree and they were never designed to do that. CFS has, I believe, adopted a standard pump being 500GPM. All boosters are rated and it is my understanding that in most areas 500GPM is appropriate. In those areas that require a bigger pump these can be ordered. If your pumper is not fit for purpose and there is a pumper in your Group that is then this either needs to be responded or if your need is greater then discuss swapping appliances remembering that the community needs are greater than the ego of a brigade.  

As for cheap, isn't that how the CFS operates?  Put out a tender and pick the cheapest submission?

A common misconception but no. There is a transparent process for the acceptance of tenders and I understand that price has very little to do with the final outcome. BUT.... If CFS does purchase the cheapest which is still fit for purpose then they can afford to purchase other things. Like all government departments Capital budgets can't be moved into other budget areas like training courses, PPE etc...  



Things like what?

Rescue truck, R2's Incident Command Vehicle, a vehicle that can go off road, the knowledge and autonomy to manage incidents to the level we do.



I completely agree with you! Tell anyone who'll listen, and hopefully it'll make it's way up to someone who can make changes!

I am....


...sorry for the ranting

You are not ranting, but like most people on this forum you appear to want change and are frustrated at the speed in which this is happening (or not happening). If you want to make change then put up a factual WRITTEN case and seek the support of your Brigade, your Group (solidarity in numbers), your Region (get the support of other groups) and put it to CFS.

I am very passionate about the CFS and understand that each region is different and what is good for one might not necessarily be good for another. At the end of the day however we have to work together in order to put pressure on the Government to fund us appropriately within the structure we decide is appropriate to our communities irrespective of where we are.

The CFSVA are working towards this under a new leadership group. Hopefully they will be given the opportunity by the volunteers to make change for the good of the organisation. If you want to be represented then the person you pick as your VA rep must be strong and willing to support you. UFU have strong informed people speaking for the rights of the MFS...
« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 05:39:11 PM by Firedoc02 »