Author Topic: mutual aid... (Read 37111 times)

TillerMan · « **Reply #25 on:** November 17, 2005, 03:29:23 PM »

Kentucky

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #26 on:** November 17, 2005, 04:18:43 PM »

Quote from: TillerMan on November 17, 2005, 03:29:23 PM

Kentucky

I hope not!

CaptCom · « **Reply #27 on:** November 18, 2005, 07:27:30 AM »

I am currently involved with the Coronial Inquest into Black Tuesday. After listening to one of the Crown solicitors, I would advise any volunteer who likes to work outside of the SOP's that you would consider never doing it again unless you wish to finance your own legal representation in such a process.

The SOP's are there for your own protection..

...... it doesn't matter if your in a group who thinks they can write their own SOP's and abide by their own laws or create their own appliances or additional levels of equipment or if your a member of an ema brigade who uses K codes - your all outside of the SOP's, no matter if it's a little bit or a large bit!

kat · « **Reply #28 on:** November 18, 2005, 12:54:57 PM »

Good advice.

I would imagine every single Brigade either "bends", manipulates, ignores or simply does not understand some SOP's. (An example would be appliances rolling with 3 firefighters knowing that others will be meeting them on scene)

I guess we never think that we may be in a coroners court explaining why.

firefighter_sa · « **Reply #29 on:** November 18, 2005, 02:07:52 PM »

Great advise indeed - short sharp and straight to the point.

The SOP's are there to cover your behind.

Wayne

Stefan KIRKMOE · « **Reply #30 on:** November 19, 2005, 09:17:36 AM »

It comes down to whatever sounds professional i think.... If you don't know then don't use them but when you know K codes it sounds professional and makes the job a lot easier..... ( i think)

"MFS comms this if nuff nuff 24 Pumper we are mobile to job in MFS area"
"Adelaide Fire Burnside 2919 K1 over"

As for following SOP's considerng a lot of CFS don't follow basic ones like levels of response and appropriate resources anyway what does a simple K mean....

medevac · « **Reply #31 on:** November 21, 2005, 04:17:04 PM »

Quote from: skirkmoe on November 19, 2005, 09:17:36 AM

As for following SOP's considerng a lot of CFS don't follow basic ones like levels of response and appropriate resources anyway what does a simple K mean....

well for a lot of minga brigades it could mean telling state or there bases the wrong thing... cos lets face it, not everyone in the CFS is a rocket scientest, and a fair few ppl have issues with basic pro words like over or out, or over and out...

nomex_nugget · « **Reply #32 on:** November 21, 2005, 04:20:07 PM »

What about when you try and follow the SOP's and not use the MFS allocated number (8624, 2912 etc) but you use your CFS callsign "nuff nuff 24 Pumper mobile to ....", then the MFS comcen dude calls you back with "roger 8624 you're K1".

Not to mention that nuff nuff 24 Pumper should actually be 861 (first Pump) and when nuff nuff 24 responds as well - MFS still call it "nuff nuff 8624" so all of sudden MFS have two 8624 appliances going to different jobs - yes it is as confusing as what I have just said.. If you have ever heard Seford call up on the radio they always say "Adelaide Fire this isSeafood 24 Pumper mobile to ......" then MFS call them back with "Roger 8334 you're K1". Well Seaford don't even have a 34, MFS just don't get it.

I think they play games with us, either we should all use MFS appliance number (2919, 9219, 9119, 9419, 8334, etc) or no one uses them, and the MFS comms guys acknowledge that we aren't using them and just respond to us with our standard CFS callsigns, rather than responding to us on the radio with the MFS appliance nubmers.

medevac · « **Reply #33 on:** November 21, 2005, 06:14:16 PM »

thats my point... per CFS SOPs noones meant to use numbers as appliance identities or k-codes...

strikeathird · « **Reply #34 on:** November 22, 2005, 11:06:17 AM »

Quote from: nomex_nugget on November 21, 2005, 04:20:07 PM

What about when you try and follow the SOP's and not use the MFS allocated number (8624, 2912 etc) but you use your CFS callsign "nuff nuff 24 Pumper mobile to ....", then the MFS comcen dude calls you back with "roger 8624 you're K1".

Not to mention that nuff nuff 24 Pumper should actually be 861 (first Pump) and when nuff nuff 24 responds as well - MFS still call it "nuff nuff 8624" so all of sudden MFS have two 8624 appliances going to different jobs - yes it is as confusing as what I have just said.. If you have ever heard Seford call up on the radio they always say "Adelaide Fire this isSeafood 24 Pumper mobile to ......" then MFS call them back with "Roger 8334 you're K1". Well Seaford don't even have a 34, MFS just don't get it.

I think they play games with us, either we should all use MFS appliance number (2919, 9219, 9119, 9419, 8334, etc) or no one uses them, and the MFS comms guys acknowledge that we aren't using them and just respond to us with our standard CFS callsigns, rather than responding to us on the radio with the MFS appliance nubmers.

Quote

MFS just don't get it.

No, we are complicated and call our appliances cra p names like 24 Pumper. What is wrong with following suit and calling our appliances like - 831, 299, 919 etc etc. Imagine.. State Hq, 831 is Mobile. Or Adelaide Fire, 831 is K1. That is so much simpler, sounds so much more professional and I believe is a more effective way of communicating.

Mike · « **Reply #35 on:** November 22, 2005, 12:35:20 PM »

Now I dont pay much attention to listening to the MFS on scanners, nor get the opertunity to work with them. However, from my point of view... i tend to agree that we SHOULDNT be using K codes or numerical callsigns... Dont mean to offend anyone from smaller brigades but those that only get 2 or 3 calls a year and/or only train one in a blue moon will have a lot of trouble. And the whole point of volunteering is to get everyone involved and feel welcome.

Think back to when appliance callsigns were station number / appliance number.....

The current naming system is simple. I instantly know 3 bits of info about the truck. The diference between Kxx and arrived.... at least I dont have to translate what im saying first.... and no matter who is on the other end, they know what im on about.

You dont need fancy names or numbers to make things sound professional.... just good training.

IMO anyway

Firefrog · « **Reply #36 on:** November 22, 2005, 12:48:06 PM »

For those that use them (K codes) often it seems reasonable to continue, but I agree that the CFS should use standard communications across the board - therefore should use plain language which is common to all and easy to interpret.
The argumentment is actually moot because there is an SOP that tells us what to do. There is no room for interpretation or bending the rules.

I wonder if the desire to use K codes is less about communication and more about sounding cool on the radio.

nomex_nugget · « **Reply #37 on:** November 22, 2005, 04:06:31 PM »

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Firefrog. You hear some brigades that like to use K codes every time they move their appliance 10 feet. Clearly they are MFS wannabees.

If we all just follow the CFS SOP's and dont use K codes and dont use appliance nubmers we will be alright, if only hte MFS comms guys would respond to us with plain language rather than replying with K codes and MFS appliance numbers.

rescue5271 · « **Reply #38 on:** November 22, 2005, 04:21:37 PM »

One would hope that if and when CAD get's here that there will be one set of rules for all with communications no more codes of any type and life would be alot easy for us all....

medevac · « **Reply #39 on:** November 22, 2005, 07:00:30 PM »

Quote from: strikeathird on November 22, 2005, 11:06:17 AM

No, we are complicated and call our appliances cra p names like 24 Pumper. What is wrong with following suit and calling our appliances like - 831, 299, 919 etc etc. Imagine.. State Hq, 831 is Mobile. Or Adelaide Fire, 831 is K1. That is so much simpler, sounds so much more professional and I believe is a more effective way of communicating.

Poor OCOs... can you imagine how many appliance numbers they would have to remember?? not just the various appliance types which they could handle im sure.. but the differant station numbers also... and how many stations are there??? i think thats rubbish.

whereas Nuff Nuff 24P tells them everything they need to know, where its from, what it is. sometimes making things easier... isnt making things easier.

firefighter_sa · « **Reply #40 on:** November 22, 2005, 09:37:42 PM »

Hi there

Its sounds like we have some very passionate people about the use of K- Codes.

At the end of the Day and its been said MANY time throughout this forum - its a breach of the SOP's.

If you would like to change the SOP's please feel free to discuss the issues with your officer or officers in charge and they will address it through the right channels.

I am not disputing whether is quicker - easer or sounds more professional but we have SOP'S in place for our protection. If a few choose not to abide by these do so at there own risk and they may be liable for what ever repercussions occurs.

Thanks for reading

Wayne

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #41 on:** November 22, 2005, 11:39:38 PM »

Quote from: medevac on November 22, 2005, 07:00:30 PM

Poor OCOs... can you imagine how many appliance numbers they would have to remember?? not just the various appliance types which they could handle im sure.. but the differant station numbers also... and how many stations are there??? i think thats rubbish.

whereas Nuff Nuff 24P tells them everything they need to know, where its from, what it is. sometimes making things easier... isnt making things easier.

When you press the transmit button on your radio, the callsign of that radio comes up on the OCO's screen - they don't have to remember anything.. its probably easier for them to read out a series of numbers that try to pronounce some of the great names we have in SA

medevac · « **Reply #42 on:** November 23, 2005, 12:05:21 AM »

although... this does make me think of the MFS wannabes thread someone just started.....

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #43 on:** November 23, 2005, 12:19:55 AM »

Quote from: medevac on November 23, 2005, 12:05:21 AM

although... this does make me think of the MFS wannabes thread someone just started.....

Its been meantioned in a few other threads as well, but this was most recent

however like others have said, wanting to be more like the MFS doesn't change the fact that we have to follow CFS SOP's

medevac · « **Reply #44 on:** November 23, 2005, 12:55:50 AM »

mm i say if you want to be more proffesional or whatever... then make yourself sound more professional on the radio while using proper CFS radio procedure... no hang-ons from the days of CB, no over and outs, no roger that....

strikeathird · « **Reply #45 on:** November 23, 2005, 12:05:42 PM »

Quote from: Firefrog on November 22, 2005, 12:48:06 PM

For those that use them (K codes) often it seems reasonable to continue, but I agree that the CFS should use standard communications across the board - therefore should use plain language which is common to all and easy to interpret.
The argumentment is actually moot because there is an SOP that tells us what to do. There is no room for interpretation or bending the rules.

I wonder if the desire to use K codes is less about communication and more about sounding cool on the radio.

Well Firefrog, you of all people would be able to give an opinion on both sides of the debate. In you opinion and using your knowledge and exp. with both forms of communication, "Do you believe K codes are a simpler, quicker, and better way of communicating, when used in an environment where training allows one to understand the Code.. ?" In other words, if trained in their understanding, do you think K codes make things a heck of a lot easier ??

Firefrog · « **Reply #46 on:** November 23, 2005, 05:01:30 PM »

I am very neutral as to the benefits of K codes. Neither like them or dislike them.

Not sure what you mean by me having insight on both side of the debate though - have only ever used K codes riding on SACFS trucks.

The key point that has been highlighted over and over is the SOP and this should be followed.

I see more benefits and less room for error if using plain language.

Stefan KIRKMOE · « **Reply #47 on:** November 25, 2005, 05:43:12 PM »

At the end of the day if you use them you will use them if you don't even respond with SAMFS then why even worry about them. I'm gonna use them when I'm in SAMFS area working as part of a SAMFS resource (and no I'm not a SAMFS wannabe!). As for people running by the CFS SOP's and we should follow them that's the end of the story then consider this, this CFS SOP's also state "the closest most appropriate resource should be responded to incidents". Considering we can't even get that right and the public are at a fair risk because of it I think K codes are a minimal issue....

Firefrog · « **Reply #48 on:** November 25, 2005, 05:45:02 PM »

agreed K codes are a minimal issue!

JamesGar · « **Reply #49 on:** November 25, 2005, 06:37:34 PM »

MFS are phasing them out soon according to the current recruit course, so I envisage with the new CAD that K codes will be a thing of the past!

Author Topic: mutual aid... (Read 37111 times)

strikeathird

rescue5271

strikeathird