I could be creating a storm here, but I am curious on a volunteers opinion.
Should the training organisations of MFS, CFS & SES be combined under SAFECOM to avoid duplication in standards and delivery of courses to volunteers ? I would envisage this would include training facilities being combined.
Would you has a CFS volunteer be happy to receive training from a qualified SES or MFS trainer ?
Can we avoid the duplication by a different system ?
Can you see any advantages in a combined training system ?
Please note I do not have any problems with training individuals or training departments. The questions above are not aimed to attack or discredit anyone.
My background on the question is:
** this pager message indicates another organisation attending a SES course: “09:03:18 01-02-06 Accommodation for SES chain saw course confirmed at Hahndorf OLD MILL. Training officer From Sthn Fleurieu GCC 01/02/06 09:02:53”
** I have attended a Leadership course at CFS Brukunga which was delivered by SES & CFS trainers. It was brilliant.
** We all have some similar skills & taskings: chainsaws, first aid, RCR, GRN, Operations control, Leadership, Map & Navigation (incl GPS), etc.
** Training courses need to be delivered by qualified instructors, so I would envisage (for example) that rural fire fighting courses will always be delivered by CFS instructors.
** Other forums on this website detail courses being cancelled, re-accreditation issues in RCR, boat rescue skills, driver training skills, etc.
** SES have recently released a new Road Crash Rescue Training Resource kit. I wonder how similar this is to CFS or MFS training standards.
** The SA Road Crash Rescue Competition is an example of how the different organisations sometimes do the same tasking and receive similar training.
But my major question is: “Would you has a CFS volunteer be happy to receive training from a qualified SES or MFS trainer ?”