Author Topic: hypothetical incident 2  (Read 10807 times)

Toast

  • Guest
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2006, 03:38:34 PM »
Choppers? Not for the freeway. Maybe to bring a Retrieval team in, but usually the freeway is close enough to transport by road.

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2006, 09:31:16 PM »
mmm well rescue choppers would be up to the ambulance service... but for a location like that they wouldnt....

retreival teams would go by road


however;

if a chopper was on its way, this would make very little differance as there would be plenty of room to land on the freeway as it has been closed and partially cleared near the scene as far as im concerned  :wink: :-D

Offline SA Firey

  • Forum Group Officer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,967
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2006, 07:33:11 PM »
it is 7:50am on a Thursday. On the South Eastern Freeway there has been a large MVA in the Heysen tunnels. The car travelling in the left lane has cut across in front of a delivery van in the right lane. Post collision, there are 3 entrapments, 1 in the delivery van, 2 in the car. As a result of the heavy traffic flow, a petrol tanker can't slow in time, sideswipes another semi, sandwiching it between the semi and the wall. as a result of this impact, a hole has been torn in the side of the tanker, spilling fuel in a slow leak. both truckies are NOT entrapped. The 2nd impact has not affected the 1st impact. Cars are banked up between the 2 accidents, but people at the site of the fuel, have fled through the emergency exits in the side, leaving the 3 entrapped and 2 people trying to help them.

In a bit of a twist, Stirling rescue is offline with mechanical problems.


OK starts like this;

MFS:RESPOND RCR ADELAIDE-CRAFERS HIGHWAY DOWNTRACK IN HEYSEN TUNNELS CAR VS DELIVERY VAN 3 TRAPPED*CFSRES: 9019,2919,441,204

STIRLING DEFAULT TO ALDGATE FOR RESCUE
Aldgate responding to RCR TG124
Stirling Pumper responding to incident TG124
Stirling pumper arrives sitrep freeway is totally blocked due to second accident prior to the first and requests more SAAS ambulances.Incident Control requests SAPOL urgently for traffic control to close from Crafers down.Incident Controller gets access to scene at last and makes assessment.Due to the large amount of fuel,requests a full hazmat response as well as requesting that GO and RDO be advised,and arrange ETSA to shutdown power in tunnels via Transport SA.
Directs that Burnside and Glen Osmond 441 access from west end of tunnel with caution and a "Red Flag Warning" for the running fuel leak.Upgrade incident to 2nd alarm rescue and fire cover due to fuel spillage.Aldgate to access incident via Mt Barker Road and access from Devils Elbow for access to tunnel.Stirling Pumper lays a foam blanket down to cover the fuel spillage until other appliances arrive to assist.Burnside Aldgate and MFS crews get to work on the entrapments and assess the viability of stemming the fuel leak from the other accident with sand from the side of the freeway.Due to the hazard of the fuel no rescue gear could be used that emitted a spark so 204 was used for extrication utilising hydraulic tools.

The RDO arrives and takes over and arranges a third alarm and request for foam....Gee this gets bigger than Ben Hur doesnt it :-o

   
Images are copyright

Toast

  • Guest
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2006, 09:45:32 PM »
Ah minor issue there. Aldgate are not in the Green Bible for rescue, and only carry minimal rapid entry equip. If we NEEDED to default to the next rescue brigade, it'd be Burnside (theyre already coming) then up to Mt. Barker (but I believe their gear doesn't like Semi's very much)

Manuel

  • Guest
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2006, 12:21:34 AM »
let Glen Osmond deal with it then :-P

Toast

  • Guest
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2006, 04:24:26 AM »
let Glen Osmond deal with it then :-P

I'd rather let 204 deal with it  :wink:

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2006, 08:43:33 AM »
i reckon Blackwood are closer than Mt Barker... and have responded there before as a default for someone...

i dont quite understand where your heading with this comment SAFirey...
Quote
Due to the hazard of the fuel no rescue gear could be used that emitted a spark so 204 was used for extrication utilising hydraulic tools.


corecutters

  • Guest
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2006, 09:02:33 AM »
-If you kill power to the tunnels, you also kill the ventilations systems and gas / fume extraction systems... - enjoy doing the cutout in B.A.


-Manuel - Glen Osmond have a GP Pumper. Not a rescue truck.

-Toast- Why does barkers h/rescue gear have problems with semi's ??  If this is the case shouldn't they look at a new set..?  - or am i not reading into an underlying joke?

-
Quote
Due to the hazard of the fuel no rescue gear could be used that emitted a spark so 204 was used for extrication utilising hydraulic tools.
-
Might want to clarify the above... Im assuming you mean due to starting the hydrolic pump re: the spark risk...You could get around this a couple of ways.. - Multiple hydrolic hoses / manual pumps.

-Agrees with medevac re: blackwod.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2006, 09:07:18 AM by corecutters »

Toast

  • Guest
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2006, 02:11:41 PM »
i reckon Blackwood are closer than Mt Barker... and have responded there before as a default for someone...

i dont quite understand where your heading with this comment SAFirey...
Quote
Due to the hazard of the fuel no rescue gear could be used that emitted a spark so 204 was used for extrication utilising hydraulic tools.



Yeah, it seems that both Blackwood and Barker are around about the same distance away. Its about 20mins from Blackwood -> Stirling and about 20 mins Barker -> Stirling. Yeah they have been responded as a default for us before, but that was... well.. Odd.

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2006, 02:28:02 PM »
odd how?

Offline bittenyakka

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,342
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #35 on: September 22, 2006, 06:26:20 PM »
What about bringing more MFS trucks up. They would be quicker than Mt Barker

Toast

  • Guest
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #36 on: September 22, 2006, 07:00:32 PM »
What about bringing more MFS trucks up. They would be quicker than Mt Barker

Depends, you already have three MFS(441/204/2023) and 2.5 CFS rescue (Stirling/Burnside/Aldgate) resources there.

Also in reply to the "Oh noes sparks 204 only"... Isnt it a requirment for all 'Rescue' Resources to have a manual pump?

Offline bittenyakka

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,342
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2006, 11:32:09 AM »
I have seen it on their pumper but I don't think they actauly do RCR. mabey they rock up and let another crew use the equipment or are training more RCR crew before coming online.

As far as I'm aware, they aren't a listed RCR resource in the Green Book, but do have some RCR trained members who assist other brigades in the area when they have trouble crewing for vehicle accidents with appropriately trained crew.

Ok Page stirling for RCR crew and get Bridgewater pumper to pick them up on the way. this way there is more equipment and another pumper if the fuel starts burning.

Toast

  • Guest
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2006, 05:19:10 PM »
I have seen it on their pumper but I don't think they actauly do RCR. mabey they rock up and let another crew use the equipment or are training more RCR crew before coming online.

As far as I'm aware, they aren't a listed RCR resource in the Green Book, but do have some RCR trained members who assist other brigades in the area when they have trouble crewing for vehicle accidents with appropriately trained crew.

Ok Page stirling for RCR crew and get Bridgewater pumper to pick them up on the way. this way there is more equipment and another pumper if the fuel starts burning.

Yay, with 3 Heavy Rescue, 2 Rescue resources and one other appliance with rapid intervention gear, I don't think that Bridgewater and their omni-tool are going to be a huge help...

Mind you, in terms of fire fighting there is already 441, Burnside pumper, Stirling pumper, Stirling 24, Stirling tanker and Aldgate 12 there...

Offline bittenyakka

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,342
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: hypothetical incident 2
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2006, 05:25:30 PM »
What if Stirling cant get that large crew there three appliances takes a lot of manpower and being 7:30 in the morning of a week day? 

This isn't a reply to justify Bridgewater comming along

EDIT: added this image I came up with to help me visualise it. If any one wasnts the Flash .fla message me and i can e-,mail it to you
« Last Edit: September 23, 2006, 07:20:31 PM by bittenyakka »

 

anything