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