SA Firefighter

I'm sure you were after a bite so I'll give you one

Is a vollie urban Brigade who does a lot of calls but has access to many, many resources around them and possibly has another three of four stations (possibly full time) within 20 minutes of them needier or more deserving than a Brigade that handles half the calls (or less) but has access to no resources within 20 minutes and is all the town and it's assets has??

Different Brigades do have different needs but all stations should be a decent standard.

I have aoften pondered why I could purchase land and build three brick four bedroom houses (at least in my area) for the price they quote for a new station here!!!!

Yep - used when contacting businesses in person (in civvies) re response planning and in the organisation of training activities.

Also used when peering over a back fence checking out a perfectly legal fire that a "concerned citizen" had made contact over.

Reading above, with the (believed) non-compliance to Aus Standard, does that mean if you are injured, and put in a form, you aren't covered cause you didn't have Aus Standard gear on??  Like will you be told that you shouldn't have been wearing the gear, or that you should have worn PBI ??

From my previous experience as a WorkCover Claims administrator - please rest assured that, as an "employee" for WorkCover purposes,you will be covered regardless of whether you are wearing a strapless dress. Of course you will probably face disciplinary action from your employer for non compliance of procedures and never ride an appliance again 

Once we had the kind of Group Officer who, if he showed up at 2am to a fixed alarm, we would welcome with open arms. Unfortunately he's gone the way of many of our really good people and left the service.

I guess the GO's span of control is the whole group and if they choose to come and have a look see at an incident it is completely withing their "operational (and other) responsibilities".

And if the OIC of the single Brigade involved believes that the GO is taking over control unecessarily I guess they can advise the GO of that

And if the GO wants to take over anyway, maybe they don't trust the Brigade OIC.

And if the Brigade OIC's think the GO is an annoyance and a siren jockey I guess they don't vote him/her in next time round. 

Region Three Headqaurters in Murray Bridge houses the SES head honcho.
Definate disadvantages. Guess the advantages are economic, can't really think of any others. Although the VSO there serves both organisations so I guess that is handy for organisational leaders.

The office used to be stunning example of a volunteer friendly environment with a volunteer lounge/tea/coffee/water facilities, fire/rescue library.

I guess in the interests of efficiency, it is now a place you would avoid like the plague, complete with counter to ceiling bars separating the staff from it's onery clients.

There is no rule about family members together.

But I guess your OIC has the right to say who is approved for the job.

I had a couple in the Brigade once that I would try very hard to ensure weren't on the same appliance because of the way they were together. Too much to deal with without them carrying on

Well we're prescribed 6, have 4 but would be a few operators short if we  6 using the 2 operators per set rule of thumb

The area that our brigade covers behind Mt Barker is one of the fastest growing areas in the state,

The area that our Brigade covers (ie: Goolwa and surrounds) is, after Mt Barker, one of the fastest growing areas of the state.

Think that's what was meant

So how many BA sets do you have?

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.

I'm sorry that you feel, "bashed". I am pleased to have you on board as an enthusiastic contributor.

I doubt anyone else had issue with the picture I don't harbour any ill feelings - just pointed out that the term was an offensive way to describe disabled persons. Heard much worse, laughed at much worse

Yes the old

"take possession of, protect or assume control over any land, body of water, building, structure, vehicle or other thing;"

is pretty extensive and has been used in the past to justify CFS doing traffic control also. But aren't we in agreeance that we don't have the authority to do traffic control?

Maybe it's just that we don't wanna do it

I don't think we have the power to over rule SAPOL if they ask us to clear the road for through traffic?

Sometimes the road simply has to be closed but the ensuing choas ensures that it's never more than completely necessary.