SA Firefighter
General Discussion => SA Firefighter General => Topic started by: Pipster on September 15, 2007, 12:33:47 PM
-
There was some info that came out of HQ, with a proposal to out the whole state onto 111, instead of being spread across the different regional channels....
Originally, I think it was meant to commence 1st September (?) but that didn't allow for "consultation" and the commencement date was moved a bit later (which I can't remember the date ! )
My Group are still to discuss the issue, so we are staying as per the current arrangements... I suspect many Groups are the same at this time.... although some may have changed...
Pip
-
15:17:03 15-09-07 FROM CAPTAIN: BRIGADE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS @ RESPONSES TO REMAIN ON TG 124 TO "ADELIADE FIRE", TILL FURTHER NOTICE. WILL DISCUSS COMUNICATION BREAKDOWN ON MONDAY NIGHT PRIOR TO TRAINING. CFS Upper Sturt Info
It seems they they are going back to 124 now. :-) Someone must have told them about it though???
-
So many bright idea's coming out at the moment, the reason for consolidating TG's is that at the moment Adelaide fire are running 10 or 11 TG's, which is a bit over the top, and streamlining is needed.
111 will be mobile etc, your local TG's will be just that, for local radio traffic. If a station isn't open you can still book arrived on 111 but chit chat will be on your local TG, there is some big bright idea's from some region 1 group officers that the group duty officer should take comms for every call, but stuff that for a joke, and I can just see it being run heaps well, at least Adelaide Fire log things, but yeah, those region 1 group officers are stuck back in 1960's, and their entire groups would struggle to put 100 calls on the board, chumps. About time CFS told them how it is rather than the other way round, aren't these guys due to retire, I wish they would!!!
-
It's actually 9 channels...not 10 or 11....
As for putting everyone on one channel for CRD.. it'll probably work..... when things are quiet.....it'll be a nightmare on a busy day....
The Group Duty Officer thing has come out of getting crews off 124 (in Region 1) and onto their Group channel.... but since many brigades don't have radio operators, there is no point in going to their own channel, with no ability to speak to anyone to log details, arrange extra resources etc...which is where duty officers are being encouraged to take comms.....and act as that resource...
Pip
-
Hmmm, yeah, like I said, duty officers are heaps reliable, always write stuff down, are always in radio range, always have phone range, are actually around.
I forgot, CFS are useless when it comes to radio procedures, and I am in the CFS have been for 15 years, we are embarassing. We have a commcen, use them, god this organisation is frustrating to be in, so many clowns. If my station isn't open I will continue to do comms through Adelaide Fire - they will have to get used to it, and thats the way it should be. Why are so many CFS people against being a professional fire service, its no wonder we can't attract new members.
Maybe we should be renamed Clown Fire Service..............
-
pumprescue you sound like,you have it all sorted out,maybe next AGM you should stand as a G.O or a D.G.O. after 15 years in the service you should be cherry ripe for the job,yeh I bet you`d sort it tiger!
-
I'm some cases it could work having GO's doing comms for quieter groups, but for a busy group like Mawson it would be a nightmare.(Just used mawson as an example, there are plenty of other groups that are just as busy). You have to remember that these guys are also volunteers, the majority have full time jobs to contend with as well.
-
pumprescue you sound like,you have it all sorted out,maybe next AGM you should stand as a G.O or a D.G.O. after 15 years in the service you should be cherry ripe for the job,yeh I bet you`d sort it tiger!
Yeah for sure, I plan to win the lottery so I will have all the time in the world to think up ways to give myself more work..........then I will stay in as GO for the next 60 years and not leave until I get forced out.
-
The only thing i see lacking with Duty officer's is Local Knowledge as he/she may be from a brigade some distance away from the job. Which is why i think the Local station to the job should take comm's*...if they dont already.
(*until the job is big enough to open a group base.)
I dont believe it is the job of GO or DGO to take comm's. while they may be OIC, Operational and Logistical Support or Strike Team leader?
-
and I am in the CFS have been for 15 years, we are embarassing. We have a commcen, use them, god this organisation is frustrating to be in, so many clowns.
Maybe we should be renamed Clown Fire Service..............
Well why do you stay then? You always seem to bag the service you represent.
-
the role of the duty officer taking coms was only envisaged for the time period between the initial page and a station or a group base coming up on air,the responding appliances would still be contacting ADELAIDE FIRE on a yet to be announced channel so that they could still be tracked by CRIMSON before being put on their primary talk group.
while this might be onerous on some groups it still is the easiest (read least changes compared to some of the suggestions put forward)way to handle the transitional period whilst still maintaning a monitoring overwatch,instead of having ADELAIDE FIRE asking you to "hold out"whilst they deal with another channel that you cant hear,or worse still another incident on the same channel
jaff
-
Trouble is, in many areas,there is a lack of radio operators / people willing to do radio..hence no base / station opens....
We are constantly being told to keep off / get off 124 / 111 once we have acknowledged a call.... so we end up with a quandary... go to a anther channel all by yourself, with no one to talk to, remain on 124 / 111 against what HQ are pushing, or use the Group Duty officer.....
It would help immensely, in the recruiting of new radio operators, if CFS actually had a course for it...which I understand is coming...not sure when
Pip
-
pip
i agree that we need to have a course for comms operators,that would certainly do the job in the long run ,in the interim period though? the group duty officer taking coms until a station or group base opens up is the quick fix.
another solution im hearing is for radio ops from adjoining brigades taking coms (an internal coms brigade sorta)just see how that pans out
jaff
-
another solution im hearing is for radio ops from adjoining brigades taking coms just see how that pans out
i believe this should already be done, essentially an "SOP".
Trouble is, in many areas,there is a lack of radio operators / people willing to do radio..hence no base / station opens....
We are constantly being told to keep off / get off 124 / 111 once we have acknowledged a call.... so we end up with a quandary... go to a anther channel all by yourself, with no one to talk to, remain on 124 / 111 against what HQ are pushing, or use the Group Duty officer.....
It would help immensely, in the recruiting of new radio operators, if CFS actually had a course for it...which I understand is coming...not sure when
Pip
I would think any of the left over people who responded to the station would think...we need to open the station to take comes for this incident...log on to adelaide fire let appliances know you are open, and take them to the stations primary GRN channel.
In regards to "people lacking experience with comm's"...good idea for a training night.
-
Trouble is, in many areas,there is a lack of radio operators / people willing to do radio..hence no base / station opens....
We are constantly being told to keep off / get off 124 / 111 once we have acknowledged a call.... so we end up with a quandary... go to a anther channel all by yourself, with no one to talk to, remain on 124 / 111 against what HQ are pushing, or use the Group Duty officer.....
It would help immensely, in the recruiting of new radio operators, if CFS actually had a course for it...which I understand is coming...not sure when
Pip
I would think any of the left over people who responded to the station would think...we need to open the station to take comes for this incident...log on to adelaide fire let appliances know you are open, and take them to the stations primary GRN channel.
In regards to "people lacking experience with comm's"...good idea for a training night.
I agree with you dezza, in my brigade, we will always try to have a radio opperator at the station. If you are the one left behind at the station, you are automatically the radio opperator, no if's or but's. If we dont have anyone to leave at the station, some one on the truck is asked to log mobile, arrival times etc, and any extra resources will be requested via 093.
-
and any extra resources will be requested via 093.
now i can see why having a "STATE Operations" Channel to talk to Adelaide Fire is a good idea...especially if 3 brigades from 3 different regions respond to a callout...and cant hear each other say there mobile...
Once an appliace has logged mobile on the state channel, they with other respond appliances could move to the regional channel...with Adelaide Fire only monitoring 124 when there are appliances on that channel.
I can see comm's turning into the style which MFS use...with Incident channels instead of Group channels.
-
the idea of adjoining brigades comms operators taking calls is a good idea but mabey give a coms operator a half a group or a few brigades not an entire group
-
the idea of adjoining brigades comms operators taking calls is a good idea but mabey give a coms operator a half a group or a few brigades not an entire group
brigades taking comm's wouldnt necessarily be controling a "group"..just the incident they log onto.
so if a second incident were to occur, utilizing the brigades secondary channel would be a good move to separate the incident comm's. obviously another station would have to take comms for that incident.
Ive experienced this once where two mva's in our primary area have occured within 30mins, had to involve another rescue brigade and open the group base for inc #2 for a short time.
-
and any extra resources will be requested via 093.
now i can see why having a "STATE Operations" Channel to talk to Adelaide Fire is a good idea...especially if 3 brigades from 3 different regions respond to a callout...and cant hear each other say there mobile...
Once an appliace has logged mobile on the state channel, they with other respond appliances could move to the regional channel...with Adelaide Fire only monitoring 124 when there are appliances on that channel.
I can see comm's turning into the style which MFS use...with Incident channels instead of Group channels.
Thats exactly what should be happening Dezza, which is how CFA run, they book mobile with Vicfire, arrive with Vicfire, the IC gives sitreps to Vicfire, when appliances leave, they book in with vicfire, and they book back in station with vicfire, so they know they are available, again, Vicfire allocate them a TG to use at the incident but sitreps and upgrades are done back to Vicfire on the state TG. Thats what I am trying to get at, not just coming up on 111 or whatever, and then never speaking to them again and going through the group duty officer, that is frought with danger, didn't we just go through a coronial, people seem to forget very quickly. Its not like we have that many brigades, with all the brigades CFA have, they run very well, even the 1 call a year brigades can manage to book mobile arrived and back in station with Vicfire. Listen to the CFA some time, you will be impressed !!
-
i do intend on finding a scanner feed for Vicfire :-D
but remember in all of this discussion....CFS SOP is CFS SOP . :wink:
-
15:17:03 15-09-07 FROM CAPTAIN: BRIGADE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS @ RESPONSES TO REMAIN ON TG 124 TO "ADELIADE FIRE", TILL FURTHER NOTICE. WILL DISCUSS COMUNICATION BREAKDOWN ON MONDAY NIGHT PRIOR TO TRAINING. CFS Upper Sturt Info
It seems they they are going back to 124 now. :-) Someone must have told them about it though???
Maybe, I can answer your questions.
I recived a fax from the Group indicating the changes to CRD. As I was unaware of the latest outcomes and problems which has been arising from GO & DGO's in Region 1, I was only following the document which indicated that on the 15th Sep @ 0900hrs we will now use TG 111.
Later in the afternoon I got a phonecall from a DGO indicating that this was not occuring and that we are to remain on TG 124.
As the original document was from Comcen, I was only following the document.
From what I have been told from the DGO is that until a resolution can be resolved about comms we will not be moving over to TG 111.
My opinion:
Go to TG 111, then go to your TG and if you need resources etc go back to TG 111. Adelaide Fire are not going to note your communications if you give them a sitrep so you might as well go to your own TG and document it yourself if a station is not open. Not hard to do I think.
The interesting issue will be when something goes wrong and their is a please explain to the minister. But if you are a good OIC for a 1st alarm incident you should be ok.
I understand that this goes against the SOP's but at the moment with the CRD amalgamation we are not following several SOP's & COSO's
CAPT
-
As I was unaware of the latest outcomes and problems which has been arising from GO & DGO's in Region 1
that proposal from HQ affects the whole state so is being debated by each regional volunteer management committee, it will then go to the next COAC for voting, this is planned for 8th Oct so nothing will happen before then at the earliest (which incidentally does not leave much time for implementation before the start of the fire season in some areas!).
-
nice new consultation process :-)
dont think it will be too much of a drama for the state....its merely just a single channel to log appliance mobile. In terms of acknowledging pager messages, a duty officer system does work there, but only that responsibility i think. :)
IDEA
To solve a whole state being on One Channel for every type of call, maybe this idea would work:
111 - Station: Acknowledgements > once logged move to 113
112 - Appliances: Mobile > once logged move to 113
113 - GENERAL INFO > Station open for comms, Incident Channel Allocation, More resources required, etc
10 Incident Channels each for region 1,2
6 Incident channels each for region 3,4,5,6
-
This topic has been split out of the interesting paging thread to keep things tidy and provide a better place for the topic to be discussed.
-
In a similar fashion to what is proposed, R5 used to all respond on the regional talkgroup, then change to group TGs. It didn't work - the towers got clogged during busy periods and traffic was not getting through.
Now the page is acknowledged on the regional TG, then all comms (should) be conducted on group TGs. Including appliance responding etc. That way, neighbouring groups at least know if there's a job on next door which may require assistance, but otherwise it limits the grn usage to a couple of towers.
This may not be such an issue (I don't know) in R1 where each tower presumably has more frequencies.
However we already have problems on busy days in this neck of the woods with towers blocking up. We really don't need to know what appliances are doing a couple of groups away, much less in the next region, and more importantly it will compromise our own communications.
Fortunately our group bases open pretty quickly in most instances (R5 in general), so the groups are used to being self sufficient in that manner.
Frankly I can't see much changing. Gary Bau indicated recently that it is fine for a group base/GO to monitor appliance movements, and notify Adelaide Fire (so as I see it, once a handful of appliances are on the go, Adelaide fire will be contact and told 'x,y,z appliances on the go').
So really, R1 can keep using Adelaide fire as they do, the other regions can keep operating as they do and once again we've got different ways across the state!
-
As yet the policy for all this is still up in the air. I don't think the actual decision is made till early next month.
Pumprescue your outburst in regards to duty officers is puzzling. If a group wants to do it that way then why shouldn't they? Indeed you are able to see it running "heaps well" as both the Sturt Group and the Kyeema Group do it.
The groups that do this are hardly stuck back in the 60's. Indeed its modern technology of GRNs, mobile phones etc that allow them to have a moving group base. In fact a command car has more radios than either a station or a group base in it.
Why would you have an individual respond all the way to the station to take comms when you can do as much, if not more, sooner, from a command car and from sitting in their own driveway? I think your the one thinking back in the 60's man.
You say that they would struggle for 100 calls. As an example, Sturt Group which has been doing this for the past 4+ years has clocked up well over 300 calls for each of those years. Probably in total over 1000 calls done this way. In fact the number of calls (higher than it was in the 60's) is one of reasons for going for a duty officer.
You then proceed to say that the CFSHQ should tell them how it is and yet in the next post you say that "If my station isn't open I'll continue to do comms though Adelaide Fire". NO, you should take your own medicine and do it exactly how CFSHQ tell you to do it. Trust me they aren't going to be telling you to do comms on 111 because if you get anymore than a handful of brigades doing it and the whole thing will fall apart STATE WIDE for everyone...Well it'll fall apart for everyone in the state except those whose duty officer has notified MFS by phone and are working independently on their own group TG.
Oh and let me point out that when CFSHQ "told how it is" with the move to Adelaide Fire they said NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Now you are "told how it is" GOING TO CHANGE. I wouldn't trust a thing they told me.
With regards to your comment on duty officers been heaps reliable, yes they are. You then say "If my station isn't open"... oh dear, not even your station sounds that reliable. You should look into that before having a go at the idea of having a duty officer.
"Aren't these guys due to retire" Well if they retire from work they'll have more time to be duty officers wont they, or are you talking about retiring from the CFS? In either case aren't you going to retire one day?
It takes decades of dedication to become a Group Officer. I think most GO's have more experience than the CFS staff members. The loss of such experience from any group is a loss for the CFS.
PS I think you'll find that the GO's of one of the groups you may be referring to have many years left in them both with the CFS and MFS. They also have strong backing from their group for their position on this.
Hicks
-
hicksflat14 telling it like it is!this has been an excellent discusion with some great debate.
no its not leaving much time to implement before the fire season thats why the changes proposed have been subtle and they havent reinvented the wheel
jaff
-
just one thing..
if we go to ONE talkgroup for acknowledgements and mobilisations of resources.. then what happens when everyone statewide is monitoring it and we start to get some action... first few transmissions, and every tower statewide will load up and crash the system.
wasnt this one of the problems that came out of the wangary fires?
-
SA GRN 101 - hopefully everyones done GRN training already...therefore ignore this post :wink:
a tower frequency is only used when someone pushes the PTT..(the several beeps that are heard is the loading processing.)..putting all the radios that are on the specific talk group onto a frequency at the nearest tower to them. So yes...if:
Port lincolns, Adelaide Fire, Murray Bridge are on GRN 124...IDLE....then Murray bridge PTT's to Adelaide Fire...THREE towers would be used..but only one frequency from EACH tower would be used. This is the problem, and maybe why they have the CFS regions on different GRN channels.
Its best to turn off station radios, portable's and appliance's etc when not in use to make the system work properly elsewhere :-)
something else to note: you may notice that GRN 124 goes out of range if you go far enough out of Region 1. i believe that the "GRN system Regions" has a part in this.
-
Something else to note: you may notice that GRN 124 goes out of range if you go far enough out of Region 1.(Quote)
Yes that is correct and GRN124 does not work at Karoonda, but TG111 & 112 does :wink:
As the fire danger season is almost starting it would be a good idea for all brigades and groups to get their comms right to minimise the chit chat of the past, and as we all know the real test at Adelaide Fire has'nt started yet.
There are rumours of only monitoring one State talkgroup but I cant see that working very well during Fire Danger Season.
Any brigade or station not involved in an incident should not have their radios on anyway,monitoring another brigades/groups talkgroup as this ties up the GRN sites and is monitored by the NOC, so they know who YOU are. :wink:
-
If it does all go to GRN-111, I can see R1-HQ taking comm's for Region 1 on really bad days anyway lol. (as in specific times where 124 is operational).
Tho you will still have to ring adelaide fire to confirm pager msg.
Adelaide Fire monitoring less talk groups would clean up the Metro GRN towers :P
During the heavy day of winter weather in early july...there were moments when all you got was "On-Queue" Tone on the GRN radio. Had to use VHF to contact station at the worst case.
GRN's a great system, but it will neva be perfect....lets be glad we're prevented to making Portable to Portable private calls :P
-
Is there a set non emergency no. for adelaide fire?? we were told it was 841290xx ( didn't think it appropriate to put up the full no.) i have called this number to acknowledge page but they have answered it as an emergency line!
If anyone has a differnet non emergency no. can they PM me with it thanks.
-
i believe that is the right number for calling MFS comm's directly (from my *sometimes* unreliable memory ;)). ive rang them up a few times...quite happy to answer...but remember its a recorded conversation (beeps..in the background). :wink:
-
there can also be a delay in them answering cause they might be in the middle of dispatching a group of met trucks :-D
-
As yet the policy for all this is still up in the air. I don't think the actual decision is made till early next month.
Pumprescue your outburst in regards to duty officers is puzzling. If a group wants to do it that way then why shouldn't they? Indeed you are able to see it running "heaps well" as both the Sturt Group and the Kyeema Group do it.
The groups that do this are hardly stuck back in the 60's. Indeed its modern technology of GRNs, mobile phones etc that allow them to have a moving group base. In fact a command car has more radios than either a station or a group base in it.
Why would you have an individual respond all the way to the station to take comms when you can do as much, if not more, sooner, from a command car and from sitting in their own driveway? I think your the one thinking back in the 60's man.
You say that they would struggle for 100 calls. As an example, Sturt Group which has been doing this for the past 4+ years has clocked up well over 300 calls for each of those years. Probably in total over 1000 calls done this way. In fact the number of calls (higher than it was in the 60's) is one of reasons for going for a duty officer.
You then proceed to say that the CFSHQ should tell them how it is and yet in the next post you say that "If my station isn't open I'll continue to do comms though Adelaide Fire". NO, you should take your own medicine and do it exactly how CFSHQ tell you to do it. Trust me they aren't going to be telling you to do comms on 111 because if you get anymore than a handful of brigades doing it and the whole thing will fall apart STATE WIDE for everyone...Well it'll fall apart for everyone in the state except those whose duty officer has notified MFS by phone and are working independently on their own group TG.
Oh and let me point out that when CFSHQ "told how it is" with the move to Adelaide Fire they said NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Now you are "told how it is" GOING TO CHANGE. I wouldn't trust a thing they told me.
With regards to your comment on duty officers been heaps reliable, yes they are. You then say "If my station isn't open"... oh dear, not even your station sounds that reliable. You should look into that before having a go at the idea of having a duty officer.
"Aren't these guys due to retire" Well if they retire from work they'll have more time to be duty officers wont they, or are you talking about retiring from the CFS? In either case aren't you going to retire one day?
It takes decades of dedication to become a Group Officer. I think most GO's have more experience than the CFS staff members. The loss of such experience from any group is a loss for the CFS.
PS I think you'll find that the GO's of one of the groups you may be referring to have many years left in them both with the CFS and MFS. They also have strong backing from their group for their position on this.
Hicks
This is speaking from experiance, ever tried getting a radio log from Sturt duty officer, "oh sorry, didn't write anything down"
I am trying to get though to people, why do we have such an abortion of a system, we are all over the place, people doing whatever they like, its more like Dad's Army than it has ever been, at least Captain Mainwaring followed orders.
-
I know I am the outsider here and most probably missing some of the history.....
My understanding is that Adelaide Fire was only ever to do 'Call Receipt & Dispatch'. Not Operations or Resource Tracking or anything else.
This will transfer to SACAD when it arrives. Again, just answer the telephone call & set the pager off as per business rules. Nothing more...
I understand the GRN consoles and CFS contract operators are still at CFS SCC.
So wouldn't the CFS SCC or Regional CC's activate with Operations staff on busy or high risk days. Both were doing this last Fire Danger season with CFS Region One doing the resource tracking.
Other than the 'changing pains' to the system, am I missing something...
-
I understand the GRN consoles and CFS contract operators are still at CFS SCC.
So wouldn't the CFS SCC or Regional CC's activate with Operations staff on busy or high risk days. Both were doing this last Fire Danger season with CFS Region One doing the resource tracking.
I believe this is how it will be happening...briefly outlined in the "FAQ" given to each brigade.
But i acutally hope EACH region has the capability for this to occur. Thing to remember is that the Wangary fire did not occur in Region 1 (of course Mt Osmond did tho).
-
By having one GRN channel to talk to adelaide fire will cause the GRN to crash when a large lightning storm comes this way how will the system cope with overload from groups talking to SHQ...Why not have 3 state GRN channels??
-
Isn't the simple way to run things to have say, 4 GRN talkgroups monitored by adelaide fire. Say, GRN 100 is SAMFS, 101 is region 1, 102 is region 2 and 3, 103 is region 4 and 5 and 104 is region 6 and SES. As ALL of the talkgroups would be monitored, if you get no response on your given talkgroup, try another. This way when there is a blow up day in a certain area the whole state doesnt get screwed in terms of GRN.
Now all we need is GRN simplex on the fireground...
-
By having one GRN channel to talk to adelaide fire will cause the GRN to crash when a large lightning storm comes this way how will the system cope with overload from groups talking to SHQ...Why not have 3 state GRN channels??
How !!! Unless people are monitoring the Adelaide Fire talkgroup to 'see what is happening' then GRN will not cope at anytime. If you are not responding to an incident then I would hope for all GRN users sake, that radios are switched off.
You are just acknowledging the page with Adelaide Fire and then you are going to another GRN talkgroup that everyone in your local area will be using for resource tracking & operations control. This local talkgroup (maybe Region wide) will not be monitored by Adelaide Fire & thus will not impact statewide GRN resources.
Thus you are using one talkgroup in your local area. Unless the incidents increase then Operations might wish to utilise an extra GRN talkgroup to separate radio traffic.
If that is the case, then Operations base can acknowledge the page via telephone thus not using a GRN resource.
Yes multiple incidents statewide can make things busy, but it can work.
** please note I have not seen any CFS documentation so the above might not be planned ** My thoughts & opinions only **
-
Isn't the simple way to run things to have say, 4 GRN talkgroups monitored by adelaide fire. Say, GRN 100 is SAMFS, 101 is region 1, 102 is region 2 and 3, 103 is region 4 and 5 and 104 is region 6 and SES. As ALL of the talkgroups would be monitored, if you get no response on your given talkgroup, try another. This way when there is a blow up day in a certain area the whole state doesnt get screwed in terms of GRN.
Talkgroups wont necessarily BREAK the GRN...its the amount of them being monitored by the Control channel at each tower which may. And when all 4-12 frequencies are being used for TX/RX...thats when bottlenecking will happen.
if 10 stations were active throughout the state...and adelaide fire broadcasted to them on GRN 111...the nearest towers to all of them would have one frequency LOCKED for that transmission. Then you have SAAS talking, then SAPOL talking, then DEH.....thats when a 4 frequency Tower would simply say SORRY YOUVE BEEN PLACED IN QUEUE, "Insert jazz music" (FLAMES EVERYWHERE), then u finally get through.
thats why we have GRN 115 ;) which i believe is designed to tell the control channel to kick who ever is on one freq...and lock 115 in as a Emergency broadcast.
Now all we need is GRN simplex on the fireground...
Equals Statewide Tower upgrades...which would be great!
-
Adelaide Fire monitoring less talk groups would clean up the Metro GRN towers
Would make no difference, Adelaide Fire use Centracom consoles which have a direct connection into the backbone of the network through the NOCC. Same with SAPOL, SAAS, CFS and SES, as well as a few other agencies that use GRN.
They do have the ability to direct connect to a GRN site should the wide area trunking become unuseable though, in that case only the users on the particular site that the Centracom is connected to would hear the comcen. That is why you see the Yagi antennas on top of the comcens, they are pointed at key GRN sites to still provide some coverage to particular areas on a single talkgroup.
Now all we need is GRN simplex on the fireground...
Have to disagree with you there chief.
UHF simplex at the lower end of 400mhz is a fickle beast, it doesn't fare well with smoke, wet pine forests or dense fog. We had our fun with it in the early days of GRN and quite frankly it sucked.
VHF for fireground is the way to go, just give us a few more portables and ditch the crappy speaker mikes that come with the Icoms.
-
Now all we need is GRN simplex on the fireground...
Equals Statewide Tower upgrades...which would be great!
GRN Simplex does not use a GRN repeater tower...this is SES talkgroups C30 and C31. They have been operational on all SES GRN radios since the install of the system.
-
UHF simplex at the lower end of 400mhz is a fickle beast, it doesn't fare well with smoke, wet pine forests or dense fog. We had our fun with it in the early days of GRN and quite frankly it sucked.
VHF for fireground is the way to go, just give us a few more portables and ditch the crappy speaker mikes that come with the Icoms.
hehe, this caused as much contraversy as the new SAAS uniforms if not more ey...
-
Adelaide Fire monitoring less talk groups would clean up the Metro GRN towers
Now all we need is GRN simplex on the fireground...
Have to disagree with you there chief.
UHF simplex at the lower end of 400mhz is a fickle beast, it doesn't fare well with smoke, wet pine forests or dense fog. We had our fun with it in the early days of GRN and quite frankly it sucked.
VHF for fireground is the way to go, just give us a few more portables and ditch the crappy speaker mikes that come with the Icoms.
Thats odd. I hate VHF and have been in the position where you can stand at one end of a house and can't talk to someone at the other end. GRN Simplex on the other hand, I've found very few issues with, especially around smoke, heat and water.
-
This is speaking from experiance
Experience wise in this regard I think I trump you several hundred times over. That aside you have the belief that MFS "log" things. They just undertake call receipt and dispatch. They don't log and they don't do resource tracking. They take the call page it out and if no one acknowledges receipt they page the next nearest brigade. All they care about is the page acknowledgement so they can tick it off the running sheet. The only "logging" thats going on is that its claimed that the state/regional talkgroups get recorded, but good luck getting the recording or anyone to listen back to the recording for you. I have however heard recordings (MP3) of the Sturt Group talkgroup. If I'm not mistaken, they record both their talkgroups at the base continuously.
"oh sorry, didn't write anything down"
Well it probably wasn't that important then. I think you will also find that as soon as any station/base is under pressure logging is amongst the first casualty.
I am trying to get though to people, why do we have such an abortion of a system, we are all over the place, people doing whatever they like
You mean like you doing comms on 111 as your threatening to do when you shouldn't be?
I'm not saying the system is perfect, I'm just saying that given the situation in which groups have been placed, having a duty officer is amongst the best solutions going.
-
Experience wise in this regard I think I trump you several hundred times over. That aside you have the belief that MFS "log" things. They just undertake call receipt and dispatch. They don't log and they don't do resource tracking. They take the call page it out and if no one acknowledges receipt they page the next nearest brigade.
That is true to a point. All they require is the information they need to fill in Bom's and they do require a Mobile time. My belief is that Bom's has been made to work with Criimson and Airs, but this ive only heard from other people. So they do log detail, just to what is related to dispatching.
-
Our 24P went off line for 8 hours a couple of months ago for servicing we "logged" it off with comms as being offline and an MVA occurred that we would have been required for back up but it went to MFS instead as it should have, but then our truck was logged back on with comms at 5pm as being operational and 45 mins later an MVA with 3 trapped happened 5 kms from us and SES and MFS were responded as the call taker didn't know our truck was back online??
A bit of a breakdown there!!!
-
This is speaking from experiance
Experience wise in this regard I think I trump you several hundred times over. That aside you have the belief that MFS "log" things. They just undertake call receipt and dispatch. They don't log and they don't do resource tracking. They take the call page it out and if no one acknowledges receipt they page the next nearest brigade. All they care about is the page acknowledgement so they can tick it off the running sheet. The only "logging" thats going on is that its claimed that the state/regional talkgroups get recorded, but good luck getting the recording or anyone to listen back to the recording for you. I have however heard recordings (MP3) of the Sturt Group talkgroup. If I'm not mistaken, they record both their talkgroups at the base continuously.
"oh sorry, didn't write anything down"
Well it probably wasn't that important then. I think you will also find that as soon as any station/base is under pressure logging is amongst the first casualty.
I am trying to get though to people, why do we have such an abortion of a system, we are all over the place, people doing whatever they like
You mean like you doing comms on 111 as your threatening to do when you shouldn't be?
I'm not saying the system is perfect, I'm just saying that given the situation in which groups have been placed, having a duty officer is amongst the best solutions going.
Righto , when was the last time you went to comms and found out how it actually happens, obviously about 15 years ago, all radio transmissions are logged in CRIIMSON, I have asked for a log only in the last week and they faxed it to me, had all the times and sitreps, sooo, that says to me that they are indeed logging everything, but as always, I am happy to be proven wrong. We took a tour of the commcen to see how it really happens, and whilst they are still learning, they do in fact get quite involved in the CFS jobs. I can see why they get frustrated though, boy oh boy do we woffle !! "nuff nuff 24 out on 30 k run" cutting over the top of incident traffic, good one! So they are strongly pushing for the smaller amount of TG's. Its not anyone's fault out there, you don't know someone is talking, but you will with the new arrangement.
As for your point "It probably wasn't that important" in regards to logging, you deserve a slap around the head !!!! I bet the first 10 mins of Ash Wednesday wasn't that important, or Wangary, or the MVA where 3 people died, until the coroners inquest, you can't have been involved in many decent incidents if you sprout forth that woffle, my god man, what are you thinking !! Logging radio transmissions is vital, you or anyone can't tell me otherwise.
When did I threaten to go to 111, I am still doing it the way it was done with SOCC, unlike Sturt and Kyeema groups who go against everything CFS ever asks of them, so don't tell me I am going against the trend, I am actually doing it the way CFS has asked.
I really wish people would stop thinking they know , and actually find out, I bother to go and find out, I bother to read memo's from CFS. I still have my opnions on what would be a better option, but we will still be back in the dark ages after I post this, and the way the state's group officers carry on, will most likely be for some time to come.
We still can't seem to get over this ownership and power trip, it isn't the Sturt Fire Service, Kyeema Fire Service, Heysen Fire Service, Mt Gambier Fire Service, Lucundale Fire Service etc, IT'S the Country Fire Service, much the same way its the Metropolitan Fire Service. Only when people realise this, might we see some change, and that's obviously going to take another generation. Thankfully some of these old group officers are coming to the end of their time............
-
"nuff nuff 24 out on 30 k run"
your quite right there....you could actually ring your regional office to put this into the system, instead of distracting the people down at adelaide fire.
-
This is speaking from experiance
Experience wise in this regard I think I trump you several hundred times over. That aside you have the belief that MFS "log" things. They just undertake call receipt and dispatch. They don't log and they don't do resource tracking. They take the call page it out and if no one acknowledges receipt they page the next nearest brigade. All they care about is the page acknowledgement so they can tick it off the running sheet. The only "logging" thats going on is that its claimed that the state/regional talkgroups get recorded, but good luck getting the recording or anyone to listen back to the recording for you. I have however heard recordings (MP3) of the Sturt Group talkgroup. If I'm not mistaken, they record both their talkgroups at the base continuously.
"oh sorry, didn't write anything down"
Well it probably wasn't that important then. I think you will also find that as soon as any station/base is under pressure logging is amongst the first casualty.
I am trying to get though to people, why do we have such an abortion of a system, we are all over the place, people doing whatever they like
You mean like you doing comms on 111 as your threatening to do when you shouldn't be?
I'm not saying the system is perfect, I'm just saying that given the situation in which groups have been placed, having a duty officer is amongst the best solutions going.
When is logging incident occurances not important???.. You claim to be so "experienced" but that was one big Rookie call !!
I will go with the safety of a COMCEN over a duty officer sitting in their Subaru / toyota anytime !! Only so much one person with a couple radios, mobile phone and a pen and pad can do!
If you can give me "reasonable" examples of what a single person in a command car can do versus that of a fully operational comcen, then I will be happy to take your views onboard.
I think you need to think a little realistically about this. The "she'll be right" attitude is way too complacent for my liking. I have listened to jobs where Duty Officers have had comms, a handful of requests were made of them and they physically couldnt do it. (2 arms and 1 mouth only go so far!) - Contacting multiple services for support, maintaining comms and incident awareness, scribing the things such as addresses and locations, incident specifics and everything associated with one, responding and directing other appliances, these things just don't happen when its one person sitting in their 4x4!
-
The duty officers tasks should only be to make sure that trucks get on the road...even just by listening to comm's if that be.
A lot of what a duty officer does can be done at the station, and if the station cant be opened...MFS already have policy to automatically default to the next brigade.
If you dont have anyone to accept sitreps ask adelaide fire to page for further crew to man the station or another station surrounding the incident. Even just pressing your "More Crew Required" button at the station just before you leave can do the job.
-
Watch this space from what was said today the problem has been resolved and there will be more than one state talk channel..........
-
. . . I can see why they get frustrated though, boy oh boy do we woffle !! "nuff nuff 24 out on 30 k run" cutting over the top of incident traffic, good one! So they are strongly pushing for the smaller amount of TG's. Its not anyone's fault out there, you don't know someone is talking, but you will with the new arrangement.
Fair enough, one talkgroup will allow MFS Commcen to monitor all radio traffic, by ensuring woffle doesn't counter important traffic.
However when it gets busy, as it will, there will be traffic from the EP broadcast across the south east (and every point between), and vice-versa.
Towers WILL tie up. Maybe not in the hills (I don't know), but certainly in the regions.
We shift from a limiting factor of too few operators to handle traffic, to too few frequencies on the towers.
I agree there is woffle and some damn inefficient communicators on the radio.
But I also believe putting all acknowledgement, response & return comms on to one talkgroup will overload the system.
We get enough tower tie-ups as it is. Increasing the chance of that happening does not excite me.
-
But I also believe putting all acknowledgement, response & return comms on to one talkgroup will overload the system.
A CFS MDT network at stations would fix that :-D
-
Now all we need is GRN simplex on the fireground...
Not with these radios we don't !!
Already been tried, & the design of the radios caused it to fail miserably.
(If you are a radio tech then "wideband front-end & receiver desense" will
explain it all.) Also, the UHF had even worse propagation around hills,
trees & smoke than our new, super de-rated VHFs.
But wouldn't it have been great if it had worked !
"One radio to rule the world, and in the darkness, bind th..."
Oh, sorry. Wrong film.
-
pumprescue:
all radio transmissions are logged in CRIIMSON, I have asked for a log only in the last week and they faxed it to me, had all the times and sitreps, sooo, that says to me that they are indeed logging everything,
Its very workload and personnel dependent.
So they are strongly pushing for the smaller amount of TG's
I fully agree with MFS not having to juggle a whole heap of talkgroups.
As for your point "It probably wasn't that important" in regards to logging, you deserve a slap around the head !!!! I bet the first 10 mins of Ash Wednesday wasn't that important, or Wangary, or the MVA where 3 people died, until the coroners inquest, you can't have been involved in many decent incidents if you sprout forth that woffle, my god man, what are you thinking !! Logging radio transmissions is vital, you or anyone can't tell me otherwise.
When things get hectic and hit the fan there are better things to do than to have operators writing stuff down. Its a matter of priority and utilising the resources properly. I'd rather have someone at a station/base under take actions that aid the response rather then writing stuff down. You could have a full video recording of every person for every second and the outcome of each of those or any incident would be exactly the same. Writing something down doesn't put a fire out! Its for this reason I "sprout forth" as I have actual experience of being involved in real incidents where time matters and the highest priority task comes first. Logging is not the highest priority. You have no idea what you are talking about. Go out and get some real experience. If your not prioritising your doing things in the wrong order.
If your so concerned about having a record why not have a bit of a shot at CFSHQ for not having every GRN talkgroup and every CFS station telephone recorded all the times? But as I said even if all that was recorded the outcome would be same, it would have just cost a whole lot more. I doubt that any coronal findings would even be different, not that it matters as they are after the fact.
really wish people would stop thinking they know , and actually find out, I bother to go and find out, I bother to read memo's from CFS. I still have my opnions on what would be a better option, but we will still be back in the dark ages after I post this, and the way the state's group officers carry on, will most likely be for some time to come.
You mean about how you know that groups with duty officers don't even do 100 calls a year or that I haven't been to MFSHQ for 15 years?
I know what I know. I don't know if I know more than what you know, but I'm fairly confident that my understanding behind the principles are solid. I also know that you don't know how it will be because as I pointed out its not decided yet so its just speculation.
Reading the memos from CFSHQ have less to do with being informed than what you may think. There is more interesting and insightful chat to be had with the people who actually make the decisions. You'll actually find group officers are more progressive than what you think. Its not about change, its about change for the better with the resources available. I'm sure the Group officers would love a fully staffed operations centre to do all the things that you want, but what the state is offering isn't that. I don't understand why your being so aggressive towards group officers and not toward the CFSHQ and government staff. I also don't see why your so negative on duty officers. They are just there to cover till such time that a base or station opens. It also allows crews to stay on one talkgroup rather than changing talkgroups at the most critical time. Your arguments don't make sense. What I can gather is that you are comparing the current system with some fanciful future ideal system. If you compare anything at the moment with the best thing you can dream up its not going to look very good. Were living and working now and therefore groups do what is the best thing for the public now. Once again I think you need to get some experience and focus.
We still can't seem to get over this ownership and power trip, it isn't the Sturt Fire Service, Kyeema Fire Service, Heysen Fire Service, Mt Gambier Fire Service, Lucundale Fire Service etc, IT'S the Country Fire Service, much the same way its the Metropolitan Fire Service. Only when people realise this, might we see some change, and that's obviously going to take another generation. Thankfully some of these old group officers are coming to the end of their time............
Your right off topic and have lost me here. What do power trips have to do with anything? We see change every day. I don't know who these "old" group officers are and I don't see what they are doing is wrong. As I said before, they have more experience than the majority of CFS staff members and thats why things such as changes to communications go to regional group officers meeting for comment. You obviously haven't talked to enough CFS staff to see how out of touch they really are.
I don't know what your problem is so I can help you out. I'm also a bit confused as to why your making such a fuss about a duty officer system that CFSHQ seems to be supporting in the interim to whatever comes next. Make some clear arguments and points rather then hypothetical or rants about the "power trips".
Oh and don't say that groups with duty officers don't tow the CFSHQ line as not only have those groups had it OK with CFSHQ but it is now being promoted by CFSHQ.
RescueHazmat:
When is logging incident occurances not important???..
I didn't say it wasn't important I just said it wasn't THAT important, meaning that there may have been higher priority things to do at the time. As has been pointed out there is a lot of "waffle" not every thing gets logged down on paper. But as I pointed if it was Sturt group it may have been voice recorded.
You claim to be so "experienced" but that was one big Rookie call !!
That or just experienced that some things are more important than other things and logging isn't the highest priority. As I pointed out to PumpRescue logging makes very little difference to the final outcome. You could have every word said by every person logged on a 200 track recorder and it would make next to no difference to the outcome. If you don't think that then you to need to get some experience in real operations. There is no time to go back listening to, or reading pages, of logs for that bit of info you needed. You write down what you need and what you can to get the job done. Rookies get over loaded on info and doing things that don't aid the outcome. It sounds like your one of those.
I will go with the safety of a COMCEN over a duty officer sitting in their Subaru / toyota anytime !! Only so much one person with a couple radios, mobile phone and a pen and pad can do!
If you can give me "reasonable" examples of what a single person in a command car can do versus that of a fully operational comcen, then I will be happy to take your views onboard.
Explain to me why is a comcen any safer? That is why is someone sitting in Adelaide, with all sorts of other things going on, going to make things more safe than an experienced local that knows the location, the crews, the people, and the resources?
Good thing we haven't had one person in a station taking care of jobs for the last ummm well forever. As I pointed out the fact it's being done in a car makes no difference to the service. Its all about function. One person in a car can do as much as one person in a station, but the one person in the car can do it sooner than it takes for the person to get to the station. Oh and I'd put money on the fact that a very experienced officer in a command car can do more than the majority of fire fighters in a station. Also remember that in most cases the duty officer in the command car is only undertaking the function till a station opens up.
Let me say it again as none of you seem to realise stations and bases still exist. The duty officer is covering until such time as a station can open. One person in a command car can do more to assist in the early stages of an incident than a comcen can do. Your not seeing this as your looking at it with a group / single incident perspective. You need to scale it up to state size.
Think one duty officer looking after one group. That is 50 something duty officers state wide looking after 1 service. Think one comcen, 5 people looking after 3 services answering 100's of 000 calls a hours.
The group based system scales up a whole lot better. This is why centralisation cant and wont work unless there is massive resources thrown at it. Centralisation also isn't as robust. The best thing going is what we currently have, one comcen assisting groups/duty officers that help themselves.
I think you need to think a little realistically about this. The "she'll be right" attitude is way too complacent for my liking. I have listened to jobs where Duty Officers have had comms, a handful of requests were made of them and they physically couldnt do it. (2 arms and 1 mouth only go so far!)
And I've heard stations get snowed under. Stations whose operators cant use the station interface (one button press). I've heard Regional HQ's get snowed under. I've even heard state SOCC get snowed under. I don't see your point. I say it again one experienced person in a command car can do as much as one person in a station and that's been quite acceptable for everyone for a long time. I'll also once again say its about prioritising. Everywhere does it, even MFSHQ, being some things take precedence over others. Its unreasonable to think that everything will happen instantly, but not all those things are as time critical as others.
Contacting multiple services for support, maintaining comms and incident awareness, scribing the things such as addresses and locations, incident specifics and everything associated with one, responding and directing other appliances, these things just don't happen when its one person sitting in their 4x4!
Once again your fixated on the fact its done from a car. That fact is its irrelevant to the amount of work that can be done. If you haven't seen DIV commands at large jobs then you don't know what can be done out of a command car.
I'm not saying that one person can do everything. But what I will say is that one duty officer in every group in a command car will be able to do more then 5 MFS officers in Adelaide on a bad day and that sounds like the option your putting forward.
From my point of view both of you are making arguments against something that you don't understand in preference for something that doesn't exist.
PS RescueHazmat, don't forget there's also the delica...
hicks
-
Only problem I have with the Duty Officer system is that it puts a lot of responsibility on one person. Who acknowledges the page with MFS and handles resource tracking when that one person is on the dunny or is sharing an intimate moment with the other half, are they realistically going to arrange someone else to do the D.O. role everytime they go shopping or do they just bail out of the shopping to handle each fixed alarm at the nursing home.
I also don't like the idea of people outside of the response area acknowledging the page, there have been times when local GRN sites are down however someone acknowledging the page in the city still got it, result was no one locally got the message however they also weren't defaulted.
Why have a system that makes more unnecessary work for volunteers when you've got a bunch of paid staff there to do the same thing, ah thats right it's called micro managing every single incident.
-
Only problem I have with the Duty Officer system is that it puts a lot of responsibility on one person.
agree....and this cant happen in a volunteer organization.
Acknowledging the page is the responsibility of the FIRST person arriving to STATION. This Ensures Adelaide Fires policy of "no answer = no crew = default = next brigade" is followed.
im unsure if this is ACTUAL prescribed SOP, if it isnt...im a full supporter for it to be.
-
I agree with you being a duty officer does require a lot of commitment.
Only problem I have with the Duty Officer system is that it puts a lot of responsibility on one person.
agree....and this cant happen in a volunteer organization.
Why not? So are you saying that we get rid of all positions? There is no Lts, captains, group officers or incident controllers? Everyone is equal and every one has the same responsibility and capacity be it the noob school kid to the group officer? Good luck running that service.
An appliance driver has a lot of responsibility, the incident controller has a lot of responsibility, the comms/duty officer has a lot of responsibility. Your comment has no practical meaning, and I don't see what being a "volunteer organisation" has to do with it.
If your saying that it means that one person can lead to the failure of the communications, command and control system, then your not aware of the redundancy in the duty officer systems that most groups run. Your also not thinking about the failure of the communications, command and control system when your having hundreds of stations phoning and calling in trying contact a small central control point.
Acknowledging the page is the responsibility of the FIRST person arriving to STATION. This Ensures Adelaide Fires policy of "no answer = no crew = default = next brigade" is followed.
First its not "Adelaide fires policy" its a CFS policy. The FIRST person arriving doing acknowledgement does not ensure that an appliance rolls. It ensures that the MFS knows that there is one person at the station, and any call details is passed on. Its then that person's responsibility to commit to the memory and pass on to the crews. In a two station turnout, MFS needs to answer two separate phone/radio calls and supply call details to two separate people. Duty officers reduce the number of phone calls and work load for MFS. The duty officer is also in a position they can pass all those details onto a station when it opens up to do comms for the call.
I can ensure you that if a duty officer acknowledges a page they are going to ensure an appliance will respond. Thats the whole task and function of the duty officers roll.
Why have a system that makes more unnecessary work for volunteers when you've got a bunch of paid staff there to do the same thing, ah thats right it's called micro managing every single incident.
This is not unnecessary work. Are you saying that all communications and incident management should be done by staff? That the CFS have no need for stations and we have no need for bases as that can all be done by a bunch of paid staff that do the same thing. The "bunch" of staff doing this isn't that large and it doesn't scale up well on a state wide basis. What you call micro management I call better service for crews and the community.
-
im saying that people volunteer to respond...a captain doesnt respond to every callout just because he/she is captain. Your pager goes off..from that moment its a choice..you say no...life goes on...you say yes...you get to the station and assume your position.
"On-Call" personell should only be Regional officers, paid staff...as they have an obligation to respond...they are paid to work without thinking of saying yes or no. Volunteers have no obligations until they chose to respond.
Therefore making a volunteer a duty officer whose responsibility is to do this no matter what....contradicts the whole "volunteer" way of working.
-
But aren't all volunteers "on call" at some point in time.....?
Doesn't a brigade and Group, as a whole, have an obligation to respond (although it is not necessarily each individual's obligation to attend every call) ?
The Duty Officer is no different...when they take on the responsibility as duty officer, they have to respond.
The discussion here illustrates why we have a duty officer...they are required to respond in certain circumstances (even if we ignored the acknowledging of the pager message)...Regional Duty Officers are also obligated to respond to certain incidents (which they are advised of the Group Duty Officers!)
The whole Concept of Group Duty Officers means that an individual is not obligated to respond to every call, 365 days a year...it is shared between a number of people......
As for responsibilities - don't we all have some form of responsibility when we join the service? As a Captain, I accepted the position, and hence the responsibility that goes with that. I knew long before took on the position what was involved, and accepted that.
Unfortunately, within society generally, there are too many people who won't take responsibility for their own actions (eg everything that goes wrong is everyone else's fault, except my own). As the Captain, I make decisions, and have to take responsibility for those actions...and live with the consequences of my decisions.
To place people into a situation where they make decisions, but are not responsible for the consequences is a very dangerous place to go
Pip
-
yeh true pip...probably didnt word myself properly...just talking about the times that a duty officer is needed to respond to an incident. Shouldnt it be the elected Group Officer/Deputy's...as he/she has accepted that postition of leadership thats been verifyed by the group as a whole through elections. they would only be required if the severity of the incident needed his/her attendence. cos a Group officer, let alone a Regional officer can respond as a plain firefighter (enjoyed great chats with RO's at brukunga recently :))
-
There don't seem to be too many incidents where Duty Officers Must attend (although in many situations, they don't need to, but they do..which I think occurs way too often..but that is another topic !)
While generally GDO are Group Officers / Deputy group Officers, there are also others...surely succession planning should come into things...?
Again, those taking on the role of GDO should be doing it, knowing full well what the responsibilities are....if they aren't happy with the taking on that responsibility, then they don't take on the role!!
Pip
-
(although in many situations, they don't need to, but they do..which I think occurs way too often..but that is another topic !)
hehe yeh....thats thing im trying to point out.
While generally GDO are Group Officers / Deputy group Officers, there are also others...surely succession planning should come into things...?
Yeh if there is ultimately a need for a Duty officer, id assume Captains, DGO's and GO would be the ideal people.
is there actually standard operating procedure at all for the role of GDO? seems to be individual group policy sort of thing, which highlights a higher level of segregation from other groups (like saying this is the "Woop woop Country Fire Service"; instead of the "Country fire services Woop Woop Group").
groups need to work with each other much more then currently...plainly and simply said?
-
It is quite clear there are a handful of groups in some regions whose group officers are afraid of losing power over their little empire...
It is also clear that cfs brigades talk far too much on the radio, they need to adopt a short clear way of operating to save radio time. Jobs can run on local talkgroups chat amongst yourselves but book mobile, on scene, sitrep, returning and in station on one or 2 talkgroups allocated for your reason.
I noticed listening to a bit of Melbourne radio traffic they manage to operate the metropolitan fire district with 2 operators, by linking 2 talkgroups together they can cover southern and central, northern and western easily. CFA do a similar thing and no offence to CFS but they do a few more jobs then SA. When you have volunteers stations doing over 1000 calls a year and having staff stations more then that there is not a lot of radio traffic, they just don't crap on.
Instead of CFS once again trying to reinvent the wheel look elsewhere and maybe get some guidance in systems that are proven and work.
-
mobile, on scene, sitrep, returning and in station
thats probably too much....Acknowledgement, Mobile and Moving to Local comm's channel is Adelaide Fires role.....they dont really care about returning and in station. cos theyll page you for incidents till you actually say "brigade is unavailable for further incidents". once current jobs are complete, just ring them up on the land line to reactivate brigade responses.
Responding further brigades is another bunch of radio chatter which could be econimised
-
It is also clear that cfs brigades talk far too much on the radio, they need to adopt a short clear way of operating to save radio time. Jobs can run on local talkgroups chat amongst yourselves but book mobile, on scene, sitrep, returning and in station on one or 2 talkgroups allocated for your reason.
A good start would be to drop some of the pro words - like "out" & "over"...it is a hang over from the days of HF......
Some brigades are doing some excellent radio comms (and they don't seem to be using out & over!,) but there are many who just dribble on.....perhaps with SACAD coming, we could use the opportunity (stating now) to change some of our radio procedures to be more efficient....?
Pip
-
Maybe
Nothing really is gonna change except for minor improvements till May/June/July next year, thats my bet.
-
Just remember whatever comes of it the MFS will eventually have the final say. Go figure.
-
but all we know the CFS OCO's at MFS comcen have the best voices :mrgreen:
-
There don't seem to be too many incidents where Duty Officers Must attend (although in many situations, they don't need to, but they do..which I think occurs way too often..but that is another topic !)
While generally GDO are Group Officers / Deputy group Officers, there are also others...surely succession planning should come into things...?
Again, those taking on the role of GDO should be doing it, knowing full well what the responsibilities are....if they aren't happy with the taking on that responsibility, then they don't take on the role!![/color
the attendance or non attendance of the duty officer is usually triggered by certain perameters set by the groups SOPS to assume control.but that being said their actual attendance if outside of these perameters should be in a support role.
whether it be using the group/command vehicle in a fend off position for an MVA , as a driver for the incident controller,the run around guy for supplies or whatever the crew needs,in short the GDO ,DGO,s & GO,s should there to assist the crews not to micro-manage everything,if they do always assume control sort it out at group sooner rather than later.
as far as the GDO being either the DGO or GO your right it doesnt have to be them, but it surely needs to be someone that has the experience for the role ,the confidence of the group and immediate access to a command vehicle.
the succession planning of groups should be something that is well underway and anyone interested in taking on a brigade or group position (pumprescue)should let it be known,instead of just sniping at people that had the guts/time/commitment to have a go.
jaff
-
There don't seem to be too many incidents where Duty Officers Must attend (although in many situations, they don't need to, but they do..which I think occurs way too often..but that is another topic !)
While generally GDO are Group Officers / Deputy group Officers, there are also others...surely succession planning should come into things...?
Again, those taking on the role of GDO should be doing it, knowing full well what the responsibilities are....if they aren't happy with the taking on that responsibility, then they don't take on the role!![/color
the attendance or non attendance of the duty officer is usually triggered by certain perameters set by the groups SOPS to assume control.but that being said their actual attendance if outside of these perameters should be in a support role.
whether it be using the group/command vehicle in a fend off position for an MVA , as a driver for the incident controller,the run around guy for supplies or whatever the crew needs,in short the GDO ,DGO,s & GO,s should there to assist the crews not to micro-manage everything,if they do always assume control sort it out at group sooner rather than later.
as far as the GDO being either the DGO or GO your right it doesnt have to be them, but it surely needs to be someone that has the experience for the role ,the confidence of the group and immediate access to a command vehicle.
the succession planning of groups should be something that is well underway and anyone interested in taking on a brigade or group position (pumprescue)should let it be known,instead of just sniping at people that had the guts/time/commitment to have a go.
jaff
Umm, that was pretty much what I said.... :-D
Pip
-
If we go to one talk group thenext step from what was said to me,is that groups will not be able to page from the group base when CAD comes on line.So in other words where a group base has a PC and they can now send out a pager message to the brigade this will be removed and all paging will have to go via coms in adelaide....
-
If we go to one talk group thenext step from what was said to me,is that groups will not be able to page from the group base when CAD comes on line.So in other words where a group base has a PC and they can now send out a pager message to the brigade this will be removed and all paging will have to go via coms in adelaide....
Isn't that a good thing? With all response paging coming from a single source?
-
If you want to page out a response. Call MFS Comms. Keep it in the stations Speed-dials. Simple.
-
If we go to one talk group thenext step from what was said to me,is that groups will not be able to page from the group base when CAD comes on line.So in other words where a group base has a PC and they can now send out a pager message to the brigade this will be removed and all paging will have to go via coms in adelaide....
Isn't that a good thing? With all response paging coming from a single source?
yes, and it keeps response paging in the correct form...
but it will put even more traffic onto the GRN talkgroups requesting pager messages... its all well and good to say phone adelaide fire, but you know there are brigades that wont.
-
If you are just talking about response paging Bill then yes that is the plan (although it is not related to the "one talkgroup" proposal or the CRD move to MFS, but rather it is connected with SACAD).
Another reason to those already mentioned is for the inclusion of incident numbers in the page (either reusing the existing number, which the group base could do, or generating a new incident number, which a group base could not do). Also in the group base you won't have the response maps that SACAD will so you won't necessarily respond the right next brigade.
Of course a group base (or anyone) cannot be stopped (technically) from doing it themselves but there are valid reasons why not to - assuming more confidence can be built up in the timeliness of Adelaide Fire sending out the pages after they are requested.
-
Isn't that a good thing? With all response paging coming from a single source?
If that one source is capable of handling the traffic, then yes.
However CFS SOCC had trouble on occasion and as such was seen (at least down here) as not reliable when things got busy.
If the paging facility was removed from group bases now, speed-dials included, there would be a lot of people worried about the ability to getting trucks moving over the fire season, or the time it took to do so anyway.
-
I think he means for messages that aren't response pages.
-
you do have the option of: example:
OAKB: MANUAL TURNOUT RESPOND STATION CFSRES...at the press of a button. but as soon as you press it, let adelaide fire know of the incident, to properly get it put into the system.
As for Info messages, three good methods: Link Email, Link Website, Airsource.
-
Just remember whatever comes of it the MFS will eventually have the final say. Go figure.
I still 'have a bet' that SACAD operators & centre will NOT be under MFS control. Personally I think it will be transitioned to SAFECOM control & management.
Maybe the new SAWater HQ building on Victoria Square would be a good location, or outside of the CBD if they can access the existing IT fibre-loop.
I think the MFS Comcen will be for control of the MFS incidents and resources, not answering 000 telephones.
** My personal thoughts & opinions. ***
-
Just remember whatever comes of it the MFS will eventually have the final say. Go figure.
I still 'have a bet' that SACAD operators & centre will NOT be under MFS control. Personally I think it will be transitioned to SAFECOM control & management.
Maybe the new SAWater HQ building on Victoria Square would be a good location, or outside of the CBD if they can access the existing IT fibre-loop.
I think the MFS Comcen will be for control of the MFS incidents and resources, not answering 000 telephones.
** My personal thoughts & opinions. ***
No need to 'have a bet' about the current 'SAFECOM' Commcen. SAFMS just kicked up a scheiße because its in their building.
-
you do have the option of: example:
OAKB: MANUAL TURNOUT RESPOND STATION CFSRES...at the press of a button. but as soon as you press it, let adelaide fire know of the incident, to properly get it put into the system.
As for Info messages, three good methods: Link Email, Link Website, Airsource.
Only if your Alpha Decoder box is working. Our Group will not allow us to get them fixed we have 5 out of the whole group not working
-
WHy aren't you allowed to get them fixed?
-
i dont think they are broken, probably just not installed properly....and maybe need to "unpress" the buttons as they may be contacting there fore random stop calls etc may be sent.
-
Considering it is the States equipment, not your individual groups, I don't see why they wouldn't be getting fixed.
-
Have had them sent away for repairs they sent them back they worked for a few weeks now they have slowly stoped working again all with different problems
-
I know this is off topic but from what is being said down here all group bases will not be about to do any paging(response or other ) from the group base once CRD comes on line.We will also lose our manual call out push buttons that are at the group base so as we can turn out brigade's with in the group......As for contacting MFS of a job well i did that sunday and they did not care or by the sound of it want to know as it was 0830 in the morning.........Please bring in a independent CRD system like Victoria......
-
B/S they didnt care Blinky!
Any more takers on bagging the comcen?
Backup your statement with fact, and actually say what you accuse them of doing, instead of just saying they "didn't want to know about it"... Thats just slander at its ripe old best!
-
I dont need to back up my statement there where enough people(DGO) and others around when I contacted Adelaide fire via radio to say that we where turning out to a fixed alarm.may be the operator at the other end was having a bad day who knows.....
-
So you told Adelaide Fire you were mobile and they said "We don't care"?
-
It was not that they did not care it was the tone in his voice,scheiße happens
-
just hope you have the nice ladies voice often heard on 124 as Adelaide Fire...hehe...apparently shes been known to have the best comm's operator voice....and shes one of the CFS comms op's.
-
It was not that they did not care it was the tone in his voice,filtered happens
Not what you said earlier..
As for contacting MFS of a job well i did that sunday and they did not care or by the sound of it want to know as it was 0830 in the morning
-
God forbid a Comms operator be tired, or maybe having to stayback untill a recall comes in for their shift.
Do you really expect an "OH WOW AWESOME COOL" response everytime you talk to them?
-
God forbid a Comms operator be tired, or maybe having to stayback untill a recall comes in for their shift.
Do you really expect an "OH WOW AWESOME COOL" response everytime you talk to them?
When State Headquarters were doing resource tracking, they were never grumpy. Ever.
-
we all miss those days eyy :cry:
-
we all miss those days eyy :cry:
I think you may have missed my sarcasm with that comment, but being an Internet forum, I forgive you! :D
-
I still enjoyed the old days of Region 1 HQ doing resource tracking. THEY were fun times.
Mind you, they were good times with some of our beloved ex-SOCC staff... What saucy voices some of them had, especially that Darren...
-
Cut & pasted most of an email from Andy Lawson, arrived to me via SAVFBA so many of you will have seen it. Can send the attched document if anyone cares to see it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawson, Andrew (CFS)
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:19 PM
Subject: Statewide Talkgroups
There has been a considerable amount of discussion recently regarding a proposal that CFS may be moving to one (1) Statewide Talkgroup for all CRD functions (ie GRN 11 for the acknowledgment of Response Messages).
I/we have listen very carefully to this debate and have prepared the attached memo to ensure all Brigades / Groups / Regions and staff are aware of the current situation.
Thus, please be advised that the proposal to move all CRD traffic (ie: pager acknowledgements) to GRN 111 has been suspended indefinitely. Until COAC have had an opportunity to consider an updated proposal and make a recommendation to the Chief Officer - Brigades, Groups and Regions are asked to use their Regional Talkgroups to acknowledge Response Messages as per the existing procedure.
Regions, please feel free to share this memo with all Group Officers / Groups and Brigades. Additional information and a more detailed updated proposal will be circulated via COAC in the near future.
<<Regional - State Talkgroups.pdf>>
Kind Regards,
ANDREW LAWSON AFSM
Deputy Chief Officer
South Australian Country Fire Service
-
See I did say wait and see this space..........
-
the one problem with huge amounts of consultation everything takes ages.