SA Firefighter

Quite right Firefrog - there are many volumns written on human behaviour & the causes of incidents. Even down to the design of control panels, layout of equipment, logical sequences etc. For example we had a double fatal the other night (it started as a search). The cause will be human error, however they were foreign students (who drive on the wrong side of the road), brand new car(familiarity with equipment), poorly lit windy road with sharp corners & a large unprotected irrigation channel. The root cause will be driver error (speed+alcohol), however there are a number of contributing factors which if removed may have prevented their deaths or at least reduced the severity - including the channel being full of water to celibrate the 50th birthday of the weir! Normally it would have been empty at this time of year. As an aside the nuclear power industry did some land mark research on this subject (for obvious reasons) in the 60's, petrochemical & aviation has followed as well as the US navy, to try and reduce the likelyhood of human error. And finally if you think about the control of a major incident, a look at the amount of information coming in & going out (inputs/outputs)& decisions that have to be made (& timeframes)people wonder why there are mistakes/ or their radio call isn't answer immediately! Some thing to consider!
cheers

I doubt it Gasman - the fire services hardly ever acknowledge the existance of SES officially in any state. SAMFS actually works with SESSA cat 2 USAR operators(incase you didn't already know), so I doubt that is the problem - more likely too many applicants not enough spaces. As Jaff said keep trying & good luck next time
cheers

So you are using a RFA type system? - about time, as for AIIMS it is taking too long to implement. Mate I have heard about AIIMS type structures within SES for ages (remember I've only been gone less than 12 months) & the Request for assistance stuff may have been used by HQ but not at any of the events I was associated with (not in a formal way anyway). The trouble is everything is taking too long - for example I notice that a swift water rescue team has been developed - marvelous! We have it here to - difference is the course is available to all who have flood boats & are fit!
Eventhough I don't believe in throwing heaps of money & technology at every conceivable problem, there are some very good simple systems about the place that SESSA & SA in general could adopt (without having to reverse engineer/re-invent). It shouldn't be too hard to use an online system, that can generate RFA's locally & resource track, task track & monitor crews from any LHQ in the state. Afterall we were almost there already (saw some pretty cool resource/ task tracking on one of the tasks wew were on a while ago!)
Anyway mate keep up the good work - see ya

Ah now you may have nailed it Jaff! Storm/Flood events that are not occuring in Adelaide are not managed the same way as a normal day. Normally a Field HQ is setup (Renmark, Pinnaroo)etc. The tasks are handled by that HQ & the tasks are given out either by voice or radio (on an allocated TG) & yes AF does still pass on tasks but the local HQ deals them out (that would handle the brigades/units that can't attend e.g. default pages)as the HQ would know what resources it has & what is coming. The RFA system formalises this process even further, every task is documented & a "pink" handed to the responding crew. It has the task, address & other info on it - this helps to free's up the radio network.
Also this allows for multi agency crews to attend the task, with the right number of people & the right mix of skills & equipment. I understood Adelaide events can be managed the same way - once the HQ group becomes operational of course. Bare in mind RFA's are not used in SA - yet! This system works elsewhere as well, it ensures proper allocation of resources, proper prioritisation & enough relief crews to provide extended operations over days or weeks e.g QLD/NSW Flood/storm events. If you think about it similar to what crash was talking about. It is a pity that this system isn't used more often. cheers

Think they were advertising a few weeks ago Zippy - so why didn't you apply?

No mate - just reflecting on some stuff I did about teamwork & change management(3 day leadership cse) & the fact that you can't have a successful team if everything is in the negative. And a wise person on this site (wouldn't know who they might be )gave me some very sage advice a while ago when I had a very black outlook on the emergency services in SA. So whilst I agree that things are not perfect & should be improved, people need to remember where we were (by the way things are not perfect here either - had to borrow a ute from council as ours wasn't allowed to be driven!). And with some other potential changes coming latter in the year in SA, it might not pay to be seen as the naysayers all of the time - if you know what I mean! And everyone is quite right - quietly accepting below standard performance isn't the way to go, starting fights over every conceivable subject isn't either (fight the important fights & the one you are guaranteed to win was what I was always told). Anyway mate take it easy cheers

No Jaff I don't support mediocrity - far from it! However as Bajdas said"there is a plan", it also seemed to work. And I would have thought not being tasked to MVA's in a timely matter, responding to task with untrained/poorly trained crews, responding with less than the minimum crew numbers, responding with inappropriate/out of date/damaged equipment was more likely see you in front of a coroner! And is OHS (Stop take five) trg being delivered to the troops, is OHS covered off on the teamleaders course yet? These are the thing that you will be hung on, as Andrew said when there was an emergency it was handled promptly.
There is always a bit of confusion at the start of an event (its part of the forming part of team building). And there is no need to rush about, afterall it still takes time to get things organised (as you know )
So I just curious what the real agenda is here - more operators? more money? more embarrassment for the government/Safecom? Does anyone know has SA adopted the excellent NSW RFA system?  I agree there is always room for improvement, but at least acknowledge that things have improved cheers

Guys, you are confusing the difference between an audit & a checklist(very nice by the way Mallee). Audits(both internal & external) are a systems check & are usually carried out by an independant auditor (whether internal or external like SAI Global). The checklists are just that, used to see how things are progressing (or not). If you wanted a good 'snap shot' of how you particular brigade/station/unit stacks up, get hold of the WorkcoverSA Self Insurance Audit, the National Self Insurer Audit tool or Safety Map. This will high light how well the system is working but not the physical environment. As all emergency services in SA are self insured you would quickly see what an audit is! However having been through an audit in the private sector & seen how they are conducted in the public sector - I don't know!!!! No audit has legal standing except to provide evidence of performance/ lack of. This is due to the fact that an audit is a perception thing & everyone is different regardless of how well developed the audit tool is! (or how well trained the the tool is  )
But as I said those checklists are good & provide vital evidence for when things go bad - "yes we have reported that faulty door 3 times & nothing was done & here is the evidence!" Keep up the good work guys - cheers

When I say front line I mean operational planning, training, operational management, & the conduct of operations.
SAFECOM should be administration, payroll, assets, combined OHS, Workers comp etc.
I get your point Alan, but the government is very good at arse covering & thats what Due diligence is - protecting your arse by knowing what you have that can bite you! In the broader sense of the words anyway (not just the stuff the bean counters go on about).
I thought that is what SAFECOM was formed for, to look after the combined administration functions of the 3 services - so that the 3 services could focus on the operational side! Even tenders, contracts, hire & fire(sacking) could be handled by them. They could even look after the RTO side of things instead of having 3 RTO's & the administration that goes with that! But at least they are starting to do something!
cheers

And you Crash would know that it is quite easy for a union to change its rules to allow for more members e.g. CFS Staff! Other unions are doing this as I speak to get into new turf (=more funds).
You actually quoted the qualifier -"if its true", which I would doubt, afterall everyone knows how well the union looks after the retained guys Why would CFS staff pay fees to an organisation, that isn't really that powerful in SA?
Finally Crash - not sure about the garden centre comment - but there would be no point as there is no water in SA to grow gardens anyway

From memory 20 minutes wasn't exactly acceptable, just common! There are common themes across the state, however some brigades may not like the solutions.
Skills maintenance, equipment, buildings & training should be at a standard across the state based on risk & locations. But along with that must be an minimum standard for brigade/unit training, responses etc & there must be accountability!
I think that may be a bone of contention.
cheers

And there lies your problem Bill, the public sees what looks like an abuse of privileges at the same time the CFS is asking for more money. The MFS on the other hand never complains about lack of resources, the union does! And the public can see the difference (most people are aware of how unions are supposed to work).
SAAS are the same, never complain - the union does their complaining for them when required
But when CFS wants money - it is reported as CFS officers/spokeperson are complaining. When the only people who should be saying anything on behalf of the vollies is the association/s. And sorry but the paid staff argument should be separated from the complaints of the volunteers. Instead maybe their union (if they have one) should be arguing for more staff, better conditions etc. The only time payed staff should be spoken of by the association, is "these tasks were once done by payed staff & now they are not". Finally your argument about being on call but having a family life, would not wash with the majority of the public as there are many in the private sector who are "on call" but don't get a tax payer funded company car to drive around in. They usually either a) get a car as part of their package or b) salary sacrifice one! I know it sucks but the public only sees what it wants to see - afterall it is their money thats being spent cheers