SA Firefighter

Technical Discussion => Hypotheticals => Topic started by: firetruck on July 27, 2006, 01:36:41 PM

Title: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: firetruck on July 27, 2006, 01:36:41 PM
hypothetical incident no. 2 :mrgreen:


it is 7:50am on a Thursday. On the South Eastern Freeway there has been a large MVA in the Heysen tunnels. The car travelling in the left lane has cut across in front of a delivery van in the right lane. Post collision, there are 3 entrapments, 1 in the delivery van, 2 in the car. As a result of the heavy traffic flow, a petrol tanker can't slow in time, sideswipes another semi, sandwiching it between the semi and the wall. as a result of this impact, a hole has been torn in the side of the tanker, spilling fuel in a slow leak. both truckies are NOT entrapped. The 2nd impact has not affected the 1st impact. Cars are banked up between the 2 accidents, but people at the site of the fuel, have fled through the emergency exits in the side, leaving the 3 entrapped and 2 people trying to help them.

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

enjoy 8-)
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: medevac on July 27, 2006, 01:50:52 PM
uptrack or downtrack?
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: medevac on July 27, 2006, 01:55:40 PM
actually considering the time of day, im going to presume downtrack.

that area should have stirling, burnside and 441 responded initially for RCR i believe, so with stirling rescue off the run, i would respond default for them (which would be blackwood), stop all traffic back up at the crafers exit due to lanes blocked and fuel leak, respond extra appliances and transportSA to assist with fuel spill cleanup, and let the rescue crews do there job with the extrication
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: fire03rescue on July 27, 2006, 02:19:55 PM
But has the new station at Crafers been built ?
We could stop traffic with the boom gates if the new MFS station has been made half way up?
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: medevac on July 27, 2006, 02:25:10 PM
^^goodpoint  :wink:  :wink:  :wink:
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: bajdas on July 27, 2006, 02:25:58 PM
Who controls the electronic signs on the freeway and expressway ? Is it TransportSA ?

If so, is that a quick way to divert traffic along with SAPOL at Crafers exit.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: medevac on July 27, 2006, 02:34:53 PM
believe sapol are able to change them... but transportSA would definitley be able to.

i dont think any signs there are for diverting.... youd probly use the signs to lower speed limit and then plenty of signage and a few sapol cars to block it...


leave it up to SAPOL.... traffic control is there problem
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Mike on July 27, 2006, 02:41:21 PM
I believe the eagle on the hill exit sign can swivel to say 'road closed'. generally used when doing high level maintenance on the tunnels.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: TillerMan on July 27, 2006, 03:02:49 PM
Pretty much what medevac said except maybe adding on another rescue (Mt Barker or Adelaide 204), Maybe a few tankers for Standby extra water, which i would say Burnside and/or Stirling would respond if they had enough crew.

Then of coarse if someone lit a smoke i would just turn around and go home and come back another day.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: rescue5271 on July 27, 2006, 03:11:15 PM
I am with medevac,if there was a fire I think the tunnels have a sprinkler system that would help to attack the fire as for run off I would have thought there where drains withshut offs on them to stop flow of fuel into storm water drains.....
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: standpipe on July 27, 2006, 03:19:35 PM
Who controls the electronic signs on the freeway and expressway ? Is it TransportSA ?

If so, is that a quick way to divert traffic along with SAPOL at Crafers exit.

The signs are controlled by Transport SA at their Norwood traffic control centre.
This can be in response to a phone call from SAPOL or another emerg service or in response to something they see on the cameras.. :-D
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: firetruck on July 27, 2006, 03:31:58 PM
But has the new station at Crafers been built ?
We could stop traffic with the boom gates if the new MFS station has been made half way up?

oh ha ha! :oops: :lol:

medevac, its on the down track, so the petrol is flowing towards the entrapped people.

also, what would you prioritise, containing the fuel leak or freeing the entraped peeps?

Sorry, i forgot to mention that 2 of 3 entrapped (lets say delivery driver and 1 occupant of car) have serious injuries.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: medevac on July 27, 2006, 03:45:16 PM
containing the fuel leak would be a priority as it would endanger incoming rescue crews, thus preventign them from performing there duty...

the tunnels have a sprinkler system as clinky said, and im with tillerman, i would presume burnside and stirling tankers would mobilise when they had enough crew...
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Toast on July 27, 2006, 04:08:04 PM
There would be 441, Burnside Pumper and Stirling Pumper all responding to the initial page. All three appliance have RCR capabilities. Stirling 24 would also be responding as it carries our Heavy Rescue gear in the event of rescue being offline for any extended period of time. This satisfies the SOPS for rescue with at least one RCR brigade per vehicle with persons trapped. For good measure I would respond 204, MAAAAYBE 2023 with the heavy rescue pod. Access will have to be all appliances from the bottom of the downtrack tunnel. Traffic diverted to the old road. All persons from the other vehicles contained in the tunnels taken to the Transport SA centers at either end of the tunnels for shelter/food+drink facilities as it will be sometime before they can head home. First priorities are going to be those trapped, with the crew not concerned with these containing the leak in the petrol tanker with the Hazmat gear on either 441 or Stirling Pumper. The OP suggests a SLOW leak of fuel, so depending on what is spilled, either the use of a hell of a lot of Soakerall, foam blanket or both will contain the spilled fuel. I would also think about the response of Stirling or Burnside tanker for extra water.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: firetruck on July 27, 2006, 04:28:55 PM
hey, does anyone have a pic of 2023? i've never seen it.

also, i'm unsure if there are many drains within the tunnel, does anyone know?

hey toast, what do ya mean with the TSA centres in the tunnel? wha?
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Toast on July 27, 2006, 04:33:59 PM
2023 is just a truck that MFS can load different pods onto. Eg: Bulk water pod, heavy rescue. We have a photo of it I think from an RCR in Ironbank, I'll try to find it. The TSA centers are the white buildings at either end of the tunnels, they are not much but they have minor facilities that would enable a few people to be sheltered and served hot drinks etc. Better than sitting out in a normal crappy foggy hills morning.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: PF_ on July 27, 2006, 04:52:34 PM
Well its good Stirling are offline, they only came 20th in the rescue comps, jeez, 20th, losers.  I hate Stirling


































(disclaimer: I ahve no problem with Stirling or their ruddy 20th place ( :-P ) it is purely a joke as it is being mentioned in other area's of the froum about how we hate Stirling apparently.  Just thought Id better put in a disclaimer so no one takes it the wrong way  :wink:
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: medevac on July 27, 2006, 04:55:48 PM
mmm your right PF we should probly call the NSW fire service for there assistance...
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Toast on July 27, 2006, 04:56:32 PM
Hot damn Medevac, I was about to say that we responded Burwood NSWFB to cover us  :wink:
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: medevac on July 27, 2006, 04:57:02 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Manuel on July 27, 2006, 04:59:12 PM
Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling

yep every thread has something about them in it, they must be good :-D
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: bajdas on July 27, 2006, 05:04:18 PM
mmm your right PF we should probly call the NSW fire service for there assistance...

I knew the RAAF base with the Orion aircraft was in Adelaide for something....to bring in the NSW teams 'american style'...because they can fix anything :evil: :roll:
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: bajdas on July 27, 2006, 05:05:47 PM
hey, does anyone have a pic of 2023? i've never seen it.

See http://www.fire-brigade.asn.au/Appliance_Display.asp?Service_Code=SAMFS&Station_Code=20 towards the bottom of the page. The 'bulk water POD' is towards the middle of the page on the right hand side.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: CFS_Firey on July 27, 2006, 05:12:51 PM
That's a lot of Stirling.... ;)

firetruck, when you say 2 serious injuries, do you mean life critical? Because that would make things much quicker and easier :)
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: firetruck on July 28, 2006, 10:27:44 AM
Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling Stirling

yep every thread has something about them in it, they must be good :-D

its better that than kalangadoo...


cfs_firey, injuries are such that if the people aren't extricated within 60 mins, they likely won't make it to hospital.

on a side note, anyone considered using rescue choppers? its up to you
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Toast on July 28, 2006, 03:38:34 PM
Choppers? Not for the freeway. Maybe to bring a Retrieval team in, but usually the freeway is close enough to transport by road.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: medevac on July 28, 2006, 09:31:16 PM
mmm well rescue choppers would be up to the ambulance service... but for a location like that they wouldnt....

retreival teams would go by road


however;

if a chopper was on its way, this would make very little differance as there would be plenty of room to land on the freeway as it has been closed and partially cleared near the scene as far as im concerned  :wink: :-D
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: SA Firey on August 11, 2006, 07:33:11 PM
it is 7:50am on a Thursday. On the South Eastern Freeway there has been a large MVA in the Heysen tunnels. The car travelling in the left lane has cut across in front of a delivery van in the right lane. Post collision, there are 3 entrapments, 1 in the delivery van, 2 in the car. As a result of the heavy traffic flow, a petrol tanker can't slow in time, sideswipes another semi, sandwiching it between the semi and the wall. as a result of this impact, a hole has been torn in the side of the tanker, spilling fuel in a slow leak. both truckies are NOT entrapped. The 2nd impact has not affected the 1st impact. Cars are banked up between the 2 accidents, but people at the site of the fuel, have fled through the emergency exits in the side, leaving the 3 entrapped and 2 people trying to help them.

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


OK starts like this;

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

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

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

   
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Toast on August 11, 2006, 09:45:32 PM
Ah minor issue there. Aldgate are not in the Green Bible for rescue, and only carry minimal rapid entry equip. If we NEEDED to default to the next rescue brigade, it'd be Burnside (theyre already coming) then up to Mt. Barker (but I believe their gear doesn't like Semi's very much)
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Manuel on August 12, 2006, 12:21:34 AM
let Glen Osmond deal with it then :-P
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Toast on August 12, 2006, 04:24:26 AM
let Glen Osmond deal with it then :-P

I'd rather let 204 deal with it  :wink:
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: medevac on August 12, 2006, 08:43:33 AM
i reckon Blackwood are closer than Mt Barker... and have responded there before as a default for someone...

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

Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: corecutters on August 12, 2006, 09:02:33 AM
-If you kill power to the tunnels, you also kill the ventilations systems and gas / fume extraction systems... - enjoy doing the cutout in B.A.


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

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

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

-Agrees with medevac re: blackwod.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Toast on August 12, 2006, 02:11:41 PM
i reckon Blackwood are closer than Mt Barker... and have responded there before as a default for someone...

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



Yeah, it seems that both Blackwood and Barker are around about the same distance away. Its about 20mins from Blackwood -> Stirling and about 20 mins Barker -> Stirling. Yeah they have been responded as a default for us before, but that was... well.. Odd.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: medevac on August 12, 2006, 02:28:02 PM
odd how?
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: bittenyakka on September 22, 2006, 06:26:20 PM
What about bringing more MFS trucks up. They would be quicker than Mt Barker
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Toast on September 22, 2006, 07:00:32 PM
What about bringing more MFS trucks up. They would be quicker than Mt Barker

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

Also in reply to the "Oh noes sparks 204 only"... Isnt it a requirment for all 'Rescue' Resources to have a manual pump?
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: bittenyakka on September 23, 2006, 11:32:09 AM
I have seen it on their pumper but I don't think they actauly do RCR. mabey they rock up and let another crew use the equipment or are training more RCR crew before coming online.

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

Ok Page stirling for RCR crew and get Bridgewater pumper to pick them up on the way. this way there is more equipment and another pumper if the fuel starts burning.
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: Toast on September 23, 2006, 05:19:10 PM
I have seen it on their pumper but I don't think they actauly do RCR. mabey they rock up and let another crew use the equipment or are training more RCR crew before coming online.

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

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

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

Mind you, in terms of fire fighting there is already 441, Burnside pumper, Stirling pumper, Stirling 24, Stirling tanker and Aldgate 12 there...
Title: Re: hypothetical incident 2
Post by: bittenyakka on September 23, 2006, 05:25:30 PM
What if Stirling cant get that large crew there three appliances takes a lot of manpower and being 7:30 in the morning of a week day? 

This isn't a reply to justify Bridgewater comming along

EDIT: added this image I came up with to help me visualise it. If any one wasnts the Flash .fla message me and i can e-,mail it to you