Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - firegun

Pages: 1 [2]
26
My company also has an arrangemet for "special" leave (with pay)for 5 or so days a year for emergency work i.e. CFS and SES.
As we are a 24/7 company the conditions are a bit harder to go at the "drop of the hat" if you are on shift, but easer if on just day work.
We have app 35 CFS members from 10 brigades working at the one site.

From the comments posted here it seems several companies, both large and small have similar arrangements in place.
It shows that they do have an appreciation of the service we provide to the community.
They are all to be congratulated for this. :-)

27
Country Fire Service / Re: Interstate deployments
« on: February 16, 2009, 11:07:25 AM »
it is my understanding that the CFS has in place plans for ongoing support for Victoria over the next few weeks, if this eventuates then there should be a chance for more people to go and gain experience (even Robert)
(i hope like we all do not in uncontrolled incidents though)

28
Country Fire Service / Re: Interstate deployments
« on: February 14, 2009, 02:45:18 PM »
i agree with you Pixie,
It is time we put on a professional front when we represent the CFS.
There was a pager message a few days ago about a brigade attending a meeting and the members were asked to wear their tshirts etc., thats what we need to do, put on a united front to the public.

If we are serious in having the public see us as professionals the least we need is a t/polo shirt that we can wear to meetings/ deployments etc.

Most brigade/ group budgets should be able to accommodate a plan to outfit ALL volunteers with these over a 2 or 3 year time frame. The style and colour well thats a whole different subject.

And when we send units on deployments, lets send our best, ie duel cabs with the "bells and whistles" not the 10+ year old units with crews having to spend many hours on the back while they are there.
I am sure there is by now enough in the state to send without depleting our responce to incidents within SA  :-D

29
Country Fire Service / Re: Interstate deployments
« on: February 12, 2009, 06:27:26 PM »
couldn't agree more Misterteddy,

I have been on most interstate deployments in one role or another and the ones where had our own units (NSW in 94 and 02 for example) ran rings around the Victorian one in 2003. your issues were the same we had.
The only thing to add to the strike teams is some tankers due to the different fittings around the country and to make us virtually self sufficient.

30
Country Fire Service / Re: Interstate deployments
« on: February 12, 2009, 02:55:25 PM »
I understand in my group we had 10 or so put their hand up when the call came out for 4 people. In years gone by we had many more do so.

Perhaps it is they cannot get off work or
sick and tired of the hurry up and wait associated with deployments or
they want to "protect their own patch" who knows.

the 4 sent from us would should not effect the responce from the group even though we have brigades with minimal crew levels and respond to jobs with what i think is short crewed (my view only). We would like we do now respond more brigades. (we have many brigades in the group including the Doo)

31
SA Firefighter General / Re: VIC Bushfires
« on: February 12, 2009, 11:36:14 AM »
Love some of the comments in the Advertiser this morning:
"I wish the Australian government would spend some real money on firefighting aircraft then these fires wouldn't happen"
"If they got some of those super scoopers they would have made all the difference
"


interesting observation re the use of plains at fires.
It is my understanding at some of the fires on Saturday (Horsham for instance)that the conditions were that bad that they didn't use the aircraft at times as it was too dangerous.
Aircraft should be viewed as only one tool for fighting fires, not the "great white hope" many non firefighters believe, just because you see time after time the aircraft "saving" an asset.

32
SA Firefighter General / Re: VIC Bushfires
« on: February 08, 2009, 09:44:50 AM »
update on deployment. recieved pager message that only 8 from Pt mac and Gambier going at this time.(region 5)  dont know of others from other regions.

33
SA Firefighter General / Re: VIC Bushfires
« on: February 08, 2009, 09:40:25 AM »
havent heard of other groups in region 5 being asked yet but i expect all will be shortly

34
All Equipment discussion / Re: Size of BWC's
« on: January 31, 2009, 07:51:59 AM »
i would go for the 7000lt units as you can get 3 fills for 34 units from them (with the reserve left).

I would go for you going back to school to fill up on Maths.

I know numbers that i am short by 200lt with the comments re the 3 fills but unless the tank level indicators have changed over night to say a 5 sensor unit with a controller that will average the water in the tank to allow for the angle of the tank, then it is up to the pump opperator to make a educated call on the amount of water they have left before they fill up.
All good opperators should then be calling for a fill up before they actually get to the 20% level. (eg if one appliance filled up with 22.2% water left, then the others would have enough water to get a complete fill).

When writing this a couple of other thoughts have cropped up.

the COSO 12 (appliance and crew protection at bushfires) talks about fire fighting appliances need to maintain a minimum 0f 20% water for crew protection.
My question is as the CFS lists BWC as appliances then should these BWC also comply with the 20% crew protection water.I would have thought so especially when they are on the fire ground filling up units that are deployed.
I know this effects my comments re 3 fills from a 7000lt unit but it a point to ponder.

The other point is not in regard to size of BWC but on the 20% figure.
20% water in a
34 is 600lt for crew protection of up to 6 people
24 is 400lt for up to the same number of crew
14 is 200lt for up to the same number of crew

With the tankers say a 7000lt unit 20% is 1400lt for probably 2 crew protection.
another area to review?

re the type of pump used, i don't care either way as long as what ever is used is reliable and easy to use.

35
All Equipment discussion / Re: Size of BWC's
« on: January 30, 2009, 06:56:47 PM »
i would go for the 7000lt units as you can get 3 fills for 34 units from them (with the reserve left), no semi licence required and if put on ex appliances the cost would allow more units to be supplied. In the hills they would be maneuverable and in the "sticks" if you had say 4 of these at an incident, managed properly it would be much better than having 1 large milk type tanker that could be off the fire ground for a while filling up thus leaving the incident without a mobile water resource.

36
Country Fire Service / Re: Heat Wave
« on: January 29, 2009, 08:39:11 AM »
it will be a stop call for robert again, these are the ones we like

37
Country Fire Service / Re: Time for 3 Fire services
« on: January 28, 2009, 02:13:15 PM »
i agree we don't need 3 fire services, what we do need however is changes to the concept that every brigade fits in to 3 groups ie Urban or Urban/rural or Rural and the equipment provided for these is the same for all.
for instance not all Urban brigades would need a pumper like say Millicent has, and not all Rural brigades would need the "standard" 34 currently provided. The resoursing of all brigades needs to be done on a brigade by brigade basis.
What we cannot do however is have a multitude of options to choose from as this would have us go back to pre 1983 when we had any and every type of units we could get.
there is several good options around that the I&L section is aware of/ trailing and investigating. They have put out a discussion paper on this subject.

eg a 6 wheel QAV type vehicle (based on the Tasmanian units)is being trailed in i think the Pinnaroo area

the CFA has developed a light tanker with many new features such as remote monitors and a high pressure mop up line.

The provision of group tankers (i know some regions/ groups have had tankers for some time but it is only in the past year or so my region has been provided with some. (don't quote me but i think the count is as of now 5 CFS owned tankers for the region))

the provision of new and improved equipment is only the first part. The hardest part is to convince some people that you don't need a whole lot of equipment and water to fight 95% of the fires we have, you have to fight them smarter.
cheers

38
SA Firefighter General / Re: Ammusing pager message.
« on: January 25, 2009, 10:08:54 AM »
1909376 18:17:18 24-01-09 MFS: *CFSRES INC060 24/01/09 18:18,RESPOND DOMESTIC FIRE,5 NURIOOTPA CFS,NURIOOTPA MAP 0 0 0 TG095,ASSIST NURI 5 SANDALWOOD CRT NURI,TANT00 CFS Tantanoola Response

   Tantanoola probably wanted to try out some different wine, sick and tired of the fine wines from Coonawarra. Watch out brigades south of Adelaide eg Blackfellows Creak, Blackfellows Caves might come up next for your wines(i know they have been paged before instead of Blackfellows Creak) :-D :-D

39
SA Firefighter General / Re: Ammusing pager message.
« on: January 21, 2009, 07:08:21 PM »
MFS: *CFSRES INC018 21/01/09 06:51,RESPOND RCR,MT BENSON CFS,MT BENSON MAP 0 0 0 TG229,KINGSTON TO MILLICENT RD NEAR MT BENSON,CFS STATION TRUCK ROLLOVER,ROBE19 MBEN00

this message a bit misleading as, for those who know Mt. Benson CFS station is some 20 km from Kingston to Millicent road. Should have been the Biscut Flat station. The ambos went to the right station and eventually the CFS did as well. Fortunately no serious injuries although 1 trapped for a while.

i hope i have done this correctly as it is my first post on this site.

Pages: 1 [2]