SA Firefighter

I'd add an Urban Pumper to that list.
Also I wonder what you propose to be the difference between the 34P and Urban/Rural 34 given the difference between current 34 and 34Ps is locker setup?

OK....
can't speak to the current builds - our 34 urban stowage is Moores 2009/10

Was thinking 34P = Skilled build like Belair 34P,  or our ex-NSWRFS PTO 34P
(which we look like hanging onto for an extra year or so YAY!!!)

A 34 urban/rural being more like our Moores 34 minus crew deck (no use to us)
plus extra locker/stowage space. Maybe unstrangle the pump with revised plumbing.

34 rural/urban - pretty much what our Moores 34 is. (With a few mods including
unstrangling the pump plumbing)

Pumper & RCR are good additions, but not "tankers" in the Eastern States sense
of the word, which (officially) we have adopted.

It seems we are slowly drifting towards what the NSW RFS have had for years.
Would probably make some sense to simply buy their designs.
NOT perfect, but certainly functional, and cover most of the bases being
discussed here, including recognising different areas have different needs.
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=1118
There is/was also a Cat.2 - similar to our 24 specs but not listed here.
food for thought?

Someone must hate East Torrens even more than Sturt.
It also included a page for Cherry Gardens (CHRY34)
Corrected shortly thereafter to Cherryville (CHVL24)
Would that be database or operator error?

East Torrens strike team ended up with Mudla Wirra 24 & Mallala 22 on the page.
More interesting since Mallala 22 ceased to exist over 2 years ago!
Pip

well, it's Thursday morning, & so far the sky hasn't fallen nor the world ended.

However, my lawn still needs mowing, and the floors vacuuming.
So I therefore declare SACAD to be an abject failure.

 

So with just a couple of days to go until they flick the big switch what is your thoughts.

Hugely relieved. 
the missus is getting on my back about a heap of stuff that needs
repairing around the house. Since SACAD will fix everything... 

Thanks for the implementation docco Alex. I see it permits acknowledge &
available calls to go via telephone, so that may help to ease regional TG
congestion on big/multiple incident periods (provided the phone can be
answered...)  Roll on in-cab data terminals.

Hmmmm... lots of negativity about group comms getting involved early & taking the response & arrival messages & passing them on to Adelaide Fire.

Personally, I think it a Good Thing, but requires Groups to be rather organised.

Picture this for Regions 1 & 2 especially...
1 x AdFire dispatcher for each regional TG.

1st alarm grassy on an FDI>50 day response is 4 appliances (4 stations)
All 4 (or more) appliances need to send acknowledge, responding & arrival messages.
They will be trying to do this at about the same time as each other.
Escalate it to 4rd alarm because the responding appliances can see Big Smoke.
Now there are 16+ appliances (plus tankers & Group cars) all simultaneously trying to acknowledge, respond and arrive on the single Regional TG to a single AdFire dispatcher...
 
Now, light a second fire.
Another 4+ appliances trying to do same.  On the same TG.

Hellooooo...   congestion.  

Now, what happens when, due to congested TG, some of those appliances miss their ack or resp targets & are deemed to have defaulted ?
Answer: respond some MORE appliances. ON THE SAME TG...  

Then, when a fire has become huge, and the Regional TG is choked solid handling major incident stuff, another job comes in - respond rubbish bin fire... now some poor bunny is trying to cut into high level incident management traffic 3 times to report ack, resp & arr.

IF they can get air-time, I predict they'll be about as welcome as pork at a Bar Mitzvah.  

Methinks The Plan sucketh.  Mightily.

No disputing that AdFire need to track resources.
I don't think individual appliances on the Regional TG is the best way to do it. It doesn't scale up from small incidents very well at all.
Better for Group comms to handle appliance traffic & pass messages by phone or aggregation to AdFire ( Oodnawoopwoop34, Blackhole24 and Louisville34 responding INC123. Out.)  The short delay is undesirable, but better than causing AdFire comms melt-down before an incident has time to get properly disorganised.

Ideal would be some form of data transfer - pager message / email / instant message / facebook -  at least until we get in-cab terminals anyway. (I think they're budgeted for sometime in the 29th century.)

As for the new response zones & lists - so far, I likes them.
We are off at one corner of our group, bordering 2 other groups.
Already we are responding with them across boundaries where previously,
response would have been kept in-group.  Both ways.  This is a Good Thing.  
cheers

but is it enforceable?...

Maybe someone important has finally twigged to the idea that making roadsides into vegetation reserves
is the rural equivalent of storing your paints & other flammables in the fire stairs.
i.e.
stupid
stupid
stupid.

That's where a fleet of QRVs would be useful.
One lonely QRV probably a bit less useful...   

scratching head slowly...
how long has a 34P required a 3000LPM pump ?
are they not being built with the same 2000LPM pump-set as 34's (and 24P's)?
just with less 'strangled' plumbing?

If we give Brigades a set of options (within a clearly defined number of modular changes) then I believe that a large number of appliance "problems" will suddenly vanish. Brigades will feel like they are being included in the discussion and hopefully the service won't end up with single trucks costing near on $1million, like both the Dennis and Stirling's Pumper.

Talking with Sandy P when we took delivery of our new 34 last July, & subsequent
discussions on what is wrong with it (as well as likes/dislikes) it seems that
this is exactly where CFS HQ like to get to. However they are hamstrung by lack
of $$ to employ staff to develop & manage such a system.  Every variation/option
has to be separately costed, and more importantly, load distribution calculated.
So at this stage it is choice of "rural" or "urban" stowage.

More choice is entirely possible, and highly desirable to everyone, but alas,
no money to make it happen.

Not happy that the brigade has to pay for chainsaw stowage retrofit.
On the plus side, I suppose $2000 or so to rearrange the under-tray stowage is
cheaper than fund-raising for a whole appliance. For an extra thou or so we can
get that stupid foam drum out of the RHS locker & put something useful in there
too.

For the record, I don't think an employer compensation or volunteer payment
system would increase the total number of SES/FS volunteers. The commitment
demanded for training and immediate response is too hard for most.

What it would do is increase the number of existing vols who are able to go
on extended deployments by ensuring they can still pay the rent/mortgage, bills,
and feed their families.

It would increase the number of employers willing to release employees for
non-local emergencies by reducing their costs.

Defence Reserves, jury duty & SAAS are considered important enough civic
duties to warrant such payments.  Why not response to other emergencies &
disasters ?

I want to make it clear in my earlier posting that I am not advocating paying
volunteers directly for their time.

I am advocating payments to their employers (including the self-employed) to
maintain their employee's wages while they are absent. Just like SAAS & ADF &
the Courts do now.

This may not make any difference to the individual Unit/Brigade culture.
That's not the intent. Likewise, it may not change the number of people willing
to join. Becoming a skilled SES / CFS / SAAS operator is a big commitment of
time & effort.

Given that the overwhelming majority of ES/FS volunteers I know are not highly
paid, it does make it financially possible for them to put their hands up for
long deployments.

It also partly redresses the current unjust system of transferring the cost of
emergency services from the community which receives them to the individuals &
businesses which provide them. This injustice annoys me more than anything else.

Thinking about the sort of gear that RCR vehicles carry,
and watching the way they work, I'm not sure a van is the
best place to start the build.

A 3T cab/chassis might be a better basis, with compartmented box.
All items directly accessible from exterior of the vehicle.
All 'heavies' on low-level slide-out trays, 'smalls' in labelled tubs.
Something like what this lot make. http://xl.com.au/index.php

Maybe a bit bigger. Like an SEM light pumper minus the pump & plumbing.
http://www.semfirerescue.com.au/pumpers.php   Which should bring the
cost down. Or keep the tank & a dinky pump in case there's a delay
getting a fire appliance to the scene.

pretty pointless speculating at the moment though isn't it?
CFS ain't got any money to buy anything.