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 - Alex

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27
576
SA Firefighter General / Re: Not happy
« on: June 09, 2009, 10:22:17 PM »
I certainly do. My meaning is just that it didn't really affect you at all [nor did it affect me] and in reality there could be all sorts of other things going on, ie;

-fire truck waves the coppers past?? we all know were bigger and slower...
-police probly going to a differant, higher priority, job [since they don't tend to go p1 to prangs, and needed to pass in a hurry
-etc...

577
SA Firefighter General / Re: Not happy
« on: June 09, 2009, 06:04:26 PM »
Wow.... im horrified.... disgusted.... All i can say is....





Get a life. Unless you were on the truck or somehow affected i can't see how its your problem.

578
SAMFS / Re: MFS COMMS STRIKES AGAIN
« on: June 08, 2009, 04:14:35 PM »
Mmmmm and what about KI & South Coast [Pt Elliot] SES also....  :roll:

579
SA Firefighter General / Re: Wireless Alarms
« on: June 08, 2009, 08:32:57 AM »
Quote from: uniden on June 05, 2009, 05:05:44 PM
Is there a way to determine the status of an alarm from your station? For example to see if an alarm is cleared or to take it off line remotely.


Are you talking about WFAMs? If so, not from station, ring/radio Adelaide Fire to check if for an incident.

580
SAAS / Re: New Category System
« on: June 06, 2009, 12:25:18 AM »
Quote from: boredmatrix on June 05, 2009, 01:06:42 AM

 - it overutilises resources (particularly ICP's) where they are not needed (in order to cover their arses with some case types  - it's a bit like the MFS sending 5 appliances to an FIP.  ie: if it was a real fire in a 15 story building in the CBD - your phones would be ringing off the hook/board lighting up like a christmas tree - but we'll send all of them anyway!)


Eerrr.... way off topic but since its brought up regularly, that's all well and good until outside of business hours when buildings are unoccupied. There is a procedure for reduced responses during business hours.

581
SA Firefighter General / Re: Heights Rescue- Comms Towers
« on: June 05, 2009, 03:45:34 PM »
Vertical rescue is the responsibility of the starries, assisted by trained SES crews [also possibly MFS/CFS dependant on there training and the area].

Quote from: 2468 on June 04, 2009, 05:24:24 PM
But realistically what are their chances of doing it properly as i know that STAR group do diddly squat training to do with heights these days... too busy looking good in mirror


This is a ridiculous comment, of course they all keep there accreditations up and regularly upskill.

Bill - i hope your not meaning CFS would be looking at confined space and vertical rescue? All this would mean is more duplication of resources for a lot of areas.

582
SA Firefighter General / Re: Pager shortage
« on: May 26, 2009, 04:16:37 PM »
We're short a couple, solution - station siren activates, if there's someone close enough to responmd they should hear it.

583
SAAS / New Category System
« on: May 26, 2009, 12:43:49 PM »
Who can shed some light for me? Im interested to know a bit about it.

AS12 CatC ** Beare Av, Netley 129 C5
CT71 CatB ** Elizabeth St, Norwood 119 B9
WK81 CatA *** Dunstan Rd, Waikerie R*****

I hear its part of a new dispatch system as well?

By the way, looking for actual facts from people in the know.

584
SA Firefighter General / Re: Interesting Fire and Emergency Related Paging
« on: May 22, 2009, 01:41:14 PM »
Quote from: Hazmat206 on May 22, 2009, 12:05:52 PM
1928011 08:51:46 22-05-09 L,NACYS CHILDCARE OLDFORD ST,DAVOREN PARK MAP 51 M 5 TG182,CHILD WITH FINGER CAUGHT IN COVER FOR GA,S METER,ELZ339 NAD020 ELZ331 

This requires 2 MFS and a SES appliance(s)?

Standard response to a General Rescue, which the job fits the bill for.

One for fire cover, one for rescue and SES for specialist equipment.

585
SAMFS / Re: MFS COMMS STRIKES AGAIN
« on: May 05, 2009, 02:42:59 PM »
Not that fussed really... was just pointing out that the only reason this thread really popped up was that some minger somewhere is upset that the ses got paged to one of there calls by error, if noone had been paged as a 'rescue'at all, then noone would get all worked up and jump on the soapbox.

586
SA Firefighter General / Re: Interesting Fire and Emergency Related Paging
« on: April 30, 2009, 02:31:03 PM »
Quote from: misterteddy on April 30, 2009, 12:02:28 PM
and our core business again is????


Surely if this got scheiße house enough, it could fall under a CBR banner where we are concerned?

Anyway, what happens when half the fire service is out of action with said pandemic? Im thinking they need a plan of some sort.

587
Country Fire Service / Re: CFS STAFF BEING VOLUNTEER OFFICERS
« on: April 30, 2009, 02:20:07 PM »
Ever get the feeling our service is trying to self destruct?

588
SAMFS / Re: MFS COMMS STRIKES AGAIN
« on: April 29, 2009, 10:38:34 AM »
Quote from: boredmatrix on April 29, 2009, 12:03:09 AM
more to the point how much does it cost when 2 trucks turn out for what was requested as a low priority attendance for a fluid spill??????

May i make the comment, that if it wasn't worth calling the fire service on receipt of the initial call, and the cleanup is only a low priority, then why are we being called at all? Call the council or DRT.

589
SAMFS / Re: MFS COMMS STRIKES AGAIN
« on: April 29, 2009, 08:59:19 AM »
Quote from: TillerMan on April 29, 2009, 08:27:12 AM
Quote
A lot of the 'busier areas' that have always been dispatched via MFS comcen [including Adelaide Hills aka Mt Barker SES] have there data programmed into BOMS. So taking them out of the mix automatically reccomends the next nearest appropriate unit.

Ie; tree down, maclaren st, mt barker would normally reccomend adelaide hills ses, take them out of the mix [k0] and it will then automatically reccomend the next unit, sturt.

So a better result than waiting for a unit member to call in when theyre ready then using local knowledge if that person even has any idea at all...

In that case why was the next nearest appropriate brigade not?? sent for this MVA??

Don't ask me... ? lol

590
SASES / Re: SES P1 responses when the SCC opens
« on: April 28, 2009, 09:34:05 PM »
Im a firm believer of closest most appropriate...

But i do feel the need to comment on this;

Quote
TRANS,PORT SA ON SCENE


Surely they are providing traffic control of some type, and perhaps its not as much of a priority as P1 tends to imply?

591
SAMFS / Re: MFS COMMS STRIKES AGAIN
« on: April 28, 2009, 09:30:34 PM »
Ok... bad choice of response message as i have no idea of the background of that call. My point remains valid though, as its not so uncommon.

592
SAMFS / Re: MFS COMMS STRIKES AGAIN
« on: April 28, 2009, 07:36:19 PM »
I know i have a slight conflict of interest, but im interested to know the anser to this 'innocent' question...

Are people as outraged by this response;

MFS: *CFSRES INC055 28/04/09 18:15,RESPOND Vehicle Accident,GREENHILL RD,URAIDLA MAP 133 N 8 TG126,50M BELOW RANGE RD,SUMM00

?

593
SAMFS / Re: MFS COMMS STRIKES AGAIN
« on: April 28, 2009, 03:18:02 PM »
Quote from: RES3CUE on April 28, 2009, 02:46:27 PM
Why would you ever go unavailable anyway, would it not be better to just get the page and use your local knowledge to respond the next best brigade??? That would only take 30 seconds.


A lot of the 'busier areas' that have always been dispatched via MFS comcen [including Adelaide Hills aka Mt Barker SES] have there data programmed into BOMS. So taking them out of the mix automatically reccomends the next nearest appropriate unit.

Ie; tree down, maclaren st, mt barker would normally reccomend adelaide hills ses, take them out of the mix [k0] and it will then automatically reccomend the next unit, sturt.

So a better result than waiting for a unit member to call in when theyre ready then using local knowledge if that person even has any idea at all...

594
SAMFS / Re: MFS COMMS STRIKES AGAIN
« on: April 28, 2009, 09:55:09 AM »
...

595
Country Fire Service / Re: CFS STAFF BEING VOLUNTEER OFFICERS
« on: April 28, 2009, 08:31:36 AM »
Quote from: Bill Corcoran on April 27, 2009, 08:21:10 PM
Ok if this is coming in why not take it one more step and make it that MFS members can not hold rank in the CFS......
Quote from: 6739264 on April 27, 2009, 01:13:23 AM
As per the '05 SACFS Regulations:

Division 2:

(6) A person is not eligible to be nominated for election to an officer rank if the person—

     (a) would, if elected, hold the rank and the rank of group officer or deputy group
         officer at the same time; or
     (b) would, if elected, hold the rank and a command or operational rank in another
         recognised emergency service at the same time; or
     (c) has been disqualified from holding the rank by the Chief Officer.

See above Bill.

Not so sure why we would want to enforce this, as others have stated we would lose probly a couple of hundred officers around the place from these positions. A wealth of experience and knowledge.

596
SA Firefighter General / Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« on: April 23, 2009, 06:53:46 PM »
Quote from: misterteddy on April 23, 2009, 06:47:25 PM
oh the put up or shut up arguement is soooo useful....please let me cut and paste that so i can use that again


feel free

597
SAMFS / Re: SAMFS Paradise
« on: April 23, 2009, 06:32:07 PM »
Paradise station was operational from 0800 22/04/09

598
SA Firefighter General / Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« on: April 23, 2009, 06:26:52 PM »
Quote from: misterteddy on April 23, 2009, 03:53:29 PM
Yeah thanks for that incite Alex.....amazing. So we accept it as fact like good little hamsters on our wheel then just because a piece of paper says so?

My point is, that obviously the weather met the set criteria. They did get that FDI of 50, and although it may upset you, they therefore have an obligation to impose a TFB.

I suppose you can either keep running on that wheel of yours for the organisation you chose to volunteer for [how does it go "vollunteer to join, after that do what your told"???] or just go away and stop trying to stir up unnecessary argument?

599
SA Firefighter General / Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« on: April 23, 2009, 03:34:32 PM »
Quote from: misterteddy on April 23, 2009, 02:43:11 PM
Quote from: tft on April 23, 2009, 02:15:07 PM
misterteddy FDI is only in the 20's

my point exactly TFT, in fact I'm surprised it even got that high.....so what goose made the day a TFB...and more importantly.....filtered WHY????

Well they don't do it just for fun mate.

600
All Equipment discussion / Re: New Burnside Pumper
« on: April 21, 2009, 09:56:32 AM »
Doing its first job in style...

MFS: *CFSRES INC014 21/04/09 09:14,RESPOND Vehicle Fire,SOUTH EASTERN FWY,LEAWOOD GARDENS MAP 132 C 13 TG182,ON DOWNWARD TRACK
IN THE HEYSEN TUNNELS,POSSIBLE TRUCK FIRE,BURN19 GLO441 STRL19


MFS: *CFSRES INC015 21/04/09 09:23,RESPOND Vehicle Fire,SOUTH EASTERN FWY,LEAWOOD GARDENS MAP 132 C 13 TG182,2ND ALARM DOWN
TRACK HEYSEN TUNNELS TRUC,K FIRE,ADL202 ADL206 41 PCCY00 BURN28

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27