SA Firefighter

And, by the nature of warnings, they are very sterile, and don't really tell you much about what is actually happening.

yes absolutely, but that's another different problem, being quality of information, and sometimes it's hard to get that info.

But the problem I'm talking about is I guess: (1) over using the warnings and thereby diminishing their value/effectiveness, and (2) timeliness of issue. 

I'm sure the airdesk was monitoring the incident and most likely the regional office was too (or should have been if they weren't).  I'd say the 15 minute mark (in this particular case, and probably much the same for around the Mt Lofty PRZ area) would have been a good time to make the decision whether to issue an 'ignition development' warning or not.  I don't think it was needed in this case but even if region/airdesk/SCC thought it was then that is the time to issue it.  45 minutes further after that (and after the IC had declared it contained) just looks like the CFS trying to say to the public and the pollies "hey look we are keeping the community informed".

At the Air Ops field day last weekend we were told that a new thing this season will be the first arriving aircraft (usually bomber) will give an arrival message/sitrep both to the airdesk and to the ground crews.  So if the aircraft are dispatched then I agree with Zippy the airdesk should have the authority to issue the 'ignition development' warning upon that first sitrep.  If aircraft aren't there then either the airdesk or regional office should do it based on the first sitrep.

and it was the third firefighting helicopter 'incident' yesterday in NSW: 
http://www.smh.com.au/national/one-killed-as-firefighting-chopper-crashes-20091209-kixc.html

MFS Stations do use CFS to back them up when they are much closer than other MFS stations..

sometimes they do, sometimes not. Eg. the second alarm at Mitcham the other day went to MFS from Adelaide, Paradise, Prospect etc and no CFS at all were called even though Sturt group brigades and Burnside are closer and appropriate.

they just have to use either a CFS or multi-agency talkgroup. In my opinion DEH should be using a multi-agency talkgroup for these burnoffs not a DEH TG as they are involving CFS crews/appliances as well (even before any little mishaps that may occur).

Yes I know it's a ridiculous situation but that's what we've got. CFS tried to get a common GRN codeplug in place between CFS/MFS/DEH/SES/FSA prior to the rollout of the new radios but for reasons that are beyond me it didn't happen.

doesn't there have to be 14 days notice given if bringing the start date forward?  if so, it's only 4 more days until it doesn't matter anyway.  Can always have TFB days if warranted.

Not exactly.
More like the GO's were handed a map at the very end of a weekend conference &
told "this is what we want - make it happen".  I heard this instruction/request
was repeated the following weekend at another gathering, but have no details.

the story now is that it is merely a proposal or a starting point for discussions (who can say if that's back-pedalling in the face of many grumpy GOs).  Anyway here's the map, had to reduce it quite a bit so it's not very good quality.

the trouble is that all of you are right. 

It's an unfortunate fact of life now that risk assessments and all that paperwork bs need to be done. Of course in the past a brigade always did one anyway, it's just that it consisted of a discussion round the bar about benefits vs dangers/costs.

Something the CFS does very badly is introducing new "stuff", whether that's equipment (like PPV fans, radios etc), improved methods of operation, training etc.  Most of the time it seems to me it's either foisted on CFS by external forces (eg. CRD changeover to MFS) or pushed and pushed by volunteers (eg. a brigade/group buys something themselves, eg. defibs, TIMS) until eventually it's officially adopted.  Very rarely it seems is something new thought up by HQ and trialled - this is happening a bit more now than used to though, to be fair. 

I think there needs to be a simple process for people to suggest improvements and an active working group with the motivation and the funding to look at them and investigate further the good ones.

I thought we were trying to share & learn to assist the community. Not this 'I did not get to go so I will have a hissy fit' attitude.
** this posting is not aimed at all people on this forum. I have been smoldering on this for a few days & had enough. No offence intended ***

yes assisting the community is the aim, but as has already been said, an SES unit driving lights and sirens (causing a hazard to other traffic) from 20km away past 3 or 4 CFS brigades who are equipped to do the job is not assiting anyone, except maybe making that SES unit feel important.  I don't claim to know the full CRD details (I don't think anyone does!) but apparently (like pumprescue said) know more than you think.

Its probably time for a Internal CFS Referendum...
"Do we support the mass alteration of MFS Comcens Response Data for CFS Responses...and SES".

you mean another mass SES alteration similar to what was done to stuff up responses that were previously correct?

Unless the wrong data was given or the data is not being updated continuously....then rubbish will get rubbish out

responses in most areas (especially those brigades on BOMS prior to the CRD changeover) were largely correct a couple of years ago but were deliberately changed to remove CFS.

PS. Pip good to hear someone else lodges those 'issues' forms, despite it being pretty much a total waste of time.

it's a very 'interesting' (in Yes Minister style usage) decision of the Vic govt to make right at this time given the royal commission and history of lack of support of CFA volunteers by the CFA and Vic govt in the past in these type of sitations.

AJ thanks for the post, I will have to skim some more of the transcripts, haven't been keeping up lately.

these sort of things are reported constantly (certainly within CFS to Adelaide Fire), closest most appropriate 'resource' not being responded.  Yet it is apparent nothing will be done until inevitably there is a fatality and the coroner investigates, at which point the service chiefs will be forced to pull their fingers out and act (and will hopefully be held accountable for not acting sooner).

well some people might be being kidded but probably not many. I think it is widely known that adelaide fire simply won't cope if we have a properly busy day in summer. No fault of their own, as someone mentioned above, but it is set up to fail.

But what hope have we got when CFS HQ are advising brigades to ring 000 and ask for 'fire' to respond additional resources (Ops Planning newsletter Dec 2008) instead of ringing adelaide fire direct.

For my group I just try to ensure we have the procedures and methods in place to handle as much as possible ourselves. Is this improved service or progress? no way but what else can you do.

...would it fall under the $ 14.5mil capital works budget that is stated by andrew lawson in todays courier.

'capital works' refers to buildings (that's the standard meaning anyway)