SA Firefighter

07:23:27 19-02-08 GRP WX: MLR 19/2 T35 DP3 RH13 N35 FFDI EXT59 GFDI EXT67 TFB. Cloudy with a shower or two. Moderate to fresh S/SE winds. SRFMO. PS NO SLASHING TODAY PLS.

I have got footage, works really well.

same here, has been used to good effect at a few jobs including Brown Hill creek.

after the amount of carry on from some people on here, its ammusing to see the interest in getting Jono to post footage online....

So Mack, next time I arrive on a job & no risk of fire I put in a stop call on fire response?
Tried that once Adelaide fire would not accept it - we have done many "Spill only" jobs.
You guys whinge when other services don't follow procedures, but you guys just do your own thing!

Your missing the point Chook, if there is an officer on scene reporting the incident, telling Adelaide Fire there is no entrapment then i see no reason to respond rescue.

Re; fire coverage, go for it... not my problem. Id rather get stop called than get all the way out to an incident that didnt require our attendance... I guess it just depends on whether you deem it safe.

I think your trying to stir up an SES Vs CFS/MFS arguement with the wrong person here mate? [if thats what your trying to do???]

MFS: *CFSRES INC044 15/02/08 16:26,RESPOND Vehicle Accident,KAPUNDA CFS,KAPUNDA DISTRICT MAP 0 0 0 TG100,SINGLE VEHICLE ROLLOVER.AT THE FORD,ANGELBY RD.NIL INJURIES.FROM KAPUNDA,CAPTAIN,KAPD00 CFS Kapunda Response

saas responded my radio no rescue responded.

call from Kapunda captain on scene, so no need to send rescue...

BA donned, usually an extinguisher from the premises or appliance if none on premises, and the halligan...

not an SOP but a guideline, you can respond with less with permission.

since when?

Maybe Meadows and Barker were paged because they are on Dual Response for MVA's in Meadows area therefore comms were doing the right thing in responding both rescues.

affirm, correct CFS response to a VA, one fire one rescue.... and since meadows are dual response all MVAs.

so.... which dreamworld are ya living in numbers???


im joking mate, i agree 100% with what you are saying.

Quote from: mack on February 07, 2008, 08:08:58 AM

Quote from: ZIPPY28 on February 07, 2008, 08:00:07 AM

Interesting, since it would have been the Alarm Concentrator incorrectly programmed.

strange indeed, considering they are tested/confirmed before going "online"

that "testing" is sometimes very superficial and cursory, I reckon for all the alarms done in my group area about 75% of them had some error/mistake on initial install (fortunately most were quickly noticed by the group/brigade and fixed).

mmmm.... i thought the install and programming was done, and then tested, with the brigade captain or another member acknowledging that it went to the correct adress, before the alarm went live.

Interesting, since it would have been the Alarm Concentrator incorrectly programmed.

strange indeed, considering they are tested/confirmed before going "online"

just an example, as we seem to hear about every riverland job.

no offence meant.

If you look at my previous posts on this issue ,Ive been consistent in my concerns and asking the question WHY? As has been said also by many others there can be compounding and mitigating circumstances that cause some delays, accepted ,but that should not stop any of us asking the questions.
I also intend no offence with my comments and questions and if any one has offended that was not my intent.

Cheers Jaff

i understand that, just saying it... as this thread has gone round in circles for the past 20 pages.... what with Chook posting every incident his unit goes too, every CFS person blaming SAAS comms, and what not....

no offence to anyone... but i think everyone knows theres an issue, and everyone has said many times.. just fill out the forms, dont spam the forum anymore..

ahhh my rant/spam message done.