I have heard some group officers are already cracking the sads, and writing nasty letters....mingers
What are they complaining about? All I've heard are concerns about using CABA wear info as a basis for re-accreditation, and scorn over the change from Primary/Secondary to In/Out.
Its already proven useful for some members as things like wearing BA are going towards the re-accred time.
I think this a bad move. Starting up a CABA set at an incident in no way proves that an operator is still a competent BA operator. The purpose of an annual, (or 5 yearly), re-accreditation is to ensure BA operators are still donning and starting up correctly and still know the correct procedures for safety and equipment maintenance. Do they really think a tick in a box on a fire reports proves an operator is competent and removes a need for them to be assessed?
I'm also curious about the definition of RCR and HAZMAT operators...
"HAZMAT OPERATOR - Actually used hazmat equipment at a hazmat incident". So if I turn on the PID at a house fire, does that make me a Haz Op?
"RCR OPERATOR - Actually used RCR equipment at the incident". If I use a haligan to pop a bonnet at a car fire am I an RCR Op? All seems a bit vague...
It will also be good to prove to some of our more useless members that they are tying up specialist spots when they continually shirk attending fire calls and training.
Can't you do that already from the fire reports you're already filling in?
Hmm....
I'm not entirely convinced that those people above us are doing the right thing by us. Why do we still not have access to ALL the AIRS codes? Why do we only get a select few that someone determines 'will be enough'?
Agreed - we have to make whatever incident we attended fit into the select few options they give us, rather than reporting what we actually attended. But you have to admit, it does make it a lot easier!
For those complaining, stats are the best way to increase your funding... show the Govt. how much work we are actually doing. If we get stats to back us up we can actually achieve things! Get those false alarms reduced, have a solid argument as to why xyz Brigade needs xyz truck/specialisation/SFEC increase.
Again, haven't we been filling out fire reports for years? Is the inclusion of some extra details about an alarm call really going to get us extra funding or cut down on false alarms? You can already get the stats from the previous version of the forms - if it says we went to an alarm, it means it was an unwanted alarm, if it legit, we'd put it down as a fire...
As well as the mistakes Matt already pointed now, there seem to be quite a few other fields that are vague or confusing.
For example,
Who is the "Officer in Charge"?
Does "Spare cylinders used" really mean spares used, or total used?
"Charge code: Yes/No" How do we answer that?
"Name of Brigade/Station/Unit who conducted Rescue". What counts as the rescue? If the RCR brigade cuts up the car, but then the local brigade carries the stretcher to the ambulance, is that a team effort?
Or the fact you only get to choose one type of mobile property for an incident, but can enter details for 3 vehicles...
I'm also curios as to why lowercase and uppercase options are mixed. Is there a difference between them?