SA Firefighter

By the way, what happened to the extra metro volunteers being trained within CFS for strike force deployments idea of 12 to 18 months ago ?

Well if I am into tin foil hats and bubble wrap jump suits then I would say that was a CFS cover up for something else they mucked up on 

Yes you are right bajdas if the volunteer manager went out and hit the pavement then maybe some of the regional brigade / unit would be a bit healthier. Maybe if some of these manager also started using some volunteering best practice  then we could retain some of those we recruited.

I find it quite amusing that we have volunteers doing their best for volunteers and we have a highly structured organization that has no idea about how to manage volunteers. Maybe we are critter of our own self doing 

I wonder if the number of volunteers reflect the population growth in the state?

This begs the question why are volunteers leaving or becoming less active and what could we do to support the volunteers further so that we can retain a few more than we loose or recruit. What ever needs to happen can not be small brush strokes to the organisation but wide brush strokes that can be applied from the smallest and quietest brigade to the largest and most busiest brigade

Terminology is one thing but in some of those fire ban areas the 100+ is all too common.

I don't think that active standby in stations is the go Zippy maybe having crew that is only five minutes away that can drop everything and be there in that five is more important. At least they will be comfortable either at home or at work rather than tense from anticipation

Recuiting is easy get them through the door, make them feel welcome and then the problem comes that of retaining them. This maybe not so much of problem for the urban brigades but for the typical bushfire brigade it can be a bit problematic. Service trinkets are fine but maybe we shouldbe investing in other ways that volunteers can be apprecated and rewarded. Some times the organization is at odds with what would make good volunteer practice.

At training the other night we told by some members who came from suppress wildfire and BFF1 that CFS is changes some of it practices.  Can some one please confirm or deny this information as either a bit of fanciful delight from a regional office; they are

1. deployments have an honorarium attached to them

2. the content of suppress wildfire contain practices that the CFS is planing to terminate and replace with new practices once approved

3. practices used in the BFF1 are now out of date and are unsafe but are being used till approval off new practices.

4. what is a standard rural appliance not stowage as those on BFF1 and suppress were told a 14 or QAV

5. does the CFS have any maintenance and repair policy (a personal hobby horse of mine)

Any form of clarification will be much appreciated

We  got given a chainsaw five years ago still yet to do a job with it. We even manged to fit it in the appliance with all the other approved, standard and why the heck not gear we have.

We don't have a nearby SES unit that do the trees for us as we have really good land holders that got rid of all those pesky trees for us.

After spending some time around home with family and friends we looked at some of the  brigades or units that we are members of and with a little bit of assistance from the promo website we found some like us where we are part of the two services i.e. SES and CFS.

The question posed is not designed for the lets amalgamate the two services thread that rears it head now and then.

Presently we have one piece of legislation that governs the services, one lot of VSO that are shared between the services and that where two the services cohabit the costs are shared.

But what is not shared or rather duplicated is that of administration, other papper work and training.

If we can share, combine and pool other resources why can't we do the same administration and training where eventhing seems to be duplicated as it it is part of some empire that each service wants.

In times where the cost of providing the services is difficult enough would any cost cutting that is sensible be worthwhile exploring. i.e  one Registered Training Organization as opposed to two one State Training Centre as opposed to two. One lot of asset auditing or financial returns. With the savings  we could always put it back into the services to support those that have given up so much and maybe attract some new ones

Your thoughts people

Come on Tillerman get with the program outside the metro area in those small rural communities the volunteer is rare species that is spread very thinly and sometimes toasted.

When you have a small pool of volunteers for three services you expect a bit of confusion if it assist SAAS with a pateint to be moved or assist the SES with a storm job.

Maybe out model of the service ain't working and  I don't care if the RO or RC catch being a mixed bag of lollies they will not say a word as I told them I will operate that way. Considering they put the blame on the other service anyway if it goes pear shape but will take credit when it is all good

I always go for the mix and match in fact depending on the incident it can be a bit on the handy side of things half orange half yellow. I reckon it is better look than causals and a tabbard that I have seen way to often from a service

If memory serves me right we had a few minsters and leaders who have been members of an emergency service we are lead to believe or have lived in CFS area like

Brokenshirer
Brown
Olsen

and the list can go on beyond my blank memory or interesting pollies

Then perhaps your looking at "Selection not Election"

The fire emergency services regulations already pertain to to have a selection criteria for positions  based on what one has done. It is not a matter of what I think but a matter of can stomach by those focused at achieve the cooperate goals at the expense of the volunteer.

Maybe we need more paid staffin the CFS like retained groupies and captains