SA Firefighter

General Discussion => SASES => Topic started by: from way back on July 01, 2008, 09:55:28 PM

Title: Felling
Post by: from way back on July 01, 2008, 09:55:28 PM
Are SES members allowed to fell trees under command of CFS?
Are SES trained to fell trees? do the SES have more intensive chainsaw training/course then the CFS?

cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Bagyassfirey on July 01, 2008, 10:05:59 PM
Are SES members allowed to fell trees under command of CFS?
Are SES trained to fell trees? do the SES have more intensive chainsaw training/course then the CFS?

cheers

good question...C.F.S are not allowed to fell standing trees at all after the incident of last summer i beleive.....
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: bittenyakka on July 01, 2008, 10:14:32 PM
I have been told pretty much know body in SAFECOM can.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: jaff on July 01, 2008, 10:27:31 PM
Heard a whisper that maybe NPWS might be the answer :wink:
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: SA Firey on July 01, 2008, 11:16:50 PM
Are SES members allowed to fell trees under command of CFS?
Are SES trained to fell trees? do the SES have more intensive chainsaw training/course then the CFS?

cheers

As long as the person CFS are utilising has the relevant qualification yes otherwise NO!
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Mike on July 02, 2008, 08:04:53 AM
SES dont offer a tree felling course.
Even if they did, I think it would be a decision better left to NPWS if possible/practical
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: rescue5271 on July 02, 2008, 08:08:25 AM
A contractor can do it as long as they have done parts of BFF1 and have a chainsaw ticket for felling tree's,I know when I did my chainsaw course last year that cfs was looking at running a course so that we could drop trees when needed....
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 02, 2008, 08:46:06 AM
Guys, in an emergency we can (as well as you) do anything (read the act!).
As long as it is deemed as justified & a risk assessment is completed.
Having said that there is an instruction out that currently we don't fell trees, unless qualified to do so! And they are looking into us doing the felling course.
However as an OIC I was at an incident
and there was a significant risk to the public or other emergency workers
and there wasn't a chance to get a qualified contractor in to do job in a timely manner
and there was no other way of controlling the hazard
and we had qualified operators
and we could do the job safely
- then refer to my opening comments!
Newcastle NSW taught us that there were more than one way to skin a cat! and that felling a whole tree my not be the safest/expedient option - due to safety concerns, number of jobs etc, experienced operators can reduce the threat of a tree without having to drop the thing!
Finally some of the comments are puzzling "Under the command of a CFS Officer?" is this in relation to a fire or storm? Because if it's a storm then the lead agency is SES not CFS it does not matter where it is in the state.
Contractor can if they have done parts of BFF1 - obviously in relation to fire grounds only.
NPWS if possible/ practical - again fire ground. NPWS do not get involved in storm ops, local councils tend to shy away from storm ops as well (mind you their front end loaders come in handy).
So in closing I think you know what the answer is :wink:
Hopefully this current stupid situation will be fixed in the near future as it is an insult to those who have years of experience in doing these types of activities and yet no can't (however I doubt it)
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Pipster on July 02, 2008, 06:38:23 PM
Guys, in an emergency we can (as well as you) do anything (read the act!).
As long as it is deemed as justified & a risk assessment is completed.

I reckon OH & S might beat you on this one Chook....I think people who are not appropriately trained, who then go ahead & chop down a tree, even after a risk assessment is done, and something goes wrong, you would be in strife......

I understand that there is a new policy coming out in CFS, which will clarify many of these issues.

Pip
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Bagyassfirey on July 02, 2008, 06:46:52 PM
Is there anything stopping pulling it over with truck than cutting it up...its an easy way around it...i duno a
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 02, 2008, 07:11:01 PM
As you know Pip I'm well aware of the OHS & other issues involved due to my paid employment :wink:
Regardless if I had guys who are qualified to operate a chainsaw & I have confidence in their abilities & the need was justified - then stuff the consequences :-D Ensure that things don't go  wrong!
Yes bulldozers/ front end loaders are great, so are big winches :wink:
As I said more than 1 way to skin a cat.
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Bagyassfirey on July 02, 2008, 07:13:16 PM
dead right chook  :lol:
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Pipster on July 02, 2008, 07:23:37 PM
Regardless if I had guys who are qualified to operate a chainsaw & I have confidence in their abilities & the need was justified - then stuff the consequences :-D Ensure that things don't go wrong!

I reckon there is a big difference between people who can use a chainsaw on a fallen tree, and using a chainsaw to drop a large tree......

The course for felling trees, I think, is around 80 hours, the safe use of chainsaws around 12 hours....

Pip
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 02, 2008, 07:47:07 PM
True Pip and maybe if I was in a metro  unit where not everyone owns a chainsaw, & dropping trees is not a common activity & contractors are easy to come by then I would tend to er on the side of caution. But when I've got people on my team who have been using chainsaws fro 20 years & still have all of their fingers & toes and I think we can do it after a discussion with those team members then Why not?
We were called to a tree job a few years ago during a fire, CFS wanted us to drop a big old River red gum that was burning near the crown. On seeing the tree & realising that it was beyond the capability of our chainsaws we asked for a contractor. He turned up son in tow, had the typical PPE the locals up here wear (thongs, shorts, bluey tanktop) fired up this massive chainsaw, we then pointed out to him he should at least have a helmet on as burning wood was falling. He thought maybe that was a good idea,doned one of our chainsaw helmets and proceeded to drop the tree!
Even I was shocked as he's casual attitude, however CFS job they did nothing to stop him.
Now since that time I have worked with a number of professional tree people both at work and during emergencies both here & NSW. At work all the safety gear do the induction, follow all of the rules. Other situations Raffeties rules, so based on the above and the job meets all of the criteria I mention previously ( including the need for urgency) then I stand by my comments.
However in 21 days it won't matter as I won't be making those decisions, so my comments are just that comments (What ever we did prior to now stays in the past :wink:  )
cheers Pip
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: bittenyakka on July 02, 2008, 08:21:31 PM
I believe recently the problem was trees being felled late in the piece (ie during a long slow mop up) and doing more damage eg squashing a fence.

But if the tree is a direct threat (in a fire i can;t see how this is the case as for the crown to be burning a whole lot of ground around the tree is probably burning to) i assume there isn't a problem but would exercise caution. (i have been part of some spectacularly well done felling operations)

But remember if we get a contractor in and something goes pear shaped it's their fault
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: bajdas on July 02, 2008, 08:35:02 PM
...But if the tree is a direct threat (in a fire i can;t see how this is the case as for the crown to be burning a whole lot of ground around the tree is probably burning to) i assume there isn't a problem but would exercise caution. (i have been part of some spectacularly well done felling operations)...

A team of SES crew have been dispatched to some of the major fires last fire season, to assist CFS in ensuring roads are kept clear from fallen or potential to fall trees. They have also inspected private properties after the fire risk has gone, to ensure no further risk.

That is the direct threat of a fire damaged tree falling onto a road, house, shed, animals, etc, etc. The crews have also tarped structures to ensure no further damage and completed land search (people, animals).

I think it would be an interesting risk assessment, if a tree is damaged by fire near the base & beside the road, thus potential to fall onto the road in anything more than a light breeze...is it tree felling if the tree is standing or is the tree leaning, thus it is just loping the weight off by removing branches ??  :roll:

PS.. I am not a currently qualified person in chainsaw work..I come from the old school of using chainsaws before formal competency courses were used.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: ltdan on July 03, 2008, 12:38:11 AM
Reading the latest ROTCOM minutes the following was indicated:

CFS is investigating in upgrading the current course to incorporate tree felling.  Same duration course.  From my understanding this is going ahead. 

The change of attitude has been caused due to the issues from the Willunga Fire this year.

The new course I understand will start next year and when operators come up for re-acc they will also be trained in this particular skill.

Also at current DEH are trained to fell trees, so if you have them on the fireground get them to do it as they do it every day anyway.

I have personnel in my brigade who can fell trees as they have RPL with CFS with this skill in their occupation but only time they use this skill is at a fire which works for me.

I have also been to incidents with CFS and SES and have had to arrange a Tree Doctor to come out and fell the tree.  As you are aware their is a great skill in this task and if you get it wrong their can be huge implications with life and property.

Remember we can't always do everything we are not superman/superwoman sometimes you have to get outside help.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: David on July 03, 2008, 07:06:47 AM

Also at current DEH are trained to fell trees, so if you have them on the fireground get them to do it as they do it every day anyway.

I have personnel in my brigade who can fell trees as they have RPL with CFS with this skill in their occupation but only time they use this skill is at a fire which works for me.


As well as DEH we also have the advantage of Forestry SA out here.

I did a arborist course as part of my studies with TAFE. The course included felling trees etc and was a 10 week course, however it was over 5 years ago and I have been informed I need to do a Re-accred with the CFS before I can use a chainsaw again. :? I currently use a chainsaw as a landscaper.
Even though I have the training for felling I have never been allowed to fell at an incident. 
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: ltdan on July 03, 2008, 11:09:31 AM



[/quote]

As well as DEH we also have the advantage of Forestry SA out here.

I did a arborist course as part of my studies with TAFE. The course included felling trees etc and was a 10 week course, however it was over 5 years ago and I have been informed I need to do a Re-accred with the CFS before I can use a chainsaw again. :? I currently use a chainsaw as a landscaper.
Even though I have the training for felling I have never been allowed to fell at an incident. 
[/quote]

Was this course nationally recognised??
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: jaff on July 03, 2008, 11:46:55 AM
Is the issue with felling trees training? or is it insurance liability? :|
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 03, 2008, 01:09:37 PM
Exactly - more arse covering! Ltdan I'm not for one moment saying we should do everything, as mentioned previously depends on the circumstances & skill of the particular crew. And there is similar risks involved with removing branches while standing on a roof (or in the bucket of a cherry picker), & many of the other tasks we do - and yet there in no moratorium on those activities.
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: ltdan on July 03, 2008, 01:33:32 PM
Chook

I am the first to admit that I have authorised a tree to be felled on the  fireground due to the possible implications which may occur in later hours and this was done by us.  But as I believe we are all in agreeance their is a time and a place.

In previous times I would probably agree like you that the liability of the task being completed was the issue within the services.  But this is changing if CFS are going to fulfill their statement with CFS Chainsaw training.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 03, 2008, 04:12:21 PM
Yep agree - SES is talking about going down the same path. But where does it all end? a course for this, a course for that. Common sense out the door, no one accepting responsibility for anything, all people are worried about is liability.
I'm not sure how many vollies we have but 90% are operational and storm damage operations are a core Standard of emergency response for all Rescue units.
It would be a large job to get that number of people onto a felling trees course (which I agree is a good idea). Then I'm not sure how many people you guys have but more than us - another huge task. Then the MFS as well, looks like some one is going to make a lot of money out of training.
Currently interstate there are the same discussions going on around tree felling in an emergency compared to commercial operations (the 80 hours). With training being a real issue within our service and many individuals electing either to leave as its all to much like a payed job (without the pay) & less people fronting up to join as there is better ways to spend their valuable spare time, why do we insist on making life hard?
One of the things we observed in Newcastle was out interstate peers seemed to be less qualified in this area than we were (i.e. storm damage) and that we were able to tackle the more difficult jobs that they (NSW & Vic) teams had left.
So while I agree that maybe the basic chainsaw course is just that, I find it hard to believe an eighty hour commercial course is justified. Considering that most people in our respective services will never use all of the skills learnt & the commercial fellers have accidents too unfortunately.
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: jaff on July 03, 2008, 04:54:38 PM
Chook I agree with what your saying about where does it end, but my 30 years of using a chainsaw and dropping trees for most of that time around home, dont equate to a nationaly accredited skills tested certificate, that I can show to the coroner and then tell him in all honesty, that I took all precautions as shown on the course, but it still went tits up.
I'm sure that a lot of regular, confident chainsaw users came away from the basic chainsaw course, having learnt something and were suprised that they had.
So as we go down this path of liability limitation, I think we might just have to understand that if it leaves the service, with anyone being put at risk without undertaking "available" training to mitigate the dangers, they leave themselves open to possible claims for damages.


Cheers Jaff
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: uniden on July 03, 2008, 06:56:24 PM
Is there anything stopping pulling it over with truck than cutting it up...its an easy way around it...i duno a

Are you serious? Fire trucks are not designed for such a task.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: bajdas on July 03, 2008, 07:05:06 PM
Is there anything stopping pulling it over with truck than cutting it up...its an easy way around it...i duno a

Are you serious? Fire trucks are not designed for such a task.

Hmmm...I have seen tree roots test a turfor winch because not all of them were cut, while trying to winch over a cutdown, tree trunk away from a house...I would bet that a truck vs tree tug-o-war scenario would see the tree win    :-)
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: David on July 03, 2008, 10:40:23 PM




As well as DEH we also have the advantage of Forestry SA out here.

I did a arborist course as part of my studies with TAFE. The course included felling trees etc and was a 10 week course, however it was over 5 years ago and I have been informed I need to do a Re-accred with the CFS before I can use a chainsaw again. :? I currently use a chainsaw as a landscaper.
Even though I have the training for felling I have never been allowed to fell at an incident. 
[/quote]

Was this course nationally recognised??
[/quote]

Yes the course is nationally recognised and done as part of my cert 3 in horticulture, and to the best of my understanding there is no time limit to it.  That also applies to the yellow ticket for elevated platform. 
I can understand us not being allowed to fell trees on a fire ground but the 5 year restriction on chainsaw use seems severe especially when I can legally use it for work, and am trained like many other to a higher standard.
Well thats my grip for today :-D
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 04, 2008, 08:27:36 AM
Jaff & others, like I have said previously - I agree with the sentiments expressed & if there are other ( and better options) I would of course use those options & if there is an available SES/CFS course that meets the skills required available then again I would have my people do it. I know why we have to have competent people (the court thing), but most of the above isn't availabe (not always anyway). Therefore what do we do?
It seems to me we are rapidly moving from a community based volunteer emergency service, to a quite different animal. There is some stuff going on in our service (& most likely CFS as well), which if it goes ahead will seriously change the services for ever.
And when you look at why we were formed & the interstate take on "resilient self sufficient communities" then stuff like this is slowly moving us away from our reason for being!
And with the current problem of attracting people to our respective services, do we really want to put further "road blocks" in their way?
I can see a time in the future where a storm (similar to Renmark) will hit one of our towns & we will be able to do very little until the various contractors arrive on scene. Because by the time one of our own people is qualified enough to go on Storm operations they would have pulled the pin (its all too hard I just wanted to help my community). 3 months basics type training (minimum), 8 weeks General Rescue course, 2 days storm course, 2 days chainsaw operators course, 80 hours Tree felling course, nail gun course and the list goes on!
As I said at the start it would be a rare occasion (& very unusual circumstances)that I would even consider felling a tree anyway - but I would like to have that option available just in case.
Anyway I think I have said far more than is wise on this subject.
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Alan J on July 11, 2008, 02:33:23 PM
It seems to me we are rapidly moving from a community based volunteer emergency service, to a quite different animal. There is some stuff going on in our service (& most likely CFS as well), which if it goes ahead will seriously change the services for ever.
And when you look at why we were formed & the interstate take on "resilient self sufficient communities" then stuff like this is slowly moving us away from our reason for being!
And with the current problem of attracting people to our respective services, do we really want to put further "road blocks" in their way?

G'day Chook

you didn't perchance attend the critical infrasructure seminar at Glenelg last week did you?  "Resilient, self-sufficient communities" was one thing that stood out like dogs testicles in the keynote speaker's spiel. (David Parsons from Sydney Water - if ever anyone is offered a chance to listen to this bloke, SEIZE IT !!!) It was reinforced by two or three lesss able speakers after him.

However, both Stuart & Euan stood up & talked about our services as centrally run organisations which have risen above their baggy-bottommed local-focus dad's army origins. They are both correct in terms of equipment and training development (I'll leave delivery alone!!). But for both services to be painted by their CO's as external bodies able to come in & assist local government, in much the same way as DOCS or FACS or other state govt departments...

We seem to have lost something important, probably at ministerial level, and we lost it a long time ago, certainly pre either current CO anyway.

That's my observations & opinion FWIW.
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Zippy on July 11, 2008, 03:17:16 PM
Quote
(I'll leave delivery alone!!).

haha ;)


Think we lost it when the CEO and a CO became a single entity?  personally wasnt in the service back then, just been doing some reading up.

I know for sure that the Word Amalgamation is one of the filtered words in the politics book.  :x

Agree with you Alan,  the number of hours required to achieve something worthwhile presently in the SES is enormous.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 11, 2008, 04:24:22 PM
No mate haven't heard this guy, but interstate that is what the governments through SES say! That was the idea of forming the state emergency services, to raise & train members of local communities to be able to combat Natural Disasters, thereby making communities resilient & self sufficient. EMA says the same thing on its website in relation to SES, remember PPRR?
But with all of this other stuff, all of a sudden this has been lost.
It is just getting harder & harder!
At some point the government needs to remind the community that at the end of the day - they are responsible for their collective safety. Maybe the introduction of the ESL sends the wrong message?
cheers
 
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Alan J on July 12, 2008, 12:54:40 AM
At some point the government needs to remind the community that at the end of the day - they are responsible for their collective safety.

Nah mate - won't happen.  No votes in it, & gives the opposition an opening to spout
garbage about incompetence & failure to look after the citizens. blah, blah, blah.

Quote
Maybe the introduction of the ESL sends the wrong message?

That was one of the risks discussed at the time. 
My take is that it would not be a problem if there was honesty in government, or more
specifically, honesty in politics.  See comment above about responsibility for community safety.

A bed-time story...
Many, many, years ago, WAD were on the verge of implosion.
About 14 members left on the books, half of whom were virtually useless, & a response area of 200,000 people. 

Decided to run Light Rescue course/s (that tells you how long ago it was!) for the
public. Advertised in the Messenger with a suitably eye-catching disasterish head-line.
Something like "Earthquake. Flood. Disaster. Would you cope?"  The thinking was that
interested people would have a look. We hoped that, if they liked it they'd stay & the
membership problem would go away. If it didn't suit, then we'd have taught some useful
stuff to some of the Great Unwashed, who would be able & willing to help themselves and
others down the track.

Made a point of isolating course participants from the less motivated members -
important to give a positive impression of the Unit to the Public !! 

Only ran one such course. Of 30+ enquirers, 24 started.
22 stayed the distance (12 weeks extended to 14 due to storm damage calls).
21 signed on with the Unit !  Our problem then was development & retention, so we never
ran another public Light Rescue course.   2 years later when I left, around 18 were
still *active* Unnit members . The other 3 had transferred to other Units in SA or
interstate.

So, my point is...
Maybe the inwards focus of recruitment problems is actually hurting us.  Maybe it can
be at least partly solved on a wider scale by adopting an outward-focussed teaching
role in our communities.  I have yet to 'sell' this to my brigade - but am working on
it. No reason at all why a brigade shouldn't offer selected 'home defense & safety' modules from BFF1 to its community. Likewise no reason a Unit shouldn't offer selected
storm damage & safety modules.  It's a BIG change in how most of us volunteers perceive
our role though.

However, once people have come in the door a few times, it's a lot more likely that
they'll keep doing so...

cheers
AJ
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 12, 2008, 09:17:54 AM
Mate that is filtered brilliant, and that was a long time ago (Light Rescue!) :-D
Maybe you are right, now we are  seen as an arm of the government, we should be doing that sought of education.
Good luck convincing your people though!
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Alan J on July 12, 2008, 08:06:59 PM
Mate that is filtered brilliant, and that was a long time ago (Light Rescue!) :-D
Maybe you are right, now we are  seen as an arm of the government, we should be doing that sought of education.
Good luck convincing your people though!
cheers


We're from the guvvermint and we're here to help....
*sigh*

Probably only needs 3 or 4 good people to make it work,
depending upon maximum class size & how many weeks it runs.
Committing an extra night a week for 10 weeks or so each 
a year is a big cruncher. Especially as those best suited
& most likely to do this are ossifers & the already committed.
Needs to have the whole unit/brigade management on-board
though, & I'm a long way off that.

Long term, I see this as our best option for serving *our*
community of increasing urban escapees. It is certainly
the most effective way I can see to "protect life & property"
on *our* patch.

Farming district brigades/units might find it utterly irrelevant.
Farmers are already generally superbly well equipped to deal
with the unexpected.

But I guess that huge difference between urban & country
units/brigades is what makes CFS & SES so very difficult to
manage.

cheers

Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 12, 2008, 08:33:00 PM
Yeah you are right mate both the storm jobs at Renmark and Pinaroo showed that rural communities can cope with mother nature if they have the resources & a few trained people to show them what to do. And sometimes we just have to drop off plastic or sand bags and they fix things themselves.
We did some community education for SES week & now we hardly get any calls :wink:
So I think its a great idea & hope you can swing it.
Its a lot better than a few specialist "super teams" coming out from the big smoke :wink: (by the way thats not a shot at the shoring teams that came up, what you did was way beyond what we could do)
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Alan J on July 12, 2008, 09:12:12 PM
Its a lot better than a few specialist "super teams" coming out from the big smoke :wink: (by the way thats not a shot at the shoring teams that came up, what you did was way beyond what we could do)
cheers

Probably should have had this discussion in the "Is it time for a re-think" thread...

re: your above comment... My gut feel is that in a resilient self-sufficient community,
the local emergency services should really only be needed for specialist skills like
shoring & change of height rescues. Storm damage & etc should just be a way for us to
keep our hand in at the hard stuff, and keep members interested.
And yes, there will always be a place for the sooper-dooper specialist teams in a
whole range of things from HazMat to USAR to IMT.
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 12, 2008, 09:55:43 PM
ha ha you are right mate :-D And I think you found part of the solution too, and chuck in a few community fire teams like Canberra &  welcome  to a safer community & to the future! And we wouldn't need such large teams as well! And I agree on the need for those super teams for special tasks.
Cheers mate!
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: 029 on July 21, 2008, 05:25:48 PM
hay guys

sorry this has probably already been said but SES can not fell a tree at all the only time it can felled is if it is a life threat and even then we are not supposed to do it. this has all come about after the last willunga fire where SES were cutting down trees including trees that didn't need to come down. SES has one person that is able by law to cut a tree down and he is from Lincoln

i found all this out at a course on the weekend   
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 21, 2008, 07:26:06 PM
Welcome aboard -yep mate know the rules, however if you read the intent in my posts I think I covered that felling a tree would only occur in very circumstances you described :wink:
And if guys were just cutting trees down because they were there then that is a management/supervision issue!
I will tell you a secret - I actually hate using chainsaws, noisy smelly things :-D
Anyway thanks for your input & I hope you enjoyed the course.
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Alan J on July 26, 2008, 03:25:40 AM
hay guys

sorry this has probably already been said but SES can not fell a tree at all the only time it can felled is if it is a life threat and even then we are not supposed to do it. this has all come about after the last willunga fire where SES were cutting down trees including trees that didn't need to come down. SES has one person that is able by law to cut a tree down and he is from Lincoln

i found all this out at a course on the weekend   

Who says they didn't need to come down ?
What exactly were their qualifications for doing so ?
If SES can't come through & cut down dangerous trees after a fire, it follows that
CFS can't either. Our emergency powers are nearly identical - you can do what you flamin' well deem necessary to make a site or situation safe for the mug-punter public.
Scorched-earth policy works for me !!  :lol:

Or did some half-wit whinge because my crew was filmed taking down a big old
half-dead tree that was dropping bulk embers into unburnt grass/scrub ?
If so, they got the wrong colour uniform.   Again.
(we left heaps of dodgy trees behind us down the eastern flank - aparently there
was a fire off to our south needed putting out. Or so I heard.)

Seems to me that someone in Bovine Faesces Castle has lost the plot.
Again.
Banning instead of training.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

And no, we're not supposed to drop trees either. Unless trained. Or it's an emergency.
The one occasion I've seen one of these "specialists" at work, I was less than
impressed with his logic. Saw handling was great - learned lots by watching &
questioning.  But he spoilt it by dropping tree #1 into his work-space for dropping
tree #2.   :roll:

cheers


Title: Re: Felling
Post by: OMGWTF on July 26, 2008, 09:13:36 AM
And no, we're not supposed to drop trees either. Unless trained. Or it's an emergency.


Were not allowed [or trained] to drop trees at all mate, doesnt matter what the circumstances are, ie after a fire or not... We are only trained to chop them up once on the ground.

The trees i saw felled at brown hill creek and willunga made me cringe... Theres certainly a lot of people [all services] seem to think they know what they are doing with a chainsaw...
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 26, 2008, 09:37:42 AM
As I said previously - we are allowed to do anything! as long as it is justified!
We are not trained to do demolition either, but if there is a threat to public safety & that is the only course of action - so be it (We did a bit last Sunday with the assistance of the local SAMFS crew).
If people don't know how to drop a tree then that is a training issue, however I don't think an 80 hour commercial course is required. It is obvious from the above posts there was a problem with this particular task & someone has got a bit nervous, so fix the problem!
If Adelaide is hit with a Newcastle type storm & there was wide spread damage this stupid rule would go out the door! As there would not be enough commercial operators to complete all the tasks in a timely manner & it would cost a fortune!
At the end of the day its a risk management issue & its quite simple to fix!
Interstate are currently developing a felling course suitable for emergency services so I guess its a case of wait & see.
I still stand by my comments eventhough I'm no longer in a position to make such a call if I were & it was justified & it was safe to do so I would still drop that tree :-D
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: OMGWTF on July 26, 2008, 10:41:37 AM
As I said previously - we are allowed to do anything! as long as it is justified!

Hmmm possibly worded my previous post poorly... how about, "not supposed to drop trees at all"

Chook, just because the act says we can do just about anything in the right circumstances, doesnt mean we know how to perform the task safely...

A tree being felled without the correct training, and possibly without the correct safety precautions and pre-thinking would be more hazardous than leaving it as is and isolating the area... full stop.

Would have thought that was obvious.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Zippy on July 26, 2008, 10:58:53 AM
Something ive heard along the grapevine, source is pretty reliable, is that SACFS Firefighters may be able to do a external course (up to each brigade if they want to do it),  to enable them to fell trees on firegrounds.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 26, 2008, 02:46:54 PM
Mate if you read all of my posts - they clearly identify felling trees is a last resort. And I know how to apply the act (our Road Traffic Act exemption allows us to ride on the out side of our appliances but I'm not going to drive around the streets with crew riding on the roof & hanging off the back! - mind you it would be a great photo op :wink: ).
However by blanket banning something just because someone may have done something wrong is just plain stupid!
If I apply that logic then there would be no inland marine rescue as there isn't any formalised training in that area!
This smells of public servants reacting to some adverse findings @ an enquiry (and we know all about that).
And felling a "candling tree" would not be part of any commercial course - in fact they wouldn't go near it! Same as working on a roof after a large branch has fallen on it - thats not taught on the chainsaw course either.
So near my town is a large wild fire & due to the wind direction there is a significant risk of embers crossing the river & getting into some inaccessible reeds near my towns facilities (water filtration plant & pumping station). The wind speed is increasing and it is highly likely there is a major threat to my town by those reeds. Do I a) drop the burning trees (which will drop into the river anyway) or b) let them keep burning and hope for the best as there isn't enough physical resources on the ground to defend the pumping station, road and other structures.
We can't rely on Elvis or it mates because they are committed to some high risk (& high profile) fires nearer to Adelaide. Local private contractors won't do the job as they are away clearing ETSA powerlines on the Yorke peninsular (due to the elevated fire risk caused by the drought. I have two competent operators who even though have not done the commercial course, have plenty of experience felling trees. These guys have a proven track record, they are confident they can do the job & everyone is happy to go with option a). But then comes along "someone" who remembers "We are banned from felling trees", so its decided to go with option b) & despite the valiant efforts of the local CFS, SAMFS & SES boat crew the two plants are lost & most of the resources are trapped on the other side of the river because the road is closed by leaking Chlorine from the filtration plant!
Proper risk management does not mean banning something, it means minimising the risks! And until a course which is suitable for emergency services (not tree harvesting) is developed & rolled out to brigades/units as a matter of urgency then this blanket ban is just well stupid!
Zippy - is that at brigade expense?
Finally this is one of the reasons people don't want join the volunteer emergency services - too much bullshit!
I stand by my original comment - if the situation required to drop a tree & there was no other option, then consider it dropped! ( even if it was by "private citizen" who just happen to be around  :wink: )
cheers - I think I have said more than enough!
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: OMGWTF on July 26, 2008, 09:46:28 PM
Jesus mate... im not going anywhere near Berri this season...  :wink:


I understand your point, but in my opinion my statement and logic is still sound... Its all fun and games until someone drops a tree on your head.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 26, 2008, 10:35:53 PM
Nah its not bad :-D & thats not why I'm leaving either :wink:
Yep fraid I will have to agree to disagree but an excellent debate by all.
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: 029 on July 27, 2008, 01:41:26 PM
SES are looking at puting a stike team of fellers together to fell trees at this point intime no emergency service is able to fell a tree how ever there is always room to bend the rules

inregards to a prior post a question was asked "who siad they didnt need to come down" the trees im talking about are in the middle of a paddock its burnt for miles around and they are just surface burnt not right through no risk of candle sticking and when you see the pics of them on the ground they are still solid.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: SA Firey on July 27, 2008, 01:55:56 PM
SES are looking at puting a stike team of fellers together to fell trees at this point intime no emergency service is able to fell a tree how ever there is always room to bend the rules(Quote)

That information is incorrect there are 9 personnel qualified to fell trees in the state, and our first point of contact is DEH.

Luckily we have a qualified "feller" as a member :wink:
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: 029 on July 27, 2008, 01:58:41 PM
which service is providing 9 personel??????
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Zippy on July 27, 2008, 02:08:22 PM
Department for Environment and Heritage.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Alan J on July 27, 2008, 03:28:11 PM
inregards to a prior post a question was asked "who siad they didnt need to come down" the trees im talking about are in the middle of a paddock its burnt for miles around and they are just surface burnt not right through no risk of candle sticking and when you see the pics of them on the ground they are still solid.

Thankyou for that. What was their condition when the felling crews came to them ?
Were they still burning higher up ?  We saw a lot of crowns & higher branches burning
from embers dropping into them at Willunga. Despite the minimal risk location, there
must have been something about them that the crew leader thought a problem. Rightly
or wrongly.

It still doesn't change the stupidity of a blanket ban on an essential part of
restoring normality after fire or storm. Or even of direct fire-fighting.

To the person who suggested isolating the burning tree/s...
Would have been nice  to have done so. However the trees we dropped were standing
on the unburnt side of the road, and were spotting 30-50M further into the scrub.
Two crews could barely keep up with the spotting, & running out of water fast. We
were about to lose that flank. As the head fire was still uncontained & running,
I decided to drop them immediately so we could secure that flank & move on.

I both did, and taught the EMA chainsaw course, which includes (or included) basic
felling. It was a bit disappointing to discover that the course offered to CFS & SES
now presumes all trees are already down. In my view, it is another example of desk
warriors adjusting reality to suit their fears & budget/s.  :x

cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: ltdan on July 27, 2008, 04:38:06 PM
Enough is enough!!

I attended a meeting last week discussing this issue with answers for the CFS.  Questions were raised at this committee relating to tree felling.  The question went back to CFS corporate (OH&S) with some questions relating to tree felling the questions and our responsibilities as a fire service.

Q:  Does CFS or SES at this current time qualified to fell trees.
A:  Currently CFS or SES are not qualified to fell trees.

Q:  If a member of the CFS has the qualification to fell trees with their work   are they able to fell trees.
A:  Yes if they have the formal & recognised qualification through their work CFS will accept this competency and will be able to undertake tree felling operations if required.

Q:  Are CFS personnel allowed to remove branches from trees to gain access via access roads to a fire.
A:  Yes, personnel are allowed to remove branches from trees etc using the "crosscutting" method which is taught on the "Operate Chainsaw" course via LITA.

Q:  Are DEH personnel able to cut trees on the fire-ground.
A:  Yes, if they have the correct qualification.

Q:  Will CFS introduce the "Tree Felling" course to CFS.
A:  No

I hope these answers help.  I look at it like this.  It clearly indicates in the SOP's for CFS not to fell trees.  But it also indicates that if hazard is required to be removed or a potential risk can be reduced.  Risk management techniques may be used to make a decision by the Incident Controller.

I will admit I have felled trees before after been given the directive to by a Sector Commander and I have also given the decision and directive  fell trees to other CFS personnel also.

But these decisions were only given due to risk management.  Why do we need to do it?  What are the potential risks if we leave the risk?  Do we have any alternative solution, with the time of the risk to occur?

I have been to plenty of large fires in my time where I have seen felling of trees for no apparent reason.  Why fell a tree in a middle of a burnt paddock, where is it going to go etc.  Especially when all you can see is black dirt around you.

From this meeting it is now apparent that CFS IMT now are aware of the problems and will ensure that Tree felling capabilities are established from the immediate start of the fire.  Therefore, you might see DEH personnel being called in to a fire to be on standby to perform these duties.

I have 2 members in my brigade with the Tree felling qualification, and I will now make sure their qualification is now recognised by the CFS, in case we need to use their specific skills.


I can not give you the answer of SES view but I can at least give you the insight of CFS.  I would see in the very near future to see something written about this.  Please don't perform actions now as you have read it on SA Firefighter, that would be silly.  Wait till you see something in writing for the agency.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: RescueHazmat on July 27, 2008, 05:53:29 PM
Watch out. Next they will have an SES member felling a tree on Mcleods..





Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 27, 2008, 06:22:01 PM
Call us we will BE in it no worries :-D Might have to convert the fast response back into a ute & fit a couple of big HF antennas roll bar in the back & some big spotys - just to fit the cowboy image :wink:
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: bajdas on July 27, 2008, 10:42:21 PM
Call us we will BE in it no worries :-D Might have to convert the fast response back into a ute & fit a couple of big HF antennas roll bar in the back & some big spotys - just to fit the cowboy image :wink:

Maybe in NSW, but no budget at Berri for spot lights & antenna     :lol: :-D :lol:
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on July 28, 2008, 07:11:20 AM
Nah Andrew the budget is all fixed :-D We just cost it all out to essential OHS items! Mind you we would also need to get the chainsaw we were promised last grant year, & I forgot the blue singlets & thongs (the foot kind).
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Alan J on August 09, 2008, 08:11:56 PM
Enough is enough!!

I attended a meeting last week discussing this issue with answers for the CFS.  Questions were raised at this committee relating to tree felling.  The question went back to CFS corporate (OH&S) with some questions relating to tree felling the questions and our responsibilities as a fire service.

<big snip>

I hope these answers help.  I look at it like this.  It clearly indicates in the SOP's for CFS not to fell trees.  But it also indicates that if hazard is required to be removed or a potential risk can be reduced.  Risk management techniques may be used to make a decision by the Incident Controller.


Thankyou Lt.Dan
I will state now that I think it is Not good enough.  Two reasons....

Decision Ownership and Timeliness.

Incident Controller is already swamped with high-level damands & decisions.
Moving tree-dropping decision is forcing bureaucrat micro-management into a situation
where those decisions need to be taken at a much lower management layer - STL or sector
commander. Pushing it up to an already swamped IC is plain stupid in my view.
A CYA decision by paid staff which has no place on a fire-ground.

The decision to bring qualified DEH people to fires early is a good one, but I have $10
on the table that calling them early enough to be useful won't happen because it costs
money.  All very well & good to bring them in for mop-up when things are settled down &
everyone can take a breather & look at what needs doing.  Whole 'nuther story in the
first hour or two when actions need to be "NOW", in real time, not public service
office CYA time.

cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: OMGWTF on August 09, 2008, 08:37:42 PM
lol, worried about DEH not being there early??

we all know they sit around waiting for calls all day, turn themselves out to jobs miles from parks and then over resource it... aaahhh.... good times.
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Zippy on August 09, 2008, 08:44:56 PM
DEH are effectively the Paid CFS after all....but yeh i agree with OMGWTF, seeing them at some jobs is just weird...
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: ltdan on August 10, 2008, 10:00:59 PM
Alan

I can see the same process like asking to light up a backburn.

Divcom to IC request to fell tree.
IC to Divcom standby
Divcom to SC standby
SC to STL standby
STL to appliance IC standby
Appliance IC to STL etc - too late done the job, can't wait for you guys to make a decision.

 :-D 8-) :roll:
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on August 10, 2008, 10:08:53 PM
sounds the same for a tree job I did last year in Newcastle " tree unsafe need to drop it, wait for the cherry picker & crane, what was that? I say again wait for heavy equipment (long pause) base can you cancel the heavy equipment , job done, returning to base, out"
It's still a crock of filtered in my opinion!
But not my problem!
cheers
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: bittenyakka on August 10, 2008, 10:58:49 PM
Around here DEH are rolling on the initial call. if they haven't started it :-D :-D
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: jaff on October 21, 2008, 07:50:02 PM
So with the fire season less than a month off, has there been a definitive answer as to "tree felling protocols", or is it standard emergency service SOP 1.1 NFI.!!
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Alan J on October 21, 2008, 08:17:25 PM
Just saw the SAFECOM OH&S newsletter last night which dealt with this.
In a blinding flurry of activity, the pen pushers have thought of 7 or
13 dot-points which will be thunk through into a protocol or SOP.

The photos of the trees downed in the middle of the paddocks showed, as
someone stated earlier, that the techniques used were at best, woeful
and dangerous.

There was also a photo of our little lopping job extracted from some
poor quality ABC footage and given an almost completely false set of
captions & statements.  In fact the only two correct fact were that
it was CFS people, and the cut was being made >2M above ground (almost
2.5M if I recall correctly...)

Firstly the ladder was secured AND footed throughout.

Secondly dynamic risk assessment HAD been done, by two experienced
current officers and a former captian.

Thirdly the lopping was occurring on the opposite side of the tree
to protect the operator and the ladder. Damned inconvenient for the
operator, who had to reach through the top of a chimney that we
couldn't extinguish to make the cut. (Cut a bit, cool it a bit, cut
more, chase spot fire started from the chimney, cool it more, cut
more, chase another spot fire, etc.)

Finally, whoever wrote them blatantly lied when they stated that the
incident had been investigated.   At no time has anyone in my brigade
been asked about the job, and to the best of my knowledge, no-one else
who was present has been asked either. This despite the brigade's &
person's names being in the public domain (here) since July.

My opinion is that when decisions are being made on our operating
processes using that degree of utter slackness and contempt for we
volunteers in the field, those making them deserve at best, our
suspicion, if not our contempt.

Now, let's see who actually is reading this forum.

Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Zippy on October 21, 2008, 08:23:16 PM
sorry, i skim-readed...maybe tommorow :P
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: bittenyakka on October 21, 2008, 08:28:23 PM
nice post Al
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: OMGWTF on October 21, 2008, 08:53:57 PM
Alan, which job was this mate?
Title: Re: Felling
Post by: Alan J on October 21, 2008, 09:53:07 PM
Willunga fire, eastern flank, Bishop Rd, about 200M SW of Range Rd, & approx
90-120 minutes after ignition.

Google maps has satelite and street views - search on "bishop rd willunga sa".

Bishop Rd was the control line. Tree was on wrong side of road & spotting futher
into scrub with gusty NW swinging SW. Most other appliances were chasing the head
closer to Meadows Rd at that stage. We were fast running out of water & puff
chasing the spots it was throwing in 90 deg arc down wind up to 50M.  Came -very-
close to losing it into the scrub.

Initially left most of the tree standing - just lopped the burning branches &
opened the first fork enough to get water into its hollow trunk. Unable to
extinguish it so brought that down too.

I noted with interest that in another writing I saw (not sure if CFS or here) that
CFS will consider RPL of felling qualifications gained as part of ones job. 
Therefore any non-employment qualifications are considered null & void, even if
earnt via an ES/FS interstate ?  If so, that is a highly conditional interpretation
of RPL...  Hope the wording was wrong, or that it is not actual CFS policy..


Title: Re: Felling
Post by: chook on October 22, 2008, 06:26:56 AM
Nice post Al totally agree with your closing statement oon the previous post!
cheers