SA Firefighter

4-02-11 11:46:49 BDBY INFO: Training tonight - leaving station at 1930 hours - Using hoses on slopes plus Burnover drill - BTO Malcolm 14/2/2011

Such blatant racism. I'm amazed that this is allowed in this day and age. Not to mention the the CFS is not meant to partake in Civil disturbance suppression activities...


14-02-11 19:20:44 HAS ALL BRIGADES GOT THE LOGISTCIS READY. INFO READY BEFORE NEXT THURSDAY'S GROUP MEETING. SIGN PAUL

I don't know where to start. I feel like we should start sending out dictionaries and grammar workbooks out to the staff on the GRN paging desk.

Oh my...

Quote from: 6739264 on January 06, 2011, 08:58:43 PM

Go read up. Missing more than 3 training sessions in a row, without written explaination is pretty much grounds to be turfed.

It's all there in the Regs, its nothing new.

Actually, I think you'll find the Regs talk about brigade meetings, not training nights...

Very good, and very correct. Specifies 'Monthly Meetings'

Sorry, I get slow of an evening sometimes

Before this gets out of hand with misinformation as per usual, it has NOTHING to do with SFEC's. If you read the SA Fire and Emergency Services Regulation 2005, you'll find:

SECTION 9 — Brigade officers

(1) Pursuant to section 70 of the Act, each SACFS brigade will have the following officers:

(a) a brigade captain;

(b) unless the Chief Officer otherwise determines—at least 2, but not more than 4, lieutenants (with the order of seniority of the lieutenants being decided in a manner determined by the brigade);

(c) with the approval of the Chief Officer—1 or more senior fire-fighters (with the number of senior fire-fighters not exceeding the number of lieutenants and the order of seniority of the senior fire-fighters being decided in a manner determined by the brigade).

Thus, without the express permission of the Chief, no Brigade should have more than 4 Lt's. Some groups are far firmer with this than others. Reg's trump SFEC.

Stirling has 5 also.

Are you 110% sure about that? It's not the 80's anymore, and Mt. Lofty Group did have to deal with this specific issue in recent years.

Both the "CFS Volunteer Position Descriptions" and "Membership Issues Discussion Paper" are available to view and comment upon via the Members only section of the CFS website, under "Volunteer Strategy and Support"

What do people think of the issues raised?

I think it's great to see some of the issues (and solutions) raised at Brigade level are actually making it into documents such as these for discussion. Weather anything will come of them is another thing altogether.

Interesting to note this:

Must have successfully completed appropriate courses of training approved by the Chief Officer

In the position description for Brigade Captain.

Why are we continuing to argue that we should only use K-Codes upon entering SAMFS area? We don't live in the good old days of two comcens, we only talk to Adelaide Fire operators (usually). Does it not follow, that if this is the case, and as some allege, poor Adelaide Fire can't handle comms without K-Codes, that we should be using them regardless of response area?

We talk to the same people, so why does an imaginary line on the road matter?

At the end of the day, I would just be happy to get a decent arrival message and informative SITREP in plain english from CFS Brigades. Until people can do that, there is no way in hell the should be allowed to use coded shortcuts.

sorry my mistake i ment informative after arrival. there are only bugger all codes that the cfs would use anyway. if you dont use them whilst in mfs area you just make it harder for the coms opperator. but it needs to be wide spread you cant have some brigades using them and others not.

Are you sure about that? After all we just had a comms operator on these forums, in this very thread specifically say:

But from my point of view [sitting behind a centracom in Adelaide Fire], i would rather CFS and SES [yes they do it on occasion on B001] did not use K-codes as simply put too many don't actually know them well enough and get them wrong on occasion.

Besides, its in the CFS SOPs.

So, vandog, how exactly does it make it harder for comms operators? Your own inability to use K-Codes highlights this more than any academic argument possibly could. If you can't get it right in written form on the internet, how sure can you be that you'll get it right, under pressure on the fireground?

[EDIT: Edited for clarity!]

Dont patronise me, im not trying to be arrogant. My CFS station finds itself positioned completely in the urban area so we too see a wide ragne of jobs, but how any k codes do you actually use? we mainly use k 1-5 and k 55-99? so you cant sit there and tell me you use all of the k codes (k 40 for example) As jaff stated they are a universally recognised form of communication and when you are on the way to an incident that the mfs arrive to first, it is always helpful knowing what is happening before you actually arrive at the incident.

I getting the idea that many dont like the codes, but there really isnt that many to get your head around, and im upset that some view them as not appropriate for the cfs, but i believe we should try and be as professional as possible and learning k codes is no different to learning how to operate the radio itself

If you honestly think that "only a handful" of K-codes a relevent to what the CFS does, you've certainly got a very skewed view of the role the CFS plays in emergency management in SA. I find it surprising considering you're from a wholly Urban brigade (Didn't know the CFS had any of those, but sure...)

Lets take your K-40 example... Of course you're not going to use it... Until you are called to a Bomb Threat. You're not going to use K-1 unless you get turned out!

I think you missed the point of Jaff's post. K-Codes are NOT a universally recognised form of communication. Infact, they're not even recognised nationwide or statewide! It's only SAMFS that use them. Everyone can understand plain english and no cheat sheet is required!

If you want to be as professional as possible, stop running your own race, read your SOP's and adhere to them. It's not hard. They're there for a reason.

sorry but the guys ragging on TTG using the k codes....really? i fail to see how this affects you in any way at all? as long as they are used accurately it shouldnt be your problem.

As above, you're not a red truck, you have your own set of rules. Follow them.

It affects me, because if I turn out with a bunch of SAMFS wannabes running their own race, they in turn make it hard for me and my crew to understand what is going on, merely because we don't crack a fat at the first sign of "Sekret Fireman Kodes".

Are you going to start memorising the 700 codes? As well as situation found, action taken, location of detectors and all the other stuff SAMFS love to pass via R/T?

If CFS back the use of K-Codes, then by all means we can embrace them. But is it really that hard to keep it to plain english? As has been said time and time again above, plain english makes things far easier to understand and often times ends up being far quicker than looking at cheat sheets.

A question that may merit some interesting discussion...

What further information should be included on a response page / MCT Message? Are there things that SHOULDN'T be included?

Personally I see a large amount of superfluous information such as "Call from SAPol" "SAPol and SAAS En route" "Clean up only" "U/K Entrapments" Does it really bring anything to the message?

Do we need to know what agency received the call? If we need further info, does this request not go through Adelaide Fire anyhow?

Do we need to know that the other emergency services are also responding? (Isn't this assumed? Any deficiencies should be covered in your Arrival Message and SITREP anyhow)

As per [A document I now can't find], we are meant to be canning "Clean up only" for a multitude of reasons... eg:

22-01-11 13:29:52 MFS: *CFSRES INC036 22/01/11 13:29,RESPOND Vehicle Accident,HINDMARSH TIERS RD,HINDMARSH TIERS MAP 0 0 0 TG148,NEAR THE TENNIS COURTS, CLEAN UP, 2 CARS,STH029 HIND00

22-01-11 13:39:11 MFS: FROM MFS INCIDENT 036, 1 ENTRAPMENT FROM SAPOL

Additionally, why provide information that may restrict crew turnouts? We all know people pick and choose their calls.

Why state that there are Unknown entrapments? If something is not confirmed, why waste space in the page with it?

As I write this, the classic example has come up:

22-01-11 13:58:18 MFS:1: *CFSRES INC039 22/01/11 13:57,RESPOND RCR,STH BOUND B4 TH ANGLE VALE EXT ANGLE VALE RD,ANGLE VALE MAP 31 B 13 TG102,IS THE NORTHERN EXPRESSWAY, BEFORE THE A,NGLE VALE TURN OFF. U/K ENTRAP. FROM AMB,OS. CITY

22-01-11 13:58:20 MFS:e: BOUND.,DALK19 VIRG19 -oo-

If that's not a shitfight of information, I don't know what is. Also note that the page is now split over two pages, thus preventing the response tone from activating for longer that 2 seconds.

Is it that hard to keep response page information clear and concise? A location + X Street + landmarks + Confirmed entrapments/persons reported should be enough. If you're unsure of entrapments, then it should be an RCR response, if just cleanup, then Vehicle Accident. Oh to be back in the days of MVA Spillage's.

We're not meant to be interrogating that pager... it's simply alerting us to a need for our appliances at a given location.

Quote from: 6739264 on January 21, 2011, 05:09:24 PM

Quote from: Mic10110 on January 21, 2011, 01:01:09 PM

also (via online scanning) heard TTG CFS using K-codes for the rekindle

*sigh*

Having trouble finding a care gland?

I've got one... its just always empty!

wow....hope they are USAR, Compartment, Hazmat, RCR and Swiftwater qualified, wouldnt want them getting in the way

God forbid you try to ensure you send trained crew up as part of an Agency's response.

There is nothing stopping anyone signing up at http://www.emergencyvolunteering.com.au/ and going up of their own accord.

USAR...lolol....in fact rofpmsl. How did we ever exist without USAR

As for the untrained, well...I'm assuming there are still trucks on the run in all those towns, still attending non flood jobs, the RCRs, the Alarm calls, the fires, the cat rescues, still doing the usual hash and trash stuff....ahh but of course, one needs to be a tunnel rat to walk into an underground carpark, I forgot.

Isn't it pretty basic thinking that people trained to mitigate a given hazard are the ones that should deal with it? No point sending a bunch of BF1 trained vollo's North to do anything much more than fill sandbags. As Pumprescue has said, it's not like the CFS can spare many people anyway without impacting our own day to day responses.

so if there is always this great skills shortage then why won't CFS train us.......

Skills shortage in terms of USAR? The CFS still treat the use of basic firefighting respiratory protection a "Specialisation", how do you expect them to train people in a real specialisation?

what happened? just curious about details as that would be in my cfs area...

The RV point was in CSAFS area... but as already mentioned, the incident was in SAMFS area.

At the RV, I'd imagine 221 Staged, and liased with SAPol Fwd. Command? (Very Exciting)