Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - 6739264

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 70
26
ALL Rescue / Re: Results from Australasian & World RCR competitions
« on: July 25, 2011, 07:29:22 PM »
dont forget the refresher after 5 years of not doing a job Numbers ;)

Ah yes, the single day "****around"

Mods: filtering

27
ALL Rescue / Re: Results from Australasian & World RCR competitions
« on: July 25, 2011, 03:58:25 PM »
I have never laughed so hard in my life numbers.... :lol:

Why ???
Is the issue equipment or the new training techniques ?

A Cutter, a Spreader, a Ram, a couple of hoses and Pump, along with being taught some basic rescue techniques over a couple of days does not make a service (CFS) "on par" with the rest of the world.

28
ALL Rescue / Re: Results from Australasian & World RCR competitions
« on: July 23, 2011, 12:19:53 PM »
apparantly enough money for several RATOs to go along and live it up however  :lol:

And to then come back believing that SA is on par with the rest of the world technique wise... Wow!

29
SAAS / Re: On a roll
« on: June 09, 2011, 09:53:27 PM »
In the words of Blackboard:

"Upside Down! Upside Down!"

30
Hypotheticals / Re: SOP for a 3rd alarm Commercial Fire in Renmark
« on: June 01, 2011, 09:27:57 PM »
let the kid do his project, leave the bullshit out of it, anyone got any usefull info for him?

Well I did try.

Perhaps draw some comparisons between the metro response of individual appliances being turned out, as opposed to regional MFS and CFS responses being Brigade based, with trucks crewed as appropriate, given number of persons available and individual discretion?

31
Hypotheticals / Re: SOP for a 3rd alarm Commercial Fire in Renmark
« on: June 01, 2011, 06:01:51 PM »
Spoken like a true amateur.

Wasn't it just!

Never claimed to be anything more ;)

32
Hypotheticals / Re: SOP for a 3rd alarm Commercial Fire in Renmark
« on: June 01, 2011, 04:23:58 PM »
Where the SAMFS is the 'Control Agency', the IC will initiate an IAP based upon numerous factors, but always within the SOPs.

And you've given yourself away.

We operate in a grey realm, not black and white. Stick to your SOP's like glue and you'll soon come unstuck.

33
Hypotheticals / Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« on: June 01, 2011, 04:22:13 PM »
People state that enough tools exist on a fire truck to equip a RIT team. I am not part of a fire service so would be interested in what specific tools you would lay out on a tarp for quick access ?

Halligans, Axe, Sledge Hammer, Spare CABA, Ceiling Hooks, Hydraulic Door Opener, QuickCut Saw as a start. This will all fit into a Stokes Litter as a start. The RIT should have at least one Thermal Imaging Camera and both small access and large extension ladders.

Believe it or not, this is all available to the CFS, as we speak. In some areas this possible with either regional of SAMFS assistance.

...so would be interested in what specific tools you would lay out on a tarp for quick access ?

I would be thinking of the "Holligan Tool, Axe, and Sledge Hammer, for a start if it was just a case of making an forced entry or egress. Like what has alresdy been posted, a good set of wire cutters would be handy for removal of wires etc. I suppose it all depends on what "what if's" you could potentially be faced with. Worse case you could require Hydraulic tools, air lifting bags, shoring blocks. Then if there is a height access issue (fall through floor) ladders may well also be needed.

All this RIT work takes time, what is the recommended (read SOP) response for maintaining an air supply to a trapped fire fighter whose cylinder has become depleted?

Pretty much spot on, although your heavy hydraulic tools/airbags etc, are generally only going to be able to be used one the area around the trapped firefighter is made same from fire. If you need that gear, then you're looking at a very protracted rescue, if not body recovery.

Maintaining an air supply to a downed CFS firefighter is very difficult given that the Sabre Centurion airsets currently issued do not have the ability to buddy breath in a standard configuration. Best method I can think of is to haul a spare airset in and swap demand valves over at the facemask. This should leave the facemask/helmet/hood intact.

34
Hypotheticals / Re: SOP for a 3rd alarm Commercial Fire in Renmark
« on: June 01, 2011, 09:07:29 AM »
Perhaps draw some comparisons between the metro response of individual appliances being turned out, as opposed to regional MFS and CFS responses being Brigade based, with trucks crewed as appropriate, given number of persons available and individual discretion?

35
Hypotheticals / Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« on: June 01, 2011, 09:04:52 AM »
The entanglement I experienced was in a house where the roof stayed intact, just the covering over the ductwork melted and like a slinky the wires fell through the vents.

Exactly. I'd happily assume that the building was structurally intact, even though you experienced some debris falling onto you. Certainly not a case of "...along time before the ceiling collapsed and the A/C ducts fell down, it would be pretty obvious that it would be unsafe. [sic]"

36
Hypotheticals / Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« on: June 01, 2011, 12:06:42 AM »
Quote
I think it is a fair question to ask a question and get a proper answer. Rather than take a dig at eh CFS for not having much of a RIT plan how about suggesting what brigades can do with what is currently available to them.

Unfortunately for multiple reasons we haven’t considered RIT a high priority to allocate resources to implement. Rightly or wrongly this is the fact and what Ideas can you offer other Fire-fighters to improve the status qou

Not having much of a RIT plan? If you have crews committed to a larger fire such as numbers hypothetical incident, Why is it so hard to have a crew as a designated RIT team? I have already described what they do. There is nothing magical about a RIT team. All the equipment needed is on the fire ground. This should all be part of the IC's IAP.

As has been said, and flyonthewall is basically spot on, RIT isn't hard. All of your tools are on the trucks, it's merely a matter of assigning a crew, or more if required, to RIT duties, and then as part of the RIT start to formulate plans based on your size up.

Quote
When is the RIT set up?  Is this only for commercial fires, or all fires where crews are inside a structure?  If you have a relatively small domestic fire where you only have 2 operators committed, would the standby crew outside have tools ready in case something goes wrong? (or would you have a 4 member RIT at the ready?

At a domestic fire, the backup BA crew could be used as a RIT team (only on a smaller scale) I'm sure that if something happened at a domestic fire, it would be on a much smaller scale than at a commercial premises. This is all at the discretion of the IC of course and once again, it should be part of the IAP.

I tend to stick to the rule of thumb that at 2nd Alarm and greater you should be thinking about turning out a pump specifically for RIT duties. Again, its no hard and fast rule (unless its in you ARP Schedule) but the IC needs to be thinking about it.

Quote
I wouldn't be in there in the first place..........

ahhh well...I hear the Salvos are always looking for volunteers for the lunch wagon, so you can still feel involved

I don't know how much of or if you get any structure fire training but along time before the ceiling collapsed and the A/C ducts fell down, it would be pretty obvious that it would be unsafe.

If you happened to be in there when it happened then someone was a bit too keen to be a hero.

A safety officer is designated at K99 incidents ASAP (A K99 is an automatic upgrade or higher if requested - so there will be enough resources to have a crew for a RIT Team if required - once again, at the discretion of the IC

What is so hard...........

The bigger the job, the greater the safety risk. If you guys can't get trucks or crews to turn up at incidents, then there is the start of your problems.........

Frankly, I don't tend to agree. The ceiling and other assorted furnishing can start to fall down WELL before a building is unsafe and is threatening to collapse. If you honestly think that furnishings, ceiling tiles, suspended ceilings and other bits and pieces of the interior of a building falling down are hard and fast signs that you're "too keen to be a hero" and shouldn't be in there, then I guess you're going to be a great builder of carparks.

But then again, what is the building that you're in made of? Is it brick and tile or of lightweight construction? Did the ceiling fall in because the steel frame its hung off has expanded? Does the CFS get taught building construction? Of course not.

Lightweight building materials, adhesives, attachment devices and fixture mountings can all be effected by heat in a negative fashion and they then tend to fail. Odd that.

It comes down to reading the structure that you're operating in and understanding how the fire effects the building's construction. There are a handful signs of structural collapse, but they need to be weighed up against the building you're actually in.

37
Hypotheticals / Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« on: May 29, 2011, 03:48:30 PM »
Can I ask how many of you have been into a serious structure fire?

I know this is going be taken the wrong way but it's a genuine question.


It's also a very valid question.

It'll be interesting to see the varying definitions of "serious". Is a room and contents "serious"? Or is going in for a marginal S&R run "serious"?

And to answer the question, oddly enough, yes.

38
Fire Stations and SES Units / Re: SAMFS Renmark Fire Station
« on: May 29, 2011, 12:42:29 PM »
Is this the rumour thread?

Oh yeah, I hear 20 stn is going retained to save money....

39
Hypotheticals / Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« on: May 29, 2011, 09:46:07 AM »
Quote
For example, say you have a Fire Service that has a house collapse, causing some deaths and injuries. It comes out in investigations that having a "Safety Officer" would have prevented the deaths/injuries by observing the signs of collapse. Now, should our Fire Service (that doesn't use a "Safety Officer") wait until it too suffers deaths and injuries too investigate and then learn that using a "Safety Officer" could have prevented them? Or should our Fire Service implement a Safety Officer based on what has occurred and been previously learn by the other Fire Service?


The MFS would have a safety officer at this particular incident, so I'm not sure about the CFS?

You've totally misunderstood my point. I'm not talking about any services in particular, merely trying to ask why is it that we can't learn from the mistakes made and lessons learnt by other services in the world, rather than wait for the same set of circumstances to occur in our own service. At the end of the day we all do a similar job, are exposed to similar risks, and one would think that we could mitigate these risks in a similar manner. It was an example. You could substitute "Coffe Truck" for "Safety Officer".

It also goes without saying, if you read CFS Operational Management literature, that the CFS should have a safety officer at incidents, although as we all have experienced, how often does this actually happen?

Quote
Certainly no fishing trip, I was looking forward to the discussion, but sadly it seems as though its turned into a SAMFS vs SACFS cock measuring contest.

No one turned this into an MFS vs CFS cock measuring contest.

Are you sure about that? I'm getting a very hostile CFS vs. MFS feeling from certain people.

Quote
If this was in MFS area, then there are problems using the CFS due to the equipment compatability with MFS equipment and Vice Versa.

Can you tell me if the CFS log onto their airsets?
Would their DSU work and show up on the tablet that was being used at this incident as a personal activation?
If an entry control board was in use (which I'm presuming it would be), do the CFS set tallies fit into an MFS enrty control board?
Or would an MFS tally fit into a CFS board?

I'm slightly confused here, as you've quoted yourself and then argued against a point that was never made, but anyhow:

(Obviously you well know the answers)

You essentially "log in" to a CFS airset when you fill out a tally tag. No, its not a telemetry system as MFS run, but assuming you have a  switched on ECO/BACO it works.

Of course CFS DSU's work, but you well know that they won't show up on the tablet that is monitoring a system that they aren't part of. That's like asking will an Incident Report that you hand write show up on CRIIMSON if you wave it in front of a PC monitor. Of course not.

In a perfect world we would all use one system, but in the meantime, doesn't the system still work using different tally boards? Can't one ECO/BACO monitor multiple boards? It's a basic skill, but the issue should be rectified.

This is perfect example of where CFS can implement a procedure without having to endure a costly lesson. We know that BA tally's don't fit MFS to CFS or even between CFS Brigades in certain groups. Why not work to resolve this before something happens, like we lose a tally, that person gets lost and is thus missed in an accountability check?


Sure, you can pull out your leatherman and try to cut yourself free but there is a procedure that should be followed which would be part of my escape plan.

This is not a CFS vs MFS post. You have asked what would the firefighter do. If an MFS firefighter was stuck, I would hope that they would do the same as a CFS firefighter. All that I have said is that I would instigate a 'Mayday" and take it from there, once again, this is what I would do.

I wasn't suggesting that you were getting into a CFS vs. MFS post, although small parts of it do read that way. Can't we discuss different methods, including RIT here? Actually having people share personal experiences and what their agency manages to do? God forbid we might all learn something here, both the "professionals" and the "amateurs".

Of you original post, the only part I disagreed with was your assertion that we should not compare ourselves to what occurs in the USA, and we cannot learn anything from their mistakes and the changes to firefighting equipment/policy and procedures that some parts of the USA has implemented. Totally agree with your suggestion of entrapment procedure, etc. Although I'd say that given you follow you agencies SOP for entrapment procedure, there is no reason you can't attempt to effect self rescue, rather than lay like a limp fish in what may end up being an easily escapable entanglement.

Quote
Could you enlighten us as to these "RIT Methods" you speak of?

As per a RIT team, a crew (of 4)is put aside and designated as a RIT team that is only used for an emergency rescue with a complete set of rescue resources eg. stretcher, tools, cutting gear and anything that may be needed to effect a rescue. This team is not used for any firefighting.

I was asking the ever so enlightened name dropper unfknblvable to help us through these MFS RIT methods, but thanks for jumping in. It seems a pretty standard RIT setup, although I'm assuming the RIT officer is completing their own RIT specific size-up and appropriate staging etc etc?

Wind me up and watch me go!

40
Hypotheticals / Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« on: May 28, 2011, 03:38:49 PM »
Or you could read SAMFS SOP 14 Rapid Intervention Team, been in vogue for a couple of years.
Oh sorry forgot the yellow gang cant do what the Mets do!!! LOL

Yep, it's tough that services don't want to share information, nor do they actively seek out what other services, both in SA and elsewhere in the country, are doing.

There are some reasonable points made here but...........

Do not compare the Australian fire services to the US services.

The US do things COMPLETELY different to us. They go into structures that are carparks when they arrive.


Totally correct. Houses of ordinary burn differently, tilt slabs collapse differently, and firefighters get stuck differently. Are you sure about that?

Also to compare the "US" is rather difficult. Which departments are you referring to? Its like calling all Australian services the same. We certainly know that they're not.

The US, typically, are far more aggressive in their firefighting style, sure, and this does lend itself to some practices that are unsafe and do lead to line of duty deaths. But shouldn't we look to departments that are trying to mitigate the risks that their members are exposed to for ideas on how to mitigate these same risks here?

For example, say you have a Fire Service that has a house collapse, causing some deaths and injuries. It comes out in investigations that having a "Safety Officer" would have prevented the deaths/injuries by observing the signs of collapse. Now, should our Fire Service (that doesn't use a "Safety Officer") wait until it too suffers deaths and injuries too investigate and then learn that using a "Safety Officer" could have prevented them? Or should our Fire Service implement a Safety Officer based on what has occurred and been previously learn by the other Fire Service?

Why do we all insist on learning our own lessons, paying the price in deaths and injuries?

To say that we CANNOT compare, nor learn anything from the US phenomenal, given that they are lightyears ahead of us in terms of PPE and RIT. Let's not ignore them just because they have some different procedures to the Aus/European way of doing things.

I know what you are getting at numbers.

But, If you have had no training, then you should not be there in the fist place. If you do not know what the 'Mayday' procedure is ,then again, you should not be there.

If this was in MFS area, then there are problems using the CFS due to the equipment compatibility with MFS equipment and Vice Versa.

I hope this has satisfied your fishing trip! The worms will come out of the can and dance to the sound of a broken record if you keep pushing.

I'm not trying to "get" at anything beyond trying to see what people are thinking about in an area that has been largely ignored by CFS. If we learn some bits and pieces along the way, then that's a bonus.

Certainly no fishing trip, I was looking forward to the discussion, but sadly it seems as though its turned into a SAMFS vs SACFS cock measuring contest.

Those who are actually proficient in the use of BA are,during their annual reaccredit, including RIT scenarios to ensure all are proficient in RIT methods.
SO T. Cox is the instructor who no doubt can enlighten you!
 :?

Could you enlighten us as to these "RIT Methods" you speak of?

41
SAMFS / Re: RECRUITMENT 2011
« on: May 27, 2011, 06:03:51 PM »
I love following this recruitment thread each year. Everyone gets all excited about applying for the MFS. Everyone gets their hopes up. Lots of questions are asked, further fuelling their confidence then BAM! FAIL.

Then the whinging starts......

It would be frustrating when the MFS gives very little feed back on where applicants went wrong. They need to be more transparent and give out scores. But then they couldnt recruit the "types" of people they require......

Catch-22?

42
SAMFS / Re: RECRUITMENT 2011
« on: May 26, 2011, 01:28:26 AM »
Failing the psych testing, then blaming the testing process.... maybe thats indicating something right there.

Ok, Alex How would analyse this. I have given my answers.

1 a.) Do you own a firearm. False
  b.) Do you own more than three firearms. True

2 a.) Do you hunt animals. False
  b.) Do you prefer to shoot animals with a camera. True

A serious answer would be appreciated.  :-)


AS much this isn't quite how the questions are set out, I'll try.

For question one, your answers indicate you're lying regarding part A) given your answer for part B).

If you own more than 3 firearms, then yes, you do own a firearm.

Lying is bad ;)

Not too sure where you're going with the second part question.

43
Hypotheticals / Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« on: May 24, 2011, 06:41:07 PM »
Stop slagging of at each other.

unfknblvable  would you care to pleas explain yourself? It doesn;t take much to cause cables to drop from a cealing and i am sure it can happen well before the structure is unsafe.

Numbers, As for tools in my pockets it is usally the whole radiant heat on a metal tool not that this has ever been an issue for me.

I can see the concern, but it's not something I have ever experienced myself (even in a CFBT cell) or read about occurring. If your tools are getting hot enough to burn you through your structural ensemble, I'd suggest you've got bigger problems than just your tools burning you.

44
SAMFS / Re: RECRUITMENT 2011
« on: May 24, 2011, 08:07:27 AM »
Didnt make it again. Moving on will not be doing it again.

The pyschometric test is flawed  :x

Are you sure about that?

Yeah unsuccessful but will give it another go next time.  Just wish you could get some kind of feedback so you can work on what you need to.

It's difficult to provide feedback on the results of a test that you're meant to answer honestly to give an accurate representation of your personality.

If the results came back with areas to improve on, then can't you just lie or "improve" your way through the next test you take, thus rendering the test redundant?

45
SA Firefighter General / Re: burn over drill
« on: May 23, 2011, 10:53:34 AM »
just wondering im a firefighter in another organisation in australia over xmas i come home am i aloud onto the truck or do i have to do my burnover again ???

Has it been over a year since you last did your burn over drill? If so, then yes, you'll need to do it again. It's an annual requirment.

47
Or maybe start with BA?????

Sure, we'll start with a course that we already have implemented. Sounds like a good place to start discussing a lack of training.

My post was made assuming that OBAOC was taught as it already is. Sorry if I failed to make this clear enough.

48
Hypotheticals / Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« on: May 22, 2011, 10:10:44 PM »
My username relates directly to what i read on this forum.
And you numbers, illustrate this perfectly.Full of theories, pity you werent in a position to try them and then you may see just how amateur hour you sound.

And we were just having this nice little discussion about fire fighting...

Sorry to offend you with my inexperienced, non-urban brigade amateur hour "theories" :)

49
Since the terrible fires of Wangary and the like the CFS had almost solely focused on rural training. There has been the regular BA courses, and I have heard a rumour of alarm panel training, but haven't seen the course yet.

Anyway, my point is, have we neglected our urban brigades. Whilst rural brigades do make up probably 90% of the service, we do have some brigades with urban risks and urban workloads. Apart from BA they are having to self teach themselves all other urban related tasks.

First of all, perhaps we need to move away from the idea of "Urban" brigades and "Rural" brigades. Only for a second.

Find me a brigade WITHOUT a single structure in their area, and we can call them but a "Rural" brigade. For everyone else, like it or not, they have an Urban risk. We used to teach basic structural fire response in Level 3, but that was removed and not replaced.

The CFS has certainly neglected its Urban firefighting training, as apart from CFBT, we get nothing. There is a huge amount of information to know, and principles to understand that pertain to urban firefighting but this is not available. Things like the Check Installed Fire Safety Systems course is great, but it's a baby step forward.

Sadly, I believe that it is only by shear luck that we have not had anyone seriously injured or killed in a structure fire, given what little official training we are given.

Perhaps a suggestion of the basics:

Booster Systems
Forcible Entry
Fire Attack / Hose Handling (Yes CFBT does cover parts of this)
Search and Rescue
Thermal Imaging Camera use
Rapid Intervention Teams
Ventilation
Salvage
Overhaul
Use of Gas Detection to determine level of PPE required

Some of this could be incorporated into weekend long training packages (eg: Suppress Urban Fire) or it could be presented to a handful of people who can then take it back to their brigade/group and teach it in small hour long sessions and practicals to help flesh out a yearly training calendar. Not all of this has to be taught by staff at STC.

It's not going to happen overnight and I know that certain staff are pushing hard to change things. I just hope the CFS grows up and realises its changing role sooner rather than later. It shouldn't have to take deaths to get proper training implemented.

50
Hypotheticals / Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« on: May 22, 2011, 08:40:48 PM »
All this expertise from non urban brigades is very enlightening.
If you have become entangled then what were you doing entering a structure when the integrity of it is questionable? Safety first remember!
You may not like asking the professionals for guidance for whatever reason, so look to the USA if you wish, but first try reading the stats on how many lives they lose, an Good Luck.

Wow, you're certainly living up to your user name.

Lets try this again, engage your brain, then post.  :wink:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 70
anything