SA Firefighter
General Discussion => Country Fire Service => Topic started by: Wagon 1 on October 30, 2005, 09:15:39 PM
-
As an officer, would you be prepared to use a BA operator that isn't wearing Level 3 PPC or a structural helmet. Reason I ask is that I am seeing more and more photos of people wearing BA and entering structure fires in Proban and Bushfire helmets. There should not be any excuse these days for not having Level 3 and structural helmets, as the gear has been in circulation for at least 7 years. I wonder who polices this, as I would never let a crew work in BA without the correct PPC, because I am not prepared to wear the flak when things go wrong.
So next time your the OIC of an appliance or an IC of an incident, just keep in mind, are your crews correctly kitted out? Because it seems a number of officers are just not keeping an eye on this.
-
Interesting, seems as though no one on this forum has a problem sending a BA operator in with incorrect PPC.
-
Well, if they don't have a problem with it they're not prepared to admit it here :-)
Now I don't want you to think that I am defending the practice (and in answer to your question, no, I wouldn't send an operator in without at least nomex jacket, pants and level 3 jacket liner) but really life is different out in the sticks.
I know of BA Brigades that do very minimal jobs who would be unlikely to know that level three turnout gear exists. And I know of another Brigade who merrily spent $20000 a year without bothering to strain the budget to properly attire their BA wearers.
This really is something I've always felt strongly about having entered Group Bases with thousands of dollars of electronic equipment while Brigades in their group are in overalls with no reflective striping, calf length non zip type boots and top guards.
Someone in the paid arena should be facilitating (policing) expenditure to ensure adequate PPE(C) is purchased.
-
As a side issue, Nomex isn't up to structure fire standards either... Your BA operators should be wearing PBI gold :|
-
If you have it :?
-
All B.A wearers would be in PBI Gold if a one off grant was enabled to fund a set for every B.A member.... But we are the CFS not the MFS.... :-(
-
By the time every CFS member is fitted out with PBI the uniform will change again........
Saw a person on TV the other night wearing proban overalls with the old yellow style woolen jacket.
-
All B.A wearers would be in PBI Gold if a one off grant was enabled to fund a set for every B.A member.... But we are the CFS not the MFS.... :-(
makes you wonder why the MFS would need a grant to buy it? Maybe one of the members of the MFS on here could answer?
-
As a side issue, Nomex isn't up to structure fire standards either... Your BA operators should be wearing PBI gold :|
Are you tounge in cheek? I thought the Nomex with level 3 liner was officially OK at this point in time??
-
Better still CFS should buy PBI gold out of there money and not groups money H/Q wanted the change well let them pay for it as most groups dont have the money to buy the stuff.
-
As a side issue, Nomex isn't up to structure fire standards either... Your BA operators should be wearing PBI gold :|
Are you tongue in cheek? I thought the Nomex with level 3 liner was officially OK at this point in time??
I was being serious. It is my understanding that the reason PBI gold is being brought in, is because Nomex with Level 3 liner doesn't meet Australian Standards... (Needs a Moisture Barrier?).
However, I don't know for sure, I could easily be wrong...
-
That's right nomex doesn't meet australian standards for a few reasons.
-no liner in the pants
-no day night striping
-no moisture liner
-etc
Its still ok to wear it though, there's not much you can do about it, if you don't have the money you don't have the money.
-
Hi All,
As a B.A wearer myself i would not feel confortable entering any situation where you have to wear a B.A without B.A gloves. As an example for you i was looking on the www.fire-brigade.asn.au site earlier and i saw pictures from a house fire at Bridgewater. There was a Captain in B.A wearing riggers gloves! Now sorry if i offend anyone but a brigade doing 120+ calls a year mainly urban responses would each B.A wearer not have correct gloves. Everyone else was wearing correct PPE, well not now :)
-
not many brigades have BA gloves, most would use riggers
-
Yea, I agree with fire03. There would be few brigades with either A) Enough BA gloves for multiple BA teams at a job, or B) With any BA gloves at all...
90% of the time you see riggers etc being used.
(Havent read this thread for a bit till it was refreshed)..
Reading above, with the (believed) non-compliance to Aus Standard, does that mean if you are injured, and put in a form, you aren't covered cause you didn't have Aus Standard gear on?? Like will you be told that you shouldn't have been wearing the gear, or that you should have worn PBI ??
-
then you could sue the CFS for not supplying you with Australian standard PPE????
-
Not sure you could sue the CFS for not supplying - simply because they have implemented new PPE that meets the standard - and it's up to Groups to budget for it and supply it to their members. :evil: :evil:
Sure they could do a grant application, stick their hand out for more tax payers money, however there are many, many things in CFS that we all need money for, PPC is just one. :-o
The easy option if your not comfortable then don't undertake OFFENSIVE structural attack - operate defensively. I have undertaken many offensive structure fires in the Nomex PPC, and whilst very hot, I have not suffered any burns. Yes I'm hanging to get PBI (when the monies there) but in the interim have the training, knowledge and experience to make the valued decision to either commit or stand back! :-D
-
Not sure you could sue the CFS for not supplying - simply because they have implemented new PPE that meets the standard - and it's up to Groups to budget for it and supply it to their members. :evil: :evil:
Then... sue the group, lol... just joking, ive been watching too much judge judy...
i agree with ozfire though...
feel uncomfortable? let it burn... unless theyre were people DEFINITLY insuide.. .then i cant really see a reason for riskign it at all..
-
Thats not what im saying. Sure, I have also been in offensive attack wearing the Nomex, no problems, BUT, im saying if on the OFF chance it happens, are we still going to be covered etc, as there is "better" gear out there that in all reality we should be wearing in these situations..
I was asking , as it seems a good way for an insurance company to get out of a huge payout... " Well, sorry but you had better gear available, you should have been wearing it"...
Maybe this is why CFS should look at getting all B.A members the gear.... M.F.S managed.
-
I was asking , as it seems a good way for an insurance company to get out of a huge payout... " Well, sorry but you had better gear available, you should have been wearing it"...
Lucky the CFS is self insured eh?
I agree with strikeathird though... Just get the gear, a one off grant shouldn't be hard to get... If it is, I'm sure 60 Minutes can persuade them :P
-
PBI GOLD is not on some group's shopping list due to the hihg cost of it,time CFS H/Q stepped in and bought the stuff and take the funding from its budget. Its the same with alot of other things why should appliances repairs come out of a group budget and not the state budget??? Time for a total review of what a group has to fork out and what the state does not fork out.
-
Ask your VFBA reps about the motion that was passed at the last mount lofty branch meeting on tuesday night. You shall be very pleased at the strong stand the VFBA are taking to try to get every B.A operater into PBI.
There was even a call for C.F.S to go on some sort of strike, more along the lines of not doing fire reports or admin work, we would still fight fires of course.
The C.F.S paid staff had better be very careful at the moment because it won't take much for the VFBA members to start tightening the screws back on c.f.s as they are doing to the volunteers.
-
SAMFS did put in for a grant and got it, it was published in the paper some time ago. I believe CFS went for a grant for Group Vehicles (like we need anymore for those group officers we so dearly love) instead of PBI gold. I understand they are in the process of pulling their finger out and applying for a further grant to fit out CFS BA operators....
-
PBI GOLD is not on some group's shopping list due to the hihg cost of it,time CFS H/Q stepped in and bought the stuff and take the funding from its budget. Its the same with alot of other things why should appliances repairs come out of a group budget and not the state budget??? Time for a total review of what a group has to fork out and what the state does not fork out.
hmmm but group money = state money... its just like when mum n dad used to give me pocket money...
mind you that stopped 7-8 years ago... :roll: aaahh those were the days.
-
If only it were that easy!
Having seen the process other Govt. departments have to go through for extra funding, it's no wonder CFS is poking the stuff up a hill with a pointy stick!
(Playing devils advocate) Who are we to say the PBI is the highest priority in CFS at the moment. Stats show that approx 5 -8 % of the incidents we attend are structure fires - of that we probally attack 1 - 3% offensively!
Whilst I want/need/would like a set of PBI Gold - I can see other things that will benefit all CFS members, state wide NOW as opposed to those who are BA trained and could benefit from PBI Gold in 1 - 3% of the incidents we attend.
Thankfully in my CABA course and compartment course we were instructed in noticing the danger signs and in using our training to identify a safe and unsafe situation and then reacting appropriately, using the equipment we have :-D
-
On the introduction of PBI, it was only to be purchased as the NOMEX gear required replacing over the next 5 years. The NOMEX is still acceptable PPC for offensive structural fire fighting.
A lot of CFS staff i speak to agree that the PBI thing was not done well, and CFS has hopefully learnt from it.
SACFS has put in a cabinet submission for $500 000 to equip every SACFS BA operator with PBI over the next 5 years.
What to replace your NOMEX with when it needs replacing..... 1 set of PBI and 1 set of NOMEX... does get a little expensive and brigades are now saying no PBI till extra funding becomes available.
And really, do you think PBI would be on the top of the list for most of our guys on the Eyre Peninsula.....
-
Playing devils advocate) Who are we to say the PBI is the highest priority in CFS at the moment. Stats show that approx 5 -8 % of the incidents we attend are structure fires - of that we probally attack 1 - 3% offensively!
To a point I agree with you, however it also needs to be understood that these fires are some of the most dangerous (if not the most dangerous) Fires that we encounter...
My biggest gripe in regards to PBI gold is the fact that we are vollunteers, risking our lives (without getting paid), and it always seems like we are looked after second.. Our paid counterparts get a grant for all there members (as all members are BA) for the gear... Yet, the CFS, who fight the same fires, risk their lives in the same manner, get duped .... If one service managed the grant, why can't CFS see a piece of the Pie.. ???
-
Reading above, with the (believed) non-compliance to Aus Standard, does that mean if you are injured, and put in a form, you aren't covered cause you didn't have Aus Standard gear on?? Like will you be told that you shouldn't have been wearing the gear, or that you should have worn PBI ??
From my previous experience as a WorkCover Claims administrator - please rest assured that, as an "employee" for WorkCover purposes,you will be covered regardless of whether you are wearing a strapless dress. Of course you will probably face disciplinary action from your employer for non compliance of procedures and never ride an appliance again :roll: