SA Firefighter
General Discussion => Country Fire Service => Topic started by: PJ on November 17, 2007, 02:14:36 PM
-
Since the changeover to Comcen dispatch by the current system certainly seems a big step backwards. Who else is finding the service far from 1st class?
The response from Adel fire is 2nd rate they have little to no interest in CFS and are sometimes don't even bother answering radios. At least when SOC was up and running we could get some response to a radio call, these guys don't give a toss. seems like they are purposely making life difficult at the most critical time-dispatch. No longer do we get given a predetermined TG it is a case of pick your own . I wonder how this will work once the realFDS starts and things really crank up in temperature & jobs on the go? I have yet to here anyone that thinks the system is working better than it was?
Lets here from the masses. :?
-
Very easy to know who were CFS OCO's ;)
Yesterday a predetermined TG was put in the pager message for an incident which was interesting.
-
When we had SOC doing all CFS & SES paging & response life was alot easier cause you could hop on the radio and get answered right away by State Headquarters without delay
Whereas now even im listening to the scanner during the daytime and a SES or CFS station comes on air trying to call Adelaide Fire to acknowledge a callout page it normally takes anywhere between 2-5 minutes or more before they can get a reply from Adelaide Fire
I hate to imagine whats gonna happen once we get into the dangerous part of summer and the work load starts to increase :| we better pray that the CFS OCO's are incharge of the radios at Adelaide Fire when South Australia sees another Perfect Fire Day :wink:
-
Yeah it is a big conspiracy to shut the CFS down. Adelaide Fire comms just sit around and play cards.
Get over yourselves, the staff are there to serve the community I am sure they are doing their best with what they have available..Remember who made the decision to change, it wasnt MFS.
-
Since the changeover to Comcen dispatch by the current system certainly seems a big step backwards. Who else is finding the service far from 1st class?
Yes the service is not as good as it could be, however, I believe that the guys and girls in Comcen are doing their best, considering they were throwen into this change as much as we were.
The response from Adel fire is 2nd rate they have little to no interest in CFS and are sometimes don't even bother answering radios. At least when SOC was up and running we could get some response to a radio call, these guys don't give a toss. seems like they are purposely making life difficult at the most critical time-dispatch.
How many people are there in Comcen? How many TG are there that need monitoring? When you look at the numbers, there are about 3 operators in Comcen, I believe, and atleast 8 TG to monitor. I think they are doing the best job they can.
No longer do we get given a predetermined TG it is a case of pick your own . I wonder how this will work once the realFDS starts and things really crank up in temperature & jobs on the go? I have yet to here anyone that thinks the system is working better than it was?
Why do you say that it is a case of pick you own TG? You should be using your group TG for comms. Which should be run from either your station, or group base if the incident is significant. Large incidents should be moved on to a regional operations TG, or a Group Operations TG, this should be done by the IC, or IMT. If need be, request a TG to be allocated for the job.
How about all of you who are so busy and interested in berating the Comcen operators give them a break.
-
I find the guys at Adl Fire totally professional, sure they don't answer radio or phone calls immediately - but may be they might be a bit busy at times. My understanding is some of your old comcen people are there now anyway. As far as preasigned talkgroups that is a CFS problem (its the way your service decided to set up your GRN's - we don't have that issue even though I'm not sure you guys understand that -
1918239 17:26:30 17-11-07 MFS: INC # 63 - 17/11/07 17:26,RESPOND To,BARMERA SES,BARMERA, MAP 0 A 0 ,,RESPOND WITH BOAT TO BRUNO BAY RAMP, MEET CFS THERE. TG 203,BMA029*CFSRES: SES Barmera
TG203 doesn't mean anything to us, we can't get it :wink:
Its not a perfect world, but its not that bad either so you will just have to get used to it. I know we have :-D
cheers
-
Fireinthehole, I understand and fully agree with your concerns but your comments are ridiculous and this thread wont help.
Pre changeover SOC had 2 operators and MFS Comms had 2 officers and 4 operators. Comms still operate with 2+4 or 2+5 on day shift in Fire Danger season yet we now have a much larger workload. Are you aware when I'm on the CFS radio desk I'm monitoring 124, 093, 209, 062, 232, 007, 111, 115, 001, 154 plus any emergency activations on another 4 channels. If the MFS radio operator needs a short break I'll also operate 150. It is simply not possible for 1 person to conduct simultaneous radio comms on multiple channels.
The nature of the job means there can be no radio transimissions on any channels for long periods. I can't sit idle on the radio desk and watch as 000 and alerts calls wait. Yesterday I answered a 000 call and missed an urgent request for additional brigades to respond to Bute. Delayed radio responses are unacceptable, but so is the public being on hold when making an emergency call.
I don't feel we are providing a safe and proffesional service but it's more to do with a lack of CFS background, lack of training and insufficient manning. We are trying and learning and over time will improve.
Our shift is without a former CFS operator while he is on leave. That's making things even harder for us until he returns...
-
I got no problems.
I think people need to stop whinging on the internet when they don't actually really understand what is going on, and just like laying the blame game.
:)
-
My understanding is some of your old comcen people are there now anyway. As far as preasigned talkgroups that is a CFS problem (its the way your service decided to set up your GRN's - we don't have that issue even though I'm not sure you guys understand that -
chook, CFS GRN is setup with 2 GRN TGs for EVERY group in region one, and 1or2 dependant on which group in R2, then 1 each for every other group... (dont ask me why it differs who knows? i think its dependant on workload)
brigades shouldnt need someone to dictate which TG to use, they should know there own groups comms plan. the only times they may need to be told is when entering a differant groups area....
didnt anyone ever notice that SOCC merely told you to go to your own groups GRN TG for local incidents?
-
Comms, don't beat yourself up man! If more brigades are required shouldn't group or region handle that?
Its the same as our guys expecting your commcen to handle our metro taskings when a storm happens sorry that is Bullfiltered.
When we need extra help we phone our neighbouring units simple!
Its only when we need help from other services do we bother you guys, until I can get all of the phone numbers that aren't Alerts :-D.
All thats required is a new way of thinking, group & regional commcens taking responsibility of you guys - my understanding is you are only supposed to do initial call and dispatch then we are on our own.
As I said I find you guys courteous & professional an example to our own commcens - keep up the good work. cheers
-
hey give the comms guys/gals a break remember you might not ber the only person in need.
last week we got told the TG used is the one of the group which has primary response as opposed to previously where it was whoever opens for comms first.
-
Thanks Mack, when we talk units & you guys talk Groups we are talking the same when its to do with comms plans - each unit has a talkgroup assigned e.g. B23 is mine. Thats why I didn't understand the issue if we cross into anothers area we change to their TG its just a standard thing.
cheers for clearing that up.
-
A lot of the issues that seem to have appeared with the shift to comms, have more to do with idiotic volunteers who can't or don't want to get their head around the new system.
As someone who grew up only using the 'new' system of paging notification, I saw the SOCC pages as archaic and sub standard.
The issues to do with Adelaide Fire not answering calls has more to do with the operators having to get used to constant aural monitoring, rather than the old SAMFS system.
-
The way i see it...if Incident command requires more resources at scene....it means the incident is too much for the current assignment, should be priority otherwise its gonna go well out of control. 000 calls are important YES...but ensuring success at incidents is also important. It is a bit too much for the current system down at comm's but it certain is much better than it was in July, August. (except that day of 280 incidents :wink:)
-
well mabey the solution is to make it more simple to respond other stations out of your station.
eg Piccadilly frequently responds to woodhouse scout cam AFAs with Stirling if one day that happens to be a going job chances are it would automatically be a 3rd if not greater alarm due to possible large numbers of people in the accommodation.
Now i can either call Adelaide fire on my GRN and request resources or if a station is open call them on GRN and ask for resources and ther will probarly ring Adelaide fire and ask, both ways involving adeleide fire. how do i respond more trucks without involving Adelaide fire?
-
I agree, in so far as I think the things have gone backwards - it often takes much longer to get hold of Adelaide Fire than it did SOCC, and at times pages coming out also seem to take some time.
However I wouldn't have a go at the commcen crew. I reckon there are too few of them, and they're doing the best with the resources provided.
fireinthehole, may I suggest you're either trolling, or you could be a bit more diplomatic in your posts. It would appear that you've not read the previous posts on this topic. It would pay to do a little research before posting.
-
how do i respond more trucks without involving Adelaide fire?
You can't and you should never ever try to.
-
how do i respond more trucks without involving Adelaide fire?
You can't and you should never ever try to.
That's the sort of answer I'd expect to 'How do I drive that concorde?'
All R5 GroupCC have airsource (all the ones I know do anyway), plus whatever you call the magic box (press a button = a 'respond to station' page for relevant brigade, covering each individual brigade in our group).
R5 office is able to page anyone in the region also.
Why post a false answer 6793264?
-
how do i respond more trucks without involving Adelaide fire?
You can't and you should never ever try to.
That's the sort of answer I'd expect to 'How do I drive that concorde?'
All R5 GroupCC have airsource (all the ones I know do anyway), plus whatever you call the magic box (press a button = a 'respond to station' page for relevant brigade, covering each individual brigade in our group).
R5 office is able to page anyone in the region also.
Why post a false answer 6793264?
True it is a false answer. We often use our decoder to respond other brigades in our group, nothing wrong with it (Or you wouldnt be able to do it if there was). On occasions when acknowledging the page(usually within the 1st 2mins) ive asked for other brigades to be responded only to have them responded some 8 mins after asking for them? Not good service delivery.
-
My apologies for the 'fake' answer. Head still stuck in R1 territory.
-
Now i can either call Adelaide fire on my GRN and request resources or if a station is open call them on GRN and ask for resources and ther will probarly ring Adelaide fire and ask, both ways involving adeleide fire. how do i respond more trucks without involving Adelaide fire?
why would you bother doing it without involving adelaide fire?
part of the agreement is that they will respond resources as requested to incidents.... lets not turn one persons whinge/troll into another stupid thread...
-
http://www.safirefighter.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=161;sa=showPosts
Just look at the last 5 posts..
-
This has been a subject of much discussion and I believe the priority should be getting resources to an incident,rather than manning a radio.I can see many members getting jack of turning up just to do comms at the station,when there is a second appliance available to respond to your own area. :-o
Oh well FDS is about to get a whole lot hotter.....under the collar :-P
-
I think Manually turning out brigades through pressing ya Alpha decoder buttons, is a solution...but it also confuses the filtered out of adelaide fire...because all the brigades logging mobile would not be entered into the IIR (inital incident report) through boms. Its just easier for them to page out another amount of brigades and enter there status as they log through Regional channel. Adelaide fire would then know what the filtered is happening.
Remember ur Attention Grabbing Pro-Words people ;) ATTENTION ATTENTION ;) "Attention Attention Adelaide Fire, this is so and so, priorty message for incident ###"..."we require further resources"...
Just respect the meaning of a "priority message", by not classing everything as one.
(side note: i could not believe how fast people were putting posts up in this thread..."4 people have posted, are you sure you want to post"...just as busy as 124 :P)
-
I would PMSL if I heard someone call up "Attention attention Adelaide Fire"..
I would only expect that for a PA dispatch.
If you have a Priority message, say so. Keep it to that, if everyone makes their own method of 'priority' style voice requests, it will just get messy, confusing, and sound very un-professional.
-
yeh RescueHazmat is right ;)....i wouldnt be able to keep a straight face dispatching adelaide fire to the radio... :mrgreen:
-
why would you bother doing it without involving adelaide fire?
If you could get a page out of your own group base immediately, versus potentially having to call repeatedly to Adelaide fire.
I imagine you'd go with the option which was most likely to get the page out first.
-
if you do page manually brigades...maybe ringing the Acknowledgement Line (or more suitable landline to Adel Fire) to let them know you have...so they can prepare themselves. Ensure smooth running of comm's ;).
-
It sounds like the operators at AF are constantly under the pump with multiple channels to monitor and answer, 000 calls to answer and despatch the relevant services too.
As professional's, I'm sure the operator's are expected to constantly monitor their service delivery and if there are any problem's actual or anticipated notify their superior's to either rectify the problem or put a procedure in place, to deal with the anticipated, if it occur's.
As a volie who has had a problem with AF not responding additional resource's when requested ,(yes problem will be identified on the issue's register)thankfully it did'nt alter the outcome of the incident,but it did give me cause for concern, as this was a reasonably mild day, friday 16th november,what might the outcome have been if it had been in two month's time and the bomber's had already been deployed elsewhere?
So my question's are these, are some of the teething problem's were experiencing related to the inadeqate number of comms ops at AF, who seem to have have an ever increasing work load? or the speed with which the changeover to AF CRD occured despite a risk assesment, which amongst other thing's I hear cautioned against a hasty changeover without all of the procedure's being already in place, as opposed to, policy on the run which ultimately occured.
Please don't take my comment's as a critisism of the comm's ops, who im sure are doing the best job they can under the circumstance's,beside's all of us are still learning to play by the new rules!
-
How bout instead of sitting here whinging you start lobbying your local politicians/vfba/cfs regional hq etc to get more staff and more training for those staff in Comms.
Comms guys/girls are doing the best they can with the resources and training they have...give them a break.
-
Been there done that - politicians anyway. Haven't got a response yet though, however we need to be careful. On the one hand there is a definite need for extra funds but on the other can't be seen to be waisting it - refer to other posts. A proper case needs to be mounted, Are we expecting to much out of the commcen? Is it being used correctly? If the answer is no & yes and the problem is lack of staff then ok needs more bodies. However if the answer to the second question is NO then the problem is with the units/ brigades/ groups & that can be addressed differently. I have a funny feeling its a mixture of both.
cheers
-
Maybe Adelaide Fire needs to start placing Positions Vacant ads in the local papers to cover the staff shortage thats a great way to boost the number of AF Comm Centre staff by hiring more people :-)
-
Check the SA Government Vacancies regularly...:)
Id apply for Casual positions if they were offered. Good way to escape the usual Tafe/Uni jobs eg supermarkets ;).
-
A good point has been raised here. There does need to be a way to categorise the urgency of messages on the radio.
-
Check the SA Government Vacancies regularly...:)
Id apply for Casual positions if they were offered. Good way to escape the usual Tafe/Uni jobs eg supermarkets ;).
Same here Zippy it would be a good paying job too plus i'd be able to monitor 3 radios at once taking the load off of the Adelaide Fire Staff :-D
-
There's no point advertising for more operators because we have enough people to fill the positions deemed necesary. What we need is more positions approved.
As for radios not being answered. I wont answer if the message ends with 'out'. So many times brigades will book mobile followed by 'out' and obviously don't require a response. Could this be part of the problem?
-
If u hear the message, its not a problem :-D, because the objective of the radio message has been completed.
-
I never said you should respond other brigades without involving Adelaide fire i just asked how.
-
A good point has been raised here. There does need to be a way to categorise the urgency of messages on the radio.
Doesn't NSW fire services (can't remember which one) run a numbered or colour system to denote the urgency of the message??
-
A good point has been raised here. There does need to be a way to categorise the urgency of messages on the radio.
Doesn't NSW fire services (can't remember which one) run a numbered
or colour system to denote the urgency of the message??
Yes they do. I hear that some parts of NSWRFS even use it.
Red, Yellow & Blue denote urgent, important & routine respectively.
Idea is to help comms hub of busy network sort out which ones to deal with first.
Example:
"District CommCen this is Wotterbuggerup one alpha. Red. Need Bulk water this location."
NSWRFS situation is perhaps a little different to us in that much of their operational comms is supposed to go to their district or zone commcen (equivalent
of a Regional comms) rather than to their brigade or group. So there's much more
opportunity for commcen overload than in our model.
They may use other colours too, but these are the 3 I know of.
cheers
-
Maybe Adelaide Fire needs to start placing Positions Vacant ads in the local papers to cover the staff shortage thats a great way to boost the number of AF Comm Centre staff by hiring more people :-)
be careful what you wish for- putting Civvies in operational ComCens without appropriate operational exposure (ie:a full year or 10 of it!!) can only lead to lots of trouble!!
-
A good point has been raised here. There does need to be a way to categorise the urgency of messages on the radio.
Doesn't NSW fire services (can't remember which one) run a numbered or colour system to denote the urgency of the message??
Yes, both do.
NSWRFS uses:
"Emergency" - Life threatening situation.
"Red" - Urgent Incident Message
"Blue" - General Incident Message
"Yellow" - Logistics/Non-Incident Message
NSWFB uses:
"Red" or "Red, Red, Red" - Urgent Incident Message
"Blue" - General Incident Message
"Green" - Non-Urgent, Incident Stop Message
"Yellow" - Non-Urgent, Non-Incident Related Message
"White" or "White, White, White" - Reporting of new incident.
So your radio comms will look like:
"Sydney comms, Flyer one, Red"
"Flyer one, pass your red message"
"Sydney comms, Flyer one, Red, from [Location} Building well alight, multiple persons trapped, requesting 5th alarm.
-
Maybe Adelaide Fire needs to start placing Positions Vacant ads in the local papers to cover the staff shortage thats a great way to boost the number of AF Comm Centre staff by hiring more people :-)
be careful what you wish for- putting Civvies in operational ComCens without appropriate operational exposure (ie:a full year or 10 of it!!) can only lead to lots of trouble!!
Personally, I have no issues with a person with little 'on road experience' completing call receipt. This has been happening at times for many years with SES volunteers operating the SES SCC.
The dispatch staff normally have some 'on road' experience though.
Training is the key and the ability for 'checks & balances' to be included in the call receipt & dispatch process is essential.
It will be interesting to see what systems MFS, SES and CFS have 'in place' when a high risk day or major emergency hits in the next few months. I know SES system is currently being 'tweaked'.
-
true andrew - Tis what we in SAAS thought as well - call-takers=no problems.
....until some hare-brained idiot decided that these same call-takers could become despatchers as well!!
now, unless the person who is the despatcher has a bit of nouse - and LOTS of local knowledge - it's just a mess!!
-
Refreshing to read that some people in the Emergency Services still have their head screwed on and can see that Comcen is doing the best it can with the skills and resources available, and not taking an anti-MFS viewpoint over it all. The sad thing to see is certain people down here using the delays in paging to drive an even bigger wedge between services. There's been talk of public meetings, lets hope they can take a step back and remember what we are all here for.
That said, I think paging delays are unacceptable, question being what is and what can be done about it? Or do we wait for a coroner's report to tell us what to do...
I'm on the edge of quitting because of the unprofessional comments and actions I've seen from a service I was once very committed to. What volunteer wants to join a service with so much infighting, backstabbing and b!tching? Bugger the lot of them, go and help Meals on Wheels instead.
-
I'm on the edge of quitting because of the unprofessional comments and actions I've seen from a service I was once very committed to. What volunteer wants to join a service with so much infighting, backstabbing and b!tching? Bugger the lot of them, go and help Meals on Wheels instead.
I totally agree with you mate.
-
As i've said in another thread on here there was an article in today's Border Watch about paging delays to that accident which happened last week
-
We had a hay stack fire the other day and when we did a manual page for two more brigade's I had to call adelaide fire to say what we had done,Our brigade captain and group comms officer where not aware of this new requirment. So may be its time we where all kept up to date on what we have to do. Sad part about all of this one of our DGO's did acknowledge the first response page only to have adelaide fire call the base via phone to see if we where going to acknowledge the page some 4 mins later...looks like right hand in comms forgot to tell left hand.....
I think its fair to say that the work load in comms is going to be very high and i can see more group bases having to open and do their own paging when adelaide is busy......
-
We had a Group Ops meeting last night, and were told that in most cases, only one brigade will be dispatched to calls, and it will be up to either the Group Duty officer, or the brigade, to call for additional brigades to be responded. I think this refers mainly to brigades who were not previously dispatched by MFS (prior to the change over)- so their data is not in BOMS.
Can anyone from Adelaide Fire clarify this for us ?
Pip
-
I spoke to a person from adelaide fire and that was the method of solving the lack of local knowledge pronblem
-
Well I did ask the other day how hard would it be to reopen CFS SOCC as we are all having problems with adelaide fire and the poor buggers in their are also under alot of pressure....Came back you would need to find staff as those CFS socc who went over would not come back as the money is better...
-
Well I did ask the other day how hard would it be to reopen CFS SOCC as we are all having problems with adelaide fire and the poor buggers in their are also under alot of pressure....Came back you would need to find staff as those CFS socc who went over would not come back as the money is better...
I think you would also have a big problem called the Minister for Emergency Services who would be against the duplication.
-
Like Bajdas said, it wouldn't happen due to the fact it was pushed so hard to merge in the first place. What may happen is the push to civilianise the call taking side of things. But as for seperating it again, I doubt that very much.
As for the old staff, ha, yeah, I can see why they wouldn't come back !
-
I know this seem like an impossible and silly idea but how about allocating a comms room at Adelaide Fire for CFS SOCC staff so it lightens the work load of MFS Comms staff there
-
I know this seem like an impossible and silly idea but how about allocating a comms room at Adelaide Fire for CFS SOCC staff so it lightens the work load of MFS Comms staff there
Not necessarily x CFS OCO's, but they do have people monitoring country and metro areas separately at Adelaide fire now. They are trying...they will get there and all sing off the same page eventually.
-
This amalgamation was the Ministers decision - she now needs to take the responsibility for sorting the issues out.
1. No resource tracking now because Adelaide Fire will be too busy to do it, particularly in multiple incidents.
2. Total foul up with talkgroups for incident controllers to contact aircraft. It may be fine for the designer of the "system" who may work with radio communications all the time, but it totally ignores that fact that the only radio work that many volunteers do is with CFS. For crying out loud, simplify the system.
3. During a DEH fire this week, DEH appliances were directed to TG 160. They don't have TG 160 in their appliances.
This amalgamation was introduced with virtually no forethought as to how it would operate.
-
2. Total foul up with talkgroups for incident controllers to contact aircraft. It may be fine for the designer of the "system" who may work with radio communications all the time, but it totally ignores that fact that the only radio work that many volunteers do is with CFS. For crying out loud, simplify the system.
honest question... what is the difficulty with the air ops comms?
-
Main dificulty is for rural brigades who only have one portable on an appliance,otherwise TG108
-
GRN PORTABLE????
-
I agree. since pretty much every appliance has only a Mobile..and a Portable..try'll probably be stuck on the Incident Talkgroup. So theory is, only command vehicles can possibly talk to bombers on 108.
Thats pretty much the only flaw in the system.
Incident ive been to only a short time ago had bombers on the same talkgroup as the incident, worked alright...Incident controller was asked if another drop was required, and all worked out :)
But i can see the Air Ops system, and CRD system..and the IMT system getting strained, Simply cos the CRD system unfolded it all and repacked it in a bit of a mess.
-
every appliance SHOULD have a minimum of a GRN mobile and portable radio (one each), plus VHF. IC should be using VHF for fireground, can relay sitreps via the appliance, and there portable to talk through to the bombers.
i think the important thing that has been realised with this years air ops comms that some may not pick up on, is the need for clear & concise communications with the bombers, without the regular background cra p that can usually be heard on a groups local TG. Lets all remember the bombers are cruising around in the sky at great speed in less than perfect conditions most of the time.
-
I have been sitting here reading the frequent postings re 'call receipt & dispatch' and I must be missing something...... I thought they were only doing 'Call Receipt & Dispatch'(CRD), the same as they do for SES.
Yes, the old version of the CFS SOC did extra than CRD (responding extra resources, talkgroup allocations, airops, testing paging, resource, paperwork, hotline, etc, etc).
But SES never got those resources from another service and I do not believe this is expected when SACAD is in place. They just provide initial CRD.
SAFECOM is not to be part of operational activities, just reduce duplication & administration. I also understand SAFECOM are releasing extra funding shortly or already have, to MFS Comcen as they provide CRD until SACAD.
For SES, the other operational requirements come from within SES Unit LHQ, SES Region or SES State. Not MFS CRD.
Has the the question been asked of CFS hierarchy how they are to provide the extra operational services that I though MFS CRD or SACAD will never provide ?
My personal opinion only & please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you people are shooting & blaming the wrong people.....
-
Adelaide Fire took CRD, as well as quite a few other tasks on board, including; upgrading of incidents & resources at request of brigades, resource tracking (although this seems to have changed from the old days), the bushfire hotline, alerts, talkgroup allocations (should be a part of resource tracking anyway), pager testing for brigades, severe weather notifications, specific requests for incidents and a couple of others...
air ops has stayed with the CFS as has all incident paperwork, AIRS.
so no, they are doing more than just CRD.
-
Firstly, I know that the operators at Adelaide Fire are doing the best they can but Minister Zollo should go and look at the mess she has created.
We HATE the new system, it has taken us back 20 years....and I am going to tell the Chief Officer today my views on it all...
We so far in the last 2 weeks have been timed out of an ALERTS call because the Adelaide Fire Operator couldn't spell any of the brigades we were trying to respond - this happens on nearly EVERY phone call....I know that this is not their fault but surely they can have some cheat sheets or something...and the time it takes to actually get a page to come through is too long...
We also had a page come through for SES the other night telling them to use our local talkgroup ....they don't have it...
can't wait for a nasty day...we have already implemented some local contingencies to keep us out of the coroner's court....
:x
-
I think we need to keep complaining, some of the mistakes they are making are just them being dumb and useless.
How many times I have heard people ask for an upgrade and it either never happened or they asked 10 mins later if they still need to page an upgrade.
Some of the shifts in there just seem to have no idea and unlikely they ever will, you can pick it, some shifts are great and you have no problem getting what you want, then others its like pulling teeth, some days you hear what shift is on and you may as well do it yourself. MFS agreed to take this role on, its been nearly 6 months, even a monkey could work it out, if the monkey cared and could be bothered learning.
Yes this might seem harsh, but c'mon MFS, pull your socks up, if you don't understand something, ask, and for god sake IF A BRIGADE ASKS FOR AN UPGRADE, DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!! We don't ask just coz we can, 10 mins or so later is not good enough, and THERE IS NO EXCUSE, I don't want to hear "oh we are to busy" just do it ! God, we never had these excuses from the old SOCC staff, they had 2 people and were flat out but they managed to do it, its called managing your prioritys.
But I also want to add that the vols need to do the right thing to, we were issued SOP 10.14, follow it !! Even if we might not agree to it, if we are all reading off the same page then we might have a leg to stand on with our complaints towards MFS. You hear so many people doing it 10 different ways, no wonder they get confused.
This might seem a change of tune to some on my behalf, but I was prepared to give the guys and gals in there some time, but it seems to actually be getting worse not better, in private industry, they give employees time to get used to a role, but after 6 months the manager would be giving them a "don't come monday" , there is no difference here.
End rant (that feels better)
-
We so far in the last 2 weeks have been timed out of an ALERTS call because the Adelaide Fire Operator couldn't spell any of the brigades we were trying to respond - this happens on nearly EVERY phone call....I know that this is not their fault but surely they can have some cheat sheets or something...and the time it takes to actually get a page to come through is too long...
not standing up for anyone or thing, so dont take this the wrong way. but what a bout being a little proactive and learning (or getting cheat sheets for yourselves) of the brigades new short codes? as i believe it is actually the codes the operators require, not the full names of the brigade.
pumprescue - great rant
-
No offense taken BUT I suppose we are working in a world of what we were used to...and it's just going with what has been PROMISED>....and we are nowhere near that standard yet...
and I agree with pumprescue....they must be paying peanuts because we've sure heard some of the monkeys...
-
MFS: URGMSG (brigade) stand by at station (incident type), (location), (other info.) 05/12/2007 3:19:25 PM CFS Williamstown Response
Looking at this the Monkeys are lazy to :roll: No offence to anyone but c'mon.
-
BUT WAIT THERES MORE!!! XD
MFS: URGMSG (brigade) RESPOND (incident type), (location), (other info.)*CFSRES: (brigade) RESPOND (incident type), (location), (other info.)williamstown 34 standby at springton statiion 05/12/2007 3:32:21 PM
....how about this:
WILLAMSTOWN 34 RESPOND STANDBY AT SPRINGTON STATION RE:MULTIPLE INCIDENTS IN AREA*CFSRES: 05/12/2007 3:32:21 PM
-
can't wait for a nasty day...we have already implemented some local contingencies to keep us out of the coroner's court....
:x
looks like 2mrw is the first nasty day to test it :-S can always hope it gets better over night haha :-P
-
So what would happen if adelaide fire for some reason went offline??? what back up plan do they have in mind run back to CFS H/Q???
-
There would be contingincies...and i believe they have been tested in simulations.
If i couldnt get through to Adelaide Fire at all..Just make sure you have someone at your station/group-base running comm's covering ya donkey..and they should be able to undertake the essentials of incidents. **this is probably a worst case scenario**.
-
So what would happen if adelaide fire for some reason went offline??? what back up plan do they have in mind run back to CFS H/Q???
of course there are contingency plans
-
So what would happen if adelaide fire for some reason went offline??? what back up plan do they have in mind run back to CFS H/Q???
The 'business continuancy plans' were tested when the solar power were installed a few months ago in the MFS Wakefield St building. The building had potential power outages, so each service enacted the plan. Well SES SCC moved to another LHQ and did call receipt & dispatch for the day....
-
Today was yet another day full of "can they do it"...from listening to a scanner during the arvo...it seemed: Appliance/Brigade to Adelaide Fire communication did work out too well, Acknowledgements, Establishing communications, and Establishing ICS as early as possible was todays weaknesses.
Maybe handballing SES CRD to SES SCC for the entirety of a obviously crap fire danger day would be SENSIBLE.
Better luck next time Adelaide Fire.
-
Maybe handballing SES CRD to SES SCC for the entirety of a obviously crap fire danger day would be SENSIBLE.
I believe that the SES SCC was open all day... Andrew?
-
Maybe handballing SES CRD to SES SCC for the entirety of a obviously crap fire danger day would be SENSIBLE.
I believe that the SES SCC was open all day... Andrew?
Need more info on what 'Zippy' was implying or wanting to change.
System worked as per business rules agreed between SES & MFS. The trigger yesterday was 7 calls received within 7 minutes at approx 1715.
Yesterday,
** one to two people were monitoring in SES SCC from 1000 onwards.
** the SES state duty officer was at CFS SOC as a liason officer, thus each CFS hourly briefing paper was distributed to everyone. This include Bureau of Meterology (BoM) updates.
** SES staff on 30 minute recall for 'State Emergency Operations Centre'. I think this activated from 1530 onwards.
** SES Hook truck sent to Kangaroo Island to assist in logistics. I understand CFS Region 3 Hook truck already over there with Salvo's Catering truck.
** Other SES resources assisting at the fires.
At approximately 1700, a full SES volunteer crew was paged to respond to SES SCC in anticipation that 132500 call taking would be needed. Ths was a result of BoM updates of risk to Adelaide and current Whyalla incidents.
I cannot remember exactly when, but approx 1720 the MFS formally requested SES SCC takeover CRD for 132500. This happened within a few minutes because the volunteer crew was already in the SES SCC.
I think SES Central Region Operations Centre (ROC) was fully manned by 1800.
All SES Central Region LHQ's activated with at least Operations crew at 1850.
Five volunteers staffed the incoming telephone lines until approximately 1930, taking approximately 70 taskings. Many calls received regards fires & power outages were transferred to other agencies. Thus I would estimate 100 calls in two hours.
The SAAS Incident Room opened during the afternoon as well.
SES SCC & SES Central ROC was staffed by 14 (maybe more) people during the two hours.
Some volunteers stood down at 1950. I was one of them because I returned to work to complete some of my evening shift at work. But was on 10 minute recall.
Unknown when SES SCC & SES Central ROC closed.
I have some of my gear with me at work today in case required. This was requested yesterday, but we have not been called.
-
well i am thinking this topic has been bashed so many times by so many people it is getting boring. bottom line if you have never worked in comms you clearly have no idea and although in your little world of "we are the only fire brigade around" in a lot of cfs cases you may think you have the knowledge sadly you do not. Have any of you thought maybe we could make the comms operators jobs easier by doing our own pager tests on a monday night or do not talk so much on the radio, keep radio messages short and informative to assist in workloads of the comms operators.
-
big bronto theres probably a reason its been bashed so many times,not only are volunteers pissed off that the CRD was rushed through without the appropriate procedures in place meaning that they had to be "developed on the run in an adhoc manner",these are the words of one of your comms operators.
Also if im reading these posts and the issue registers properly the sops that have been implemented and accepted by both services are seemingly, regularly not adheered too, causing angst and frustration amongst the troops.
CFS doesnt have a UFU style union but if we did ,no way would we put up with the crap we are regularly dealt,would MFS put up with it ? no frigging way!
The last couple of days could just be a taste of whats to come, with the coming fire season, and we would like to know that things were well under way to being resolved,well theres still obviously some issues that need to be dealt with!!
I agree that our comms are a not as proficent as they possibly could be,and in house that is something that we have been put on notice about and will continue to try to improve,but it will take time as most brigades train weekly for only a couple of hours,so perhaps excuse us if we look upon operators that practice 40 hrs plus a week and continue to make simple errors with exasperation.
You may look upon the critisism levelled at the CRD as an insult to your "professionialism" ,I just see it as a threat to the safety of myself and other crews whilst on the fireground and I would be remiss in my duty if I didnt complain loud and clear!!!! so endeth the sermon.
-
If everyone is bashing the CRD, maybe your anger and comments should be leveled at those people in CFS and SAFECOM who implemented it, rather than the poor SAMFS comms operators. Its very easy to say and many have here "Oh MFS operators are terrible and they are idiots etc etc" Its hard to be proficient at your job when you are working with a brand new, and already deficient system.
Now the perfect solution would be a commcen that was merely a large floor area, with SAMFS comms, SACFS comms, SES SCC all working from the same databases, yet with their own separate areas so that they all deal with their own service. Yet they would be close enough to be able to communicate without ringing each other or needing liaison officers to drive around town to another building.
Dare I suggest a purpose built building, housing SAPol and SAAS comms as well. Then we could have all emergency services working off the same page and would cut out 99% of the crap that goes on.
Its a pipe dream but oh well.
-
Something im noticiing more and more...(Not the operators, rather the System) is that Multiple Higher Alarm CFS Incidents often is the cause to degradation in the system. During these busy times ive also noticed random requests for paging of so and so to respond to a smoke sighting in a area...
Wouldnt *000 only* for inital incident reporting be a good SOP? rather than blocking up regional channels.
Something that i have seen that is good about the Bom's system is the Daily Incident number....perhaps once the Inital Incident Response is completed, Only the use of Airsource is used to paging further resources?
Bom's isnt designed for campaign fires right?
my todays 2 cents view on things :)
-
Well, despite all the bashings, criticisms, and some positive reinforcement, Adelaide Fire had its mettle tested well and truly on Thursday. I'd like to congratulate them on an amazing job under such intense circumstances. There has been some really good feedback, although I know that not everything went 100%, I'm guessing that many people expected, maybe wanted, it to fail. Region 1 never even activated their own resource tracking.
MFS put extra staff on for the conditions, had every phone in Comcen staffed and had the right people in the right positions.
I was in there on the day, and wish to publicly thank all the Adel Fire operators on a brilliant job.
On another front, a BOMS upgrade is due for release on Monday, which will allow operators to search for and input requested Brigades by full name, rather than short name (4 letter abbrev.) This should speed up your alerts calls and dispatches. ie, operator enters full name and BOMS converts it to callsign.
Rusty
-
Just quietly, maybe it was a good thing that R1 never started resource tracking...
-
liked your idea of all the comcens in one big room - seperate desks with a common data base.
I thought the people at Adelaide Fire did a fantastic job - we had multiple taskings by page and phone, no dramas from the guys at all, well done :-D.
Interestingly though we have been told to only acknowledge the page through them, from then on we do everything locally, don't even have to tell them when a task is complete. And we never use them for test calls to pagers, thats what the GRN paging service is for, or Paging software.
I would be filtered annoyed if someone rang me on a day like that wanting test pages or to pass on some message about a christmas parties etc.
Again well done Adelaide Fire!
cheers
-
...
Now the perfect solution would be a commcen that was merely a large floor area, with SAMFS comms, SACFS comms, SES SCC all working from the same databases, yet with their own separate areas so that they all deal with their own service. Yet they would be close enough to be able to communicate without ringing each other or needing liaison officers to drive around town to another building.
Dare I suggest a purpose built building, housing SAPol and SAAS comms as well. Then we could have all emergency services working off the same page and would cut out 99% of the crap that goes on.
Its a pipe dream but oh well.
Not so much a pipe dream.....have a look at the new multi-storey building being built on the corner of Angus St & Victoria Square...SA Waters new headquarters...very close to the existing SAGRN fibre loop.
The challenge will be moving SAFECOM SACAD to the new facility from MFS Comcen...will the UFU members move to SAFECOM ??
** MY OPINION ONLY ** Everyone is wanting someone to blame...how about accept that this combined CRD Centre was dictated 2 years ago. Some people are stating this was a rushed job...but I think it was caused by people against the concept...then they were forced to do the job they should have started 2 years before.
Everyone is wanting someone to blame...how about accept the change & work with it.
-
Perhaps if GO's and the like stopped using MFS like this :
1909110 14:29:37 08-12-07 MFS: THREE MORE CREW REQUIRED FOR WAROOKA INCIDENT SIGNED BAROSSA GROUP OFFICER 08/12/2007 2:29:27 PM CFS Barossa Group Info
and used link instaed some of the pressure might come off the comms guys.
I personally thinks MFS do a pretty good job and we've only had one MFS operator sound like he had no radio training at all, the rest are brilliant and to the point.
-
Would also help lighten the workpoad if they used Link to page out or had all Group Bases fitted with Airsource...and yes I know it isnt available but CFS HQ has the licensed copy :wink:
-
Licensing isn't an issue the company that owned Airsource went broke and no longer exists.....
I thought Airsource was everywhere already. I know of brigades that have officers using it from home for admin and info paging.
But you are right that the CRD centre should not be receiving phone calls to request the sending of a low priority pager message.
-
You can also use Notepager pro $29 US (approx) - works the same, can import Airsource settings etc. Has a bit of a problem with Vista sometimes though.
cheers
-
We should not be knocking the operators in the MFS/CFS control centre. They are just trying to implement a system (if you can call it that) which was imposed on them by a Minister who has no idea whatsoever, and who was probably ill-advised by others who have no idea as well.
Thursday was just a taste of things to come. I am informed that 000 to MFS jammed up and appliances responding to incidents could not raise Adelaide Fire by telephone or radio. Too bad for those requiring incidents upgraded to 2nd or 3rd alarm when they are unable to staff their own radio due to lack of volunteers (now I wonder what could be the cause of that?)
But here's the crunch. Mt. Lofty Fire Tower is now not permitted to contact Adelaide Fire to advise of smoke sightings - they now must call 000!!! Too bad if 000 is jammed up again. Might as well close the tower down if it cannot function effectively and quickly.
This system could possibly be made to work, but it needs someone who actually has the skills to design the system and then implement it with full staff, training and equipment. This is different to having people who think they have the skills cooking up what we currently have.
At the end of this fire season, there needs to be a full enquiry as to how and why the amalgamation was introduced, and the results of that amalgamation in terms of volunteer frustration, and possibly more serious consequences, particularly when appliances require assistance urgently.
The Minister gave the direction to amalgamate with no understanding whatsoever of the issues involved. It's time she went!
-
But here's the crunch. Mt. Lofty Fire Tower is now not permitted to contact Adelaide Fire to advise of smoke sightings - they now must call 000!!! Too bad if 000 is jammed up again. Might as well close the tower down if it cannot function effectively and quickly.
Thats not a very big crunch if an old and out dated fire spotting tower can't contact commcen! (The first person to tell me the last fire the Tower spotted first (Inside Clealand notwithstanding) wins a prize!)
I also believe that measure was implemented by SAMFS commcen to help keep their staff sane.
-
Now the perfect solution would be a commcen that was merely a large floor area, with SAMFS comms, SACFS comms, SES SCC all working from the same databases, yet with their own separate areas so that they all deal with their own service. Yet they would be close enough to be able to communicate without ringing each other or needing liaison officers to drive around town to another building.
not a pipedream - isn't that what SACAD is supposed to do? if you believe the spin-doctors!! :evil:
Dare I suggest a purpose built building, housing SAPol and SAAS comms as well. Then we could have all emergency services working off the same page and would cut out 99% of the crap that goes on
that would have to be one HUGE building! SAPOL comms is massive, and SAAS comms has just undergone a massive renovation - it now occupies the entire top floor of greenhill rd.
the other issue with them all being housed in the same location is security.....all it takes is one well positioned explosive, and all critical ES infrastructure gone in an instant - would never happen....would it??
-
Hmmmm, surely at least a message of 'siren activation' would suffice. I know they're busy but.....
MFS: INC # 56 - 13/12/07 15:51,RESPOND GRASS FIRE,PINNAROO CFS,PINNAROO, MAP 0 0 0 ,,AT 6 BORE ROAD MURRAYVILLE,SAIR55 PINN19*CFSRES:
MFS: URGMSG (brigade) RESPOND (incident type), (location), (other info.) 13/12/2007 3:52:08 PM
-
if you believe the spin-doctors!! :evil:
We might as well employ Shane Warne to be in charge of the SACAD system cause he was known as the spin king/doctor :roll: :lol:
-
Adam,that is the new secret coding :lol:
-
Might as well close the tower down if it cannot function effectively and quickly.
Never really functioned well to be honest did it..?
Thats not a very big crunch if an old and out dated fire spotting tower can't contact commcen! (The first person to tell me the last fire the Tower spotted first (Inside Clealand notwithstanding) wins a prize!)
The tower used to be the first report of quite a few incidents.
-
The tower used to be the first report of quite a few incidents.
You mean before mobile phones?
-
The tower used to be the first report of quite a few incidents.
You mean before mobile phones?
lol - for all the decent posts from people like yourself, and numbers... there are also some extremely uneducated ones. the fire tower has proven itself year after year, although it can depend on the tower operator (and the cleanliness of the tower windows ;) )
-
The tower used to be the first report of quite a few incidents.
You mean before mobile phones?
lol - for all the decent posts from people like yourself, and numbers... there are also some extremely uneducated ones. the fire tower has proven itself year after year, although it can depend on the tower operator (and the cleanliness of the tower windows ;) )
I asked because you said "Used", indicating that it's not the case anymore.... I wondered what changed...
-
lol - for all the decent posts from people like yourself, and numbers... there are also some extremely uneducated ones. the fire tower has proven itself year after year, although it can depend on the tower operator (and the cleanliness of the tower windows ;) )
The only thing that the fire tower proves year after year is that the proportion of calls that it is helpful for continues to drop.
SOP's for the tower tend to boil down to: listen to GRN 124/monitor pager scanner, when you hear appliances turning out to a job, look in the general direction,...wait..., see smoke, call commcen to confirm that the smoke is in the same location as previous incident and log it in the occurrence book.
Yep, thats some front line fire detection right there.
(Yes there is the odd job inside Cleland that the tower spots first, but thats about it)
-
The tower used to be the first report of quite a few incidents.
You mean before mobile phones?
lol - for all the decent posts from people like yourself, and numbers... there are also some extremely uneducated ones. the fire tower has proven itself year after year, although it can depend on the tower operator (and the cleanliness of the tower windows ;) )
I asked because you said "Used", indicating that it's not the case anymore.... I wondered what changed...
im not sure what the new procedures for them are, was simpyl meaning in the past years...
6793264 - what a load of rubbish from someone with no personal experience with the tower, would have thought a friend of yours could have kept you better informed.
-
6793264 - what a load of rubbish from someone with no personal experience with the tower, would have thought a friend of yours could have kept you better informed.
I would agree that it is a load of rubbish if it wasn't for the fact that I've spent my fair share of time in the tower, and no matter how hard we would scan the surrounds, that was the way it ended up 99% of the time.
In years past it has been vital, but these days, its just a little past it.
-
obviously no point arguing with you mate :roll:
im sure you must know better than me then, possibly better than anyone :wink:
-
obviously no point arguing with you mate :roll:
im sure you must know better than me then, possibly better than anyone :wink:
Yeah, you've got me pegged mate. :roll:
So because we have both had vastly differing tower experiences, and I related mine - which was one of the tower being rather out dated and not as useful as it could have been - I'm the uneducated one that is spewing baseless rubbish.
Righto :)
*hug*
-
:-P
that may be your perception, but from my reading of your posts, you have just bagegd the crap out of the tower, and said what a watse it is...
my experience has seen it be the main/initial point of call for many incidents, including jobs in extremely built up areas where you would think the public would call it in first; examples that come to mind are a shed/grassfire in hawthorndene, and a shed fire around the st agnes area.
dont get me wrong, ill be the first to say that i think wuite a few of the 'tower operators' arent worth the AC bill.... but at the same time that tower not only shaves time off the initial reporting of incidents (or has in the past) and has also been used to confirm incidents (as you stated) but then give a semi-decent size up of whether mnore resources are going to be required straight away.
just my $0.02