SA Firefighter
General Discussion => Country Fire Service => Topic started by: medevac on November 13, 2005, 05:57:17 PM
-
im not sure what everyone else thinks...
but surely all the EMA brigades out there know that the S.O.P. concerning mutaual aid states that CFS will NOT use k-codes when transmitting on MFS frequencys... i qoute "k-codes are not to be utilised by CFS resources" ?? :???
just that i was listening to scanner and couldnt help but overhear a brigade (wont say which one in the interest of not getting flammed/bashed whatever... and to prevent embaressment to them) who was determined to use k-codes for everything.. and then even thought it was appropriate to tell adelaide fire they were available in an MFS stations area... (using k-codes of course "adelaide fire we're K6 ??'s area")
surely weve all read our sop's? especially the ones that apply directly to us...
EDIT to include :
LOL... perhaps im just cynical and like to stir ppl up though... sorry.
-
Must admit when on MFS channel the odd K code slips out but i'm trying to control myself.
-
but on the other hand they are'nt supposed to use them on CFS channels but they still do.
-
Quite frankly, I know the rules are their, but if they are expected to use "PLAIN ENGLISH" when on CFS talkgroup, I don't see how it is unreasonable for them to expect us to use K-Codes. AS long as people who have no idea use them willy-nilly and have absoloutly no clue as to what they are saying.
For goodness sake we are meant to be doing things to make life easy, and to be quick, clear and precise on the radio... How much simpler can it get than with a K-Code. !!!!
-
It was my understanding that CFS uses K-codes when operating in MFS area / talk groups and the MFS don't use them when in our area... I'm sure the MFS don't mind us using K-codes when in their area, it was them that gave us the list of K-codes to use in the first place :P
-
Hi there.
We go to school for a considerable amount of time and learn to speak & understand Australian/English language.
My views we (being CFS) needs to either adopt K-Codes 100% or drop it because not everyone understands this form of communication.
I am not slamming something I haven't tried - we used them at work for a couple of years but through time they have been dropped. We communicate with the English language and under pressure and we all still sometimes make mistakes - little lone using something we use now and than (being k-codes.
The mets us this form of communication as part of there training & occupation, the CFS is a professional service but its not our bread and butter or something we all use everyday or within our employment.
I like to use the KIS method (I shouldn't need to explain this)
I am expecting to take a little flack over this subject but but it is a forum and everyone is entitled to the views.
Thanks for reading
Wayne
-
My opinion is they should only be used by E.M.A brigades who operate in M.F.S area alot and only if those people keep on doing the appropriate training. One issue is that we all need to know the basic's incase they talk to us with K - codes, because when the heat is on you don't want to be asking someone 5 times what they said in plain english.
-
I'm with you TillerMan, if we know at least K55, (special service), K66 (Rubbish, waste bin etc), K77 (Nothing showing), K88 (small fire), and K99 (Large fire), that means we'll at least know what to expect when we get there if MFS arrive first...
Also, for brigades working primarily in MFS area, (Burnside for example), it would be natural for them to use K-codes a lot, and for them to accidently slip into non-EMA jobs...
I don't mind what codes we use, so long as the radio transmissions are Clear and Concise. Theres nothing worse than having to wait 5 minutes after arrival before you can say you've arrived, and ask the IC what they want from you...:(
-
but on the other hand they are'nt supposed to use them on CFS channels but they still do.
there in the wrong there as well !!! lol
btw.. it is actually MFS that requested CFS EMA brigades dont use the k-codes... so really there is no arguing as far as i can tell.. the brigades simply shouldnt be making there own rules... i think one of the offenders do come from a certain group though...
-
btw.. it is actually MFS that requested CFS EMA brigades dont use the k-codes...
Probably because CFS kept getting them wrong :lol:
-
The CFS COSO/SOP document is clear and states that no K codes will be used by CFS on any talkgroup including SAMFS.
Look at SOP 7.1
(http://www.cfs.org.au/about/pdf/SOP.pdf)
-
Hi there
You are correct Firefrog
SOP 7.1 -
Radio Communications.
All personal (CFS or SAMFS) when operating on CFS frequencies shall do so in accordance with the CFS SOP (K Codes are not to be used by CFS Resources).
All crews (CFS or SAMFS) when operating on MFS frequency's shall do so in accordance with MFS SOP for communications (K Codes are not to be utilized by CFS resources)
Whether this is in-forced is entirely up to you hierarchy.
Wayne
-
I agree with TillerMan.
Many times during incidents within CFS area MFS will use K codes on CFS talkgroups only to be asked to repeat in English meanwhile taking up more air time. Many of these MFS appliance know not to use K codes in CFS area but it tends to happen time after time.
Who's going to change first?
Somethings got to give and using K codes appear to be an efficient system in reducing airtime and getting an accurate message across.
I think CFS should make the change.
I believe EMA brigades should be allowed to use K codes.
K
-
The CFS COSO/SOP document is clear and states that no K codes will be used by CFS on any talkgroup including SAMFS.
swear i said that... lol
canman:
one of the main reasons CFS dont use k-codes is probably because... not everyone lives/breathes/shtis fire service. there are way too many mingas that couldnt be expected to rememebr k-codes.. most ppl seem to have a hard enough time using normal langauge and pro-words on radios.
-
^^ Mingas ey.................
Im with CANMAN/TILLERMAN.. I say EMA brigades should be able to use them, and be trained in them.... IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO REMEMBER THEM PEOPLE !! ESPECIALLY THE EASY / FREQUENTLY USED ONES !!! Not rocket science, that is for SURE !
I am K1 to the fridge for a drink......
-
K55 at fridge.. we have a minor spillage...
-
btw.. it is actually MFS that requested CFS EMA brigades dont use the k-codes... so really there is no arguing as far as i can tell.. the brigades simply shouldnt be making there own rules... i think one of the offenders do come from a certain group though...
Certain Group?????????
From monitoring there are probally only two brigades that use K codes with the majority of their responses and usually because they have MFS staff in their brigades and on their appliances( yes they are neighboring brigades, both have RCR, Hazmat and regularly respond into MFS area)!
The SOP is clear ..... there is no grey area. K codes are not to be used by CFS brigades! Simple really ............. although maybe too simple - maybe that style of SOP/instruction should be written n a K code :roll:.
In numerous posts in different threads, members have made comments about brigades and groups, both urban and rural who have adapted their own version of the SOP's, who do things a little differently to you or a little differently to the SOP's. Maybe this is just a reality check coming back to those people ...... it doesn't matter if your in a group who thinks they can write their own SOP's and abide by their own laws or create their own appliances or additional levels of equipment or if your a member of an ema brigade who uses K codes - your all outside of the SOP's, no matter if it's a little bit or a large bit!
As for the reasons - there are people in both services who for a long time have worked to resolve the gap between CFS and MFS, have worked to make EMA work and who have hit their heads against brick walls, fire trucks, been hit and probally many times wondered why they worry - these same people though have agreed on both services SOP's - so maybe they know things that we don't, maybe they see the big picture, maybe they are across all boundary areas, maybe they are working to continue bringing the services closer together and maybe, just maybe we should give them the respect they deserve when they wrote the SOP's.
So before I become a statistic (K-41 1) I'm K5!
-
Dont know why in this day and age that any fire service use any type of codes lets face it how hard is it say arrived on scene?? or that we are returning??? Sure when there is a death they need some sort of code but there are ways around this one...
-
swear i said that... lol
MedevacYes you did say that I was agreeing with you!!! :-D
-
well put oz fire
-
Seriously! What's all the fuss about?
So what if a few CFS guys use the dreaded K Codes???
With a bit of common sense (what was that?) surely if they use K Codes regularly and KNOW them, what's the problem? A rule of thumb is that if you're not sure of the correct K code, use plain language. That applies for members of either service.
Medevac, I don't agree that the MFS requested that the CFS stop using K Codes. I'm not sure where you got that info, but I am certain that the push came from within the CFS.
Disclaimer; I am not suggesting that any member deliberately disobey their SOPs, but what a mountain from the mole-hill.
PS the MFS SOP's are under constant review, including Communications, and one thought has been to get rid of K Codes for all but status changes, arrivals and certain "sensitive" messages, eg fatality, bomb found, etc. Requests for police or SAAS, ETSA etc might become plain language anyway. Or so I'm told...
-
Dont know why in this day and age that any fire service use any type of codes lets face it how hard is it say arrived on scene?? or that we are returning??? Sure when there is a death they need some sort of code but there are ways around this one...
Cause some people read out a novel with their arrival message... ! (Not joking either!!)
Don't know if you are familiar with K Codes Blinky and understandably as your brigade wouldn't associate with them.... But for EMA or MA brigades, they can be useful (if used correctly).. They can save time, be alot clearer, and I believe a more effective way of communicating.."
And I also believe it was CFS who pulled the pin on K Codes a few years back... .. Stupid decision if you ask me.
-
That's right roger, I have also heard that M.F.S will be getting rid of K codes themselves.
-
Yes I know what K codes are I have a copy of the list here and at the station so we can hear what MFS are up .
-
What does the "K" stand for?
-
Kentucky :wink:
-
Kentucky :wink:
I hope not! :-o
-
I am currently involved with the Coronial Inquest into Black Tuesday. After listening to one of the Crown solicitors, I would advise any volunteer who likes to work outside of the SOP's that you would consider never doing it again unless you wish to finance your own legal representation in such a process.
The SOP's are there for your own protection..
...... it doesn't matter if your in a group who thinks they can write their own SOP's and abide by their own laws or create their own appliances or additional levels of equipment or if your a member of an ema brigade who uses K codes - your all outside of the SOP's, no matter if it's a little bit or a large bit!
-
Good advice.
I would imagine every single Brigade either "bends", manipulates, ignores or simply does not understand some SOP's. (An example would be appliances rolling with 3 firefighters knowing that others will be meeting them on scene)
I guess we never think that we may be in a coroners court explaining why.
-
Great advise indeed - short sharp and straight to the point.
The SOP's are there to cover your behind.
Wayne
-
It comes down to whatever sounds professional i think.... If you don't know then don't use them but when you know K codes it sounds professional and makes the job a lot easier..... ( i think)
"MFS comms this if nuff nuff 24 Pumper we are mobile to job in MFS area"
"Adelaide Fire Burnside 2919 K1 over"
As for following SOP's considerng a lot of CFS don't follow basic ones like levels of response and appropriate resources anyway what does a simple K mean....
-
As for following SOP's considerng a lot of CFS don't follow basic ones like levels of response and appropriate resources anyway what does a simple K mean....
well for a lot of minga brigades it could mean telling state or there bases the wrong thing... cos lets face it, not everyone in the CFS is a rocket scientest, and a fair few ppl have issues with basic pro words like over or out, or over and out...
-
What about when you try and follow the SOP's and not use the MFS allocated number (8624, 2912 etc) but you use your CFS callsign "nuff nuff 24 Pumper mobile to ....", then the MFS comcen dude calls you back with "roger 8624 you're K1".
Not to mention that nuff nuff 24 Pumper should actually be 861 (first Pump) and when nuff nuff 24 responds as well - MFS still call it "nuff nuff 8624" so all of sudden MFS have two 8624 appliances going to different jobs - yes it is as confusing as what I have just said.. If you have ever heard Seford call up on the radio they always say "Adelaide Fire this isSeafood 24 Pumper mobile to ......" then MFS call them back with "Roger 8334 you're K1". Well Seaford don't even have a 34, MFS just don't get it.
I think they play games with us, either we should all use MFS appliance number (2919, 9219, 9119, 9419, 8334, etc) or no one uses them, and the MFS comms guys acknowledge that we aren't using them and just respond to us with our standard CFS callsigns, rather than responding to us on the radio with the MFS appliance nubmers.
-
thats my point... per CFS SOPs noones meant to use numbers as appliance identities or k-codes...
-
What about when you try and follow the SOP's and not use the MFS allocated number (8624, 2912 etc) but you use your CFS callsign "nuff nuff 24 Pumper mobile to ....", then the MFS comcen dude calls you back with "roger 8624 you're K1".
Not to mention that nuff nuff 24 Pumper should actually be 861 (first Pump) and when nuff nuff 24 responds as well - MFS still call it "nuff nuff 8624" so all of sudden MFS have two 8624 appliances going to different jobs - yes it is as confusing as what I have just said.. If you have ever heard Seford call up on the radio they always say "Adelaide Fire this isSeafood 24 Pumper mobile to ......" then MFS call them back with "Roger 8334 you're K1". Well Seaford don't even have a 34, MFS just don't get it.
I think they play games with us, either we should all use MFS appliance number (2919, 9219, 9119, 9419, 8334, etc) or no one uses them, and the MFS comms guys acknowledge that we aren't using them and just respond to us with our standard CFS callsigns, rather than responding to us on the radio with the MFS appliance nubmers.
MFS just don't get it.
No, we are complicated and call our appliances cra p names like 24 Pumper. What is wrong with following suit and calling our appliances like - 831, 299, 919 etc etc. Imagine.. State Hq, 831 is Mobile. Or Adelaide Fire, 831 is K1. That is so much simpler, sounds so much more professional and I believe is a more effective way of communicating.
-
Now I dont pay much attention to listening to the MFS on scanners, nor get the opertunity to work with them. However, from my point of view... i tend to agree that we SHOULDNT be using K codes or numerical callsigns... Dont mean to offend anyone from smaller brigades but those that only get 2 or 3 calls a year and/or only train one in a blue moon will have a lot of trouble. And the whole point of volunteering is to get everyone involved and feel welcome.
Think back to when appliance callsigns were station number / appliance number.....
The current naming system is simple. I instantly know 3 bits of info about the truck. The diference between Kxx and arrived.... at least I dont have to translate what im saying first.... and no matter who is on the other end, they know what im on about.
You dont need fancy names or numbers to make things sound professional.... just good training.
IMO anyway
-
For those that use them (K codes) often it seems reasonable to continue, but I agree that the CFS should use standard communications across the board - therefore should use plain language which is common to all and easy to interpret.
The argumentment is actually moot because there is an SOP that tells us what to do. There is no room for interpretation or bending the rules.
I wonder if the desire to use K codes is less about communication and more about sounding cool on the radio. :-D :lol:
-
I think you've hit the nail on the head there Firefrog. You hear some brigades that like to use K codes every time they move their appliance 10 feet. Clearly they are MFS wannabees.
If we all just follow the CFS SOP's and dont use K codes and dont use appliance nubmers we will be alright, if only hte MFS comms guys would respond to us with plain language rather than replying with K codes and MFS appliance numbers.
-
One would hope that if and when CAD get's here that there will be one set of rules for all with communications no more codes of any type and life would be alot easy for us all....
-
No, we are complicated and call our appliances cra p names like 24 Pumper. What is wrong with following suit and calling our appliances like - 831, 299, 919 etc etc. Imagine.. State Hq, 831 is Mobile. Or Adelaide Fire, 831 is K1. That is so much simpler, sounds so much more professional and I believe is a more effective way of communicating.
Poor OCOs... can you imagine how many appliance numbers they would have to remember?? not just the various appliance types which they could handle im sure.. but the differant station numbers also... and how many stations are there??? i think thats rubbish.
whereas Nuff Nuff 24P tells them everything they need to know, where its from, what it is. sometimes making things easier... isnt making things easier.
-
Hi there
Its sounds like we have some very passionate people about the use of K- Codes.
At the end of the Day and its been said MANY time throughout this forum - its a breach of the SOP's.
If you would like to change the SOP's please feel free to discuss the issues with your officer or officers in charge and they will address it through the right channels.
I am not disputing whether is quicker - easer or sounds more professional but we have SOP'S in place for our protection. If a few choose not to abide by these do so at there own risk and they may be liable for what ever repercussions occurs.
Thanks for reading
Wayne
-
Poor OCOs... can you imagine how many appliance numbers they would have to remember?? not just the various appliance types which they could handle im sure.. but the differant station numbers also... and how many stations are there??? i think thats rubbish.
whereas Nuff Nuff 24P tells them everything they need to know, where its from, what it is. sometimes making things easier... isnt making things easier.
When you press the transmit button on your radio, the callsign of that radio comes up on the OCO's screen - they don't have to remember anything.. its probably easier for them to read out a series of numbers that try to pronounce some of the great names we have in SA ;)
-
although... this does make me think of the MFS wannabes thread someone just started..... :wink:
-
although... this does make me think of the MFS wannabes thread someone just started..... :wink:
Its been meantioned in a few other threads as well, but this was most recent ;) however like others have said, wanting to be more like the MFS doesn't change the fact that we have to follow CFS SOP's ;)
-
mm i say if you want to be more proffesional or whatever... then make yourself sound more professional on the radio while using proper CFS radio procedure... no hang-ons from the days of CB, no over and outs, no roger that....
-
For those that use them (K codes) often it seems reasonable to continue, but I agree that the CFS should use standard communications across the board - therefore should use plain language which is common to all and easy to interpret.
The argumentment is actually moot because there is an SOP that tells us what to do. There is no room for interpretation or bending the rules.
I wonder if the desire to use K codes is less about communication and more about sounding cool on the radio. :-D :lol:
Well Firefrog, you of all people would be able to give an opinion on both sides of the debate. In you opinion and using your knowledge and exp. with both forms of communication, "Do you believe K codes are a simpler, quicker, and better way of communicating, when used in an environment where training allows one to understand the Code.. ?" In other words, if trained in their understanding, do you think K codes make things a heck of a lot easier ??
-
I am very neutral as to the benefits of K codes. Neither like them or dislike them.
Not sure what you mean by me having insight on both side of the debate though - have only ever used K codes riding on SACFS trucks. :-)
The key point that has been highlighted over and over is the SOP and this should be followed.
I see more benefits and less room for error if using plain language.
-
At the end of the day if you use them you will use them if you don't even respond with SAMFS then why even worry about them. I'm gonna use them when I'm in SAMFS area working as part of a SAMFS resource (and no I'm not a SAMFS wannabe!). As for people running by the CFS SOP's and we should follow them that's the end of the story then consider this, this CFS SOP's also state "the closest most appropriate resource should be responded to incidents". Considering we can't even get that right and the public are at a fair risk because of it I think K codes are a minimal issue....
-
agreed K codes are a minimal issue! :-D :-D
-
MFS are phasing them out soon according to the current recruit course, so I envisage with the new CAD that K codes will be a thing of the past!
-
K
-
Do you know what the MFS are planning to replace them with? Are they instead using keywords, or are they just going back to "yeah Bob, nuff nuff just got here, we'll have a look around and see whats happening...".
Surely they've found a better way of doing it?
-
Not really sure what they'll be using instead, but gather that a mobile data terminal may be involved, then (again only a presumption) I'd say appropriate radio traffic like most other servies.
-
I saw the new MDT's the other day, they are touch screen, don't know how long they'll last in our feild of work.
-
Nothing Like Dirty Finger Marks All Over The Touch Screen.
-
SAPOL have been able to manage fore quite a while... When you think about it, you should be wearing gloves at the job any way, and the only time the screen would really be used is enroute... (EG The UBD funtcion or giving K1 Message etc)... Can't be that heard to keep clean...
-
More over - you can bet that only a selection of brigades get them - if they can't finish the roll out of fire stations interfaces and other items, they will never manage a role out of MDT's.
Probally Hazmat first with brigades who respond with MFS (both city and country) then who is anyones guess?????????? Just a thought:-P
-
More over - you can bet that only a selection of brigades get them - if they can't finish the roll out of fire stations interfaces and other items, they will never manage a role out of MDT's.
Probally Hazmat first with brigades who respond with MFS (both city and country) then who is anyones guess?????????? Just a thought:-P
sorry first if this sounds offensive..
but what are you talking about? theres no chance in hell of any CFS brigades getting MDTs i think pple have turned this thread into an MFS comms thread or something...
-
More over - you can bet that only a selection of brigades get them - if they can't finish the roll out of fire stations interfaces and other items, they will never manage a role out of MDT's.
Probally Hazmat first with brigades who respond with MFS (both city and country) then who is anyones guess?????????? Just a thought:-P
sorry first if this sounds offensive..
but what are you talking about? theres no chance in hell of any CFS brigades getting MDTs i think pple have turned this thread into an MFS comms thread or something...
No offense taken!
The first tender spec for supply of MDT's that was released had supply to CFS - but not a huge quantity - maybe they have changed their minds!
Anything is possible over time though!
-
geez.. cant imagine having MDTs in appliances.
would mean huge implications on comms procedures.. i can imagine it would mean all radio comms through state. would require huge tech upgrades to implement MDTs and make them manageable for brigade comms at stations..
-
:? SAPOL don't do anthing that gets them covered in water or dirt or oil etc so of coarse they haven't had any problem's. Will be pretty bad jumping in the rig to send a priority voice and you cover the screen in black charcoal and mud and water coz you didn't take youre gloves off in the rush to upgrade an alarm.
-
:? SAPOL don't do anthing that gets them covered in water or dirt or oil etc so of coarse they haven't had any problem's. Will be pretty bad jumping in the rig to send a priority voice and you cover the screen in black charcoal and mud and water coz you didn't take youre gloves off in the rush to upgrade an alarm.
Clean it afterwards ;)
-
:? SAPOL don't do anthing that gets them covered in water or dirt or oil etc so of coarse they haven't had any problem's. Will be pretty bad jumping in the rig to send a priority voice and you cover the screen in black charcoal and mud and water coz you didn't take youre gloves off in the rush to upgrade an alarm.
SAMFS seem to manage to keep the current MDT's in reasonable order... And honestly, how often does the Officer in charge , or Incident Controller, get that filfthy that they cover their radio / MDT ..in black charcoal / oil / dirt..?.... At the end of the day, if it gets dirty, clean it !! Simple! Considering the MDT / Screen would be probably used enroute, to look up where the are going on the digital UBD, used to show call details, location information, and updated call info and who and where resources are coming from...
(Plus, they can get "sleves" which go over the screens, like the peel off visors that race car drivers have. When it gets to dirty, you swipe one off... Also protects the screen :wink: )
-
When down at the station always hear mets on the scanner using the K-codes, i know a few, but i was just wondering if anyone can post the full set on here if it's allowed??
-
Got this off the Net somewhere:
K Code Usage
K0 >3 Minute Response
K1 Responding to Incident.
K2 Arrived at Incident.
K3 At Incident available to run.
K4 Mobile and available in home area.
K5 Off and clear at home station.
K6 Available in another stations area.
K7 At another station...
K8 (Appliances) = Delayed response.
K8 (On call) = Available at home.
K9 (Appliances) = Vehicle unattended.
K9 (On call) = On pager.
K10 Activate hyperbaric chamber.
K11-(X) Amulance required (Qty casualties).
K12 ETSA required.
K13 SAGasCo required.
K14 Police required (reason).
K15 Fire cause investigator required.
K16 SES required (reason).
K17 CFS required (reason).
K23 Specialist advice required.
K24 Dangerous goods info required.
K24- 2 Dangerous goods info to follow.
K25 Unable to proceed (reason).
K26 Proceed to and stand by at...
K27 Arrived at...
K28 Return to station.
K29 Return other appliances
K30 Received stop for Incident
K31 Proceed code green
K31 -2 Proceed code red
K32 Request alarm status.
K32 - 2 Alarm has cleared.
K32 - 3 Alarm has not cleared.
K34 Details to follow.
K35 Request map reference.
K36 Verify address.
K37-(CH) Change to channel xx
K38 Initial control.
K38 - 2 Initial control centre.
K38 - 3 Incident control centre.
K39 Change of command (Name).
K40 Bomb alert.
K41 Fatality/ies.
K42 Persons reported.
K43 Persons accounted for.
K44 Appliances involved for extended time.
K45 No further developments.
K46 Relief crews required.
K55 Arrived on scene, Special services incident (Vehicle accident, storm damage etc)
K66 Arrived on scene, Rubbish, grass etc. fire.
K77 Arrived on scene, No sign of fire.
K88 Arrived on scene, Small property fire.
K99 Arrived on scene, Well Involved.
-
When down at the station always hear mets on the scanner using the K-codes, i know a few, but i was just wondering if anyone can post the full set on here if it's allowed??
Yeah You Can Get Them Of Mattb's Site. Scan SA (http://users.chariot.net.au/~mattb/scan/mfsfreq.htm)
-
Cheers Fellas (I think) :wink: :-D
-
My best understanding of the use of K-codes was when in MFS area the CFS is acting as a MFS appliance rules and uses their K-codes. The use of them isnt hard, we have a table on the dash of the truck saying what they all mean, and it doesnt take long before u dont even need to look anymore. The use of K-codes makes thing run more smoothly.
-
My best understanding of the use of K-codes was when in MFS area the CFS is acting as a MFS appliance rules and uses their K-codes. The use of them isnt hard, we have a table on the dash of the truck saying what they all mean, and it doesnt take long before u dont even need to look anymore. The use of K-codes makes thing run more smoothly.
No, no, and no.
Also, nice work on the thread necromancy.
-
You would think K codes weren't that hard. You should be on the end of the radio with people trying to use them ! There is a reason the CFS stopped us using them :-o
-
What about CFS appliances using the MFS stop codes ??
I hear a few brigades using them occasionally, what do people think about that ?
-
What about CFS appliances using the MFS stop codes ??
I hear a few brigades using them occasionally, what do people think about that ?
Thats all good until it gets stuffed up. Once heard a S/O rattle off all these stop and situation codes on a CFS channel and the operator politely said thats ok but how about in plain english this time?
-
Atleast the AIRS codes are not service specific. Mind you, don't quite get why SAMFS need to pass all alarm details by R/T - Surley they can go on the Fire Report? The 700 codes I can understand, but the rest?
-
Atleast the AIRS codes are not service specific. Mind you, don't quite get why SAMFS need to pass all alarm details by R/T - Surley they can go on the Fire Report? The 700 codes I can understand, but the rest?
I hear ya there... a sit found action taken would be nice. The officer can fill the rest in when he does his report.
-
As per the COSO's CFS are not to use K Codes, cant see these codes being any different or likely to change anytime soon.
-
As per the COSO's CFS are not to use K Codes, cant see these codes being any different or likely to change anytime soon.
Which is completely sigh worthy. K Codes would help a great deal.
-
How manny fire service/brigades in OZ use any type of code like MFS???
-
How manny fire service/brigades in OZ use any type of code like MFS???
Most, but they are not retarded like those used by SAMFS
Also, did anyone see SAMFS paging out "K99" to Brigades like Blyth tonight...
GOOD WORK!
-
How manny fire service/brigades in OZ use any type of code like MFS???
Most, but they are not retarded like those used by SAMFS
What are the code systems like interstate?
-
Maybe we should have one set of SOP´s that cover both services ...gasp... then there wont be any confusion... also how about we ask to have some input into the SOP´s so that they actually reflect what we do in the field...shock...and now for the big one.... how about we only open group bases in times of increased radio activity and use the existing comcen for all "minor" jobs with the same codes or whatever we decide for all SafeCom emergency services....
I know i know too utopian for us plus what would we (the 1010 members of this group) bleat about then :-)
PS im in germany for a year working for the BF Hamburg so if anyone would like to know more about how things work over here start a question thread re: fire services in Hamburg.
cheers
Rainer
-
Hope you have a nice time Rainer,some photos of fire stations and appliances would be nice...
Agree with what your saying but this is SA....One comcen to do it all wont work.....
-
Rainer all concepts of utopia start with a brave few daring to dream. If the group of 1010 could focus on the next step towards utopia, now that would be a dream!!!!!!! I am brave but Rainer are you willing to lead?
-
while we're talking fantasies.....why have two services...lets have one and be done with innefective duplication, wasted effort and public confusion...
if you're gonna dare to dream.....dream big
-
Utopia........Rainer have you been chugga luggin to many steins of lager! :wink:
-
while we're talking fantasies.....why have two services...lets have one and be done with innefective duplication, wasted effort and public confusion...
if you're gonna dare to dream.....dream big
It works in Tasmania, some brigades are full time professionals, others are volunteer brigades with retained personel and others are just straight Volunteer brigades.and most importantly no one cares which one your in as long as the wet stuff gets put on the red stuff before it turns into black stuff.
-
As long as the UFU in this state wont allow co location cfs/mfs under one roof and I do mean one roof not like PORT LINCOLN,Nothing will happen...Don't know why the UFU is against this as it works in other state's very well.
-
I'm not entirely sure that is correct Bill.
I was under the impression that the CFS were invited to co-locate with the Seaford MFS in the new station, however the decision was made by CFS to remain in a seperate location.
I also heard that the SAFECOM rules state that if one service is building a new facility, the other two agencies have to be approached to see if they want in on the deal.
-
Yeah that's right Matt, and trust me, speaking to the UFU they have a very different agenda to what your saying Bill. They would prefer there was no CFS,MFS or SES. Plus, that would have been one HUUUUUUUUUUGE fire station !
-
How manny fire service/brigades in OZ use any type of code like MFS???
Most, but they are not retarded like those used by SAMFS
What are the code systems like interstate?
Ah ha, well its an intersting mix really:
From what I can gather, it seems that codes used in the manner that SAMFS use them are on the way out. I believe MFB are almost totally plain english, although it gets more coded the furhter up the Eastern Seaboard we go:
NSWFB use a handful:
Code 1 - Mobile
Code 2 - Call off/Stop
Code 3 - Arrived
Code 4 - Available to run, heading to [Location]
Code 5 - Back in Station
Code 6 - Turning out to RFS Area
Code 7 - Unavailable + Reason
Plus a coloured priority system. The only other code passed is a 700 code for AFA activation.
I've been told RFS use something similar, but I can't find the RFS Field Guide I used to have :S
QFRS Almost take the cake from SAMFS with their codes, but not quite!
Code 1: Arrived at scene - nothing in evidence, investigating further. Optional: the address of the incident
Code 2: Arrived at scene - incident in evidence, provide brief descriptor on arrival cg. Location and comments to confirm nature of the incident
Examples for standard incident types:
* Grass Fire / size / action / resources required / time
* Structure Fire / action / resources required
* Vehicle Fire / what is involved / action / resources required
* MVA / number of vehicles / action / resources required
Other incident types:
* Hazmat: Code 2 / type / size / action / resources required
* Rescue: Code 2 / type / action / resources required
Code 4: Leaving an incident, brief description, available for turnout, returning to station.
Note: An appliance leaving the incident with another appliance remaining on scene is also to use this code to indicate that it isreturning to station and is available for turnout. (The remainingappliance will still be investigating the incident).
Code 5: Returned to Home Station.
Note: If returning to standby station "Returned to standby station 31
Code 6: Incident (refers to any type of incident) is a malicious false alarm. Area has been checked, no signs of fire or reported incident, notify police (if required), returning to station, available for turnout.
Code 7: Returning to station. Unit is NOT available for turnout.(Give reason for unavailability).
Code 8: Arrived at incident, checking with QFRS Officer-in-Charge.
Code 9: A casualty has been located. If there is more than one casualty add a number. If there are any deceased persons add letter C. Unless advised by the "C", all casualties are presumed alive, however, if necessary the letter A (alive) may be added to ensure understanding.
Note: If Police and/or Ambulance have not arrived at the incident, Firecom will advise Police and Ambulance Operations of the number and type of casualties.
Code 11: Justifiable False Alarm. Returning to Station. Available for turnout. This includes all justifiable calls.
Code 12: Avoidable false alarms. Returning to Station. Available for turnout. (Charging for these incidents needs to be incorporated.)
Code 20: High-rise procedure in use. Note: Only to be used by mobile units, message should include why it is being initiated.
For example:
* Investigation;
* Life rescue; or
* Fire fighting purposes, and what action is being taken
Code 30: Mobile unit identified is to proceed (or is proceeding) to the incident at normal road speed, without lights or siren.
Code 40: Mobile unit to whom this message is directed is not required at the incident. The mobile unit is then changed to "Left Incident" (Ll) status on FireCAD, is removed from the incident at Firecom, and assumed to be available for turnout.
Code 99: A major or critical incident is occurring. It indicates first attending crews may be initially overwhelmed by immediate operational requirements such as life rescue or evacuation, or where the dynamics, size or complexity of the incident are of an unusual scale.
The code indicates that significant resources will be required to investigate the situation (i.e. CBR incident, building collapse, commercial plane crash, major high-rise fire)
PHEW! Thats a mouthful....
All the different systems make sense to a point, yet I still haven't got my head around SAMFS's love of codes and the fact that it has been expanded to include passing of AIRS codes in stop messages.
-
They would prefer there was no CFS,MFS or SES.
:? did i miss something or did you write that wrong?
-
No you read that correctly..... ; )
-
How manny fire service/brigades in OZ use any type of code like MFS???
Most, but they are not retarded like those used by SAMFS
What are the code systems like interstate?
Ah ha, well its an intersting mix really:
BLAH BLAH BLAH
PHEW! Thats a mouthful....
All the different systems make sense to a point, yet I still haven't got my head around SAMFS's love of codes and the fact that it has been expanded to include passing of AIRS codes in stop messages.
I'm not really sure you made your point there - looks like none of those systems are any less 'retarded' than K codes are...
-
NSWRFS use a colour code for message priority
Red-Urgent incident-related message
Blue-General incident-related message, e.g. SitReps
Yellow-General message
-
I'm not really sure you made your point there - looks like none of those systems are any less 'retarded' than K codes are...
SAMFS still have a boatload of codes and in a day and age where other services are looking to streamline their codes and run further into passing more information by plain english, SAMFS have managed to expand the use of codes. Not to mention the newer codes are codes that should only appear on a Fire Report.
MFB seems to be the most streamlined, with NSWRFS coming in a close second (until you look at their appliance categorising system) NSWFB have the basics covered by codes and colours and QFRS manage to split the different by being basic, but also throwing a few others in their that could well be better off in plain english.
I can't see why SAMFS don't abolish K-codes, apart from a desire to cling to some form of history. They have MCT's to pass all basic information that other states without MCT's have to pass via radio codes. The K-codes are hardly secret now, with the internet so there is little ability to argue about keeping sensitive information coded...
And on that note, book me K0, I'm K69...
-
Matt, You could be right but once again it depends who you talk to in CFS,but it would make more sense to have all services under one roof..Now we are seeing the brakes but on fire station building works till after a enquire into the budget blow out at PORT LINCOLN...
-
Another thing to, pt Lincoln is set up to be a gullying staff station for the next 50 years rather than a tin shed to store trucks.
-
Matt, You could be right but once again it depends who you talk to in CFS,but it would make more sense to have all services under one roof..Now we are seeing the brakes but on fire station building works till after a enquire into the budget blow out at PORT LINCOLN...
What happenned at Lincoln? MFS or CFS?
-
The CFS building went way over budget. Now there is an enquiry to find out why.
-
Not the First time this has happended MOUNT GAMBIER went over budget...
-
Thats because the budget is purposely 75% of that actually required to build the actual building lol....
...and the fact many contractors are involved, gotta love the Pre-00's Era
-
It works in Tasmania, some brigades are full time professionals, others are volunteer brigades with retained personel and others are just straight Volunteer brigades.and most importantly no one cares which one your in as long as the wet stuff gets put on the red stuff before it turns into black stuff.
Actually, according to friends & acquaintances in Tassie, it doesn't work that well.
Looked good to start with, but for paid FF to get advancement, they have to get
boxes ticked on their experience log-book. IMT roles for example. So many paid
FF, so few major incidents... Best stuff goes to the paid FF, retained get first
dibs at the scraps. Volunteers get cut out of anything more than dragging hose
unless at a remote/rural brigade.
This was not how it was intended to work, but I'm told this is how it has panned
out. In SA, that might not bother 400 brigades most of the time. Not until some
Adelaide based SFF's always get all the decision-making slots of all L2 & L3 IMT
fires in their area anyway...