Show Posts

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


Messages - chook

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 [44] 45 46
1076
SASES / Re: requirements?!
« on: October 24, 2007, 07:04:46 PM »
This is the minimum standard:- basic skills & Induction, Basic comms, Map reading, Basic rescue! What callout are you refering to?
If you are talking about RCR then add Tools & Equipment & the Road crash recue course. If its Storms & Floods - storm damage course. Why do you ask?

1077
SA Firefighter General / Re: Ammusing pager message.
« on: October 19, 2007, 06:32:48 PM »
Geez mate you take Workplace Dignity trg seriously :-D I thought it was funny, true the blonde bit wasn't quite PC. But I still thought it was funny. cheers

1078
SASES / Re: SASES Deployments to NSW 17/06/07
« on: October 19, 2007, 06:28:03 PM »
Same as other major disasters interstate. Interestingly you mention USAR which is what SASES has done since day one (civil defence days)- disaster rescue(with minor changes. So if a twin towers type event were to happen interstate e.g. Sydney you would see multi agency deployments. Thats how Australia works, its also why Nationally SES is adopting common training. cheers

1079
SA Firefighter General / Re: Ammusing pager message.
« on: October 18, 2007, 07:58:26 PM »
And I was going to ask you guys about plain language communications

1080
Not sure Mack is that the same as SNAFU? :-D

1081
SASES / Re: SASES Deployments to NSW 17/06/07
« on: October 18, 2007, 07:45:24 PM »
Your right Zippy, and if possible should happen again! As long as there is enough cover at home why not. And many years ago when I was with a federal department we got sent to Myrtleford/ Bright area in the Victorian snow fields the incident was called Ash Wednesday fires and again it was important to assist the local guys. Any way thats my thoughts cheers

1082
SASES / Re: SASES Deployments to NSW 17/06/07
« on: October 18, 2007, 07:16:09 PM »
I know I'm a bit late on this, however as one of those who went with the second deployment and had the honor of leading one of the composite teams I just had to respond (couldn't help my self :wink:). As I said in another post we tackled & completed tasks that the other states wouldn't. Favourable comments were made by NSW at our level of training & skill.
So from my understanding, you don't support CFS/MFS strike teams going interstate. Therefore you also don't support interstate Emergency Services coming here to support us when we need it. So you believe that the fire services won't need help this summer, or when another cyclone Tracy hits stuff em!
That would be the same as not sending a team to Adelaide during a major emergency, or not sending search teams out side of our area to help other areas.
Thats not why I joined the emergency services! I honestly believe that we all live in one country & if we are ever asked again to go interstate - I will be in it. cheers

1083
The minimum standard is -
Crewing
It is a requirement that an RR response consist of a minimum of two RR-qualified persons per vehicle per turnout, adequate EVS drivers and sufficient personnel
for back up in the event of escalation of an event.
This is straight out of their arrangments manual, however as I said above it would be tight for non full time units.
cheers

1084
Thanks mate - I was aware of that (also read the fire ground practices on the subject)interestingly the Victorians run with two. I've asked our gurus about whether we should try that.Opinion was not a good idea - relies too much on other agencies who may not be at full strength. I think going forward some radical thinking from all three services in consultation with SAAS will need to happen to fix the issues with road crash rescue around crewing issues, when to call rescue/ fire cover (the time delay between SAAS and everyone else being call is sometimes ridiculous). Cheers

1085
SA Firefighter General / Re: GRN RADIO;S
« on: October 15, 2007, 09:27:41 PM »
Cheers thats what I'm takin about. Like the term for the :-D

1086
Number not based on incidents - but units certified by the state rescue board & same as Victoria. I would not be surprised considering NSWFB covers Sydney, Newcastle & Wollongong (& has retained all over the place), and like all fire services counts RCR's they attend whether they are doing the extracation or providing fire cover. Interesting that you mention the VRA & NSWFB in the same sentence, considering NSWFB were trying to take Rescue off VRA in Penrith (an area of Sydney I know very well), I actually agreed with the reasons for it just the method was very poor.
And you might be surprised to know that in rural areas the VRA & SES work closely together (same membership support each other on ops etc)in some districts, they have an MOU so the infighting would stop and resources would not be duplicated.
So yep anyone can come up with stats to support their argument & if CFS/MFS could guarantee 24/7 cover & meet the standards of emergency response for Road Crash Rescue (in people, equipment-no combitools, training), meet the standard for fire coverage (& no not using the rescue crew), keep up with all of the training you guys do & finally it improves service to the community - then why not get rid of the SES all together. However before everyone cheers this years fire season is looking to be really bad.
So while you guys are out doing what you were formed to do - fight fires, who is going to look after rescue? And be honest can every brigade/ Station in the State get a full crew? I already know the answer, we have similar issues. However to meet the Standard I only need 4, think about that.
And just to clear something up I'm not blinded by the Orange, when I first took over the unit I'm currently in ( I was bought in from a near by unit) I considered handing RCR over to the local fire service & wind the unit up. After doing the SWOT analysis, it was not as simple as first thought (interservice rivalry between the fire services would have meant that the other SES units picking up a lot more work which they didn't need) & there was no guarantee that the situation would improve.
A far simpler solution was to change the membership of the unit(which was painfulfor those involved), luckily we also attracted another very experienced operator & some new people who will do ok. As I said above if handing rescue over to someone else would provide a better service I would have-less grey hairs  :wink:.
Cheers and thanks for your thoughts

1087
SA Firefighter General / Re: GRN RADIO;S
« on: October 14, 2007, 10:45:10 PM »
Yep understand network busies, referring to simplex was for those who want to have extended chats - the operational channel is kept clear.

Hypothetical for you, 4 people isolated from main group - got to fireground by boat. Two firies two SES, Two firies have got a couple of 38's out, one SES looking after flotation pump & liaising with SES ground crew( in a nearby town)& CFS base, one SES operating the boat. Firies ask for more hose as they are making good headway, try to get on to CFS base-takes ten minutes due to other traffic. Another ten minutes to get an answer, then more time is lost going over to the other side of river to find more hose, get back to crew, connect hose and start pump. By this time opportunity is lost and crew withdrawn.

Thats what I'm talking about, don't worry our service is just as bad. As you said depends on unit, region etc, that is why we are worried about a regional talk group - nothing gained as base stations will still be on, only less talkgroups to monitor. I know what you are saying ltdan, thats why training people properly in the first place is so important & shouldn't be rushed.
cheers

1088
All Equipment discussion / Re: SAMFS 'ROSA' 14 Appliance
« on: October 14, 2007, 09:59:27 PM »
Thanks Pip

1089
SA Firefighter General / Re: GRN RADIO;S
« on: October 14, 2007, 09:57:42 PM »
ltdan, I have a very good understanding of how the GRN network operates. I know about the fact that every set that is turned on takes up resources on the network. And you have a very clear idea of what we are talking about, however I would not call it whining when excessive chatter causes a) serious operational problems, b) important messages not being passed in a timely manner & c)potentially puts crews at risk. It is totally irrelevant that others have more chatter than we do, just as it is irrelevant that the military have far less chatter (12 years including training as a radio op)- different circumstances.
If what needs to be communicated can't put into one short sentence, then mobiles are the go (or simplex). Partly Zippy I know that we have a plan that when we go operational our whole region will be on the same talk group, not sure when that will happen but. cheers

1090
SA Firefighter General / Re: GRN RADIO;S
« on: October 14, 2007, 09:28:55 PM »
Instead of short sharp messages that get to the point, Long rambling discussions that tie up the network, stop messages getting through and sound unprofessional.

1091
All Equipment discussion / Re: SAMFS 'ROSA' 14 Appliance
« on: October 14, 2007, 09:10:48 PM »
I might seem ignorant (which I most likely am :wink:)But why ROSA, seen them around here - never thought to ask. They are cute but :-D

1092
SA Firefighter General / Re: GRN RADIO;S
« on: October 14, 2007, 09:04:54 PM »
Exactly

1093
SA Firefighter General / Re: GRN RADIO;S
« on: October 14, 2007, 12:10:44 PM »
I'm glad that its not just us having radio/pager issues, thought it was just my guys being careless :wink:. Whats worse is you send them away for repair & they come back with the same faults :|.
The idea of brigades/ units not having a base station, would that mean that for every response group base would be activated? And I like the idea of our radios being able to talk to you guys, I don't know why GRN was set up the way it is. Earlier in the year we were using boats to help you guys fight a fire (long story), had to carry two hand helds which was fine except my ground crew and other units coming in to assist had no idea what was going on!
Hard to run a relay station in a boat with pumps running etc. This led to a number of misunderstandings, which could have been avoided. Also the command channel was choked with traffic, very hard to get messages through. Anyway hopefully when the new system arrives this sought of issue will be addressed, including people thinking that radios are like mobile phones - just have long chats! cheers

1094
SA Firefighter General / Re: GRN RADIO;S
« on: October 13, 2007, 11:15:07 PM »
Yep your right, our basic comms course goes for about a day. We have some suit case radios from state when they run a course. But we still use the units radios when they are not broken that is :evil:. We would not run it as part of a basic rescue course - too much other stuff. cheers

1095
SA Firefighter General / Re: GRN RADIO;S
« on: October 13, 2007, 09:03:30 PM »
Just make it simple & call it FOOD!

1096
SA Firefighter General / Re: GRN RADIO;S
« on: October 13, 2007, 08:56:30 PM »
No worries you could only but hope - Pizza Haven too

1097
SA Firefighter General / Re: Ammusing pager message.
« on: October 13, 2007, 08:54:37 PM »
Iwas wodering that too :lol:

1098
SA Firefighter General / Re: GRN RADIO;S
« on: October 13, 2007, 08:14:29 PM »
Used the 5000 model in NSW recently, cool bit of gear the way they had them set up. When we have a radio go down, we don't get a replacement - at one stage we had no hand helds at all. Hopefully new radios won't be to far away (in government terms anyway :-D). And when we do hopefully they will be like NSW, able to talk to any service with the push off a button. The current setup is very poor, we need the ability to talk to each other without requesting a multi agency. cheers

1099
Interesting when some in the fire services talk about taking over rescue, they talk about RCR. And yet when we "use" the fire services in the past, its storm damage or landsearch - not exactly rescue is it!

 I once had the opportunity/ pleasure to run some CFS guys through a landsearch session at a CFS training day (Lameroo) fantastic day and they did really well (found most of the chockies :-D.

For areas that have low numbers merging the brigade/ units, is a better option. They can then get the best of both worlds, Fully equipped SES trucks, access to SES specialist in usar,vertical,RCR,Storm damage, Disaster management,Landsearch etc. And still have access to all of the CFS specialist as well. All they would need is 4-6 people for the rescue team.
I think this is the way of the future, not shutting down one of the services. And here is a bit of info for you NSW SES is the largest provider of RCR in the state. VICSES is the same, the SES QLD still provides rescue including RCR, SES in Tasmania same & finally even in WA + NTSES still provide Rescue services.
Those who promote the one Super service need to remember all of that training you guys do & then add all of our training on top - then keep the training current. It is hard enough for us to keep current, hold down a job, remember the kids + keep sweet with the partner as well. :-D.
cheers

1100
SASES / Re: SES Callouts
« on: October 11, 2007, 10:26:28 PM »
Mack your comment on who decides the priority is spot on. Initially its on the pager, Unit manager/Duty Officer contacts Adelaide Fire to a) notifying them that crew is being dispatched - before the call is defaulted, b) to gain further information. From that the response is managed - vehicle to use, siren/ no siren, speed etc. The vehicle one might make some people curious, if we are going to support another unit at an RCR for example - if they only require extra crew we would use our 31 Unit (refer to call sign post :wink:)as it is faster than the big truck, takes up less space etc.
Now some from SES may disagree, however, I have been in three units (this unit twice) & when I became manager of this one, discussed this with other unit managers in the area - this is the way they do it as well.
cheers

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 [44] 45 46
anything