should all cfs/mfs stations take over rcr from ses

[chook]

sorry have to reply - remember its you guys that want usto hand over RCR - we don't want to take over fire!
Yes there are some units who don't do RCR - so what!
There are also some SES units that call out figures are 90% RCR & not fenderbenders.
And yes I'm aware of your rescue appliances - not that many around is there?
Zippy if I turn out to a task & there isn't fire cover then I keep hasseling until there is! We don't do fire - unless its from a boat
The idea of CFS members joining their local rescue unit was because of a past alledged
issue- not to poach CFS members.
Except for one brigade (who are very good by the way) we don't have any CFS/MFS stand alone rescue appliances in this area & things work fine.
So from our point of view no issues, so the only real issue is ensuring that fire & rescue are responded in a timely manner regardless of who is providing the service.
Thought for the day
I remember a story of a past GO who said that they were taking over RCR, the controller he was talking to said nothing but the following week approached the same GO with a picture of a very nice appliance (fire) and said that seeing how CFS was going to do rescue we may as well do fire
cheers

[Alan J]

Thats why both fire cover AND Rescue should be turned out. A rescue truck can roll with 2 crew, the rest jump on the pump?

I agree.
They don't have to be from the same service, and the people on them don't have to be fully cross-trained.  They simply need to have enough appreciation of each others' jobs to work together, & assist the other if required.
Having different PPE colour helps the I/C identify who has what skills.

[sesroadcrashrescue]

still why would CFS want to take RCR away from SES?

wouldnt it be better for a service who can leave one job to respond to a RCR. its a bit hard to release a CFS truck from a going fire least a SES crew can leave a storm job for a RCR.

at the end of the day it dosent matter who dose it however in built up area (metro) MFS should be RCR regardless of who is around them as they have a much faster turnout time. and in rural areas SES provide RCR except where it is to far for the nearest SES to provide RCR as primary response and hence CFS rescue responds. with SES backing up if required and same with CFS     

[country kid]

still why would CFS want to take RCR away from SES?

wouldnt it be better for a service who can leave one job to respond to a RCR. its a bit hard to release a CFS truck from a going fire least a SES crew can leave a storm job for a RCR.

at the end of the day it dosent matter who dose it however in built up area (metro) MFS should be RCR regardless of who is around them as they have a much faster turnout time. and in rural areas SES provide RCR except where it is to far for the nearest SES to provide RCR as primary response and hence CFS rescue responds. with SES backing up if required and same with CFS     

well in saying that, wouldnt it be beneficial for both services to be trained up for RCR. because its not always a ses can leave a storm damage, they do more then that. ie land search.
just a thourght, because logically it would be better, then you have a second reponse unit aswell either way.

[chook]

Country kid - you are a breath of fresh air in what is an otherwise rather repetative conversation of course they should! Those who live within a hours drive of Adelaide have little understanding of the realities of true rural life.
For example the Mallee is covered by CFS not SES (and judging by the comments on another topic will remain so ) The eastern part of the mid north, parts of the western region and part of the Riverland itself are the same. So are several parts of the lower end of east region. The future may of course be different, however until that time the response will be SAMFS or CFS or SES. I think it is unlikely that new SES Rescue units will be formed, what would be a good stepping stone instead is we all do the same training course, that there is a SAFECOM head of RCR and the best instructors (paid or vollie) train all of our people, the same way and that units or brigades must meet the same standard in equipment, training and response as discribed in the directory(no combitools).
Anyway think I have said enough - cheers

[Alan J]

still why would CFS want to take RCR away from SES?

Where CFS is not the RCR responder, the locals probably don't particularly want to be. The paid staff long ago got over the supposed turf wars. Central funding & GRN have fixed response & equipment issues.  There is no valid reason to so so except where the accredited SES RCR Unit can no longer meet response criteria. And then only if the local CFS brigade a) can & b) is willing to do so.

Mostly, it is likely that just a few theorists on the list want to do so. For reasons that aren't relevant to reality in those areas where SES are the accredited RCR responder.

cheers
AJ (CFS)

[Alan J]

Ah, but what the fire service does best *includes* rescue

I do wish you'd make up your mind lad.
To quote you from another thread:
---------------------
"16,000 volunteers, 8,000 have half a clue, 1,000 can do the job proficiently.

Thats pretty much what it boils down to sadly. I know far too many people have their heart in the right place but the ability just isn't quite there, no matter how hard people try to help them out."
---------------------
So either you are stating that on the whole, the fire service is no use at putting out fires either, or you are a troll.

Which is it ?

AJ

[6739264]

I said what the fire service dos best is rescue, not necessarily the CFS.

And yeah, the CFS does tend to cock up a fair number of fires it attends.

[Alan J]

I said what the fire service dos best is rescue, not necessarily the CFS.

And yeah, the CFS does tend to cock up a fair number of fires it attends.

Still doesn't answer the question - if you don't believe the CFS can't be relied on to do a simple thing like put out fires, why on earth do you want to reassign a complex task like RCR to them (us) ?

AJ

[6739264]

I could say the same thing about the SES. They turn simple tree down jobs into long, drawn out overly complex incidents. Why should they do rescue when they can't handle simple non life threatening storm and tempest incidents?

I believe that Rescue is a fire service task, regardless of the individual agency in question.

[safireservice]

And yeah, the CFS does tend to cock up a fair number of fires it attends.

MFS have been known to turn a quite simple fire into a large job as well.

[6739264]

MFS have been known to turn a quite simple fire into a large job as well.

They sure do, along with the majority of fire services in Australia

[chook]

Not all of the SES turn the simple into the complex - you tar us all with the same brush!
Shame on you
So if CFS can't fight fires & SES can't do simple tasks, then which service does that leave?
I think we know the answer
It won't happen - period!
If we can't get teachers, doctors or any other paid professional to move to the sticks what makes you think full time SAMFS officers would? And they would have to be full timers cause you can't get enough retained.
And the other problem you have with retained is this - some employers don't look at them the same i.e CFS & SES don't get paid. But you (SAMFS) do therefore its secondary employment & they won't release them to got to callouts.
Also the cost would be massive - can't put SAMFS in tin sheds without facilities
What about the wage component?
So I think you are very wide of the mark, we have been involved in rescue since the civil defence days, we have the latest in training, great gear & finally people who are committed to one thing - RESCUE in all of its forms.
We don't have to worry about burn over drills, structural fire, hazmat, compartment fire fighting etc etc.
If you were right then thats where we would be heading & so would every other state.
And we haven't cocked up many at all!
Sorry mate - your argument in theory is great, in practice lots of holes
cheers

[6739264]

Who said anything at all about SAMFS? Not me!

The SES in the civil defense days were created as an agency to assist the Fire Service then disbanded until the Cold War!

So.... what happens at a fire when you need rescue equipment? Call the SES? Then who can use it? The Fire Service aren't trained on the gear, and the SES aren't equipped or trained to go into a fire!

[chook]

Ah but could be
Well I couldn't think of any other fire service (remember what you said about CFS)- unless there is another?
And SES is already used at structural incidents.
And this isn't exactly the thread is it - RCR remember, and we have been used at fire incidents. Surprised?
And some of us are - again surprised?
So the reality is there isn't any reason to take rescue off SES, other than puritan thinking, we are as a whole are good at what we specialise in.
We are improving all of the time, getting rid of bad ideas, techniques and behaviours. Newcastle for example has challenged a lot of preconceived ideas, old dinosaurs who won't accept modern ideas or change their attitudes are going.
We are far more accountable in every thing we do; training, recruitment, finance & operations. And learning all of the time.
The rescue service (as we are all still part of the civil defence organisation)was created to enable the fire service to focus on what it does best to protect the citizens of this country from the effects of fire.
Now if our masters above believe that you guys don't have enough work to do & hand all rescue over to the fire service - so be it!
I believe it would be a mistake, but at the end of the day wouldn't loose any sleep over it. And who knows may get a normal life back
cheers

[6739264]

I guess the basic problem with this thread is you can't takeover "RCR" from a service. It really has to be all rescue or nothing.

Tell me more about the SES being used at fire incidents, in a search and rescue role, for persons trapped inside the structure on fire?

I'd be very surprised to hear that SES members have been used alongside firefighters in structures involved in fire in a rescue role.

[chook]

No not quite providing shoring while fire fighters inspect the premises.
And lighting, crime scene protection, evacuation and assistance at forward control areas.
And you right it would be all forms of rescue not just RCR.
Remember your counterparts in the country don't have the same capabilities as the metro stations.
Remember our basic training currently is from the old civil defence days(modernised of course), so searching bomb damaged, fire effected structures to effect a rescue is part of the training. Obviously not to the same level as you guys in the full time Mets, thats why USAR is not a big stretch for us - different marking systems and acronyms (filtered Americans!)thats all. We have been doing it since day one, same as our counterparts interstate.
Now of course level two is now part of USAR & we have people who are doing that. And some of us have been trained in "snatch type" rescues in BA and all(in the context of a downed fellow fighter)!
It is a pity that the other services haven't recognised this fact, because now that we don't use all of this training(that you have to pass prior to going on a callout or doing any other rescue training)we are starting to think its a waste of time!
Why do something we don't use? This is a pity, think what assistance a small properly trained rescue team could be to a local retained SAMFS or CFS brigade!
What is even sader is when the fire services want to duplicate a resource (boat) instead of using us instead - thankfully saner heads prevailed
A question for you how well trained are retained SAMFS & CFS in rescue really?
And how often are those skills practiced?
The good news here anyway is that the head of the local coordinating authority has witnessed some of our capabilities & is constantly being made aware of others (he was plesantly surprised).
So around here when some one asks for rescue, there is only one service - SES!
I guess at the end of the day, if the fire services want our help; just ask!
And if there is a capability short fall it can be addressed, I think you guys are missing out on a very valuable asset. Its just a pity you can't see it.
cheers

[RescueHazmat]

Every thread is starting to turn into service rivalry! . . . - The buck stops with the fact that I (and probably half the population) don't give a flying F*** who cuts me out of my god-dam car, or who drags my a$$ out of a burning building, as long as it gets done!

Numbers.. - You get trapped in a car after an MVA, you saying your not going to let the SES cut you out because you think it should be a Fire role? . . I doubt it.

[chook]

Yep starting to get a bit board with the whole thing and you are right - at the end of the day nobody really gives a toss.
Shouldn't keep trying to fight our corner(I guess someone has to but ), some are very set in their ways & I don't think that will ever change.
Our joint lords and masters will eventually sought the whole thing out anyway & the collective we will have little say in the matter.
Appologies to all for prolonging this discussion far longer than it should have been.
cheers

[pumprescue]

I guess the point a lot of FF's are trying to make is that we are going anyway, and its not getting any easier for any service to recruit, so why try and split services in time critical jobs. I know some area's where not a single member of the local SES actually lives in the town the station is in. Seems rather odd. So thats the kind of perception we have of SES, they are always going to be there, but when it comes to time critical things or getting out the door, its not always practical. We are only talking the RCR side of things, and I can tell you that whilst you guys in the riverland might be gun, its not the same picture everywhere else. Its filtered hard to keep multiple emergency services alive in small towns, eventually something is gonna have to give.

Personally I would like to see super SES units in the large towns that have the numbers, so that they can run the big searches, storm damage, USAR etc etc. But the fire service should look after the initial time critical things such as RCR, Cat 1 USAR, the initial arrival things. I guess coming from the metro area I am used to 30 min plus response times from SES. So my judgement isn't as spot on.
I am looking from a recruitment and viability point of view, Long term I can't see a lot of towns managing mulitple emergency services, something has gotta give, and like it or not, I would be surprised if a town gave up their fire service.

Thats my view, take it or leave it 

[bittenyakka]

Most SES members i have spoken to say they don;t want to fight fires and hence are in the SES as opposed to CFS so cross training isn't really the fix we are after.

Now how many SES units are on primary RCR for a certain area?If they do a good job as it is in loby and strath for example then let it be it works well there is no reason to take it away from them.

on the same token there isn't any reason to get RCR gear for mt barker SES if the CFS do a good job. as it would duplicate resources.

however I think this whole topic is way out of proportion and there are many much more important issues that money time etc should be devoted to

[RescueHazmat]

Most SES members i have spoken to say they don;t want to fight fires and hence are in the SES as opposed to CFS so cross training isn't really the fix we are after.

Now how many SES units are on primary RCR for a certain area?If they do a good job as it is in loby and strath for example then let it be it works well there is no reason to take it away from them.

on the same token there isn't any reason to get RCR gear for mt barker SES if the CFS do a good job. as it would duplicate resources.

however I think this whole topic is way out of proportion and there are many much more important issues that money time etc should be devoted to

Yakka, when it comes to places like Loby though, it has to be rememberd that the members are the same.. - Its not like some areas, where its two "individual" services. - Really, its just an appliance from each service, manned by the same individuals, in the same station, who just put on different turnouts depending on the call. - I don't think places like Loby should be used to compare against other areas with individual services..

I think pumprescue makes a good point.. - I still believe however, than whomever it is during the incident, as long as the job gets done, in a timely manner, then the outcome has been acheived.

[6739264]

As much as this(most?) discussions tend to end up going around in circles, the problem is that both sides have good arguments for and against. As Pumprescue said, its always going to be hard for small towns to support multiple emergency services. Hell its hard enough for some places to support only one.

It almost makes sense to have a single agency providing two services that are inexplicably intertwined. (Fire and Rescue)

But of course, it wouldn't be the fire service if people actually did things that made sense

As I don't know much about the Loby situation, would it be that hard to repaint the truck, and have it called Lobethal Rescue? Seeing as though it already operates out of the pool of CFS volunteers and is housed in a CFS station?

[chook]

Simple reason it came out of SES's measly budget & not out of the massive budgets of the fire services
"I guess the point a lot of FF's are trying to make is that we are going anyway, and its not getting any easier for any service to recruit, so why try and split services in time critical jobs. I know some area's where not a single member of the local SES actually lives in the town the station is in. Seems rather odd. So thats the kind of perception we have of SES, they are always going to be there, but when it comes to time critical things or getting out the door, its not always practical. We are only talking the RCR side of things, and I can tell you that whilst you guys in the riverland might be gun, its not the same picture everywhere else. Its filtered hard to keep multiple emergency services alive in small towns, eventually something is gonna have to give."
I can give examples of CFS & SAMFS Retained who are in similar positions - at least they don't work close to the station/ Brigade. But that would be childish
And when paged at the same time, we normally beat our fire service counterparts to the scene. So in this modern age time critical is irrelevant.
I don't think we are guns at road crash rescue (wish we were, but we aren't bad either), the guns are at the town down the road that is by a nearly dried up lake that starts with B .
There are lots of examples of "dual units" not just Loby
And there is room for all except for the smallest of towns, and they can't support a fire service either. And we have closed none functioning units, several in fact. Has CFS attempted that yet?
At the end of the day we are talking two different worlds, metro/ urban fringe & rural. And out of the many CFS people I know around here I could only count 3 who agree with your proposal.
Even my SES boss (who is also a CFS vollie), does not think we should give up RCR - thats why I was transfered to my current unit to revitalise it & to turn it into a credible rescue team (which it now is). We could have quite easily gone with what you guys have suggested (I would have less grey hairs ).
However as they say "what will be will be".
cheers

[6739264]

Probably just my experience with useless SES units and decent Rescue/Heavy Rescue CFS brigades is clouding my judgment. I'd imagine you would be the reverse.

Not to mention that there are local CFS brigades I wouldn't trust with traffic control, let alone anything else...