Author Topic: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS  (Read 67187 times)

Offline Faux Pas

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #150 on: February 06, 2008, 09:35:15 PM »
I know that the topics you want included have been previously mentioned but i thought you might be able to provide a little more insight into exactly what each of those topics should contain. ie. ventilation- ppv, manual ventilation techniques etc.

Where would you base the course? Brukunga? Is the STC big enough to produce the facilities and still maintain the other courses that it runs there for accommodation and food etc.

Do we also need to look at Commercial structural training and domestic structural training?
Well that's even more than less than unhelpful.

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #151 on: February 07, 2008, 05:56:47 AM »
Not explosives - special hand hydraulics. Mind you explosives might not be a bad idea :-D
Ken
just another retard!

Offline mack

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #152 on: February 07, 2008, 06:01:26 AM »
what happened to the "tactical ventilation" course that was meant to be happening?

Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #153 on: February 07, 2008, 07:56:34 AM »
what happened to the "tactical ventilation" course that was meant to be happening?

It got "blown" away  :-D
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Offline mack

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #154 on: February 07, 2008, 08:12:59 AM »
what happened to the "tactical ventilation" course that was meant to be happening?

It got "blown" away  :-D


Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #155 on: February 07, 2008, 11:46:08 AM »
I know that the topics you want included have been previously mentioned but i thought you might be able to provide a little more insight into exactly what each of those topics should contain. ie. ventilation- ppv, manual ventilation techniques etc.

Where would you base the course? Brukunga? Is the STC big enough to produce the facilities and still maintain the other courses that it runs there for accommodation and food etc.

Do we also need to look at Commercial structural training and domestic structural training?

Well, start with what we have initially.

OBAOC course is good. Spends a little too much time on things that are on the whole useless eg: Personal lines/Guidlines and to tie them 'correcty'. Doesn't really focus on things like firefighter rescue, or internal commumications/sitreps to ECO/IC.

CFBT course is great for education, needs to be expanded to entry techniques and moving into a room, moving and gas cooling.

Ventilation - I don't know exactly what the 'Tactical Ventilation' course was meant to teach, but a simple training building that can be comparmentalised would be great for all facets of Urban/Structural training. This allows people to see practically the impact of all types of ventilation, and as well as the impact of moving through a structure and closing/opening doors during fire attack. Use either a smoke machine or fuel trays. 
Things that should be taught: All forms of ventilation, Mechanical, Natural, Hydraulic. All means, Horizontal/Vertical/Trench etc etc.

Salvage/Overhaul - Highlight and reinforce the number of jobs CFS go to that the water damage exceeds the fire/smoke damage. Teach smart salvage and overhaul techniques, rather than just smash the crap out of a wall to check for fire spread. There is nothing wrong with being aggressive in firefighting, but remember its 'Our fire, in THEIR house."

Working on roofs - Being mindful of signs of collapse of roofs and how to perform vertical ventilation carrectly and safely.

Forcible Entry - How to effect entry to buildings quickly, and how to use those tools on the truck to the best of their ability. There shouldn't be much that you can't open with the correct tools, we just need to get them...

As to where the courses would be based, there would be nothing wrong with basing it at Brukunga, although certain parts can be taught/reinforced at group level. Things like forcible entry simulators would be an easy purchase for regions/groups. For ventilation, I would like to see a purpose built structure instead of the "house with a shed" at Brukunga currently. This would allow real factors to influence smoke behavior etc etc. Make the building reasonably air tight, with windows and doors, internal and external. This way you can smoke it up, and still ventilate the structure when necessary.

Commercial structure or domestic? They are both structures so the basics remain the same. The only real difference would be layout/building size/fuel load/possible occupancy.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline mack

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #156 on: February 07, 2008, 11:58:30 AM »
so.... which dreamworld are ya living in numbers???


im joking mate, i agree 100% with what you are saying.

Offline bittenyakka

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,342
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #157 on: February 07, 2008, 12:34:08 PM »
so.... which dreamworld are ya living in numbers???


im joking mate, i agree 100% with what you are saying.


hhahah the one where CFS has good funding  :-P

i agree exactly with all that

1 question wouldn't working on roofs require us to be given adequate equipment to cut holes etc?

Offline mack

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #158 on: February 07, 2008, 12:38:17 PM »
technically OH&S probably stops us from working on roofs anyway, unless your going to include harnesses/etc in that new gear. what is it over 1.5m or something?

sesroadcrashrescue

  • Guest
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #159 on: February 07, 2008, 12:49:05 PM »
i dont know the CFS height restriction but SES is anything one story or more requires harness

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #160 on: February 07, 2008, 01:09:55 PM »
1 question wouldn't working on roofs require us to be given adequate equipment to cut holes etc?

Dont you have Halligans/ceiling hooks/sledgehammers/axes as standard stowage? They make mince meat of tiles, and the Halligan with cutting claw can do a passable job on a tin roof. Chainsaws are great, depending on the construction of the roof. A few brigades have Powersaws that do the job fantastically.

technically OH&S probably stops us from working on roofs anyway, unless your going to include harnesses/etc in that new gear. what is it over 1.5m or something?

Yeah I believe it is something like 1.5 or 'one storey' but for the time it takes to harness up and construct an anchor off the roof with crossed ropes, its not worth it in terms of firefighting. Not to mention only an handful of CFS brigades have harnesses/ropes.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline bittenyakka

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,342
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #161 on: February 07, 2008, 01:28:29 PM »
yeah we have all that but I was just wondering what you where thinking of.

Is there any guidelines on using power saws yet? as CFS is still the only fire service without them.

well we carry ladders that go higher than 1.5 m so i don't know why we have them if we need harnesses.

sesroadcrashrescue

  • Guest
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #162 on: February 07, 2008, 01:32:25 PM »
i believe you can work on a ladder with out a harness as SOPS allow for this as ladders are meant to be tied off. however there is nothing to stop you from falling off a roof with out safety harness and ropes   

Offline bittenyakka

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,342
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #163 on: February 07, 2008, 01:39:34 PM »
well then we shall need ladder trucks to make anchor points quickly :-D

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #164 on: February 07, 2008, 02:07:22 PM »
In SA there isn't a minimum height -it actually says risk of a fall (ask the companies that have been done for loading docks).
Industry however either use 2.4 mtrs or the Victorian 1.8 mtrs (My company uses 1.8 ). Under that provision ladder safety systems would be required - however a Risk Assessment is required first & it could be argued that tying yourself to a burning structure on a ladder is far more hazardous than falling from one :-D. The AS/NZS 1891 INDUSTRIAL FALL ARREST SYSTEMS has been re written, now fall arresters are required in all fall restraint systems regardless. I need to spend more time reading it to understand the implications of such an amendment.
Anyway there is my input to this discussion.
Cheers
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 06:18:15 PM by chook »
Ken
just another retard!

Offline mattb

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #165 on: February 07, 2008, 04:19:28 PM »
Sorry to go back a few steps but

Quote
Oh no HazmatZippy, we don't. Standard Urban stowage is a Hooligan Tool, with RCR cutting claw. It also has a lightweight sledgehammer. Neither of these will give you a great chance at opening that door with the screaming kids behind it.

How many brigades do actually carry a proper Halligan tool ?? An actual one piece forged one, not the the three piece one with cutting claw that will break as soon as you hit it with an axe.

After conducting some forcible entry training with Dale from FARA we went out and bought one. Funnily enough a week later we were at a house fire with MFS whom we had to instruct on the correct use of forcible entry tools, it seems they don't teach that in the recruit course as their guys were trying to get in through a front door with a Jemmy Bar and hammer. They were a little red faced but happy to learn from our guys, we were later told that the MFS hierachy are not super keen on pursuing this form of training.

If anyone is keen to learn some of these techniques give FARA a call, they have a full portable door setup that can be hit over and over to practice forcing a door in a number of different configurations.

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #166 on: February 07, 2008, 04:46:13 PM »
MattB, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I've managed to bend and break one of the Paratech Hooligan 3-piece bars doing nothing too extraordinary with it on a door. Yet the CFS have them as standard equipment on all trucks. Nothing like using a cheap tool for a job its not really meant to be doing.

The portable door setups are great to practice anything and everything on them. From Halligans to powersaws, theres not much relating to forcible entry that you can't do with them.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #167 on: February 07, 2008, 05:41:00 PM »
Strange that FARA sell that tool as a forceable entry tool, if it not suitable.
I have no doubt what you say is true, just strange no one mentions it until afterwards.
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline bajdas

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #168 on: February 07, 2008, 05:41:39 PM »
so.... which dreamworld are ya living in numbers???

im joking mate, i agree 100% with what you are saying.

Make it a combined training facility then. SAFECOM is forming the training back office so that books, forms, compliance, etc, etc of all three RTO's are done in the one place. Pool the money together.

Brukunga is already used by SES for vertical rescue, leadership, etc. MFS I understand also use the facility.

Some of the training facilities already exist. SES have a complete house roof that is 1 metre off the ground at the SHQ Training facility at Noarlunga. Complete minature houses showing wooden construction have been delivered to many Units via TAFE students. This assist in understanding how a typical house is constructed.

Just some ideas...
Andrew Macmichael
lives at Pt Noarlunga South.

My personal opinion only.

Offline chook

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,191
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #169 on: February 07, 2008, 06:31:22 PM »
Thats not the only reason.
Yep combining common services, buildings etc is a great idea!
Saves money - great.
Also gives all three services access to a common pool of resources - including cash.
Now the next words you will hear is - risk, need, exposure!
And now wait for it - priorities.
All of a sudden our very cheap (by comparison) training, will be a lower priority.
And all of a sudden we will have less people qualified in the high profile tasks.
We trainers will have to jump through more hoops to meet the standard (what ever someone dreams up - will have nothing to do with National Competencies) the courses we currently run will have new content added to match our fire service cousins. I totally agree with combining of stuff, as long as we have strong enough people to protect our interest. And not become another bucket of money for others to dip into.
And I appologise for going off topic.
cheers
Ken
just another retard!

Offline bajdas

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #170 on: February 07, 2008, 08:25:43 PM »
Thats not the only reason.
Yep combining common services, buildings etc is a great idea!
Saves money - great.
Also gives all three services access to a common pool of resources - including cash.
Now the next words you will hear is - risk, need, exposure!
And now wait for it - priorities.
All of a sudden our very cheap (by comparison) training, will be a lower priority.
And all of a sudden we will have less people qualified in the high profile tasks.
We trainers will have to jump through more hoops to meet the standard (what ever someone dreams up - will have nothing to do with National Competencies) the courses we currently run will have new content added to match our fire service cousins. I totally agree with combining of stuff, as long as we have strong enough people to protect our interest. And not become another bucket of money for others to dip into.
And I appologise for going off topic.
cheers

I understand that is why combining the frontline training staff into SAFECOM was REJECTED. This is the backend stuff that is common to all organisations.

eg, Printing of the learner guides, ensuring the competency forms are completed properly, issuing certificates, updating records, ensuring privacy provisions on documentation is correct, handling audits, etc, etc.

I do not know if maintenance of training facilities is included.....
Andrew Macmichael
lives at Pt Noarlunga South.

My personal opinion only.

Offline mattb

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Introduction of aerial appliances to the CFS
« Reply #171 on: February 07, 2008, 08:52:49 PM »
Quote
Strange that FARA sell that tool as a forceable entry tool, if it not suitable.
I have no doubt what you say is true, just strange no one mentions it until afterwards.
cheers

Well you could probably force open the zip on a tent with the Paratech tool but thats about it. It is intended for RCR use only, hence the reason it has the metal cutting claw as opposed to the standard door entry style.

It's just that most brigades have no idea about correct forcible entry techniques and have never really tried to use the Paratech one in that manner. As numbers pointed out it won't last long once you start smashing it with an axe or sledge.

Wow we are off topic, isn't it exciting...