SA Firefighter

So, the discussion paper has been released.
For those wishing to do some light reading:

http://www.safecom.sa.gov.au/public/download.jsp?id=71688

Crossy nailed it in one.... but:

Rather than argue about who does what, don't you think it would be more productive for the services to continue to support each other in a constructive fashion?
In the end there are 2 budgets in the community, to cover a lot of specialised skills. Why not share the burden of cost and increase the skills capacity by working together..... Everybody wins (especially the community).

**This is not intended to digress into a why have 2 services discussion**

Duplication of equipment is questionable everywhere, and I believe investigating said duplication is part of the SFEC review. Hence why equipment is getting shuffled around the state.

I'm disappointed Mr T.
I generally thought your observations were a lot more considered and justifiable.

Anyway.... Moving on.

Quote from: misterteddy on January 02, 2013, 08:03:16 PM
still doesnt help them get a truck out the door on time

Really? Based on what data?

I dont have a problem with this. Provided they meet their obligation to ensure an appropriate response.

Personally, I have performed the roll of duty officer remotely. Sometimes it has worked well, sometimes not. On the times that haven't, the truck still rolled even though a default had been requested. So, more trucks than less. Not perfect, but not an innapropriate response.
These defaults have happened anywhere from approx. 8 minutes, to a maximum of 15 dependent on the type of response.

All comes down to the process put in place at the local level.

Cheers,

I believe the buttons have now been well and truly pushed and training is heading very fast in the direction of the Fleurieu SES units.

Improvisation is the mother of rescue and the guys and girls (from both services) did a fantastic job of overcoming the limitations put in place.

Big Al: Day time crew is always an issue, but Strath are not as bad off as you may think.

An interesting discussion.

As someone who wears both hats, the SES duty officer in my area will often ask AF if CFS has been responded. All the SES vehicles carry a list of CFS talkgroups and crews will often call to check if they need to continue. For the likes of trees, we are more than happy to take a stop... We can always be called again if something changes. Given we cover a much larger area for trees than road crash, it makes ensuring response much easier to maintain for rcr.

Nicer if it could be managed at a higher level, but still easy at a local level. You just need to ask/talk to people.

Cheers.

Im calling time on this one.
Has gone well past its use by date.

Quote from: pumprescue on February 03, 2012, 09:09:34 AM
They need to add more beats, we went from 12 to 5, if they won't go to street network than that might help a lot, I don't agree about removing no depletion, should have left it and those that can get 2 trucks out can get it removed. Then again it will just highlight the issue more and cause a lot of defaulting, CFS might actually take note when AF advise them if all the trucks out of service through lack if crew.

more clarity..... you've reminded me of a few things that were said!

- a trial of street network (I think it will be in the test database for comparison)
- No depletion will be set by default, request for exemptions will be allowed.

MT has it in one.... CAD was always going to be a pain without MDT's.


As for K codes, at least the CFS is giving clear direction. SES has been told they can use either (for RCR response), creating a giant mush of differing process across the state.


I believe there has been a lot of discussion at by the group officers about some of the issues CAD has created. Including appliance callsigns and response data.
It sounds like a few changes/trials may be happening soon to to help impove things. The one's im aware of are:
- resource depletion exemptions (allowing 2 trucks from one station to be responded)
- Callsigns shall be as marked on the vehicles. A '_R' or '_H' (or something like that) might be added to define the required function.

There are others apparently but we have not been made aware of them.

To say the system is a failure, is a very broad statement.

I know people in our area miss paging messages every now and then, but generally these have been accounted for. We have seen issues ranging from a link failure, loacation/environment issues through to a member that is garunteed to generate corrupt pager messages.....

Coverage is an issue in some areas, and there are modifications underway to improve this (see the latest infralog)....

So, some questions:

• Define 'time to time'
• Describe your geographic location eg. terrain

Cheers,

on Adelaide Now: Ambulace Rollover

Glad no-one was injured.

The original AIRS form was longer, and people dealt with that..... Doesnt look bad at all.

This topic has been moved to SAAS.

http://www.safirefighter.com/boards/index.php?topic=2580.0

Im not convinced the information is accurate.... But that is what the boss has passed on...

Information recieved with the portables is that CFS talkgroups should not be accessed as there is debate about 'who pays'.
Regardless of the accuracy of that statement, this has successfully been ignored in our area so far, with no complaints as yet.

Quote from: Alex on September 07, 2010, 06:59:48 AM
re; patching TGs, technically frowned upon by the NOC. But wouldnt it be nice if we could patch SES & CFS local TGs together for some jobs.

But that would make sense... besides, we cant have orange/yellow talking to each other, the world might end!  :wink:

Do SCC and Adelaide Fire have the ability to communicate freely when both are operational?
How many areas opened an LEOC?

There is a difference between criticising and asking questions about the circumstances of an incident.

Why were they there?
Why was someone standing on the crew deck?
Was formal training (SORDT) undertaken?
Are they aware of the SOPs?

These are all good questions. Ones that we can glean information from to ensure things improve, and that the greater CFS community is reminded of SOPs and better educated if they dont know what the problem was.
To blindly suggest that they should not have been there in the first place is not fair to any parties involved.

Im not particularly fussed if someone has their feeling hurt, provided it can be well justified, rather than off the cuff and uninformed.

This is not the place to criticise there decisions or actions. especially based on a couple of photos.

Yikes....

So was there much damage in the end (other than pride!)?

Use of a Litter in a single rope setup requires an alpine butterfly for attacment of a western rig, with the running end being used for rescuer mobility.

Works quite well.

This topic has been moved to All Equipment discussion.

http://www.safirefighter.com/boards/index.php?topic=2556.0

Well, it certainly doesnt look convincing.
Lack of gear, space for useful stuff....

Was that a set of Stabfast between the pump and tools?
On the bright side, it had streamline couplings :)

The SES sprinter has not had any good feedback from RCR units that im aware of...