RESCUE 87

Should rescue go back to NSW AMBOS

Poll ended at Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:59 pm

YES
9
56%
NO
7
44%
 
Total votes: 16

JimK
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:27 pm
Location: Southern Tablelands

Re: RESCUE 87

Post by JimK » Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:08 pm

JAFO wrote:....Must start the rescue process if asked by Ambulance Officers on site to do so.
they can ask. If the fire SO/captain feels the team is incompetent I would not be starting!
JAFO wrote: In the situations as above if the MVA is in a RFS Area for normal fires incident calls but in a NSWFB Rescue area, the closes NSWFB Station will still be responded along with the NSWFB Primary Rescue Station for the area.
So I gather that 248 Camden would of attended the mentioned MVA as well?

vk2fear
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:25 pm

Re: RESCUE 87

Post by vk2fear » Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:49 pm

nope only 87 turned up

JimK wrote:
JAFO wrote:....Must start the rescue process if asked by Ambulance Officers on site to do so.
they can ask. If the fire SO/captain feels the team is incompetent I would not be starting!
JAFO wrote: In the situations as above if the MVA is in a RFS Area for normal fires incident calls but in a NSWFB Rescue area, the closes NSWFB Station will still be responded along with the NSWFB Primary Rescue Station for the area.
So I gather that 248 Camden would of attended the mentioned MVA as well?
Call sign:VK2FEAR
SCANNING WITH:
FT8800 x2 - FT60 - UBC245XLT - UBC120 - UBC72XLT - UBC780xlt - UBCD396T -
UBCD996T x2 - TX-3800 x2 - T-2020 66/88mhz X 4 - T-2010 66/88mhz x4 - TS-480 sat

User avatar
JAFO
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:35 pm

Re: RESCUE 87

Post by JAFO » Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:42 am

JimK wrote:they can ask. If the fire SO/captain feels the team is incompetent I would not be starting!
JimK,

If the crew felt that they were incompetent to perform the basic rescue technics, then the SO/Captain should not be the SO/Captain and should not be in the Brigade – full stop.

If the station crew was incompetent to perform basic motor vehicle rescue, it would mean that the SO/Captain as the Station Commander has failed their primary responsibility in their station management role, in that they have not maintained their station crews trained in all firefighting competencies which includes Basic Motor Vehicle Rescue Technics

One of the main reason every NSWFB Firefighter receives Basic Motor Vehicle Rescue Training, is for the fact that when Hazardous Materials are involved, the NSWFB becomes the Hazardous Materials Combat Agency and the Primary Rescue Service regardless if the crash is within a Police, VRA, SES or Ambulance Rescue Area.

There is no if or buts with this, the use of the rescue tools is a basic skill, and not excuse for any firefighter not to be familiar with Basic Motor Vehicle Rescue technics.
JAFO
VK2FGQ

UBCD369XT, UBCD536-PT, UBCD436-PT

JimK
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:27 pm
Location: Southern Tablelands

Re: RESCUE 87

Post by JimK » Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:29 pm

My point is the ambos can not tell anyone to commence rescue.... they can ask.

There was an MVA on Castlereagh Road at Agnes Banks near the Driftway a couple of years ago. SES were responded but 82 Richmond turned up first. The bloke in the car was impaled, very complex rescue.

P82 admitted they could do nothing and were glad that SES turned up. Ambos stabilized the patient. This was from the SES Controller.

User avatar
JAFO
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:35 pm

Re: RESCUE 87

Post by JAFO » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:54 pm

JimK wrote: My point is the ambos can not tell anyone to commence rescue.... they can ask.
This is correct; Ambulance Officers can not direct anyone to commence rescue, but if a Ambulance Officer or the Senior Police Officer in attendance at a person trapped incident ask a NSWFB Officer or the Firefighter In-Charge of an appliance crew to commence the rescue process, then under the Fire Brigade Act the NSWFB Crew are obliged to commence the rescue process to the best of their ability.
JimK wrote: There was an MVA on Castlereagh Road at Agnes Banks near the Driftway a couple of years ago. SES were responded but 82 Richmond turned up first. The bloke in the car was impaled, very complex rescue.

P82 admitted they could do nothing and were glad that SES turned up. Ambos stabilized the patient. This was from the SES Controller.
Yea OK, an impaled vehicle occupant may be a difficult extraction, especially if the impaled object is a Steel Guard Rail :o solution – power saw ;) The difficult task is separating a small portion of the impaled object (the part impaled in the person) from its source Under the guidance of the senior medical officer in a manner that does not inflict any more undue trauma on the casualty.

Now I don’t believe that 82’s Crew could not do anything to assist the impaled occupant, especially considering most of the Senior Members of 82 Station have been trained to Primary Rescue Level in the past, well up till when 82 Station was issued a Isuzu Type 2 Pump a couple of years ago (before the Scania Pump), their International 1800Acco Pump carried a full Primary Rescue Kit on it for a number of years.

So really I find it very surprising that 82 crew could not do anything for the impaled occupant, after all rescue is not rocket science. Even I know most of these impaled objects are usually separated from their sources by simple hand tools carried on all appliances . . . . . even RFS tanker, such as hacksaws, pruning saws and wood handsaws etc.

Now I am a non rescue qualified firefighter, who’s last official rescue training occurred while I was a recruit firefighter at the collage in 1997 (non-official rescue training 18 months ago in 63’s back yard), and I believe I have some knowledge and skills to have ago at extracting a casualty impaled by an object with the equipment carried on a standard urban pump if such an incident accrued.

To me, I think 82’s Crew were probably like majority of us nun primary rescue members and thought why bother getting the gear of the pump and getting to work, as majority of the time the Primary Rescue Unit usually arrives at the incident before we get all our gear off the pump and setup, so why bother getting the gear off the pump anyway :?:
JAFO
VK2FGQ

UBCD369XT, UBCD536-PT, UBCD436-PT

User avatar
JAFO
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:35 pm

Re: RESCUE 87

Post by JAFO » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:16 pm

Just an update on 87 Rescue.

While talking to the builder last week who got the job of turning a Factory Unit into 78 Dunheved New Temporary Station, apparently 93 Narellen is a good way through its renovations apparently, anyone down that way who can confirm this?

From what the Builder was saying, the station is expected to get its 10/14 Permanent Crewing in January or February.

Talk going around our Rescue Stations, is that 93 Narellen will keep 08’s Heavy Rescue & also get a Pump Rescue too.
JAFO
VK2FGQ

UBCD369XT, UBCD536-PT, UBCD436-PT

vk2fear
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:25 pm

Re: RESCUE 87

Post by vk2fear » Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:54 am

ILL go and have a look next week and fill u in about 93stn
JAFO wrote:Just an update on 87 Rescue.

While talking to the builder last week who got the job of turning a Factory Unit into 78 Dunheved New Temporary Station, apparently 93 Narellen is a good way through its renovations apparently, anyone down that way who can confirm this?

From what the Builder was saying, the station is expected to get its 10/14 Permanent Crewing in January or February.

Talk going around our Rescue Stations, is that 93 Narellen will keep 08’s Heavy Rescue & also get a Pump Rescue too.
Call sign:VK2FEAR
SCANNING WITH:
FT8800 x2 - FT60 - UBC245XLT - UBC120 - UBC72XLT - UBC780xlt - UBCD396T -
UBCD996T x2 - TX-3800 x2 - T-2020 66/88mhz X 4 - T-2010 66/88mhz x4 - TS-480 sat

Post Reply