Today’s correspondent writes with a question regarding new response arrangements for the NSW RFS.  They say:

Recently, the NSWRFS has adopted a change of how emergency response is conducted and how resources are mobilised for incidents.

Now, Rural Fire Districts are expected to feed what are referred to as business rules within the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) software that the RFS has implemented. This could mean that, for example:

A car fire requires 1x Breathing Apparatus unit and 1x Heavy Tanker, making the response 2 appliances. This provides some level of automation that is approved at the district level and allows operators working out of the Sydney based control centre (OCC) some level of autonomy with making dispatch decisions that are “endorsed” (for lack of a better word) by the local district.

One could reasonably interpret this as the district manager has authorised the response of these 2 resources, regardless of what they are and where they come from, subject to the computer aided decision that the operator has made – as some sort of standing authority.

Brigades are directly paged for this, for example:

CFDELTA1A – Smoke in vicinity – 123 Mona Vale Rd Surry Hills

CFFOXTR1A – Smoke in vicinity – 123 Mona Vale Rd Surry Hills

2 appliances asked for, 1 from either brigade.

Now that we have the background out of the way, since the RFS has implemented this, brigades that have conventionally established their own response rules (ie: send 2 tankers to an MVA, send X resources to a bush fire etc) are now somewhat overwritten by this automation that occurs.

Back to the example above, a third resource, CFFOXTR1B starts responding to the incident because surplus members that didn’t make it to the station in time to man CFFOXTR1A have decided they would like to attend as well. Where does their authority to do this come from, if they haven’t been directly requested? Noting there is an Officer as per the Act on board.

I understand the Duty Officer can provide that authority in the instance there is no Incident Controller identified, but would it be correct in saying that the appliance CFFOXTR1B in this scenario has begun responding without authority?

Brigades used in this example are obviously fictional but represent a common occurrence amongst brigades in the NSWRFS. The basis of this question is that risk v reward must come into consideration whereby 3 heavy trucks are using Rule 306 for an unconfirmed smell of smoke in the vicinity of the given address.

It is important to remember that the Rural Fire Service is a single service under the command of the Commissioner.  It is not multiple fire services coming together for some benefits of centralisation (as was the history of rural or bush fire services). It is therefore up to the Commissioner, via his or her delegates, to put in place the systems for RFS response.  The RFS needs to know what units are responding to an incident so they know what resources are engaged and what ones are not. 

If brigades self-respond they create several risks including one more emergency vehicle proceeding under lights and sirens when it’s not needed. Rule 306 of the Australian Road Rules provides an exemption from the other road rules when it is reasonable to grant that exemption. It would beg the question of why it would be reasonable for a unit that had not been responded to go to the event, let along travel under lights and sirens. If the prescribed response is two units and two units have gone, a third unit that contains ‘surplus members that didn’t make it to the station in time’ don’t need to ‘respond’ to the incident.

And if they haven’t been dispatched, or checked with the coordination team to get the ok to proceed, one would question whether they are proceeding on RFS business or are on a ‘frolic of their own’.   That might mean when police are thinking about issuing a ticket they will be advised that this appliance was not on a legitimate response in which case the ticket will issue.  And members might have problems with compensation claims in the event of an accident as they were not on endorsed brigade activities.

And if that crew go then where is the crew to form a backup if requried, or to respond to the next incident, or to form the relief shift?

To use an analogy, if Fire and Rescue NSW dispatched an appliance from a fire station, one would expect the crew on the other appliance based at that same station would not also respond because they thought it was a good idea or they had missed out on the call.  If NSW Ambulance dispatched in intensive care ambulance crew to a job, one would not expect the other paramedic crew to also go.

Conclusion

I think the answer is clear.  If the RFS has dispatched crews that meet the response determined by the applicable policy, any other crew that decides to turn out is responding without authority.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.