The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Almost entire firefighting crew quits
April 4, 2012
The Canadian Press - Charlie Lake, British Columbia, Canada
All but two volnteer firefighters in the roughly 30-member department in Charlie Lake, have quit.
Firefighters in the northesten part of the province handed in their pagers to protest the hiring of a new chief and the tansfer of department control to the Peace River Regional District from the local fire protection society.
Trouble within the Charlie Lake department has smouldered for nearly two years, but flared when former Kimberley assistant fire chief Steve Munshaw took over April 1, to replace the long-time chief, who was not considered for the post.
Firefighters in the commuunity eight kilometers north of Fort St. John say they don't know or trust their new chief, a paid full-time staff member, or the recently hired assistant fire chief, who also receives a salary.
Officials with the regional district hope the dispute can be resolved but in the meantime, fire crews from Fort St. John or Taylor, about 25 kilometers further south, will respond to major incidents in Charlie Lake.
The regional district is also launching a recruitment drive in hopes of attracting new volunteer to the fire department.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Ben, I understand there are places that don't have enough personnel to pass such a physical, yet why should we keep seeking a double standard? If we, as a fire service, are to keep pushing for safety, zero LODDs and so forth, then why should we just arbitrarily accept mediocre standards because some so called FFs can't or won't step up to the standards?
The aspect of using exterior FFs is one thing, there will be times that a defensive approach is the only option, but the issue is when you have people who are to be exterior only which creates the problem. Basically if a dept lacks the personnel and resources to be able to have people qualified to go inside, then yes, sitting back and surround and drown will be the option of such a "dept" and is the choice of the residents choosing to live in an area with such limited means.
The problem with the exterior only option is the constarints and predicaments you are placing upon those interior personnel. Sure I've seen all the petty excuses for justifying exterior personnel...throw ladders, vent (hopefully not a roof vent since an SCBA would or should be used), utilities, pump, etc, etc and with exterior only people doing this it "frees" up those interior folks to go inside.
Well I call a bunch of horseshit with that excuse, because of the increased dangers you are thus placing on such FFs. As I mentioned, who is doing RIT? If you only have a small handful of interior qualed FFs and they are inside and something goes wrong....who's going in after them? Is it acceptable to write them off as expendable? Because that is what I see with the exterior only option. Not to mention rehab....who is backing up other interior FFs if you have a crew rehabbing? There are plenty of studies and documentation showing the importance of rehab.....yet defending a double standard because some areas can't confrom or choose not to is not the answer....it is a cop out.
So essentially yes, if a FD can't or chooses not to conform to standards, they should close up shop. Perhaps then communities will start waking up to the reality and challenges facing depts and either create incentives for people to become FFs or at least be brutally honest that if your property is on fire or worse people trapped inside the "FD" is going to show up and spray water to limit the fire from spreading.....sorry for your loss.
Yet what is the alternative? Have some interior qualed FF go down and let them become a LODD because the dept didn't have other FFs able to go inside? What about a mutual aid and a dept shows up with exterior only FFs and the calling dept needs them to go inside to back up....oops sorry, your guys are expendable because we don't want to conform to the same standards?
Sorry, I don't see it. If we truly want to promote safety and if we truly want to achieve no more LODDs and if we truly want to achieve limited fireground injuries.....we can no longer promote safety and standards for one group and create a double standard or "pass" for another. You sign up to do a job, then you should be able to do it.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
John, How are places that have NO ONE that can pass the interior firefighter physical supposed to meet the interior firefighter standard?
You start by acknowledging that, then continue as if that situation did not exist. It absolutely does exist.
If driver-only status can free up a few more interior firefighters in that situation, then it should be supported, not condemned.
If exterior-only status can do the same, then great.
Advocating for exterior-only firefighter in places that don't have the resources for anything else is NOT a double standard. It is the recognition of reality.
Demanding interor firefighter qualifications from people that can't pass (or afford) the medical clearance is the real double standard here.
-
-
First of all, why are we limiting firefighter physicals to just interior only? You're correct with your last statement being a double standard, yet why advocate it? How many LODDs have there been that occurred on the fireground, not just interior? Is there any feigned doubt that even exterior operating FFs be physically capable of the job as well? Is an extension ladder less heavier for an exterior operating FF as opposed to one qualified to operate interior as well? Are the physical demands and stresses on the body less because one stays outside under the guise that they can't pass an interior physical?
After all, what really is the difference of an interior FF physical as opposed to not doing one? Essentially that is what is being said, not so much the physical costs incurred or the personnel subjected to a physical, the standards for a FF physical really are not that demanding....even for an interior FF. So essentially we are seeing an advocation of less standards due to costs or physical limitations of members choosing to be exterior only.
I'm not sure what the physicals are like in SC, or if there is a difference between a standard FF physical and one that is to be interior qualified. I've only seen one type of standard for FF, be it if the member is to be an interior qualified or chooses to just be exterior. A basic physical consisted of BP screening, some basic blood work, eye exam, hearing, height, weight, EKG for some members, and a basic once over. Where is the difficulty requiring even such a basic physical like this and why advocate not even doing something like this? Afterall, the potential for someone to become overheated or experience a cardiac event etc exists easily on the outside of the fireground as it does inside. So really, what is the difference between an interior physical and a regular checkup?
As for driver only, as I said before I can understand that aspect, I don't agree, but I understand. The reason I see a difference between one who would choose to be a driver and one choosing to be exterior only is that even in the event of a MAYDAY, the apparatus operator still has an essential job to do and should not be abandoning the panel. Whereas, with exterior only folks, there may be a need to send people inside for a successful RIT operation. If you limit the number of interior operating personnel because of some feigned double standard excuse by having exterior only FFs, you are placing those limited personnel at greater harm and risk......as opposed to having anyone on the fireground able to perform a job if needed.
If an area does not have the resources, nor funding, to have qualified FFs, then they should not be operating as a dept. The standards really are not that difficult to obtain and if a community is unable, or more to the point, unwilling to support the costs to run an effective dept, then there should be no doubts made to the limitations the community places on their service. Which means quite basically, if we don't have the resources nor physically capable people to do the required job, well then basically ....sorry for your loss. After all, where is the recognition of reality thus lie? In some feigned aspect that a FD can operate with a double standard, placing personnel at greater risk, or the fact that the public needs to understand that it does take more than just a warm body to perform the job?
Yes, I know these opinions of mine are harsh, and yes I have the lixury of living in an area with good services and resources, but I also pay for that as well. As a FF I further understand the realities of the job and the importance of resources and funding and so forth and if a community chooses not to support a dept.....either monetarily, or physically....or both, then the service really should have no obligations to the community.
Instead of advocating a defense of a "take what you can get" approach and the advocation of differing standards for FFs, we should be pushing harder for current standards to be met.
-
-
In South Carolina, SCOSHA requires NFPA 1582-compliant physicals.
However, it has been pointed out that those physicals are based on the additional heat stress and physical requirements for firefighters that wear SCBA in IDLH conditions.
If the firefighters don't wear SCBA, don't go interior, and don't enter IDLH atmospheres, then there is no legal requirement for the physicals. Thus the "commensurate with your duties" OSHA clause.
I've never said that non-interior firefighters do the same job, so I don't know why you keep repeating that comment in a conversation with me.
Your "double standards" claim simply does not wash. How is a set of standards "commensurate with your duties" a double standard?
You also keep confusing the "if they have the qualified firefighters" into a conversation where that is not the case. I don't know why you're so hung up on that and why you keep pounding it. What I'm discussing is a set of departments that don't have enough qualified people to make everyone an interior firefighter, and have NO way to get them. Those are the facts in more places than you might think.
Demanding higher standards and making the entire VFD an interior-qualified department is not possible for the places I'm discussing. Their choices are to have some interior firefighters, some exterior firefighters, and some driver-only folks. Rehab is typically provided by a seperate EMS agency in those places, and the rehab folks aren't firefighters - or at least most of them are not.
When the choice is to have a mix of qualifications or no fire department at all, the responsible thing is to have a fire department with people who are qualified "commensurate with their duties"...at least if those places REALLY want to take care of their community. That isn't a double standard, no matter how you slice it.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
I posted this on another discussion in response to Bob Callahan.
For those 'members' of a fire department that are 'exterior' only, I suggest that those members be referred to as "Support Personnel', as opposed to firefighters. This will at least eliminate any confusion as to who is or isn't a firefighter: If one is SCBA certified, trained and qualifed to NFPA 1001, willing and able to perform any duty on the fireground, they would be called firefighters. Other wise, they are just Support Personnel.
Obviously this designation doesn't alleviate the problem of insufficient, trained interior personnel onscene other than to distinguish between those who are firefighters and those who are not.
To the point of this discussion: Any person can quite a VFD, at any time and for any reason, after all, they are not slaves. However, when an entire department quits I believe that this goes beyond the issue of individuals quitting for 'personal' reasons and speaks to a political issue.
To quit, individually, for any reason is well within the parameter of being a volunteer. But to collectively quit equates to an organized walk-out, in essence a strike. And for reasons that go beyond personal issues. It becomes a collective issue of, 'We will not allow this..."
As Don pointed out, quit if you're not happy. But for an entire department to quit I too believe it suggests that they lost the 'mission' and instead are upset about political considerations; and this without giving the new chief a chance.
Unfortunately I don't have any better definition of 'sour grapes' but I believe that is exactly what is was; they were collectively unhappy with the appointment of the new chief (as opposed to the old, department-known, comfortable and possible good-ole'-boy Chief.)
Since (at least in my experience) the Chief is there to determine long-range goals and overall management of the department as opposed to day-to-day operations, their (the department's) complaint sounds little more than sour grapes; hurt feelings, lack of an inside edge (the known Chief) and a feeling of a loss of independence (fiefdom).
Rather than try to change the issue from within, they instead choose to 'blackmail' the Regional District (and their own community) by walking out. To me this shows a complete indifference and disregard to the 'Mission' in favor, instead, of political goals.
I'm still trying to clarify it more clearly, because Ben challenges me to define what I mean by sour grapes, but I think most of us have a gut, intuitive understanding of that phrase. To extend my example: There is a reason why career departments are (almost exclusively) prohibited from instituting a walk-out (and a municipality is prohibited from instituting a lock-out.) The 'Mission' overrides any personal or collective issues.
Were the department members unhappy? Most likely. Is it up to a department (VFD) to keep their members happy? Most likely. But is it the prerogative of 'management' to hire whom they believe is best suited to run an organization? Most definitely. Ask capcityff. DCFD is not all that happy with their chief but I have yet to read about a walk-out. Why is that? Or is, in the final analysis, that among a whole litany of other reasons VFDs are so significantly different from career departments that a walk-out is an acceptable maneuver? If so we've discovered yet another reason that differentiates volunteer from career departments.
-
-
Jack,
Comparing job actions between VFDs and career departments really is a reach.
Quitting a VFD is a lot easier, as the members are not losing their primary employment. Even for a POC department, giving up whatever % of 50 calls per year isn't going to put a significant dent in the overall paycheck.
Quitting a career department takes a lot more serious committment on those who no longer wish to work there.
As for the difference in "sour grapes" resignations and "unhappy" resignations, there might be a difference in whether or not the reason for the resignations is well-founded or not. However, that perspective falls under the "Where you stand depends upon where you sit." question.
As for the "firefighter" vs. "support personnel" issue, that discussion isn't limited to just those two definitions. How do we define ARFF firefighters whose only job involves driving apparatus and operating foam turrets? How about forestry firefighters who don't do IDLH entry and who might not be able to recognie a Halligan tool? How about those air tanker pilots?The can of worms you opened contains a lot more than two worm breeds.
-
-
If the firefighters don't wear SCBA, don't go interior, and don't enter IDLH atmospheres, then there is no legal requirement for the physicals. Thus the "commensurate with your duties" OSHA clause.
First, you do realize that not every state is an OSHA state, thus regulations don't necessarily apply, right? No legal requirement to do physicals may be the reality, however, why as a fire service should we not strive for this? The job of firefighter is a physically demanding job and is stated on every single FF job announcement out there, so once again, why should a "pass" be given instead of seeking to comply to current standards?
I've never said that non-interior firefighters do the same job, so I don't know why you keep repeating that comment in a conversation with me.
Not sure what you are talking about here. The point I've been advocating is the predicaments and undue dangers that is being placed on interior operating FFs in the event something goes wrong. I have not seen a reply to that at all. Quite frankly, if you have only a handful of interior certified FFs and a MAYDAY is declared, who is going in after them? Who is going to continue fire attack, etc? Realistically, if in the scenario I gave earlier 4 interior FFs to 10 exterior only, if a FF goes down....who is RIT? Who is doing the rescue. That is my point here. All the hububaloo about exterior folks doing tasks to free up interior FFs means nothing if there are not FFs ready to go in if a FF goes down. This is why I'm confused on how you can advocate adequate resources, RIT, etc any other time, but defend lessor requirements now.
Your "double standards" claim simply does not wash. How is a set of standards "commensurate with your duties" a double standard?
If you are a FF, then you should be meeting the requirements set forth for that. If you can't meet those basic standards, then you shouldn't be a FF.
What I'm discussing is a set of departments that don't have enough qualified people to make everyone an interior firefighter, and have NO way to get them. Those are the facts in more places than you might think.
Yet why the continued advocation for mediocrity instead of having all members certified? I mean let's look at the numerous changes to hit the fire service over the years from SCBA, PPE, TIC, lighter hose, LDH so on and on and on. There were many depts that couldn't really afford equipment and gear, yet how many depts out there today are sending people inside without an SCBA because it was too costly? We seen changes and continue to see changes...so why aren't we seeing more advocation that every FF on the fireground meets the basic requirements?
Demanding higher standards and making the entire VFD an interior-qualified department is not possible for the places I'm discussing. Their choices are to have some interior firefighters, some exterior firefighters, and some driver-only folks.
Well they should be. Yet, why is basic FF certification considered a higher standard? If having a mix of interior, exterior, and driver only folks, are the only choices, what about those interior FFs if there are not adequate interior FFs ready to go in after them. Is the choice now an expendable FF?
Rehab is typically provided by a seperate EMS agency in those places, and the rehab folks aren't firefighters - or at least most of them are not.
The rehab I was talking about is a crew in rehab after being interior. If you have a small handful of interior FFs, who is backing up the other crew inside, or who is RIT, etc? I could care less who is performing the rehab duties.
When the choice is to have a mix of qualifications or no fire department at all, the responsible thing is to have a fire department with people who are qualified "commensurate with their duties"...at least if those places REALLY want to take care of their community. That isn't a double standard, no matter how you slice it.
No, the responsible thing would be to have basic FF certs for all members. The fire service IS a service, no different than any other type of service work, so why accept lessor standards? Do we see police saying they are traffic duty only? If a community wants a service, they should be paying for that service and everyone certified to a basic level. If that means they get a small handful of people able to respond, then that is their choice.
I can see where Jack is coming from with the "Support" personnel concept....sort of in a way like First Responder, or EMT-Basic, etc.
As for the "firefighter" vs. "support personnel" issue, that discussion isn't limited to just those two definitions. How do we define ARFF firefighters whose only job involves driving apparatus and operating foam turrets? How about forestry firefighters who don't do IDLH entry and who might not be able to recognie a Halligan tool? How about those air tanker pilots?
The difference there is now you are talking specialties, and just like I responded to Bob, there is a difference. We wouldn't expect a non-HAZMAT certified response for a chemical leak. We would expect them to use and understand how to use the DOT Guidebook considering that is a basic FF skill. Same thing with tech rescue, ARFF, forestry, etc....these are specialty skills going above and beyond a basic FF certification. However, when it comes to being part of a basic FD, it should attest that those there have the basic skills.
-
-
John Crabbe,
I parsed out your long reply elsewhere in this thread so direct replies would be possible.
If the firefighters don't wear SCBA, don't go interior, and don't enter IDLH atmospheres, then there is no legal requirement for the physicals. Thus the "commensurate with your duties" OSHA clause.
First, you do realize that not every state is an OSHA state, thus regulations don't necessarily apply, right? No legal requirement to do physicals may be the reality, however, why as a fire service should we not strive for this? The job of firefighter is a physically demanding job and is stated on every single FF job announcement out there, so once again, why should a "pass" be given instead of seeking to comply to current standards?
Yes, I realize it. My post was oriented to the highest standard, so it also covers places that are not OSHA states. Likewise, the NFPA standards (1582 medical clearance) apply everywhere. Some departments ignore them, but they are considered the "Reasonable Man" standard by most courts, so a department can be held to them even if they claim they don't need to do so.
I've never said that non-interior firefighters do the same job, so I don't know why you keep repeating that comment in a conversation with me.
Not sure what you are talking about here. The point I've been advocating is the predicaments and undue dangers that is being placed on interior operating FFs in the event something goes wrong. I have not seen a reply to that at all. Quite frankly, if you have only a handful of interior certified FFs and a MAYDAY is declared, who is going in after them? Who is going to continue fire attack, etc? Realistically, if in the scenario I gave earlier 4 interior FFs to 10 exterior only, if a FF goes down....who is RIT? Who is doing the rescue. That is my point here. All the hububaloo about exterior folks doing tasks to free up interior FFs means nothing if there are not FFs ready to go in if a FF goes down. This is why I'm confused on how you can advocate adequate resources, RIT, etc any other time, but defend lessor requirements now.
Actually, I did post that elsewhere in this thread. There are some departments that have ZERO interior firefighters, so RIT isn't pertinent there. I advocate adequate resources for the places that have them. It would be silly to advocate those same resources in places that don't have them and can't possibly get them. That's not defending lesser requirements, it's simply using common sense and calling for the prevention of well-intentioned firefighter suicide attempts.
Your "double standards" claim simply does not wash. How is a set of standards "commensurate with your duties" a double standard?
If you are a FF, then you should be meeting the requirements set forth for that. If you can't meet those basic standards, then you shouldn't be a FF.
I disagree strongly. With the places that don't have anyone that can pass the physicals required by their state, the choice is an exterior-only fire department or no fire department. In addition, what are "the requirements set forth for that?" Remember, it's the AHJ that sets those rules in a lot of places. If the local AHJ requirements are for exterior FF, then how can outsiders reasonably claim that "you shouldn't be a FF".
What I'm discussing is a set of departments that don't have enough qualified people to make everyone an interior firefighter, and have NO way to get them. Those are the facts in more places than you might think.
Yet why the continued advocation for mediocrity instead of having all members certified? I mean let's look at the numerous changes to hit the fire service over the years from SCBA, PPE, TIC, lighter hose, LDH so on and on and on. There were many depts that couldn't really afford equipment and gear, yet how many depts out there today are sending people inside without an SCBA because it was too costly? We seen changes and continue to see changes...so why aren't we seeing more advocation that every FF on the fireground meets the basic requirements?
Did you actually read what I said before you posted that paragraph? First, I'm not arguing for mediocrity, I'm simply recognizing that some places don't have the qualified manpower to meet the ideal. Second, If you set the standard so high that no one can meet them, then what you're really saying is that the community in question has no right to have a fire department because their volunteers can't meet some arbitrary standard set by outsiders.
Demanding higher standards and making the entire VFD an interior-qualified department is not possible for the places I'm discussing. Their choices are to have some interior firefighters, some exterior firefighters, and some driver-only folks.
Well they should be. Yet, why is basic FF certification considered a higher standard? If having a mix of interior, exterior, and driver only folks, are the only choices, what about those interior FFs if there are not adequate interior FFs ready to go in after them. Is the choice now an expendable FF?
Based on what? Because "John Crabbe said so?" How do you define "basic FF certification?" My fully-career, Internationally Accredited department considers IFSAC Firefighter II certification to be "basic FF certification". Some of our neighbors consider IFSAC Firefighter I to be the "basic" cert. Some of the people we recruit from other states come from places where a state or local basic class of varying hours and content is considered "basic". Some places say that part of Firefighter I is "basic". Some just go with the exterior-only cert, since that meets their needs and abilities.
You're still missing the point that in many of the places I'm discussing, there are NO interior firefighters - zero, zip, none, nada, bupkis. Your comments don't apply to those places.
Rehab is typically provided by a seperate EMS agency in those places, and the rehab folks aren't firefighters - or at least most of them are not.
The rehab I was talking about is a crew in rehab after being interior. If you have a small handful of interior FFs, who is backing up the other crew inside, or who is RIT, etc? I could care less who is performing the rehab duties.
If there are no interior firefighters, it doesn't matter. If there are some exterior-only firefighters and drivers that can free up a few other interior firefighters, then the answer is "TThe guys that would otherwise be pumping the engine, driving the tankers, or doing the outside ladder and vent work."
When the choice is to have a mix of qualifications or no fire department at all, the responsible thing is to have a fire department with people who are qualified "commensurate with their duties"...at least if those places REALLY want to take care of their community. That isn't a double standard, no matter how you slice it.
No, the responsible thing would be to have basic FF certs for all members. The fire service IS a service, no different than any other type of service work, so why accept lessor standards? Do we see police saying they are traffic duty only? If a community wants a service, they should be paying for that service and everyone certified to a basic level. If that means they get a small handful of people able to respond, then that is their choice.
Once again, you're insisting that enforcing unrealistic standards is the minimum. If local communities that can't possibly meet your arbitrary standards have to do so to have a fire department, then you're offering them only one choice - NO FIRE PROTECTION. Who are you to demand that a community pay for a service that they have decided that they can't afford - especially if they can't even afford NFPA 1582 physicals for their volunteers? Come on, John, grab a reality check on that one. You are insisting on something that is a fantasy for the places I'm discussing.
I can see where Jack is coming from with the "Support" personnel concept....sort of in a way like First Responder, or EMT-Basic, etc.
As for the "firefighter" vs. "support personnel" issue, that discussion isn't limited to just those two definitions. How do we define ARFF firefighters whose only job involves driving apparatus and operating foam turrets? How about forestry firefighters who don't do IDLH entry and who might not be able to recognie a Halligan tool? How about those air tanker pilots?
The difference there is now you are talking specialties, and just like I responded to Bob, there is a difference. We wouldn't expect a non-HAZMAT certified response for a chemical leak. We would expect them to use and understand how to use the DOT Guidebook considering that is a basic FF skill. Same thing with tech rescue, ARFF, forestry, etc....these are specialty skills going above and beyond a basic FF certification. However, when it comes to being part of a basic FD, it should attest that those there have the basic skills.
What I'm talking about is exactly "specialties". That includes Interior Structural Firefighting.
ARFF isn't an add-on to interior firefighting in a lot of places. I know places/people that do ARFF and nothing else. They don't even get out of the crash rig on a crash - the sit in the driver's seat and operate a remote-controlled foam turret. No need for interior structural skills to do that. Ditto for Wildland Firefighting. The USFS and numerous state Forestry departments employ thousands of firefighters that are not structural firefighters. And just to show local differences, in my department, EVERY firefighter has to be qualified in HAZMAT to at least the Operations level, so it's not really a specialty until the Technician level. A lot of things that used to be considered HAZMAT specialties like decon, underflow/overflow dam construction, diking, diverting, etc. are now generally considered the basics - at least in my state.
Interior structural firefighting meets your definition of specialty, John. If it wasn't, anyone could do it.
-
-
You're still missing the point that in many of the places I'm discussing, there are NO interior firefighters - zero, zip, none, nada, bupkis. Your comments don't apply to those places
You're right, I did not see that you were talking about an entire dept with NO interior FFs at all. I was viewing this moreso about a mix and the arguments of having exterior FFs to free up interior FFs....vs an entire crew that won't even go in. So basically it really isn't a fire dept as it is a fire containment service. For such citizens then it really does become a "sorry for your loss" service, and yes RIT would not apply.
I'm simply recognizing that some places don't have the qualified manpower to meet the ideal. Second, If you set the standard so high that no one can meet them, then what you're really saying is that the community in question has no right to have a fire department because their volunteers can't meet some arbitrary standard set by outsiders
I can't speak for how all states do things, but the ones I was involved with had minimum standards to be a volunteer FF. For WI entry-level FF 1 and FF 2 are the bare minimum in which one can act as a volunteer, both are 30 hour courses. From there one can go on to get FF 1 and 2 certified, however the 60 hour entry level classes are the bare minimum. So I see it difficult that such a standard is considered high and these are not arbitrary standards here and not something I'm just making up because John Crabbe says so, but because the state says so. Career depts will require FF 1 and 2 state certs as a minimum which also correspond with IFSAC FF1 and 2 and these are also the minimum state requirements needed for one to get certified any further....driver/operator, inspector, instructor, officer, etc.
So yeah, if one is to be a FF, then they should be meeting the basic standards as set forth by the state.....if a state doesn't do so, then I'm glad I'm not living there. If the bare minimum is an exterior only, once again, I'm glad not to live there. If there is a mix of interior and exterior qualified personnel and there isn't enough interior qualified personnel to perform attack, backup, and RIT, then nobody should be going in......the BS excuses of exterior personnel enabling interior guys to go in be damned.
Yet as a service we should be striving to push for physicals and that all personnel operating on a fireground be able to meet the minimum standards to go interior (yes I know I'm further expanding the definition of bare minimum to prevent the issues I've been making before). Just how PPE improved, just how we seen the use of SCBAs, just how TIC have become the push for many depts and so forth we should be striving to have standards in place for all depts and levels FF to operate on the fireground. Defending lessor standards or even an exterior only standard is like defending having alcohol in the firehouse....we know change is long and it is difficult, but what is for the best for firefighters and communities? We continue to settle for mediocrity....especially with a mix of personnel?...not just strictly exterior only depts like you are talking about.
-
-
I'm not disagreeing with the potential for too few interior FFs being left in the lurch by not having enough equally-qualified backup, but there's another very realistic option...
The department can only get a small number of interior FF's qualified. If that department requires interior FF for every position - driver, exterior FF, etc, then that department no longer has the manpower to go interior.
The department recruits some non-FF drivers who do a great job of driving, pumping, shuttling water, etc, and recruits a few exterior FF's that can throw ladders and conduct horizontal vent as directed. That gives this department an extra 6 or 8 interior FF's per fire - enough to staff RIT, enough to cover for a crew in rehab, enough to staff an extra interior hoseline, or whatever.
Once again, for departments in that situation, you can advocate for something better all you want, but if the people who can qualify simply are not there in adequate numbers, then the COMMUNITY and the AHJ have the right to choose their level of service, the qualifications for their members, and how they assign tactical duties based on the mix.
The point I'm making is that the actual combinations here are almost limitless, but you seem to be considering only two or three specific sets of variables. Real life is more varied than that.
I understand state-to-state differences, too. In South Carolina, the local fire chief certifies his/her department's firefighters. The current minimum OSHA- compliant interior FF standard is a state basic class that is part of FF I but not all of it.
There is a push to require a minimum of FFI for all firefighters, but the reality is that if that is legislated and enforced, we may have entire counties who - overnight - have no fire protection. Those counties are very rural, very poor, and have no other options. Thus, the discussion of the exterior FF certification and "commensurate with your duties" clause interpreted exactly for what it says.
That's not settling for mediocrity. It is adjusting expectations to reality.
And "alcohol in the firehouse" as an analogy? C'mon, John, that one looks a lot like a straw man.
-
-
I understand what you are saying here, I do realize there are places that can only take what they can get, but doesn't mean that such limitations should be defended. I know there are many different types of combinations, but I can not nor will defend such a thing as "exterior only" personnel. I can see your points here but I also see numerous defenses of having exterior only folks (and worse using children) and then the ever popular "we do the same job" mantra.
As for alcohol in the firehouse, yes it is a strawman, I included that as an example of defending something because "we've always done it this way" as opposed to looking at the bigger picture and to enable change. Like defending alcohol in the firehouse, those who do don't always see the problems involved.....just like defending having exterior only. Sure it can work for you and may never had problems, but is it really the best option?
-
-
John, since when is "exterior only" the same as "we've always done it that way"? Frankly, that's another straw man, because that's not why the departments that use exterior-only firefighters do it.
They do it because they have no other choice, not because they've always done it that way. Ditto for using children - another straw man. No one mentioned that here except for you. I certainly didn't discuss it.
If a community can't defend their very real limitations, what do you suggest that they do?
I don't advocate exterior-only personnel as ideal, or even as desirable, but when the choice is between exterior-only and no fire department, it makes sense for the community to do the best they can.
I understand how difficult it is to understand the limitations in other places if you've never experienced it, but when that is the reality, forcing conditions from one place onto a different place without the same resources just doesn't make sense, no matter how well-intentioned the idea of making things better may be.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
