Many people I know go from basic skills of the NJ Firefighter 1 to the advanced techniques of NJ Firefighter 2 one after the other with no experience bewtween classes to fine tune their basic skills learned in NJ Firefighter 1. So, experience or no experience? What do you think, what's the best way to do it?
Let me say this, I have atteneded three fire academies, one was for a large comination deptartement that was 6 month in length. The other was through 16 week fire acdemy through a community college which is how most entry-level candiates out west recieve initial training. The last one was an 8 week IFSAC accredited fire academy that was pretty much a joke and yes because I have the ability to compare the latter did pencil whip skills sets. In fact during the skill evaluation many of the skill stations had to be thrown out because the skills were never taught. I have made management aware for several years of the undiscplined and lack of academic expecation of this institution. .." Evidence, please? You mean to tell me that a 12 month probationary period should be a proby just sitting around till his 12 months is up? If a person attends an 8 week fire academy achieves the priveledge of attaining employment in the best profession on earth and for the next twenty-something years the individual just learns from on job?
I didn't say anything about a "proby just sitting around" - you did.
I'm not telling you anything of the sort - you're telling yourself that.
If you want to see what happens in a firefighter probationary period that follows the 8-week IFSAC fire academy I described, feel free to read my earlier posts in this thread.
You also have shown zero evidence that anyone in any 8-week IFSAC fire academy has ever pencil-whipped a single skill. All you did is made an unsubstantiated claim. That's not evidence, it's an opinion.
Evidence would be copies of falsified documents, transcripts of sworn testimony that instructors signed off skills that were not demonstrated, the results of a 3rd-party investigation that discovered proof of pencil-whipping, or that otherwise met the standards of something more than just one person's opinion based upon personal experience.
Even if your claims are 100% accurate - which we don't have a way to verify - that's still not evidence that every 8-week fire academy has problems or doesn't do what it says it does. That's only a claim that a single fire academy did it once.
You then used a second type of logical fallacy - a False Dilemma.
"If a person attends an 8 week fire academy achieves the priveledge of attaining employment in the best profession on earth and for the next twenty-something years the individual just learns from on job?" There are several other options than simply attending a fire academy or just learning on the job. When you artificially limit those options to just two, that exactly meets the definition of "false dilemma".
How about seeing it, is that enough evidence, how about asking the newest fire academy graduate to throw a ground ladder and he responds with. "they did'nt show us that in the fire acdemy", How about asking them how to define FIRE and they shrug thier shoulder. NFPA 1001 is not just skills it is also requiste knowledge. How can this be, this is the time where foundations are being established and candidates are showing no requiste knowledge? An enviorment that refuses to ackowledge this problem is actually in a obvious dilema. It's not the candidates fault but it is a leadesrhip issue. No accountability establishes an unethical culture, these thing just do not show up one day and expose thier ugly head.
As a young impressionable rookie I expected my officer to know more then me. However that is a the real straw man to think that every organization has a progressive enviorment. I am only speaking from my own experince and what I have dealt with and have seen. I attended a para-military style fire academy on my own dime. It was physically and academically challenging with high expecations. This expeirence showed me what teamwork, discpline, commadarie and dedication is required for the job. I will never allow what the instructors, my fellow academy gradutaes or the fire academy to be tranished. The other 8 week experience did not have those expecations and I defenitley see that because like I said I have the ability to compare.
I am not saying that all acadmies 8 weeks or longer are like that nor do I believe it has anything to do with length. However, in our profession the more we expereince the better our chances are we can deal with extreme situations. The real false dilema is this niave idea that limiting training to only attending fire academies and relying on the job training for the rest of one's career does not exist. It abosolutley does and these closed cultures do not what any outsisde influences interfering with thier booster line fire attacks. Regardless of opinions, I am now in a postion to influence a cultures in a positive way. I know it will come with hardships even riidicule. But, my experience in a progressive enviorment taught me how to deal with adversity. That is exaclty the problem, some of our own good heaterd people have not had that discpline. What is displine? SETTING a STANDARD for an EXPECTED PERFORMANCE. No one ever had any expecations for them. I can go on on how this has influenced other supervisory dilemas.
Debate is good, having opnions is good, Having high expectations for yourself and others will create change.
Thanks for the thoughts and ideas. I wish you well. Maybe one day we can debate more over a cold one.
" It abosolutley does and these closed cultures do not what any outsisde influences interfering with thier booster line fire attacks." (sic)
You don't have the slightest shred of evidence that an 8-week fire academy has anything to do with any individual fire department that might use booster lines at all, let alone for fire attack. That's simply hyperbole.
Ditto for your generalizations based upon your personal experience and your comments about probies "just sitting around".
Real life isn't like that.
"I will never allow what the instructors, my fellow academy gradutaes or the fire academy to be tranished." (sic)
Since that's not what was under discussion, why do you think it's pertinent? Further, what evidence do you have that particular academy was any better than an 8-week academy with individual classes and that oh-so-valuable OJT that newbies get in a wide variety of other fire departments - departments with which you have no direct experience?
I'm not trying to "tarnish" any of your experiences. However, if someone does want to "tarnish" your academy experience, it's a simple fact that you don't have the power to prevent other people from having an opinion that differs from yours.
I will debate that to the end. Any educational institution or fire dept. that has low expecations, both foundationally and academically does establish a pattern. A pattern that is not condusive to the right mindset. In the future these students who atteneded a fire academy like this, may one day be working fire department like this. So, in thier experience the fire service is not challenging, not disciplined, settles for mediocrity. This will be nornal to them. Overtime the people will expect the same process for every aspect of the job. They'll perform at low levels, expect safety issues to be swept under the rug. dangreous acts to be ignored, but will expect to be praised for all of it.
Imagne now, someone comes in and say to these folks "guys we need to change" we need to improve" we need accountability". What do you think will happen? I have seen what happens. redicule, rumors, false accusations. Only to preserve the status quo.
The posting experience or no experinece between the first and second level of firefighter training. All of this depends on how a person was developed, the process they went through and there awareness of what is out there that gives a person the ability to succeed for the long haul. I think thats called experience.
It does not matter wether your academy is 8 week or 16 weeks or longer. What does matter is the expecation. If the expecations are legitimate and candiadtes were taught to meet the ethical standards of the job. They have fundamental potential to be pros. By the way being a pro has nothing to do with pay. If the expecations were low and lackeing of any expecations then there is no potential. Fire behavior is'nt diffrent for diffrent people, states, west ,east north or south.
"You don't have the power to prevent other people from having an opinion that differs from yours" Your Right, I am not trying to convince you of anything or even change your mind. However, the the posting is about having experience between FF-I and FFII. Are not most opinions are based on an experince? I had the experience to undesrstand when people have been given a false confidence.
I am not tarnishing anybodies experience. I am just simply trying point out that a training mindset is based on the expectations experieneced by the candadtes through fire acadmies, fire depeartments and municplaities. And if then the whole process is tainted the the certifications are tainted too.
However as we say to our children and future firefightres. Knowledge Is Power. What we don't tell them is the knoweledge is only usefull only if the culture allows you to use it. And how having this knowledge makes you a target. That is the real travesty. If you have modern experinces that meet the moral and etheciacl standards of your profession, we don't care, go put your head in the sand cause it's not wanted.
Certification training is great.....however....in my opinion (which normally isn't worth much) the certification process is a base level of education at any level. In Kansas FF1 and FF2 sound a lot like what is taught in WI. The bulk of line firefighting knowledge...comes from actually being required to do those skills and use that knowledge. Much like EMT....there is a lot to learn about being a good EMT that is not taught (or even mentioned) in the classroom or state exam. You have to actually do the work to get a firm grasp and to learn the job.
Certification is a good base starting point...but by no means should it be used as the sole source for firefighter education or advancement. In order for the certification process to work....the front line training officers have to continually train on those basic elements of firefighting (the book and basic practical skills taught in FF1 and FF2), especially in departments where the call volume may be low.
Most of the community colleges in this state that offer fire science combine FF1 and FF2 into a "academy". Most paid departments in this state require a minimum of FF1 and EMT, but as many can probably attest to (including me) those classroom hours and practical skills are the bottom level of knowledge a firefighter needs in order to be safe and efficient.
"Any educational institution or fire dept. that has low expecations, both foundationally and academically does establish a pattern."/i>br />
That's a false assumption. You're generalizing things far past the point of what you have any evidence to support. You have shown zero actual evidence to show that any fire academy has moral or ethical problems, that their firefighter candidates are unqualfied or incompletely trained, or that anyone is sticking his or her head in the sand.
You go on to talk about the process or the certification being "tainted". Which process? Which certification? Specifically what happened to "taint" them?
Ditto for how long someone may spend on the line between FF1 and FF2 - or no time at all. Some FF1 and FF2 classes are taught in the field over a long time - up to a year in some cases. It's not safe to assume that someone who takes their classes on a part-time basis over time is either more or less qualified than someone who takes the classes all at once.
As far as "experience" and opinions, you're confusing two very different things here. One is the practical experience that some firefighter - especially some of the vollys - get between their FF1 and FF2 classes that are taught in the field, or that are taught as seperate classes with a break of weeks or even months in between. The differences in how those skill sets are used depending upon the class length, format, instructor quality, curriculum quality, etc. is pretty easy to quantify - in other words, it's objective.
The completely different kind of "experience" you're talking about isn't really experience. It's formulating an opinion based upon one's personal experiences. That's not really the single person's experience that is being cited - it's that person's opinion about his or her experiences and what that means to that single person. That is very subjective.
Objective doesn't equal subjective no matter how you slice it.