The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Shane Ray's "Rethinking Volunteer Firefighter Certification" article will make some waves...
The new superintendant of the South Carolina Fire Academy asks some tough question and offers some creative solutions to the problem of volunteer firefighter certification and just what that should mean.
Here's the article: http://www.firefighternation.com/article/training-0/rethinking-volu...
It is thought-provoking, to say the least. What do you guys think?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Doesn't matter....if you are going to commit people inside for whatever reason.....saying you backup RIT or other interior help is coming is a crock. If you are going to commit people inside, then have enough people outside to effectively mitigate a rescue if need be.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Where did Navy damage control come up? I brought it up, obviously. I brought it up in response to Jack's NFPA 1001 limited definition of "firefighter".
I understand Navy damage control principles well enough to discuss them, although I personally was not a sailor.
I also know that the Navy has sailors that specialize in damage control aboard ship - firefighting, flooding control, shoring bulkheads, dewatering, etc, etc. Not every sailor has damage control as a primary responsibility even though they get the training. Not every sailor runs to a damage control locker for battle stations. Most of them man their speciality area - propulsion, weaponse, sensors, communications, navigation, aviation, whatever.
According to Jack's NFPA 1001 definition, damage controlmen aren't firefighters, since they don't train to that standard.
So, John and Jack, which is it? You guys seem to be arguing mutually-exclusive standards in an attempt to arrive at the same definition.
Feel free to discuss - this should be interesting.
-
-
Umm, are you confusing RIT with 2-in, 2 out?
-
-
Nope....I'm looking at things realistically.....2 in 2 out is outdated and every damn RIT situation involved required more than two people outside. I'm instead questioning the remarks made by Bob here and how such operations are done then........I mean afterall, he is not talking about an "exterior only" dept here.
-
-
So, what should Bob do...particularly given that 2-in, 2-out is the legal requirement to mount a non-rescue interior attack, at least in most states?
-
-
I also know that the Navy has sailors that specialize in damage control aboard ship - firefighting, flooding control, shoring bulkheads, dewatering, etc, etc. Not every sailor has damage control as a primary responsibility even though they get the training. Not every sailor runs to a damage control locker for battle stations. Most of them man their speciality area - propulsion, weaponse, sensors, communications, navigation, aviation, whatever.
Correct, but wrong. First and foremost, damage control is every sailor's responsibility. Not every damage control situation is going to require battle stations (general quarters) so it is expected that every sailor is able to perform damage control duties.........which includes every single aspect that you posted from shoring, firefighting, flood control, dewatering, etc etc.
If general quarters is sounded, yes, there are other jobs that are done, weapons folks deal with weapons, operations deal with ops, nav deals with nav, but general quarters is NOT called for any time a fire, flooding, or other DC type emergency is called for.....and yes Ben, every damn sailor is expected to perform the duties irregardless of those who specialize.
Matter of fact the role of DC really is not about being the primary responder. The role of DC is to one, take care of the repair lockers and equipment, to maintain and service the fire protection systems, to maintain and service the SCBAs, to maintain and service the chemical warfare equipment and the biggest role, is teaching crewmembers in DC.
When general quarters is called away, despite the personnel who may be watching radar, handling weapons, steering the ship, etc.....who do you think is staffing the repair lockers? On any surface ship, there is a small handful of DCmen onboard.....so a repair locker consistes of engineering personnel, supply personnel, deck personnel, operations personnel, avaition personnel, and so on........so um yeah, it most definately is every sailors responsibility and there is no standing aside while DC do the job. Every ship has an at sea and in port fire party and it is the job of these fire parties to be the first responder to emergencies.....these parties are also comprised of any and all ratings (jobs).
Here is another kicker....there are no DCmen on submarines, since that is not a submarine rating....so by gosh, who takes care of any of those damage control issues them......could it be other crewmembers? Why I do believe so.
So yeah, in context of NFPA, sure DC don't train to that standard, nor do they adapt or follow any NFPA standard really. This is because the military defines their own standards in which those serving in the military conform to. Yes, they are not just firefighters, they are Damage Control, because fires is just one aspect of the overall job hazard faced by any and all sailors........yet still not a single sailor can say they want to be "exterior only" or define what they are going to do from the DC aspect of things. Everyone from a new commanding officer to the newest boot goes through DC.
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
Ask any citizen what a firefighter is...They won't say some dude that hangs out outside the building putting up ladders, dispensing gatorade, or taking blood pressures. They will say someone that puts put fires, saves lives, and property.
You don't like that truth. But it is really that simple.
-
-
Bob, shouldn't be touting his BS about having 6 interior folks with his 10 exterior folks and hide behind antiquated, outdated, BS laws that every real RIT situation debunks. Once again, Bob, isn't touting some "exterior only" dept, Bob is touting using interior and exterior personnel together.....and if something goes wrong early hiding behind 2 in 2 out is not something I would be using to talk to family members of a FF lost.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Ben,
How is your comment, "So, wildland firefighters (no NFPA 1001 cert) are not firefighters in your book? ARFF firefighters? Navy Damage Controlmen?" not a straw man argument? I never said any of the above were not. I was speaking about firemen as we all understand it. ARFF, wildland and DC are completely different sort of firefighting and are subject to their own requirements. You brought that up as an argument that I wasn't making.
So I said, "Actual Firefighters (NFPA 1001)", in my opinion anyone not meeting NFPA are not firefighters (structural). I apologize if my comment seemed overly broad. You knew exactly what I was speaking about.
I didn't broaden my definition, I explained it. This site is comprised primarily of structural firefighters that fall under the definition of NFPA 1001. Again you know that, you're just nit picking to meet your highly exacting demands of critical writing.
I don't believe my question to you was a non sequitor:
1.Logic . an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. I made neither an inference nor a conclusion, rather I asked you a question relative to the discussion.2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.I made no illogical conclusion, I only put a question to you.
Origin:
/span> Latin: it does not followActually, my question does indeed follow...the line of the discussion. You made the statement, "Actual firefighters are people who are members of fire departments or other organizations that fight fire." So I put the question to you if you had any members in your department that didn't meet NFPA 1001.I notice you didn't answer my direct question to you, nor did you explain your comment that (paraphrasing you) anyone who belongs to a fire department is a firefighter.Yes I am aware that NFPA 1001 is a guideline, but they are widely accepted industry standards with considerable legal....A state may have the right to develop their own 'standards' relative to NFPA 1001 but I suspect, should there be an injury or death the courts may question why those state standards didn't rise to the level of 'best industry practices.' But at least that state is mandating that interior firefighters meet a minimum level of training. Not meeting those state standards means that an individual can not be an interior firefighter. Therefore (IMO) they are not a firefighter; at best they are support personnel.Interestingly, while you take me to task for being 'overly broad' in my definition(s) you were even more so in your statement that, "Actual firefighters are people who are members of fire departments or other organizations that fight fire." Even though I gave a few examples of who might fall under your extremely broad definition, you haven't as yet addressed it. Perhaps you can persuade me that your statement is true.
-
-
"According to Jack's NFPA 1001 definition, damage controlmen aren't firefighters, since they don't train to that standard."
Again, I didn't say that nor did I imply that. That is your inference. I was speaking solely and specifically about structural firefighting. It's what I do and its what I know. ARFF, Wildland and Damage Control never came to mind while I was writing my first comment, I was thinking only about structural, NFPA 1001 firefighting. It is very clear in my first statement where I commented about disassembling the duties of a firefighter into its various components. Clearly, I was talking structural firefighting.
-
-
"If I have 6 certified interior members backed up by 10 trained exterior members, I can handle quite a bit of fire until mutual aid arrives with more interior personnel."
I'm confused, you call me on my hypothetical statements yet consider Bob's statements to be factual. Clearly he posited a hypothetical situation, "If I have..." That is nothing BUT a hypothetical statement.Ben, if you want to consider my opinions worthless (and I'm NOT saying you do) I'm fine with that and if that's the case then it might be easier to just ignore whatever I write, rather than parse everything I write while giving others (Bob C. for example) a pass. Either that or hold everyone to the same standard.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on
-
First of all, the numbers in my situation were hypothetical. That being said, there are many, many rural departments in my volunteer parish and many of the surrounding parishes that responds every day with those types of numbers, so it is, at least in this part of the country, a very likley and very real-world situation. And based on my experience, those types of number are not limited to LA.
Mutual aid in those departments are likely at least 15 minutes out and more than likely 20-25 minutes plus including response time to the station for apparatus. In some cases, it may be more.
My combo department responds to a structure run during the day with probably 12-14 interior and maybe 3-4 exterior members, so it's not an issue. 4-5 of those are career personnel on the clock and the rest are volunteers. Evenings add a minimum of 6-8 to interior and another 4-6 to exterior, plus 3-5 support, which performs no firefighting activities. During the evenings only 2 are career personnel on the clock.
My volunteer department has 12 interior members on the roster plus another 2-3 exterior and support, which is how we clasify driver-only. Average daytime response is 3-4 interior and maybe 1-2 exterior/support, and average evening and weekend daytime response is 5-7 interior members with 1-2 exterior and support.
As far as the discussion regarding navy personnel, the importance difference here, once again, is that they are paid personnel who are paid to perform a function, and more importantly in regards to this discussion, paid to train upon enlistment at boot camp as well as on the clock as a part of their job. How and what they perform as part of thier career has no bearing on the discussion regarding volunteer personnel, much the same as discussing fire service training of career members, including career wildland and ARFF personnel, as it relates to volunteers.
This post was about a certification emcompassing several structrual exterior skills, including ladders, ventilation, water supply, forcible entry and ICS, and not just one here and one there, for exterior responders on volunteer departments. In the rural setting, this is a very real-world certification which does have real-world value. Bottom line is many rural VFDs will likely have more non-interior members than interior members as that is the manpower pool that the community demographics provide. So given that real-world reality, why not give exterior personnel the opportunity to demonstrate competency an obtain an exterior firefighter, or maybe call it Rural Non-Interior Firefighter certification?
For those that seem to oppose this, please tell me exactly how is this a bad thing? How would this hurt the fire service in any way?
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
