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 Bob Callahan on
-
So just because somebody may not want to, or maybe simply can't due to age of a physical limitation they should not perform any exterior firefighting activities even though they very well may have the skill, knowledge, experience or non-fire service background to perform them just as well, or better, than interior personnel?
Some of us really want to make this firefighting thing an exclusive little club.
Again, somebody can be an exterior members and be just as "dedicated" and "committed" to fifighting as the most highly trained interior guys.
I have seen some exterior only guys throw ladders, force doors, perform vertical ventilation, perform vehicle extrication and attack brush/wildland fires just as fast an effeciantly as any interior member, and in some cases, far better. Just because they can't or choose not to go interior, that doesn't make them any less dedicated or committed to being the best firefighter that they can be.
I have seen many exterior members make the same number or a greater number of department trainings than a whole boatload of interior members, and have seen exterior members attend just as many, and in some cases more, outside fire schools dealing with structural fire operations, wuildland fire operations, vehicle extrication and technical rescue than interior personnel.
They work within the limitations that are imposed on them either by age, injury or yes, personal choice. That makes them no less valuable or dedicated.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Don,
It's not ludicrous at all, particularly if that exterior firefighter frees up an interior firefighter to do interior duties that otherwise would not get done.
Statistically, the most common rescuing of victims typically occurs by occupant self-rescue, at least in the U.S. SOME victims are rescued from the interior by firefighters.
Some victims are rescued from windows or balconies from the EXTERIOR.
Some fires are extinguished from the interior, some are extinguished from the exterior, some are extinguished transitionally (some of both exterior and interior) and some fires are extinguished when they run out of fuel.
Salvage and overhaul usually occur on the interior, but they are not a high priority for manpower-challenged departments, and they generally don't occur in IDLH atmospheres that require interior firefighter certification.
You're arbitrarily trying to define this more narrowly than the realities.
-
-
Don, I'm throwing the B.S. flag on that one...
"Ah Ben,
You are typical of people that love to keep repeating misinformation over and over until you expect people to take it as gospel. Well, I apologize for the embarassment I am about to bestow upon you." Wrong again. I haven't posted any misinformation, let alone repeated it. You need not apologize, as you are incapable of bestowing embarassment on anyone in this topic. Feel free to read more for the evidence.
"I am the one who said citizens know what a firefighter is, I said it clearly and concisely that if you ask a citizen, even a child, what a firefighter does they will say fight fires and save lives." Duh. It is also inaccurate as I've already pointed out. Moreover, you have posted not a shred of evidence except for your increasingly shrill opinion to back up your claim.
"It had nothing to do with FF1 or pro board qualifications or any other standards." Well, maybe...until you quickly started posting additional opinions about interior firefighters and what they should be capable of. Guess what - those specific interior firefighter capabilities are referenced in the NFPA 1001 standards. (Hint - meeting those standards doesn't require a specific certification, and I didn't say that they did.) When you make that kind of completely subjective claim about other people's definitions without the reference then claim you didn't go there since you didn't cite the reference, that's disengenuous, at best.
"You just posted that to try and divert from what I said and all it did was make you look foolish." Wrong on both counts. I posted what I said specifically to show that a) you can't cite a shred of evidence to back your claim, and your inability to back it up doesn't make anyone else look foolish.
"You know as well as I do most firefighters can't tell you the standards for FF1 let alone pro board qualifications, so for you to take what I said and reach out that far to justify your opinion is straight forward ludicrous and you know it."
Umm, I did say that most firefighters can't cite all of the NFPA 1001 standards. (That includes both FF I and FF II, BTW) I then pointed out that if FIREFIGHTERS can't describe the specifics of what their own professional qualifications actually are, that the actual ludicrous claim is that average citizens can do a better job of defining our job. What is ludicrous is for you to make the claim, not for me to point out that you can't back it up with either fact or logic.
"So once again, you lose, and no points will be awarded." That is a non sequitur, one of multiple logical fallacies in your post.
"Firefighter 1 SHOULD be the REQUIRED MINIMUM NATIONAL STANDARD."
That is a biased, subjective personal opinion and there are state fire academies with Exterior Firefighter certifications or OSHA-minimum Interior Firefighter standards that have validated Job Performance Requirements and certification that disagree with you.
"Anyone that can't pass Firefighter 1 has no business operating on a fire ground." See my reply immediately above, it also applies to this biased, subjective, and unprovable opinion.
"I would much rather see the firefighters spending tme training to a higher level so they could offer a higher level of protection to residents of the community." So would I, but that's a denial of reality for the places that don't have that kind of luck, as discussed elsewhere in this thread.
"You may believe a lawsuit is pointless." In the hypothetical you proposed, it is. Are you aware that there are quite a few places where there is no legal requirement that ANYONE provide fire protection? That includes some of the places I discussed. So, if you're going to sue someone for how you perceive they provided fire protection when you're not legally entitled to any fire protection at all, the lawsuit is indeed pointless, as your case will likely lose a directed verdict if you can even get standing to sue at all.
"I guess time will tell." Maybe, but successful lawsuits against fire departments based on how they fought the fire that a citizen negligently started are pretty rare even in places where the fire department has a legal duty to act. You also omitted a response to my return hypothetical about the fire department counter-suing you for negligently starting the fire, putting the community and the firefighters at risk, and creating costs to the fire department.
"I would bet the insurance companies in those areas love the fact that these FDs have no problem with burning buildings down left and right." That is a straw man logical fallacy that is further based on a false assumption, since no one has shown that "burning buildings down left and right" is occurring in those places. I find it interesting that no Vegas or Atlantic City oddsmakers have yet given you odds on your bet.
"The fire department may not be responsible for the how the fire started but they for damn sure are responsible for their lack of action upon arrival at the scene." That is another straw man, since extinguishing a fire from the exterior is clearly NOT "lack of action".
"Just as every fire is not an interior fire, the inverse is not every fire upon the FDs arrival is a loser that must burn to the ground." That's your third straw man in a row. I did not say that. You did, while trying to spin it as if I had said it. In addition, you actually got a second logical fallacy in one sentence, as your statement is also a false dilemma.
"Well after listening to both you and Bossier Bobby I believe 100% that people around here have a higher level of civic mindedness and community spirit."
You have the right to that opinion, and I disagree, and here's the evidence... There are numerous ways to show civic mindedness and community spirit other than by being a volunteer firefighter. What you believe has no bearing on other people who are not you, who don't live in your community, and who choose different ways to show their community spirit and civic mindedness.
"People around here travel for work too." Non sequitur. What people around where you live do has no bearing on the discussion of places where the situation has different variables.
"In fact I drive 100 miles one way to work, and when I am teaching it is not unusual for me to drive 50 miles or more one way. We have FFs that are farmers and work 16 hour days during planting and harvesting, yet they manage to respond and make drills when they can. We have married guys with families, yet they manage to make calls and drills." The only answer for me is that we MUST care more for our communities because both of my FDs have full rosters, have a majority certified to FF1 and some to FF2, many have taken Driver Operator and other courses. You tell me what makes us so different because it seems obvious to me." Easy. You had at least two logical fallacies in that argument. The first is ANOTHER false dilemma - your argument that only two options exist - either doeing it the way you and your members do it or somehow caring less. There are several other options, including caring even more than you do but not having the resources to demonstrate it in the same way, not having the same training resources as your department does, or in choosing to demonstrate their caring in ways other than you choose to do it. The second is your use of the Bandwagon Fallacy- insisting that because some other places do it that way, then everyone else should jump on your bandwagon.
"Okay don't do even an entry physical, don't do any medical background checks, let's just let Joe Newguy with a serious heart defect die dragging hose, or putting up ladders, or placing the PPV fan, or directing traffic, or whatever. Because one line of duty death must be cheaper than physicals...Right?" Nope, completey wrong, and here's why. That argument is yet another straw man mixed up with yet another false dilemma. In fact, exterior firefighters and support personnel don't have as many LODDs as interior firefighters - check the NFFF and USFA statistics for the evidence. There are other options between the two extremes you discussed in this one, too.
"Someone that does not go interior is simply not a complete firefighter." Straw man. I never said that, nor have I used the term "complete firefighter" anywhere in this discussion until this reply.
"You may want to call those people firefighters, I do not." Your denial of the reality that people other than interior firefighters fight fires and meet the numerous dictionary definitions of "firefighter" that I posted elsewhere in this thread in no way makes firefighters outside your overly narrow defintion somehow magically become non-firefighters.
"Support, gophers, or any other name that makes it clear what they are is fine, Firefighter is not." The writers of numerous dictionaries and some state fire academy training program developers disagree.
"Let's talk about funding shall we." Sure. Lets.
"Here is my brutally blunt assessment of funding for fire departments. If the community doesn't value the local fire service enought to fund them adequately then close the doors and shut down the FD." I thought we were going to discuss funding, but you drove past funding right into ANOTHER false dilemma. What is it with you and claiming that two extremes are the only options, when there clearly are other options between your extreme positions? It is that COMMUNITY'S RIGHT to determine the level of fire protection they can afford - not yours. If they choose a lesser funding option that results in an exterior-only department, a department that has some interior, some exterior, and some support members, or if they choose to have no fire department at all (example, Obion County, TN) then that is THEIR decision. It sure isn't yours. You don't live there, you don't own property there, you don't work there - why in the world would anyone that does live, work, or own property there want you to make that decision for them? Your opinion on that one is not only brutal, it's silly.
"Honestly what is the difference? A firetruck shows up, water is sprayed on the outside of the building as it burns down." Straw man, unless you TRULY believe that there are no exterior openings in that building through which water could be applied to the interior. You have heard of "windows" and "doors", haven't you?
"No fire truck shows up the building burns down faster." Compared to what - that inaccurate claim you posted above about all of the structures burning down if the fire is attacked from the exterior?
"If I volunteer my time the very least I should expect is safe, up to date PPE, and equipment that is in good repair and as modern as possible.' I agree, but once again, the real world operates outside of your expectations.
"I have no responsibility to put my life in harms way if the community feels no responsibility to fund the FD appropriately." You started out great with that one, but dropped the ball when you got to the "...feels no responsibility..." part. It's not a matter of "feels no responsibility", it's a matter of "Don't have the resources."
"We will never agree on this, but I do ask one thing of you. If you are going to try and counter the things I say, at least actually counter what I said instead of making up some nonsensical bull shit and trying to pin that on me." I didn't do that, as explained above. You, on the other hand, did EXACTLY that, as I pointed out with the link to the definition of the Straw Man fallacy. My position is one based in the real world. If you disagree, that's your right, but your arbitrary false dilemmas are not the only options. That was pretty much Shane Ray's point.
-
-
I advocate for all of those things...but tempered with the reality of "the best we can afford".
There is a very good reason for endorsing lesser standards - some people and some entire departments can't meet the higher standards for a variety of reasons - lack of finances, lack of manpower, lack of manpower that can meet a given state's legal interior firefighter minimums, other reasons, or a combination.
Your last statement is a false dilemma, because it assumes that every location has the same amount of money, manpower, community support, and other resources. Obviously, that is not the case.
Merging two fire departments in areas with inadequate resources - in at least some cases - just means inadequate resources with the same logo on the apparatus doors.
In the case of "Everyone goes home", that is exactly what an Exterior Firefighter certification will help non-interior firefighters do.
Bottom line - there are places that will never be able to meet the standards you want. That takes your idealized choices off of the table and leaves the choice of Don's "close the fire department" option or a more measured, moderate way of doing things - you know, recognizing the reality and having a certification that matches what is needed in some places. SOME places, not all.
-
-
The sad thing is that in some places, given the size of the community and what it can provide both in terms of interior manpower and funding, the community is very often happy with a department that can contain the fire to a single building or in this area, can protect their property from a wildfire. If they extinguish a small incipient fire or maybe on a good day put out a room and contents fire, that works to, but they understand that the $20 in fire taxes they pay every year doesn't go very far when it comes to funding a fire department.
I know to some posters here, that is not what they would consider a fire department, but to the community, they are.
No, they are not going to go interior most of them, and yes, they will show up with Billy-Joe-Bob driving the 25-year old tanker following the 20 year-old engine, but they do what they can with what they have and sometimes, it just ain't enough. And yes, in my experience the community understands that because it many cases, the residents are doing with they can what they have..
Bottom line is I have more respect for the members of some of the very rural departments both here and in my previous locations that seem to make it work much of the time with very little than I do for the firefighters on the bigger, better funded volunteer or combo departments that often are never happy unless they have the latest and greatest..
This thread started with a discussion about testing and certification for exterior firefighters. I have heard a lot about "weakening standards", "watering down standards" and "providing services below what a fire department should provide", but like you Ben, I have yet to hear one solid operational reason for not allowing exterior the members the chance to be "professional " (which is what some posters scream about) and giving them a certification to train and shoot for.
In all reality, the community and the department defines what a firefighter is. Let's leave that part of the discussion up to them as that definition is local.
-
-
Well said. Shane Ray's point is to recognize the real world and certify people for what they actually do, rather than some third party's arbitrary definition of how things should be done in a place they don't live or work.
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
And if you are overhauling without PPE to include SCBA, until the air is monitored and declared safe, that is just foolish.
-
-
In my state, it's also illegal. However, if the loss is stopped from the exterior in one of those interior/exterior combination departments, then the interior guys can overhaul in SCBA whether the air is monitored or not.
-
-
Ben,
Since you once again proved you refuse to comprehend basic, simple, American English, trying to debate with you is like arguing with a child. All you get is mindless drivel. You can throw the BS flag all you want...you should have no trouble recognizing BS since you are a major spewer of it.
Let's try this once more and if you don;t get it this time it proves that you are nothing more than an argumentative asshole that like to stir the pot rather than comprehend what is said to you.
I NEVER said, one time EVER, that civilians can define what a firefighter does per NFPA, per pro board qualifications, or by any state or national standard. I clearly, concisely, and now repetitively, have said that if you ask civilians, citizens, even children what firefighters do they will say "Ssave lives and put out fires." Now do tell me where I said here, or anywhere else, that civilians would know one single thing about professional qualifications? Show me where I mentioned civilians understanding NFPA or pro board qulifications...You can't, and your repeated attempts to say I did show a completely immature attempt to twist my point to make you look like some genius...well, you are failing. Try actually reading what I wrote instead of making up a bunch of ludicrous nonsense.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
"Bottom line is I have more respect for the members of some of the very rural departments both here and in my previous locations that seem to make it work much of the time with very little than I do for the firefighters on the bigger, better funded volunteer or combo departments that often are never happy unless they have the latest and greatest.."
Well at least I know where your loyalties lie. Sadly my department falls under the shadow of "...better funded..." so clearly, I'm not one of those firefighters deserving of your respect. :-/
Also, it's like not respecting someone because they have more money than you do. Don't get mad...get richer.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
The same things are being said by the same people so obviously we know minds are not going to change on this thread.
This sticks out a bit and leads to something I thought about after my post yesterday:
There is a very good reason for endorsing lesser standards - some people and some entire departments can't meet the higher standards for a variety of reasons - lack of finances, lack of manpower, lack of manpower that can meet a given state's legal interior firefighter minimums, other reasons, or a combination
Good reasons for lesser standards??? Are there really ever any good reasons? All of these are excuses, not reasons, to lessen standards.
Let's look beyond the context of fire protection and lets apply the same excuses to something important as well....Education. Like the fire service, there is no doubt that education standards for students has increased and changed. We know what the national standards are set at and we know that all kids should be getting an education.
Yet, I ask, do we see differing standards just because the school is in a poor, rural, community? Do we see lessening of standards because there aren't as many teachers in one area as opposed to another? I would say the minimum requirements to graduate are successful completion of 12 years of schooling......yet do we see poor, rural areas and so forth decreasing those standards and that only 9 years of education is sufficient? No we do not. So why the hell is it OK to lessen standards for the fire service??
Really, this topic can be boiled down to the old saying:
"Lead, follow, or get out of the way"
-
-
I never said that I don't respect firefighters on the bigger, better funded departments as my current combo and previous volunteer departments would, if you asked my neighbors, fall into that catagory.
My issue is when some of the members of those better funded departments complain about their "old" 10-year engine or "outdated" 8 year-old SCBA when there are departments struggling with 20 and 30 year old apparatus (like my VFD that runs a '66 Mack and '74 E-One as first due out of 2 of our stations) or SCBA from the 80'sa and 90's still with steel cylinders (like my VFD, again).
The fact is it's much tougher to make a department run on very little money as compared to being adequately funded. I have the greatest respect for the small rural VFDs that somehow make it work with very little,
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
