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
-
Very simple.
Because there are rural departments that have members that will not choose to or will be unable to take the classes due to time, family or othert commitments and will not be able to pursue certification.
And there will be states that are unable to adequatly fund the required classes and process, and it will liimt access to the class, especially in rural areas or very small, isolated epartments where the very limited number of personnel taking the class will make the expense required difficult to justify.
It will cost manpower. It's really that simple.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
From the link that Ben provided:
"...the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation (NFFF) Life Safety Initiative #5 suggests that we “develop and implement national standards for training, qualifications, and certification (including regular recertification) that are equally applicable to all firefighters based on the duties they are expected to perform.”
Clearly, these recommendations and guidance exist to create a system that ensures our training and certification fit our functions and fire departments.
Bob,
You' (and Ben) have made a strong argument in favor of the designation as well as certification for 'exterior firefighter.' However, I have one question:
Why would you reject the idea of FFI as the national standard? From what I remember, it had to do with basic firefighting techniques, tools and tactics. How would that not jibe with your rural departments that are interior? At some point a community HAS to find funding so that there own resident firefighters have the training to perform as safely as possible. And time needs to be found by those members to take that training. If neither the community will fund or the members choose not to go, then it's just an exterior cert. But FFI at least provides a sound basis for firefighting.
I think Don made a fair point in that, if there is going to be a national standard and certification process for exterior, there should be one interior. And yet you backed away from the idea of either, why?
Throughout all of your replies you have been consistent in talking about 'certification' for exterior as a means to bring them up to a professional level. Yet you then quickly back down from there being any kind of national standard, interior or exterior.
Over about 14 or 15 pages of comments you talk about the need for exterior firefighter certification and standards but then suddenly reverse course and say, "I would not be able to support a certification process for exterior members.
I guess as much as I would like to see an Exterior Certification, my issues with FFI in it's current form for rural volunteers would not allow me to make that compromise."
It seems as though you want it both ways, arguing the need for there to be a certification process for exterior firefighters but you won't accept one if it means that there be one for interior ones as well. And honestly, your comment that FFI should be an option the way that exterior firefighter certification would be one is confusing. FFI shouldn't be optional if members are going go interior. There HAS to be some standard other than what a department thinks appropriate.
That being said, I never stated that I supported volunteer exterior firefighters having to be certified as such to operate on the fireground.
Actually, you did, a bunch of times. You have consistently argued that in offering a certification process to exterior firefighters it would allow for consistent training to consistent standards (my wording, but essentially what you have been saying all along.)
Overall, this statement is your most confusing and backpedaling one: If the department wanted to require certification, the local department could require it, but I would not support that being a required minimum.
Bob, after 21 page of discussion back and forth with you being in favor of certification process you now feel that it should up to local departments and NOT a minimum? Dear god if an exterior firefighter certification shouldn't be a minimum then what the hell would it be, ability to fog a mirror?
Seriously, and not to be a d-bag here but, you have been arguing consistently that, in having an exterior FF cert it would keep people safe, trained and performing at a level they can best perform at, while assisting with necessary exterior tasks, allowing the interior FF (if any) to concentrate on those tasks. But now you feel that professional exterior firefighter certification should ONLY be an option!
Listen, if your argument against an exterior FF is that "members that will not choose to or will be unable to take the classes due to time, family or othertcommitments and will not be able to pursue certification." then what exactly are they good for?
Your whole premise has been that the certification was necessary so that those people, whether through age, injury, ability or choice, ALL equally valuable on the fireground, could STILL get certified to become a professional exterior firefighter...but only if they desire to pursue that option?
Again I ask you, if this exterior FF certification, which clearly is near and dear to your heart (and you have made resoundingly clear and logical arguments in favor of it) why would you now consider it to be only one more option available to someone? Really, if a person is not going to become a certified exterior firefighter, then what are they going to be doing? And are we going to have another 21 page discussion on the merits and designation of a person who is not EVEN an exterior firefighter?
Frankly Bob, I question your motives here. In a comment a few pages back you stated how LA is going to a state/national education curriculum and you are not comfortable with THAT! I suspect that you either think that people in LA seldom if ever use verbs and so don't need to know them or...you just plain don't like the idea of any form of government dictating standards of any kind.
As far as I'm concerned you and Ben have won the argument, both as to who deserves to be called a firefighter and that there should be a certification process for exterior firefighting. Having won it, you then decide you really don't want any part of the whole certification process and would rather let the local FD determine who gets trained how and be done with it. Hardly seems to have been worth your effort.
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
ENABLER...If you put half the effort into working to make YOUR proposed standard a reality as you do in saying why YOUR idea can't work you might have something. But you won't because it entails actually creating something and then making it happen. You are like the old crumdgeon members of so many FDs that sit in the back, argue against any changes, and when they actually have an idea expect somebody else to do the work to make it happen.
You sir are the enemy from within. The fact is you stand almost always alone here. The fact is rarely does anyone agree with your absolute nonsense. This time, once again, you got caught in your own fecal matter of nonsense. You propose something and then run away when others say great idea let's make it mandatory. Well, Bobby, put your money where your mouth is just once, stand up for what you believe in and make it meaningful instead of more nonsense about local control of standards. You won't because if you control it you are the super hero, you are the power, and that sir is ALL that really matters to you, control. Not improving anything, not making better firefighters, not offering better protection to you citizens, NOTHING BUT YOUR POWER. That is the most pathetic reality ever about you.
-
-
Given that I don't set the training standards at either of my departments, as that is done by the Chief officers, I find it interesting that you seem to claim my relucatance to endorse a state mandated training standard is about "my" power. Do I contrbute to the discussion? Yes. But I certainly do not make the final desisions on what standards will be set..
Yes, I beleive in department control of training content as they are in the psotion to determine relevance and applicability. I beleive in local-based training for initial training, and then, after that has been mastered moving on to general knowledge education such as FFI and FFII.
If you propsed something other than FFI, I may have been able to go for the deal, but FFI is simply to generic to be, IMO, and effective initial training standard, especially given the time frame and the requirement of haz-mat operations in this state. It's simply not realistic or reasonable for volunteer personnel.as a mandatory requirement in a rural VFD. I have outlined my reasons why several times.
As far as not taking action, I have developed a 42-hour rookie class for my VFD which has been implemented. Honestly, I really don't care about what other departments do, and because of that, I'm not and likely never will make the effort to get a statewide minimum certification, interior or exterior, implemented. It's simply not worth my time to be concerned about the operation of other fire departments. If I am asked to support a reasonable standard, I likely will, but I have far too much going on in my own 2 agencies to be activly concerned with the operation and training standards of the other FDs in the state.
You beleive that FFI is the answer to the training issues in the volunteer fire service. I don't. I see the need for local solutions developed in-house preseted in a reasonable time frame. I think we both want to get to the same place. However, i accpet the reality that for some departments, exterior only or primarily exterior operation is the safest way for them to operate. I beleive that every department needs to be trained to the level that they can safely deliver services, and for me the best answer to that is a general training format and training materials provided by the state for in -house or regional/multi-department development and delivery, not canned, mandated training programs.
Is there room for compromise? Sure. The 50-hour class proposed by the State Fireman's Association as a minimum standard was acceptable to me because it was relevant to the volunteer service and reasonable in length. It even contained a provision that if the member did not achieve FFI certification within 3 years, they would have to retake the class. I opposed that portion, but supported the concept anyway. So yes, I can compromise to a degree.
-
-
No Bobby,
YOU NEVER COMPROMISE! If it isn't YOUR WAY, you are out.
I just shake my head at your insistence that not only is FF1 not a practical minimum standard but that YOUR "Rural Vollies" simply can't find the time to do it. REALLY? Do they train at all? If they have so little time that they can't spare one day a week then perhaps they don't really have the time to be a firefighter and all they are is a name to fill out the roster. Essentially ghosts that contribute so little as to be worthless, or worse dangerous because of lack of training. Just so you know, not all firefighter deaths occur interior, some occur while responding (do they train enough to be able to drive a tender?), some occur due to falls(do they train enough to actually be able to safely operate on a roof?), some occur from inhalation of toxic gasses and smoke(do they train enough to be proficient in scba use? Whether for interior or exterior use.). Training is CRUCIAL for safe fireground operations and those that can't or won't train are just boat anchors that drag down those that do.
I listen to you whine, over and over, about how your guys don't have the time to take certification courses, including your invention, the whiz bang Exterior Firefighter course. How do the "Rural Vollies" in Wisconsin do it? My #1 POC FD has most members at FF1, the only ones that aren't are old timers that were grandfathered, and newbies that haven't had the class. We also have several members at FF2. Most have taken Driver Operator and First Responder. All of those classes were taken on their own time and seperate from inhouse scheduled training nights. HOW DO WE DO IT? Everyone has jobs, many have 2. Most have families. Everyone has a life outside the FD...How can that be? The funniest part of all this is we are not uncommon, the trend to more training, more certifications, more outside classes, is the norm. Professionalism isn't something people demand here because of a patch on their arm, it is something they want and work to earn. Sadly that seems to be a concept that escapes you and your excuses.
-
-
And here's the issue. I never said volunteers should not train. Never. Not once.
Yes, I did say that they should be trained to thier level of service that funding and mapower will permit, which may not be interior operations. But even in that case I never did state that volunteer fire department personnel should be be trained and continue to train on a scheduled, regular basis on the operatiions that they perform at the service level they deliver. And in many places that may include a mix of interior and exterior-only training.
I never said they should not train every week. Both of my current departments, as well as all of my past departments train(ed) every single week. In fact, I have also or are currently on departments that also require a specified number of hours of outside training per year.
I fully support that. In fact, I fully support a 75% minumum attendance standard or else they get either kicked off the department or their gear is taken away until they meet the minuimum standard.
Show me where i have stated that fire departments should not train. I have stated that IMO FFI/FFII do not represnt a reasonable use of training time as some of the material is irrelvant to everyday rural operations andf that a class for rural personnel could easily be compacted ionto a 50-hour class. That is true, but i never opposed department level developed and delivered training.
As I stated I could have lived with the mandatory 50-hour course proposed here as it was reasonable and applicable to rural operations.
And I fully support any certification as an option for those with the time and/or interest in expanding thier knowledge.
The issue seems to be your insistance that FFI /FFII training based not on local conditions but on a generic national cirriculum, parts of which likely have no relevance in that rural situation, is superior to local or regionally developed training based on local or regional apparatus, conditions and operations. Sorry, but to me local training developed by local training officers which may use a combination of locally developed training and relevant and applicable components of FFI or FFII to me, will yield in the end a superior training program.
Maybe I don't link professionalism to a piece of paper. I beleive that firefighters can be just as professional through department developed and department delivered training.
As far as FFI, unless you want a 8-month long class, the members will have to attend class more than once a year, especially when coupled with Awareness and Operations, both of which are required here to test FFI.
-
-
Bobby,
Which is it? They don't have time to train or they do? If they are meeting EVERY week for training then time is not the problem is it? you could easily use 2 of those nights a month to teach FF1. You have said you can do it.
Haz-mat Awareness is part of the 60 hour Entry Level Fire Fighter course here. Operations comes in addition to the 36 hours additional required to finish FF1. So cry me a river, we do that here too. frankly, in today's day and age, not having those 2 basic courses is damn near criminal in negligence. Train your guys to be aware and do what they can safely for haz-mat incidences. Another simple concept that just seems to float over your head and be gone.
Training to continue to stay exactly where you are is enabling and nothing more. If you never strive to, and work towards a higher level of training, a higher standard of performance, you are going no where and in fact failing your citizens
You haven't got a clue what Professionalism is. Meeting standards, adding those skills to real world experience, keeping up with training, passing that knowledge on, actually doing the job instead of looking for excuses why not to do it, are all part of Professionalism. Hiding behind excuses is not, and never will be Professional.
-
-
So let's do the math ...
Let's say FFI is 90 hours, which it is here.
Training at 3 hours each. x 2 nights per month = 6 hours per month
90 hours divided by 6 hours per month =14 months.
And does not include Awareness and Ops which is required for FFI testing.
Hardly an effective schedule in terms of retention for testing purposes.
Again, we use FFI cirriculum as a baseline for many of our weekly training programs, so they are getting the relevant and applicable material. And if they wish to test we pay for books, testing abnd provide the practicals.
The simple fact is that elements of FFI are important, and we teach them, but there are several elements that are simply not important in our operations, or not as important as continueing training on refinary and industrial operations, extrication, expanded wildland operations and expanded rural water operations. Sorry, but real world needs trump theoretical NPFA 1001 needs.
As far as Operations, the State Police handle everything beyond a ruptured gas meter or some fuel on the ground. We do very little actual operations in the way of haz-mat. In LA, we and just about every rural VFD does very little as it's the State Police's job. And we like it that way.
Again, you consider a puiece of paper "moving up". Fine. That's your opinion. I consider moving up teaching relevant and applicable information that they will use tommarrow, not stuff that they might use in 5 years if we get that 2-story building with standpipes or they moves to the district 50 miles away that does a lot more forcible entry.
"Moving" up means being able to deliver service in your district with the tools, equipment, resources and manpower you posses, and that means designing training based on your needs and when applicable, using components of established training virriculum such as FFI/FFII, D/O or specilazed rescue certification programs.
We disagree on FFI/II. You see it as having far more value in the re4al world than I do. I see department developed and delivered training based on real world stuff as having the true value.
Have a great weekend.
-
-
I will, knowing I am protected by fire departments that train for what is usual and for those unusual situations. By departments that know and apprecite when their guys want and demand more than the usual for training. By departments with guys that know the value of being certified an go get that cert instead of making excuses why they can't..
I will have a great weekend, and will sleep very well under the protection of Professional firefighters, whether they are career or volunteer.
-
-
Same here. Nighty Night.
-
Permalink Reply by Bobby King on
-
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky every firefighter has to go through a 20 hour basic training. This in no way means you are going interior. You then train to the 150 hour FFI certification. During this certification you must complete Firefighter Survival and rescue which in my opinion we ought to re cert in every year, as well as Wildland Urban interface. These two things must be done by a state instructor. After completing your FFI you can go on to get your 400hr FFII.
There is no reason not to train to the FFI Certification and beyond. I keep hearing the BS about people that cannot or will not wear scba. Cannot or will not go through the physical trainings etc. If you cannot commit one night a week to training then can you really contribute anything to the Fire service at all?
We cannot lie to others and we especially cannot lie to ourselves. This business is not for everybody. I have made several posts on Firehouse about this very subject. Because volunteers are not lined up around the corner to enlist and because our staffing has become shorter. I feel that it is very necessary to learn everything about the job you are doing so in the event you are called upon to do it, you can effectively step up and have an inkling of what you are doing.
In closing. To hinder your men and women by not training them above and beyond is the same as tying their hands behind their back and putting them in the ring with Mayweather ( also quoted from one of my posts in firehouse) You are doing nothing more than taking valuable tools away from them and turning yourself into a tool at the same time.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Don, this post contains several additional violations of the Firefighter Nation user agreement.
You were previously warned not to do it again and to remain civil. You don't seem to be able to conduct a discussion within the forum rules and with the civility expected in public discourse by mature adults.
Based on this, I have reported you to the Firefighter Nation administrators for your repeated violations of the user agreement here. I've also told them that you will falsely accuse me of attacking you and provided them with specific examples of your user agreement violations.
You have been given many chances (probably too many) to police yourself. You have not done that, so you should not be surprised that someone else steps up to do it for you.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
