The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Thought for the day
Some fire officers can lead their personnel through the gates of hell and back... others couldn't lead a herd of cats even if they were wearing turnouts made of tuna...
discuss...
discuss...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
What does using a SCBA have to do with leadership? Chief officers should be outside the hazard zone directing the troops. Company officers should be inside with the troops, if an offensive operation is indicated.
-
Permalink Reply by truckeewads on
-
Love the statement. Think that this is an issue wherever you go. All you can do is try and help the hopeless cat herders find their way and continue to be the officer people trust and will follow....just my take.
-
-
If the chief is inside, then there's a big, big problem.
The chief should be running the command post, and the command post should be in a non-IDLH area.
That role is even more important if you are short of manpower.
If the chief is inside, then who is outside looking out for the well-being of the troops?
If the choice is between the chief using SCBA or the chief being in Command outside, I'll take the chief being in Command 10 times out of 10 if that's the choice.
As for not knowing how to use all of the equipment your department has, my department has a tractor-trailer of hazmat equipment, another tractor-trailer of USAR equipment, a truck company that carries extrication, technical rescue, and water rescue equipment in addition to the firefighting stuff, an air cascade, and a rehab bus. I guarantee you that every chief can't operate every piece of our equipment, because a) we have firefighters and company officers to do that, b) we have too much equipment for every member to maintain proficiency on every piece of equipment, and c) it's not the chief officer's job - nor even every company officer's job - to know every piece of gear on every rig.
And...we don't issue SCBA to chief officers at all. It helps remove the temptation for them to be inside where they're not supposed to be at all.
-
-
That sounds like an organizational imbalance problem, not a leadership problem.
-
-
If you have more leaders than followers, it makes it very difficult for all of the leaders to exert leadership.
Example: When you complain about an officer whose responsibilities are Strategic in nature not being proficient with Task-level skills, it shows that the ratio of Strategic-level providers to Task-level providers is out of balance. You didn't mention the number of Tactical level leaders (company officers) but it makes a lot more sense for a Lieutenant to work one level down from his/her primary focus than to have a Chief Officer work two levels down from his/her primary focus.
-
Permalink Reply by Fireyladd - Retired Chief Sharp on
-
what lies behind us & what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us
There's my thought for today and every day................................
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Ben,
I can understand the issue of not knowing every piece of equipment, especially when there are specialities like HAZMAT and Technical Rescue, but that is what those are, specialties. An SCBA on the other hand is a common piece and an integral piece of equipment for ANY firefighter. A chief officer who doesn't know how to use an SCBA would be an issue for me as well....it alludes to the issue of how can they lead a fire department when they don't know the basics of the equipment and uses.
Should a chief be outside the structure and at a command post? Sure, however that is not always the case. I have been on incidents where chief officers were inside in a command role and an SCBA was necessary. The fireground is no time for a "crash course" in SCBA operations.
To be a good leader the leader also needs to be familiar with the equipment being used. They don't need to have an inside and out working knowledge of SPECIALTY equipment, but should know how to use and wear proper PPE. If they are asking the troops to wear it, then they should also know how to use it.
You don't see a general in the Army on the front lines with a rifle...they are also back at a command post, but by all means, that general will know how to use that weapon.
-
-
I'm trying to picture General Patton with a rifle here...sorry, I can't seem to get that picture in my head, for some reason.
Chief Officers in a command role in the hazard zone is not a good idea. I realize that some departments do it, but you can't maintain the strategic picture when you're operating with the task-level folks to resolve the incident. Being too close to the incident is a virtual guarantee that you'll be afflicted with tunnel vision, and tunnel vision contributes to getting firefighters killed.
The fireground is no place for mixing strategic management and the need to wear SCBA.
I'd much rather have chief officers that understand how to implement and maintain a personnel accountability system, how to talk intelligently on the radio, how to maintain control of their ego and their emotions on the scene, how to read smoke, how to determine when it's time to go defensive, why it's important to call for help when it's needed, why it's important to rehab your firefighters aggressively, and how to position apparatus outside of collapse zones than a chief that's current on the newest SCBA model that they'll never use if they are fulfilling their proper fireground role.
And...the Incident Commander (chief officer) will be in charge of hazmat, rope rescues, extrication, confined space rescues, water rescues, etc. whether or not that chief is personally qualified to perform that function. In many fire departments, extrication is more common than working fires. For the chiefs of those departments, it's probably more important for them to be familiar with rescue company tools than SCBAs, because they're going to save more lives with the extrication tools.
There's nothing wrong with being familiar with SCBA - I'm a chief officer, and I teach SCBA use. On the other hand, I don't wear SCBAs at fires, because I'm not going to be able to do my job of looking out for the troops properly if I'm all tunnel visioned up in the smoke.
-
-
Sorry Ben, I can agree on some points, but not the fact a chief officer should not know PPE.
Patton may not have had a rifle, but he would have known how to use one, just like the military today. There is NO, zero, nada, nil reason that a chief officer should not know how to use an SCBA.
We have had several large scale incidents where a chief officer was on the inside, one being a large warehouse with some paper bales on fire. That chief offiser was the OPS sector while IC was still outside. We had another with a large apartment complex whaere another chief officer was in a similar role. We can have chief officers be a safety and like FETC mentions, there can be times for an interior safety officer.
I don't agree with your SPECIAL OPS command scenario because while the chief officer may be IC of the scene, there would be the SPECIAL OPS SECTOR, be it HAZMAT or USAR. The person in charge of that should have the working knowledge of equipment, tactical and tasks and would be relaying the needs for the incident to command.
A chief does not have to be on air at a scene, but they should be familiar with the basic PPE and uses. In the scenarios I listed with a chief officer inside with an SCBA....one was on air, the other had one on in case things went to shit. Chief officers can be utilized in any type of command role and not all belong outside with the IC, but they should also be familiar with the basic PPE they ask their FF's to wear too.
-
-
There's a good reason that chiefs shouldn't be in a position where they need to be on air...ever.
It is a basic tenet of personnel accountability that the system with the firefighters names and assignments NEVER, and I mean NEVER enters the hazard zone. Regardless of whether you use Passport or some other system, it needs to stay outside.
The entire point of accountability is to have a way to track the firefighters location, assignment, and time on air in a place that has no chance of becoming part of the hazard zone if something bad does happen.
If a chief goes interior, then he has two choices - both very BAD choices - to account for the people assigned to him;
1) Take the accountability system into the hazard zone, which ensures that no one will know who is inside, where they are, or how much air they have left if something goes wrong.
2) Leave the accountability system outside, which ensures that the chief won't be able to track his people and their air in real time.
Option 1 risks not knowing who is inside - or even on scene if you can't immediately find the accountability system outside, and that's not acceptable. See the Routley Commision Phase 1 report and the NIOSH report from the Charleston 9 incident for the reasons why this isn't acceptable.
Option 2 means that the chief is disconnected from the tracking system, and that if something goes wrong, the chief will be missing with the troops. I don't see how either of those scenarios are a good thing.
Interestingly, command and accountability training stresses that you can't maintain the strategic picture if you're inside in poor visibility or in a position where you have to wear SCBA just to survive. In those situations, the chief isn't functioning as a chief - he's functioning as a glorified company officer, but without the partner that EVERY firefighter is supposed to have when operating in the hazard zone.
-
-
So in all this, why should a chief officer still not be required to know BASIC PPE or SCBA?
I agree about command outside, however, every situation is different and a chief officer can fill a variety of roles without having to be at a command post.
Yes, accountabilty is important, but is still not an excuse that a chief officer should not have to be familiar with basic PPE. Accountabilty should mean you don't enter the hazard zone, but is that always going to be the case? A chief officer inside can fill an important TACTICAL role.
How about a high rise situation, command can be outside, but you can also have sectors INSIDE with positions filled by chief officers. They should be familiar with basic PPE and how to operate an SCBA. Does it mean they have to be on air? Absolutely not, they can still perform the duties, but can have an SCBA in case things go to hell. I do believe there were several chief officers from FDNY who were operating inside the twin towers on 9/11....according to the scenarios you are saying, I guess they did it wrong too. A chief officer can still be on the inside filling a role from a SECTOR, to OPS, sometimes an inside view or close proximty to the scene is necessary to give the IC the picture they need to come up with a strategy. Sometimes that may mean a chief officer will have to be in PPE....not always on air, but should know how to use one.
An SCBA is very basic PPE and every FF should know how to use one, even the chief. If the command should be outside and a chief officer should be outside away from any hazard zone, then why should chief officers have PPE at all? Why should they have to wear a helmet? Why should they not have to be familiar with some BASIC LIFE SAFETY equipment such as an SCBA? You're a chief officer, do you have PPE? Do you wear PPE on a scene? Do you know how to use your SCBA's? If you answer yes to any of those, then why shouldn't every person on a fire dept be familiar with the basic SAFETY equipment?
-
-
John,
FDNY is re-thinking putting the command post inside the lobby of a high rise, based on the results of 9/11. The result was that their command structure was destroyed. The problems they had verifying who was even at that incident resulted partially from the unfortunate demise of several of their senior leaders.
If a chief has to fill a tactical role, that tells me that the chief should have spent more time prior to the call training his company officers to fill those tactical roles.
The issue that was brought up wasn't a PPE issue - it was specific to SCBA, and that is what my original reply discussed. I can think of several reasons for a chief to not wear - or be required to wear - SCBA. The first is that the chief may have a medical condition that keeps him or her from passing the required OSHA medical exam the pre-dates the annual fit test. In the UK, it's common for senior officers to fill command roles but to no longer be required to wear SCBA. Just because they no longer enter IDLH atmospheres doesn't mean that the department should get rid of their experience, knowledge, and command ability.
Another example is a volunteer department with a chief who no longer wishes to do IDLH entry. I've been a member of three different VFDs that used retired firefighters in non-entry positions, including chief officer positions, safety positions, and driver/operator positions. None of those typically requires SCBA or IDLH entry.
Another factor is cost. If the VFD has limited funds for the physicals and respirator fit testing, and the chief is doing his job and staying outside 100% of the time, then it's a waste of money to have the chief get a respirator clearance and fit testing, or to be fitted for a mask that is better used for an entry-level firefighter who routinely enters IDLH atmospheres.
And...what I or my department do isn't the point. Just because my department does things in a specific way doesn't mean that way is pertinent to every other department.
And...if you'll re=read my posts, you'll note that my position is based on what I think a chief officer should be doing, while you're arguing something completely different...what you think a chief officer should know.
Knowledge isn't nearly as important to leadership as taking the correct action and setting the right example. Staying outside and watching out for the troops is the chief's #1 job. It's difficult to watch out for the troops when you can't see through the smoke.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
