The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Consistency and Standardization - Terminology Blog In Extremis
Well, I'm glad that there's been a lot of discussion about the terminology issue, but my point wasn't just about terminology and communications standardization being a problem for the fire service. Without digressing, despite some of the very considerate and well expressed views pointed out by readers in the Terminology blog I wrote, it is a problem- go back and look at the reports of any disaster that has happened in the last twenty years and you'll see that communications interoperability and terminology has been a consistent problem (the report I'm referring to I'm pretty sure was written by Professor Ben Aguirre from the Disaster Research Center, but I don't have it in front of me and I'll need to go find it - I'll link to it here when I do find it- EDITOR NOTE: THIS WAS AN INCORRECT REFERENCE; THE REFERENCE IS ACTUALLY FROM THE ARTICLE "LESSONS WE DON'T LEARN: A STUDY OF THE LESSONS OF DISASTERS, WHY WE...", BY AMY DONAHUE AND ROBERT TUOHY - GO TO THE LINK FOR MORE INFO), my point was actually about just agreement at all.
I'd like to paraphrase something Judge Thomas Kemmerlin, a respected jurist and law professor, said to me once: that standards and laws are like vultures; vultures may be ugly and cumbersome beasts, and we may not like them much, but they have an important job in that they clean up the messes left that otherwise would rot and cause disease and other problems. Likewise, we may not like standards and laws that tell us what to do, but these standards and laws were created to solve problems where people didn't do the right thing, and many would not be necessary if people would just talk to one another and use best practices instead of taking shortcuts and not using up-to-date information and skills.
Standardization is required for a certain number of issues; as a member of several national committees where standardization is always the hot topic for debate, my point is that you don't have to have some unattainable (and unreasonable) standard to make things uniform, but there should at least be a starting point that everyone can agree on that THIS standard defines something. I'm not in favor of standardization because I think we do things right all of the time and everyone else should "listen to me"; I'm in favor of knowing the definition of something and knowing how I can use that resource when I have a problem. Just as if we were working on a car and I said, "hand me a crescent wrench" and you handed me a pipe wrench, I might be able to make that work, but on the other hand, if I'm trying to get into a tight area, there's no way that tool will work.
I'll take something near and dear to my heart: NFPA 1006, as an example. To declare someone a Level 1 Rescue Technician in say, the auto/machinery extrication discipline, shouldn't require someone to have a degree in physics (I realize that's a little over the top, but bear with me). I happen to think that someone with that "title" should at least have things like some HAZMAT Awareness KSAs, fire suppression KSAs, some emergency medical stuff, etc. There ARE those who think that these people should all be at least EMTs but we agreed that this wasn't probably necessary for the minimum standard (and it isn't).
When there is, for some reason, the need for your fire department to cross over the line to visit my department for a major event, when I call for 10 "Level 1 Auto/Machinery Rescue Technicians", I should have a reasonable expectation that they have met a minimum standard. I think it is unreasonable to expect them all to be physics professors. If your department chooses to have physics professors as your minimum qualification, then good for you. But there needs to be a starting point (a REASONABLE starting point) and then we can call apples apples and oranges oranges.
The problem is that there are those out there in standardization land that only agree that it's their way or no way and that everything else is not acceptable. Do I believe that firefighters employed by Hilton Head Island Fire & Rescue should be required as condition of employment to be NREMT Basic or better? Yes, I do. Is that a reasonable expectation for everyone? Well, I personally think it is, but I'm realistic in agreeing that it is not. If I call for a firefighter from your jurisdiction, should I expect them to be NREMT-B or better? No, I should not expect that.
In operating at a few major disasters (and I have), I am always amazed at what comes into a staging area posing as a defined asset. My favorite one is the four guys and a pickup truck with a Hurst tool in back that was being defined as an Urban Search and Rescue Task Force. I saw a team of ten with four dogs saying they were a Task Force as well.
Yes, I am in full agreement that the NIMS initiatives are a strike in the direction of standardization in the emergency setting and yes, even though I'm against them, I think that some reasonable consideration could be applied to keeping some ten codes instead of wholesale elimination (I think everyone can agree 10-4 means "okay"), but the problem isn't just making everyone look and sound alike from a uniformity standpoint, it is more about knowing what to expect from someone who chooses to define their unit, their title, or whatever it is that needs defining, and what they are capable of as well as knowing how best to support that resource in an emergency.
I'd like to paraphrase something Judge Thomas Kemmerlin, a respected jurist and law professor, said to me once: that standards and laws are like vultures; vultures may be ugly and cumbersome beasts, and we may not like them much, but they have an important job in that they clean up the messes left that otherwise would rot and cause disease and other problems. Likewise, we may not like standards and laws that tell us what to do, but these standards and laws were created to solve problems where people didn't do the right thing, and many would not be necessary if people would just talk to one another and use best practices instead of taking shortcuts and not using up-to-date information and skills.
Standardization is required for a certain number of issues; as a member of several national committees where standardization is always the hot topic for debate, my point is that you don't have to have some unattainable (and unreasonable) standard to make things uniform, but there should at least be a starting point that everyone can agree on that THIS standard defines something. I'm not in favor of standardization because I think we do things right all of the time and everyone else should "listen to me"; I'm in favor of knowing the definition of something and knowing how I can use that resource when I have a problem. Just as if we were working on a car and I said, "hand me a crescent wrench" and you handed me a pipe wrench, I might be able to make that work, but on the other hand, if I'm trying to get into a tight area, there's no way that tool will work.
I'll take something near and dear to my heart: NFPA 1006, as an example. To declare someone a Level 1 Rescue Technician in say, the auto/machinery extrication discipline, shouldn't require someone to have a degree in physics (I realize that's a little over the top, but bear with me). I happen to think that someone with that "title" should at least have things like some HAZMAT Awareness KSAs, fire suppression KSAs, some emergency medical stuff, etc. There ARE those who think that these people should all be at least EMTs but we agreed that this wasn't probably necessary for the minimum standard (and it isn't).
When there is, for some reason, the need for your fire department to cross over the line to visit my department for a major event, when I call for 10 "Level 1 Auto/Machinery Rescue Technicians", I should have a reasonable expectation that they have met a minimum standard. I think it is unreasonable to expect them all to be physics professors. If your department chooses to have physics professors as your minimum qualification, then good for you. But there needs to be a starting point (a REASONABLE starting point) and then we can call apples apples and oranges oranges.
The problem is that there are those out there in standardization land that only agree that it's their way or no way and that everything else is not acceptable. Do I believe that firefighters employed by Hilton Head Island Fire & Rescue should be required as condition of employment to be NREMT Basic or better? Yes, I do. Is that a reasonable expectation for everyone? Well, I personally think it is, but I'm realistic in agreeing that it is not. If I call for a firefighter from your jurisdiction, should I expect them to be NREMT-B or better? No, I should not expect that.
In operating at a few major disasters (and I have), I am always amazed at what comes into a staging area posing as a defined asset. My favorite one is the four guys and a pickup truck with a Hurst tool in back that was being defined as an Urban Search and Rescue Task Force. I saw a team of ten with four dogs saying they were a Task Force as well.
Yes, I am in full agreement that the NIMS initiatives are a strike in the direction of standardization in the emergency setting and yes, even though I'm against them, I think that some reasonable consideration could be applied to keeping some ten codes instead of wholesale elimination (I think everyone can agree 10-4 means "okay"), but the problem isn't just making everyone look and sound alike from a uniformity standpoint, it is more about knowing what to expect from someone who chooses to define their unit, their title, or whatever it is that needs defining, and what they are capable of as well as knowing how best to support that resource in an emergency.
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on October 9, 2008 at 9:19pm
-
It's funny, but a couple of years ago, a friend of mine from Prince George County, Maryland-Harve Woods-and I voiced so much displeasure of a lack of REAL representation for volunteers that we started a discussion to start a new, national volunteer firefighter organization. We did in a half-joking manner, but we were staggered by the number of replies that we got from like minded individuals.
I think that there are many firefighters and fire departments who are starving for real change and an organization that isn't layered in bureaucracy and self-interest.
It may take someone new at the table to effect real change.
And Ted is right; I have a very good friend who builds apparatus who is constantly complaining about the new NFPA standards adding cost to the fire trucks, but he has no qualms about passing it along to us-the end users.
Funny how that works.
TCSS.
Art
-
Comment by Jenny Holderby on October 9, 2008 at 2:34pm
-
About a year ago, I decided I wanted to write an article about the difference in the fire service in OH/WV & KY since I live in that little corner where all three states meet. It was an effort in frustration from the beginning. I do research on just about anything but I have never hit so many road blocks as I did when trying to get this information. I sent emails that were never replied to. I sent letters & made phone calls. Then I gave up. The level of training is completely different although OH & WV have the same basic class. WV has a good lead on what the "10 commandments of fire department" to which they tie funding. WV has 12 or 13 career fire departments in the state & over 400 volunteer departments. It is mind boggleing.
-
-
It all comes down to: we have too many "authorities having jurisdiction"; or think that they do. Between the IAFF, IAFC, NVFC, NFPA and all of the fire service dignitaries who sit on the various committees making their recommendations-many that parrot or parallel each other-while others are on opposite ends of the world, a single starting point may not be possible, unless you can start from several different "positions".
No; I'm afraid that we may have to create a brand new organization such as the International Association of Fire Departments that will either consume the others or send them packing.
I feel that some of the organizations and their leaders have become too passive and impressionable.
I am of the opinion that stronger leadership will get us to the starting point. It may take fewer people at the table to eliminate all of the special interests, but we need to get back to the basics and that is to protect our people.
TCSS.
Art
-
Comment by Mick Mayers on October 9, 2008 at 1:45pm
-
Art,
Drawing in breaths between drags is probably better than what I thought the standard was: fogging a mirror.
I think that the NFPA standards (and I'm on a committee, so bear with me) are often so mired in "covering the bases" that we miss out on the simple answer. Simply defining "fire department" and "firefighter" seems to be pretty basic, but in reading and watching stuff on here and in every other facet of emergency services I am involved in, it seems like maybe that's not such a bad idea.
However, as soon as we break in with the focus groups/mission statements/etc., we all know we are doomed. Like I stole from FASNY's blog a while back, "A committee is like a cul de sac where good ideas are led to and slowly strangled". Or something like that.
-
-
Mick:
You always raise the bar on food for thought.
I am one of those who cringe at the thought of "minimum standards". Why? Because I believe many will go to the minimum standard and go no farther. They have met the minimum and that is all that they are required to do. People still bitch about OSHA or NFPA and they ARE the minimum standards. They encourage you to establish your own higher standards, but you must hit the minimum.
Look at the upper body physical required for SCBA. Basically, if you can draw breaths in between drags from a cigarette, you can don an SCBA. That might be over simplifying it, but you get my drift.
Now; starting points is a whole other matter.
I believe that there must be a starting point where we can get all the fire departments together and agree on the definition of "fire department". Then get agreement on the definition of "firefighter". From there, we will need to create a focus group, establish a mission statement, think outside the box, research through a utilization task force the need for sub-committees to explore the feasibility of consensus building in the fire service.
Can we agree on that?
TCSS.
Art
-
-
Speaking of communications - my department received a 50/50 matching grant to help pay for a MARS radio. (Military Affiliate Radio System). Our county is participating and it seems like an awful lot of expense IF we don't ALL have the capability to communicate when something BIG happens. From what I understand, with this system we can talk to anybody, fire, EMS, Law enforcement, utilities, weather, anybody you could need to be in touch with in a "disaster".
As for fire fighters not being trained - there is NO EXCUSE !!! In my department, actually in every department I am familiar with in our area, until a member has been trained to the Ohio minimum qualification for volunteer fire fighters they do not actively fight fire in an emergency situation. There is never a reason for them to do so. How does this happen in 2008? Do these fire chief's not understand that they are liable when these people get hurt (or worse)?
-
-
Hey, I found that reference. It was not Professor Aguirre after all, it was a paper "Lessons We Don't Learn" by Amy Donahue and Robert Tuohy. Here is the link: http://www.hsaj.org/pages/volume2/issue2/pdfs/2.2.4.pdf
When I titled this "in extremis", I meant it literally. It means "critical, to the point of death". These issues we continue to battle are to the detriment of our organizations and to our service. If we can't figure our way out of battles over consistency, how will we ever get over some sea change that revolutionizes the way we do business? We KNOW that communication failures (and when I say communication, I'm referring to the terminology, the standardizations of resources, as well as the interoperability) in a disaster has historically meant that responders and civilians will die as a result of these failures, and yet we continue to "whistle past the graveyard" as a favorite colleague likes to say. Shall we continue to ignore this threat to our detriment? Our shall we step up and resolve our differences, putting aside the petty issues and working on the meaningful, big issues?
We continue to make the same mistakes in disaster response at each disaster. Why can't we see past the problems to a solution?
-
Comment by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on October 9, 2008 at 1:33am
-
Ben writes, "There's something more than a little backwards about a system that reserves the term "Tanker" for the 30 or 40 aircraft that drop water from the air, ignores the thousands of ground based "Tankers" that pre-dated the air tanker business, and ignores thousands of ambulances.".
I think Ben brings up a valid point here. I will personally endeavor to find out why water dropping aircraft were called tankers while water trucks were called tenders using the FIRESCOPE Standardized Terminology. In the meantime, folks like Ted and Ben that have access to the national committees that may possibly be able to get everyone on the same page. We all need to identify things using the same terminology whatever the consensus dictates.
-
Comment by Ben Waller on October 8, 2008 at 11:17pm
-
Jenny,
Without throwing anyone under the bus, suffice it to say that the department in question is one of the very few in my region that does not require at least FF-1 prior to being able to conduct interior structural firefights. I'm a professionaly trainer, so I'm familiar with all of the pitfalls to which you referred. My initial concern isn't with getting a single firefighter a passing grade on the test - it's with the mindset that it's OK to use uncertified personnel in 2008.
I don't know the firefighter in question, so I have no idea what the problem is because I don't know him. What I do know is that my state has thousands of certified firefighters, 85% of whom are volunteers. That tells me that there's no excuse for having an uncertified firefighter doing interior attacks.
The department in question needs to fix a safety problem prior to fixing an educational/training/instructional/whatever failure.
-
-
Ben Waller said: An example of the minimum standards vs. a real standard is the Fundamentals of Firefighting (formerly OSHA FIrefighter). I recently heard a fire chief state that he has a firefighter that can't pass the Fundamentals course, but is the "best firefighter I've got."
Why can't the fire fighter who is the best the chief has pass the class? Is it because he doesn't have the skills? OR is it due to not being able to TAKE THE TEST? OR could it be that the instructor teaching the course didn't present the material the way the questions are presented on the test? Perhaps the fire fighter is an excellent performer as a member and on the fire field but is confused when he takes the test because he doesn't understand the questions. Maybe the chief needs to find out why he isn't getting through the course and maybe get his hands on the test & coach, tutor or mentor the guy so that he CAN pass the class. I find that some of the younger guys taking basic fire fighter do not do well on the exam because there are questions about things that we don't use often or that we do differently. They need to realize that they have to pass the course & they must know the material they are studying. We have a couple of guys who are great fire fighters & lousey test takers. We've also found that the night before the class takes the final exam to get their certificate, we have a study session on both the written portion & on the skill stations. Not being able to pass a class doesn't always mean that the fire fighter doesn't know what he is doing.
J
© 2025 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
You need to be a member of My Firefighter Nation to add comments!
Join My Firefighter Nation