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
-
I don't think anyone is saying that "the dude dispensing gatorade" or "taking blood pressures" (assuming they are not trained in firefighting are firefighters and should be called that. Both of my departments would classify them as support personnel.
As far as "the dude putting up ladders" ... Last I knew throwing ladders was apart of the firefighting operation, especially if you want to access the roof. Same with forcible entry, ventilation, exterior fire attack and water supply, which are all skills typically performed by our exterior personnel and likely would be included in an Exterior Firefighter (or whatever you wish to call it) certification that was discussed in the posted article.
All of those skills are very much involved in saving both lives and property.
Again, maybe your community defines a firefighter in that way, but in many, many, many parts of the state people understand that firefighters come with all or some of the skills you may expect.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
This is what sticks in my craw, the whole idea that anyone who, once voted into a volunteer fire department, can be considered a firefighter. If for no other reason, it demeans the time and effort put in by every person who went through an academy or fire school and earned their certifications.
Fine, have a 'cafeteria plan' where people can be trained and 'certified' to throw ladders, ventilate or do forcible entry. Train people to whatever standard you choose, it makes sense, I understand the need for it and I get what it's purpose is. Just don't call them firefighters because in my opinion they are not. They are support personnel trained to operate safely on the fireground while assisting firefighters.
If you or anyone else thinks differently that too is fine by me, but the argument for 'we all do the same job' just got significantly weaker by calling everyone a firefighter, even though they are only certified based on the 'cafeteria plan' they choose.
From Ben's post above; "It is thought-provoking, to say the least. What do you guys think?" This is what I think.
-
-
You won't hear nme say that we do the same job.
Take my combo department and compare it to both of the neighboring career departments that do far more in the way of technical rescue and special operations. yes, we do the same basic job, but overall, we don't do the "same job". And I have no issues saying that.
As I have said before, most volunteer departments don't do the same thing as all-career departments for two simple reasons .... Time and need.
Sure there may be other reasons such as staffing and funding, but the primary reason is that volunteers simply do not, and in most cases, never will have the time to train that a career firefighter - both while being paid for 12-24 weeks in the academy and while on-shift - has as a part of his/her employment. And I'll never dispute that.
Take my last volunteer department. I would put us up against many career departments, and just about all of them in that state, in terms of firefighting. We trained hard and covered a whole bunch of multi-story structures. But guess what? We didn't have the time to train our folks as haz-mat techs, water and ice rescue techs, high-angle techs, confined space techs or a whole list of other special operations or even EMS for that matter.
The other volunteer fire department in town concentrated on the haz-mat and provided first response ice and water rescue operations, and the ice and technical rescue technical operations were handled by the town's primarily volunteer Rescue Squad in conjuction with some other local department's as a regional resource. So the work was divided up between agencies for one reason ... Time. And the system worked very well because we each realized our limitations and figured out a way to deliver the services without overlly taxing one agency.
The other point is that most volunteer departments simply do not have the need to, in many cases, do the same job. The building stock is generally much less diverse and in many cases much less complex. The range of emergencies they respond to are often far less than that of a career department. There is less or no need for skills that urban and surburban departments would consider basic and even less, if any need for specialized firefighting and rescue skills. And on the other hand, the rural VFDs may have a package of skills that the urban guys will never need such as tanker operations, farm operations and rescue, cave rescue or other specilaized situations.
My current primarily volunteer combo department has decided that haz-mat beyond the awareness level is an option for the volunteers, and that we will not require anything beyond Operations for the career or volunteer staff as Technican is simply too time consuming and costly from a training standpoint and unecessary from a response standpoint. We provide the volunteers the training and opportunity to become involved in technical/confined space rescue but don't require it because we understand the time committment.
We do not require our volunteers to become EMS certified even though it's 85% of what we do. And we do not require them to become drivers.
Does that, if they choose not to become involved with any of that, make them less in terms of being "firefighters"?
My VFD does no EMS, no vehicle extracation, no specilized/technical resue and offically no haz-mat beyond awareness,though we have several members who are full-time members elsewhere that do have some of that training and will perform it if the situation demands.
Does that make those who do not have that training less of a "firefighter"?
Or what about those that have FFI, or equal training, but due to age or a physical issue, can no longer operate interior. Are they still "firefighters" in your eyes?
Again, if you are offended by the term firefighter being applied to the exterior personnel of my department, as well as my volunteer department, I'm sorry. I guess to me, it really doesn't matter to to some urban guy, even though I have a boatload of certs and non-certified training, they may consider me less of a firefighter. I guess to me it really doesn't matter.
Again, I don't think anyone is proposing a "cafeteria plan" for this as a certification.
I think what we are talking about is a defined set of exterior skills that do not require SCBA such as ICS, building construction, fire behavior, ventilation, forcible entry, hose handling and exterior fire attack and water supply operations that would require both cognative and mantipulative skills to pass both a written and hands-on testing process. You could even throw woldland operations in there as well.
If somebody didn't want to do all that, fine, but they obviously could not be certified, and it would be up to the department to keep them on as SUPPORT personnel, not exterior firefighters.
The fact is this is a real-world certification that would be useful to a volunteer department. It would provide a level of professionalism that some here constantly demand of volunteers and would be a valid achievement for many in the volunteer service.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Erroneous assumption, Jack. I didn't state any such thing about Bob's statements. I asked what he should do in his situation with the mix of people he has available.
A little sensitive today, are we?
-
-
Jack, once again, I was not making arguments, I was asking questions. How else am I going to find out how you define terms?
-
-
"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."
That sounds a lot like you're saying that the AHJ defines who is a firefighter and who is not. Is that what you're saying?
-
-
So, Don, if someone who extinguishes fires, saves lives, and saves property but does it from the exterior is a firefighter then?
Actually, most citizen's aren't qualified to define what a firefighter is, because they have no idea of what the qualifications that we're discussing are - or should be. The AHJ gets to define that.
"You don't like that truth. But it is really that simple."
That's B.S., Don. It's neither the truth nor that simple. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor discussing the amount of complexity involved in simply coming up with definitions upon which everyone can agree. I believe that was one of Shane Ray's points.
-
-
If you were talking strictly about structural firefighting, then why didn't you just say so?
Do you consider ARFF firefighters to actually be firefighters? You know that ARFF firefighters sometimes fight structural fires on airport property, right? How do they fit in to your definitions?
Do you consider wildland firefighters to actually be firefighters - particularly since they do sometimes fight structural fires from the exterior?
How about damage controlmen? Clearly, John Crabbe believes that they are firefighters in addition to having other qualifications. I agree with John on that one.
Once again, I'm just asking for your definition of terms.
-
-
Ben,
You stated I made hypothetical statements, I pointed out that Bob did too yet you didn't call him on that. Not an erroneous assumption at all. I just called you on your uneven playing field.
Once again you choose to parse rather than address the clear intent of what I say.
Not sensitive at all, simply confused as to why you take the time to point out a hypothetical statement I made yet not take the time to point it out to Bob. Again, seems a bit one sided on your (usual non-partisan) self.
-
-
Once again, you choose to parse rather than address.
noun
1.an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.2.a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.3.a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.4.a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.5.an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.I would think that our 'discussion' falls easily under definitions 2-5.Clearly we aren't 'arguing', as in definition 1
-
-
Questioning whether I consider ARFF, Wildland or DC to be firefighters is your further obfuscating this discussion, which I've already explained in an earlier reply.
By repeating statements to the effect that I don't believe ARFF et. al are firefighters is not only belaboring the point but presents it in a manner that suggests I actually made those statements.
-
-
Bob,
Your comment, "Again, I don't think anyone is proposing a "cafeteria plan" for this as a certification..."is actually wrong.
In the article linked in the OP was this comment (and from where I took the phrase):
"...IAFC’s Volunteer and Combination Officers Section (VCOS) began a discussion at their National Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C., on the need for a “cafeteria plan” for certifications..."
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
