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?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on April 26, 2012 at 2:43am

Ben,

Do tell how firefighters that remain OUTSIDE save lives. Do they stand at the door and yell "YOO HOO!! ALLY ALLY OXENFREE!! COME OUT, COME OUT, WHERE EVER YOU ARE!!" Because if you aren't going inside HOW DO YOU SAVE THEIR LIVES?? Hey! Maybe we float them out the door with all those exterior streams!!

Okay, perhaps the exterior streams are a bit facetious, but let's hear how you save victims that are down or trapped without ever entering the building.

As for defining what a firefighter is I believe most citizens, including little kids, would be able to tell you what a firefighter is supposed to do. They would say firefighters save lives and property. A child may not say it quite that eloquently, but even they know what a firefighter does.

Further, if you are my fire department and your SOGs say you will NOT enter my burning home under any circumstances you better inform me, as well as the rest of the citizens you protect, of that intent. Because if I know I can figure out what I need to do: 1) Move to a better protected area, 2) Attempt to affect change in my local FD, 3) Install a fire protection system in my home, such as sprinklers. If I don't know, I certainly hope your FD has a good lawyer, because I do and I will absolutely sue you for unnecessary damage to my property, or for any deaths or injuries that occur.

As for defining what a firefighter is, why are you purposely trying to complicate this issue? We are talking about structural firefighting here, not wildland or ARFF. Both of which are firefighters within their defined specialties. And don't tell me a support or exterior only member is a a firefighter within their defined specialty, because they absolutely are NOT. A structural firefighter by definition does interior firefighting and search and rescue as part of their job.

I freely admit that I do not agree with or like the exterior only/support function idea. At the very least we need to make it abundantly clear that these members are NOT interior firefighters. Perhaps a different colored helmet, or turn out gear, would be one way to do it. At any rate I 100% believe they should not be taking up seats on a first out fire apparatus IF there are other interior qualified firefighters available to ride out. By the way, I also don't care if these members don't like having different colored gear, or can't ride out on first due apparatus. I believe the officers should be able to count on interior firefighters arriving first and then being able to immediately identify those firefighters that can't go inside.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on April 26, 2012 at 9:18am

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?

Not at all. Going back to the previous thread similar to this conversation I mentioned about the state setting the standards for a FF in this state. Those are the minimum standards and it isn't the dept or rural area establishing their own definitions because of whatever reason as being basically touted here.

As for the Navy DC aspect, I'm saying the Navy does not follow the same NFPA standards as being used here to create a definition. While many of the job aspects of shipboard FF reflect structural the standards are not the same and don't reflect into the civilian world. Another difference is that the term FF is never used, but instead Damage Control because of the diversity of the job. Everyone is required to go through basic damage control at boot camp and upon reporting to a new ship. It doesn't matter if you have 20 years in or 2 months, if your new to the ship, you go through basic DC again.

Whereas if trying to put the same concept into this particulr discussion, it would be like saying everyone in the town/city/area would be trained in basic firefighting and expected to perform the job. We know that is not the case.

In the context of this discussion I expanded upon your simplistic and wrongful assumptions of what shipboard FFing consists of as well as who does it. There is no choice by a sailor to say they don't want to do the job or they want to be "exterior only", all sailors are ordered to have this training and there are no watered down standards for those who can't or choose not to hack the job.

The important aspect that you haven't remarked on is the fact that every sailor, from the CO on down, is expected to do the job of damage control. Whereas, in the context of the "exterior only" as this particular thread is about, you are talking about making simplistic standards for those who don't want to, can't afford to, or can't do the job as a structural FF. We aren't seeing the Navy watering down the standards every sailor is expected to do, why are we seeing it for fire depts?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Clatt on April 26, 2012 at 4:12pm

i am not ff1 certified and i have fought interior fires as well as wildlind..but since i am not certifed i am not a firefighter....sounds alot like if you are not a paid firefighter you are not a professional firefighter.....bullshit eitherway

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patti Walz on April 26, 2012 at 4:27pm

Are you serious? Sounds like a recipe for a lawsuit to me... I am all for certification and training.... CYA....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Clatt on April 26, 2012 at 4:38pm

well the fact of the matter is Walz the is not a "standard"of training that ks follows..wich is bullshit..you have to be certified to do anything else..ems..police..etc.. what i am saying is in response to an earlier post..but i agree100% there needs to be a minimum standard for the volunteer fire service..and i am currently getting my FF1 cert..tring to get on full time at a paid dept....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 26, 2012 at 8:22pm

Easy. The Navy firefighters have to be able to fight fires on the interior of the ship, the Navy pays their firefighters, and the Navy pays to train them (and feed them, and clothe them, and provide their medical care....)

None of that applies to the vollies in question.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 26, 2012 at 8:24pm

If the Navy defines how shipboard firefighting is done, by whom, and with what minimum qualifications, then absolutely they are the AHJ and the AHJ is setting the standards.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 26, 2012 at 8:52pm

That one was all over the place, but I'll try to respond to at least some of it...

1) Firefighters saved lives and property with primarily exterior attacks for decades prior to SCBA being invented. They didn't do it with any of the silly things you put in all caps. By your standards, those guys were not really firefighters, since they didn't go interior every time.

Those guys actually did Survival Profiling a long time before Capt. Marsar presented that concept as a system in his EFO paper. They understood the difference between survivable and non-survivable compartment fires and didn't generally kill themselves trying to rescue people in obvious non-survivable, flashed over compartments.

While not ideal, it is possible to save at least some interior victims by extinguishing the fire, ventilating, and completing the rescue after the fire is out. In my early days (pre-SCBA) I've seen it done by some of my neighboring volly departments at the time.

2) Most citizens could tell you all of the Pro Quals for FFI and FFII from NFPA 1001? Really?

In some places, the city council doesn't know exactly what we do or what all of the recommended quals are, let alone most of the general public. I don't think you can back the "most of the citizens know..." claim with anything factual.

3) ARFF and wildland firefighters sometimes fight structural fires. I'm not trying to complicate the issue, it already IS that complicated. I'm just trying to avoid oversimplifying the issue, which is what you're doing.

4) In the areas that Shane Ray and I are talking about, there are unemployment rates of up to 30%, widespread poverty, and 20% to nearly 40% of the county population on some kind of public assistance, at least in some of the very rural SC counties. Those counties have no career firefighters. The people that live there know EXACTLY what kind of fire service they receive. If you moved there, you have no reasonable expectation of any level of service above what is there when you move there, unless YOU want to personally fund it. (Good luck) If you are a resident of one of those counties, you probably don't have the money to move, you probably don't have the money to magically create a fully-interior fire department, and you almost assuredly don't have the money to install a residential sprinkler system, although it would be great if you did. Sue the fire department over a fire they didn't start??? Enjoy the automatic counter-suit for your negligence in allowing such a great hazard to the public to begin on your property.

5) No, an INTERIOR structural firefighter is an interior structural firefighter. An exterior structural firefighter is still a structural firefighter that just doesn't go inside as long as their is an IDLH atmosphere. Montana already certifies Exterior Structural Firefighters. That means your claim that exterior firefighters aren't firefighters cannot possibly be factual.

6) Different helmet colors, TOG colors, or whatever - a lot of places already do that to differentiate between their interior and non-interior members. Not riding 1st due - most of the volly departments are lucky to get the rigs out with just a driver in the daytime, and whoever shows up (if anyone) gets to ride.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 26, 2012 at 8:58pm

Inaccurate.

ARFF firefighters do indeed sometimes fight structural fires.

Wildland firefighters do indeed fight structural fires.

Your last statement is flatly B.S. I have specifically told you that I was ASKING for your definition.

Your "obsfucation" claim is bogus, as I've already pointed out.

Copied and pasted from my post directly above...

"Once again, I'm just asking for your definition of terms."

The fact is that ARFF and wildland firefighters DO fight structural fires. You can't get around that - it really occurs. Arbitrarily defining the issue more narrowly than it is in real life isn't an answer, Jack, it's just ducking the question.