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 Oldman on
-
In an "Ideal" world, everyone would be training to the same standard. All Law Enforcement, Fire, and Ambulance would be training to one set standard. Individual States rights and requirements would would be moot. There would be no state commissions and rules. But... in an ideal world, there would not be a need to have this discussion, or this website. In an ideal world, there would be no crime or fires. No one would be injured or sick. And Everyone would go home. But we live in the real world, and not in an idealistic one. To suggest that the entire country be trained to one national standard, suggest the federal government would be the one running the show, and we all know just how the feds are a "well oiled machine". I'll leave this alone, as I don't want to start a political debate.
John brought up education, and the fact that rich or poor, everyone must follow the guidelines. Very true. But I don't know about education being better because of this one standard. In Texas, the poorer districts are supplemented by funding from the richer districts, the so called "Robin Hood plan". This is supposed to make it more equal for all districts In my experience, education has suffered, not been made better because of this one standard. Our children are being taught what they need to know in order to pass the standard test, in order to graduate. They are NOT being taught how to function in the real world. So in effect, the education for our youth today HAS been "dumbed down".
Texas, is one of the few states which has two different training entities. The Texas Commission on Fire Standards, sets the requirements for career (paid) firefighters. The State Fireman's and Fire Marshals Association sets the standards for volunteer firefighters. Both curriculum's cover essentially the same material, and recognize FF I and FF II as the standard. The difference is the TCFP is a mandatory requirement by law for one to be paid, the SFFMA is a voluntary program, and not all volunteer departments in this state meet their requirements, nor are they able. If all volunteer departments were required to meet the SFFMA requirements, there would be thousands of square miles with absolutely no fire protection. Yet these areas are lucky enough to have volunteers who do what they can and with what they have, and most try to meet the standards as best they can. The internet has helped many to at least get the classroom hours, but being able to get the practical skills can be difficult. Take in consideration, that there are areas in this state, that are so remote, that unless one uses satellites, there is no cell phone or internet reception. Some of these firefighters may never see a house fire in their career, but put them in a wildfire scenario, and they can hang with the best hotshot crews in the country. But it is the local training, and not the standards that gives them that ability.
I agree with the need to learn and know all that can be learned about this science of saving lives and property, and all of the classes I have taught my volunteers for the last ten years, have been to the TCFP curriculum. Which will end up helping me. After twenty four years with my present department, I will have to take and pass the TCFP tests because I am paid now as the Maintenance Chief. Irregardless of the fact my paid position has nothing whatsoever to do with firefighting, (which is still volunteer) I am still paid by the department, and as such, must have that piece of paper. Ok, bring it on.
Is the idea of certifying people for the non traditional roles in today's volunteer fire service a bad idea? What about a department Chaplin? Should he or she be required to have FF I and II? Or could a basic understanding about the roles and duties of a firefighter be sufficient for them to perform their non traditional role. Is this an idea which will spread across the country? Probably not. But could it work for specific areas of the country? Possibly. Mergers and Co-ops are a relatively new idea which can be a viable option for some, but is this something which will work anywhere? Not really. State laws can make it almost impossible for this to occur especially when multiple taxing districts are involved.
Look at technology today. Where might we be if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs hadn't thought "outside the box" every once in a while? We all have our preconceived ideas about what the fire service should or shouldn't be. Outside the box ideas are just that, ideas. It may not go anywhere, but it could also lead to another idea which might work better. At the very least, it gives the Ben's, Jacks, John's and Don's of the world a chance to debate in a forum such as this. How boring this "ideal" world would be if we all agreed on everything.
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
Oldman,
Personally, I don't have a problem with a national minimum standard of FF1 for ALL firefighters, career and volunteer. It is incredibly basic, around 100 hours long, and everyone that wants to be a firefighter should be able to pass that class. Perhaps the answer is to allow inhouse instructors to teach the classes so cost stays low, and have a state do the testing for a minimal cost.
I guess my response to your griping about having to pass the career firefighter standard comes down to this...Do you respond to fire calls while doing your paid position? If so then part of your duties are as a paid firefighter. Pass the test.
Your example of Chaplain is quite a stretch. Unless that Chaplain is a line firefighter, actually fighting fires, there is absolutely no reason at all for them to take the firefighter training courses at all. Generally they are there for moral support and to comfort injured victims, survivors and firefighters that need their support, not to fight fire.
Thinking outside the box is a wondderful thing, I prefer to kick the sides off the box, pile the debris and burn it to the ground. But thinking outside the box is only beneficial if the thinking is PROGRESSIVE and NOT REGRESSIVE. Lessening standards or creating a set of less qualified standards just to include people is NOT progressive and further sets the volunteer service back from the career service. That is funny to me because the volunteer service is often whining about being thought of as less than their career Brothers, so what do you and others advocate? A creation of second class firefighters. Brilliant...
If rogress is the answer all agreeing is not a bad idea.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on
-
I don't believe anyone has talked about this being a requirement. This discussion has to do with making exterior firefighter a certification.
But since you mention it, you do realize that only a handful of states have made FFI the minimum requred level of training and that most states still require NO minimum training for volunteer members? For those states, if it was decided to use this certification as a minimum requirement, this would actually be progressive as there would be a minimum training standarad in place where currently there is none. This certification relects the true capability of many rural VFDs, as compared to FFI.
Again, I know nothing of the support that your state provides the fire service in terms of training. Here in LA, a FFI course provided by the state costs the department as there is very limited free training. If a department would like to offer their own course, they can, but it's recommended that an Instructor I does the instruction, which in the rural areas is a very difficult class to take as it is generally a Monday-Friday thing, which is obviously not volunteer friendly.
Again, nobody is talking about not training physically capable andmotivated members to operate interior where the department has enough resources and enough interior members to do so safely. What we are talking about is offering an exterior firefighter certification to members who choose not to operate interior. Like it or not, these members are vital, yes vital, to the rural fires ervice in thie netire multi-state area, and without them, many departments would simply nopt be able to provide coverage.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Offerimg a certification that reflects the real world is as PROGRESSIVE as it gets.
Demanding that everyone meet a standard that is impossible for many to meet is beyond regressive - in fact, it's delusional.
"Delusional" = believing in that which is not real.
-
-
Don, since you have proved that you can't debate without filling your posts with logical fallacies, silly and arrogant demands that everyone else do it exactly like you do it.
Then there's the fact that you seem to be incapable of debating without resorting to childish personal attacks and juvenile namecalling, mixed with your imaginary and mischaracterized claims about my motivations.
As for civilians being able to define what we do, I just wanted to make sure that you're now advocating for letting civilians set the standards, since you've repetitively made that claim. Got it.
Interesting, since I posted all of those dictionary definitions of the word "firefighter" elsewhere in this thread. According to THOSE civilians, all the rest of your claims about firefighter standards, your arrogant claims that other volly firefighters that don't meet your standards are second class firefighters, not as civic-minded as you, etc. are just so much B.S.
You seem to have a unique ability to look down on other people. That ability is not justified by anything you've posted here.
Frankly, your "citizens can define what a firefighter does" and your calls for the standards you advocate are mutually exclusive. Either we get to set our own standards or the citizens do. You can't possibly have it both ways - but you keep insisting that you can.
That's just a bunch of bunk. Pick one coherent argument and stick with it, why doncha'?
Given your refusal to discuss this topic either factually or logically, and your 100% ducking every time I point out your overwhelming use of logical fallacies, you fit your own definition of "argumentative asshole that likes to stir the pot" than anyone else here.
I've met a few firefighters that can dish it out, but not take it, but none so obvious as you. And...when you open the door, don't whine about what comes through it in the other direction.
-
-
"Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Leading is exactly what Shane Ray is doing. He's leading the regulations and training in my state into recognizing the realities that face most of the volunteer fire departments and he's doing something about it. He's also creating regulatory compliance for those firefighters in the process.
One of the basic principles of strategy is that the objectives must be SMART...
Specific
Measurable
Action-Oriented
Reasonable
Timely
What Shane is doing is recognizing that if the standards are so high that a large percentage of the people that protect their communities can't meet those standards, it's better to have Reasonable standards than to fall into Don's false dilemma and demand that if the fire department can't meet some higher standard that they just close up shop.
As for your education analogy, it's more apt than you might realize. Many states do NOT require 12 years of education - for anyone. They typically require school attendence through age 16. After that, anyone who wishes can drop out. Some of them later get a GED without the last year or two of the formal education. I know a couple that did that due to the pressing need to feed their families after a parent died. They later earned their GED and college degrees, and are leaders in their local fire or EMS agency.
In both the education and firefighting sides of your analogy, there is no "lessening of standards". Not everyone who gets an education goes to college - or graduates - and not every firefighter is an interior structural firefighter and/or meets all of the NFPA Firefighter II standards.
Recognizing that there are different levels of education - or firefighting qualifications - in no way means that any standards are being lowered at all.
-
-
And Don, just to make sure, I went back and checked my posts. NOWHERE did I say that civilians can define what a firefighter does by ANY standard, or that you said that they could.
In fact, what I said was the exact opposite of what you claim - that citizens generally CANNOT define what we do, by ANY standard. I also stated that a lot of firefighters can't define it, either. The fact that I specifically said that civilians don't understand the qualifications and that they really can't define what we actually do in no way equals a statement that you claimed that they do.
You apparently don't pay attention to what is actually said in your eagerness to be disagreeable.
I did not mention the Pro Board at all, despite your claims that I did, and in conjunction with your comments about citizens. The Pro Board is an organization that grants certifications based upon some NFPA standards. That is a very different organization than the NFPA - you know, the organization that actually WRITES the standards.
When I discussed "pro quals", what I'm talking about are NFPA Professional Qualifications standards, including the NFPA 1001 Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications. You should be embarassed that after all the arrogance you've displayed here that you ddn't even know the difference.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Leading is exactly what Shane Ray is doing.
If you view regression as leadership, then that is your issue. I have only seen excuses, not reasons for weakening standards for the fire service. What is so damn tough of the current standards that they can't be met? What is so damn costly they can't be met? As I, and Don, stated, the minimum standards here is for one to be interior qualified and we have our poor, rural, areas too. Why insist on pushing for lesser standards than pushing for current standards be met?
They typically require school attendence through age 16. After that, anyone who wishes can drop out. Some of them later get a GED without the last year or two of the formal education.
Dropping out does not constitute a graduation standard. I understand there are reasons for people to drop out and there is a way to obtain the GED, but that still requires time and effort, as well as money, to obtain. You've missed the point then if this is what you wish to comment on, the simple fact is that there are the minimum education standards out there to graduate from school. You are not seeing those standards being watered down and redefined so that one can graduate after say 9 years of education as oppoed to 12.
Not everyone who gets an education goes to college - or graduates - and not every firefighter is an interior structural firefighter and/or meets all of the NFPA Firefighter II standards
No kidding. I'm not saying everyone needs to be trained to the FFII levels, I am saying there are those minimum standards for a FF and those should be the level, not further lessening standards because of those depts that can't hack. Why is it WI can have a minimum standard, including interior, after 60 hours, even for those poor, rural communities....and you find this as an excuse?
Point being, there should be the minimum requirement of any and every FF to be interior qualified. In the event a MAYDAY occurs etc, then everyone should be at least ready to be utilized for a rescue. If one chooses to stay outside after their certification, then that is the perogative of the person and dept if allowing it, yet they should have the minimum training and cert level to go in if need be. Rather than pushing for lesser standards so that all can "play", make some minimum standards so that all are "safe".
-
-
Great reply.
If you have a member that wants to go interior, train them to FFI.
If you have a firefighter that does not want to or can't go interior, train them to the exterior firefighter certification being discussed.
Nothing being "watered down" or "lessened". It's simply 2 levels of firefighting each with their own certification standards, not unlike First Responder, EMT-B and Paramedic.
-
-
Bobby,
You refuse over and over to see that if you have 2 interior qualified firefighters at an incident and several exterior ONLY qualified people there it essentially means the 2 interior qualified guys are are there own once they break the threshold of the building on fire.
Sure legally you meet 2 in 2 out, but realistically, and morally, YOU DON'T. Those guys know that if they go in to effect a rescue and get trapped or go down they are dead unless they can self extricate because YOUR FD allowed that to occur. Don't tell me it won't happen, because it will. Those 2 guys are not going to stand outside and allow someone to die. If the conditions allow they will go inside to attempt to save the victims because that is what REAL FIREFIGHTERS do.
Comparing first responder to emt to emt-I to paramedic is another idiotic non-comparison that is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with NOT ACTING to save someone. Exterior firefighters, despite Ben's insistence otherwise, will NOT rescue anyone. Anyone that makes it out alive self extricated from the building. NO RESCUE WAS MADE. Whereas even a first responder can effect life saving measures such as administering O2, CPR, defibrilation, some medications, stopping bleeding, and more. So try again because your comparison is ludicrous and once agin no points are awarded.
No matter how you slice it, no matter how much bull shit you spread over it, no matter how much you wish it not to be true, exterior only firefighter standards are absolutely a lessening of standards, a lessening of performance, and an absolute destruction of what a firefighter is.
-
-
Lead, follow, and get turn out gear and stand outside and tell yourself, no matter how wrong you are, that you are a firefighter, while actual firefighters go inside and do the job.
Honestly, if you can't meet FF1, I don;t want you working with me. It shows a complete lack of dedication to the craft of firefighting.
-
-
If you have a member that wants to go interior, train them to FFI.
If you have a firefighter that does not want to or can't go interior, train them to the exterior firefighter certification being discussed.
That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying everyone who is operating on the fireground should be trained to the same minimum standards. If a FF prefers doing exterior duty, then fine, but they should be trained and ready to go inside if needed. There is no reason for seperate standards on a fireground and there is absolutely no reason that all members should not be trained to the same minimum standards to be interior qualified. Pushing for an "exterior only" FF cert absolutely IS watering down standards already out there.
Unlike the EMS aspect, the fireground is all inclusive. On an EMS call, an EMT-B can do more pt care than a first responder, a EMT-I more than a basic, a paramedic more than an EMT-I and so forth. Yet, neither level of service is depending on the other to perfrom the job....on an EMS scene if there is a paramedic they are in charge (as long as the medic is responding as a duty). They don't have to wait for the EMT to do things and so forth.
Whereas on a fireground, all personnel have to work together and there is no reason for seperate levels of FF training...that is unsafe. If there are interior operations going on and something happens inside, then everyone on the fireground should be counted on and expected to go inside if necessary. Otherwise all ou are doing is making expendable FFs under the guise of lesser standards just so that "everyone can play".
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
