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 WestPhilly on
-
Ben,
Please call Don a "bull headed moron" (you know, like he called Bob) so he'll have a leg to stand on when accusing you of personal attacks.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on
-
No, I strongly advocated for a certification that would be optional, not mandated as minimum by the state..
I guess we just have a different view of the purpose of certification. I see it as A) a option by a member to increase his/her professionalism or B) A standard that can voluntariliy be adopted by a fire department as a internal minimum level of training for that organization. I do not see it as a mandatory level of training imposed by the state on the fire service, career or volunteer, and have never stated any other position. .
Again, never once did I talk about an Exterior Firefighter certification being adopted by the state as a mandatory minimum level of training and I challenege you to find a post where I did. I discussed it as an option for exterior personnel, just like I refer to FFI as an optional level of training for interior personnel as a way of increasing professionalism. Yes, a department could, if they wish, adopt it as their internal minimum level of training for exterior folks much as some departments have adopted FFI as an internal minimum standard in states where it is not required as such, but it would be the departments choice, not a state mandate, and as such, they would be doing so understanding the likely concequence of reduced exterior staffing. If a department went that way, I would have no issues with that as they would be ones dealing with the fallout of such a move.
I oppose FFI as a state minimum training standard and as much as I support the exterior Firefighter certification, I would also oppose that as a state mandated minimum training standard.
And the truth of the matter is FFI is far from an "accepted national standard" as again, only ahandfukl of states have adopted it as such. Most states either have thier own 36-60 hour minimum training programs of have no minimum training standards at all. That is the reality.
As far as supporting what you call the "good ole boys", no I do not support departments that run that way. But again, with that being said, I acknowledge that there will always be departments that cannot, or choose not to meet my expecatations. For those that can't due to factors they can't control, I understand, and know that most of them are doing everything they can to increase thier abilities, but I know that likely the resources simply aren't there, and likely will never be there, for that to happen. For those that choose not to, in the end, it's not my opinion or your opinion about how they operate that matters, but it is the opinion of the community they serve that matters. And if those communities are A) Happy with the situation or B) Are unhappy but choose not to change it, so be it. It's not my place to judge how they operate.
Mandating a level of certification would do nothing to change that, and would in fact, reduce or possibly eliminate the already limited level of fire protection that community has.
As far as my teaching, I have done non-certification taregted haz-mat classes, and yes, have taught chunks of the class that apply to the specific departments operations and omitted those areas that do not apply. If I am teaching a course or a specific class intended for certification, then I teach what is required. Unfortuantly, Operations is required before anyone here in LA can test for FFI, so I teach the certification level class at both my combo and VFD as FFI is the end goal for those that choose to pursue it.
There are times when classes need to be specific to the department, and there are times when the class can be expanded to offer alternatives. it happens to be my opinion that rookie classes need to be very specific to department-levels procedures, techniques and protocols. There will be other times that teaching varying techniques and operations are certainly the way to go, but IMO, a rookie class is not one of those times.
My Rapid Intervention, Search, Reading Smoke, Vehicle Fire and Large vehicle Fire classes that I have taught around my combo parish, volunteer parish and at the local LSU-FETI facility are examples of classes where discussing varying techniques are applicable. My VES, Tactical Size-Up and Commercial Building Operations classes taught in house at my combo department are also classes where a variety of operations have been discussed.
Your attacks don't bother me, but don't misrepresent my opionions. I have never stated that I support FFI, or an Exterior FF certification as a state mandated minimum training standard, and your claims that i am part of the problem are simply not backed up by my training efforts both internally and externally..
-
-
In addition to several states that use prisoners in wildland operations, especially CA.
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
I find it hysterical that Ben defends Bobby, and WestPhilly jumps in to defend Ben. Are none of you capable of defending yourselves?
Prisoners as wildland firefighters is completely irrelevant to the topic of INTERIOR STRUCTURAL FIREFIGHTERS. But hey, if it makes you all feel better to muddy the waters even further go right ahead. The truth is the champion of the exterior firefighter backed away from his grandious idea of a national standard and certification for Exterior firefighters when i said I would support his idea as a mandatory standard for Exterior firefighters if he would support FF1 as mandatory for Interior firefighters. It has nothing to do with standards for Bobby and all to do with local ONLY control and making excuses for not improving the lot of smaller VFDs.
Using prisoners to do work that no one else wanted to do is nothing new. Ever hear of chain gangs?
-
-
This is a quote from page 5:
This post was about a certification emcompassing several structrual exterior skills, including ladders, ventilation, water supply, forcible entry and ICS, and not just one here and one there, for exterior responders on volunteer departments. In the rural setting, this is a very real-world certification which does have real-world value. Bottom line is many rural VFDs will likely have more non-interior members than interior members as that is the manpower pool that the community demographics provide. So given that real-world reality, why not give exterior personnel the opportunity to demonstrate competency an obtain an exterior firefighter, or maybe call it Rural Non-Interior Firefighter certification?
If you note the wording I stated "give exterior personnel the opportunity to .....". Not require. Not mandate. "Give them the opportunity" which to me, implies a choice.
Sorry but never once did I state that I favored this as a requirement. I Favor it as a choice and opportunity for them to acheive a certification. You are the one that seems to take the word certification and turns it into a mandate required to perform on the fireground, not me.
And yes, it has to do with local control. Fire departments and fire department training officers deteriming what skill their new firefighters need to operate in thier world. Relevant, reasonable and time-effective training for local conditions. Ya, pretty radical concept.
I guess i see the lot of smaller VFDs being improved by allowing them to train as they actually fight vs. train as NFPA 1001 sees them fighting. But again, that's just silly me.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
I find it ridiculous that anyone would claim that this is about INTERIOR STRUCTURAL FIREFIGHTERS when the topic of the post was EXTERIOR firefighter certification.
I'm guessing that I know what I'm talking about, since I'm the originator of the topic.
I find it mildly amusing that anyone would be offended that reasonable people can share an analysis of a situation, despite being from greatly differing backgrounds, different department demographics, and from different parts of the country.
Prisoners doing work that no one else wants to do? Not even close. The prisoners in the case I linked are doing work that many others want to do, but that their elected officials will not pay them to do.
-
-
Thanks my Philly phriend. That one is an instant WP classic.
-
-
...or both. :-)
-
-
And your buggest supporter of your exterior standard and certification ran away from it like a scalded cat when I said I can support your exterior standard if you make it mandatory for exterior only guys, IF you support making FF1 mandatory for Interior guys.
Neither of you seriously support this because neither one of you would make it mandatory. It is as useless as tits on a boar and has absolutely no teeth. Nice bluster over something worthless.
-
-
"Nice bluster over something worthless."
Perfect analysis of your position on this topic. Well said.
-
-
Nope sorry Ben,
I supported the Exterior Firefighter standard if it is made mandatory for those unwilling , or unable to go interior, as long you guys would support making FF1 mandatory for Interior firefighters. Bobby ran away from that like cockroaches scurrying under your sofa when you turn on the lights. You said nothing to that idea.
Why are both of you so afraid of making it mandatory?
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
