Editor’s note: Discuss training, education and the NFFF’s New Goals initiative to reduce firefighter line-of-duty deaths to under 50 annually in the following Firehouse.com Forum:
- What annual testing/evaluation does your department conduct? Do you think this is sufficient to ensure safe and effective performance?
- Do you believe firefighters today suffer from a lack of experience (i.e., not enough fires)? Why?
And find more information on the NFFF’s New Goals initiative at www.everyonegoeshome.com.
A couple of months ago, I had the pleasure of watching Steve Kerber, director of the UL Firefighter Safety Research Institute, address a group of firefighters. I’ve known and worked with Steve for years, so his message was familiar to me. But good speakers will leave you with new nuggets of information regardless of how often you hear them speak, so I wasn’t surprised when something he said stuck with me in the weeks after the presentation, and got me thinking about our current training in the fire service.
“The great thing about science,” Steve said, “is that once you understand how things work, you can understand things you have not experienced yet.”
What, exactly, does that have to do with training? There are two areas where I think current fire service training overemphasizes personal experience and undervalues science.
Performance Standards
If you think about it, fire service training is rooted in the belief that experience is enough. Our physical and written tests are rigorous and comprehensive—in the recruit academy. Absent the entrance exam, however, most departments fail to hold firefighters to established performance standards. Our attitude is, once you’re in, you’re in, and although we train frequently, we don’t use nationally vetted and accepted tests to verify that training. Yes, many departments use assessment centers and other testing processes for the promotional process, but the decision to promote is a choice. Many firefighters choose to remain line firefighters their entire careers, and will never be subject to such tests.
One of the dominant themes coming out of TAMPA2 was the need for some sort of national certification and recertification process in the fire service. Simply put, we need to develop annual performance measurement standards for all firefighters, not just recruits from the academy. These standards should measure capability in areas such as:
- Physical abilities testing – Can you physically perform the task of firefighting?
- Core competency testing – Do you know the essentials of the job?
- Tactical readiness/awareness – Do you understand the tasks and tactics being performed and their relevance with the overall incident strategy?
Such testing will be controversial, no doubt. But performance standards are rooted in science. Written correctly, they identify the specific skills and abilities a firefighter needs to be safe and effective on the fireground. We trust in them to prepare our rookies. Why, then, do we conclude that such standards are not needed for a firefighter with five, 10, or 15 years on the job? Is it because we overvalue personal experience? If we’re honest, we will admit that many of us might fail to pass such tests, despite having many years on the job.
Fire Behavior Knowledge
One of the biggest laments in the fire service over the past decade has been that firefighters are going to far fewer fires than they used to. As a result, the argument goes, those promoted to company officer know a lot less about how fire behaves, and this contributes to poor outcomes at fires.
While I believe there is some truth in this argument, I also think it has become an excuse of sorts to glorify the old days: “These new kids don’t go to fires, so they don’t really know what they’re talking about. I’ve crawled down halls and breathed smoke. I know what works and what doesn’t.”
I firmly believe in the power of personal experience. A firefighter with 100 fires under their belt is simply going to be more seasoned, confident and calm on the fireground—and that’s most likely going to lead to better outcomes. But it is also true that you can do something 100 times, with decent results, and the whole time be unaware of a better way.
Until recently, we didn’t actually know what was going on inside a fire building. We had visual impressions and personal interpretations (influenced by anecdotal evidence of previous incidents), but those are formed from a limited perspective and without rigorous standards of measurement. When UL can build a structure that mirrors a typical three-bedroom residential structure, then install dozens of sensors and cameras, and then set it on fire, they produce empirical data about what’s going on inside, such as these examples from burns conducted in April:
- Exterior water application causing interior temperatures to drop from 1,850 to 300 degrees.
- A small amount of water was inadvertently flowed into a window and it dropped temperatures 400 degrees in 3 to 5 seconds.
- Taking out the windows caused the temperature to rise.
- Bedroom temps dropped from 500 to 300 after interior door was closed.
Some of these findings contradict our experience. We’ve typically taken out windows and avoided external water application, choosing to pursue the fire inside the building. But it’s time that our training evolved to embrace science. Steve’s crew analyzes all the data from UL tests and develops free online training modules that explain the associated tactical implications. I encourage every company officer to embrace these resources and integrate them into their training. I also encourage every firefighter to accept the fact that training and education is no longer about just learning from the experiences of more senior members, it’s also about keeping up with the latest research being conducted, even when that research causes us to question time-honored tactics.
Our ultimate goal should be to stop fires all together. Complaining that the newbies aren’t seeing enough action ignores the science that can provide instruction on how to effectively fight today’s fires.
Training and Survivability
The NFFF’s New Goals campaign focuses on the concept of survivability. There is nothing that will impact your survivability on the fireground more than your training. And today, we have more options to make that training more effective than ever before. In today’s fire service, it’s not just how much you’ve experienced. It’s also how much you know.
TIMOTHY E. SENDELBACH is the Editor-in-Chief for Firehouse. A 29-year student and educator of the fire and emergency services, he is responsible for the content and editorial direction of Firehouse® Magazine, Firehouse.com, Firehouse Expo, Firehouse World and related products. He has served as an assistant fire chief with the North Las Vegas, NV, Fire Department, as the chief of training for Savannah, GA, Fire & Emergency Services and as assistant fire chief for Missouri City, TX, Fire & Rescue Services. He is a credentialed Chief Fire Officer and Chief Training Officer and has earned a master’s degree in leadership from Bellevue University, bachelor’s degrees in fire administration and arson and an associate’s degree in emergency medical care from Eastern Kentucky University. You can e-mail him at [email protected].
