Sorta What I have Been Thinkin'

[IronValor]

Assuming they are physically and psychologically able, which is my point.

Some personnel are not able to operate interior but are perfectly capable of operating interior. Training them to FFI, assuming they can complete the practicals and complete the class, will not erase the issues that prevent them from operating interior.

To waste their time training them on interior tasks when they cannot perform them is assine.

Your logic makes no damn sense.

Not being physically fit enough or psychologically able enough to perform the job and my logic makes no sense?

Not training your firefighters because it may require you to actually do something and my logic makes no sense?

Your right. Whatever was I thinking

[FyredUp]

Assuming they are physically and psychologically able, which is my point.

Some personnel are not able to operate interior but are perfectly capable of operating interior. Training them to FFI, assuming they can complete the practicals and complete the class, will not erase the issues that prevent them from operating interior.

To waste their time training them on interior tasks when they cannot perform them is assine.

Your logic makes no damn sense.

You question another's logic while at the same time defending physically unfit and mentally unsound firefighters operating on the fireground. Now that is f*****g hysterical!!

[FireMedic049]

mandating training is NOT the way to improve the fire service.

Spoken like a person who has their head up their *****!

EMS is a perfect example of mandatory training improving an industry. In it's infancy, "EMS" was little more than throwing the patient into a vehicle and racing to the hospital. Fast forward 40 years and now EMS 12-lead EKG, defibrillation, cardioversion, external pacing, CPAP, EZ-IO, multiple advanced airway options, capnography, chest decompression, numerous medication options. Some places even have stuff like RSI, portable ventilators, portable ultrasound and access to thrombolytics just to name a few. We also have standing orders for the use of the vast majority of this stuff making it unnecessary to consult a physician in order to use them.

EMS has literally transformed from a taxi service to a mobile emergency room and mandatory training/certification IS the underlying factor that made those improvements possible. Sounds like a heck of an improvement to me.

The difference is obtaining a driver's license has to do with the safety of others on the road.

Completely different situation.

It's not as different as you think.

Aside from learning how to do the different aspects of the job, obtaining fire service training/certification has to do with the safety of the individual firefighter, but of the others involved in the incident, including the victims.

You wouldn't put the safety of your personnel on the way too/from an incident in the hands of a person without a driver's license and training on that apparatus. So why would you put their safety on the incident scene in the hands of "under-trained" and/or un-certified personnel?

Delivering fire protection is a local issue and the level of service is determined by the community, and should not be mandated by the state. If the community determines they are unhappy with their current fire protection, the community will decide the change the direction of the fire department. That is not the role of the state, as changing that level of service will cost money, and the local residents will be the ones bearing the cost, so the decision to upgrade or remain where they should be theirs, and theirs alone.

You are correct, at the core the delivery of fire protection is a local level issue. However, what you are failing to comprehend is that even though it may be a local level issue, it doesn't mean that it should be completely free from outside regulation to help ensure the public is actually getting what they think they have.

With the term "fire department" on the front of your building, a person moving into town should have a reasonable expectation of finding inside personnel and equipment capable of doing what fire departments do, in simple terms - put out fires and rescue people. It may be visibly clear that particular "fire department" is not capable of providing the same level of service that one would find in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. What a mandatory, minimum certification does is ensure that with the term "fire department" on your building and apparatus, a person can reasonably expect to receive a certain (minimal) level of service from them.

For example, in my state all vehicles marked with "ambulance" must be licensed by the state in order to be operated. The agency itself must also be licensed to provide EMS services. All ambulances in the state must carry the exact same minimum array of BLS equipment. An ambulance licensed at the ALS level must carry the exact same minimum array of ALS equipment. Many carry more that minimum and even carry stuff not on that list.

The net result of this is that no matter where I am in the state, if I need an ambulance, I am guaranteed to get a unit capable of providing at least the same minimum standard of BLS and/or ALS care. Now, the local level absolutely has control over things like using paid and/or volunteer staffing, number of units operated, level of care (ALS vs BLS) and whether or not to exceed those minimums.

Why should the public not have that same guarantee when they see a building or apparatus labeled "fire department"?

And there are rural folks that never drive in the big city.

But there are ones that do and that's the point.

[LaFireEducator]

You question another's logic while at the same time defending physically unfit and mentally unsound firefighters operating on the fireground. Now that is f*****g hysterical!!

Clausterphobia. Cannot simply wear a mask or maybe can wear a mask but cannot pscyhologically able to operate in the limited visibility atmosphere of a structure fire. But is physically perfectly capable of throwing ladders, setting up PPV and operating exterior hoselines. has no problem with wildland operations. has no problems with vehicle extrication. I would not define that person as mentally unsound. Unfit for firefighting?

32-year old. Had a previous knee injury and doesn;t trust the leg in a structure w/ limited visibility where it may get snagged in a hole in the floor or reinjure it, but has no problem doing all exterior firefighting tasks and can even pack up to vent a roof or make an attack on a vehicle fire. Unfit for firefighting?

42-year old that has no significant health issues just no longer feels like he is up to to stress and physical effort involved with going interior, but again can perform all exterior firefighting tasks w/out an SCBA. Unfit?


I would have no issue with any of those 3 operating on a fireground of mine. I would not define any as mentally unfit, and for limited duty, none are physically unfit.

Again, all firefighters. And to do thier jobs, they do not need the complete FFI class.

[FireMedic049]

Why FF1? Why not FF2? After all, FF1 IS the lowest recognized standard.

You pretty much answered your own question. The FF1 certification is the recognized standard for entry level training/certification in the fire service, so it would make sense for that to be the entry level standard for firefighting. Making the entry level standard FF2 makes about as much sense as making Paramedic the entry level standard for EMS.

[IronValor]

I really am having a hard time believing that somebody that is a fire educator would not only be willing to put himself in harms way by not training to what could be the best of his ability but put others in harms way as well.

[FyredUp]

I really am having a hard time believing that somebody that is a fire educator would not only be willing to put himself in harms way by not training to what could be the best of his ability but put others in harms way as well.

LA is an enabler. Plain and simple. Instead of helping create a more professional fire service he works to create a more inclusive one. All the while slapping the the good old boy, surround and drown, fire departments on the back and saying "It's okay that's all you ever be."

[slackjawedyokel]

Clausterphobia. Cannot simply wear a mask or maybe can wear a mask but cannot pscyhologically able to operate in the limited visibility atmosphere of a structure fire. But is physically perfectly capable of throwing ladders, setting up PPV and operating exterior hoselines. has no problem with wildland operations. has no problems with vehicle extrication. I would not define that person as mentally unsound. Unfit for firefighting?

32-year old. Had a previous knee injury and doesn;t trust the leg in a structure w/ limited visibility where it may get snagged in a hole in the floor or reinjure it, but has no problem doing all exterior firefighting tasks and can even pack up to vent a roof or make an attack on a vehicle fire. Unfit for firefighting?

42-year old that has no significant health issues just no longer feels like he is up to to stress and physical effort involved with going interior, but again can perform all exterior firefighting tasks w/out an SCBA. Unfit?


I would have no issue with any of those 3 operating on a fireground of mine. I would not define any as mentally unfit, and for limited duty, none are physically unfit.

Again, all firefighters. And to do thier jobs, they do not need the complete FFI class.

Yeah - no holes outside -and or limited visibility -sure thing -you are really reaching.

[FireMedic049]

Clausterphobia. Cannot simply wear a mask or maybe can wear a mask but cannot pscyhologically able to operate in the limited visibility atmosphere of a structure fire. But is physically perfectly capable of throwing ladders, setting up PPV and operating exterior hoselines. has no problem with wildland operations. has no problems with vehicle extrication. I would not define that person as mentally unsound. Unfit for firefighting?

Uhhm, yes. To me, the inability to wear an SCBA on the fire ground whether operating inside or outside makes you "unfit" for firefighting. Now, this doesn't specifically mean that this person could not be an asset to a department in a true "support" role away from the action.

32-year old. Had a previous knee injury and doesn;t trust the leg in a structure w/ limited visibility where it may get snagged in a hole in the floor or reinjure it, but has no problem doing all exterior firefighting tasks and can even pack up to vent a roof or make an attack on a vehicle fire. Unfit for firefighting?

Kind of. Considering how many athletes suffer knee injuries and return to their sport at full pace, if he doesn't trust his knee inside the building, then to me it raises questions about his physical fitness for firefighting.

42-year old that has no significant health issues just no longer feels like he is up to to stress and physical effort involved with going interior, but again can perform all exterior firefighting tasks w/out an SCBA. Unfit?

Possibly? There can be a lot of stress and physical effort involved with working on the exterior too.

I would have no issue with any of those 3 operating on a fireground of mine. I would not define any as mentally unfit, and for limited duty, none are physically unfit.

Not knowing these people, I really can't accurately debate their mental and physical fitness, but it sounds like all 3 are a little questionable in some fashion. All 3 by what you posted here are clearly "limited duty" if they can't/won't operate inside the building.

[LaFireEducator]

Spoken like a person who has their head up their *****!

EMS is a perfect example of mandatory training improving an industry. In it's infancy, "EMS" was little more than throwing the patient into a vehicle and racing to the hospital. Fast forward 40 years and now EMS 12-lead EKG, defibrillation, cardioversion, external pacing, CPAP, EZ-IO, multiple advanced airway options, capnography, chest decompression, numerous medication options. Some places even have stuff like RSI, portable ventilators, portable ultrasound and access to thrombolytics just to name a few. We also have standing orders for the use of the vast majority of this stuff making it unnecessary to consult a physician in order to use them.

EMS has literally transformed from a taxi service to a mobile emergency room and mandatory training/certification IS the underlying factor that made those improvements possible. Sounds like a heck of an improvement to me.

No disagreement, but again, you are talking about a certififcation level that is primarily paid/career, not volunteer, and in many places the volunteers that did run EMS at the basic level have been replaced with a 2-person paid EMS crew. To add requirements that volunteers may not be capable of reaching in areas where they will not have the ability to hire a 3 platoon/4-firefighter crew (if we all agree that 4 firefighters is a minimum crew size) what will happen to fire protection?

You once again are comparing apples and oranges. I'm not talking about career staff and career departments. I am talking about rural VFDs where the option of hiring is likely not an option is your social experiment to improve the volunteer fire service thriough mandatory training standards fails.

It's not as different as you think.

Aside from learning how to do the different aspects of the job, obtaining fire service training/certification has to do with the safety of the individual firefighter, but of the others involved in the incident, including the victims.

You wouldn't put the safety of your personnel on the way too/from an incident in the hands of a person without a driver's license and training on that apparatus. So why would you put their safety on the incident scene in the hands of "under-trained" and/or un-certified personnel?

Again, driving like EMS generally involves a fairly standard set of skills that applies everywhere. Just about every EMS unit nationwide runs to respritory, trauma and cardiac emergencies that are very much the same in CA vs. NY. True, some run to some variations on enviromental emergencies and animal bites as examples, but yes you can run into heat stroke in Montana and even hypothermia in LA. Same with driving - right turns, left turns, passing, parking , etc.... All pretty standard skills.

Not the same with firefighting. Different communities have very different occupancies and hazards often with very differnt situations and equipment. True, there are some standard skills, and I have no issues with incorporating those into any department level in-house training program But to standardize fire training and say that this should be the minimum skill set through FFI nationwide doesn't work for me. And again, if the department chooses not or decides they are unable to operate interior ........

You are correct, at the core the delivery of fire protection is a local level issue. However, what you are failing to comprehend is that even though it may be a local level issue, it doesn't mean that it should be completely free from outside regulation to help ensure the public is actually getting what they think they have.

With the term "fire department" on the front of your building, a person moving into town should have a reasonable expectation of finding inside personnel and equipment capable of doing what fire departments do, in simple terms - put out fires and rescue people. It may be visibly clear that particular "fire department" is not capable of providing the same level of service that one would find in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. What a mandatory, minimum certification does is ensure that with the term "fire department" on your building and apparatus, a person can reasonably expect to receive a certain (minimal) level of service from them.

For example, in my state all vehicles marked with "ambulance" must be licensed by the state in order to be operated. The agency itself must also be licensed to provide EMS services. All ambulances in the state must carry the exact same minimum array of BLS equipment. An ambulance licensed at the ALS level must carry the exact same minimum array of ALS equipment. Many carry more that minimum and even carry stuff not on that list.

The net result of this is that no matter where I am in the state, if I need an ambulance, I am guaranteed to get a unit capable of providing at least the same minimum standard of BLS and/or ALS care. Now, the local level absolutely has control over things like using paid and/or volunteer staffing, number of units operated, level of care (ALS vs BLS) and whether or not to exceed those minimums.

Why should the public not have that same guarantee when they see a building or apparatus labeled "fire department"?

So what's wrong with a BLS fire department if that is what the community decides? Last I knew ambulances were generally not marked "ALS Ambulance" and "BLS Ambulance"

Again, and I'll repeat it, in just about every one of the communities, in my experience, where the fire deopartment has limited capabilities, most the local citizens know very well that rescue and interior firefighting may not occur. You seem to have an issue with that concept, but that is your problem, not mine. They also know that if they live in the country that sheriff's deputy is likely to be delayed and that ambulance amy be 15-20 minutes out. They are very well aware of what they are getting in terms of emergency services, and they know the capabilities of that "fire department".

I guess I would say if you are moving into a new place, and you are concerned about the fire departemt, it's on you to do some research.

I have no issues with the state defining the skills required, and the associatted training for one to be a Firefighter, Driver etc for optional certification levels so that FFI will be FFI statewide. My issue is the state saying that all FFs statewide will be FFI, which yes, makes a statement as to the level of service that a department should provide, irregardless of the ability to fund that service level.

But there are ones that do and that's the point.

Again, fairly standard skills.

[LaFireEducator]

LA is an enabler. Plain and simple. Instead of helping create a more professional fire service he works to create a more inclusive one. All the while slapping the the good old boy, surround and drown, fire departments on the back and saying "It's okay that's all you ever be."

Yup, that's me.

And yes, I do beleive that there are places on the VOLUNTEER fireground for personnel in active firefighting roles that cannot or choose not to function interior, and that they are a valauable asset on the fireground.

Are there folks that cannot perform at that level, sure, and there does need to be an in-house minimum skill set as determined by the fire department, that they are physically able to perform to operate in PPE as exterior personnel. If they are not able to physically perform that skill set, they should be limited to support non-hot zone roles. In short, yes, most communties members can have a role on the fireground.

And no, I have no issues with any fire department that chooses to, or is forced to operate at less than a primarily-interior level. As a firefighter it's not my place to judge their operations and it's simply unprofessional for me to expect every department to meet my expectations.

As far as career, hire those that arer the most capable as we are dealing with a finite number of positions. Exterior personnel should not apply.

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

And no, I have no issues with any fire department that chooses to, or is forced to operate at less than a primarily-interior level. As a firefighter it's not my place to judge their operations and it's simply unprofessional for me to expect every department to meet my expectations.

I read this and burst out laughing....

Bobby, you have critized other FDs in the past ( with the vast majority of them being career or well trained call and volunteer FDs). If one were to look up the term "monday morning quarterback " in the dictionary, your picture would be there.

You have set the bar for rural firefighters so low that even earthworms have a hard time getting under it. Face it... you are so out there in your own little view of fire operations, training and standards that you are an "army of one" and should be fed with a slingshot.

[Bones42]

I read this and burst out laughing....

Bobby, you have critized other FDs in the past ( with the vast majority of them being career or well trained call and volunteer FDs). If one were to look up the term "monday morning quarterback " in the dictionary, your picture would be there.

You have set the bar for rural firefighters so low that even earthworms have a hard time getting under it. Face it... you are so out there in your own little view of fire operations, training and standards that you are an "army of one" and should be fed with a slingshot.

Actually Gonz, he criticized them for making entry when he felt it was not necessary. Has nothing to do with him believing in non-interior departments.

[FyredUp]

Yup, that's me.

And yes, I do beleive that there are places on the VOLUNTEER fireground for personnel in active firefighting roles that cannot or choose not to function interior, and that they are a valauable asset on the fireground.

Are there folks that cannot perform at that level, sure, and there does need to be an in-house minimum skill set as determined by the fire department, that they are physically able to perform to operate in PPE as exterior personnel. If they are not able to physically perform that skill set, they should be limited to support non-hot zone roles. In short, yes, most communties members can have a role on the fireground.

And no, I have no issues with any fire department that chooses to, or is forced to operate at less than a primarily-interior level. As a firefighter it's not my place to judge their operations and it's simply unprofessional for me to expect every department to meet my expectations.

As far as career, hire those that arer the most capable as we are dealing with a finite number of positions. Exterior personnel should not apply.

And yet again, I will say to you...I supported your Exterior Firefighter certification IF you made it mandatory. Just as well as I support making FF1 mandatory for Interior fir.fighters. YOU RAN SCREAMING FROM THAT yapping abpout local ONLY control of training.

The problem is you didn't expect anyone to support your idea and when someone did you went "OH CRAP!" and had to change gears and say no way would you support a mandatory certification. You are the epitomy of the spoiled brat child, all your way or no way at all.

I will not apologize for expecting a fire department to act like a fire department. To arrive on scene and attack the fire from the interior whenever fire conditions allow. To arrive on scene and go interior to affect rescues when fire conditions allow. If I lived in a community where so called firefighters pulled up on scene and believed it was appropriate, even if the fire was in the incipient stages, to break windows and spray water in from the outside, I would be at every town council meeting, and every fire board meeting, until that nonsense stopped and we had a real fire department with real firefighters.

I repeat my charge that you sir are nothing more than a pot stirring hypocrite.

[FireMedic049]

No disagreement, but again, you are talking about a certififcation level that is primarily paid/career, not volunteer, and in many places the volunteers that did run EMS at the basic level have been replaced with a 2-person paid EMS crew. To add requirements that volunteers may not be capable of reaching in areas where they will not have the ability to hire a 3 platoon/4-firefighter crew (if we all agree that 4 firefighters is a minimum crew size) what will happen to fire protection?

You may see it as a career vs volunteer issue, but it really isn't one and like usual you miss the point being made - mandatory standards/certifications greatly improved the quality of EMS being provided in this country.

In places where the volunteer EMS personnel have been replaced either in part or in whole by paid personnel, the establishment and expansion of the EMT and Paramedic standards is only part of the reason why they now have paid personnel.

You once again are comparing apples and oranges. I'm not talking about career staff and career departments. I am talking about rural VFDs where the option of hiring is likely not an option is your social experiment to improve the volunteer fire service thriough mandatory training standards fails.

It's not apples and oranges and I'm not talking exclusively about career departments. You just don't get the point.

Again, driving like EMS generally involves a fairly standard set of skills that applies everywhere. Just about every EMS unit nationwide runs to respritory, trauma and cardiac emergencies that are very much the same in CA vs. NY. True, some run to some variations on enviromental emergencies and animal bites as examples, but yes you can run into heat stroke in Montana and even hypothermia in LA. Same with driving - right turns, left turns, passing, parking , etc.... All pretty standard skills.

Not the same with firefighting. Different communities have very different occupancies and hazards often with very differnt situations and equipment. True, there are some standard skills, and I have no issues with incorporating those into any department level in-house training program But to standardize fire training and say that this should be the minimum skill set through FFI nationwide doesn't work for me. And again, if the department chooses not or decides they are unable to operate interior ........

Again, you missed the point and dodged the question.

So what's wrong with a BLS fire department if that is what the community decides? Last I knew ambulances were generally not marked "ALS Ambulance" and "BLS Ambulance"

Did I say anything was wrong with operating a BLS ambulance? No, I said that am able to expect the same minimum standard of care from any BLS (or ALS) ambulance in my state. If you step outside your area you'd see that it's actually pretty common for ALS ambulances to be marked as such. Common markings are the unit ID - "Medic ###", "Paramedics", "Paramedic Unit", "ALS Equipped", "Advanced Life Support" & "Mobile Intensive Care Unit". Most BLS units aren't marked as such in my experience, but some are. It's far more common for the ALS unit to be marked.

I guess I would say if you are moving into a new place, and you are concerned about the fire departemt, it's on you to do some research.

I agree for the most part, but you are missing the point! Displaying "fire department" implies certain things about that agency to most people. Portraying yourself as a "fire department" when you aren't capable of doing basic fire department stuff like going inside buildings to put out fires and rescue victims is kind of on the same level as having "Paramedic Unit" on the sides of your ambulance, but not having any Paramedics on staff.

I understand the realities of public safety services in rural areas. I understand that they in all likelihood will not be on par with their urban counterparts and that's ok, but it's really not ok that the community is unable to get that same level of service. If you can't provide the fundamental core function of interior suppression and rescue, then maybe you aren't really a "fire department", but something else and should be referred to as such?

I have no issues with the state defining the skills required, and the associatted training for one to be a Firefighter, Driver etc for optional certification levels so that FFI will be FFI statewide. My issue is the state saying that all FFs statewide will be FFI, which yes, makes a statement as to the level of service that a department should provide, irregardless of the ability to fund that service level.

So, it's ok for the state to set a standard, but not ok for it to want to have personnel meet it, interesting.

Your full of crap about the funding part of this. You've already stated opposition to meeting any sort of standard even if the training would be funded.

[FireMedic049]

I repeat my charge that you sir are nothing more than a pot stirring hypocrite.

I think "imbecile" may be more appropriate. He's always been pretty consistent with his belief that volunteers shouldn't be held to any sort of mandated standard beyond whatever each individual VFD wants to use.

[LaFireEducator]

And yet again, I will say to you...I supported your Exterior Firefighter certification IF you made it mandatory. Just as well as I support making FF1 mandatory for Interior fir.fighters. YOU RAN SCREAMING FROM THAT yapping abpout local ONLY control of training.

The problem is you didn't expect anyone to support your idea and when someone did you went "OH CRAP!" and had to change gears and say no way would you support a mandatory certification. You are the epitomy of the spoiled brat child, all your way or no way at all.

I will not apologize for expecting a fire department to act like a fire department. To arrive on scene and attack the fire from the interior whenever fire conditions allow. To arrive on scene and go interior to affect rescues when fire conditions allow. If I lived in a community where so called firefighters pulled up on scene and believed it was appropriate, even if the fire was in the incipient stages, to break windows and spray water in from the outside, I would be at every town council meeting, and every fire board meeting, until that nonsense stopped and we had a real fire department with real firefighters.

I repeat my charge that you sir are nothing more than a pot stirring hypocrite.

And that, as a citizen of that community that would be your right. Absolutley. That being said, I would hope that you would also be willing to work towards a solution.

If you are not a citizen of that community, and as such you would not be paying taxes towards that fire department, you would not have the right.

However, I feel that it is wrong for firefighters to chastize departments that do not meet thier expectations as far as interior operations on the web. The fact is you, or anyone else, likely have no idea as to the conditions that have put them in that spot, and in all liklihood, the majority of the time it is not through any fault of their own.

As far as the sertification, I have explained that I never did mean it as a minimum state standard. In the long run, it honestly doesn't matter as in this state, it's highly unlikely that there will be any minimum standards brought up for legislative approval in the foreseeable future. If FFI is brought up as such, I will oppose it. If a more reasonable mandatory standrad in terms of time in brought up, such as the LSU FETI 50-hour class a few years ago, which by the way did include basic interior operations, that was approved by the State Fireman's Association but died in committe is brought up again, there is good chance I will support it assuming that there is a training program with sufficient funding carry out the program tied to the effort.

In a perfect world, a roughly 25-30 hour class for exterior-only operations could be tied to that for exterior personnel.

That would be something that I could support.

Yes, my issue is with FFI.

[LaFireEducator]

You may see it as a career vs volunteer issue, but it really isn't one and like usual you miss the point being made - mandatory standards/certifications greatly improved the quality of EMS being provided in this country.

In places where the volunteer EMS personnel have been replaced either in part or in whole by paid personnel, the establishment and expansion of the EMT and Paramedic standards is only part of the reason why they now have paid personnel.

True. Part of the reason is run volume and the associatted "housework" and admin requirements . However, part of the reason is also recruiting and retention of volunteer personnel because of increased training demands.

It's not apples and oranges and I'm not talking exclusively about career departments. You just don't get the point.

We are comparing the EMS system which in many places is evolving towards a primarily career service and volunteer fire departments. here in LA it is apples and oranges as ALL EMS transport in the state is career - either parish, fire department or private service based.


Again, you missed the point and dodged the question.

Wrong. Driving a car involves a fairly straightforward set of skills, except for snow, that are pretty much the same everywhere. Firefighting involves a much wider variety of situations - occupancies and building constructio/ manpower, etc - and equipment that vary much more from place to place.

Did I say anything was wrong with operating a BLS ambulance? No, I said that am able to expect the same minimum standard of care from any BLS (or ALS) ambulance in my state. If you step outside your area you'd see that it's actually pretty common for ALS ambulances to be marked as such. Common markings are the unit ID - "Medic ###", "Paramedics", "Paramedic Unit", "ALS Equipped", "Advanced Life Support" & "Mobile Intensive Care Unit". Most BLS units aren't marked as such in my experience, but some are. It's far more common for the ALS unit to be marked.

I agree for the most part, but you are missing the point! Displaying "fire department" implies certain things about that agency to most people. Portraying yourself as a "fire department" when you aren't capable of doing basic fire department stuff like going inside buildings to put out fires and rescue victims is kind of on the same level as having "Paramedic Unit" on the sides of your ambulance, but not having any Paramedics on staff.

Again, the locals in rural areas know what thier local emergency services are capable of. It may say "Fire Department", which means one thing to you and me based on our experiences, but to them it does mean something, more than likely, very different.

I understand the realities of public safety services in rural areas. I understand that they in all likelihood will not be on par with their urban counterparts and that's ok, but it's really not ok that the community is unable to get that same level of service. If you can't provide the fundamental core function of interior suppression and rescue, then maybe you aren't really a "fire department", but something else and should be referred to as such?

We could talk all day about the fundamental core swervice. There are those that see the core service as keeping it from speading from the building or area (in the case of brush/wildland and vehicle) to structures. In many places that is the core purpose of the fire department, and the community is very well aware of that.

So, it's ok for the state to set a standard, but not ok for it to want to have personnel meet it, interesting.

Your full of crap about the funding part of this. You've already stated opposition to meeting any sort of standard even if the training would be funded.

There is a major difference between statewide standardized training and a mandatory training standard. The former is a very good idea. The latter may or may not be depending on the length of the class to get there.

Standized training is a good idea. Tthat way if I leave Deaprtment A, and go to Deopartment B and show them the proof of Completion of State Fire Course #1, they will know what training I have. In theory that was the purtpose of FFI, but that has been bastardized by several states.

[ChiefKN]

Clausterphobia.

Clusterphobia doesn't scare you!

[scfire86]

I'm amazed that he continues to post so much... I mean, what commitment!

When I was working I could always count on the so called "normal" guys letting me down. The crazies never scared me. They were committed. It was just a matter of focusing their energy and turning them loose.