Like Tree130Likes

Thread: The danger of LAFE's way of thinking

  1. #251
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dfwfirefighter View Post
    The above contradicts itself. Is it just me, or did I miss something?

    Ok, let's try this one more time.

    I have no issues with FFI, FFII or any other certification training. I teach it. I encourage it. My combo department rewards it with $$$$.

    However, I see FFI/FFII as follow-up training however, designed to provide general knowledge after a department specific initial training program, as compared to you, and others here, that see FFI as the entry level followed up by department specific training. The fact is our people have to know how to do the job on our scenes using our tools following our SOPs before they are taught alternatives.

    Yes, some of FFI is relevant in the rural world and can be taught word for word. Safety, extinguishers, fire hopse, fire streams and fire behavior all fall into that area. Some topics, such as building construction and water supplyhave components that or more or less relevenat. And some content has no relevance. Yes, parts of FFI/FFII do apply. But others do not.


    Please continue. You started off with an answer and left a fragmented reply. Why do you have an interest in teaching for the NFA when they themselves advocate industry standards (such as NFPA 1001-based training program)?

    Not every organization is perfect.

    As I stated there are many areas where FFI, or at least a large part of FFI, would work well as the initial training cirriculum for volunteer departments. I stated that would be the case with both of my previous VFDs. I stated that in a few years, that may be the case here with my combo department.

    Instructor and Offficer are applicable in all settings. It's the same with Fire and Life Safety Educator and Inspector.


    As a side-note, everything at the NFA is now heavily NIMS oriented (per Federal mandate). You even have to verify completion of a minimum level of NIMS training to be "compliant" and eligible to submit an application to attend a course. I am guessing, based on your dislike for an NFPA 1001-based training program, that you only comply with certain aspects of NIMS because most of it is "not applicable" and thereby "useless" to your organization (in a rural setting)?

    I have no issue with NIMS. I am NIMS 700-400.

    My department uses NIMS on every run. My department uses NIMS for training. Hell, my combo department even uses NIMS to organize our Open House and Santa Day. When we did a station remodel last year, we used a NIMS system to assign and manage tasks.

    Again, I have no dislike for 1001. It simply is not applicable in it's entireity in the rural enviroment and is an ineffective use of training time as initial training.


    I bring NIMS up in our NFPA 1001 Firefighter I discussion as it relates to your intention to teach at the NFA. Why would you want to be a part of a program at the Federal level that is the antithesis of your belief is that everything done best at the local level in spite of "industry standards"?

    Again, I have no problem with NIMS and use it every day.

    While we rarely have the need for a greatly expanded structure, we train on it and use it when the need arises.

    You are the one that are claiming that I hate certification and NIMS. Certification classes have their place in the rural world. Their place is simply not as rookie training.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  2. #252
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    Let's see...
    Bobby states that all fire protection and funding should be a strictly "local" issue, that there should not be any "by the book basic standards" imposed by anyone, yet he wants to work for an organizaton that stresses standards for firefighter safety and is funded by the Feds....

    Hows that for irony?
    Yes, the everyday delivery of fire protection including saleries and hardware, including rookie training should be delivered via local funding. That also includes LE and EMS.

    I have no issues with state and federal agencies providing training support and highly specilaized and technical training which would be impossible for the locals to deliver. That is a legtimate role.

    That being said, the bulk of the "everyday" operational training should be delivered by the local agencies.\They should have the expertise and ability to deliver that bread n' butter training.

    Training should be geared to the local enviroment. IMO, that includes rookie training. If FFI/FFI in it's enirety applies, that's fine. If parts of FFI/FFII apply, but others don't fine. If completly local training, or training such as 1403 with or withourt additional components provides what the department needs, fine. Bottom line is that should be the choice of the local fire department, not a mandate pushed on them by the state.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  3. #253
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    It is the fire service's responsibility that everyone who carries the classification of 'firefighter' be trained to the same basic minimum. If your department faces specific problems not covered by that basic minimum, it becomes that department's responsibility to train on those skill sets.

    It is not a debate, in no other job, career, business, corporation, sport, etc. would your ideology be considered logical.

    I don't think FF1 covers enough of the meat and potatoes. I don't feel hose handling, survival training, ladders, search tactics, and communication are close to covered enough. I will fully admit there are problems with our state's FF1 standard. Our disagreement is that I don't think it's enough but can sleep better at night knowing its 'something' while you think it's too much and, somehow, our state's FF'ers (no matter how busy they are) need less.

    I just can't comprehend how you can wave the "safety trumps all and lower our LODD numbers" flag yet proclaim that lower TRAINING standards can be anything but deadly. Despite what you think, I work alongside the exact same kind of departments you are speaking of. It's not an increase of burdens placed on those volunteers that will kill them, it's the continual degradation of both training standards and, even worse, expectations.

    Please, please try and understand that if you continue to allow those small volunteers to fall out of grace by saying things like "they just can't handle that", "they aren't set up for that", etc. then you are only going to make it that much harder for them to receive any sort of help in the future. Why would anyone want to help the department that is often forgotten or rarely helpful? You know just as well as I do that PR is a huge part of what helps a department financially, especially at that level. No one, and I seriously mean NO ONE in a community accepts that calling their fire department is futile. No matter how little they have to pay for it, the community demands that their department be worth existing.

    A local rural department in my part-time FPD has a population of 523 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parks,_Louisiana). The department receives money from the parish government and its semi annual fish fry. It isn't even the smallest or best department in that district. The Chief, while being pretty good, is my age, 25. There are 8 total members. Average apparatus age is about 15 years old, though they are next in rotation for new apparatus within 2 years. There are absolutely no real structures they can handle without the aid of neighboring departments in the district. This is not a knock on their capabilities but evidence of the severity of low manpower. They recently staged a mock mass decon with the local, small, hospital. They have brought in coast guard instructors to give classes about water rescue for their small bayou that runs through the town. They had applied, received, and utilized grant money to set up a very small but effective water rescue squad. They are made up of members ranging from current career guys to cane farmers. All of them can drive. All of them can pump. All of them can go on air and go inside. This is required for new membership. There are a handful of retired members who assist, they carry no gear, and stay on the other side of the barrier. They are issued a beeper and a radio. They are treated like kings in the station. They have had to turn down a few candidates but no matter how many show up, anyone can do anything asked of them. The tallest structure in their town is the water tower, tallest occupied structure is a one and a half story house. There are actually no true two story buildings. They can all throw 35' ladders. They have standpipe kits on their engine. They are good, quality firefighters.

    There is a name-withheld department of TWELVE times their size in the district. The department has a roster of 45. 15 of the members are just gf's of ff's that have to be on the roster to ride the apparatus with their bf. There are no standards or requirements for membership. There has been countless times when they would not respond to their calls due to no one responding could drive an apparatus. Everyone is given the title ff'er or captain. I have been reprimanded by their chief for ordering (sternly) a member to assist in pulling line in a door and not telepathically knowing the ff'er was a 17 year old gf of a firefighter and not expected to hump hose. Training is nonexistent. Beer cans litter the common area. A surplus was distributed to each department as a gift from parish government. Only thing purchased was a big screen TV and a massive bbq pit that seemed to walk off.

    The town with the horrible department is absolutely fed up with them. Council members are asking that no more money be sent to them until, and I quote "They do what they suppose to do". When times get tougher, who do you think will feel the pinch more, Bobby? Not the little podunk department doing its job, being out in the public, and being seen training. Everyone in that little town knows they will never use a water rescue team. No one has drowned in that water in over 30 years, not saying it won't happen but if you apply your cost/time vs. probability, it's very one sided. But the town gladly supported expanding it with their own money because they know it will be used if needed.

    And that's the point of those smaller, rural departments. The cost/time vs. probability of need leads you to believe they are expensive to maintain. When your house is burning, your family is danger, they are worth their weight in gold, that is, if they are capable of doing what is expected of all buildings, apparatus, and people wearing the name "Fire Department".

    How you can not see that the decline of STANDARDS will lead to a decline in EXPECTATIONS which will lead to a further decline in SUPPORT which will ultimately lead to an elimination of EXISTENCE is truly horrifying.

    You can't cry when no one feeds a dog then, at the same time, claim the dog isn't worth feeding.
    SPFDRum and DeputyChiefGonzo like this.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  4. #254
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    See above. My post retirement plans include continuing teaching in the fire service.

    You beleive that FFI should be the minimum for all firefighters. Fine. We disagree, as I don't feel it's truly relevant in the rural fire service.
    Give it up. You just hanged yourself. Best part is you weaved the rope.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #255
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    We disagree, as I don't feel it's truly important in my rural fire pow-wow meetings.
    Fixed/ translated.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  6. #256
    Forum Member
    dfwfirefighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Training should be geared to the local enviroment. IMO, that includes rookie training. If FFI/FFI in it's enirety applies, that's fine. If parts of FFI/FFII apply, but others don't fine. If completly local training, or training such as 1403 with or withourt additional components provides what the department needs, fine. Bottom line is that should be the choice of the local fire department, not a mandate pushed on them by the state.
    So when I retire from the fire service and decide that maybe a career-change is in order, I should be able to move to Bossier Parish and become a medical doctor without any formal training as long as I know what type of injuries/illnesses are germane to Bossier Parish?

    After all, if everything is driven at the local level (i.e without state or Federal oversight because the "big picture" is not relevant to your part of the world), then I should be able to skip med school and internship; forgo licensing necessary to perform as an MD at the local, state, and Federal level; and merely open up "XYZ's Doctor's Office"? As long as I've looked at the history (and not the potential) of local illness/injury "trends", I can skip all the extra stuff that a doctor DOESN'T need to know in your town?

    I've never been really good a chemistry so maybe all that cellular-level book knowledge can be skipped because, after all, knowledge of all the extra things that never happen in Bossier Parish is just wasted brain-power, right?

    Maybe I am starting to see the light. I hope the third-world medical schools keep this concept under wraps because now our "not everyone can be an astronaut", "cannot quite make the grade" med-school hopefuls could just find someplace where "most of what they teach you is useless" and set up shop.

    I'm still struggling with the fact that I probably wouldn't take one of my daughters to see that "common law medical practice" doctor though. Would you?
    DFW



    "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

  7. #257
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dfwfirefighter View Post
    So when I retire from the fire service and decide that maybe a career-change is in order, I should be able to move to Bossier Parish and become a medical doctor without any formal training as long as I know what type of injuries/illnesses are germane to Bossier Parish?

    After all, if everything is driven at the local level (i.e without state or Federal oversight because the "big picture" is not relevant to your part of the world), then I should be able to skip med school and internship; forgo licensing necessary to perform as an MD at the local, state, and Federal level; and merely open up "XYZ's Doctor's Office"? As long as I've looked at the history (and not the potential) of local illness/injury "trends", I can skip all the extra stuff that a doctor DOESN'T need to know in your town?

    I've never been really good a chemistry so maybe all that cellular-level book knowledge can be skipped because, after all, knowledge of all the extra things that never happen in Bossier Parish is just wasted brain-power, right?

    Maybe I am starting to see the light. I hope the third-world medical schools keep this concept under wraps because now our "not everyone can be an astronaut", "cannot quite make the grade" med-school hopefuls could just find someplace where "most of what they teach you is useless" and set up shop.

    I'm still struggling with the fact that I probably wouldn't take one of my daughters to see that "common law medical practice" doctor though. Would you?
    I guess if you want to compare a medical doctor to a rural volunteer firefighter that may answer 20 or 30 cals ayear and a couple of structure fires a year, have at it.

    The big difference is that the medical doctor will make a whole lot of money and the volunteer firefighter will pull in a hefty sum of 0.

    You want to make the standards the same. Fine. But don't be surprised when a whole bunch of VFDs don't have the manpower to answer runs because you expect thiose small town volunteers working 40, 50 or 60 hours a week to train to the same standards on their off-time as career members who are often paid to attend the academy for initial training and then are paid to train while working shift.

    Most small community rural members can be adequatly trained to begin operations on the firground in 50 hours. Will that tech them everything? No. But it will give them more than adequate training to respond and start to operate on the fireground under supervision. We disagree on that and always will. Funny thing is I have seen that type of training work quite well.

    Continue to comapre volunteer firefighters to doctors, or as others have airline pilots. It's two very different situations, but hey, keep on with it if you wish.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  8. #258
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,169

    Default

    Given that I have plans to continue teaching for the NFA and the state fire training service after I retire,,,,,,
    Apparently his hypocrisy has no bounds...He disagrees with what they say and do, but will gladly take their money...
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  9. #259
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    It is the fire service's responsibility that everyone who carries the classification of 'firefighter' be trained to the same basic minimum. If your department faces specific problems not covered by that basic minimum, it becomes that department's responsibility to train on those skill sets.

    It's really about protecting the title, isn't it?

    What minimum skills are required to be a firefighter varies by community. maybe you don't see it that way, but I do. The minimum skills needed by the members in Shreveport, and different than the members needed in my combo district, which are different than the skills needed by my VFD personnel. Structures, apparatus, equipment and auxiliary responsibilities such as haz-mat, extrication, rescue and water supply all factor in.


    It is not a debate, in no other job, career, business, corporation, sport, etc. would your ideology be considered logical.

    And there are very few others careers or businesses where there is such a wide spectrum of skills needed to perform the job. What a volunteer firefighter will see is dependant on the community, and the mutual aid communities they respond to. The skills needed for those occupancies and building types can be identified, especially in smaller rural districts. Training needs can be defined.

    On the other hand, a doctor could see just about any type of injury or illness. A EMT or paramedic the same is true. A cop could see just about any type of LLE emergency. Even a pilot can just about any type of aircraft emergency, even thouggh interestingly enough, they are checked off to fly specific types of aircraft.


    I don't think FF1 covers enough of the meat and potatoes. I don't feel hose handling, survival training, ladders, search tactics, and communication are close to covered enough.

    Would I love the time to spend more time in some of those areas? Sure. Do I think that every single FF should have at least 20 hours of FF Survival before entering a structure? Hell yes. But I also know that the time required to cover everyhting that I feel is important during rookie class for volunteers in simply unrealistic. it's not that I don't want to give them additional training. From a time perspective it's unreasonable and unrealistic.

    We are on the same page. It's just you feel the book should be longer and I want to condense it, so that training time is reasonable for volunteer personnel.


    I will fully admit there are problems with our state's FF1 standard. Our disagreement is that I don't think it's enough but can sleep better at night knowing its 'something' while you think it's too much and, somehow, our state's FF'ers (no matter how busy they are) need less.

    I never said they needed less. I am saying that if we are to retain volunteers and continue recruiting what we need we have to be very aware of the training demands we are putting on them. the volunteer fire service will only survive if we can continue to recruit, and to so that, training requirements must be realistic and reasonable. And in many of these places, the volunteer fires ervice is the only option available.

    I just can't comprehend how you can wave the "safety trumps all and lower our LODD numbers" flag yet proclaim that lower TRAINING standards can be anything but deadly.

    Reduced manpower on the fireground can be just a deadly. How will a firefighter knowing about standpipes and sprinklers in a district that has none have any effect on his/her safety and LODDs? Yes, we need to and MUST train them to the skills they need to operate in thier areas and at the service level their department has decided to provide. That's exactly why I have said that a district like my 2 former VFDs would be a place that volunteers should have FFI. The needs of the district, especially the commercial responses, fully justify FFI. My combo, and especially my VFD, do not have those issues and do not see the variety of sstructures, especially aprtmernts and commercial structures, that my previous VFD did.

    My only beef with FFI is that it is geared towards rural and urban personnel. There are buildings, tools and skills discussed that a rural VFD will never see or perform. Taking stuff out that does not apply and will likely never apply to thier operations does nothing to put them in harm's way. A reduced number of volunteers on the fireground because of the length of class in part that covers irrelvant material, which discourages new members from joining, can very easily be a factor in LODDs.


    Despite what you think, I work alongside the exact same kind of departments you are speaking of. It's not an increase of burdens placed on those volunteers that will kill them, it's the continual degradation of both training standards and, even worse, expectations.

    I'm not talking about degrading anything, but I am talking about training them in a way that is relevant and applicable to their community, resources and operations. Again, a skill they will never use is not a skill that will be missed. A skill that they will use and not trained on will be missed. Volunteers in a rural community don't need to know about alarms, sprinklers, standpipes and hald-a dozen hose loads. But they do need to more about manufactured homes and rural building construction and hazards, brush fire operations and water shuttle operations more than currently covered in FFI.

    I fully support reasonable weekly training standards and support requiring each volunteer to attend a reasonable amount of departmnet training (75% plus) and a minimum number of outside training each year. I don't support taking the time to teach them skills they do not use.


    Please, please try and understand that if you continue to allow those small volunteers to fall out of grace by saying things like "they just can't handle that", "they aren't set up for that", etc. then you are only going to make it that much harder for them to receive any sort of help in the future. Why would anyone want to help the department that is often forgotten or rarely helpful? You know just as well as I do that PR is a huge part of what helps a department financially, especially at that level. No one, and I seriously mean NO ONE in a community accepts that calling their fire department is futile. No matter how little they have to pay for it, the community demands that their department be worth existing.

    They need to be prepared to do the job and perform the job. We do not disagree on that. My issue is that FFI contains a lot of information that they simply do not need to do the job in most rural departments, and there is information that is lacking in FFI that they need to do the job.

    I fully understand the role of PR and fully understand that how they perform will have a tremendous impact on how the community views them. And that will equate to support for continued or additional funding. That being said, teaching them skills they will never use will have no impact on how the community views them.


    A local rural department in my part-time FPD has a population of 523 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parks,_Louisiana). The department receives money from the parish government and its semi annual fish fry. It isn't even the smallest or best department in that district. The Chief, while being pretty good, is my age, 25. There are 8 total members. Average apparatus age is about 15 years old, though they are next in rotation for new apparatus within 2 years. There are absolutely no real structures they can handle without the aid of neighboring departments in the district. This is not a knock on their capabilities but evidence of the severity of low manpower. They recently staged a mock mass decon with the local, small, hospital. They have brought in coast guard instructors to give classes about water rescue for their small bayou that runs through the town. They had applied, received, and utilized grant money to set up a very small but effective water rescue squad. They are made up of members ranging from current career guys to cane farmers. All of them can drive. All of them can pump. All of them can go on air and go inside. This is required for new membership. There are a handful of retired members who assist, they carry no gear, and stay on the other side of the barrier. They are issued a beeper and a radio. They are treated like kings in the station. They have had to turn down a few candidates but no matter how many show up, anyone can do anything asked of them. The tallest structure in their town is the water tower, tallest occupied structure is a one and a half story house. There are actually no true two story buildings. They can all throw 35' ladders. They have standpipe kits on their engine. They are good, quality firefighters.

    And that's great. I disagree with them not utilizing exterior personnel and driver-only, but as I stated before, it's their call, not mine. I know of several small VFDs just like this as well and they are doing what needs to be done.

    Their leadership has decided in what direction they want to go and the department is headed that way. Cool.

    And they are doing it without a mandate, which is my point. Leadership has made a decsion and is taking the department the way they want to go.

    Sounds like my VFD. When I joined a couple of years ago they were a very average rural VFD. They weren't bad but that was nothing out of the ordianry about the performance or the training, and the Chief admitted as such

    Over the past 18 months, we have ramped up training. We have gotten just about all of the active fireline mebers to the Operations level. We have implemented and enforced weekly training attendence requirements. We have purchased new tools, and have developed a new fire attack mode (Transitional Attack) and have set up the engines for that mode. And we are now purchasing rescue struts, cribbing and some other tools so that we can stabilize and remove glass before the arrival of the next town's over heavy rescue. And that didn't happen because of state mandates. It happened because of internal leadership.


    There is a name-withheld department of TWELVE times their size in the district. The department has a roster of 45. 15 of the members are just gf's of ff's that have to be on the roster to ride the apparatus with their bf. There are no standards or requirements for membership. There has been countless times when they would not respond to their calls due to no one responding could drive an apparatus. Everyone is given the title ff'er or captain. I have been reprimanded by their chief for ordering (sternly) a member to assist in pulling line in a door and not telepathically knowing the ff'er was a 17 year old gf of a firefighter and not expected to hump hose. Training is nonexistent. Beer cans litter the common area. A surplus was distributed to each department as a gift from parish government. Only thing purchased was a big screen TV and a massive bbq pit that seemed to walk off.

    And I know departments like this too. And it's not cool.

    But would mandated training standards doing anything in this case? No. They would likely be ignored.

    This department sounds like a mess but the change needs to come from within, not a state mandated standard. The leadership needs to change and take the department in a very different direction, but again, a training mandate won't do that.

    I don't condone departments that don't train. I don't condone departments that are more of a social club than a fire department, though certainly, a social element is needed and needs to be addressed at a VFD to attract members. All VFDs need to be able to do the job. Some will be able to do more of it than others. And some of that has to do with leadership which is an internal matter that mandated training level;s will not address.


    The town with the horrible department is absolutely fed up with them. Council members are asking that no more money be sent to them until, and I quote "They do what they suppose to do".

    And that is the community's right and role. There are times that needs to happen if the department can not take care of that internally. it's unfortunate and messy but at times neccessary.


    When times get tougher, who do you think will feel the pinch more, Bobby? Not the little podunk department doing its job, being out in the public, and being seen training. Everyone in that little town knows they will never use a water rescue team. No one has drowned in that water in over 30 years, not saying it won't happen but if you apply your cost/time vs. probability, it's very one sided. But the town gladly supported expanding it with their own money because they know it will be used if needed.

    No disagreement there, though there is a point where a small department offering aservice that is both costly financially and costly from a time and training perspective is not worth while.


    And that's the point of those smaller, rural departments. The cost/time vs. probability of need leads you to believe they are expensive to maintain. When your house is burning, your family is danger, they are worth their weight in gold, that is, if they are capable of doing what is expected of all buildings, apparatus, and people wearing the name "Fire Department".

    And as I stated there will be small rural VFDs that can do more than others, and there are alot of factors involved in that including funding available, response times, manpower and the like. Should all of them train as such? Yes. Should all of them operate in amanner that makes a solid response more likely? Yes. But that being said state mandated standards will improve training but do nothing for the operation if the leadership is bad and doesn't "get it".

    Yes training is part of the answer. But there are many other issues that you have mentioned in this post that will not be solved via training, and certainly not be solved by mandate training.


    How you can not see that the decline of STANDARDS will lead to a decline in EXPECTATIONS which will lead to a further decline in SUPPORT which will ultimately lead to an elimination of EXISTENCE is truly horrifying.

    I support training standards that are applicable and relevant to the job at hand. I fully supported the mandated training program put forth by the state firefighters association in conjuction with LSU because the content as relevant to rural operations and reasonable at 50 hours. I may support FFI if there was rural version with more time on building construction found in the rural world, more discussion on brush fire ops and more discussion on rural water, and less time on water systems, foccible entry and some other areas.

    Again, my issue is not with reasonable training standards and expecting members to perform. My issue is with FFI because it just does not prrovide that the rural world needs, and that training can be done in less time
    .


    You can't cry when no one feeds a dog then, at the same time, claim the dog isn't worth feeding.

    I want the volunteer fire service to be better, but that doesn't mean we have to demand more time for training. I beleive that we can improve things in many cases simply by being smarter and more productive with the training time we have, and yes, that means not simply adopting a generic class that is not geared towards the rural fire service. If that means working on the development of a Rural FFI, then maybe that is the answer.

    I also beleive that most departments have the ability to identify their needs and design training, even if it is simply selecting relevant material from FFI, to meet their needs.

    Yes, rural VFDs can be professional and still not demand any more time than many already are.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 07-12-2012 at 03:26 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  10. #260
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Apparently his hypocrisy has no bounds...He disagrees with what they say and do, but will gladly take their money...

    And what exactly do I disagree with?

    I have clearly stated there is a role for state and national training in the areas of specilaized and technical operations, such as haz-mat and technical rescue where most departments do not have that type of in-house expertise, and leadership, management and officer development.

    And I have no issue with NIMS.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  11. #261
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dfwfirefighter View Post
    So when I retire from the fire service and decide that maybe a career-change is in order, I should be able to move to Bossier Parish and become a medical doctor without any formal training as long as I know what type of injuries/illnesses are germane to Bossier Parish?
    That depends......Will you agree to do the physical exam screenings of their VFD members for free or at a low cost???? Or would you not want to medically disqualify 3/4ths of them from active service???
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  12. #262
    Forum Member
    dfwfirefighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I guess if you want to compare a medical doctor to a rural volunteer firefighter that may answer 20 or 30 cals ayear and a couple of structure fires a year, have at it.
    So why can't I be an MD in "rural" Bossier Parish if I know only the injuries/illnesses in your area? As you've stated, for a rural firefighter to know anything more than what is needed in rural fire service, USA, is a waste of his time. So, back to my MD comparison, what is the difference? If we are going to exempt a firefighter from meeting the basic training levels of an NFPA 1001-based industry standard, why not extend that to other career fields? Again, I am horrible and chemistry and other math stuff, so, as long as I learn only what hurts or makes people sick in "rural" Bossier Parish, I can try beat the odds that someone with an injury or illness not common to that area shows up in my office, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The big difference is that the medical doctor will make a whole lot of money and the volunteer firefighter will pull in a hefty sum of 0.
    So one's paycheck determines if he or she should comply with whatever industry standards are in place? It appears to me that you'd prefer 10 untrained people over one (1) trained one.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You want to make the standards the same. Fine. But don't be surprised when a whole bunch of VFDs don't have the manpower to answer runs because you expect thiose small town volunteers working 40, 50 or 60 hours a week to train to the same standards on their off-time as career members who are often paid to attend the academy for initial training and then are paid to train while working shift.
    So you are willing to roll the dice with "what typically occurs here" as the training baseline instead of a well-rounded program that will help guide them through runs that fall into the category of "well... that usually doesn't happen in this neck of the woods, but..."?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Most small community rural members can be adequatly trained to begin operations on the firground in 50 hours. Will that tech them everything? No. But it will give them more than adequate training to respond and start to operate on the fireground under supervision. We disagree on that and always will. Funny thing is I have seen that type of training work quite well.
    Where does the "50 hours" of your training program come from? Is it an arbitrary number? I'm just spit-balling here but it appears that someone meeting those 50 hours is well on their way to meeting the industry standards of an NFPA 1001-based training program.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Continue to comapre volunteer firefighters to doctors, or as others have airline pilots. It's two very different situations, but hey, keep on with it if you wish.
    They are not "two very different situations". They are very similar. You advocate local needs dictating the training one receives. I contend that local conditions are what "rounds out" your training after meeting industry standards. The occupations you listed - MD and airline pilots - are layered industry standards. An MD is an MD is an MD. The "specialize" after that. Everyone when to medical school based on criteria set by industry standards. They met those criteria and then completed internship (where they learned more about their specialty). They then became licensed to practice and went to work. Regardless of whether they work in Philadelphia, PA or Philadelphia, MS, they all met an industry standard as a baseline for their careers.

    Pilots are the same way. They either go the "military" route or pay their own way. To work for an airline, the must meet industry standards set by the FAA, such as different ratings (private pilot, multi-engine, instrument-rated, commercial license, and Airline Transport Pilot). Each of those ratings have school and flying requirements.

    In both of those cases, the training does not hinge on whether or not you are in a busy or slow area. It hinges on a standard baseline of knowledge from a formal training program based on industry standards.

    If someone decides he or she is too busy to meet those standards or it is taking too much time away from other things, he or she should re-examine their motivation to be there in the first place.

    Neither doctors get to practice medicine nor pilots get to fly planes based on standards convenient to them or whether or not they think a certain aspect of their training is relevant or not based on what is going on in their part of the world at their particular moment in time.
    DFW



    "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

  13. #263
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    It's really about protecting the title, isn't it?

    What minimum skills are required to be a firefighter varies by community. maybe you don't see it that way, but I do. The minimum skills needed by the members in Shreveport, and different than the members needed in my combo district, which are different than the skills needed by my VFD personnel. Structures, apparatus, equipment and auxiliary responsibilities such as haz-mat, extrication, rescue and water supply all factor in.
    You harp on protecting the title because you still can't understand what everyone is telling you. If I go to a general practitioner doctor, it is only logical that I expect him to give me the same basic care that I would receive from anyone else carrying the same title. I want to preserve the title of firefighter and prevent it from being used to label anyone who wants to be called one. It's not out of cockiness or exclusivity but to preserve our identity and purpose for existing. I'm fine with you calling who ever you want whatever you want but if they can't or won't fight fire, don't degrade those who can and will by placing them in the same group as if they were just as capable.

    And you need to reread your second paragraph and realize the glaring hole in your logic. The minimum skill needed by Shreveport is the same minimum skill required by Lafayette, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Alexandria, Lake Charles, and even the smaller departments like Natchitoches and Monroe, down to Sulphur and Hammond, even departments smaller than those including volunteer departments such as Brusly, Independence, Eastside (a small Baton Rouge suburban department), Zachary, Baldwin, and countless others I can't recall off hand. And that minimum is FF1. Many require more but that is the absolute minimum required before you can progress to meet each specific department's requirement. Those departments run the gamut from biggest metro-sized department in the state to one single firefighter on duty with a run down quint and a brush truck as the only apparatus. I can not recall a single firefighter I've trained, trained with, or met that had FF1+ and complained about his head hurting from containing too much knowledge he would rarely utilize.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And there are very few others careers or businesses where there is such a wide spectrum of skills needed to perform the job. What a volunteer firefighter will see is dependant on the community, and the mutual aid communities they respond to. The skills needed for those occupancies and building types can be identified, especially in smaller rural districts. Training needs can be defined.

    On the other hand, a doctor could see just about any type of injury or illness. A EMT or paramedic the same is true. A cop could see just about any type of LLE emergency. Even a pilot can just about any type of aircraft emergency, even thouggh interestingly enough, they are checked off to fly specific types of aircraft.
    Then please answer this:

    Why is it that firefighters, such as myself, who are trained to or above the FF1 level are desired by most departments, are quickly put to work in most departments (neither my current paid, part-time, nor volunteer required I achieve any other certification prior to beginning work), and used fully by most departments seeking to fill gaps in their manpower?

    Why is that firefighters, such as those you claim are just as qualified, will need to meet another standard prior to working many of these departments?

    Sure, most big ones will make you go through their academy and re-certify you to their standard but you're lying to yourself if you think they'll pass up a guy with 5 years experience AND FF1+ to grab a guy with 5 years experience and no certification.

    You are partially correct, every community and department is different. The problem with the point you are failing to make is that no matter how different they are, the B-A-S-I-C-S remain the same. Take a recent graduate from the LSU rookie school for example. We taught every single one to the exact same standard, we never used their specific departments as guidelines, even the instructors who taught a class containing recruits who were soon-to-be members of their very own departments still taught them to the same standard as those who were members of departments worlds different from their own. That is the essence of a basic standard, once you meet that level, you can be picked up and dropped in an overwhelming majority of fire departments and assimilate with very little difficulty. There is actual proof of extensively trained urban, city, and metro firefighters volunteering in the small, rural departments and needing no extra training as they've already learned the necessary skill set. I should know, I am one them.

    Can you do that with a 'firefighter' trained to your 'standard'?
    Can you do that with every single person you label 'firefighter'?

    I can fight fire in bossier parish, can your 'firefighters' fight fire in any other department? Then guess whose standard isn't enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Would I love the time to spend more time in some of those areas? Sure. Do I think that every single FF should have at least 20 hours of FF Survival before entering a structure? Hell yes. But I also know that the time required to cover everyhting that I feel is important during rookie class for volunteers in simply unrealistic. it's not that I don't want to give them additional training. From a time perspective it's unreasonable and unrealistic.

    We are on the same page. It's just you feel the book should be longer and I want to condense it, so that training time is reasonable for volunteer personnel.
    Everyone in Louisiana considers North Louisiana to be a different state and nothing like the rest of us but unless even time itself is different and your days are 12 hours long compared to our 24, there is no reason countless departments down here can make it work yet you simply can't. There are a virtual **** ton of tools at your disposal, get off your *** and find one that will work and push for it to be adopted by those who are allowed to make such a decision. Until you do EVERYTHING you can to make your men smarter, fitter, and better prepared, don't open your mouth up about safety and lowering LODD's.

    The book doesn't necessarily need to be longer, it just needs to cover the topics ALL departments face, not just yours and not just mine. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing Hazmat awareness having it's extra fat cut off and ops being condensed to only what a firefighter with no specialization is allowed to do. This would mean every firefighter could identify a hazardous material situation, notify the respective authority, and adequately assist the techs in prep, operations, and decon. At our chemical plant fire a year ago, we faced some problems when over 20 departments responded and 2 very small, volunteer departments were told they were not needed as no one they brought knew how to read an ERG much less assist at a hazmat scene. It should be noted that while I am at the hazmat tech level with a fair amount of even more specializations in that field, the entire roster of firefighters who responded and were available to IC were trained only to OPS, yet meeting that minimum standard, the IC (who had never had a hazardous materials incident even a 1/100th of that degree his entire career) knew exactly what those men could and could not do without inquiring about each individual responder specifically.

    Everyone carried the same title, a few could do more of the job, NO ONE could do less.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I never said they needed less. I am saying that if we are to retain volunteers and continue recruiting what we need we have to be very aware of the training demands we are putting on them. the volunteer fire service will only survive if we can continue to recruit, and to so that, training requirements must be realistic and reasonable. And in many of these places, the volunteer fires ervice is the only option available.
    No, the volunteer fire service will only survive if they can prove to be just as valuable to the community they serve as the department down the road that is paid to serve their respective community. As a union/ career/ paid/ professional firefighter, that is a very bold statement. Not every community needs nor can afford a paid department. This does not allow a community to suffer sub-par coverage just because they can't afford to have the same coverage as the community next door. A community shouldn't be forced into paying for paid staff just so they won't have to sleep with a garden hose in their hands at night. Again, take what I'm saying and realize that I am a paid firefighter who also volunteers. I understand the plight of the volunteer service. Its like saying that the US public school system is continuously falling further and further behind and the only way some parents feel their children can get a quality education is to pay for them to attend private school so the best solution is to lower the standards so that more students pass. Wait, no, they tried that....how did that work out again? Oh yeah, the school system plummeted even further. What happened when standards were tightened? Public schools started to come back around. Imagine that.

    The analogy still applies when used in the fire service. Every single member of the community expects the fire department to do one basic thing: do everything in their power to put out their fire. Every single person who is a member should meet that basic requirement. Everything else the department does is lagniappe. They can call for ambulance to get medical attention, they can call the electrical company when the pole is arcing, they can call state police when they have a gas leak. There is no one else to call when their stove is on fire. You fail to meet the basic expectation every logical person has of your existence and they will feel no need to support you in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Reduced manpower on the fireground can be just a deadly. How will a firefighter knowing about standpipes and sprinklers in a district that has none have any effect on his/her safety and LODDs? Yes, we need to and MUST train them to the skills they need to operate in thier areas and at the service level their department has decided to provide. That's exactly why I have said that a district like my 2 former VFDs would be a place that volunteers should have FFI. The needs of the district, especially the commercial responses, fully justify FFI. My combo, and especially my VFD, do not have those issues and do not see the variety of sstructures, especially aprtmernts and commercial structures, that my previous VFD did.

    My only beef with FFI is that it is geared towards rural and urban personnel. There are buildings, tools and skills discussed that a rural VFD will never see or perform. Taking stuff out that does not apply and will likely never apply to thier operations does nothing to put them in harm's way. A reduced number of volunteers on the fireground because of the length of class in part that covers irrelvant material, which discourages new members from joining, can very easily be a factor in LODDs.
    Just as deadly as what? Having 20 men on an obviously dangerous scene that shouldn't be there? If it's just AS dangerous, then you're agreeing that padding the numbers does absolutely nothing in terms of increasing safety on the fireground. So again, how is filling the scene with 'members' going to help you when only 6 are needed for the job? Is a job's safety and effectiveness proportional to the amount of men you have or the capability of the men you have? Do you wait to vent a roof (hahaha, what am I thinking) when you reach a certain number of men? Do you call off an attack if your support staff member realizes he left his oven on and has to leave?

    I'm glad you asked about stand-pipes and sprinklers! Let me explain to you why these guys have two stand-pipe bundles on their engine. I will also explain to you how they were given permission to purchase a very nicely outfitted service truck in the very near future.

    Long story short: They are great about responding to their mutual aid department's calls, many which contain stand-pipes and sprinklers. When the fire protection district met to discuss purchasing new kits, a majority of the chiefs agreed that small department deserved to get them as they showed the highest turn out rate to a call of that type outside of their district. This up set name-with-held as they believed name-with-held should get them because they actually have stand-pipes, large buildings, apartment complexes, and sprinklered buildings. I believe they were told something along the lines of "if you aren't going to respond to your own calls, we will give it to the department that responds to them for you". When the run numbers were reviewed, it was noticed that better-prepared-department had to use their aging engine to respond to every call not ground cover related. While the money for a new engine was being spent on the current department in rotation, they decided it was actually a cost saving decision to purchase them a service unit. Operating to a higher standard: receiving better equipment.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I'm not talking about degrading anything, but I am talking about training them in a way that is relevant and applicable to their community, resources and operations. Again, a skill they will never use is not a skill that will be missed. A skill that they will use and not trained on will be missed. Volunteers in a rural community don't need to know about alarms, sprinklers, standpipes and hald-a dozen hose loads. But they do need to more about manufactured homes and rural building construction and hazards, brush fire operations and water shuttle operations more than currently covered in FFI.

    I fully support reasonable weekly training standards and support requiring each volunteer to attend a reasonable amount of departmnet training (75% plus) and a minimum number of outside training each year. I don't support taking the time to teach them skills they do not use.

    They need to be prepared to do the job and perform the job. We do not disagree on that. My issue is that FFI contains a lot of information that they simply do not need to do the job in most rural departments, and there is information that is lacking in FFI that they need to do the job.

    I fully understand the role of PR and fully understand that how they perform will have a tremendous impact on how the community views them. And that will equate to support for continued or additional funding. That being said, teaching them skills they will never use will have no impact on how the community views them.
    I agree, FF1 does contain material that might not be used in YOUR department. That is true for all departments. But the problem is, do we remove standpipes because YOU don't face it and Milton Volunteer Fire Department has to suffer because they actually have standpipes? Do we remove hazmat because YOU don't need it and let Broussard or Cade VFD suffer because they have many, many industrial companies in their response district? Should Broussard and Cade be the only ones to train on hazmat but the departments in their district that respond automatic aid NOT be required? There's a section on wildland firefighting in FF1, should we cut that out because MY career department rarely (as in never) faces it and let YOU (and the parish department that calls us out sometimes to assist) suffer? No. We include all the basics in the minimum standard and leave it up to the departments to embellish on their department's specific responses, just like you want. If you think FF1 is rooted primarily in urban firefighting then you have absolutely no clue what it's like to be a urban firefighter. Could FF1 go more in depth on some things? Absolutely. Is water shuttles one of them? I don't think so, I learned about water shuttles through FF1 years ago and never reviewed, studied, or progressed on them more as time time passed (other than my departments odd drill on it) and I did just fine when I was a part of one at my volunteer department. Meeting the minimum standard: not requiring additional training at the department's expense.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And as I stated there will be small rural VFDs that can do more than others, and there are alot of factors involved in that including funding available, response times, manpower and the like. Should all of them train as such? Yes. Should all of them operate in amanner that makes a solid response more likely? Yes. But that being said state mandated standards will improve training but do nothing for the operation if the leadership is bad and doesn't "get it".

    Yes training is part of the answer. But there are many other issues that you have mentioned in this post that will not be solved via training, and certainly not be solved by mandate training.
    You're right, it won't fix everything but it will fix leadership like you who refuse to accept that they are delivering subpar service and forces them to train and, by proxy, perform to an acceptable level. When firefighters show up to a scene, the internal drama means little to me. I need to know that they can do the same job the firefighters that arrive just before them can do. If they can't, they offer me very little and thusly will be asked to leave before they injure themselves or others.

    This will also fix a MAJOR problem of guys desiring better training but being **** blocked by leadership that doesn't think it is necessary. It's not a fix-all but it's the first step to fixing the biggest problem of the volunteer service in this state- a need for their existence.






    You are asking that the basic standard meet your needs and desires at the cost of everyone else. We are asking you to step up and meet the same minimum everyone else achieved. I do not, can not, and will not ever support lowering the standard to meet a very minute minority at the expense of the vast majority. FF1 covers everything you need, it will deliver you a firefighter. It is YOUR responsibility to make that firefighter into a bossier parish firefighter. When you finish FF1, it says you are trained to the level of FF1, not to the level of your respective department. This is why it is considered the standard, everything else is specialization. Everyone who meets that standard only requires specialization to assimilate to their department. It will lower the number of people you can use but the god's honest truth is the people you lost weren't really people you should have used anyway.
    SPFDRum and slackjawedyokel like this.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  14. #264
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    You harp on protecting the title because you still can't understand what everyone is telling you. If I go to a general practitioner doctor, it is only logical that I expect him to give me the same basic care that I would receive from anyone else carrying the same title. I want to preserve the title of firefighter and prevent it from being used to label anyone who wants to be called one. It's not out of cockiness or exclusivity but to preserve our identity and purpose for existing. I'm fine with you calling who ever you want whatever you want but if they can't or won't fight fire, don't degrade those who can and will by placing them in the same group as if they were just as capable.

    And you need to reread your second paragraph and realize the glaring hole in your logic. The minimum skill needed by Shreveport is the same minimum skill required by Lafayette, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Alexandria, Lake Charles, and even the smaller departments like Natchitoches and Monroe, down to Sulphur and Hammond, even departments smaller than those including volunteer departments such as Brusly, Independence, Eastside (a small Baton Rouge suburban department), Zachary, Baldwin, and countless others I can't recall off hand. And that minimum is FF1. Many require more but that is the absolute minimum required before you can progress to meet each specific department's requirement. Those departments run the gamut from biggest metro-sized department in the state to one single firefighter on duty with a run down quint and a brush truck as the only apparatus. I can not recall a single firefighter I've trained, trained with, or met that had FF1+ and complained about his head hurting from containing too much knowledge he would rarely utilize.



    Then please answer this:

    Why is it that firefighters, such as myself, who are trained to or above the FF1 level are desired by most departments, are quickly put to work in most departments (neither my current paid, part-time, nor volunteer required I achieve any other certification prior to beginning work), and used fully by most departments seeking to fill gaps in their manpower?

    Why is that firefighters, such as those you claim are just as qualified, will need to meet another standard prior to working many of these departments?

    Sure, most big ones will make you go through their academy and re-certify you to their standard but you're lying to yourself if you think they'll pass up a guy with 5 years experience AND FF1+ to grab a guy with 5 years experience and no certification.

    You are partially correct, every community and department is different. The problem with the point you are failing to make is that no matter how different they are, the B-A-S-I-C-S remain the same. Take a recent graduate from the LSU rookie school for example. We taught every single one to the exact same standard, we never used their specific departments as guidelines, even the instructors who taught a class containing recruits who were soon-to-be members of their very own departments still taught them to the same standard as those who were members of departments worlds different from their own. That is the essence of a basic standard, once you meet that level, you can be picked up and dropped in an overwhelming majority of fire departments and assimilate with very little difficulty. There is actual proof of extensively trained urban, city, and metro firefighters volunteering in the small, rural departments and needing no extra training as they've already learned the necessary skill set. I should know, I am one them.

    Can you do that with a 'firefighter' trained to your 'standard'?
    Can you do that with every single person you label 'firefighter'?

    I can fight fire in bossier parish, can your 'firefighters' fight fire in any other department? Then guess whose standard isn't enough.



    Everyone in Louisiana considers North Louisiana to be a different state and nothing like the rest of us but unless even time itself is different and your days are 12 hours long compared to our 24, there is no reason countless departments down here can make it work yet you simply can't. There are a virtual **** ton of tools at your disposal, get off your *** and find one that will work and push for it to be adopted by those who are allowed to make such a decision. Until you do EVERYTHING you can to make your men smarter, fitter, and better prepared, don't open your mouth up about safety and lowering LODD's.

    The book doesn't necessarily need to be longer, it just needs to cover the topics ALL departments face, not just yours and not just mine. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing Hazmat awareness having it's extra fat cut off and ops being condensed to only what a firefighter with no specialization is allowed to do. This would mean every firefighter could identify a hazardous material situation, notify the respective authority, and adequately assist the techs in prep, operations, and decon. At our chemical plant fire a year ago, we faced some problems when over 20 departments responded and 2 very small, volunteer departments were told they were not needed as no one they brought knew how to read an ERG much less assist at a hazmat scene. It should be noted that while I am at the hazmat tech level with a fair amount of even more specializations in that field, the entire roster of firefighters who responded and were available to IC were trained only to OPS, yet meeting that minimum standard, the IC (who had never had a hazardous materials incident even a 1/100th of that degree his entire career) knew exactly what those men could and could not do without inquiring about each individual responder specifically.

    Everyone carried the same title, a few could do more of the job, NO ONE could do less.



    No, the volunteer fire service will only survive if they can prove to be just as valuable to the community they serve as the department down the road that is paid to serve their respective community. As a union/ career/ paid/ professional firefighter, that is a very bold statement. Not every community needs nor can afford a paid department. This does not allow a community to suffer sub-par coverage just because they can't afford to have the same coverage as the community next door. A community shouldn't be forced into paying for paid staff just so they won't have to sleep with a garden hose in their hands at night. Again, take what I'm saying and realize that I am a paid firefighter who also volunteers. I understand the plight of the volunteer service. Its like saying that the US public school system is continuously falling further and further behind and the only way some parents feel their children can get a quality education is to pay for them to attend private school so the best solution is to lower the standards so that more students pass. Wait, no, they tried that....how did that work out again? Oh yeah, the school system plummeted even further. What happened when standards were tightened? Public schools started to come back around. Imagine that.

    The analogy still applies when used in the fire service. Every single member of the community expects the fire department to do one basic thing: do everything in their power to put out their fire. Every single person who is a member should meet that basic requirement. Everything else the department does is lagniappe. They can call for ambulance to get medical attention, they can call the electrical company when the pole is arcing, they can call state police when they have a gas leak. There is no one else to call when their stove is on fire. You fail to meet the basic expectation every logical person has of your existence and they will feel no need to support you in any way.



    Just as deadly as what? Having 20 men on an obviously dangerous scene that shouldn't be there? If it's just AS dangerous, then you're agreeing that padding the numbers does absolutely nothing in terms of increasing safety on the fireground. So again, how is filling the scene with 'members' going to help you when only 6 are needed for the job? Is a job's safety and effectiveness proportional to the amount of men you have or the capability of the men you have? Do you wait to vent a roof (hahaha, what am I thinking) when you reach a certain number of men? Do you call off an attack if your support staff member realizes he left his oven on and has to leave?

    I'm glad you asked about stand-pipes and sprinklers! Let me explain to you why these guys have two stand-pipe bundles on their engine. I will also explain to you how they were given permission to purchase a very nicely outfitted service truck in the very near future.

    Long story short: They are great about responding to their mutual aid department's calls, many which contain stand-pipes and sprinklers. When the fire protection district met to discuss purchasing new kits, a majority of the chiefs agreed that small department deserved to get them as they showed the highest turn out rate to a call of that type outside of their district. This up set name-with-held as they believed name-with-held should get them because they actually have stand-pipes, large buildings, apartment complexes, and sprinklered buildings. I believe they were told something along the lines of "if you aren't going to respond to your own calls, we will give it to the department that responds to them for you". When the run numbers were reviewed, it was noticed that better-prepared-department had to use their aging engine to respond to every call not ground cover related. While the money for a new engine was being spent on the current department in rotation, they decided it was actually a cost saving decision to purchase them a service unit. Operating to a higher standard: receiving better equipment.



    I agree, FF1 does contain material that might not be used in YOUR department. That is true for all departments. But the problem is, do we remove standpipes because YOU don't face it and Milton Volunteer Fire Department has to suffer because they actually have standpipes? Do we remove hazmat because YOU don't need it and let Broussard or Cade VFD suffer because they have many, many industrial companies in their response district? Should Broussard and Cade be the only ones to train on hazmat but the departments in their district that respond automatic aid NOT be required? There's a section on wildland firefighting in FF1, should we cut that out because MY career department rarely (as in never) faces it and let YOU (and the parish department that calls us out sometimes to assist) suffer? No. We include all the basics in the minimum standard and leave it up to the departments to embellish on their department's specific responses, just like you want. If you think FF1 is rooted primarily in urban firefighting then you have absolutely no clue what it's like to be a urban firefighter. Could FF1 go more in depth on some things? Absolutely. Is water shuttles one of them? I don't think so, I learned about water shuttles through FF1 years ago and never reviewed, studied, or progressed on them more as time time passed (other than my departments odd drill on it) and I did just fine when I was a part of one at my volunteer department. Meeting the minimum standard: not requiring additional training at the department's expense.



    You're right, it won't fix everything but it will fix leadership like you who refuse to accept that they are delivering subpar service and forces them to train and, by proxy, perform to an acceptable level. When firefighters show up to a scene, the internal drama means little to me. I need to know that they can do the same job the firefighters that arrive just before them can do. If they can't, they offer me very little and thusly will be asked to leave before they injure themselves or others.

    This will also fix a MAJOR problem of guys desiring better training but being **** blocked by leadership that doesn't think it is necessary. It's not a fix-all but it's the first step to fixing the biggest problem of the volunteer service in this state- a need for their existence.






    You are asking that the basic standard meet your needs and desires at the cost of everyone else. We are asking you to step up and meet the same minimum everyone else achieved. I do not, can not, and will not ever support lowering the standard to meet a very minute minority at the expense of the vast majority. FF1 covers everything you need, it will deliver you a firefighter. It is YOUR responsibility to make that firefighter into a bossier parish firefighter. When you finish FF1, it says you are trained to the level of FF1, not to the level of your respective department. This is why it is considered the standard, everything else is specialization. Everyone who meets that standard only requires specialization to assimilate to their department. It will lower the number of people you can use but the god's honest truth is the people you lost weren't really people you should have used anyway.
    Excellent post - You are definately taking the high road and giving him far more respect than he deserves. I have listened to his drivel so much , I am gravating more to the paint chip type comments.
    ?

  15. #265
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    It will lower the number of people you can use but the god's honest truth is the people you lost weren't really people you should have used anyway.
    Great job. You saved the best point for last and it is definitely the coup de grace for an individual whose beliefs will continue to ensure that fire fighting will be a second class citizen in the competition for resources.
    SPFDRum likes this.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  16. #266
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Lafirebafoon, have any of these terms ever been used to describe you: multiple personality disorder, schizophrenia, bi-polar, schizo-affactive disorder, or borderline personality disorder?
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  17. #267
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    DFW ..

    I was going to respond to all your points, and then decided that I have already addressed them all.

    You believe that a firefighter isn't "trained" until they are at least FFI. I disagree, and no matter how much we discuss it, neither one of us is going to budge.

    I will answer one of your questions though. The 50-hour figure comes from a rookie class run by my previous VFD since the mid 70's. The course has changed significantly over the years, but has retained the same basic idea, which was to give new firefighters the BASIC skills set needed to operate at vehicle, brush and residential fires. In the 90's it was revamped to follow selected areas of NPFA 1001 and incorporated some training in regards to sprinklers, standpipes and alarms as at that time the district started seeing the construction of 3 and 4 story hotels, office buildings and apartments with more planned for the future. At that time we also started running AMA with an neighboring small city with 3 and 4 story residences and commercial structures including large renovated mill buildings. The driving and pump operations elements were removed as at that time driving was no longer considered an entry level responsibility by the department.

    In 1998, the class was expanded to include the other 3 departments that we ran AMA with. The class had instructors from all 4 departments and rotated stations.

    It was never designed to train them on everything they would face as rookies, or really go in to great detail on commercial operations. Those are things that the new members will learn at weekly level training and through run experience. It gave them a set of basic skills so they could ride on the apparatus and function on the fireground under the supervision of experienced personnel.

    Coincidentally, in 2005, a similar program, developed by LSU Fire Training. was introduced at the LA State Firefighters Convention as a proposed standard for the LA fire service. there was discussion and the majority of the folks there supported the 50-hour program over FFI.

    There are other states with similar programs with similiar time frames as well.

    So no, the 50-hour number was just not pulled out of thin air.

    if you wish to keep comparing small community volunteer firefighting with the requirements fo MDs and airline pilots, I can't stop you. And if you wish to keep comparing paid firefighters who are paid to attend the academy, paid to train while on shift and paid overtime to attend training on off-days with volunteers who train in addition to full-time employment, I can't stop you there either. Personally expecting the two to have the same level of training while there is such a dramatic difference in access to training is, IMO, unreasonable, but have at it if that's the way you feel.

    We'll always disagree on this.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 07-12-2012 at 10:02 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  18. #268
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    If they are so different, what is the difference between you and the ones who have already met FF1 in their volunteer department? If it's so impossible, how am I able to make 3/4 training nights at my volunteer and 3/4 drill nights for my part-time while maintaining a 48-72 hour a week full time job, an additional 24-36 hours at my part-time and still have a very healthy and involved family life? I'm paid to train at 1/3 of my current departments but I have no problem keeping an excellent attendance record at my other two departments which do NOT pay me to attend. The pay does not matter, the amount of training hours I am expected to achieve at my career is directly proportional to the amount of time spend at my career and is directly equal to the expected training hours in relation to time spent at my other departments. Nothing separates a volunteer from a paid guy except a pay check. They paid me in the academy, but I was also miles away from home weeks at a time, every single night, and my training was from 5 am to 5 pm, does your department expect that from its volunteers? They pay me while I train, but I also don't have a choice on attending or not, does your department expect that from its volunteers? I also do not have a choice on which calls I respond to, does your department expect that from its volunteers? I also can't take a week off whenever I deem fit, does your department expect the same from its volunteers?

    Bitch about me getting paid while I train but don't leave out the perks of being a volunteer. I can handle both and I'm not special or superhuman. Why do you feel the need to disrespect volunteers and say they aren't capable of doing the same?
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  19. #269
    Forum Member
    dfwfirefighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I was going to respond to all your points, and then decided that I have already addressed them all.
    You've not addressed any of them but your really don't owe me an answer either. I hope I've made you rethink some of your back-and-forth stances on issues that are truly fundamental components of the fire service (i.e. complying with an NFPA 1001-based firefighter training program).

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I will answer one of your questions though. The 50-hour figure comes from a rookie class run by my previous VFD since the mid 70's. The course has changed significantly over the years, but has retained the same basic idea, which was to give new firefighters the BASIC skills set needed to operate at vehicle, brush and residential fires. In the 90's it was revamped to follow selected areas of NPFA 1001 and incorporated some training in regards to sprinklers, standpipes and alarms as at that time the district started seeing the construction of 3 and 4 story hotels, office buildings and apartments with more planned for the future. At that time we also started running AMA with an neighboring small city with 3 and 4 story residences and commercial structures including large renovated mill buildings. The driving and pump operations elements were removed as at that time driving was no longer considered an entry level responsibility by the department.
    You've just described a response area that requires the knowledge objectives of an NFPA 1001-based training program. Where is this elusive "rural" response area that you say your firefighters only need to know a few areas of fire suppression knowledge (and not the topics taught in an NFPA 1001-based firefighter training program)?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    if you wish to keep comparing small community volunteer firefighting with the requirements fo MDs and airline pilots, I can't stop you.
    I am comparing the need to comply with industry standards regarding training. The jobs are vastly different but the training concepts are identical. One cannot merely pick and choose areas he or she thinks are important. Complying with an industry standard of training must be met to ensure an adequate knowledge baseline exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And if you wish to keep comparing paid firefighters who are paid to attend the academy, paid to train while on shift and paid overtime to attend training on off-days with volunteers who train in addition to full-time employment, I can't stop you there either.
    So volunteers are exempt from getting injured or killed because they do not draw a paycheck for their service?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Personally expecting the two to have the same level of training while there is such a dramatic difference in access to training is, IMO, unreasonable, but have at it if that's the way you feel.
    A firefighter is a firefighter just like a doctor is a doctor and a pilot is a pilot. Some are paid; some do it for free. Some are old; some are young. Some are good; some are bad. Some live up North; some in the South; some live East and West. The bottom line is that each of these jobs requires a baseline of knowledge in which to build upon as they gain experience. You continually base your position on the "volunteers don't have to be trained to the same level of career guys because it takes too much of their time". Continually preaching the "volunteers don't need as much training" speech drives another nail in a firefighter's coffin. That is unreasonable.

    It appears you have more of an issue with career firefighters than anything else. Do you resent the fact that some folks pick that for a career? Were you unsuccessful in the past at getting hired as a career firefighter?

    Chief John Eversole (RIP) retired as chief with the Chicago FD many years ago. For those who do not know of him, he was a good man, a great firefighter, and was literally, the "grandfather" of the fire service's hazmat response.

    I met Chief Eversole a fire convention in Louisville, KY in 1997. He and I chatted for some time and he told me something very profound: Regardless of whether you are in a small town or big city AND regardless of whether you are a career or volunteer member, your obligation to your community is the same. People depend on you when they have a fire or emergency. It is your responsibility to be trained to keep you, your fellow firefighters, and your community safe.

    You cannot do that by planning for the likely and hoping the law of averages misses you.
    Last edited by dfwfirefighter; 07-12-2012 at 10:48 PM.
    Weruj1 likes this.
    DFW



    "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

  20. #270
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The line was in reference to the the "national standard" ine that some like to make FFI out to be when in fact, it's clearly not he case as only 7 states have adopted it as such.

    The facts clearly state there is no "national standard" as requirements for career and volunteer vary from 0 to a 90 hour FFI to a 240 hour FFI/FFII, depending on the state
    Once again you don't seem to be able to distinguish between an "industry standard" and a "legislative standard".

    To the best of my knowledge, all 50 states have a FF1 certification program and it's based on NFPA 1001 (the "industry standard"). Yes, they may all not be exact copies of each other, but neither are the EMT and Paramedic curriculums from state to state.

    The seven states you mentioned have adopted FF1 as a legislative standard for the firefighters of their state. The fact that the 43 other states have chosen not to do the same has no bearing on whether FF1 is or is not the industry standard for entry level training. It simply means that those states have chosen to not require their firefighters to possess that certification in order to function as "firefighters".

  21. #271
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    DFW ...

    Great talking to you. However, as much as I enjoy our conversations, they are going nowhere.

    As far as your questions about my career ... I actually never wanted to be a career firefighter as I was happy in my previous profession when younger. I enjoyed being a volunteer. In fact when I was asked about taking this position a few years ago by the department, I was hesitant as I enjoyed where I was and was making more money, but after discussing it with my wife, the long-term financial benefits of this job convinced me to take it.

    Have a great weekend.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 07-13-2012 at 10:30 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  22. #272
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Once again you don't seem to be able to distinguish between an "industry standard" and a "legislative standard".

    To the best of my knowledge, all 50 states have a FF1 certification program and it's based on NFPA 1001 (the "industry standard"). Yes, they may all not be exact copies of each other, but neither are the EMT and Paramedic curriculums from state to state.

    The seven states you mentioned have adopted FF1 as a legislative standard for the firefighters of their state. The fact that the 43 other states have chosen not to do the same has no bearing on whether FF1 is or is not the industry standard for entry level training. It simply means that those states have chosen to not require their firefighters to possess that certification in order to function as "firefighters".
    Yes , all 50 states have FFI programs but as you say only 7 require FFI certification to function as a firefighter.

    Many require a far shorter course to function as afirefighter. that would be those states madatory standard.

    And many have no required training levels at all.

    Yes, all states have FFI certification, but in only 7 is it mandatory that you have that specific certification to function as a firefighter.

    And yes, I fully understand the industry standard concept. However, the does not translate into a mandatory requirement.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  23. #273
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    I can't wait to hear you cry when you realize the court system doesn't give two ****s about what you just said.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  24. #274
    Forum Member
    dfwfirefighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Great talking to you. However, as much as I enjoy our conversations, they are going nowhere.
    Feel free to "tap out" of this conversation whenever you'd like. This may be a "first" for the FH Forums as I've never seen you "officially" give up on a debate. You've gotten silent and stopped responding (kinda like my ex-wife) but I've never seen an official resignation.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    As far as your questions about my career ... I actually never wanted to be a career firefighter as I was happy in my previous profession when younger. I enjoyed being a volunteer. In fact when I was asked about taking this position a few years ago by the department, I was hesitant as I enjoyed where I was and was making more money, but after discussing it with my wife, the long-term financial benefits of this job convinced me to take it.
    Your career choices are yours and your family's alone. I asked those questions (and maybe I should have labeled them as "rhetorical") because as I thumb through conversation threads in the FH Forums, it is very apparent that you have an issue with folks who decide to earn their living as career firefighters. You seems to always find a way to "angle" the "V" word into a discussion about firefighters. I even saw a few posts by you in a discussion about the IAFF?

    Although there are alot of career firefighters in the US (and the world), career firefighters make up a small percentage of the total amount of firefighters everywhere. There are many communities that cannot afford to employ full-time firefighters. Fortunately, in many communities that cannot afford the cost of career firefighters, there is enough involvement and participation from the residents to operate and sustain a volunteer fire department. I started my tenure in the fire service as a junior firefighter and then progressed to a "regular" volunteer firefighter when I turned 18. I was then hired as "paid guy" by that same department when was 21 and finishing college. I can attest, first-hand, to the value that volunteer firefighters offer their communities.

    That being said, I almost guarantee that anyplace in America (or the world) for that matter would rest a bit easier if they had the ability to employ a full compliment of firefighter/paramedics to protect and serve their communities. Note that I said "ability", i.e. money not being a constraint. Although the point is moot because money will always be an issue everywhere, given a choice of having around-the-clock, guaranteed response because folks are on duty VS "I hope someone (and/or enough) people will show up if I need the fire department", the "always there" response will win every time.

    Why do I offer that position up? Since many communities cannot afford to employ firefighters, that is where volunteers (or part-time) and combination FDs come into the picture.

    That being said, a firefighter's responsibility to his or her community is the same regardless of the location (or population, or demographics, and/or etc). You, like a medical doctor or a pilot, must meet be trained to, at least, to meet a bare minimum expectation of a level of service. In our case, that is accomplished through completing and an successfully meeting the requirements of an NFPA 1001-based training program.
    DFW



    "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

  25. #275
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    I can't wait to hear you cry when you realize the court system doesn't give two ****s about what you just said.
    He doesn't care because their lawyers, Bubba, Bubba, and Finklestein, have told them no laws, or precedents, apply to them in Bossier Parrish.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Danger
    By fender in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 02:43 PM
  2. Danger Will Robinson. Danger!
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-20-2009, 12:47 PM
  3. Danger Zone
    By maverick1862 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-11-2003, 02:12 PM
  4. WARNING WARNING.. DANGER STAYBACK500 DANGER
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-21-2003, 07:56 PM
  5. California Fire Danger
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Wildland Firefighting
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-19-2003, 12:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register