Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 27 FirstFirst ... 89101112131421 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 537
Like Tree130Likes

Thread: The danger of LAFE's way of thinking

  1. #201
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And those are the consequences that those departments will have to live with and deal with.

    That is the downside of allowing department leadership to set it's own training and performance standards. But the key here is that they made that choice.
    That's why it is important to train personnel according to industry standards and certifications.

    Fire department leadership ain't easy. When you decide you want to be Chief ya better put on your big boy pants. I beleive that deciding what direction YOUR department will go in terms of training is one of the responsibilities of being Chief, and yes, those decisions, like any decisions, can have downsides and consequences, but that being said, any department should have the right to determine the level of service it will provide and the training levels it will set as the expectation for it's members as compared to having that dictated by the state.

    And every department will have to be grown up enough to understand the consequences of their decisions.
    That would be fine if the consequences of those decisions only impacted the leadership of that department. For the most part, the membership of the department has the ability to elect new leadership if they are not happy with those decisions. Unfortunately, the citizens often don't have that opportunity given the fact that the vast majority of VFDs in this country are likely not municipally based , tax payer funded departments. As a private, often largely self-funded organization, the public often has very little ability to address issues in any definitive way since the department is essentially "judge and jury" on whether or not their own standards are appropriate.

    For clarity sake on state oversight of FD training, I'm not discussing the state coming in and telling a department that they need to be trained in specialized stuff like technical rescue or hazmat response at the technician level. I'm talking about basic core services like actually being able to fight a fire because their personnel fighting fires have been trained to the industry standard for entry-level personnel who will be fighting fires.


  2. #202
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And those are the consequences that those departments will have to live with and deal with.

    Actually no LA, that isn't true at all. It is the poor dumb son of a Bitch that thought he was doing the right thing because his fire department made him believe he was, that pays the consequences, as well as his family, and the victims that they were unable to save. That cost is simply too high...

    That is the downside of allowing department leadership to set it's own training and performance standards. But the key here is that they made that choice.

    So it's okay by you to hurt and possibly kill firefighters and citizens because a chief chose to have little or no training for his firefighters? That really is what you are saying here, whether you want to actually say those words or not.

    Fire department leadership ain't easy. When you decide you want to be Chief ya better put on your big boy pants. I beleive that deciding what direction YOUR department will go in terms of training is one of the responsibilities of being Chief, and yes, those decisions, like any decisions, can have downsides and consequences, but that being said, any department should have the right to determine the level of service it will provide and the training levels it will set as the expectation for it's members as compared to having that dictated by the state.

    Being a Chief means doing what is RIGHT. Not doing what is easy, or doing what it takes to be popular. It is an obligation to serve both your firefighters AND your citizens. Yes, indeed, put on your big boy pants and step up. Get your troops trained, get them better PPE, get them better equipment. Nope you can't do it all at once, but you can't get do at all if you accept that what is will always be. But then again your way of making excuses and saying poor baby you will never get better, certainly is easier than working for change.

    And every department will have to be grown up enough to understand the consequences of their decisions.

    That is just more nonsense and excuse making for saying "Yep, we suck, we know it, and people are going to lose all they own and will die, but we are okay with that."
    Just once show some human decency and shut the hell up.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  3. #203
    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 beleive that deciding what direction YOUR department will go in terms of training is one of the responsibilities of being Chief, and yes, those decisions, like any decisions, can have downsides and consequences, but that being said, any department should have the right to determine the level of service it will provide and the training levels it will set as the expectation for it's members as compared to having that dictated by the state.
    Although almost every states has it's own training and certification guidelines (or standards), most, if not all, are modeled after the NFPA recommendations for that particular topic or certification level. Additionally, an attempt to streamline all of this is the goal of organizations such as the ProBoard and IFSAC. The underlying theme here is attempting to establish a "baseline" level for what one could reasonably assume a firefighter, in any town in America, has been trained to and demonstrated proficiency in.

    Fire will injure and/or kill anyone regardless of age, ethnicity, competency, and/or etc. Furthermore, fire does not care if you are a career firefighter in the FDNY or a volunteer firefighter in rural Mississippi.

    Should every department have a right to pick and choose training topics for its members? I certainly believe that every FD has a duty to train it's members to meet the particular needs of their community. This is above and beyond any mandate, rule, regulation, and etc. that is established by your state (i.e. Firefighter I) or the Feds. Just because your department or state recommends that you be trained to at least the Firefighter I level does not mean your training stops there. Attaining Firefighter I merely means you've meet and "industry standard" by being trained to and certified at that level. In other words, you've demonstrated the ability to meet the minimum cognitive and physical requirements of that standard. Now you must learn and apply those skills to meet the needs of your specific community or response area.

    Will a firefighter in a small rural FD apply the basic knowledge he learned during is Firefighter I training about supplying a standpipe to feed a sprinkler system? Probably not. He may likely never apply that knowledge during his tenure with his FD if his response area consists only of manufactured homes and farmland. Does it make him a better firefighter? Absolutely. How can it not?

    When I went to rookie school, one of the training topics during the pump operations training phase was drafting water from a static water source. My department is fortunate in that every ounce of my city has fire hydrants. When I arrive at fire scene, I know that I will have a minimum of 90 PSI available from any hydrant I choose. So why do I need to know anything about drafting from a static water source? Short answer - "what if?" What if a water main break affects my part of town? What if a catastrophic failure somewhere in the water delivery system rendered my city (or part of it) without dependable water pressure for fire suppression? What if I answer a mutual aid run to a neighboring city where they do, in fact, draft water from pools or rivers on a regular basis? The "what ifs"? are never-ending.

    To assert that you only need to train to a level that only meets the knowledge of the runs you are most likely to respond to in your specific community at this specific moment in time is reckless and borders on being irresponsible. I agree that you should know hazards specific to your response area and be able to mitigate the runs you fortune of having the experience of answering but that is above and beyond meeting a baseline of minimum training that prepares you to reasonable function as a firefighter in a multitude of scenarios (even if some are unlikely).

    To put this into a different perspective, I am fairly certain every armed police officer in America knows how to use and maintain his firearm. Most will never fire a shot their entire career but they still must maintain that proficiency.
    Last edited by dfwfirefighter; 07-08-2012 at 11:24 AM.
    DFW



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

  4. #204
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    FireMedic...

    I think it's safe to say that we have each said enough on this topic.

    You favor a mandated training standard. I don't. You want to see fire departments scored in some fashion so that the public knows what they are capable of. I don't.

    But I'll make you a deal. When you can convince the majority of the volunteer - not career or combination - fire chiefs in my state that FFI is a good idea, I'll buy you a beer.

    Safe to say though, that will never be the case.
    Let's get rid of standards for all professions. Now I can practice medicine, since I played Operation when I was a kid. My son can be Green Beret since he got real good at Call to Duty.

    You are pathetic. What's worse is I fear you represent a demographic of the fire service. Given my experience with vollies in OC, I know your mindset isn't atypical.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #205
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,511

    Default

    You favor a mandated training standard. I don't. You want to see fire departments scored in some fashion so that the public knows what they are capable of. I don't.
    LAfirebafoon, I can actually see why you would be against the public knowing what you are capable of; if your citizens knew how completely incompetent you and your department are, I have a feeling they would boot the lot of you our and lock doors.
    I truly wonder if the rest of the vollie chiefs in Louisiana know how truly backwards, uneducated, incompetent, and redneck your statements are making them appear?
    scfire86 and Chenzo like this.
    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

  6. #206
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dfwfirefighter View Post
    Although almost every states has it's own training and certification guidelines (or standards), most, if not all, are modeled after the NFPA recommendations for that particular topic or certification level.

    Actually a study by the State of Indiana Fire Service Training several years ago found that the many states have no training requirement for volunteer personnel, and less than 10 require FFI. Most require a course ranging from 24-36 hours. LA has no training requirements for volunteer or career personnel.

    There are still several states that have no training requirements for career personnel.


    Additionally, an attempt to streamline all of this is the goal of organizations such as the ProBoard and IFSAC. The underlying theme here is attempting to establish a "baseline" level for what one could reasonably assume a firefighter, in any town in America, has been trained to and demonstrated proficiency in.

    That was the theory with FFI/FFII but it has been severely bastardized. Right now there is very little constancy from state to state. If there truly was a NATIONAL FFI class with the exact same number of hours in EVERY state, I may have slightly different feelings on FFI, but as it stands now, it's basically a load of crap.

    Fire will injure and/or kill anyone regardless of age, ethnicity, competency, and/or etc. Furthermore, fire does not care if you are a career firefighter in the FDNY or a volunteer firefighter in rural Mississippi.

    have no disagreements with this. however, the type of range of hazards that kill firefighters vary widely from Mississippi to NYC. The rural firefighter faces a limited and very defined - with solid preplanning - number of hazards, many of which are simply not addressed or addressed to a VERY limited extent in both FFI and FFII.

    That is why rural firefighters benefit from locally developed and designed training intended to discuss the fire issues they deal with, as compared to FFI which is more geared towards suburban and light urban departments.


    Should every department have a right to pick and choose training topics for its members? I certainly believe that every FD has a duty to train it's members to meet the particular needs of their community. This is above and beyond any mandate, rule, regulation, and etc. that is established by your state (i.e. Firefighter I) or the Feds. Just because your department or state recommends that you be trained to at least the Firefighter I level does not mean your training stops there. Attaining Firefighter I merely means you've meet and "industry standard" by being trained to and certified at that level. In other words, you've demonstrated the ability to meet the minimum cognitive and physical requirements of that standard. Now you must learn and apply those skills to meet the needs of your specific community or response area.

    And every local department can design training, including the use of selected relevant and applicable FFI/FFII training to develop those skills based on local needs, apparatus, tools and operations.

    My combo department has a basic Rookie Skill Sheet composed on relevant FFI AND FFII skils including foam and extrication that all new members must complete to get off probation. We have deleted FFI skills that do not apply to use including sprinklers, alarms and standpipes, and as I stated, added FFII skills that our rookies will use every day. That is type of relevant and applicable department-level training that I am talking about.

    If a member wants to take FFI, we teach the classes at my FD or pay for them at another department. And we reward them with extra points on the point check for each and every certification they obtain.

    My VFD utilizes the state 24-hour 1403 class plus an additional `8-hours of department developed materials and live fire training hours as our department certification level.


    Will a firefighter in a small rural FD apply the basic knowledge he learned during is Firefighter I training about supplying a standpipe to feed a sprinkler system? Probably not. He may likely never apply that knowledge during his tenure with his FD if his response area consists only of manufactured homes and farmland. Does it make him a better firefighter? Absolutely. How can it not?

    Never said it wouldn't, but teaching skills that they likely never use during the initial training makes no sense to me at all.

    Yes, teach it later as part of followup training, but to teach it during rookie training when it is unlikely they will ever use it makes no sense whatsoever.


    When I went to rookie school, one of the training topics during the pump operations training phase was drafting water from a static water source. My department is fortunate in that every ounce of my city has fire hydrants. When I arrive at fire scene, I know that I will have a minimum of 90 PSI available from any hydrant I choose. So why do I need to know anything about drafting from a static water source? Short answer - "what if?" What if a water main break affects my part of town? What if a catastrophic failure somewhere in the water delivery system rendered my city (or part of it) without dependable water pressure for fire suppression? What if I answer a mutual aid run to a neighboring city where they do, in fact, draft water from pools or rivers on a regular basis? The "what ifs"? are never-ending.

    Again, see above. Drafting should be a basic skill as again, a water system failure is always a possibility.

    To assert that you only need to train to a level that only meets the knowledge of the runs you are most likely to respond to in your specific community at this specific moment in time is reckless and borders on being irresponsible. I agree that you should know hazards specific to your response area and be able to mitigate the runs you fortune of having the experience of answering but that is above and beyond meeting a baseline of minimum training that prepares you to reasonable function as a firefighter in a multitude of scenarios (even if some are unlikely).

    To put this into a different perspective, I am fairly certain every armed police officer in America knows how to use and maintain his firearm. Most will never fire a shot their entire career but they still must maintain that proficiency.
    Disagree, but that's cool.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  7. #207
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    LAfirebafoon, I can actually see why you would be against the public knowing what you are capable of; if your citizens knew how completely incompetent you and your department are, I have a feeling they would boot the lot of you our and lock doors.
    I truly wonder if the rest of the vollie chiefs in Louisiana know how truly backwards, uneducated, incompetent, and redneck your statements are making them appear?
    Not going to comment on the first part as it's simply untrue.

    I know for a fact that most vollie Chiefs in this state would oppose FFI as a mandated training level. There would not be the needed training support from the state fire training agency, and the manpower losses that it would cause would be too significant.

    Chiefs down here understand that personnel need to be trained to do the job in their agency, not trained according to some inapplicable generic cookie cutter course.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  8. #208
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    That's why it is important to train personnel according to industry standards and certifications.

    I would agree if the industry standards were applicable and relevant to rural volunteer operations.

    As I have stated i agree that FFI could be relevant to a portion of the volunteer fire service - meduim density suburban departments with multi-story residences and commercial structures larger than the mom-and-pop rural store. I stated that my previous VFD and the other surrounding VFDs would be departments where large parts or the entire FFI cirriculum would be relevant.

    The fact is though the current FFI cirriculum is not in great part applicable to rural operations. Sure there are areas that apply to rursal ops, but much of it does not. No real discussion regarding rural building construction, especially the hazards of manufactured buildings and farm buildings. Limited discussion on rural water. Limited discussion on brush fire operations. I could go on.

    Again, develop a shorter, rural FFI class that address these issues and have it adopted as an "industry standard" and we can have a discussion. Until then, the "industry standard" has little relevance in the "industry" of rural fire operations.


    That would be fine if the consequences of those decisions only impacted the leadership of that department. For the most part, the membership of the department has the ability to elect new leadership if they are not happy with those decisions. Unfortunately, the citizens often don't have that opportunity given the fact that the vast majority of VFDs in this country are likely not municipally based , tax payer funded departments. As a private, often largely self-funded organization, the public often has very little ability to address issues in any definitive way since the department is essentially "judge and jury" on whether or not their own standards are appropriate.

    And as the community professionals, that's fine. If the community feels that the fire department is inadequate, and not willing to change, and is as you describe, independent, they have the right to go to the community government and demand change.

    For clarity sake on state oversight of FD training, I'm not discussing the state coming in and telling a department that they need to be trained in specialized stuff like technical rescue or hazmat response at the technician level. I'm talking about basic core services like actually being able to fight a fire because their personnel fighting fires have been trained to the industry standard for entry-level personnel who will be fighting fires.
    And I fully understand that.

    However, the basic operational stuff beyond safety and fire behavior are significantly different from community to community

    We have had this same discussion over and over. What the guys need in terms of variety of skills in the neighboring city is far more than the guys in my combo department need, which is far more than what the guys in my VFD need, which is far more what the guys in the next VFD up the line need,
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  9. #209
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Let's get rid of standards for all professions. Now I can practice medicine, since I played Operation when I was a kid. My son can be Green Beret since he got real good at Call to Duty.

    You are pathetic. What's worse is I fear you represent a demographic of the fire service. Given my experience with vollies in OC, I know your mindset isn't atypical.
    Ya that's exactly what I'm saying.

    Not.

    Do you have a reading comprehension issue?
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  10. #210
    Forum Member dfwfirefighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Actually a study by the State of Indiana Fire Service Training several years ago found that the many states have no training requirement for volunteer personnel, and less than 10 require FFI. Most require a course ranging from 24-36 hours. LA has no training requirements for volunteer or career personnel.

    There are still several states that have no training requirements for career personnel..
    Regardless of whether a firefighter is a career member of a big city FD, a part-time member of combination FD, or a volunteer firefighter, training cannot depend on whether you draw a paycheck from your services as a firefighter. You must be trained to at least a minimum level of proficiency to not endanger yourself, your fellow firefighters, or your community.

    Regardless of one's compensation status with their fire department, each member owes it to him/herself, his/her fellow firefighters, and his/her community to be trained to at least a minimum industry standard, i.e. Firefighter I, to equip themselves with a basic knowledge "set" to be able to draw upon as he/she gains experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    is why rural firefighters benefit from locally developed and designed training intended to discuss the fire issues they deal with, as compared to FFI which is more geared towards suburban and light urban departments.
    Firefighter I programs based on the NFPA 1001 guidelines provide a basic level of cognitive and physical training objectives that, once met or achieved, demonstrate a minimum level of proficiency, i.e. a "baseline" to further develop your skills based on your communities needs. This is regardless of whether your department responds in rural America or a "big-city" metropolis. Furthermore, neither the NFPA nor a fire cares if you are a volunteer, part-time, or career firefighter. Once this is achieved, your department, if it takes it's mission seriously, must train and prepare it's members for the hazards germane to it's response area to augment the basic skill sets you learned in your Firefighter I program.

    Unless there is a unique circumstance, a firefighter in Omaha, Nebraska will set an attic ladder in a fashion very similar to a firefighter in Elmo, Texas. "Where" you learn to set a ladder is in your Firefighter I training program.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    combo department has a basic Rookie Skill Sheet composed on relevant FFI AND FFII skils including foam and extrication that all new members must complete to get off probation. We have deleted FFI skills that do not apply to use including sprinklers, alarms and standpipes, and as I stated, added FFII skills that our rookies will use every day. That is type of relevant and applicable department-level training that I am talking about.
    If you are going through the efforts of blending a Firefighter I and Firefighter II training program into a hybrid (insert your department's name here) training program, why not save the hassle and headache of picking and choosing which skills are relevant and instead send them to a Firefighter I and Firefighter II training program. Not only will your members now meet an industry standard(s), you can now focus on augmenting this NFPA-based training with the very stuff you speak of: the things that are unique and specific to your organization's response area?

    As a side note, who picks and chooses which Firefighter I and Firefighter II skills are relevant and which ones are not? What makes that person qualified to make the determination as to what makes the cut and what doesn't? If that person is not certified to the Firefighter I and Firefighter II levels, how can that person manage something that they very likely do not understand enough to determine it's importance of in the first place? That will likely result in a family tree that does not fork - it just goes strait up. It is risky business to determine what part of an industry standard you will arbitrarily comply with.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    ...Never said it wouldn't, but teaching skills that they likely never use during the initial training makes no sense to me at all.
    Who said a particular skill has "never" been utilized? May you've never seen it utilized but I'd caution against saying "never" in the fire service. As far as "likely" goes, that is a fairly cyclic statement as well. As a side-note, the big green "Managing Fire Services" book states that planning only for the "likely" and not the "potential" is one of the biggest mistakes made in the fire service today.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    ...teach it later as part of followup training, but to teach it during rookie training when it is unlikely they will ever use it makes no sense whatsoever.
    Why not teach it now and refresh that skill with CE or in-service training? When I went to paramedic school, one of the skills we had to learn was a pretty rare one - needle cricorthrotomy. We were even told "this will likely be a skill you never have the opportunity to use, but when you need to do it, you must do it correctly". My instructor was correct. During my tenure in the rank of firefighter/paramedic, I never once had the opportunity to utilize it. Regardless, we had CE and recurrent training on it every year.
    Last edited by dfwfirefighter; 07-08-2012 at 06:07 PM.
    DFW



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

  11. #211
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dfwfirefighter View Post
    Regardless of whether a firefighter is a career member of a big city FD, a part-time member of combination FD, or a volunteer firefighter, training cannot depend on whether you draw a paycheck from your services as a firefighter. You must be trained to at least a minimum level of proficiency to not endanger yourself, your fellow firefighters, or your community.

    Regardless of one's compensation status with their fire department, each member owes it to him/herself, his/her fellow firefighters, and his/her community to be trained to at least a minimum industry standard, i.e. Firefighter I, to equip themselves with a basic knowledge "set" to be able to draw upon as he/she gains experience.

    I fully agree that a firefighter irregardless of pay status, needs to be trained to a minimum standard.
    The discussion here is exactly what should that standard be and who should set it.

    I feel it should be set by the department and not set by the state.

    As an example my previous VFD had a 50-hour class that was required to be completed before a member could respond. It worked extremly well and covered what we defined as the basic skills needed for most residential firefighting operations within our district. Additional residential and commercial skills were learned in weekly training and through run experience. The skills were based on FFI and testing according to FFI standards.

    My current department uses a skills checklist utilizing applicable and relevant FFI and FFII skills that is completed during the weekly training process. As they demonstrate the skills they are checked off. Again, the skills are selected based on the relevancy to our operations.

    And again, it works very well.

    If a member wants to expand their skills and knowledge base, we teach FFI and FFII. We teach and pay for other certification classes.

    That is exactly the way initial training, IMO, should be patterned. Locally based. Locally designed. Locally delivered.

    I simply disagree that FFI needs to be the minimum skill set for rural volunteers. if they wish to choose that for their department, that's fine.


    Firefighter I programs based on the NFPA 1001 guidelines provide a basic level of cognitive and physical training objectives that, once met or achieved, demonstrate a minimum level of proficiency, i.e. a "baseline" to further develop your skills based on your communities needs.

    Yes, it develops a baseline. the problem is much of that baseline is simply not needed in rural departments. Adult learners only respond to relevant training. Discussing forcible entry operations, tools, sprinklers, standpipes, alarm systems and hydrant systems that do not apply yo them will only cause them to tune out as they will not perceive it as relevant, which in the long run will actually have a negative affect on training.

    I agree that they need baseline training. I contention is that FFI is not relevant and applicable baseline training for the rural enviroment.


    This is regardless of whether your department responds in rural America or a "big-city" metropolis. Furthermore, neither the NFPA nor a fire cares if you are a volunteer, part-time, or career firefighter. Once this is achieved, your department, if it takes it's mission seriously, must train and prepare it's members for the hazards germane to it's response area to augment the basic skill sets you learned in your Firefighter I program.

    NFPA is not a requirement. it cannot force you to do anything unless your state as adopted it as such, and there are VERY few states that have done that.

    As I stated earlier, there are no minimum training requirements in LA for career or volunteer staff Departments are free to have no requirements or set their own, and they can be FFI or in-house.

    I have discussed a rural FFI program, and if such a beats existed, i may be more inclined to agree with you, but as FFI currently stands, it's application in the rural community has limited value.


    Unless there is a unique circumstance, a firefighter in Omaha, Nebraska will set an attic ladder in a fashion very similar to a firefighter in Elmo, Texas. "Where" you learn to set a ladder is in your Firefighter I training program.

    Funny you mention Elmo as we had a very serious wreck on I-20 just the other day with 1 DOA, 2 critical and 2 serious, and the first members on scene were 2 personnel from Elmo Fire headed to MS to pick up a truck. Are you from that area?

    Back on topic though ... I fully agree that a ladder will likely be set in the same way in most places, though I have seen some local variations. Here is my point though ... Up until a few years ago we had very few 2-story homes in our area, and there was simply no need to teach a raise to a second story window as part of initial training as it simply was likely never going to have to be done. We have added that as a skill to our basic program as now we are seeing a few more as more new homes on smaller lots are being built. It is still going to occur rarely, and likely most of our guys will never have to perform it, but we did add it.

    It's simply a fact that many. many communities will never have a reason to perform many of the skills in FFI. If it becomes something they need to work on, they can simply add it to their curriculum when the day arrives. We carry a 35', but never train on it. Why? Because we simply have no structures that require it as we can easily reach the roofs of all of our commercial buildings with the 24'.

    Develop a local training program off FFI based on the skills you need. If you need to throw a 35'. make it part of the program, as an example. If you don't, concentrate on the skills you need in your department.[/COLOR]


    If you are going through the efforts of blending a Firefighter I and Firefighter II training program into a hybrid (insert your department's name here) training program, why not save the hassle and headache of picking and choosing which skills are relevant and instead send them to a Firefighter I and Firefighter II training program. Not only will your members now meet an industry standard(s), you can now focus on augmenting this NFPA-based training with the very stuff you speak of: the things that are unique and specific to your organization's response area?

    Because that involves sending them a class where time will be spent on skills they do not need, and that's the issue. Volunteers have a finite amount of time for training, and we have a responsibility to make the best use of that time. Training them on skills they likely will never use does not meet that goal.

    Funny thing is they can still be excellent firefighters.In fact they will be better because they will know what they need to know to operate in the district.

    As a side note, who picks and chooses which Firefighter I and Firefighter II skills are relevant and which ones are not? What makes that person qualified to make the determination as to what makes the cut and what doesn't? If that person is not certified to the Firefighter I and Firefighter II levels, how can that person manage something that they very likely do not understand enough to determine it's importance of in the first place? That will likely result in a family tree that does not fork - it just goes strait up. It is risky business to determine what part of an industry standard you will arbitrarily comply with.



    Who said a particular skill has "never" been utilized? May you've never seen it utilized but I'd caution against saying "never" in the fire service. As far as "likely" goes, that is a fairly cyclic statement as well. As a side-note, the big green "Managing Fire Services" book states that planning only for the "likely" and not the "potential" is one of the biggest mistakes made in the fire service today.

    [COLOR="#FF0000"]We know exactly who and who not we may run mutual aid with, and as such, we can scope out the structures we will lieky will be operating in.

    If we are tasked for disaster deployment, only FFI certified personnel and above members are eligible.[/COLOR]

    Why not teach it now and refresh that skill with CE or in-service training? When I went to paramedic school, one of the skills we had to learn was a pretty rare one - needle cricorthrotomy. We were even told "this will likely be a skill you never have the opportunity to use, but when you need to do it, you must do it correctly". My instructor was correct. During my tenure in the rank of firefighter/paramedic, I never once had the opportunity to utilize it. Regardless, we had CE and recurrent training on it every year.
    And the issue again becomes time. Volunteers have a fi nite amount of time both for initial and continuing training. I beleive teaching what is relevant and applicable as it meets the volunteer availability. Sure, I'd like to be able to teach more but that is simply not realistic and never will be.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  12. #212
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Ya that's exactly what I'm saying.
    The only honest thing you've said in a while.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Not.
    Your words show otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Do you have a reading comprehension issue?
    No, do you have a memory problem?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #213
    Forum Member Miller337's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Albert Einstein, truly a very smart guy, once made this statement. Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    Every day you guys rail and wail at LAFIRE and expect different results and then become horrified that LAFIRE still don't get it. I'm fairly confident that LAFIRE has some serious issues. Actually I believe he is either a sociopath or the best poser/troll ever but it is the rest of you which I think pointing out the blatently obvious may be of some use.
    LAFire IS B@T**** CRAZY BUT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO WIND UP IN THE SAME RUBBER ROOM WITH HIM IF YOU KEEP THIS UP!!!!

  14. #214
    Forum Member dfwfirefighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    If a member wants to expand their skills and knowledge base, we teach FFI and FFII.
    I do not envy your training officer - liability-wise or time-wise. Again, arbitrarily choosing which part of an industry standard you (or your organization) will comply with is a very dangerous position to be in.

    I know you mentioned time and I can certainly appreciate the "time" aspect of someone who volunteers his/her time and receives no tangible "payment" for it. However, that being said, fire will kill you dead on the spot regardless of your "personal" situation. Fire does not care if you are black or white, male or female, career or volunteer, or a rookie or a veteran. Training and experience are the equalizers. For a low-volume organization, training is where you are allowed to try "catch up" in the area you don't have the luxury of augmenting with experience. When someone is injured, or worse yet - killed, at an emergency scene, one of the first things that will be looked and scrutinized is your training records. A "home-grown", "because so-and-so thought this was important and that wasn't" training program will be shredded to pieces during litigation. Do we train to prevent litigation? Not directly. We train to keep our people alive and to provide the best possible level of service we can (which, directly and indirectly prevents litigation). The best way to demonstrate the quality of training is completion and certification to industry standards. In our case, that "standard" is NFPA 1001.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Yes, it develops a baseline. the problem is much of that baseline is simply not needed in rural departments. Adult learners only respond to relevant training. Discussing forcible entry operations, tools, sprinklers, standpipes, alarm systems and hydrant systems that do not apply yo them will only cause them to tune out as they will not perceive it as relevant, which in the long run will actually have a negative affect on training.
    If your "adult learners" don't respond to training, then they (and you) need to seriously reconsider their motives for being there in the first place. Life is full of the fun and not so fun stuff. I hate sitting down and paying bills twice a month. I do however because I don't want my car repo'ed, my electricity shut off, my cell phone disconnected, or a bill collector calling me at dinner time. The same goes for training for something as crucial as skills in knowledge to safely and effectively function as a firefighter. If someone with a very low skill set (i.e. rookie member) or tenured person with marginal levels of training does not perceive basic firefighter skills such as the ones you listed to be relevant, they should endeavor to offer their "services" elsewhere - maybe the library or at the parking mowing the yard.

    I cut my teeth in the fire service in a small combination FD. I worked part-time in a small, all volunteer rural FD. Part of that employment required me to train any member who had an interest. I loved doing that because it provided me the opportunity to impart some of the knowledge I've gained along the way and hopefully, allow others to benefit from it. One day, one of the members showed up and said, "hey man... I want to learn how to drive that there fire engine". I replied that I'd be more than happy to do so. We sat down and discussed what he know (and didn't know). It became apparent that he knew absolutely nothing about pumping operations. I developed a training outline for him to show him how we'd progress towards getting him to meet his goal. I issued him the IFSTA Pumping Apparatus red book from the department's training library and told him that we'd go through it cover to cover and I'd pace it to meet his needs. He thumbed through it quickly and set it down. He then asked, "well... uh... when do we get to start driving and practicing blowing the siren?" I replied that the actual driving portion would be the final part of his training because he had no reason to drive that (or any) apparatus if he couldn't operate it and all of the equipment onboard it. In summary, the guy wanted to be able to ride around town on weekends in the fire engine so all of his friends could see him in it. He had absolutely no interest in responding to emergency scenes - it was all for "show".

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I agree that they need baseline training. I contention is that FFI is not relevant and applicable baseline training for the rural environment.
    If your members do not engage in any form of fire suppression, hazmat response, or EMS care, then I'd agree your folks do not need to be trained to the industry standard baseline of Firefighter I. Typically these folks are called "citizens" or "bystanders" and must be kept clear of emergency scene activities and typically found on the "other" side of the FIRE LINE - DO NOT CROSS barrier tape.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    ...your Firefighter I program
    ...which is based on the NFPA 1001 "industry standard".

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Its simply a fact that many. many communities will never have a reason to perform many of the skills in FFI. If it becomes something they need to work on, they can simply add it to their curriculum when the day arrives. We carry a 35', but never train on it. Why? Because we simply have no structures that require it as we can easily reach the roofs of all of our commercial buildings with the 24'.
    What do you base this "fact" on? I'll agree that some skills are infrequently used but that is the reason you make a specific, deliberate effort to train on it (in your case, the 35' ladder) so that when you need it, you will be able to utilize it for it's intended purpose without injuring yourself, your fellow members, and/or the public.

    By the way, if you don't ever use it or train on it, why do you even carry it? I know NFPA 1901 requires specific equipment to be carried on fire apparatus but since you are arbitrarily picking and choosing which rules to follow regarding training, why not do the same for your apparatus and equipment?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    If we are tasked for disaster deployment, only FFI certified personnel and above members are eligible.
    So some folks in your organization are certified at the Firefighter I level? I bet your training officer drinks heavily and takes several aspirin every day. A stream-lined training program that followed industry standards (i.e. NFPA 1001) would make things alot easier for you. By the way, why are some folks certified at the Firefighter I level if your department produces qualified, non-NFPA 1001 compliant members?
    DFW



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

  15. #215
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    AL
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cmattdvc View Post
    I agree with this statement.

    La-

    "only the fact that volunteers and career EMS providers are held to the same training standards, which you agree with, but feel that volunteers and career firefighters (of equal "rank" or "role") should not be held to the same standards"


    Please address the question above, or just explaing to me how a volunteer Paramedic is able to make time for a min. standard of training and then a certain level of con. ed. thoughout the year, but a volunteer firefighter is not capable to accomplish a level of "mandated" training.

    Please do not confuse the issue of what the training topic is, just why one group of people is able to accomplish the training and the other is not. Again, the topic is not relevant.

    Matt


    La,

    I'm wondering if maybe you've missed the above post?

    Matt
    slackjawedyokel likes this.

  16. #216
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miller337 View Post
    Albert Einstein, truly a very smart guy, once made this statement. Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    Every day you guys rail and wail at LAFIRE and expect different results and then become horrified that LAFIRE still don't get it.
    Who says we're expecting different results?
    Chenzo likes this.

  17. #217
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cmattdvc View Post
    La,

    I'm wondering if maybe you've missed the above post?

    Matt
    Probably just avoiding answering it. He does that a lot on here.
    slackjawedyokel likes this.

  18. #218
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cmattdvc View Post
    La,

    I'm wondering if maybe you've missed the above post?

    Matt
    No, I didn't miss it.

    If you wish to hold career and volunteer members to the same standard, have at it.

    Personally, I feel that it's not fair to hold one group that has non-firefighting full-time employment to the same standard as a group that is paid to, in many cases attend an academy for initial training and then to train while on duty at the fire department, which is their primary employment.

    Yes, volunteers need to be held to reasonable standards that allow them to function at an acceptable level, but not at the same level as career personnel.

    Every member has a differing level of drive. Every member has a differing amount of time to commit. Every member has differing home circumstances. As a department you develop a reasonable level of required training. Some will make it. Some will excel. And some will fall short.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 07-08-2012 at 09:47 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  19. #219
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    No, I didn't miss it.

    If you wish to hold career and volunteer members to the same standard, have at it.

    Personally, I feel that it's not fair to hold one group that has non-firefighting full-time employment to the same standard as a group that is paid to, in many cases attend an academy for initial training and then to train while on duty at the fire department, which is their primary employment.

    Yes, volunteers need to be held to reasonable standards that allow them to function at an acceptable level, but not at the same level as career personnel.
    FF1 is not unreasonable. It is not a long course. Frankly, if someone can't find a 3 hour block one night a week to complete FF1 I question there dedication to being a firefighter.

    So since my POC FFs on both of the FDs I am on get paid to train they should go to a five day a week academy?
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  20. #220
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    No, I didn't miss it.
    Since you never saw it, there is no way you could miss it.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    If you wish to hold career and volunteer members to the same standard, have at it.
    As it should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Personally, I feel that it's not fair to hold one group that has non-firefighting full-time employment to the same standard as a group that is paid to, in many cases attend an academy for initial training and then to train while on duty at the fire department, which is their primary employment.
    And that is why you and your department are jokes.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Yes, volunteers need to be held to reasonable standards that allow them to function at an acceptable level, but not at the same level as career personnel.
    The reasonable standard being the same as professionals.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Every member has a differing level of drive. Every member has a differing amount of time to commit. Every member has differing home circumstances. As a department you develop a reasonable level of required training. Some will make it. Some will excel. And some will fall short.
    Those not meeting the standards of professionals should be let go. They won't be missed.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

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