Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAVEOURVOLUNTEERFIREFIGHTERS .ORG Establishes Straight Talk Website

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And we also covered a station with another company.

    We did all this while having 8 volunteers working a wildland fire in another part of our parish.

    Pretty scary that a bunch of dumb volunteers could handle all that at once, huh?

    The really scary part was that we still had 8 or 9 standing by for calls in our area.
    According to you. All we have is your word for it. Which doesn't mean much.

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And that's the key point in the discussion. Your department appears to define a "fully trained" firefighter as someone who may only posses basic, entry level training. However, that is clearly not what a "fully trained" firefighter actually is or should be.

    So then, exactly what is fully trained. FFII? Driver/Operator? Technical rescue skills? Which ones?

    Fully trained is defined by the department unless there are specific state standards. and even then, one could debate that a specific skill may be needed in a specific department based on local conditions to be "fully trained".

    We define our initial training as fully trained. Training beyond that is advanced, optional training.
    Hence the importance of those pesky certification things.

    Sorry, but nobody without a good bit of prior experience will be "very well prepared" to be a (interior capable) firefighter after only 60 hours of training.

    Fully disagree as the system there has worked for well over 25 years, and is now the training standard for 4, not only my previous, departments.
    Your system may be working according to "local standards", but how does it compare to industry standard?

    If you think 60 hours is enough time to create a "very well prepared" interior capable firefighter out of someone with no experience, then we clearly don't share the same definition of what being "very well prepared" is.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    A scary proposition.

    Thanks for the heads up.
    And we also covered a station with another company.

    We did all this while having 8 volunteers working a wildland fire in another part of our parish.

    Pretty scary that a bunch of dumb volunteers could handle all that at once, huh?

    The really scary part was that we still had 8 or 9 standing by for calls in our area.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    We run mutual aid all the time.

    In fact yesterday we responded mutual aid into the city for a residential structure fire.
    A scary proposition.

    Thanks for the heads up.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    All of them. Even the ones you don't deem necessary because of your fire problem.

    I'm sure they will never asked to respond to a locale other than their own given their limited skillset.
    We run mutual aid all the time.

    In fact yesterday we responded mutual aid into the city for a residential structure fire.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by L-Webb View Post
    What was that in the road a pile of trash?
    Yes.

    The dumped the garbage truck's load on the highway when it caught fire. They then had the garbage truck owner bring a loader to the scene to deal with the pile.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So then, exactly what is fully trained. FFII? Driver/Operator? Technical rescue skills? Which ones?
    All of them. Even the ones you don't deem necessary because of your fire problem.

    I'm sure they will never asked to respond to a locale other than their own given their limited skillset.

    Leave a comment:


  • L-Webb
    replied
    What was that in the road a pile of trash?

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    One of your members is killed or seriously injured, and NIOSH shows up to investigate. Are you expecting that your "initial training program" is going to hold any weight at all? Are you using third-party validated tests? Are you testing at all? How about a lesson plan, do your instructors teach from a lesson plan for each class, or simply spouting instruction from the top of their head?

    There is a difference between qualification and certification, without a doubt. But there's also a reason that fire service professionals (career or volunteer) seek out certification, it adds validity to their training.

    The fact that you have non-firefighter I personnel making interior attack baffles me.
    NIOSH requires that firefighters meet state training standards. In LA there is no training standard for career or volunteer firefighters. We easily exceed the standard.

    Yes, we test. Yes, we follow IFSAC lesson plans with the exception of the areas we have chosen not to cover. There is cognitive material we do not require.

    This training system has been around fora very long time and in the eyes of the department, it works for us. I agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    And that's the key point in the discussion. Your department appears to define a "fully trained" firefighter as someone who may only posses basic, entry level training. However, that is clearly not what a "fully trained" firefighter actually is or should be.

    So then, exactly what is fully trained. FFII? Driver/Operator? Technical rescue skills? Which ones?

    Fully trained is defined by the department unless there are specific state standards. and even then, one could debate that a specific skill may be needed in a specific department based on local conditions to be "fully trained".

    We define our initial training as fully trained. Training beyond that is advanced, optional training.

    Sorry, but nobody without a good bit of prior experience will be "very well prepared" to be a (interior capable) firefighter after only 60 hours of training.

    Fully disagree as the system there has worked for well over 25 years, and is now the training standard for 4, not only my previous, departments.

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    My point has always been is to say that the member that chooses to stay at that level is not fully trained, simply because he she has made the choice not to further his/her training by becoming certified is not accurate within our department. That member has been deemed fully qualified to operate as a firefighter in our department when they complete initial training, and FFI will give them no additional skills or knowledge that they are likely to use in our community utilizing our equipment under our SOPs.
    And that's the key point in the discussion. Your department appears to define a "fully trained" firefighter as someone who may only posses basic, entry level training. However, that is clearly not what a "fully trained" firefighter actually is or should be.

    There are many volunteer departments that do not require certification but have excellent initial and/or continuing training programs that fully prepare their members for operations within their areas. My previous department was another example of just such a situation where no certifications were required but the members were very well prepared upon completion of the 60-hour rookie program.
    Sorry, but nobody without a good bit of prior experience will be "very well prepared" to be a (interior capable) firefighter after only 60 hours of training.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by Acklan View Post
    LaFireEducator did you say you are with South Bossier Fire Dept? In the 5th picture in the following link it looks like you had a fire on the second floor of a residential structure. Did you not say elsewhere, on this forum, you did not need to train your FFs on second story ladder ops because you simply do not have 2 story structures in your district?

    http://www.southbossierfire.com/
    Nope, not with South Bossier.

    We are very similar to South Bossier in terms of housing stock. I never stated we didn't have any 2-story residences. I stated we have very few, which is also the case in South Bossier's area.

    By the way, that photo was not a 2-story home. The window you see is an elevated window at the top of an over-height entryway. That's quite common here.

    I never made the statement we don't train on it. I did make the statement it's not part of our initial skill package but is covered during weekly training as an advanced skill.

    And as I have stated before, 2nd story ladder operations have been integrated into weekly department training because we are seeing more 2-story residences being built within the district as land has become more expensive and smaller lots are now the norm.. As I have also stated before, the department feels we currently do not have enough 2-story structures to integrate it into the initial training program as a basic skill in our area, but there is talk of that changing if the growth continues as it has.

    That being said, there are enough members with FFI with that skill that if the need arises, there will be personnel who can perform it.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 10-03-2010, 10:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Acklan
    replied
    LaFireEducator did you say you are with South Bossier Fire Dept? In the 5th picture in the following link it looks like you had a fire on the second floor of a residential structure. Did you not say elsewhere, on this forum, you did not need to train your FFs on second story ladder ops because you simply do not have 2 story structures in your district?

    http://www.southbossierfire.com/

    Leave a comment:


  • BoxAlarm187
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Show me exactly where I have railed against certification. I have simply stated that FFI is not needed to operate as a fully qualified firefighter in our department due to our initial training program.
    One of your members is killed or seriously injured, and NIOSH shows up to investigate. Are you expecting that your "initial training program" is going to hold any weight at all? Are you using third-party validated tests? Are you testing at all? How about a lesson plan, do your instructors teach from a lesson plan for each class, or simply spouting instruction from the top of their head?

    There is a difference between qualification and certification, without a doubt. But there's also a reason that fire service professionals (career or volunteer) seek out certification, it adds validity to their training.

    The fact that you have non-firefighter I personnel making interior attack baffles me.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Show me exactly where I have railed against certification. I have simply stated that FFI is not needed to operate as a fully qualified firefighter in our department due to our initial training program.
    Which is why vollies shouldn't be considered vollies.

    By your definition, a child throwing a cup of water during the incipient stage is a firefighter.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X