FF1 revisions

[Danger 160]

I love the commitment to mediocrity. Commit to training as much as you commit to excuses and everyone will pass.

[Bnechis 3,961]

1) Just remember there are probably more exterior/support personnel are and were regular firefighters before they had to hang up there scba the way some make it sound they are not firefighters.

2) It was added about hospitals you're right not everyone is called a Dr but they are all health care workers. Just like not everyone in the fire service is an interior or wildland or whatever but we are all firefighters!

3) So get off you're high horse find real solutions for all of the fire service and the community's better requirements for every position in the fire service don't just write off the exterior like I said before a lot of them can't be interior anymore.

1) And that is big part of the problem. Their are depts. that no longer have any interior volunteers (or none some of the time), but they have plenty of exterior. Most will deny this, but if you fail to tell the community, its the #1 problem, because you are no longer a fire department. Do you know that the exterior members need the same couple hundred hours per year of training for ISO. If they have less, it hurts your rating and costs your property owners more money. This includes your 85 year old "members" who no longer respond, but if your rules classify them as "firefighters" ISO deducts points for all the training hours they do not get each year?

All those exterior members with $3,000 tax funded turnouts, has the public been told that's where their $$$ goes?

I am not saying their is not a role for exterior members, but their needs to be a measured response and you need 3 or 4 (or more) interior for every exterior member.

2) I am having chest pain, quick call me a health care worker....anyone, as they are all equal.

3) Not writing off exterior. You cant fix the problem till you admit their is a problem. We hear everyday departments toning out multiple times for available members, but they have no problem? We hear of room and content fires that require 5, 6, 7 departments for mutual aid just to get a dozen interior members. We also know of departments that still claim to have hundreds of members, but that's not what responds.

We need to stop thinking that we need to maintain 58 individual fire departments, when 95% can not handle a simple fire without mutual aid.

And finally we need ALL firefighters to support MORE training. As long as groups fight to prevent this we will never move forward.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I read one comment that stated each dept should be responsible for their own training. I agree.

Agreed they should be and this has been the law in NYS for over 30 years, but very few departments simply believe its OFPC & the counties responsibly

[Dinosaur 844]

You wear the pack on your back but if you're on air for this again you're a yard breather and are less of a ff then the exterior driver who has got tools out ready and ladders thrown to windows. But I forget there's no such thing as a need for support personnel everyone should be able to go interior so when guys get injured or they can't go interior they should be thrown out with the rest of the rejected that cannot be interior. Even though when properly cleared many of these categories can play a vital role in the outcome of a fire. We don't need anyone who can't be interior so we'll also have to start limiting age due to the number of 40 plus year old interior guy's dying from heart attacks. So with the age cut off those guy's on the job well oh well you can't be a driver because you don't belong interior so thanks for being here 20yrs have a nice day don't have to go home but can't stay here.

Yes the requirements for some one becoming and staying interior needed updating. Just remember there are probably more exterior/support personnel are and were regular firefighters before they had to hang up there scba the way some make it sound they are not firefighters. It was added about hospitals you're right not everyone is called a Dr but they are all health care workers. Just like not everyone in the fire service is an interior or wildland or whatever but we are all firefighters! So get off you're high horse find real solutions for all of the fire service and the community's better requirements for every position in the fire service don't just write off the exterior like I said before a lot of them can't be interior anymore.

So let me see if I get your position, everyone in the fire department is equal and rightfully called firefighter regardless of their training and capabilities? Does this include the fire police and ladies auxiliary?

If you want to discuss fitness and risk of heart attacks, the issue isn't an age restriction but rather a fitness requirement. Something that I'm sure 95% of all volunteer FD's would oppose, even those who give their members free or discounted memberships at the local fitness club or have big gyms right in the firehouse.

This is only an issue in this part of the country. I was out west in September and my friends in FD's out there laugh when I describe the set-up we have here. They have one training standard for career and volunteer, run mostly combination departments at the county level, and don't bicker like we do here. Why don't they bicker? Because they're all trained to the same standard - interior, I might add - so they don't have the rift between career and volunteer that we have over training and qualifications. Every firefighter is trained the same so one day you might be packed up and inside and the next day you might be laddering the building, stretching hose, etc. They simply don't have the nonsense that we do.

Calling everyone who works in the hospital a healthcare worker is like calling everyone who works at an airport a pilot. Simply not true. You wouldn't want someone with first aid training doing your surgery would you?

And why do people hang up their SCBA but stay in the fire department? Is it perhaps to continue building points toward a pension?

[FireMedic049 597]

You wear the pack on your back but if you're on air for this again you're a yard breather and are less of a ff then the exterior driver who has got tools out ready and ladders thrown to windows. But I forget there's no such thing as a need for support personnel everyone should be able to go interior so when guys get injured or they can't go interior they should be thrown out with the rest of the rejected that cannot be interior. Even though when properly cleared many of these categories can play a vital role in the outcome of a fire. We don't need anyone who can't be interior so we'll also have to start limiting age due to the number of 40 plus year old interior guy's dying from heart attacks. So with the age cut off those guy's on the job well oh well you can't be a driver because you don't belong interior so thanks for being here 20yrs have a nice day don't have to go home but can't stay here.

I can't say for certain what the rationale for why the test is what is going to be, but I'm pretty sure you're missing the point. It's likely not intended to be a direct correlation to how things are performed on the fire ground, but rather aimed at evaluating the person's general fitness, ability to perform physically demanding tasks for a period of time, ability to operate while using SCBA and control their breathing.

Sure, some people will take the hardline stance of everyone being able to do everything, but the reality of the volunteer fire service in many places makes that not practical. Nobody is really saying that there isn't a role for those not capable of going interior.

Yes the requirements for some one becoming and staying interior needed updating. Just remember there are probably more exterior/support personnel are and were regular firefighters before they had to hang up there scba the way some make it sound they are not firefighters. The issue regarding the term is not about the ones that used to do the job (as in the whole job), but have now hung up their SCBA as you put it. It has more to do with the ones coming in and trying to portray themselves as firefighters, but not really putting in the work to earn that title. It's also about being honest with the community about what you can do as a department. Exterior guys can be an asset, but interior guys are a much bigger asset and the focus needs to be on making sure you have enough of them when the call comes and owning up to the fact that you don't when that's the case.

It was added about hospitals you're right not everyone is called a Dr but they are all health care workers. Just like not everyone in the fire service is an interior or wildland or whatever but we are all firefighters! You apparently missed the point I was making. All of a hospital's employees may be working in a healthcare facility, but not everyone is actually a healthcare worker. People actually providing medical care or doing procedures like X-rays, CT scans and such are healthcare workers. The people working in the cafeteria, cleaning the hospital, registering patients and performing other support services, while important members of the team, are not actually healthcare workers.

So get off you're high horse find real solutions for all of the fire service and the community's better requirements for every position in the fire service don't just write off the exterior like I said before a lot of them can't be interior anymore. Just because you subscribe to a lower standard, doesn't mean that I'm on that high horse. Even if I am, I don't need to get off of it to find those real solutions. It also doesn't mean that I don't already have solutions or that you'll like those solutions. For the most part, nobody is talking about writing them off.

[FD7807 59]

So let me see if I get your position, everyone in the fire department is equal and rightfully called firefighter regardless of their training and capabilities? Does this include the fire police and ladies auxiliary?

If you want to discuss fitness and risk of heart attacks, the issue isn't an age restriction but rather a fitness requirement. Something that I'm sure 95% of all volunteer FD's would oppose, even those who give their members free or discounted memberships at the local fitness club or have big gyms right in the firehouse.

This is only an issue in this part of the country. I was out west in September and my friends in FD's out there laugh when I describe the set-up we have here. They have one training standard for career and volunteer, run mostly combination departments at the county level, and don't bicker like we do here. Why don't they bicker? Because they're all trained to the same standard - interior, I might add - so they don't have the rift between career and volunteer that we have over training and qualifications. Every firefighter is trained the same so one day you might be packed up and inside and the next day you might be laddering the building, stretching hose, etc. They simply don't have the nonsense that we do.

Calling everyone who works in the hospital a healthcare worker is like calling everyone who works at an airport a pilot. Simply not true. You wouldn't want someone with first aid training doing your surgery would you?

And why do people hang up their SCBA but stay in the fire department? Is it perhaps to continue building points toward a pension?

So they take all the same training and have all thesame qualifications while working in the same house and one group gets paid and the other group doesnt get paid to do the exact same job and tbey dont bicker ? Yeah ok. The very setup of that is a resentment waiting to happen.

Edited November 30, 2014 by FD7807

[38ff 250]

I'm not in Erie County, but this is the best description of the changes to FF 1 I have seen so far and why. I don't know when this was published, nor if this is the basis for the "new" FF1 classes in 2015.

http://www2.erie.gov/fire/sites/www2.erie.gov.fire/files/MEMO-2014%20FF1%20DELIVERY%20RE-DESIGN-140129_0.pdf

Edited November 30, 2014 by 38ff

[Bnechis 3,961]

I'm not in Erie County, but this is the best description of the changes to FF 1 I have seen so far and why. I don't know when this was published, nor if this is the basis for the "new" FF1 classes in 2015.

http://www2.erie.gov/fire/sites/www2.erie.gov.fire/files/MEMO-2014%20FF1%20DELIVERY%20RE-DESIGN-140129_0.pdf

This appears to be from last year and in use during this year. Note the 91 hour program.

[ex-commish 490]

So let me see if I get your position, everyone in the fire department is equal and rightfully called firefighter regardless of their training and capabilities? Does this include the fire police and ladies auxiliary?

If you want to discuss fitness and risk of heart attacks, the issue isn't an age restriction but rather a fitness requirement. Something that I'm sure 95% of all volunteer FD's would oppose, even those who give their members free or discounted memberships at the local fitness club or have big gyms right in the firehouse.

This is only an issue in this part of the country. I was out west in September and my friends in FD's out there laugh when I describe the set-up we have here. They have one training standard for career and volunteer, run mostly combination departments at the county level, and don't bicker like we do here. Why don't they bicker? Because they're all trained to the same standard - interior, I might add - so they don't have the rift between career and volunteer that we have over training and qualifications. Every firefighter is trained the same so one day you might be packed up and inside and the next day you might be laddering the building, stretching hose, etc. They simply don't have the nonsense that we do.

Calling everyone who works in the hospital a healthcare worker is like calling everyone who works at an airport a pilot. Simply not true. You wouldn't want someone with first aid training doing your surgery would you?

And why do people hang up their SCBA but stay in the fire department? Is it perhaps to continue building points toward a pension?

Why? Because there are many such as myself who for health reasons can not wear a mask but can perform most of the other duties that need to be done. I speak for myself when I say the pension program is not my motive for staying. You hands down win the training argument and bring up some very good points. It is what it is. There is clearly a different standard unlike other states but as far as fitness this is a problem both in career and volunteer departments more so in volunteer departments I taught at the training center for many years and have seen guys on both sides of the fence with weight issues. Lets work to fix that.

[Dinosaur 844]

So they take all the same training and have all thesame qualifications while working in the same house and one group gets paid and the other group doesnt get paid to do the exact same job and tbey dont bicker ? Yeah ok. The very setup of that is a resentment waiting to happen.

Spoken like a true NY volunteer. Of course there's bickering but it's bickering not unlike what you'd find within any firehouse. There is no resentment or divisiveness because that's not part of THEIR culture!

What's there to resent if everyone has the same training?

[Bottom of Da Hill 76]

how come in rockland county they dont have these problems ?bickering and resentment divisiveness? why only in westchester ?

[Bnechis 3,961]

how come in rockland county they dont have these problems ?bickering and resentment divisiveness? why only in westchester ?

Because they have only one standard

[FD7807 59]

Spoken like a true NY volunteer. Of course there's bickering but it's bickering not unlike what you'd find within any firehouse. There is no resentment or divisiveness because that's not part of THEIR culture!

What's there to resent if everyone has the same training?

Um I dont know the fact that some get paid fordoing yhe same job in the same house with the same training. And if your definition of a "typical NY Volunteer" is a parade going; out of shape; untrained moron who complains about paid guys yhen im mot a typical NY volunteer. I call it like I see it. That doesnt make me typical it makes me atypical

[SageVigiles 1,194]

So they take all the same training and have all thesame qualifications while working in the same house and one group gets paid and the other group doesnt get paid to do the exact same job and tbey dont bicker ? Yeah ok. The very setup of that is a resentment waiting to happen.

Not really. As I have found running down in PG County, when everyone meets the same basic standards there's only one way to judge the caliber of firefighters: based on the merits of your abilities and whether you can keep the rigs staffed, not on whether you're paid or vollie.

Go experience how other places do it, and you'll pound your head against the wall when you return to the antiquated ways of the northeast. Not to say that PGFD is the be-all, end-all, we have plenty of problems too. But we get rigs on the road with certified Firefighters and Fire Officers, and fires go out. And other than the patch on our arm there's no way you can tell the difference between career and volunteer.

[Bottom of Da Hill 76]

Because they have only one standard

is that all they have?

[Morningjoe 162]

is that all they have?

There is not one civil service paid firefighter in Rockland county. So, the volunteer standard is all they have,

Fact is, you go to a majority of the other states in the union, and all volunteers must be trained to the same level as career firefighters before they are allowed to ride on calls. Why is this? Because it makes sense. How can anyone possibly agree and promote less training for anyone who is responsible for the lives of others? Why should volunteers be allowed to respond with this minimal amount of training, but career personnel have an exorbitant amount?

Simple example would be exploring a train accident on the MTA lines. How many volunteer departments who have MTA Lines run through them, require their firefighters to undergo MTA train safety if there is an accident on the tracks? How many departments require their firefighters to undergo mass casualty incident training, or mass hazmat decon training if another 9-11 happens and biochem or nuclear weapons are utilized and released into the general population in the city and commuters start to take the trains home prior to any transit ban placed into effect? Fact is, all career departments who sent their members to the academy, have received this training. I just found out the other day that FF1 no longer teaches how to operate a saw, or cut a roof. That's reserve for truck company class.

Forget about the population and what level of service they are receiving. The real questions are why, should you as a firefighter, choose to be unknowingly exposed to risks that you cannot even comprehend until you go through training? And paralleling that, as someone who is responding to those types of incidents, you should be demanding that you get trained in how to respond to those emergencies so you know and understand the risks and what to do CORRECTLY during those incidents. What kind of message does that send when we except apathy from our ranks in regards to training? People should be striving to learn all they can about the fire service, not actively attempting to hamper others safety.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Morningjoe

[Bnechis 3,961]

There is not one civil service paid firefighter in Rockland county. So, the volunteer standard is all they have,

Fact is, you go to a majority of the other states in the union, and all volunteers must be trained to the same level as career firefighters before they are allowed to ride on calls. Why is this? Because it makes sense. How can anyone possibly agree and promote less training for anyone who is responsible for the lives of others? Why should volunteers be allowed to respond with this minimal amount of training, but career personnel have an exorbitant amount?

Simple example would be exploring a train accident on the MTA lines. How many volunteer departments who have MTA Lines run through them, require their firefighters to undergo MTA train safety if there is an accident on the tracks? How many departments require their firefighters to undergo mass casualty incident training, or mass hazmat decon training if another 9-11 happens and biochem or nuclear weapons are utilized and released into the general population in the city and commuters start to take the trains home prior to any transit ban placed into effect? Fact is, all career departments who sent their members to the academy, have received this training. I just found out the other day that FF1 no longer teaches how to operate a saw, or cut a roof. That's reserve for truck company class.

Forget about the population and what level of service they are receiving. The real questions are why, should you as a firefighter, choose to be unknowingly exposed to risks that you cannot even comprehend until you go through training? And paralleling that, as someone who is responding to those types of incidents, you should be demanding that you get trained in how to respond to those emergencies so you know and understand the risks and what to do CORRECTLY during those incidents. What kind of message does that send when we except apathy from our ranks in regards to training? People should be striving to learn all they can about the fire service, not actively attempting to hamper others safety.

Because without the training, they do not even know what they do not know.

[AFS1970 504]

As I said in my last reply I think that this is in general a good thing. However as others have pointed out it has you doing things on air that you simply would not do normally on air. That being said I can see that doing the whole test on air is a way of seeing how long you can make the air last. I don't think we can justify any training or testing initiative based on how close it is to the Scott Firefighter Challenge. As fun as it is to watch, that is like making the Midnight Alarm or Bucket Brigade contests from a muster part of your FF1 practical.

I like that Erie County concept and it could easily be adapted as the hours go up in various subjects. I have often wondered why we did not embrace the exterior positions from a training standpoint as a fire service. Regardless of if we like them or not, there are departments that utilize them and failing to develop training for these members is allowing them to go untrained.

Several times when I was involved with recruitment, we would get potential members that just wanted to be drivers. I have mixed feelings on that, as I knew that we needed more firefighters, but could also benefit from these drivers as they would free up a firefighter from driving. Two cases I know of caused me to rethink my initial objections, one was a guy who drove a dump truck and another was a transit bus driver. Both had CDL's and both had worked (although not in an emergency setting) with various electronic and hydraulic devices on vehicles. It seemed to me that they had at least the aptitude to take training, but there was no class for them. I thought of trying to develop an internal course, but then the question arises of who would accept that course other than us? In CT at least FF1 is a prerequisite for Pump Operator or Ariel Operator, so there goes that idea.

As for the actual job title, sure we could call them Exterior Fire Service Technicians but the bottom line is the public would very quickly shorten that to Firefighter because they do not know any better. We could give them different styles and colors of helmets but that would only last as far as the district border, or if you are lucky a state border. We could buy fancy stickers but those are really only good until the first fire or even drill you go into. So while I agree that the public should be better informed, they are not, and I am not sure it is a good use of limited resources to devote that much public education time to this issue when there are fire prevention and Homeland Security matters that are more pressing.

[Dinosaur 844]

Spoken like a true NY volunteer. Of course there's bickering but it's bickering not unlike what you'd find within any firehouse. There is no resentment or divisiveness because that's not part of THEIR culture!

What's there to resent if everyone has the same training?

Um I dont know the fact that some get paid fordoing yhe same job in the same house with the same training. And if your definition of a "typical NY Volunteer" is a parade going; out of shape; untrained moron who complains about paid guys yhen im mot a typical NY volunteer. I call it like I see it. That doesnt make me typical it makes me atypical

Nope. Not what I meant. I meant anti-career, blind to standards and change, defensive of old outdated traditions not based at all on anything other than emotion. There are a great many volunteers who defy the majority and train, prepare, and respond as professionally as a career guy but in NY they are a very small minority.

They're not resentful of the pay issue because they have other jobs, or are students, and they chose to be firefighters.

[FireMedic049 597]

As I said in my last reply I think that this is in general a good thing. However as others have pointed out it has you doing things on air that you simply would not do normally on air. That being said I can see that doing the whole test on air is a way of seeing how long you can make the air last. I don't think we can justify any training or testing initiative based on how close it is to the Scott Firefighter Challenge. As fun as it is to watch, that is like making the Midnight Alarm or Bucket Brigade contests from a muster part of your FF1 practical. Actually, I think you can for the most part. Pretty much all civil service testing for the position of firefighter involves some sort of requirement along those lines. Yes, completing what is essentially an obstacle course of fire service tasks while being timed does not resemble how things are done on the fire ground, but that's not the point of them.

I like that Erie County concept and it could easily be adapted as the hours go up in various subjects. I have often wondered why we did not embrace the exterior positions from a training standpoint as a fire service. Regardless of if we like them or not, there are departments that utilize them and failing to develop training for these members is allowing them to go untrained. I can't speak for that area, but I know in my state, the volunteer fire service (or at least a very vocal portion of it) has typically opposed any sort of formalize training standards, particularly certification standards.

Several times when I was involved with recruitment, we would get potential members that just wanted to be drivers. I have mixed feelings on that, as I knew that we needed more firefighters, but could also benefit from these drivers as they would free up a firefighter from driving. Two cases I know of caused me to rethink my initial objections, one was a guy who drove a dump truck and another was a transit bus driver. Both had CDL's and both had worked (although not in an emergency setting) with various electronic and hydraulic devices on vehicles. It seemed to me that they had at least the aptitude to take training, but there was no class for them. I thought of trying to develop an internal course, but then the question arises of who would accept that course other than us? In CT at least FF1 is a prerequisite for Pump Operator or Ariel Operator, so there goes that idea. The internal course doesn't necessarily have to be scrapped just because it doesn't transfer to another department. There's lots of training that a department can provide in house that is pertinent to its operations, but may not be of value to a person's next department. For example, an urban department would likely do high-rise training relative to the quantity and type of high-rise buildings they have. If a member left that department and moved out into farm country, then that training would probably be of little value to the operations of the department out there.

As for the actual job title, sure we could call them Exterior Fire Service Technicians but the bottom line is the public would very quickly shorten that to Firefighter because they do not know any better. True, that's already a common practice for other things.

We could give them different styles and colors of helmets but that would only last as far as the district border, or if you are lucky a state border. That wouldn't be that big of a problem.. If a department routinely crossed borders to work with departments using a different system, all they have to do is talk to each other about it and train their own personnel to have the discipline to appropriately "refuse" tasks they aren't trained to perform.

We could buy fancy stickers but those are really only good until the first fire or even drill you go into. That really wouldn't be a problem. I've been to a lot of pretty decent fires in the last 20+ years, both training and real world and I've scene very few instances of helmet stickers getting destroyed. Secondly, since the non-interior people won't be inside the burning building, their stickers should hold up just fine.

So while I agree that the public should be better informed, they are not, and I am not sure it is a good use of limited resources to devote that much public education time to this issue when there are fire prevention and Homeland Security matters that are more pressing. The public does need to be better informed, but for the most part, educating them on detailed job titles is not as important for them as it is for those in the industry. However, if your department is routinely in the position or could feasibly find themselves in the position of having limited interior personnel responding for fires, but has plenty of exterior only personnel responding, you need to educate your community about that. You are doing them a disservice by not taking the time to inform them that even though they see lots of people in firefighter suits getting off the trucks and running around the scene, not all of them or maybe not enough of them are capable of going inside to put the fire out or rescue someone.

At some point, you may find yourself on the bad side of a PR incident because you had what looked like lots of people on the scene, but couldn't rescue somebody's loved one or save somebody's house because you didn't have enough interior personnel. That's not a good time to try to explain why you couldn't get the job done if you've never told the public this could happen.

This doesn't mean that you have to spend an exorbitant amount of time going door-to-door to tell the public, but it needs to be put out there. It's something that can very easily be included in any fire safety or public education program the department conducts.

[Dinosaur 844]

As I said in my last reply I think that this is in general a good thing. However as others have pointed out it has you doing things on air that you simply would not do normally on air. That being said I can see that doing the whole test on air is a way of seeing how long you can make the air last. I don't think we can justify any training or testing initiative based on how close it is to the Scott Firefighter Challenge. As fun as it is to watch, that is like making the Midnight Alarm or Bucket Brigade contests from a muster part of your FF1 practical.

I like that Erie County concept and it could easily be adapted as the hours go up in various subjects. I have often wondered why we did not embrace the exterior positions from a training standpoint as a fire service. Regardless of if we like them or not, there are departments that utilize them and failing to develop training for these members is allowing them to go untrained.

Several times when I was involved with recruitment, we would get potential members that just wanted to be drivers. I have mixed feelings on that, as I knew that we needed more firefighters, but could also benefit from these drivers as they would free up a firefighter from driving. Two cases I know of caused me to rethink my initial objections, one was a guy who drove a dump truck and another was a transit bus driver. Both had CDL's and both had worked (although not in an emergency setting) with various electronic and hydraulic devices on vehicles. It seemed to me that they had at least the aptitude to take training, but there was no class for them. I thought of trying to develop an internal course, but then the question arises of who would accept that course other than us? In CT at least FF1 is a prerequisite for Pump Operator or Ariel Operator, so there goes that idea.

As for the actual job title, sure we could call them Exterior Fire Service Technicians but the bottom line is the public would very quickly shorten that to Firefighter because they do not know any better. We could give them different styles and colors of helmets but that would only last as far as the district border, or if you are lucky a state border. We could buy fancy stickers but those are really only good until the first fire or even drill you go into. So while I agree that the public should be better informed, they are not, and I am not sure it is a good use of limited resources to devote that much public education time to this issue when there are fire prevention and Homeland Security matters that are more pressing.

Why create a job title for half the job? Why not make everyone meet the same standard?

[Bottom of Da Hill 76]

There is not one civil service paid firefighter in Rockland county. So, the volunteer standard is all they have,

Fact is, you go to a majority of the other states in the union, and all volunteers must be trained to the same level as career firefighters before they are allowed to ride on calls. Why is this? Because it makes sense. How can anyone possibly agree and promote less training for anyone who is responsible for the lives of others? Why should volunteers be allowed to respond with this minimal amount of training, but career personnel have an exorbitant amount?

Simple example would be exploring a train accident on the MTA lines. How many volunteer departments who have MTA Lines run through them, require their firefighters to undergo MTA train safety if there is an accident on the tracks? How many departments require their firefighters to undergo mass casualty incident training, or mass hazmat decon training if another 9-11 happens and biochem or nuclear weapons are utilized and released into the general population in the city and commuters start to take the trains home prior to any transit ban placed into effect? Fact is, all career departments who sent their members to the academy, have received this training. I just found out the other day that FF1 no longer teaches how to operate a saw, or cut a roof. That's reserve for truck company class.

Forget about the population and what level of service they are receiving. The real questions are why, should you as a firefighter, choose to be unknowingly exposed to risks that you cannot even comprehend until you go through training? And paralleling that, as someone who is responding to those types of incidents, you should be demanding that you get trained in how to respond to those emergencies so you know and understand the risks and what to do CORRECTLY during those incidents. What kind of message does that send when we except apathy from our ranks in regards to training? People should be striving to learn all they can about the fire service, not actively attempting to hamper others safety.

i agree with you and training 100%.

[firemoose827 324]

This will actually eliminate some of the candidates that should not even be accepted into the departments. Some departments are so desperate that they will accept anyone with a pulse and that does not help with the mission.

I'm glad you said this. I know of a guy with a bad hip, can't even walk right let alone crawl, and he was allowed as interior...recently he failed his physical and was labeled an exterior firefighter only. What did they do? Why, make him lieutenant of course.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I'm glad you said this. I know of a guy with a bad hip, can't even walk right let alone crawl, and he was allowed as interior...recently he failed his physical and was labeled an exterior firefighter only. What did they do? Why, make him lieutenant of course.

That's because most depts. refuse to acknowledge they no longer have enough qualified & capable members to perform the mission. They will make unqualified people leaders because they have no one that is qualified but this covers up for it.

Recently a dept in Westchester had one of its chiefs resign as chief, so at the monthly meeting the question was asked: "Does anyone want to be an Assistant Chief?"

Someone asked: "What are the Requirements?" The answer" "NONE"

No one took the position.

Is their a problem here?

[Bottom of Da Hill 76]

1) And that is big part of the problem. Their are depts. that no longer have any interior volunteers (or none some of the time), but they have plenty of exterior. Most will deny this, but if you fail to tell the community, its the #1 problem, because you are no longer a fire department. Do you know that the exterior members need the same couple hundred hours per year of training for ISO. If they have less, it hurts your rating and costs your property owners more money. This includes your 85 year old "members" who no longer respond, but if your rules classify them as "firefighters" ISO deducts points for all the training hours they do not get each year?

All those exterior members with $3,000 tax funded turnouts, has the public been told that's where their $$$ goes?

I am not saying their is not a role for exterior members, but their needs to be a measured response and you need 3 or 4 (or more) interior for every exterior member.

2) I am having chest pain, quick call me a health care worker....anyone, as they are all equal.

3) Not writing off exterior. You cant fix the problem till you admit their is a problem. We hear everyday departments toning out multiple times for available members, but they have no problem? We hear of room and content fires that require 5, 6, 7 departments for mutual aid just to get a dozen interior members. We also know of departments that still claim to have hundreds of members, but that's not what responds.

We need to stop thinking that we need to maintain 58 individual fire departments, when 95% can not handle a simple fire without mutual aid.

And finally we need ALL firefighters to support MORE training. As long as groups fight to prevent this we will never move forward.

hey what about that fire in greenville the other night?how meny depts did it take to get enough man power to fight the fire?and how long did it take for the back up co.s to arrive on scene? the volunteers listen to the radio.s to.this has to stop you key board FF.s need better things to do.we can go around and around for months what a waist of time.get up and go train shut down the computer and go check your tools do something good with your time.i dont have the time in my fire house to play key board FF.SMH.AND GREEVILLE did a great job the other night not bashing the brothers at all.stay safe i am done on this.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

hey what about that fire in greenville the other night?how meny depts did it take to get enough man power to fight the fire?and how long did it take for the back up co.s to arrive on scene? the volunteers listen to the radio.s to.this has to stop you key board FF.s need better things to do.we can go around and around for months what a waist of time.get up and go train shut down the computer and go check your tools do something good with your time.i dont have the time in my fire house to play key board FF.SMH.AND GREEVILLE did a great job the other night not bashing the brothers at all.stay safe i am done on this.

Care to give that another shot in English?

[Bnechis 3,961]

hey what about that fire in greenville the other night?how meny depts did it take to get enough man power to fight the fire?and how long did it take for the back up co.s to arrive on scene? the volunteers listen to the radio.s to.this has to stop you key board FF.s need better things to do.we can go around and around for months what a waist of time.get up and go train shut down the computer and go check your tools do something good with your time.i dont have the time in my fire house to play key board FF.SMH.AND GREEVILLE did a great job the other night not bashing the brothers at all.stay safe i am done on this.

Based on my count 31 interior firefighters in the 1st 12 minutes. and additional 24 interior within the next 12 minutes and another 12 in the following 10 minutes. Total of about 67 interior qualified firefighters in approx. 30 minutes (including relocates).

You do not know any of the career people here or how much training we do. I have time in the evenings to try to educate/inform. I have the time because I get to work every day in the fire service. I suspect I have more hours training others (plus the training I have received) than you will ever have.

If you do not have the time, then how have you been managing to spend it all here. But you know everything.

[firecapt32 282]

lets get back to the subject-- Greenville fire was a perfect example of how mutual aid is expected to work. no hesitation no waste of time get the mutual aid coming--knowing what your are going to get--have a plan of what to do with them--establish a command post--keep in contact with all units and release them with thanks ASAP.

How this relates to the new FF1 I am not sure. FF1 is here. period I understand that WCDES is having their first FF1 starting and of Feb we will see how things shake out.

[FD7807 59]

That's because most depts. refuse to acknowledge they no longer have enough qualified & capable members to perform the mission. They will make unqualified people leaders because they have no one that is qualified but this covers up for it.

Recently a dept in Westchester had one of its chiefs resign as chief, so at the monthly meeting the question was asked: "Does anyone want to be an Assistant Chief?"

Someone asked: "What are the Requirements?" The answer" "NONE"

No one took the position.

Is their a problem here?

I do not believe this is the rule or the norm in the volunteer service.

[FireMedic049 597]

I do not believe this is the rule or the norm in the volunteer service.

While this may not be the norm, it does happen. A lot!