FireMedic049

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

Your answer may be correct, but it may not be for the reason you think. In general, "paid districts" tend to be larger and busier than many "volunteer districts" and as such the number of "burned out hulks" could easily be greater due to having more fires overall. Additionally, even in paid districts, some fires are too advanced upon arrival to stop without the building being a total loss. So, looking at the end result and counting burned out buildings isn't a very reliable assessment of performance.
I have however, seen a number of fires in the volunteer districts of my area that should not have been the conflagration that they ended up being. And not just because of how long it took to them to arrive.

That's certainly subject to debate.

Another avenue that would be interesting to explore would be the impact of more regionalized fire services.
My county (in PA) has a lot of small departments covering small districts which results in multiple departments responding to most calls. I looked up some figures a few years ago for comparison and found that PG County Maryland and Fairfax County Virginia both had an average fire station to sq. mileage ratio of around 1 station per 10 square miles. My County was around 1 station per 3 square miles.
Additionally, at the time a nearby group of 3 communities collectively had 7 fire stations and at least 14 large apparatus and 7 support vehicles. My city is slightly larger than that area, but with the same population density. We have 2 stations (down from 4 a couple decades ago), 4 large apparatus and 2 support vehicles. We run around twice as many first due calls as that group and a lot more working fires. Why do they need so much more to do less?
How much money could be saved if we consolidated into fewer stations with less duplication of apparatus? Could that create the call volume and labor pool large enough that each station could be staffed most, if not all of the time? What would be the impact of that on dispatch to on scene response times and incident outcomes compared to what they are now?

Your answer may be correct, but it may not be for the reason you think. In general, "paid districts" tend to be larger and busier than many "volunteer districts" and as such the number of "burned out hulks" could easily be greater due to having more fires overall. Additionally, even in paid districts, some fires are too advanced upon arrival to stop without the building being a total loss. So, looking at the end result and counting burned out buildings isn't a very reliable assessment of performance.
I have however, seen a number of fires in the volunteer districts of my area that should not have been the conflagration that they ended up being. And not just because of how long it took to them to arrive.

That's certainly subject to debate.

Your answer may be correct, but it may not be for the reason you think. In general, "paid districts" tend to be larger and busier than many "volunteer districts" and as such the number of "burned out hulks" could easily be greater due to having more fires overall. Additionally, even in paid districts, some fires are too advanced upon arrival to stop without the building being a total loss. So, looking at the end result and counting burned out buildings isn't a very reliable assessment of performance.
I have however, seen a number of fires in the volunteer districts of my area that should not have been the conflagration that they ended up being. And not just because of how long it took to them to arrive.

That's certainly subject to debate.

Another avenue that would be interesting to explore would be the impact of more regionalized fire services.
My county (in PA) has a lot of small departments covering small districts which results in multiple departments responding to most calls. I looked up some figures a few years ago for comparison and found that PG County Maryland and Fairfax County Virginia both had an average fire station to sq. mileage ratio of around 1 station per 10 square miles. My County was around 1 station per 3 square miles.
Additionally, at the time a nearby group of 3 communities collectively had 7 fire stations and at least 14 large apparatus and 7 support vehicles. My city is slightly larger than that area, but with the same population density. We have 2 stations (down from 4 a couple decades ago), 4 large apparatus and 2 support vehicles. We run around twice as many first due calls as that group and a lot more working fires. Why do they need so much more to do less?
How much money could be saved if we consolidated into fewer stations with less duplication of apparatus? Could that create the call volume and labor pool large enough that each station could be staffed most, if not all of the time? What would be the impact of that on dispatch to on scene response times and incident outcomes compared to what they are now?

That's certainly subject to debate.

That's certainly subject to debate.

Well, the reality is that the cancer threat is pretty real if you see regular fire duty.

Another avenue that would be interesting to explore would be the impact of more regionalized fire services.
My county (in PA) has a lot of small departments covering small districts which results in multiple departments responding to most calls. I looked up some figures a few years ago for comparison and found that PG County Maryland and Fairfax County Virginia both had an average fire station to sq. mileage ratio of around 1 station per 10 square miles. My County was around 1 station per 3 square miles.
Additionally, at the time a nearby group of 3 communities collectively had 7 fire stations and at least 14 large apparatus and 7 support vehicles. My city is slightly larger than that area, but with the same population density. We have 2 stations (down from 4 a couple decades ago), 4 large apparatus and 2 support vehicles. We run around twice as many first due calls as that group and a lot more working fires. Why do they need so much more to do less?
How much money could be saved if we consolidated into fewer stations with less duplication of apparatus? Could that create the call volume and labor pool large enough that each station could be staffed most, if not all of the time? What would be the impact of that on dispatch to on scene response times and incident outcomes compared to what they are now?

I doubt that you are seeing as many people as you think actually defending "grossly understaffed departments". I think you may be misconstruing explanations of a department's staffing situation as a defense of them in the sense that you assert.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people, if any (actual firefighters), that actually think that sending only an average of 5.58 FFs to a working fire as being acceptable. Very few of us actually have the ability to determine the staffing levels for our departments. As such, far too many of us must make the best of the less than ideal hand that we are each dealt.
NFPA 1710 and 1720 are nice, but unfortunately they're still kind of all bark and no bite on the front end. I can wave a copy of 1710 in front of my Mayor and Council every day, but it's not gonna get my department to 4 per apparatus and 17 on-duty. The money simply isn't there for that level of staffing and we'll be lucky to maintain where we're at now in the next few years. There are a lot of small departments out there just like us and some in worse shape. It's not ideal and it's only "acceptable" in the context that it's our reality and not changing anytime soon.
Oftentimes these discussions seem to focus on the limited on-duty staffing of a particular department, but overlooks the total response to a working incident which can result in a far more acceptable number of FFs on the fireground. My department, for example, averages 6 FFs on-duty. However, a working fire will also get a callback of off-duty personnel plus mutual aid. On average, this doubles our own personnel and the mutual aid units easily push us over 20-25 FFs on the fire ground relatively quickly. Many others do something similar.

I doubt that you are seeing as many people as you think actually defending "grossly understaffed departments". I think you may be misconstruing explanations of a department's staffing situation as a defense of them in the sense that you assert.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people, if any (actual firefighters), that actually think that sending only an average of 5.58 FFs to a working fire as being acceptable. Very few of us actually have the ability to determine the staffing levels for our departments. As such, far too many of us must make the best of the less than ideal hand that we are each dealt.
NFPA 1710 and 1720 are nice, but unfortunately they're still kind of all bark and no bite on the front end. I can wave a copy of 1710 in front of my Mayor and Council every day, but it's not gonna get my department to 4 per apparatus and 17 on-duty. The money simply isn't there for that level of staffing and we'll be lucky to maintain where we're at now in the next few years. There are a lot of small departments out there just like us and some in worse shape. It's not ideal and it's only "acceptable" in the context that it's our reality and not changing anytime soon.
Oftentimes these discussions seem to focus on the limited on-duty staffing of a particular department, but overlooks the total response to a working incident which can result in a far more acceptable number of FFs on the fireground. My department, for example, averages 6 FFs on-duty. However, a working fire will also get a callback of off-duty personnel plus mutual aid. On average, this doubles our own personnel and the mutual aid units easily push us over 20-25 FFs on the fire ground relatively quickly. Many others do something similar.

I doubt that you are seeing as many people as you think actually defending "grossly understaffed departments". I think you may be misconstruing explanations of a department's staffing situation as a defense of them in the sense that you assert.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people, if any (actual firefighters), that actually think that sending only an average of 5.58 FFs to a working fire as being acceptable. Very few of us actually have the ability to determine the staffing levels for our departments. As such, far too many of us must make the best of the less than ideal hand that we are each dealt.
NFPA 1710 and 1720 are nice, but unfortunately they're still kind of all bark and no bite on the front end. I can wave a copy of 1710 in front of my Mayor and Council every day, but it's not gonna get my department to 4 per apparatus and 17 on-duty. The money simply isn't there for that level of staffing and we'll be lucky to maintain where we're at now in the next few years. There are a lot of small departments out there just like us and some in worse shape. It's not ideal and it's only "acceptable" in the context that it's our reality and not changing anytime soon.
Oftentimes these discussions seem to focus on the limited on-duty staffing of a particular department, but overlooks the total response to a working incident which can result in a far more acceptable number of FFs on the fireground. My department, for example, averages 6 FFs on-duty. However, a working fire will also get a callback of off-duty personnel plus mutual aid. On average, this doubles our own personnel and the mutual aid units easily push us over 20-25 FFs on the fire ground relatively quickly. Many others do something similar.

I thought the video was decent, but I had to chuckle some at the "reassuring" comment towards the end that was supposedly from the home builders association about how "safe" homes are built these days. Pretty ironic considering the prevalence of light weight construction methods these days that do not hold up well under fire conditions and the extent to which they lobby hard against the very thing that could be the most beneficial in them in the event of a fire - residential sprinklers!

I thought the video was decent, but I had to chuckle some at the "reassuring" comment towards the end that was supposedly from the home builders association about how "safe" homes are built these days. Pretty ironic considering the prevalence of light weight construction methods these days that do not hold up well under fire conditions and the extent to which they lobby hard against the very thing that could be the most beneficial in them in the event of a fire - residential sprinklers!

One thing I found interesting is that their goal is for the care provider to be able to remain seated and belted while providing care, yet they also incorporate the ability to transport a second patient in a manor which pretty much precludes the ability to do that for that patient.
To me, there seems to be an inherent conflict between the two and that means we should probably reexamine whether or not we should even be attempting to transport a second patient under those conditions.

One thing I found interesting is that their goal is for the care provider to be able to remain seated and belted while providing care, yet they also incorporate the ability to transport a second patient in a manor which pretty much precludes the ability to do that for that patient.
To me, there seems to be an inherent conflict between the two and that means we should probably reexamine whether or not we should even be attempting to transport a second patient under those conditions.