The IDEAL fire department

[helicopper 1,050]

Someone suggested that we should take all this energy and instead of fighting each other, fight to improve the system! I think that's great advice and I also think that while the mindset "you fight the fights you can win" may be the easy way out if we're going to do what we're all supposed to be here for (protect the public) we really need to focus on the fights that need fighting.

I think it is equally absurd for a fire department to send one person out on an engine as a fire department not being able to field a crew for an appropriate response at all.

Why don't we discuss what the IDEAL fire department should be and lobby for that?

To start, what is the minimum training that each should have?

How many should be on a truck (as in vehicle not truck company)?

Response times?

etc.

To me, regardless of career/volunteer, every engine/truck should respond with four firefighters who are all trained to the same standard (not being and FF, I'd suggest FF1, Haz-Mat Ops, and Survival as the minimum - please educate me if that's unreasonable).

Once we identify the ideal, submit a plan to the Legislature to use the 100 Million dollars from the "tax credit" to promote the concept! How's that for directing this energy to a useful cause?

[Future Fireman 4]

The ideal fire department is one that puts safety for their FF's and the citizens of its district above all other priorities.

NO IF's, AND's, or BUT's about it!

Then again, I'm only an explorer

Mike

Edited July 11, 2008 by Future Fireman

[Guest EFFP411]

The ideal fire department is one that puts safety for their FF's and the citizens of its district above all other priorities.

NO IF's, AND's, or BUT's about it!

Then again, I'm only an explorer

Mike

Something like that. Its that mentality that will guide the future in the right direction Mike. If more people stuck to their ways and kept their opinions and beliefs from being swayed by crap, we would all be better off. Departments that don't rely on union BS, or political BS, to "promote it", more like hold it back from advancing. We all know some places would do well with a career/combo structured dept., but others just don't have the population, tax base, or call volume to warrant having career staff. Other places are far too spread out to try to consolidate, it would make the response times too great, and the distance too far to cover. I would love for a group of knowledgeable, trustworthy men, both career and volunteer to be assembled to work on a plan for us. They could sit back, and look at the picture as a whole, see who would benefit from what, and how to do it. Thats what i want to see. But, it seems like a fading dream at the moment......

Edited July 12, 2008 by EFFP411

[Future Fireman 4]

Rob, who's to say a committee like that couldn't be formed here on EMTBravo? We've got over 8 thousand members on here, why not?

Mike

[RPM3311 3]

Instead of a "Department" I'm going do more of a "Company" or single firehouse. I'd have 1 engine, 1 Ladder, 1 Rescue. All of which will be staffed by 3 shifts. A, B, & C. Each Co. will have 3 officers 1 Capt. & 2 Lt.'s Plus 1 driver and 3 FFs. It doesn't matter if its a paid Co. or not staffed 24/7. Plus 3 cheifs Chief A, B, & C all of the same rank.

Each FF/ Driver will have to have FF1, Hazmat, Survival, & pumps/EVOC, plus whatever else they may want.

- The Rescue guys and even the truck guys may want to get alittle more "Rescue" training

The officers will need to Have FF1/FF2, Hazmat Tech, Survival, Pumps/EVOC, Officer 1,

-anything else you'd rather have different or add feel free to post

Edited July 12, 2008 by RPM3311

[FFD941 20]

Here's my two cents... You can't make an "IDEAL" fire department for everyone because there isn't one. The IDEAL department is the one that works best for the community which it protects. FDNY and little Fairview cannot be the same because they operate differently and cover different teritory.

But that's just my opinon.

[Future Fireman 4]

Here's my two cents... You can't make an "IDEAL" fire department for everyone because there isn't one. The IDEAL department is the one that works best for the community which it protects. FDNY and little Fairview cannot be the same because they operate differently and cover different teritory.

But that's just my opinon.

I beg to differ. They may cover different territory and have different SOPs, but there are things that are COMMON between the 2:

1. Staffing: Every Engine,Ladder,Tower Ladder, Rescue, Squad, whatever the hell you want to call needs good staffing. Obviously, the staffing of a Chief's car will be different than the Engine. However, it is my opinion, that from a safety standpoint, we need 4-5 personnel minimum staffing a company AT ANY GIVEN TIME. I know I don't want my company to have 5 guys and my 2nd due have only 2. If a FD cannot staff more than 2 at any given time, it's time to regionalize and take the surplus members (i.e. more than 5 per company on a shift) and give them to their 2nd or 3rd due that only has maybe 2 or 3 members at most per shift.

2. Response Time: If any given FD cannot guarantee 5-6 minutes or less of a response time, that needs to be fixed PRONTO! IF the FD has the resources, build another station (or 2 or 3) and cut down that time. If you've got suffiecient personnel on 1 side of town in a station with 2 companies and you have frequent 7+ minute responses to the other side, BUILD A STATION on the other side and STAFF IT with 1 company!

3. Training: ALL FIREFIGHTERS need to know what the guy who's got their back has for training. If there is a STANDARDIZED TRAINING statewide and ALL FIREFIGHTERS ARE TRAINED TO THE SAME LEVEL, there will be no asking in our heads, "Does the guy that has my back really been trained to the same level I have?"

Mike

Edited July 12, 2008 by Future Fireman

[FFPCogs 863]

I beg to differ. They may cover different territory and have different SOPs, but there are things that are COMMON between the 2:

1. Staffing: Every Engine,Ladder,Tower Ladder, Rescue, Squad, whatever the hell you want to call needs good staffing. Obviously, the staffing of a Chief's car will be different than the Engine. However, it is my opinion, that from a safety standpoint, we need 4-5 personnel minimum staffing a company AT ANY GIVEN TIME. I know I don't want my company to have 5 guys and my 2nd due have only 2. If a FD cannot staff more than 2 at any given time, it's time to regionalize and take the surplus members (i.e. more than 5 per company on a shift) and give them to their 2nd or 3rd due that only has maybe 2 or 3 members at most per shift.

2. Response Time: If any given FD cannot guarantee 5-6 minutes or less of a response time, that needs to be fixed PRONTO! IF the FD has the resources, build another station (or 2 or 3) and cut down that time. If you've got suffiecient personnel on 1 side of town in a station with 2 companies and you have frequent 7+ minute responses to the other side, BUILD A STATION on the other side and STAFF IT with 1 company!

3. Training: ALL FIREFIGHTERS need to know what the guy who's got their back has for training. If there is a STANDARDIZED TRAINING statewide and ALL FIREFIGHTERS ARE TRAINED TO THE SAME LEVEL, there will be no asking in our heads, "Does the guy that has my back really been trained to the same level I have?"

Mike

Mike,

You're on the right track...Stay on it !! Someday you and others your age will be running things..if, unlike so many of my generation, you can keep this type of mentality..you'll be doing yourselves, the fire service as a whole..and most importantly your communities a world of good.

Sometimes it seems impossible for "visionaries" to make changes, but they do.

Keep at it.

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

[Future Fireman 4]

Big 10-4 on that Cogs!

Mike

[Monty 35]

Interesting idea .....

Personally I think you need more centralized fire protection. Probably at the County level - I think as some have mentioned, fire fighting in Kings County (Brooklyn) is very different from Essex County New York. Of course NYC is very different - but that's actually one fire department for 5 counties!

Personally, I'd also suggest a more European (or at least UK) model where both 'volunteer' (actually paid on call) and career work for the same organization, follow the same rules, training courses, SOP's etc. as for staffing, in England there are risk assessments undertaken by the Counties to determine stations and manning. Some are manned 24x7, some have daytime manning, some have the first rig manned and retained (paid on call) for subsequent rigs.

I don't believe you can make a blanket statement that you need the first rig there 5-6 minutes. Many places North of here, the next house can be 5 minutes down the road! (Again, that's why I'd go with a County over State department.)

[Future Fireman 4]

I don't believe you can make a blanket statement that you need the first rig there 5-6 minutes. Many places North of here, the next house can be 5 minutes down the road! (Again, that's why I'd go with a County over State department.)

Actually, when you have a neighborhood FULL of triple deckers (which have 0 firestops) tightly packed together, you need those companies there in 5 minutes or less to stop that blaze from takin out the neighborhood!

However, it refers back to call volume and response time for station location. Is that 5 minutes down the road rush hour time, when response time can increase by quite a few minutes and when it's damn near impossible to get there, or when you have very little traffic on the road?

Mike

[Scottyk107 9]

Actually, when you have a neighborhood FULL of triple deckers (which have 0 firestops) tightly packed together, you need those companies there in 5 minutes or less to stop that blaze from takin out the neighborhood!

I think what Monty is saying is that in those areas full of those types of structures then there should be that type of protection and response times. But out in the middle of no-where it is not financially viable to have the same amount of resources as a metro area. It is a fine line between adequate protection and wasted resources. There is no cookie cutter fire dept just for the fact that every state, city, and town are laid out so differently. I think regionalisation (sp) is a good way to combine the current assets and provide a more efficient department. It would be nice to have 5 men on every rig and have a station 5 minutes from every location but as we all know funding is limited and they are always looking for ways to reduce costs.

[Future Fireman 4]

I think what Monty is saying is that in those areas full of those types of structures then there should be that type of protection and response times. But out in the middle of no-where it is not financially viable to have the same amount of resources as a metro area. It is a fine line between adequate protection and wasted resources. There is no cookie cutter fire dept just for the fact that every state, city, and town are laid out so differently. I think regionalisation (sp) is a good way to combine the current assets and provide a more efficient department. It would be nice to have 5 men on every rig and have a station 5 minutes from every location but as we all know funding is limited and they are always looking for ways to reduce costs.

This is the ideal FD! Nothing's impossible!

Regionalization is what I'm getting at. Combine the resources and become the most effective fire department we can be.

Stations being 5 minutes away or more is unreasonable. We have NFPA regulations for response times AND manpower. I believe we (FDs as a whole) could EASILY meet and/or exceed those regulations. Now as far as resources assigned to stations, that's another story. I've never been a fan of big 5 bay stations in the center of town and having every company put there. I believe that SMALLER stations housing 1-2, maybe 3 companies at most, spread out about town would reduce response time. Also, since you are using smaller stations, you can find smaller properties to build on, instead of looking for an acre to build on. The reason why smaller stations are a good thing is because you don't need to spread the personnel on different apparatus. Besides that, if you're in a volunteer community, or a combo 1, this allows volunteers to respond to the closest firehouse nearest where they either reside or work. This way, they don't have to worry about their gas bill responding to the firehouse.

Mike

Edited July 13, 2008 by Future Fireman

[RPM3311 3]

All the bad things aside from what comes out of this county, I think what we are all trying to make here is what we actually already have, its called... Prince George's County MD. My god the place sees more fire than (no offense to anyone) alot of us will see in our entire careers, in a single week. And they are a county department. with alot of mixed paid/volunteer, and like I said we have seen some bad "publicity" come from this place but at the same time we see some of the world's best firefighters.

[Future Fireman 4]

All the bad things aside from what comes out of this county, I think what we are all trying to make here is what we actually already have, its called... Prince George's County MD. My god the place sees more fire than (no offense to anyone) alot of us will see in our entire careers, in a single week. And they are a county department. with alot of mixed paid/volunteer, and like I said we have seen some bad "publicity" come from this place but at the same time we see some of the world's best firefighters.

The only problem with the PGCoFD (if I got the FD name right) is that all the stations/departments have their own chiefs. I don't believe we need a chief at every station. Maybe a Battalion or District chief has a set area within maybe 6 or 7 station's response districts.

Then again, I've put at least 10 cents into this topic!

Mike

Edited July 14, 2008 by Future Fireman

[mwE33 1]

The ideal fire department is one that puts safety for their FF's and the citizens of its district above all other priorities.

NO IF's, AND's, or BUT's about it!

Then again, I'm only an explorer

Mike

very very well put i wish it was like that but in the real world it probably wont happen in my department the topic of company meetings is missing pictures and its been the topic for month

[50-65 205]

Regionalization is what I'm getting at. Combine the resources and become the most effective fire department we can be.

I think regionalization is a place to start. The duplication of services because everybody has their "turf" is probably one of the biggest wastes of taxpayers money.

Look at Battalion 3 in Orange County. This covers most of the Town of Newburgh, including the City of Newburgh. An area of 42+/- square miles covered by 8 Departments out of 11 (?) stations.

Not counting Air Guard as they are mostly a specialized department, you have a minimum of 3 ladders, 2 towers, 14 engines, 5 rescues, 9 miscellaneous, and 4 boats.

Add in Plattekill that has a station in the town and you bring an additional 2 engines, 2 tankers, and 4 misc.

Can you tell me that if just the Town of Newburgh consolidated fire districts that there wouldn't be a surplus of equipment? What about if counties consolidated?

However, getting back to the original topic, 4 FF including driver and officer on each apparatus.

Minimum qualifications: FF1, Haz-Mat Ops, FF Survival, CFR or EMT-B.

For drivers, previous plus EVOC, Pump Ops, Line Officers: previous plus Fire Officer 1. That would be for an engine company.

Rescue Companies should have all the above plus AVET.

Truck Companies should have above plus Truck Company Ops.

Capts and Cheifs should have Fire Officer 2, as well as Cause and Origin/ FI

[moggie6 54]

In my ideal fire dept, i'd start out by making the training for both volunteer and career firefighters the same.

[helicopper 1,050]

In my ideal fire dept, i'd start out by making the training for both volunteer and career firefighters the same.

Why is this particular point so difficult to achieve?

[Raz 14]

This is probably going to run long, I apologize.

My opinions are a little different from a lot of people on this site. I think it's because I didn't "grow up" in the firehouse, or because I'm relatively new to this career, or whatever. As such, I tend to look at things not from a "fire department" perspective, but from a "real world" perspective. In the world outside of the firehouse, sayings like "it's tradition!!!" or "that's just the way it's always been" have no weight. If you can't justify your outdated methods, you'll either be jobless or out of business in no time at all. In a capitalist system, there's no room for those with poor responses to problems that have arisen. Yet, because of public ignorance of our profession, or an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality, the fire service is constantly given a free pass. Thus, I'm going to put forth this possibly controversial idea: Career officers everywhere (within reason).

If you want to fix a problem, you start at the top. The equipment your department uses, the type of fires you fight, even manpower itself, all of them aren't as important as who's in charge. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Military doctrine dating as far back as 2,500 years ago states this, and it has been continually echoed by every successful military outfit in history. From China, to Rome, to West Point. If you want an example, look no further than our own Civil War. One side had double the manpower, better industry and far superior equipment in comparison to the other, and still managed to lose for two to three years before finally turning things around to win what should have been an easy victory. History is littered with similar stories, and what do they all have in common? Brilliant leaders on the side of the underdog. Some were great tactitians, some had good heads for logistics. A great fire officer doesn't get the luxury of choosing to be one or the other, he needs to be both. We can all agree that a fire department is a paramilitary organization, so the relevance of these examples should be undeniable.

When people look at a department and say it has X amount of problems, I say that it has one. If you place a properly schooled officer in charge of an ailing situation, many problems begin to disappear. Equipment isn't up to snuff? Training is a joke? You now have somebody personally responisble for rectifying those situations. They might not be able to fix your manpower issue (although you'll gain a strong voice for your cause), but they can maximize both the output and safety of your current staff. I'm sure many of you would agree that a small, well managed and cohesive unit is preferable to a mob with good intentions.

Why do they have to be career officers? A simple one word answer: time. Starting with the amount of time it takes to educate an officer, to the amount of time it takes weekly to run a fire department, there just aren't enough hours in the day to expect someone to be able to volunteer to do the job. It's not a slight against anyone, it's just a mathematical impossibility. If you're thinking that being an officer begins with the alarm sounding and ends when your company returns, you're sorely mistaken. An officer is also responsible for scheduling, maintaining reports, drilling, basically anything that gets taken for granted when you just expect your department to magically run itself. Even if it wasn't an impossibility for someone to devote the required time, a person with a college level education (which a true fire officer is) shouldn't be expected to do their job for free. Just as we don't expect doctors or lawyers to render their services free of charge, we shouldn't expect any different from our fire officers.

Another few reasons for all career officers? Standards, and freedom to do what's right. All of you saying that the state needs to set black and white requirements to be a firefighter are 100% right, but before we worry about the rank and file, let's worry about those who can do the most damage by not being qualified. Furthermore, let's not elect officers, it's just bad on all counts. The military doesn't have their rank and file get together to decide who should run things for the next few years, why should we? It makes no sense. It also opens up the fire service to politics, two things that should never coincide. Good officers have to make hard decisions, and hard decisions hurt feelings and burn bridges. A fire officer should never have to weigh doing what's right against getting reelected. This very reason is why Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.

I await the flames, or the thread getting locked, whichever comes first.

[moggie6 54]

I think as far as training goes, volunteer training is exactly that...volunteer. I was a volunteer for five years before I got on the job. When I went into the fire academy I got launched into another world. The training was more intense and you had to learn the material. At the end of each week you were tested. If you didn't maintain a 70 average, you were booted out and you loss your job. After a written test you were given practical skills exams to show competence in the things you learned. You also spent 40 hours a week dedicated to just your firefighter training. Each day monday through friday you were in the classroom then out on the training grounds. This happpened for three months straight.

I know volunteers can't do a monday through friday routine when it comes to their training...your volunteers and there is no way that the majority could do that. But I wish the intensity was there for them when they take their classes. After I went through the academy I felt like I was coddled through every class I took as a volunteer.

[DaRock98 76]

Very well said Raz!

[Tickfighter 0]

I think Raz has said it best! If you can hold someone accountable then people take things alot more serious.Who better to do the job then someone who is there monday to friday,and gets paid to do so.Then you know things would get accomplished,because if they didn't then their job/career would be in jeopardy.And in this situation you would be ensuring professionalism,which is how it should be across the board.Good job Raz!

[gamewell45 258]

This is probably going to run long, I apologize.

My opinions are a little different from a lot of people on this site. I think it's because I didn't "grow up" in the firehouse, or because I'm relatively new to this career, or whatever. As such, I tend to look at things not from a "fire department" perspective, but from a "real world" perspective. In the world outside of the firehouse, sayings like "it's tradition!!!" or "that's just the way it's always been" have no weight. If you can't justify your outdated methods, you'll either be jobless or out of business in no time at all. In a capitalist system, there's no room for those with poor responses to problems that have arisen. Yet, because of public ignorance of our profession, or an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality, the fire service is constantly given a free pass. Thus, I'm going to put forth this possibly controversial idea: Career officers everywhere (within reason).

If you want to fix a problem, you start at the top. The equipment your department uses, the type of fires you fight, even manpower itself, all of them aren't as important as who's in charge. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Military doctrine dating as far back as 2,500 years ago states this, and it has been continually echoed by every successful military outfit in history. From China, to Rome, to West Point. If you want an example, look no further than our own Civil War. One side had double the manpower, better industry and far superior equipment in comparison to the other, and still managed to lose for two to three years before finally turning things around to win what should have been an easy victory. History is littered with similar stories, and what do they all have in common? Brilliant leaders on the side of the underdog. Some were great tactitians, some had good heads for logistics. A great fire officer doesn't get the luxury of choosing to be one or the other, he needs to be both. We can all agree that a fire department is a paramilitary organization, so the relevance of these examples should be undeniable.

When people look at a department and say it has X amount of problems, I say that it has one. If you place a properly schooled officer in charge of an ailing situation, many problems begin to disappear. Equipment isn't up to snuff? Training is a joke? You now have somebody personally responisble for rectifying those situations. They might not be able to fix your manpower issue (although you'll gain a strong voice for your cause), but they can maximize both the output and safety of your current staff. I'm sure many of you would agree that a small, well managed and cohesive unit is preferable to a mob with good intentions.

Why do they have to be career officers? A simple one word answer: time. Starting with the amount of time it takes to educate an officer, to the amount of time it takes weekly to run a fire department, there just aren't enough hours in the day to expect someone to be able to volunteer to do the job. It's not a slight against anyone, it's just a mathematical impossibility. If you're thinking that being an officer begins with the alarm sounding and ends when your company returns, you're sorely mistaken. An officer is also responsible for scheduling, maintaining reports, drilling, basically anything that gets taken for granted when you just expect your department to magically run itself. Even if it wasn't an impossibility for someone to devote the required time, a person with a college level education (which a true fire officer is) shouldn't be expected to do their job for free. Just as we don't expect doctors or lawyers to render their services free of charge, we shouldn't expect any different from our fire officers.

Another few reasons for all career officers? Standards, and freedom to do what's right. All of you saying that the state needs to set black and white requirements to be a firefighter are 100% right, but before we worry about the rank and file, let's worry about those who can do the most damage by not being qualified. Furthermore, let's not elect officers, it's just bad on all counts. The military doesn't have their rank and file get together to decide who should run things for the next few years, why should we? It makes no sense. It also opens up the fire service to politics, two things that should never coincide. Good officers have to make hard decisions, and hard decisions hurt feelings and burn bridges. A fire officer should never have to weigh doing what's right against getting reelected. This very reason is why Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.

I await the flames, or the thread getting locked, whichever comes first.

Raz, there's definitely alot of merit in what you've said. Its rational and makes sense.

[ex-commish 490]

As I have posted before in other forums I have been a big advocate of reform with officers both in selection and in training. The election process needs to go. Period. I have seen to many unqualified people in charge because they were either popular or others felt it was owed. Officers should be appointed based on training and experience. Career officers have to attend FLIP school which consists of :

Educational Methodology, Fire Behavior and Arson Awareness, Fire Cause and Origin Determination, Haz Mat First Responder Operations, Fire Instructor Level 1, and Fire Officer Level 1. Someone correct me if I left anything out. These courses can be obtained over a period of time.

Raz, good post.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Why is this particular point so difficult to achieve?

Because FASNY has been very effective in lobbyng agianst it.

Same reason that CFR ir 54 hrs. it does not matter what matterial needs to be covered. All that mattered is someone determined this was the maximum amount of time that they were willing to sit in class and got there elected officials to agree in the form of legislation.

Why is it that volunteer ff's need less training to do the same job? They don't need less, but the politicians agreed they need less.

Why is it that in NYS a barber must have more training to cut hair than a volunteeer or career ff, officer or chief of Dept.?

A career chief by law needs initial training & flips (chances are to get to chief he needs a lot more to compete on exams, but thats all that is required). Thats less than 1/2 the time needed to be a barber. If a barber screws up.....It should grow back or a plastic surgon could fix it. If a chief screws up, people could get killed, the community lose a major industry or everyone get forced out due to a hazmat error.

Chris do auxilary cops get the same training as full timers? Do they have the same responsabilities?

[helicopper 1,050]

Outstanding posts, Raz and moggie6!!!

While we're starting at the top, let's focus on the OFPC who can mandate that all students in an evening/weekend based class perform to the highest standards and not just "show up". I think we've all been in the classes with a guy or two who simply linger at the sidelines and don't actually do any of the skills being taught. The worst example that I'm personally aware of is a student in a Haz-Mat Tech class who received his certificate even though he never donned PPE - through the whole class. Pathetic!

By creating rigorous training standards, we can being to narrow the gap that moggie describes and by holding the instructors accountable (sort of as Raz describes - not chiefs but the instructors) we begin to raise the standards and improve the quality of our services.

I'm in no way bashing fire service instructors! Just like any barrel of apples, there are a few rotten ones and this is true in police training as well.

Barry, in response to your question, "auxiliary police officers" are peace officers not police officers and they do not receive the same training as a full or part-time police officer. Is that terminology an issue, probably, but when you hear "auxiliary" you know your not dealing with a police officer.

Great discussion guys (and gals!)!!! Keep it up!!!

[Raz 14]

Hey guys, thanks for the replies. You get so used to the seemingly endless fighting and rhetoric, and it's nice to have people (especially those that share an opposing viewpoint 95% of the time) share a kind word.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Raz...that has to be one of the single most thoughtout and well presented ideas I have seen on this site and to be honest overall discussed about such an issue. Well done. I always used to say "find me a business that is run the same way that most fire departments are allowed to be run." No one still can. Or how there are areas where attempts to get officers positions to have better supervision of career staff is thwarted, even though the titles themselves are "traditional" titles, but then tradition suddenly doesn't apply there. The one thing that a respected fire service leader said that always stuck out to me, is that emergency response only accounts for 2% of the fire departments time. Its the other 98% that counts for your image and to prepare you for the 2%. But how many departments are being allowed to be managed based on that 2% only?

Chris thanks for pointing out the difference in auxilary officers. My next question is do they all have to be peace officer status? Or can they be called auxilary "police officers" when they are unarmed and assist with functions?