Applauds cessation of “zippotricks”
I am a retired volunteer firefighter who has served 28 consecutive years with the Prairie DuPont Volunteer Fire Department, located in midwestern Illinois about 10 miles from St. Louis. I spearheaded the fire prevention program and created and instituted the curriculum used in our two elementary grade schools. One of the many things I taught students was not to play with matches and lighters.
After reading about zippotricks in News in Brief (November 2003), I had to check the Web site. The first screen that came to life was a black screen with a letter from the company indicating that it was going to stop the program immediately. I applaud everyone involved for taking our beliefs and helping make them a reality.
Garnet Barnett
Minnetonka, Minnesota
EMS still a “stepchild”
In response to “Fix the Car or Buy a New One?” (From the Editor, fireEMS, November/December 2003), Bill Manning is asking the wrong question. As he points out, EMS is still considered the bastard stepchild of many in the fire service. With the exception of a few token bones thrown out there in an attempt to placate the rising voices in EMS, it is virtually overlooked at the U.S. Fire Administration, the National Fire Academy, and the Department of Homeland Security. And, as stated, there are no clear-cut national set EMS policies, standards, or data.
Now, were these all issues of recent origin, “Fix the Car or Buy a New One?” might be the appropriate question to ask. But the fact is that the fire service, more than any other entity, has been in the position to do more to correct the decades-long problems mentioned above, but it has for whatever reasons repeatedly and continually dropped the ball.
I find it telling that it took a move like this to even get a response from most in the fire service and that, almost to a person, every response to this proposal I have heard or seen from folks in the fire service has been negative. Perhaps that is because EMS is finally standing up and asking for its fair share of the pie.
“Fix the Car or Buy a New One?” might have been the appropriate question 20 years ago. Today the question should be, “Isn’t it time for EMS to take the lemon back and demand a new car?” My answer to that question is a resounding YES!
Kevin M. Agard, BS, EMT-P
Carlstadt, New Jersey
Expected more on “Blue-Card Firefighting”
I believe Bill Manning’s attack on ICS (“Blue-Card Firefighting,” Editor’s Opinion, October 2003) did a disservice to America’s fire service. I would have ex-pected a more balanced view addressing the real issues, the lack of or the misuse of any command system, from a respected national magazine and its editor.
Neil Honeycutt
El Dorado Hills, California
Why not national training standards for firefighters?
Currently our state requires a 24-hour firefighter class as well as a basic firefighter class. This training would be a little less than the equivalent of NFPA Firefighter I. I have written to the Indiana Board of Firefighting Standards and Education about increasing the state’s minimum training standard for firefighters to Firefighter I/II, Firefighter Survival, and RIT prior to allowing any firefighter to function at any incident.
Right now after 24-hour and Basic Firefighter, you are cut loose to perform as a firefighter. The only requirements for a fire chief in Indiana are 24-hour and Basic Firefighter. There is no annual recertification process.
As I know very well, Firefighter I/II, Firefighter Survival, and RIT are not a fix-all. They are, however, a great starting point. Over the past few years, post 9-11, everyone has jumped on the band wagon with money and specialized training requests and standards. Not to bash all the good intentions, but I think the main mission of the fire service has been forgotten. WE FIGHT FIRE!
NFPA 1001 lists professional qualifications for firefighters; the United States Government as well recognizes this as the minimum standard and lets each state decide if it wants to meet this standard or not. Therefore, it must be assumed that every fire department across the United States has everyone trained to the minimum level of Firefighter I/II when, in fact, they are not.
Adding specialized training before building the fundamental foundation of training and certification that all firefighters should have is reckless. Where are the requirement and funding for the Firefighter I/II, Firefighter Survival, and RIT? How can anyone request and fund any other type of training without first ensuring that the basic fundamental Firefighter I/II training has been met?
The biggest opposition I am facing here in Indiana is the Indiana Volunteer Fire Association (IVFA). Its response to my request was that it has a hard enough time keeping the ranks of volunteers full, let alone requiring them to train as firefighters. After all, increasing training standards for a volunteer is too much, and they won’t want to volunteer anymore. Where is the rationale in this?
If volunteers do not have the time to be trained properly, then maybe they should not volunteer for a service that can get them hurt or killed or in which they can cause others to be hurt or killed because of their lack of time to train.
Would Fire Engineering please address minimum mandatory training standards set by each state and well as funding for the programs in the future? I think the fire service needs to address this issue first and then work on additional issues.
For the record, I have been a volunteer firefighter for almost 17 years and am currently working toward a degree. I am certified as a Firefighter I/II, Instructor II/III, Investigator I, Inspector I/II, Fire Officer II, IFSAC Credentialed, NREMT- Paramedic, Paramedic Instructor, CPR Instructor Trainer, ACLS Instructor, and PHTLS Instructor and have several other certifications as well.
Randy Brown
Training Officer
Angola (IN) Fire Department
Fire prevention should be the next step
In response to Steve Kreis’ article, “Rapid Intervention Isn’t Rapid,” and his question of where do we go from here (December 2003), I offer the following: We, too, have been training extensively on RIT team procedures over the past year or so. I marvel at the sweat and toil our members expend preparing for such a noble cause, rescuing a trapped firefighter. I also wonder how effective we can really be in an actual Mayday situation. The Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department has shed some light on this for us.
This comes at a time when my chief has informed me that our Fire Prevention Bureau may be cut in half. The surprising thing is, this is not because of budget cuts but a lack of interest. It has become one of his biggest challenges to entice members to commit to several years in the bureau.
We need to better educate not only the public but also our own members on the importance of built-in detection and suppression systems. We need to show how many firefighters’ lives have been saved by these built-in features and make it our cause to ensure that the systems are properly installed and adequately maintained.
On a national level, we need to lobby for better funding in the area of residential sprinklers. Think about it: If all homes had these systems, we would be able to address a philosophical shift that is desperately needed in the U.S. fire service. RIT teams for all of their effectiveness might become obsolete. They could be replaced with water flow alarm teams—not very glamorous for the traditionalist, but this shift would allow us to focus even more on fire prevention and emergency medical activities, where we know we can save lives.
For all of the thought-provoking articles that get published in Fire Engineering, something dawned on me. On the Worcester Polytechnic Institute Web site under its fire engineering program, it lists such classes as Flammability Tests, Codes and Standards, Fire Modeling, Fire Dynamics, Fire Protection Systems, and Detection-Alarm and Smoke Control. Why is it that none of these has its own spot in either the Features or Departments pages of such a progressive magazine as Fire Egineering?
Steve Nash
Battalion Chief
Solon (OH) Fire Department
