READERS RESPOND TO STANDARDS SURVEY
In Fire Engineering`s September 1994 Editor`s Opinion, Editor Bill Manning posed the following four questions concerning fire service standards and asked for your responses:
1. Should there be separate standards for career and volunteer firefighters?
2. Should standards be written so they can be used in a “site-specific” way?
3. Should the Alliance for Fire and Emergency Management create new fire service standards?
4. Should the Alliance and the National Fire Protection Association work together to create new fire service standards?
Thanks to our dedicated readers, we received an excellent response. In the chart opposite is a breakdown of those responses.
Note the following observations:
From the data, it would appear that volunteer firefighters are more likely than career firefighters to support separate standards for the career and volunteer sectors.
Department type was not a factor in respondents` strong support of standards being employed in a “site-specific” way.
Most career firefighters who responded were opposed to the Alliance`s becoming a second standards-making organization (or were opposed to the concept of a second standards-making body); volunteers who responded were split on this issue.
From the responses, it would appear that a majority of both career and volunteer firefighters support new fire service standards developed from a closer working relationship between the NFPA and the Alliance. (Note: Unfortunately, the survey did not facilitate categorization as either career or volunteer for respondents of combination departments.)
Although they were split on the issue, it appears that department chiefs are more inclined than their subordinates to support separate career-volunteer standards.
Rank was not a factor in respondents` strong support of standards being employed in a “site-specific” way.
Department chiefs appear to favor a second standards-making agency; fire officers and firefighters appear to lean heavily against it.
The strong majority of firefighters, regardless of rank, appear to support cooperative NFPA-Alliance standards.
Firefighters of larger departments (more than 25,000 people served) appear strongly opposed to separate standards for career and volunteer firefighters; respondents from midsize departments (between 2,500 and 25,000 people served) appear split on the issue; and firefighters of small departments (fewer than 2,500 people served) appear to favor separate standards.
Department size was not a factor in respondents` strong support of standards being employed in a “site-specific” way.
The data suggest that a majority of firefighters from both large and small departments are opposed to the Alliance`s independently creating new fire service standards; respondents from midsize departments also were opposed, but to a lesser degree. However, irrespective of department size, most firefighters appear to support a cooperative NFPA-Alliance standards-making effort.
* * *
Here is what some of our readers had to say about these issues:
ISFSI has been around for more than 30 years, making significant and realistic contributions to the improvement of firefighter training. If you take time to analyze NFPA standards, you will find that those standards are technically sound and probably the most concise.
Here in Spain, there are no official training or competence level standards. You in the U.S. are light years ahead. However, you cannot afford to become static. The need for firefighter knowledge is far more dynamic than what NFPA`s “static” processes, activities, and installations-oriented documents have accommodated for.
If it is necessary for new standards to be considered in accordance with the realities of the firefighters` objectives, then so be it; but the quality of training must never be allowed to diminish.
The only direction to be taken is that of improving abilities and knowledge. Who sets down the standards is secondary; and if two or more entities work on the task, they must work together, not in opposition, to benefit the fire service–locally, nationally, and internationally.
George Potter
Fire Safety Instructor
Madrid, Spain
I would like to address the following questions: Should there be separate standards for career and volunteer firefighters? and Should two organizations write the standards together?
I once thought that, because the “enemy” (fire) was the same for paid and volunteer firefighters alike, the standards should be the same. Now, I do not.
The current system for writing standards produces standards that are unrealistic for most fire departments–paid or volunteer. Here are a few reasons why:
1. The NFPA is a volunteer organization with too many manufacturers and vendors on its committees. It would be self-preserving to constantly change the equipment standards.
2. These committees write a range of standards–from those pertaining directly to fire departments to those falling within the construction industry, such as a grease hood in a waffle house.
3. Too much of the standard setting is a result of opinions from only a few metropolitan fire departments.
4. The NFPA uses a disclaimer that identifies the standards as minimums and not mandatory. However, you can bet everything you own that the legal system will use the standards against a department and its officers because we live in the “Sue Nation.”
5. The IFSTA training manuals are written by an organization “outside” the fire service.
We may have lost sight of the reasons for standards. The Georgia Standards and Training Council tried to sell National Professional Qualifications (NPQ) testing on the basis that a certified firefighter in Georgia could hop a jet and get a job with “Anytown USA” fire department without going through rookie school. That may work with law enforcement and EMS, but the fire service is different because the response challenges are so varied.
Firefighters must be trained to function within the parameters of the department for which they work because the fire problems, SOPs, equipment, etc. differ throughout this country.
Practically every volunteer fire chief will tell you his biggest problem is a lack of personnel. The situation is getting worse in this part of the country (Georgia). To expect this limited resource to meet standards set for a few, select municipal departments is not realistic. There should be a range of standards for both paid and volunteer departments based on the department size, characteristics of the target area (farm community or bedroom, etc.), the emergency services challenge (industrial, farmland, and those in between), and available water sources.
Concerning the possibility of two organizations` writing a new set of standards together, I do not support it. Maybe the best way to accomplish the task of writing standards is for one organization to concentrate on writing standards and providing the training manuals for the fire service, its personnel, and firefighting equipment currently covered by NFPA 1001, 1002, 1041, 1901, and 1500 (for example). The other organization could then concentrate on standards related to fire prevention and fire protection–sprinkler systems, the Life Safety Code, HVAC equipment, alarm systems, the National Electric Code, etc. currently covered in NFPA standards 13, 101, 90A, 72, 70, etc.
A. W. DeLay, Jr.
Captain
Fire Marshall and Training Officer
Cherokee County (GA) Fire and Rescue
I was not totally satisfied by circling a few numbers on a response card, so here are my views concerning the questions in Bill Manning`s September editorial.
Question 1: There should not be separate standards, as all fires should be treated equally.
Question 2: Yes, standards should be written to be used in a “site-specific” way. My small rural department does not need to know how to set up an aerial ladder (we do not have one), ground ladders, or dump tanks.
Questions 3 and 4: There should be one standard-setting entity, which should be free of manufacturers who try to set the standards so their products are the only ones that fit them.
If it`s to be, the Alliance and the NFPA should work together to set, modify, change, and update the standards, as the fire service is continually changing.
Don Copeland
Island Falls (ME) Fire Department
The Federal Point (NC) Volunteer Fire Department is one of seven fire departments in New Hanover County (Wilmington area). While our county is probably the smallest in the state, it is also the second most densely populated. The fire service in this area is, like most departments, undergoing rapid changes. In fact, the same night I wrote this letter, we had a meeting to discuss paid staff in the volunteer stations.
Your article really hit home with me. I feel we all should be held to common and like standards, but I realize that in the volunteer service, time constraints will not allow for all of the required training. Most volunteer departments do not meet all of the standards and requirements for NFPA 1001 and 1021. By the same token, many large paid departments do not meet all of them either. I was shocked when I realized that the majority of officers in many of the big city departments in our area do not meet the fire officer standards.
It is evident that almost everyone has had trouble meeting certain standards at one time or another. The amount of required training and certification is always increasing, meaning that it probably will get worse before it gets better. Maybe we should look at the method of delivery for this type of training. Are there any other ways for individuals to get this training?
I have a lot of questions, but I don`t have any of the answers. I can see that many other people feel the same way. I encourage the two groups to work together on the issue.
I also think that “site-specific” standards could become very dangerous if they are not closely monitored or properly explained.
Jonathan Wrenn
Captain
Federal Point (NC) Volunteer Fire
Department
I welcome a new player in the standards game (Editor`s Opinion, September 1994). The NFPA has given its allegiance to special interest groups vs. the membership, as evidenced by 1500. It is time for another standards development organization.
Joe Erwin
Fire Chief
City of Hurst (TX) Fire Department
Having read Bill Manning`s editorial “New Player in the Standards Game,“ I was left with a knot in my stomach [as I perceived] that the fire service may be coming apart at the seams. It seems of late that the volunteer fire service, which so often has pounded its chest with how professional it is, now seems to want to weasel out from what it has espoused with bravado for years: that it is equal with the career fire service.
Equality must include quality of standards. North America`s career departments have learned the hard way over the years why strong standards are necessary. This is a profession where the unexpected is daily routine. The service no longer restricts itself to fires, so the name “fire department“ is a misnomer. We have become a “service department” that is expected to perform numerous tasks with actual fire duty often being a sideline. Without standards like the NFPA or OSHA in force equally for all departments, I would have great reservations concerning safety not only for my brothers but for the “people“ we give service. This, by the way, includes our families, who often feel stressed each time we go to work or respond.
It mystifies me how people whose profession by day may be factory workers, town highway employees, or rocket scientists can in a part-time capacity in the fire service have so much wisdom about the profession I have chosen as a career. The relaxation of standards for any part of this profession based on the fact that you are a volunteer is dangerous and life-threatening. In the volunteer service, it is often the most popular, not the best qualified, who lead. This is definitely a life-threatening but common practice. If OSHA reform comes about with the legislation before the U.S. Congress and the Senate, I ask, “Will volunteer officers put their life`s savings on the line as a result of new exposure to litigation with the same vigor they seek to dilute equal standards? In a service built on the basic principle of protection of life and property, there is no place for second-best standards. Fires and emergencies know no difference between career or volunteer status, burns and injuries are not less painful, and your family will not cry fewer tears if you are killed. A volunteer need look no further than the “In Memorium“ section of the IAFF newsletter to understand the dangers of this profession.
Donald R. Striffler
Captain
City of New York (NY) Fire Department
* * *
Other comments we received were as follows:
“It`s about time someone tried to give the vols a voice in the game.”
“[Standards] should be task-specific, but standardized for all doing the task.”
“Establish separate criteria for career and volunteer [firefighters].”
“Do not lower standards/expectations for hobby individuals!”
“The ISFSI is becoming an organization driven by greed.”
“I feel that people should learn what a standard is and what goes into writing one!”
“Volunteers are hard to come by. Leave it alone.”
“Fire is fire no matter where it occurs or who is fighting it, so I feel all firefighters should be equally well-trained.”
“The requirements should be job-specific, and the functions related to those tasks.”
“The fire service does not need a new set of conflicting standards. There are already too many.”
“The Alliance has good points!”
“The NFPA needs to better meet the needs of the fire service by opening more opportunities for input and flow of information regarding standards.”
“The Alliance should leave the code-making process to the NFPA.”
“Do not allow the NFPA to set standards–have strong input.”
“The ISFSI should work to improve the NFPA, not create new standards.”
“The fact that the IAFF has rejoined the NFPA standards committee only strengthens the need for change!”
Fire Engineering would like to thank all who responded for their valuable input and candid opinions. n
