Every day I look at a photo on the wall in my office of my dad when he was a lieutenant on #1 Rescue Squad in the early 1960s. He was in charge of the rescue of a man stuck up to his chest (and sinking more with every movement) in a cement silo on the docks of Toledo. No shoring, no ventilators, no fans and blowers-only hand tools, leather life belts, and 3⁄4-inch Manila hemp rope. They got him out alive.
When I came on “the job” in 1975, we didn’t have a haz-mat, confined space/trench rescue, or biohazard response vehicle. We did have paramedics (I think four on duty in two life squads in the city); no one in the department was an EMT. We still responded to spills and releases of hazardous materials. We responded to people trapped in confined spaces.
Today, we have more than 100 haz-mat technicians, 40 confined space/trench technicians, and 45 rescue divers (underwater). Every firefighter is trained to the Operations level in weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and we have more than 30 WMD technicians. We have more than 100 paramedics staffing five response vehicles and five advanced life support (ALS) engines, or more, at any time. It is a condition of employment that every member in the department maintains an EMT card.
All of these “specialties” call for certification and, in most instances, continuing education mandated at the state or federal level; we have no control over these mandates. The problem that arises is that the time needed to learn and to maintain “specialty” skills detracts from time spent on fire training. Very rarely do you hear of a firefighter being killed in a haz-mat suit or hanging from a rope. However, we manage to kill the same outrageous number of firefighters at fires year in and year out. I don’t think we should get rid of the specialties, but we should insist on mandated continuing education in fire training at every level, firefighter through chief. That will force administrators to ensure-no, mandate-that we spend appropriate time remembering how to fight fires correctly and safely.
-John “Skip” Coleman, deputy chief of fire prevention, Toledo (OH) Department of Fire and Rescue, is the author of Incident Management for the Street-Smart Fire Officer (Fire Engineering, 1997) and Managing Major Fires (Fire Engineering, 2000). He is an editorial advisory board member of Fire Engineering and a member of the FDIC Educational Advisory Board.
Question: Are we stretching the envelope too much in the fire service today? Thirty years ago, even though we didn’t have fancy and expensive apparatus in which to respond, we still did trench rescue, confined space entry, haz-mat mitigation, and emergency medical runs. All of these now call for additional training and certifications. Are we doing too much in the fire service?
Rick Lasky, chief, Lewisville (TX) Fire Department
Response: The fire service has always done more than what was expected of it. We have never been a single task-oriented service and have always stepped up when there was something to be done. We did these things with little or no formal training or funding and without a whole lot of specialized equipment. But after a time, we found what we needed and grew into a more formalized way of responding to that specific task. Over the years, these areas have grown into a much more efficient, safe, and professional operation. Laws, standards, and “some” funding have helped us get there.
As for whether we are doing too much or too many things, you have to ask yourself, “How much do I want those in the private sector to do?” At a time when so many city managers and mayors are trying to give away what we’re doing and privatize, we need to be fighting for our existence and survival. It’s gotten too easy for some to say it’s cheaper or better economically [to privatize], and if we’re not careful, they’ll slowly chip away at everything we do. Yes, we have taken on a lot, but who would you rather have do it? I know it’s hard for a lot of us to do these things with limited funding, but that’s where the chief and labor groups could help us demand that we receive the funding we need. So far, they have done a great job.
Does it mean that we have to be all things to all people or get everyone in our department trained in everything? No. There are ways to get some of our folks trained or to develop and implement a specialized response team system, as was done in our area with the Metrocrest Chiefs’ Association-we share resources. It can be difficult to get it all done, but, speaking selfishly, I’m not ready to give anything away because I really believe that will be where it all will start.
Robert Shelton, firefighter/EMT-I, Cincinnati (OH) Fire Department
Response: We in the fire service have always done more with less and continue to do so. Thirty years ago, we did all sorts of hazard mitigation and specialty rescues, but were we as aware of the hazards then as we are now? Were people we make runs on as litigious 30 years ago? What caused us to become more aware and better prepared? Training. Our ongoing training helps us to become part of the solution, not the problem. Training or the lack thereof has always been a hot topic. Is there such a thing as too much training? What training is MOST important for small or financially strapped departments? And the list goes on.
These questions require answering. Yes, the fire service is doing too much. And yes, we are stretching ourselves thin. But as more and more fire departments are coming under attack from municipal administrators, we have to do more just for, and I hate to say it, job justification. Firefighting is not our primary job function anymore. We do more EMS than firefighting. We do more inspecting, hydrants, and so on than firefighting, so we need to be trained in multiple disciplines to do the other things that have been thrust on us and that we have willingly accepted. The only way to lessen the strain on us is to say, No we cannot take on more. Fire, EMS, haz mat, WMD, and so on, is enough. However, remember this: We are not saying no to the city fathers. We are saying no to those we have sworn to protect and serve.
John O’Neal, deputy chief, Jacksonville (NC) Fire Department
Response: I don’t think the fire service is stretching the envelope too much, although many of our rank-and-file share that view. I believe the fire service is being responsive or reactive to customer expectations and events locally or nationally that brought to light deficiencies in its service delivery, response capabilities, and training, such as domestic terrorism along with natural and other manmade disasters. In our department, significant improvements were made in training and the acquisition of equipment after 9/11 and after a local haz-mat incident in which we experienced extended response times for regional resources we had asked for assistance.
Most small to mid-size departments cannot support the cost or staffing requirements to develop full specialty teams to address all hazards. Regionalization and public/private partnerships along with state and federal grant funding are needed to address community-specific needs in these jurisdictions. Reasonable response approaches and the sharing of resources across boundaries and functional disciplines are needed.
The point is noted that the fire service has answered these calls over the years without the fancy equipment and expensive apparatus. However, without the proper equipment and training, the safety of response personnel and victims may have been compromised along the way. The additional training associated with receiving certifications is needed to ensure operations are performed safely, efficiently, and effectively.
Steve Kreis, assistant chief, Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department
Response: Let’s look at the question a different way. Thirty years ago, we rode on the tailboard of a 25-year-old truck, climbed into collapsed trenches without any shoring material, crawled into and through confined spaces we had no business being in without any protective equipment or SOPs, had no regard for (or understanding of) the dangers of hazardous materials, and didn’t leave the fire station for a kid who had drowned in a neighborhood pool even though we were 10 to 15 minutes closer than the nearest ambulance. Here’s some more stuff we didn’t have in the good old days: SCBAs, top-of-the-line bunker gear, health centers, physical fitness programs, incident command, safety officers, safety standards, SOPs-the list can go on and on.
On a more personal basis, we all made less money; side jobs were for making enough money to support your family, not buying new toys. The only members who had new pickups were the young kids who didn’t know how poor they would be, and many of us didn’t have the first-class pensions we see today. Simply stated, the good old days of 30 years ago weren’t so good.
Times have changed; our profession has changed, and it will continue to change. You can’t maintain the status quo; our service and our organizations are either going forward or backward. It’s our choice. Clearly, we can’t be all things to all people, but any opportunities we have to deliver more types of service using the strengths associated with the fire service (decentralized locations; the brightest, smartest, and nicest workforce in the world; 24/7 operations; an easy phone number to remember) make us stronger.
A significant challenge/opportunity coming in our future revolves around our ability to influence the social service responses many of our fire companies are dealing with on a daily basis. I’m not sure if a 1,500-gpm triple combination pumper staffed with four firefighters is the best choice of response to these incidents, but clearly something “red” should go.
Even though we are responding to more types of incidents than ever before, we should never lose track of our primary responsibility to our community, firefighting.
Ron Hiraki, assistant chief, Gig Harbor (WA) Fire & Medic One
Response: How can we not continue to do what we are doing? For a long time, the public has viewed us as a dependable, well-trained, and well-equipped group of people who are willing to risk our lives to help them in any emergency or with almost any problem. This image was not only renewed but took on a whole new meaning with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Our communities today have new and greater hazards and threats. Buildings are bigger and taller. Homes are being built in less accessible places. Construction techniques are different; the finishes and contents include materials that did not exist a few years ago. There are more hazardous materials, more bad stuff in confined spaces, deeper trenches, and more EMS as people live longer and choose outpatient or home care.
The public has high expectations of public employees. More importantly, they are counting on us. We need to continue what we are doing. We have to ensure the safety of our firefighters with modern equipment, proper training, and certifications. We must also manage the demands on their time made by training, responding to alarms, and other activities. Additionally, we must distribute the specialized skills of advanced life support, haz-mat technician, technical rescue, and auto extrication among different individuals. We cannot add too many of these specialties on top of the roles of firefighter, EMT, and public educator to any one firefighter.
Jeffrey Schwering, lieutenant, Crestwood (MO) Department of Fire
Response: We definitely have more to do in the fire service of today, but we are meeting the demands placed on us by the times in which we live. The fire service has had to evolve in the past 30 years as it has done for the past 200 years. We responded to all the same incidents 30 years ago; however, with the required certifications, we are handling the same incidents more safely. This benefits our firefighters and the citizens we protect.
The changing hazards of our profession have forced us to change our approach to all incidents, whether fire or medically related. The fire service of 2005 and beyond needs to take a proactive approach to whatever is thrown our way. Certifications and recertifications are difficult and time-consuming at times, but the citizens look to us for help in their time of crisis. It is our job to safely mitigate any and all incidents to which we respond. We are not doing too much in the fire service: We are doing what is necessary to provide the best service we can to the public. Simply put, we are doing our jobs.
Freddie Fernandez, battalion chief, City of Miami (FL) Fire Rescue
Response: Today’s fire service is requiring more than ever before from all of its members. We have transformed from a few required courses every couple of years to significant amounts of training that must be accomplished on and off duty.
We have negotiated labor-management agreements to send our members to 32 hours of recertification training for EMT or paramedic recertification biannually while off duty and on overtime. This has increased our fire department budget, but we cannot accomplish this training on duty and still deliver services.
The technical rescue duties of trench, confined space, and high angle have been given to a special team at fire station 6. However, this special team in reality is just another fire station that still responds to 911 calls on an average of 25 to 30 each day. In between these calls, they must train constantly to maintain proficiency in all of the TRT skills and the vast amounts of equipment necessary.
The hazardous materials team responds to all of the regular haz mat-related calls in addition to vehicle extrication calls and the previously mentioned 911 calls. In Miami, we have many bodies of water; therefore, another one of our stations is configured as a SCUBA dive rescue team.
These service delivery arrangements are not ideal but are rather creative ways of “doing more with less.” We have stretched our resources as far as we can, until the next wave of negotiations with city officials who will insist we can still do more. The expectations for today’s fire service are much greater than ever before and can be expected to grow as America’s first line of homeland response continues to be asked to “do more with less.”
Michael J. Allora, lieutenant, Clifton (NJ) Fire Department
Response: The question of whether we are doing too much in the fire service is an issue we are dealing with locally. The fact is that the incidence of fires has been declining and we are continually being tasked with performing other functions. Weapons of mass destructions are our newest challenge, and as a fire service, we must rise to meet that challenge. The community looks to the fire department to solve just about any problem it may have. We must develop new and innovative ways to balance all of the tasks we are expected to perform.
All of these disciplines require continuing education and recertification, which may sometimes seem like a nuisance. Every time we report for duty, we seem to have some sort of mandated training that takes up a great deal of time and effort. Unfortunately, in today’s world, we need that recertification to deal with liability issues that may result from litigation. If the public is demanding a service, we should strive to provide that service as long as it falls within our realm. If we do not seize the opportunity, some other organization will. We must also demand that the fire service be recognized on the federal level and be funded accordingly to meet these challenges in the safest and most professional manner.
Thomas Dunne, deputy chief, Fire Department of New York
Response: I do not feel that today’s fire service is trying to accomplish too much. Fire departments should be redefining their responsibilities and providing the training and specialization called for in the challenges we currently face.
Fire suppression will always be the core element of our work. However, the amount of fire activity for some departments is well below the level of decades ago. Over this same time period, hazardous materials resources, medical expertise, and specialized rescue techniques have received the emphasis they deserve. I see the certification and training required to perform these activities as a good development. We are doing more, but we are also providing a level of emergency response not available in the past.
To some extent, the 9/11 terrorist attacks have redefined the goals of the fire service. A firefighter should not be viewed solely as a laborer who operates a hoseline but also as a trained technician who can provide vital expertise. Hopefully, fire budgets will reflect this concept.
Perhaps we can benefit from a lesson that has been continually reinforced throughout military history: Be prepared to fight the next war rather than remaining stuck in the mindset and policies of the last one.
Gary Seidel, chief, Hillsboro (OR) Fire Department
Response: The reason the fire service is willing to accept a response to almost any type of incident is that we base our responses on the term “patient generator.” If someone is in trouble, we respond to mitigate the incident. Whatever service level your agency accepts, you must ensure your personnel are supported, trained, and equipped to respond.
The majority of our incidents are for medical services. We maintain a three-tier level of service-Basic, Intermediate, and Paramedic. We pay incentives for Intermediate and Paramedic. Our daily staffing provides a paramedic (any rank) on all apparatus. A contracted ambulance service provides ambulance service.
In the hazardous-materials realm, we maintain an operational level. If a haz-mat technician level is needed, we have mutual-aid agreements in place.
In the technical rescue realm, we maintain our personnel at technician level. Currently, all personnel are technician level in trench, confined space, and rope rescue. We are in a continual process of providing technician level training in structural collapse.
I don’t believe this is too much for us. The reason Hillsboro Fire Department maintains this service level is our community risk analysis. This analysis dictated the service and capability level we need. Therefore, management supports these services, our personnel get appropriate training, we provide continuous in-service training, and we do have the tools/equipment needed to safely mitigate the incidents to which we respond.
Danny Kistner, battalion chief, Garland (TX) Fire Department
Response: The modern fire service has evolved into the emergency provider it is today based on demands from our constituents. Our customers require a one-stop shop for all emergencies, and we already have their trust. Private business has survived by redefining its root product. We are not in the business of fire suppression; rather, we are in the business of providing emergency services.
True, 30 years ago we were generalists and responded to the same emergencies with little specialized equipment or training. What is difficult to measure, however, is how successful we were. The intent is, and has always been, pure, but how often did we endanger ourselves or victims needlessly? We simply did not know better. Medical science has produced a generation of physician specialists out of need. No longer can a doctor be a generalist and expect to satisfactorily mitigate all medical conditions.
The fire service has become a generation of specialists. The Garland Fire Department has rescue technicians, hazardous materials technicians, command technicians, paramedics, and, yes, we still have firefighters. Each requires specialized training and continuing education (CE) to coincide with required firefighter CE.
I do not think the issue is with specialization. I think it lies with making each firefighter a specialist in multiple disciplines. It is not beyond practical expectations to carry firefighter/EMS certifications. Both disciplines can be maintained proficiently and simultaneously. As additional sub-specialties are added, however, efficiency will diminish without continued application. Pick one. Practice one. Learn one.
Jeff A. Welch, reserve firefighter, Coeur d’ Alene (ID) Fire Department
Response: I believe in a lot of cases we are stretching the envelope. Over the years, the fire service has become the bottom-line solution to many of the citizens’ problems. We have become involved in many disciplines (some not by choice). In most cases, only EMS required certification. Some responders may have obtained little or no training in other disciplines, but they could respond to calls requiring action in those disciplines. How many times have you come back from a response and thought to yourself, “WOW, we sure had a close call”? But it worked out. Did it work out because you and your crew were lucky or because you were properly trained?
Certification can be a good thing. It ensures that at some point in time the individual has obtained skills and knowledge and has demonstrated proficiency in the identified tasks. Look at the disciplines your organization is delivering (or trying to deliver) to your customers. Are you responding with fewer than adequate numbers on your apparatus to safely and effectively mitigate a bread-and-butter fire in your area? That is our basic mission. With that minimal number of personnel, take a realistic count of how many people it requires to safely conduct any of the other responses. Are you meeting that number or just jumping through the hoops?
David B. Cheshire, captain,Manteno (IL) Community Fire Protection District
Response: I believe this question depends on where you stand in the fire service today. If you work in the big city, large department, I would have to probably say no. For example, you could spend your whole career on an engine company worrying only about engine company operations or in a special response unit. Furthermore, you have plenty of staffing and funding.
However, if you are in a medium to small department, you are stretched to the limits. You have to be a jack-of-all-trades, never knowing what emergency unit you may respond with until the call is received because medium and small departments usually house every piece of equipment we have. Medium and small departments are the majority of the fire departments in this country. They are undertaking more responsibilities along with additional training requirements, which are tough to handle.
Today’s fire service is not the same as it was 10, 30, 50, or more years ago. We have a lot more responsibility and rules and regulations that restrict, for good reasons, the way we perform our multioperational tasks. The fire service is a great organization in that when a community needs help, we are there adapting and overcoming the situations at hand.
John A. Van Doren, captain, Clyde (OH) Fire Department
Response: I think we do as much as the brave, dedicated, and competent firefighters did 30 years ago and are not stretching the envelope. Our work still includes the same brute force and deliberate action that fire seems to understand. Gravity still pulls as hard, and there is still the given amount of time in the day with people still needing the same types of help. We do all that our charges expect of us, armed with plenty of knowledge, equipment, and back-breaking expertise used to mitigate the same situations today.
The fire service paradigm finally shifted to just this side of demanding that we come home together with all our fingers and toes. We are very concerned with living long, happy lives now that some past actions and inactions have proven lethal. This is the reason we carefully protect ourselves, train hard, and learn the historic lesson that we require technical expertise today.
I wonder if they will be pushing the envelope in 2035. I wonder what good and useful lessons we will have taught them (or left them). I hope to find out that we fought the good fight with honor and dignity while using our backs and brains.
I still think that racing to be first on the scene to save the day (without wearing seat belts) would be very exciting, but that was 30 years ago. Right?
Steven M. De Lisi, deputy chief, Virginia Air National Guard Fire Rescue
Response: Are we doing too much in the fire service today? If you believe that the mindset “When you don’t know whom to call, you call the fire department” exists as an unwritten social contract within most communities, then no, we are not. And whether this need to have an answer for every occasion is driven by the public and political leaders’ perception of our abilities or by our own pride and ego that cause us to embrace a “bigger is better” mentality, many of us continue to enable these demands. However, those who choose to do so must acknowledge the reality of an ever-evolving landscape that has come to include laws, national standards, and litigation, as well as the shifting culture within our ranks that is now less likely to accept death and injury simply as part of the job.
While more affluent organizations are able to meet the demands of both perception and reality, those less fortunate or who intentionally defy the odds to satisfy their ego’s cravings may find their departments dangerously overextended while dark clouds harboring litigation and firefighter fatalities gather overhead. For most, a reality check is long overdue, and they must expose the truth of their shortcomings and allow the public to make informed decisions about not only the level of service expected from their fire departments but also the means by which to finance it within the constraints of the real world.
Randall W. Hanifen, lieutenant, West Chester (OH) Fire Department
Response: We are stretching the envelope to the fullest extent. The one question that will continue to allow us to stretch it even further is, Who else is the public going to call when an emergency happens? Yes, many functions such as confined space, trench rescue, and haz-mat response were conducted 30 years ago, and with little to no training, but how many responder injuries and fatalities occurred? This increase in training and certification is our own way of recognizing as a profession that we need better ways to respond to these incidents.
We can take the burden off departments through job specialization and developing regional specialty teams. After the first two to three years on the job, department leaders could guide firefighters into a specialized area. This will create a group of highly educated and interested individuals to focus on such areas as technical rescue and haz mat. These individuals would provide technical advice on calls and lead the department’s training in these areas.
Not many departments can justify the level of money needed to properly outfit and train for special operations, such as haz mat, nor do they have the call volume to support the need for the specialized equipment. By having regional response teams, the small specialty groups from each department can be combined to produce a “full team” response. As times change and new hazards are recognized, the firefighting profession will have to undergo more training and certifications; this is what makes us a profession, not a general trade.
Fred P. LaFemina, battalion chief, Fire Department of New York
Response: Training in the fire service has evolved beyond our wildest dreams. We have never been better prepared. Many fire service incidents in the past were handled and accomplished without the benefit of state-of-the-art training or equipment. In those days, rescue personnel were mostly trade-oriented people who were able to transfer their expertise in a certain trade, such as rigging or building, and adapt those skills to the fire service. Many successful rescue and removal operations were accomplished with a minimum of equipment and no formal training. Where does that come from? It comes from the dedication of individuals who were able to overcome many obstacles to accomplish their task. However, this was not without the tragic results of losing rescue personnel during these incidents on occasion.
Today’s training allows the fire service to be wary and careful in response to and operating at technical rescue incidents. Having policies and certifications in place, such as NFPA and OSHA standards, ensures some policing of various training and operational procedures in the rescue world. I believe having these policies in place weeds out the “would-be” rescuers who could hurt themselves and possibly the victim. Remember, certified does not always mean qualified. You must train and continue to practice techniques learned so that you can adapt these skills in a crisis. I believe we have rescued more victims and saved more first responders because of the advent of the advanced training now available in the fire service. We must continue to improve so that we will never have to go to another firefighter’s funeral again.
Tony Tricarico, captain, Fire Department of New York
Response: We are not stretching the envelope. As a matter of fact, the fire service is the one the public turns to during any emergency outside of crime. We did all of the above 28 years ago (my fire service time), but we were untrained. That’s the reason one of the first things you hear instructors tell a class in a technical rescue discipline is “More than 60 percent of the victims in a confined-space or trench-rescue operation are would-be rescuers.” Why? Because members are not trained and are not aware of the dangers in a technical rescue. That goes for haz mat as well. I am sure we all remember the old video clip of a chief officer walking up to an oozing tanker and “tasting” it! Holy smoke! Would anyone do that today? I hope not.
Haz-mat awareness in something new, within the past 20 or so years. Other technical rescue disciplines are even newer and are still evolving. In some departments, everyone is trained in all of the technical disciplines. In my department, squad and rescue companies are trained in haz-mat mitigation and decon, confined space, trench, rigging, collapse, vehicle extrication, subway/train extrication, and high angle; there are also many other classes on the special tools carried by these units.
In addition, we now train many ladder companies as rescue support trucks to assist in a technical rescue, or, if they arrive before a special operations company, they have the training and ability to initiate a technical rescue pending the arrival of one of these companies. Certain engines throughout the city are trained in haz-mat decontamination procedures so they can assist in a haz-mat situation. All battalion chiefs are going through the rescue training school at the FDNY Fire Academy so they, too, know the capabilities of these units and the limitations of a “nontrained” company.
As for the medical runs, it’s just something we do now, like it or not. And you must be proficient at it. How would you like someone without the proper training showing up at your house to work on one of your loved ones?
These additional functions/certifications should be looked at as a way of expanding our expertise, becoming an even more valuable public entity, and maintaining a higher level of competency throughout the service. It takes more time, which can be difficult for the volunteer firefighter working to support a family and maintain a higher level of proficiency. The solution is to give the volunteer more compensation for the time donated or hire people to do the job. It’s tough to keep on top of this, but if it all came easy, everyone would do it.
Lance C. Peeples, instructor, St. Louis County (MO) Fire Academy
Response: As the training requirements for the various specialty services increase, our members will no doubt rise to the occasion. For more than 200 years, our nation’s firefighters have stepped up and did what had to be done. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so, no matter what the challenge. In fact, I think that is what defines us.
Timothy P. Hennessey, assistant chief,Cohanzie Fire Department, Waterford, CT
Response: The axiom “Years of tradition unimpeded by progress” is certainly one that cannot be applied to the modern demands of training and education being made on the fire service. In 30 years, our methods, strategies, tactics, and technology have taken leaps and bounds. Looking back on the death and injury rates of the past, it is only prudent that we developed more and advanced training especially in the areas of technical and specialized rescue and hazardous materials. One need look no further than at what we now call “old training videos” that highlight incidents at which we clearly see firefighters sniffing and tasting hazardous chemicals, blowing themselves up cutting into toluene storage tanks, or haphazardly entering confined spaces and becoming victims themselves. A large part of the professional standards required today come directly from tragedies experienced by our brother and sister firefighters, and we would be remiss not to learn from them and train so we do not make similar mistakes.
Liability has also become a concern. The modern-day fire chief who does not identify specific target hazards and prepare the department to cope with these hazards will most certainly be asked why later, most likely after a tragedy and probably in front of a civil or criminal jury. Protecting against liability, however, should not be our driving force. We should be as prudent, progressive, and visionary as our budgets and local governments will allow. In those times when budgets and governments don’t allow us to do these things, it then becomes our responsibility to attempt to educate them and our taxpayers to recognize our needs and support them. In the community I serve, we have industrial hazardous-materials sites, a constant flow of haz-mat traffic on three major highways, bodies of water, and a host of technical rescue needs.
We created a dive/water rescue team, brought our mostly volunteer and paid staff up to the haz-mat technician level to support a regional haz-mat team, and run a heavy rescue and a trench/collapse trailer as well as a mass casualty trailer. And, we, of course, brought in all the training and certification to go with it.
The citizens of our communities have come to expect that their fire department will handle any situation in which they may find themselves. We need to meet their expectations and adequately prepare ourselves through education and resources.
Ted J. Pagels, chief (ret.),CEO/senior investigator, FIREPROSe, LLC, De Pere, Wisconsin
Response: It has always taken more than “fancy and expensive apparatus” to be the All Hazards Mitigated Response (Fire) Department for our communities. Trained people need to run these fancy apparatus and the equipment they carry. Thirty years ago, we certainly responded to “all hazards” but at times did not perform real well and sometimes sadly “dove in before checking the water depth,” creating a larger pile of dead or injured or long-term disabilities. It’s 2005, and we still have fire departments that fight providing basic EMS (more efficiently and cost effectively), much less any other emergency specialty beyond just going to fires.
The response to this month’s question requires a multifaceted answer. Basically, the powers-that-be in each community (fire administrators, politicians, fire district boards, and so on) first need to decide what services they are capable (people + dollars) of providing to an acceptable level of competence while meeting certifications and laws and standards. When the levels/types of services are decided, the budget dollars must be provided to maintain these services.
If a majority of the citizens want a better or a specialty level of emergency service, they somehow had better let their elected officials know and then be willing to pay to maintain these services. This gets very basic in the majority of our smaller communities. How quickly (time distance) do your citizens want emergency services to respond to a basic fire or medical emergency? In an urban area, with a full-time career department waiting in quarters, the response proved to be faster (but not always better). For a noncareer (respond from home or work first) emergency service, the “known for many years” average response time triples-that’s three times longer. Want it faster, sir? This is what it will take in people and dollars. Do you still want it faster?
Too often, the general public can only “”assume” who or what will respond to their call. Each community’s emergency services need to educate their citizens relative to the level of their services before the emergency “surprises” occur. Do not give your citizens a false sense of security. They have a right to know.
Obviously, not every community has the money to support every level of service. The concept of mutual aid (however politically incorrect in too many areas of the United States) has been around for many years. The concept of shared services has been around for many years. For the less frequently used specialty emergency services (trench rescue, haz-mat, confined space rescue, paramedic EMS, cats in trees, for example), regional services make so much sense but are sometimes ignored for fear of the lack of local control.
Still today, Everytown, USA, seems to need a hydraulic rescue tool, a thermal imaging camera, and other fancy expensive equipment when the neighbors’ tools might do. Sometimes fire apparatus is like a local National Guard Armory military tank. It’s expensive to buy, but it has the potential to do the job it was intended to do for many years if properly maintained and people are trained to operate it properly. Some 20 to 30 years down the road, it will be really expensive to replace, leading some (usually politicians) to question, How often has that been used in the past years for the real thing? I usually respond to that question in this way, “We plan to wear it out by training to be ready to use it ….”
There is an old business saying, “Compare the price you pay for the quality you get.” This can be applied to the emergency services in any community. Sadly again, too many communities require their emergency services to have to raise funds to provide the service, which allows some to never help pay unless they attend the picnics, dances, bingo sessions, and raffles. When was the last time you saw the local police or public works department hold a fund-raiser to buy a new squad car or a snowplow?
John Grussing, lieutenant, Normal (IL) Fire Department
Response: In my opinion, the term “fire department” is really a misnomer today. Modern fire departments are responsible for so much more than just fire suppression. I think this is good because these areas of expertise are natural extensions of our basic mission of life safety and conservation of property, and the infrastructure of personnel, apparatus, and stations already exists. In addition, in most localities, the incidence of fire is down 40 to 50 percent or more. If we are to survive the budget ax, we must offer a wider array of services to our customers.
It is true that we have always done these types of things. However, we did them without formal training and certification programs. Did we expose our personnel to undue risk? If we are to take advantage of regional response teams and our ability to deploy these teams anywhere in the United States, we should embrace standardized training so teams can work together, regardless of their area of origin.
What we are lacking is federal funding. The current administration has repeatedly attempted to cut funding to the FIRE Act grant program because fire is a “local problem.” Yet, this is the same administration that calls first responders America’s first line of defense. Law enforcement receives billions annually from the federal government, yet it is the fire service that is expected to handle haz mat, EMS, and technical rescue in the wake of a terrorist incident. These disciplines are very dangerous and complex. They require standardized training and certification. Just as importantly, they require adequate funding from all levels of government. As a fire service, we need to embrace these new responsibilities with the same dedication we have always applied to fire suppression.
Bart Hadley Jr, chief, Lawton (OK) Fire Department
Response: It seems that we are not only taking on bigger roles but that we are also continually adding additional roles. However, these additional roles are not really anything new. They are things we have been called to handle for decades, and in our usual inventive ways, we have found ways to deal with them. The only real additional role we’ve undertaken is training for these events.
Several years ago, we acquired a weapons of mass destruction/haz mat unit. Because there was no associated pay incentive, I did hear some grumbling from our union when this equipment and the need for training to operate it were presented. However, in essence, all I was doing was providing the training and equipment needed to properly handle the kinds of situations that we had been responding to for years.
The point of being stretched too thin can be reached though, and I believe we are getting close in my department. Because of the limited time available, at some point we will begin to have difficulty scheduling all the needed training (both specialized training and routine training to sharpen standard firefighting skills). Besides the initial training, there are continuing education requirements to maintain certifications. These training requirements associated with the broad range of responses we are called to mitigate will be the ultimate gauge of when, and if, we begin to be stretched too thin.
James Mason, lieutenant, Chicago (IL) Fire Department
Response: In the past, we performed the functions mentioned with experience alone as a guide. Firefighters died performing these operations because they didn’t get enough experience on any one type of incident in their single response area alone to get good at it. We now study these incidents as a way to pay respect to those the fire service has lost. With the refinement comes professionalism, certifications, and fancy rigs.
The fire service is being stretched when we ask an entire section of the department to get all the certifications for each type of specialty. It would seem better to get one group to be good at one or two types of responses and another group to get good at a different type of response. Additional team companies located properly in the town could be trained and would be able to assist at an operation and be assigned to those special rigs when needed on platoon days. Each group would be good at its specialty and respond across the jurisdiction as needed. Other companies would fill in the holes as needed. ■
