Skip to content

Archives for incident-command

See all posts in the network tagged with incident-command

Taking FHZ to Wayne County, PA

1 comment

taskforceone logoAs a quick aside, if any of you are interested, I’ll be in Wayne County, PA on January 30-31, teaching at the Browndale Fire Department.  I don’t know if there are any open spots left, but contact info is on the flier.

Whether you are a seasoned officer, one newly promoted or just are aspiring to become an officer, this program will provided
you with the tools you need to meet that challenge. A company officer’s job is difficult, especially if you have not
been prepared for the transition from firefighter to company officer. This program, through a series of interactive exercises,
role playing and problem solving activities will provide you the tools needed to succeed in the station and on the fire
ground. Through computer simulation exercises and other interactive activities, students will have to opportunity to participate
in several emergencies under the watchful eyes of our instructors. Our faculty will share their “best practices”
showing the way it is really done in today’s challenging and ever changing fire service.

The course will be “Command for Company Officers” and as Ron Richards, of Task Force 1, Inc. describes it:  ”A company officer’s job is difficult, especially if you have not been prepared for the transition from firefighter to company officer. This program will provide you the tools needed to succeed in the station and on the fire ground.”  So if you’ve got the time and you are in the neighborhood, come on by.

Posted by truck6alpha on January 17, 2010 • Filed under: Training & Development, officership • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Taking The Plunge

No comments

webIMG_2005Happy New Year!

Recently I was on my way to work and marveling at the sunrise (I get a good shot of it going over the Cross Island bridge on the way to my station) and got to remembering one call where a person dove off that very same bridge.  I was thinking, if you’re going to pick someplace to move on from, that’s a pretty scenic spot to do so.  It also brought up to me the dichotomy of risk vs. reward.

While the individual I was remembering had a reputation for making daring but risky decisions, you have to understand the motivator for someone like that.  If you can pull it off, you’re a God.  A stunt like that makes for a lot of interesting conversation later in life.  The downside, however, is when you fail, you fail catastrophically.

When we choose to forgo a risk/benefit analysis, we do just that.  In fire/rescue, the risk we take also involves death-defying heroism if you can pull it off, or grave consequences if you don’t.  While diving off a bridge seems to be the start of interesting cocktail party conversation, failing to appreciate the impact when you hit the water (literally) or the swiftness of the current below indicates a lack of total understanding of the problem.  When we plunge headlong into a fire with no idea of the conditions or into a rescue without considering the hazards that exist, we aren’t being professional.  We are choosing bravado over intellect.

I’ll keep it short because I’m juggling a few projects, but appropriate risk/benefit analysis requires a total understanding of the situation.  Failing that, at least a brief contemplation of the major risk involved is required.  There are people in our business who don’t even think when they go into harm’s way.  How many times in a media interview with “the hero” have you heard someone say, “I didn’t even think about it”.  I’d be curious to know if we were able to interview those who didn’t make it; would they say the same thing?

Understand your situation and make intelligent decisions, not irrational ones. It’s the difference between the steadfast and respected commander and the impulsive private.  If you want to be a leader, act like a leader.

Posted by truck6alpha on January 1, 2010 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Command & Leadership, Firefighter Nation, leadership, motivation, officership, professionalism • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

Playing With Sharp Objects

No comments

webIMG_1668Recently I was dwelling on an inventory of stupid and dangerous things I have done in the past. Since the list was way too long to go on about, I began to wonder why I did those things.  While some of them were from my youth (like jumping off a roof with an umbrella), and some were from my bachelorhood (getting my Suzuki GS750E up to very unsafe speeds), it occurred to me that a lot of them occurred during my adolescence after watching the movie “Hooper“.  At no time during any of those periods did I have a suicide wish- I didn’t WANT to die- but in my mind, I hadn’t really given it much thought.  I hadn’t fully considered the consequences.

You can put the dangers out in front of someone in back and white.  You can paint the picture for them in classes and education.  You can bore them to death with your blog, like I do.  I think that what it really comes down to, though, is that unless you have a very graphic experience with death and understand not only the implications on you, but on others, I don’t think most people can really grasp the message.

There is a lot to be said for working in our business.  I have seen my share of people ejected from vehicles to convince me that wearing a seatbelt is a good thing.  I have seen enough burned homes to understand that being fire safe will head off a lot of heartache.  But no matter what, we have people who ride in fire apparatus without seatbelts and won’t keep their fire station free of hazards, and then they wonder how they end up on the national news wire.  Risk vs. benefit doesn’t have to be limited to the fireground.

I enjoy fighting fires, but some of the fires I used to fight still baffle me.  I have literally put everything on the line for an unsavable building before and to what end?  They tore down the building later.  But we still have people charging into fires, like they just want to roll in it for a little while.  Well, the excitement of the fire is one thing, but I’ve actually seen what a fire can do to someone, so you’ll have to excuse my reluctance to get up close with it and get to know it better.

As emergency service leaders, we need to remind ourselves that just because we used to play in the street when we were kids doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.  Riding on tailboards and charging into unsafe buildings was fun until we saw people dying from those decisions.  Be the grown-up and help point out to your personnel that just because things used to be one way, we have actually learned from our mistakes and it only makes sense to avoid these problems in the future.  Revisiting them for experience’ sake isn’t fun, it’s just stupid.

Posted by truck6alpha on November 23, 2009 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Command & Leadership, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Safety & Health, Training & Development, leadership, officership, professionalism, safety • Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Declarative, Imperative, Interrogative and Exclamatory

8 comments

I was helping my oldest daughter with her English homework and we were having a discussion of the four kinds of sentences: declarative, imperative, interrogative and exclamatory.  In light of all of the rhetoric lately on a few items, (you know, the Chester Flag Incident, the DCFEMS Live Burn Incident, etc.- and it is just by sheer coincidence each of these are on STATter911, okay Dave?) it seems that maybe we need a little lesson in the different types of sentences in order to help everyone through these crises.

As a little refresher for some of us, here is what I’m talking about:

1. Declarative sentences make a statement.  They end in a period.

2. Imperative sentences can end in a period or in an exclamation point.

3. Interrogative sentences end in a question mark.

4. Exclamatory sentences end in an exclamation point, or for some of you out there, ALL CAPS.

Now understand, these are pretty general.  There are always exceptions to rules (like my sarcastically phrased interrogative statement that is actually an imperative statement; Standing in front of an obviously open compartment door while the driver is not paying attention to the fact that he has left the compartment door open, saying, “You did remember to shut that door, didn’t you?”).

Now for the most part, we here at FHZ like to use plenty of the interrogative when discussing items with you all.  I am really not in any position to discuss things with you declaratively, because I am not an expert on anything.  I do, however, have a lot of experience, so I like to use the Socratic method of teaching, that is, to throw out open questions to you like softballs and let you think about them as you slam them into the outfield.  Very rarely will you see me word anything in the exclamatory.  I’m an old-school kind of officer; I like for you to realize I am yelling at you without necessarily having to raise my voice (although from my earlier post about yelling, I’m sure you understand that this isn’t feasible all the time).  When writing though, I consider myself a master of the deftly-worded semi-sarcastic statement that makes you read it, then go back again and say, “I wonder if he’s calling me an idiot?”

Think of it as a little verbal Aikido.  If you know anything about the art of Aikido, you know that the underlying concept is to use the attacker’s momentum and redirect it, while also having deeper concern for the well-being of the attacker.  Most of the time when someone is being nasty, I really don’t wish you bad, I just wish you’d go away.  And while you’re at it, take this broken humerus as a reminder of this lesson.

But one thing I really can’t stomach is a bully, and for some reason, the internet brings them out of the closet in droves.  Honestly, to me, I think it has been said repeatedly (and I am in full agreement) that the relative anonymity of the internet gives some of these trolls courage.  It’s really the same way with society in general.  It’s when you know these people, I mean really know them, like they are your neighbor, or your co-worker, when you find a lot of that “courage” goes out the window.  Just like your basic road rage; while we are all probably tempted to flip off that terrible driver, it’s a whole different ballgame if you see him four pews over from your family in church every Sunday.

These bullies like to speak in the declarative and the imperative and often in the exclamatory, when really, they should be listening and speaking in the interrogative language, especially when we find out the “resident expert” has been on the job for three and a half years and has run a hundred calls in that time.  When someone like me, who has plenty of cred to back up anything I would like to proclaim in this business, says to you, “I’d like to hear what YOU think about it”, maybe some of you blue-light bandits or red-light raiders, or whatever you call your resident whacker, should take that as a hint that even with thirty years on the job, I’m still learning, and I take pride in saying that I can learn from anyone and on any day (sometimes its what NOT to do, but you see my point).  And it’s not a vollie thing or a career thing, it’s a “professional” thing.  I know plenty of vollies that can eat the career guys up on a fireground, but I know of plenty of vollies who like to talk a good game but can’t back it up when the excrement is flying, if you know what I mean.

When everyone in our business starts realizing that they don’t have all the answers, maybe then we’ll be a little more civil to one another and stop pontificating like some blowhard hypocrite politician or preacher, not that there are any of those out there.  But until then, plan on more of the same every year around the fire service, where something blows up and forty guys and gals sit around Monday Morning Quarterbacking it, not ever having actually faced that situation themselves.  And in the event that the day comes, those same trolls will probably be standing out by the engine with a wet spot in their bunkers, watching the rest of us doing our thing.

We need a little more understanding, not just in our business, but in society.  I’m one of the worst cynics there are out there, but I’m trying, I mean, I’m really TRYING to give people the benefit of the doubt, and some of these trolls just make it damned difficult.

Let’s just try to make one of those buddy pacts; like if I find myself getting ready to flame someone, I can call on you and you’ll talk me out of it, and vice-versa (”Hi, I’m Mick, and I’m a cynic.  I’ve gone 45 minutes without swearing under my breath and calling someone a total idiot.”).

It’s time we work together in our industry and work harder to educate everyone, not just in the basics of firefighting or rescue or EMS, or even in incident command, or anything fancy like that.  Just educate everyone in being better “brothers” and better co-workers and asking more questions and less telling people what to do or how they should think.  When you have unbelievable access to authors and bloggers like the ones here in FireEMSblogs.com and all over the internet (and in your library, etc.), why not take advantage of it?  There’s a lot to be gained from looking at different approaches to the same problems and learning if there is something we have in common, rather than shooting each other when things go wrong.

Posted by truck6alpha on October 20, 2009 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Command & Leadership, Fire Rescue Topics, Training & Development • Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Ambition

1 comment

At Mass today there was a reading from the Letter of St. James that got me thinking: “Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice.”  It goes on to say, “Where do the conflicts among you come from?  Is it not from passions that make war within your members?”

It reminded me of several passages from the Tao Te Ching, one of which says: “Those on tiptoe don’t stand up, those who take long strides do not walk; those who see themselves are not perceptive, those who assert themselves are not illustrious.”

These are some teachings that have lasted centuries and what, exactly have we taken from them?  When I was younger, I wanted it all.  When I grew up and could have it all, it was hard at first for me to understand, but I realized that it wasn’t altogether worth it.  Power comes from within and can’t be seized.  If you let it come to you, it will.

Conflict comes from people wanting something.  The amusing part of that is those who have power will say all day long, “If you really want it, you have to let it come to you.”  I’ve found that to not exactly be true.  That concept relies on enlightened leaders seeking people who are also enlightened, and not on surrounding oneself with “yes-men” and deceivers.  Had I waited my whole life for people to come to me and ask for my help, I’d probably still be waiting.

Thus the neverending struggle between seizing opportunities and creating them;  I have put a significant amount of research into what it would take for me to get from Point “A” to Point “B” and in some cases, made it happen.  I’m happy to say, however, that a lot of what I have accomplished has actually come about because I didn’t walk up the backs of others to get where I am at.

Ambition is not necessarily a bad thing; being deceptive, manipulative, and doing things contrary to the good of the team and the public we serve is.  What we individually have as a vision of our organization is proper if it involves service to the people we are charged to protect and assist, and not if it involves the “benefits” of public service.  By those, I mean the “perks” of having a badge, importance in the community, and the ability to lord over others and speak down to people.

There is such a thing as being an advocate for those who have no power, for standing up and doing the right thing, even when the right thing requires going out of our way to do so.  The other day I was driving down the road in my chief’s wagon and saw a family broken down on the side of the road.  I also saw several other official vehicles (not ours, thank God) pass these people by.  Had I been going somewhere in a hurry, would I have stopped?  Maybe those other official vehicles had places to go and people to see.  I stopped and helped them out.  They were grateful but I didn’t do it for their gratitude, I did it because it was the right thing to do.

As leaders, are we interested in the chase for power?  Or what we can do with the power once we have it?  I was talking about money with my oldest daughter today and explained to her, what good is money if you already have what you need and you are more interested in accumulating “stuff”?  Wouldn’t it be a better idea to help others who are in need, or at least taking the time to do something nice for others?  Once we hit the mark we desired, as a company officer, or a chief officer, what will we do with that newly found power?  Will we share it with others and empower them?  Or will we use it to beat others down and tell them what to do and where to go?

Posted by truck6alpha on September 20, 2009 • Filed under: Firefighter Nation, change, command, customer service, fire service, firefighting, leadership, motivation, officership, politics, professionalism, revolution • Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

1984

4 comments

I woke up very early this morning with some reflections of how the last week has gone and was thinking back to how much easier it was in the “old days”.  While the year 1984 has certain significance to many (you know, the book), the year has certain significance for me because it was my last year to be “one of the guys” and in 1985, I earned my first promotion.

In 1984, things were relatively easy.  I only had to worry about coming to work and making sure my Captain was okay with the things I did, and making sure I didn’t screw anything up.  So long as I did what I was told and tried not to overthink things too much, I could blend in with the team and work together, not worrying too much about how my individual issues affected anyone else. 

When I was hired in 1982 I already had some experience in rescue and I was already a certified EMT.  So in 1984, with my prior experience and the two additional years, I had some credibility that I brought to the team.  My job was to drive the squad, which in our department, carried all the rescue and medical tools we had in those days.  If we had a structure fire, I would slide over to drive the ladder truck instead and my officer would drive the squad.  The rest of the crew was on the engine.  That was pretty much the extent of my decisionmaking responsibility.

In 1984, we hadn’t embraced the computer as a tool.  Alarm and routine information was entered by hand into the station log book, so one of my most important tools was one of those Bic multi-color pens.  Alarms could be entered in red, other stuff in black or blue, and I can’t even remember why we used green, but we did.  Now that was technology.  Things changed in 1985.

By the end of 1984, we had the beginnings of huge changes.  We were adding fire stations and personnel.  The numbers of occupancies in our jurisdiction were growing by leaps and bounds.  We were going through Fire Chiefs as fast as they could be replaced as our commission was being challenged on issues.  We unionized and I was elected the Vice-President of the local.

But my main focus was on the changes in the national industry, because they intrigued me.  As the guy who brought in updated rescue technology from my previous department, I struck forward with the effort to train personnel in confined space entry and rope rescue, in advanced extrication techniques and in the techniques used for structural and trench collapses (when I went through Rescue I and II in Montgomery County, PA in 1981, we were creating tripods, gantries, and a-frames from hemp rope and timber, but the technology went through the roof in a matter of four years).  I got involved on a deeper level and at times, took a lot of heat for it from my colleagues and my superiors as well (nothing like being teased with “Calling Dr. Mick, calling Dr. Mick” because you decide to get your paramedic; ah, but those were the days).

I talked about Heifetz and Linsky in an earlier post and their observation that with change, there is danger.  If you are an agent of change, you will undergo attacks and even character assassination (or ACTUAL assassination: just ask MLK and Gandhi) because you represent a shift from what is comfortable and safe, to unstable and experimental.

Now that we have global access and reach we can share ideas that can both be widely popular and widely challenged.  We have a much more diverse audience and what seems to be understood as a logical solution to an issue may not even be feasible in a different culture or under a different circumstance.  To us, what may be the obvious might be the unreal.  Therefore, it is our responsibility, no matter how surreal the situation, to at least listen and try to comprehend, in an effort to achieve understanding.

That all being said, we all, from our differing viewpoints, carry a responsibility to accept what is right – and by right I mean understood to be realistic and applicable as a result of scientific evaluation and confirmation of our theory, as well as what is right by our fellow man – and not rely on innuendo and supposition.  But when we confirm something to be fact, we need to appreciate it for the change it represents, and regardless of our views on the subject, consider embracing change for the sake of doing what is truly right; that is, what is considered efficacious and for the betterment of our fellow human beings.

Just because someone claims to be the expert, or has insinuated that they should be followed as a result of their experience, fails to understand that what is accepted today is not necessarily the reality, nor is it the ultimate.  Things change.  When someone makes spurious claims, they should back them up with evidence.  Evidence isn’t someone saying “this happened”, evidence requires substantiated proof.

Things have changed a lot since 1984.  We now have expectations in the emergency service field that require us to challenge the people who say “this is true” not for challenging their authority, but to prove that what it is we take for gospel is correct, and that the service we provide based upon those theories are accurate and for the best of the people we serve.  Failing to operate in a transparent manner is only asking for trouble.   We have to accept criticism for what it is and understand that if we put emotion aside, there might be a grain of truth in what is being said.  By being introspective and realizing our faults, we achieve enlightenment. ‘Nuff said.

Posted by truck6alpha on June 22, 2009 • Filed under: DHS, FEMA, SAR, US&R, USAR, change, credentialing, leadership, officership, politics, professionalism • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Case for Credentialing – Those Who Can't Get In

No comments

sctf1-333My final group of people who are not happy with credentialing efforts are the “outsiders”.  To me, they are the ones with the most logical and compelling concerns about credentialing.  Ironically, these people are often those already with some responsibility for response, or they are in the process of trying to improve the capability.  In more than one case I am aware of, these efforts went about to fill a vacuum where poor or absent service existed.  And interestingly enough, the people working hard to improve the service have been effectively kept out of the loop by those who guard the credentialing development process.

Now to those who I hear constantly venting that they can’t understand who comes up with “these standards”, I tell these people all the time that as far as the NFPA standards go, THEY have an opportunity to write them if they were to just apply.  The NFPA standards process is very transparent and open to anyone who cares to get involved.  If you’re new to the process, sometimes it takes a little of help navigating the process, but there are people (like me) who help people find the information they want and point them in a direction on a regular basis.  Even if you aren’t on a committee, you are still encouraged to comment on proposed standards.  The public can attend NFPA committee meetings and the public and interested responders can discuss standards with principal members. 

However, there are groups making standards that may very well be used for credentialing purposes where I, and many in my same position, have no idea how the committees got picked.  When pushed for information, there have been slow or no communications in response to the standards being created. When asked, the individuals involved in these standards aren’t so forthcoming with their process or their logic.  In fact, in some cases these groups have ignored the people who aren’t in their “circle”. So I can certainly understand the frustration, because I’m one of you.

There was a time in my early career that I wanted to get involved in improving my chosen profession and interestingly enough, met with resistance from those in control.  One situation I am referring to was while dealing with a committee appointed by a training institution for the purpose of developing curriculum that frankly, was teaching information and skills about ten years behind the existing technical rescue methodology.  The excuse?  “That’s not how we do it HERE”.

In fact, there have been times in the US&R industry (and this is occurring literally, right this minute), where players that have political power but no clue about US&R are actively pushing for control of that “legally authorized responder” designation for their own ill-prepared organizations, despite the presence of already qualified and genuinely proactive individuals who are already leading efforts.

So to me, here is the place where the credentialing talks meet resistance and an extreme amount of concern. I am not interested in a credentialing process that excludes individuals from contributing to the development of the standards used.  The concern is especially strong when in some cases, the standards are slanted toward keeping people in positions rather than in insuring qualified people have the qualifications.  There is a fine line between saying we require you to maintain certification from a certain agency and permitting equivalency in order to permit other certifications that meet the intent of the certification.  The easy way would be to simply identify objective criteria for people and organizations to meet and to certify to that standard, but then there comes the difficult (and expensive) method of evaluating that capability.

Really, where do you draw the line on “equivalency”?  If the Acme Fire Department issues a certification as a Rescue Technician, should that carry the same weight as someone with a certification from their state fire academy?  Or from a third-party provider?

These are hard questions to answer and the chief argument against credentialing.  It’s because there are those of us in the industry fighting against those who have drawn a line benefiting a few to the exclusion of many.  My inner skeptic says that these standards have been established simply to promote someone’s agenda.  Now this is an argument that has been inappropriately used against NFPA standards for a while- that a certain interest group would control the standards in order to further their own agenda.  If there is anyplace where that is less true, it would be in NFPA committees.  Especially in professional qualifications committees, if a certain balance isn’t achieved to avoid self-interest, there are marked efforts to re-balance the committee.  I can’t say that to be true about some of the credentialing proposals I have seen.

We do, however, have to insist not necessarily on adopting a certification from a certain agency to be credentialed, but instead to insist on adherence to evaluation and confirmation of knowledge, skills, and abilities that meet the needs of a certain position, or in the case of organizations and teams, meeting objective criteria that define a type and kind of response asset.  From here, this is where we will transition into the argument in favor of credentialing.  See you next time.

Posted by truck6alpha on June 17, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Case for Credentialing – Those Who Can't Get In

No comments

sctf1-333My final group of people who are not happy with credentialing efforts are the “outsiders”.  To me, they are the ones with the most logical and compelling concerns about credentialing.  Ironically, these people are often those already with some responsibility for response, or they are in the process of trying to improve the capability.  In more than one case I am aware of, these efforts went about to fill a vacuum where poor or absent service existed.  And interestingly enough, the people working hard to improve the service have been effectively kept out of the loop by those who guard the credentialing development process.

Now to those who I hear constantly venting that they can’t understand who comes up with “these standards”, I tell these people all the time that as far as the NFPA standards go, THEY have an opportunity to write them if they were to just apply.  The NFPA standards process is very transparent and open to anyone who cares to get involved.  If you’re new to the process, sometimes it takes a little of help navigating the process, but there are people (like me) who help people find the information they want and point them in a direction on a regular basis.  Even if you aren’t on a committee, you are still encouraged to comment on proposed standards.  The public can attend NFPA committee meetings and the public and interested responders can discuss standards with principal members. 

However, there are groups making standards that may very well be used for credentialing purposes where I, and many in my same position, have no idea how the committees got picked.  When pushed for information, there have been slow or no communications in response to the standards being created. When asked, the individuals involved in these standards aren’t so forthcoming with their process or their logic.  In fact, in some cases these groups have ignored the people who aren’t in their “circle”. So I can certainly understand the frustration, because I’m one of you.

There was a time in my early career that I wanted to get involved in improving my chosen profession and interestingly enough, met with resistance from those in control.  One situation I am referring to was while dealing with a committee appointed by a training institution for the purpose of developing curriculum that frankly, was teaching information and skills about ten years behind the existing technical rescue methodology.  The excuse?  “That’s not how we do it HERE”.

In fact, there have been times in the US&R industry (and this is occurring literally, right this minute), where players that have political power but no clue about US&R are actively pushing for control of that “legally authorized responder” designation for their own ill-prepared organizations, despite the presence of already qualified and genuinely proactive individuals who are already leading efforts.

So to me, here is the place where the credentialing talks meet resistance and an extreme amount of concern. I am not interested in a credentialing process that excludes individuals from contributing to the development of the standards used.  The concern is especially strong when in some cases, the standards are slanted toward keeping people in positions rather than in insuring qualified people have the qualifications.  There is a fine line between saying we require you to maintain certification from a certain agency and permitting equivalency in order to permit other certifications that meet the intent of the certification.  The easy way would be to simply identify objective criteria for people and organizations to meet and to certify to that standard, but then there comes the difficult (and expensive) method of evaluating that capability.

Really, where do you draw the line on “equivalency”?  If the Acme Fire Department issues a certification as a Rescue Technician, should that carry the same weight as someone with a certification from their state fire academy?  Or from a third-party provider?

These are hard questions to answer and the chief argument against credentialing.  It’s because there are those of us in the industry fighting against those who have drawn a line benefiting a few to the exclusion of many.  My inner skeptic says that these standards have been established simply to promote someone’s agenda.  Now this is an argument that has been inappropriately used against NFPA standards for a while- that a certain interest group would control the standards in order to further their own agenda.  If there is anyplace where that is less true, it would be in NFPA committees.  Especially in professional qualifications committees, if a certain balance isn’t achieved to avoid self-interest, there are marked efforts to re-balance the committee.  I can’t say that to be true about some of the credentialing proposals I have seen.

We do, however, have to insist not necessarily on adopting a certification from a certain agency to be credentialed, but instead to insist on adherence to evaluation and confirmation of knowledge, skills, and abilities that meet the needs of a certain position, or in the case of organizations and teams, meeting objective criteria that define a type and kind of response asset.  From here, this is where we will transition into the argument in favor of credentialing.  See you next time.

Posted by truck6alpha on June 17, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Case for Credentialing – Answering Your Comments

No comments

I hate to break free in the middle of this series like this, but there were some comments made that I wanted to discuss.  Since one is on one post and the other is on another post, I felt the need to tie them together and talk really quickly to the issue.

On June 15, Steve said:

Yes, credentials would help but WHO is the final authority on issuing them? WHO sets the standards? How are you going to avoid the age old paid vs volunteer bias in any credentialing agency?

My quick answer: I am against the bias in the career vs. volunteer.  If you can meet the standard, you can meet the standard.  I think there is plenty of room for volunteers, especially in disaster response.  So some career guy is going to tell me my docs can’t be part of the team because they aren’t career guys somewhere?  And I have said in regard to SC-TF1, where I do have some pull, if one person in a one-station volunteer department down the road wants to be part of our team, we need to let him if he meets our criteria (background check, physical agility, etc.)  As Ray Wilkinson, our past Director once said, “I can teach someone to break rocks, what I can’t teach is desire.”  If someone wants to do the job, and goes through the requirements to meet a position, why should I care if he’s a member of FDNY or of Acme Fire Department?  So Steve, I’m with ya, brother.

On June 16, Kevin said:

I live in a state where there is no agency tasked with certifying or credentialing Search and Rescue dogs. I have seen (many times) where someone will buy lights for their POV and load their pet dog into the truck and call themselves a SAR team! If I didn’t know better, I might think all volunteer SAR teams were like this. However, there are a number of excellent non-governmental SAR teams in my state as well. I myself and a member of a volunteer K9 team.

Kevin goes on to say that they have a volunteer K9 SAR team because there isn’t an existing asset and law enforcement has asked for it.  Well, Kevin, as they say in Australia, “good on ya”.  You have identified a need and you have tried to meet that need.  No one else has that asset and it sounds like you have tried to do a good job of using accepted industry standards to meet the need.  THAT is good stuff.

However, I just went to discuss the concept of “those of us who want to do this right, but there are people with authority screwing things up so we can’t get in”, and realized that the post I wrote for that last week never posted as scheduled!  So that is now on the post schedule and I hope it does discuss some of the feelings I personally have in that regard. 

On June 16th, SAR Volunteer also commented:

I totally agree with your points. Please understand this are a handful of small volunteer K9 SAR teams in the state of SC who do NOT self deploy, do NOT work for anyone but the proper state or municipal authorities, train hard, carry their own liability and workmenscomp insurance, align their standards with NIMS Resource Typing, and are working to ensure they meet the proposed credentialing requirements.

And to you too, SAR Vollie, I applaud your efforts.  I think there is a place for the small volunteer K9 teams at the table as well, if they meet a standard.  Let’s take SC-TF1 again for example.  I have said over and over again, if we have people out there who want to do this stuff, let’s get them involved.  But not being a canine guy, I have some difficulty understanding some of the things the canine types are telling me.  So when I get national experts telling me one thing, and some guy with Rover in a pickup truck (or Expedition, as it were) saying his dog can detect live scent, cadavers, lost pets, and get a beer and catch a frisbee, understand that I am skeptical.  And the self-deploying thing is just purely bad in my book, but that’s a whole other issue as well that doesn’t stop with canine SAR teams, and DOES include career guys, departments, and organized teams, etc.  Frankly, if you (SAR Vollie) or anyone else in SC have dogs trained to find LIVE HUMANS in collapsed or damaged buildings, and feel like you can meet a standard, send me an e-mail.  I’d love to hear from you.  But anyone who calls themselves “Urban Search and Rescue” and they are running around doing wilderness searches, well, go back to my box of rocks comment.  Be what you say you are.

Anyway, I hope this illustrates some of the issues considered so far and we’ll get back on track with the next post (which should have published before the last one- go figure).  Please continue with your comments.  I certainly appreciate your perspectives.  Stay safe.

Posted by truck6alpha on June 16, 2009 • Filed under: DHS, FEMA, NIMS, National Fire Academy, SAR, US&R, USAR, Uncategorized, change, command, credentialing, education, government, leadership, officership, politics, professionalism, rescue, safety • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Argument for Credentialing – Moving On

2 comments

crimson-060aNow that we have discussed the four major players in the argument against credentialing, lets talk about the argument for it.

A credential is only as good as the standard by which it is issued.  The point of having a credential should be to identify an individual or other resource as a certain type and kind.  If there is no standard, you might as well tell the carrier of a credential, “just stand over there until I can find something you can’t screw up.”

A worthwhile credential should also have some security associated with it.  After all, if anyone could get one, what good would it be?  So there are issues of validation involved as well.

In disaster after disaster, free-deploying individuals and “organizations” (and I use that term very loosely) go to “help” and in many cases, put a drain on an already over-taxed system and cause the diversion of legitimate resources from going to areas in need.  And while there is obviously some merit in the use of bystanders for certain aspects of disaster response, that has to be weighed seriously against the risk of their involvement, including the risk to themselves and the affected community, as well as the risk to rescuers, who ultimately must rescue the well-meaning if things don’t go according to plan.

There is no way to eliminate the truly altruistic in their quest to render aid.  Nor should there be.  But likewise, the civilians must understand implicitly that there comes a point when they must be diverted from the scene so the professionals can take over, especially when it comes to the extremely hazardous parts.

The standards in themselves seem to be quite the sticking point with some.  Standards utilized for the purpose of credentialing should be consensus standards and all keyholders included in the development of those standards, versus the exclusivity of some of the currently suggested drafts.  But once these are done, ratified, and chosen to be the driving force in identification of the qualified, there needs to be the embracing of the concept.  If organizations can’t agree on and use a standard that has meaning, then the credential is useless.

Like anything else, the change in this concept might be painful for some.  There are departments out there who are struggling with the unfunded mandates.  I can also sympathize with the organizations who want to become part of a greater plan like a National Mutual Aid Box Alarm System but don’t seem to know where to start or how to get involved.  I guess my first order of business, then, is to tell you how to get involved.  If there’s anything I can do, it’s point you in a direction toward activism.

Change will only come about if we work together to make it happen.  If you won’t stand for change, you don’t stand a chance to change.  Our industry is going through some important times but as you might notice (as I do all too well, sometimes), these initiatives take off for a while then they lose momentum.  Of course, that’s just until the next disaster.

Let’s work together to make something move.  In the next post, I’ll talk about opportunities to get involved.

Posted by truck6alpha on June 15, 2009 • Filed under: Firefighter Nation, NIMS, SAR, US&R, USAR, Uncategorized, change, command, credentialing, fire service, government, leadership, politics, professionalism, safety • Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Multiplicity of Command

No comments

2005-10111How many more times does disaster have to strike before responders finally learn the lesson of the need for unified command?  How many times do agencies need to experience a tug-of-war over resources, slow response to needs due to poor inter-agency communication, and lousy coordination all because the “powers that be” refuse to put their egos aside and agree to play nicely together?

As evidenced by disaster after disaster, when jurisdictions experiencing wide-spread disaster fail to work together to coordinate, their problems become exacerbated.

I know there are plenty of responders out there who have their own little bit of heartburn over NIMS.  Sometimes it is a little too clunky, and the feelings have been documented by researchers like Buck, Trainor and Aguirre.  Decision-making in disasters has been a problem for long before we began to study disaster management.  An interesting paper by Thomas Drabek in the 1983 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, “Alternative  Patterns of Decisionmaking in Emergent Disasters“, indicated several qualities found in disasters that influenced decision-making.  The disasters were multi-organizational in that they exceeded the capabilities of locals and thus required outside assistance.  The disasters had a diverse array of resources needed, therefore there was much in the way of technical understanding that needed expert overview.  There were “loose couplings”, in that the players often had little to no interaction prior to the event taking place, therefore unfamiliarity with personalities and capabilities.  The organization that emerged from the disaster grew over time, often overwhelming the initial responders.  Finally, the disasters still retained much in the way of local control and for whatever reason, the AHJ maintained that control even when faced with being overwhelmed by the incident.

I found the last point to be an interesting one; while in my opinion it is important that the AHJ retain control over an incident, the incident commander must have the courage and the intelligence to determine when and at what point the incident is overwhelming his/her ability to manage the incident, and to not be afraid of developing a unified command.  With rare exception, local managers are generally lacking in the experience of confronting a managerial problem of this complexity, and instead of riding it out and insisting everything is “just fine”, they need to reach out to the assistance being offered from regional and state (and federal authorities, if indicated) to provide advice and resources to bring the suffering of their community to bear.  Failing to do so is tantamount to abandoning your community.

The basics of NIMS are sound; the principal tenets revolving around division of labor and the unity of command are borne out on a daily basis on firegrounds and every other kind of emergency we can think of.  Multiple “commands” at a large, wide-area incident, absent the coordination of a local emergency operations center and a more centralized command structure, will only end up in the waste of valuable resources, time, and patience.  One unified incident command managing several Area Commands works.  Doing so will minimize the confusion and add to the  proper allocation of resources, and insure that the overall incident is managed.

When you don’t play the game, you are saying that it is your world, and we’re all just living in it.  I realize the intense pressure of having to deal with a rapidly deteriorating condition and the inability, sometimes, to just get your hands around it.  When I have had this happen, I have found that sometimes its best to take a step back, look over the situation, and take it one bite at a time.  But when you have entrenched yourself and refuse to plan in advance for disasters, thinking that you are going to handle everything yourself and that your community doesn’t need help from the outside, well, you are setting yourself up for a fall.  And when you stray from the basics of incident management, something will eventually give.

Don’t be afraid to let others help, especially in areas where you may not be as experienced.  If you have resources being offered to you to help manage things, consider them a tool to use, not a crutch.  And realize that in the face of a major disaster, it’s not just about you; your community has neighbors and they too may need assistance. It’s a good idea to work with them ahead of time so you know where everyone is coming from.  Realize that all resources are limited and that’s a good reason to be talking with everyone involved, because each of these stakeholders have a lot to contribute, but as stakeholders, they also have a lot to lose.  A unified command at a major incident is definitely the way to go.

Posted by truck6alpha on April 24, 2009 • Filed under: FEMA, command, fire service, officership, planning, politics, professionalism • Tagged: , , , , , ,