Author Topic: Age (Read 10488 times)

splidge · « **on:** July 18, 2007, 08:35:26 PM »

Hi been a while since I was here, can any one update me on the age that you may opt out of wearing BA in operational circumstances.

Thanks in advance

Midland Retty · « **Reply #1 on:** July 19, 2007, 11:59:12 AM »

I didn't think you could opt out.

In my Brigade you have to be fit for operational duties throughout your career regardless of your age. This includes the wearing of BA an integral part of a firefighters role.

Andy Cole · « **Reply #2 on:** July 19, 2007, 05:05:08 PM »

That is the way I understood it too!

splidge · « **Reply #3 on:** July 19, 2007, 06:04:53 PM »

Perhaps “opt out” is the wrong way of putting it, I thought that the age of fifty you could stop wearing BA operationally, I suppose it could be seen as ageist in the currant climate, mind you could be me memory going on the blink

docfin · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2007, 08:03:19 PM »

I dont know if things have changed but in the past it was not a requirement that anyone had to wear BA. As I recall (and I will concede that I may recall poorly) it was the case at one time that if you did not qualify to wear BA it meant that you could not be a qualified Ff, but other than that you didnt have to do it at all if you were happy not to gain the extra cash. Obviously this was during the Dark Ages before the strike but I dont know if and when this was changed.

Andy Cole · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2007, 09:13:01 PM »

I've never heard of that before!, I thought it was a requirement, part of your role map a s a FF! In my brigade a new recruit is not allowed to ride the pump until they are BA qualified.

Midland Retty · « **Reply #6 on:** July 20, 2007, 10:03:36 AM »

Quote from: docfin

I dont know if things have changed but in the past it was not a requirement that anyone had to wear BA. As I recall (and I will concede that I may recall poorly) it was the case at one time that if you did not qualify to wear BA it meant that you could not be a qualified Ff, but other than that you didnt have to do it at all if you were happy not to gain the extra cash. Obviously this was during the Dark Ages before the strike but I dont know if and when this was changed.

Unless this was an individual policy of a certain brigade you worked for - but asking some of the old hands here who have been in the job over twenty years they say theyve never heard of being precluded from wearing BA

Mike Buckley · « **Reply #7 on:** July 20, 2007, 01:04:37 PM »

I remember when I started there was an unofficial policy on the station that people over 45 were not first choice for BA wearers. This was a hangover from the first amagamation in 1974 when the old city brigade did have a policy for over 45s.

It was an unofficial policy so when the runners and riders were sorted out the younger members tended to be the first attack BA wearers.

Officially all FFs were BA wearers and all were trained and under went refresher training. The logic being that you couldn't put a pump off the run just because the younger guys were on leave etc., also an incident may demand that everyone needed to wear BA.

The original policy I think came from the days of the Proto oxygen sets which were very punishing to wear.

Pip · « **Reply #8 on:** July 20, 2007, 02:01:35 PM »

If you are not fit/healthy to wear B.A. then its a desk job and not riding the pumps

Midland Retty · « **Reply #9 on:** July 20, 2007, 03:10:15 PM »

Quote from: Pip

If you are not fit/healthy to wear B.A. then its a desk job and not riding the pumps

Yep thats very true

I agree with the sort of gentlemans agreement on station that younger firefighters would wear BA etc etc.. but like someone already said everyone must all be competent at wearing for BA emergency team, large incidents etc etc

Chris Houston · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2007, 01:28:35 AM »

If I were unfit to do the job I am paid to do, my contract would be terminated.

docfin · « **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2007, 02:01:53 PM »

Chris, That would be rather a waste of experience dont you think? If a member of your staff were, for whatever reason, unable to perform one single aspect of a very wide ranging set of skills then surely you would still have room for them in an organisation. If the person has other assets to bring to the job then it would be a bit silly to get rid of them if you have already invested time and money training them. I think you may perhaps being a little Draconian dont you, or are you / your employer really that unimaginative?

Chris Houston · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2007, 02:24:43 PM »

Lots of fair points in there, I suppose it depends how much of the job one is unable to do.

docfin · « **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2007, 04:32:27 PM »

Thanks Chris. Apologies if that entry seemed harsher than intended.

Pip · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2007, 12:49:23 PM »

You have also got to remember that the Gov changed the pension rules on disability retirement-and set up an 'independent' review panel.A FF can no longer retire just because he/she is no longer fit for 'front line operational deployment'-the fire authority have to find him/her another job instead- hence more FF have moved into 'support' type roles(more have these have come into existence as the Fire service shifts its focus on what is its core business) but of course these job numbers are not limitless.It means a FF career (and employment) are not over simply because of injury etc,and means the Fire Service can keep some of its expertise.It is by no means perfect,but far better than chucking away a valued employee from the service simply because they could no longer ride on a fire appliance

News:

Author Topic: Age (Read 10488 times)

Midland Retty

Midland Retty

Midland Retty

Chris Houston

Chris Houston