Author Topic: CAP 699 draft revision  (Read 7172 times)

Offline Chunty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
CAP 699 draft revision
« on: January 20, 2008, 04:47:00 PM »
Anyone got any opinions on the draft revision of CAP 699?

Have you submitted these opinions to the CAA via the consultation page of their website?

When 699 was launched upon us all in March 2000 it took me a good two years to achieve an assessors award and it was this that for me unlocked the mystery. Seven years later and I am 100% convinced that at the airports I have been implementing training programs designed to achieve individuals standards to those of 699 it has been highly beneficial for both the organisations and candidates.

At one of my units aerodrome audit last year the SRG fire service inspector gave me heads up on the future for 699 and its relationship to the National Occupational Standards and NVQ level 3 in Emergency Fire Service Operations. On hearing this news I downloaded the draft revision of 699 and got a copy of Edexcel's NOS for the NVQ as used by the local brigade, where for some mad reason I still spend what spare time I have as a member of the retained (why the hell I still do it I don't really know; but that's another thread!).

I used the draft standards of 699, specifically the column in the unit that allegedly cross-refers to the NOS, to be clear in my mind that as suggested (and raised again at November's FSM seminar) it would be possible to achieve the NVQ award by application of 699. I got a wacking great sheet of paper and boxed in all the NOS and annotated against each of the performance criteria where a standard from the draft 699 cross-referred.

Much to my surprise, even after repeating the process to check that I hadn't got it wrong, I discovered that some of the units in the NOS are not cross-mapped to 699 at all, and several of the other units have massive gaps. This indicates that submitting a 699 portfolio under the misapprehension that it would achieve the candidate an NVQ level 3 award, would lead to massive dissapointment.

Now if anyone is in the know please advise me if I've missed something?

I've submitted my views to the CAA consultation system which closes on February 9th and hope that it will all become clear after that date. In the least if the new 699, when published in the summer, doesn't meet the NOS and the CAA are still suggesting that the point of the revision is to meet the NOS, I am tempted to challenge the CAA by stating that my units will bin 699 and adopt the Edexcel award. How could they argue when that is unmistakably the NOS and in its opening chapters states its applicability to airport fire services?

Any opinions welcomed.

Chris Houston

  • Guest
CAP 699 draft revision
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2008, 09:00:23 PM »
Yeebsy,

Yellow card mate, I counted 3 swear words plus one insult in your post.

Feel free to try again, but can we have it a bit more constructive and without the swearing.

Thanks.

Chris.

Offline Yeebsy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
CAP 699 draft revision
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2008, 11:00:27 PM »
Chris I'm sorry, I guess your take on swearing is different to mine. I did apologise in the post to chunty, I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I was trying to get my point over that 699 has taken the fundamental ability of the airport fire fighters to fight hydrocarbon fires away. I dislike it when upper management or outside agencies state that the 699 program is working when all it relay does is save money at the cost of professionalism. As I stated I feel certain people are passionate about 699, but I'm more passionate about the job and the safety of my myself and my colleagues.

Once again,
I'm sorry if I upset anyone.

Edit for spelling, oops.
Isn't it funny, how if you sit in a library and scream, everyone looks at you and tuts...but do the same thing on an aircraft and everyone joins in!

Offline Chunty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
CAP 699 draft revision
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2008, 12:47:13 AM »
Yeesby, I must admit to having been genuinely amazed at your previous reply because in all honesty I have never personally experienced a hostile response concerning 699 from the crews I work with. I can confirm that whilst I do a fair bit of desk work these days I am still operational and only Friday night was groping around a structural fire searching with my buddy desperately for a persons reported who ended up to be down the pub. In that respect I am totally with you on why we do the job, I'm also ex-military albeit infantry not fire service, so I don't buy into wooly nonsense.

As a 'manager' as they call us these days, I was tasked with implementing 699 at two units and these guys don't pull no punches so when I get positive feedback I'm fairly convinced they're not stringing me a line to keep everything sweet.

I'm making an educated guess you work for BAA based on some gossip I had with other BAA guys in the recent past. However the bit about hydrocarbon fires not being on the program is gobsmacking! But I still believe that abandoning of such training will be part of a far bigger and more protected agenda than purely the implementation of 699; even if they use a smoke screen (simulated of course) to blame 699.

Hope things improve for you and your colleagues.

Offline Yeebsy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
CAP 699 draft revision
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2008, 06:06:29 AM »
Fair enough, I'm glad your guys are benefiting from getting quality training, but I can assure you the aviation side leaves a lot to be desired. What also makes amazes me is the way the CAA seem to roll over to get its belly rubbed and give the project the go ahead. Hopefully some day we can get back to quality training.

Just a quick question Chunty, do you carry out CFBT training?
Isn't it funny, how if you sit in a library and scream, everyone looks at you and tuts...but do the same thing on an aircraft and everyone joins in!

Offline Chunty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
CAP 699 draft revision
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2008, 03:24:47 PM »
Yes we do mate. A colleague and I went down to Devon Fire & Rescue last year to do the FBTI with instructors from the Swedish Rescue Services Agency and it was fantastic, one of the best courses I've done in years.

Since that time we've been developing our own unit that comprises a combined Attack/Demo box with ongoing advice from Sweden. The eye opening benefits for our lads can't be over-stated and we're now trying to raise the funding to expand the unit to create FBT scenarios rather than just the set-piece Demo's and Attack's.

I guess not being caught up in the politics of a large organisation is an advantage to us. Most of the work we undertake is due to the sub-contracted requirements of the MoD rather than the CAA (although we have to comply with civil licensing requirements in addition) and the company turn to us to source solutions with very few limitations, thankfully relying on our professional experience rather than making uninformed decisions from behind the safety of their laptops. I answer mainly to our MoD contact would probably string me out to dry if I suggested removing hydro-carbon fires from the syllabus.

All in all our lads are getting a good deal on realistic external and internal fire training and perhaps being in such a fortunate position I tend to forget that not everyone is!

You sound like one of the old sweats and if that's the case I can imagine how concerning it is to watch younger or newer crew members think that they know it all when in fact they've experienced nothing.

On that subject I was watching Blue Peter with my youngest daughter last week (honestly I don't usually watch it on my own) and there was one of the presenters in the US at an ARFF training centre having a go at a massive rig. He thought he was great at extinguishing large spill fires with water spray, yes water, no foam. The reality was that the 'fires' were nothing more than gas being pumped up through vents in the rig ground surface and when he'd chucked a bit of water around the fireground staff shut the valve and he thinks he's extinguished a fire.

Can I suggest from the existing evidence that some of the firefighters you work with are possibly no more experienced in hydrocarbon firefighting than a Blue Peter presenter?

That's a frightening thought and for that I can sympathise with your frustration. Take care and keep an eye on those youngsters!

As for the authority, that was really the point behind starting this thread - that they are telling the industry that the revised 699 will achieve something that I can't believe it will from taking a good look at how it cross-maps. Please understand that the lads I work with, and that's not sexist because there aren't any girls at present, don't work in a large organisation like BAA where, and I may be wrong you tell me, but you've got a job for life (?), transferring between non-BAA airports and even local authority should in the future become much easier if they already hold the NVQ. And that's why they are so enthusiastic about it, coupled to the fact that they know their training is and will remain challenging and realistic.

Hopefully you have a better understanding of where I'm coming from now.

Offline Yeebsy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
CAP 699 draft revision
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2008, 10:18:58 PM »
there was one of the presenters in the US at an ARFF training centre having a go at a massive rig. He thought he was great at extinguishing large spill fires with water spray, yes water, no foam. The reality was that the 'fires' were nothing more than gas being pumped up through vents in the rig ground surface and when he'd chucked a bit of water around the fireground staff shut the valve and he thinks he's extinguished a fire.


Hmm are you sure this was America and not my airport, our rig is propane fueled, yup no aviation fuel to be seen on our training ground, our young lads will be under the impression that a real aircraft incident will self extinguish after 3 mins. I feel that we would benefit immensely with FBT, lets just say I wont hold my breath. I can now see where you are coming from and it's refreshing. All the best and keep up the good work.
Isn't it funny, how if you sit in a library and scream, everyone looks at you and tuts...but do the same thing on an aircraft and everyone joins in!

Offline Chunty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
CAP 699 draft revision
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2008, 10:48:40 PM »
Cheers Yeesby, unfortunately it seems that you and I are the only ones with any opinion on this so far, and I really thought this would get peoples fingers tapping!