Lower Category Aerodrome Supervisor

[Chunty]

I am searching for anecdotal tales from those of you who have attended the LCAS course at IFTC. Last year three lads from the lower cat airports I do work for were sent on an LCAS Initial program. All passed but their first hand feedback to me about the course content has been questionable, one claiming that over the entire week he never had the opportunity to take command of a crew at an incident scenario. Raising the question of how he was assessed as having shown acquisition of new skills.

Another made an allegation without supporting evidence, that during the written exam on the final day of the course, one of the instructors was wandering around the room quietly giving candidates answers to questions they were struggling with. I re-affirm this is what I have been told by the individual concerned and have no secondary opinion or evidence to support it.

The relevance of the course for lower category operators has been questionable for many years and steadily improving in my opinion, the items of question being the scale of some of the practical scenarios, the training rigs used in comparison to Cat 1/2 aircraft dimensions, and of course the equipment and appliances being deployed, hardly in keeping with the nationwide fleet of Land Rover chassis/TACR type vehicles stationed at lower cat aerodrome's. This has been improved by the introduction of the smaller GA type aircraft rig and provision of a Perren unit of limited media capacity.

On a previous year a colleague of mine who attended the same program was staggered that the first couple of hours on the fireground were spent showing three people how to deploy/make-up layflat hose and how to operate a branch? It seems that they had absolutely no previous fire service experience at all, extremely questionable you may say, but if you look at IFTC's website today it still states that pre-attendance requirements for the LCAS initial course include the statement; "Previous fire experience, whilst desirable, is not a prerequisite for this programme". Generally low cat airports don't have big budgets, especially for fire crew training, so shelling out to send an individual on this course is a major outlay of funds, to then find that some of it was wasted while raw recruits permitted on the same course learn to do basic functions as mentioned above is concerning. And then to consider that five days later those same people could be back on their home aerodrome in charge of a minimum 3 or even 2 person crew engaging in a life critical incident armed with the basics required of the unit according to the specifications in CAP 168, i.e. not much media and not much equipment, save for the specified screw-drivers and such like (where the hell ICAO identified a set of screwdrivers as applicable crash/fire equipment for low cat I'll never understand).

So come on give us your experiences and opinions of the LCAS or even its predecessor the Low Cat JO, and for the record I'm not looking to knock any individual or organisation, but I am keen on getting involved with making suggestions to the authority to improve the situation and need as much information, good or bad, as possible.

[stevfire2]

from  my lcjo course a good few years back, i can confim that a "helping hand" was occasionally given at exam time, though in a joking manner. e.g." surely POWDER isnt spelt with 3 letters beginning with b!" or "are you sure thats what i told you?" whilst leaning over a candidates shoulder. i also never got to be oic, wcich if i remember correctly was due to the sheer number on our course. we where in fact an extra 3 rd course that year.
certainly in the low cat world teeside is seen as the opportunity to play with the big boys toys. much as i enjoyed it, looking back a protector and a trident arent strictly representative of cat 2, or the major fuel tanker repeatedly flashing over in the bund  for what seemed like hours with 2 sidelines, a perren unit and 8 blokes.
 2 of our guys where there last week, no sign of a new perren, they had the cobra. thoroughly chuffed with the course, but again the odd reservation about some of the scenarios. definately felt h+s biting though, told that offensive and aggressive firefighting was now a thing of the past, though how you can lob 670 lts in a defensive manner with any effect seems ambitious to me. also no kneeling now at the undercarriage rig  in case run off water contains nasty  chemicals. true i suppose but where do you stop. airport firefighting needs to be aggressive and rapid to achieve its aim.
 still, whine over, its still the best training set up around. glad personally though that i let teeside lapse, now just train locally.

[5 spare blades]

Just to join in on the discussion, I have heard a whisper that some low cat airfields use this course so that they get a cheap CAA endorsed fire-fighter qualification, hense people not knowing the basics when attending.

[Chunty]

Just to join in on the discussion, I have heard a whisper that some low cat airfields use this course so that they get a cheap CAA endorsed fire-fighter qualification, hense people not knowing the basics when attending.

Please don't tease me '5 Blades' as I'd love to know where you heard that whisper from?

But I can't quite get my head around it. Lower category aerodromes have no need to go to the expense of sending a firefighter to IFTC to get qualified at all, it is industry standard that a lower cat A/D that has an approved maintenance of competence scheme in place can train firefighters in-house. The training is usually conducted by an in-house LCAS certificate holder (certainly at Cat 2) or sometimes by an outside agency at Cat 1 (where it is not a requirement to have an LCAS on the books).  Including VAT the LCAS at IFTC costs around £1500, invariably the cost of getting a lower category FF on the run via in-house initial training will cost a smidgen of this amount.

Is your 'whisperer' suggesting that a person with an LCAS award is able to sneak a job as a firefighter at a higher category A/D without further training or qualification?

[5 spare blades]

Ok here is the scinario. A vacancy occurs at a low cat aerodrome there is two routes you can follow. Option 1, select recruit, induct and train. Compatant in about 4-6 months. O/T to be paid during this timescale. Option 2 Recruit, induct, send to IFTS 1 month later, result shiny new firefighter with CAA endorsed Certificate of Comptancy. Now do the sums.

I an not suggesting that they take this certificate else where, even to a higher cat aerodrome (that would be pushing the boundries a bit, though possible) I am just pointing out the the economics.

I have heard of a new recruit who attended such a course, their results impressed the aerodrome director so much that he was made SAFO within weeks of his return.

[Chunty]

5 Blades; I disagree with your economics; from my first hand experiences providing services to lower cat RFFS at three aerodromes I can state with absolute confidence that the LCAS course attendance at IFTC costs (£1500 inc VAT) plus travel and expenses amounting to around £2k, is one hell of a lot more than getting a recruit through an in-house syllabus to enable 'competence in acquisition' to be completed and hence put 'on the run' which never in my experience takes as long as 4 to 6 months. The cost would be a tiny fraction compared to LCAS attendance. As a matter of interest the LCAS program takes 5 days not a 'month'.

As for the story of a recruit attending LCAS then being appointed SAFO within a few weeks this raises a very interesting point.

If recruit firefighters were to attend LCAS as described in your post to achieve 'competence' as a firefighter this is fallacy, LCAS is a 'qualification' that permits an individual to serve in a supervisory role at a lower category aerodrome.

The very point that there is no pre-entry requirements for the LCAS course indicates that for a lower category A/D manager to send a new recruit on the LCAS, get him qualified to supervisory level and then appoint him SAFO is correct and in accordance with the framework set up and approved by the CAA.

I don't personally agree with it which is why I started this thread in the first place. The worst aspect of all is that the 'pass' mark to get the LCAS award is made up totally and solely from the results of the written paper on the last day. A practically inept twit with a mind for facts and figures and the ability to write could come away from the course with a cracking result, even if the instructors written comments were damning it matters not one bit, if you pass the written test you're a winner! That's why it's a 'qualification' and not an indication of 'competence'.

To return to your point 5 Blades, Option 1 'select recruit and train' has to be the economic choice, competence in application may take the timescale you've suggested but that doesn't prevent the individual going on the run from completion of the basic syllabus as competent in acquisition.

[5 spare blades]

I agree that someone attending the LCAS can obtain high marks just by rembering fact and figures etc.

I also ment that to take a month to get someone qualified through IFTC, following the format of offering position to candidate, waiting for notice period from previous employment (if applicable). Immediatly booking candidate on course, a suitalby qualified candidate would then be available for inclusion as a RFFS team member. A lot less time than training all aspects locally. with a certificate of compatence to boot. I know this sounds a bit rough shot.

You state that you have first hand experiance providing services to three low cat a/f , can I summise from this that the people you supply would have just as much famil training at a particular airfield as a new candidate freshly returning from Teeside and becoming a crew member.

Also how about this then, Someone is booked onto a five day initial LCAS couse only for it to be cancelled due to lack of candidate take up, only to attend a 3 day revalidation as that's the only course available for the next 6 months, cheeper still.

All I am saying is that it is possible to produce a piece of paper to state comptancy with very little time served that is industry endorsed.

[Chunty]

None of the airports I represent send anyone on an LCAS unless they have served a minimum two years as a firefighter and possess a certificate of competence in application of the national occupational standards. This starts with attendance at the FIT (Firefighter Initial Training) course that achieves competence in acquisition (or doesn't in a few cases!!), and then placement on the run for the two years within the 699 maintenance of competence scheme. Referral to IFTC for the LCAS course is purely based on a 'need' within the organisation for a supervisory candidate and has never been used to justify firefighter competence (and never will as long as I am in involved).

Now that's about as robust as it's going to get within the system created by the CAA.

I have never heard of an LCAS initial course being cancelled and the candidates being squeezed in to a reval, the other way round yes, indeed it happened to one of my colleagues on the occasion mentioned in my first post where he was stood around for two hours while a couple of numpty's were taught how to roll hose. Frankly I think that the aerodrome's that sent them should have been answerable for wasting everybody else's time, but as long as IFTC advertise that there is no pre-entry experience requirements (and the CAA approve this) then it can be expected.

I appreciate the point you are trying to make 5 Blades but I stand by my comment that someone who holds an LCAS certificate holds a 'qualification' not a 'statement of competence', however I am sure from your posts and other things I have heard that there are some airfields out there that smudge this point for their own purposes; and almost certainly some individuals too!

[5 spare blades]

now, now we were all numpty's once.

We should meet up for a beer

[Chunty]

Like the sound of the beer 5 Blades; as for numpty's, okay fair play I was indeed a numpty once but I was a numpty on a drill ground of numpty's, not a numpty in a place where a numpty should never be.

PS - did I mention that I like your title '5 Spare Blades', almost as comical as my utter favourite 'a screwdriver set', oh the times I've saved a life or two with a cross head driver!!!

[5 spare blades]

You ever tried gaining acess to a composite cowling with a cold chisel!

[Chunty]

Well actually it's funny you should say that...

[TallyHo]

I am searching for anecdotal tales from those of you who have attended the LCAS course at IFTC. Last year three lads from the lower cat airports I do work for were sent on an LCAS Initial program. All passed but their first hand feedback to me about the course content has been questionable, one claiming that over the entire week he never had the opportunity to take command of a crew at an incident scenario. Raising the question of how he was assessed as having shown acquisition of new skills.

Another made an allegation without supporting evidence, that during the written exam on the final day of the course, one of the instructors was wandering around the room quietly giving candidates answers to questions they were struggling with. I re-affirm this is what I have been told by the individual concerned and have no secondary opinion or evidence to support it.

The relevance of the course for lower category operators has been questionable for many years and steadily improving in my opinion, the items of question being the scale of some of the practical scenarios, the training rigs used in comparison to Cat 1/2 aircraft dimensions, and of course the equipment and appliances being deployed, hardly in keeping with the nationwide fleet of Land Rover chassis/TACR type vehicles stationed at lower cat aerodrome's. This has been improved by the introduction of the smaller GA type aircraft rig and provision of a Perren unit of limited media capacity.

On a previous year a colleague of mine who attended the same program was staggered that the first couple of hours on the fireground were spent showing three people how to deploy/make-up layflat hose and how to operate a branch? It seems that they had absolutely no previous fire service experience at all, extremely questionable you may say, but if you look at IFTC's website today it still states that pre-attendance requirements for the LCAS initial course include the statement; "Previous fire experience, whilst desirable, is not a prerequisite for this programme". Generally low cat airports don't have big budgets, especially for fire crew training, so shelling out to send an individual on this course is a major outlay of funds, to then find that some of it was wasted while raw recruits permitted on the same course learn to do basic functions as mentioned above is concerning. And then to consider that five days later those same people could be back on their home aerodrome in charge of a minimum 3 or even 2 person crew engaging in a life critical incident armed with the basics required of the unit according to the specifications in CAP 168, i.e. not much media and not much equipment, save for the specified screw-drivers and such like (where the hell ICAO identified a set of screwdrivers as applicable crash/fire equipment for low cat I'll never understand).

So come on give us your experiences and opinions of the LCAS or even its predecessor the Low Cat JO, and for the record I'm not looking to knock any individual or organisation, but I am keen on getting involved with making suggestions to the authority to improve the situation and need as much information, good or bad, as possible.

I am surprised that a person of your position would post accusations on here without, as you say, any “supporting evidence”.

As far as I am aware the numbers of students attending courses are strictly controlled, and one of the main reasons for this is so there are enough exercises for each student to have the opportunity to prove their competence.  

As for instructors quietly giving the answers to questions; a student can at any time during an exam ask the instructor to rephrase a question if they don’t understand it; but I am not aware of any instructors quietly giving answers.

It seems to me that for some reason you are trying to discredit the LCAS course and the organisation that runs it.

You say about your accusations: “Another made an allegation without supporting evidence” & “I re-affirm this is what I have been told by the individual concerned and have no secondary opinion or evidence to support it.”

Once again, if these accusations cannot be substantiated, why would you come on here and make them?

[Chunty]

Davey please begin reading my further comments with an entirely open mind, it is very easy for the written word to be misconstrued as aggresive or hostile especially when replying to a post such as your own, I have no need to take either such stance so as said before, keep an open mind.

As a person responsible for spending employers hard earned cash on courses including the LCAS, I was not pleased with the recent feedback from the guys I sent up there last year. The 'organisation' that runs it we all know is IFTC so let's just say it, but they do so with a clear approval from the authority (CAA) and in my own experience with the exception of one instructor who was well out of his depth both academically and personably, I have never had a first hand occasion to be dissapointed with IFTC, quite the opposite as I very much look forward to every visit there both professionally and socially.

The items I posted on here for discussion were done so with the objective of accumulating the opinions of others. Had I not stated clearly that these items were second hand (i.e. not my own experiences) and used phrases such as 'allegation without supporting evidence' ecetera, then yes I believe they could have been taken as accusations, but clearly they were not and I gave great thought to that fact before I submitted the post.

To go back to my spending hard earned cash bit, that's the relevance to it all; aerodrome's are compelled to comply with the authorities demands in this area, by virtue there is no market place to make an option for a suitable training provider as only IFTC delivers this program. Currently there is no forum where representatives from the lower category sector meet en masse, hence my decision to test the water via this website.

From the response to my original post I had pretty much formed the conclusion that either; forum users don't attend LCAS, those that do don't want to comment or that those that do are satisfied with what they get. In any respect there is very little here to substantiate or expand on the stories I received last year which I can only assume is good for the course and IFTC, as I personally suspected it would be. But if we don't ask questions we don't get answers and when I'm throwing almost two grand of my budget at something every time I send a chap to IFTC I believe it is totally reasonable to ask questions and seek opinions.

That was my conclusion until your post.

From the accusational point of view I would just politely point out that whilst you seemed upset that I may be making accusations which I have now proved I am not, your post certainly did in the line "It seems to me that for some reason you are trying to discredit the LCAS course and the organisation that runs it," which is both inaccurate and accusatory.

A lesson I learned years ago when writing on forums; think very carefully before clicking the submit button.

Also Davey, seeing as you took such exception to what you mistakenly believed my objectives were you must have a strong opinion or experience of your own so please share that with us?