wholetime carrying out retained contracts

[Stop4Chimney fire]

Master?Commander?

You said - "The retained system proves that incidents nationwide are handled more efficiently by well trained & highly experienced men that are able to bring additional skills into an incident assisting in the successful conclusion in most cases. "

Presumably you exclude the successful extinction of chimney fires in that comment?

Just a thought..................

Ponders NYFRS RT Ffs.......... or are they the exception to the 'most cases'?

[trauma]

hmmmm just another thought ..................

ponders NYFRS WT Ffs......Whitby fish and chip shop good job lads NOT

[fireftrm]

Juts thought I would investigate - however it is either so long ago, or so small an incident that there is nothing on the web about it.

I did find plenty about the chimney fire that may not have been put out, please tell us more so we may make up our own minds?

What happened that could have been avoided at the chip shop? Presumably you are saying that something did, rather like stop4 is about the chimney?

[trauma]

lots of things its now used by NYFRS to show what not to do, but im not trying to make them look stupid but point out every one makes mistakes wholetime and retained

[maineroad]

look I attended chase terrace school in staffs,numerous pumps specials from staaffs & west mids.It burnt to the ground .W/t& ret ff & jo worked hard but v.poor leadership(&firemanship) from oic principal officers!!!!!!!

[dave bev]

any chance of getting back to the real question in this thread, there are good and not so good fireys on every system, mistakes are made, but they are only mistakes with hindsight, we never go to false alarms, we only come back from them blah blah my dog has a waggier tail than your dog (i wont mention the 'pc' or perhaps lack of it by some posters) - the question was a valid one, perhaps someone at the odpm should be asked - they wrote the bloody legislation after all - oh, no, not something else they forgot in their haste to detroy the F&S's

[cideredup]

"Master and Commander",
you seem to be yet another Retained person who has been the victim of our spineless senior management and the handed down village retained mentality.

please dont insult our intellegence by comparing fire calls, management and generations of retained personell have,and it does not hold water.if you must compare make it balanced not the busiest ret station in the country against a rural day manned or w/t station in cornwall/west wales etc.

Please dont fall into the trap thinking that two hours training a week and a two/three week initial course is sufficient, we both know it isnt.

as for you being a "Retained officer",that statement is an insult in its self, to help explain why please see the amount of training i have had to pass/go through to get to Subo Level,then compare with your own.

15 week intial Fm's recruit course(residential)
2 week  Ba course
2 year probation period(incl quaterly assessment/visits)
4x Probationer 1 week courses +exam prac/written
Qualified F/m's exam

Lfm exam, pt1 4xpapers,pt2 1 std drill, 1 Fire ground incident/scenario,30 min lecture on Stn grd risk. (3 days)
 Subo exam,pt 1 4x papers,1std drill(2 pump),1 op incident(2 pump), 30 min lecture (Brigade special risk etc).(3 days)

lfm assessment centre, 2 days
subo assessment centre ,2 days

Crew command course fsc (3 weeks)
Watch command fsc,(4 weeks)
Watch Command 2 fsc( 5 weeks)
internal j/o courses, x3 2 weeks, 1 day
iosh 1 week

That is what is required  by my brigade for me to become a W/t Subo on a shift,i am an ex training instructor with all Fsc instructor courses completed ,plus others.
Cant be bothered to list but lets just say between 10 and 15 weeks.
Next there is god knows how many F/S modules and then the Joa etc etc.
My point is this being "on call" 24/7   365 is a big commitment,but a 2 week course and 2 hours training  a week doesnt make you a competant F/F ,let alone a "master and commander" type  Retained officer even if you were at New Yorks busiest Station .

[burgermuncher999]

Cideredup,
Be careful there, many have gone before who have had similar type statements deleted from the record for fear of causing offence to those who make such comments as you are seeing fit to redress. In spite of all this you shine like a beacon of light in the grey fog of IPDS pc where many are fearful of offending others by stating what some believe to be common sense. Basically that it takes more than 24/7/52 coverage in order to transfer sideways from ret to w/t. You are quite correct to point out the distinction between w/t and ret in terms of professional qualifications and training undertaken. This however will do little to alter the mind-set of some who view us as being no more than tea drinking, snooker playing water squirters. If however a ret member of staff can prove they are of the same standard as their w/t counterpart through the production of ample quality workplace performance evidence against all the units and element of the rolemap then potentially they might transfer. But in considering the practical obstacles to this particularly the lack of volume of workplace experience and development opportunities on an average retained station this will be the exception and not the rule.
Being a ret firefighter in reality might mean that the individual might by pass the initial sift and entrance criteria but they would still require a shed load of development to reach the level of their w/t counterpart.

[burgermuncher999]

ps
Given the tone of M&C's contribution most of this will probably go over his head.

[Frankie]

I have to say, I've only been in the RT for a few months now. There is the perception that the WT personnel are far more experienced and far better at their jobs than the RT. To a degree I believe this to be the case. Whilst I accept that the competencies of a WT compared to that of an RT are usually far higher I know guys who have been in the RT a long time and have exactly the same if not more competence than that of a WT. Unfortunately whilst in theory we do the same job, we do not. WT are involved in far more areas of Firefighting than RT. I'm not exactly sure of the averages for a WT being called out but I am certain that RT ffs are used a hell of a lot less during a day.... it's been six days since my alerter went off and i'm giving 24/7 cover.

We have two WT ffs on our RT station and they are teaching some of our more experienced personnel, let alone myself who isn't even up to the standard of a Trainee WT ff.

M&C i'd be very suprised if you are more busy than a WT station, your full time employers must be pretty lenient...?

The training can never be the same, it will always take far longer for a RT to train due to other commitments. However when we are doing the job, 99% of the time, it's impossible to tell who is who....

Both are two very different jobs and as such I can see no possible way to draw a comparison between them other than we save lives.... or at least try to.

[wats]

wats this

[Acco]

The SO (WT) should have a duty of care such to the extent an off duty nusrse has at a say car accident or injury having a duty of care. Beining RetFF in Australia all Permananent Staff out rank RetFFs.

This means a captain of 30yrs experiances is outranked by a Permanaent Recruit green from out of collage.

On paper the collage stutent has more qualifications but qualifications mean nothing without experiance.

Having said that WT officers (permanents) should be accountable because they are trained they are paid a salary and if the mistake was gross negligance then they should suffer the consequences but on the same token if the mistake was of gross negligance from a RETFF than they should pay the consquences.

As hard as this seems.

In Australia we are protected by law against negligance (ie trying the best doing what you could and under the training you have recieved I think it is in section 76 of the NSW fire brigades act)