Rank Markings on helmets?

[Matt Akers]

I understand that in the local authority that they are changing there rank markings on there helmets. It is as follows:

Station Officer (as normal, white hat, black stripe)
Sub O (White helmet, black stripe. The same as the station officers)
LFF (Yellow helmets with two stripes, like the old Sub O markings)
FF (Stay the same)

Apparently it has come down from the OPDM for all brigades to change. My question is will the CAA follow suit and suggest all aviation fire services change to come into line with the local authority?

[fireftrm]

Note the markings are not as Matt suggest by rank they are by role:

Watch Manager - white 12.5mm band
Crew Manager - yellow 2x12.5mm band

This means that whether you have changed depends on whether your watch managers were StnO or SubO. The crew manager on a two pump stn may have been a SubO, now WM(A) for pay purposes, but will likley be a CM under r2r.

This was a FSC in MArch 2004

If the AFS has a StnO as WM and a SubO CM then they already comply, only the LFfs may need to be examined as to whether they are CMs or Ffs really?

[Cut Fire Service Pay]

Ahhh!! I simply cannot stand this rank to role rubbish, its driving me up the wall!! Lets modernise the service but keep the ranks! Death to role maps!!

Sorry i've calmed down now.

[dave bev]

fireftm - a bit of a generalised statement cm will likely become etc ...... if we are referring to posts and not people there is potential for that to be the case, i say potential because i am not convinced it will happen that way everywhere. there is nothing that says anywhere that there cant be two watch managers on a watch!! if someone is doing the work of a watch manager then they should be paid as a watch manager!!  on large watches there may be too much work for one watch manager, to simply introduce watch b as a job size issue doesnt necessarily resolve the issue - the job might actually be too big for one person!!



pete, role maps are good, they can be applied to the current rank structure if someone somewhere would be brave enough to do so, roles could become job descriptors for pay purposes. after all its the fire authorities that are the employer (not the odpm) and as the employee they can choose to refer to their employees by whatever title they choose

lff (crew manager) sub officer (watch manager) stn officer (watch manager/station manager)

of course this goes totally against current thinking and delivery of the promised land but curiously seems to fit cfoa's rank marking structure of brigade mangager (deputy/chief fire officer) - strange innit??

that doesnt mean that rolemaps and ipds (inc progression through roles etc) need to be scrapped - they do bring benefit, what i am suggesting is that there needs to be more of a practical rather than theoretical application of the brave new world

dave bev

[fireftrm]

Dave

I do mean the role not the person, but hen the person woudl be in the role...........

I agree about he number of people required to do the job too, though I am not sure that you can ever, sensibly, be in a position where you have two people as the manager. I really can't se ehow any organisation could run that way. Where do you find shops with two managers on duty at the same time, banks with two branch managers, police shifts with two shift Inspectors etc. It would be anightmare for designating responsible persons. Whether it fits with the (generally) metropolitan 2 pump stations with a prior rider StnO (now WM for pay purposes) and SubO (now WM[A] for pay purposes) and so doesan't upset anyone is entirley irrelevant if we are discussing the real world. If this can be proven now then why have we never had two StnO riders, or 2 SubOs on watches before? Reason - there has to be someone in ultimate charge/management. This line of thinking would ned up with a 'senior' watch manager, rather the same as having only one anyway!

If the job is really too big for one person then introduce more assistants. So more CMs needed? Maybe have a developing WM as the deputy, that way there is a clear distionction and this would provide the correct level of development and mentoring for that D/WM. Alternatively split the group into two and have management structures for both, but again if this is an existing group how did it survive before?

A practical solution? I consider this to be, at present, as close as porcine aviation.

[dave bev]

where there's a will there's a ..........

dave bev

[fireftrm]

..........solicitor and a probable family fall out, maybe even a legal dispute!

[wee brian]

So long as I can find the bloke in charge I'm not bothered what he is called (or she).