Training throughout the UK

[Billy]

good points SamFIRT

I would like to comment on your last point about someone managing an operational incident based on the PQA's and your mention of a high degree of technical competency.

In my opinion, technical competency means nothing, it's Practical competence that is more important and we need the Officers who are not taken in by the quoting of the PQA's and candidates trying to use "buzz words" like dynamic risk assessment and inner and outer cordons and contemporaneous logs without having the foggiest idea how they work in a practical operational incident.

I have interviewed  officers going for Watch Commanders posts and quoting PQA's verbatum and using all the buzz words you could possibly use but when you nail them and ask them "anyway, what are the practical risks and hazards when dealing with a fire in a high rise residential property" they dont have a clue..!
I have even heard of individuals asking why they were asked practical questions and thought it should be all technical when going for an operational watch Commanders post..! I feel a rant coming on so I will reply tomorrow.....
These are my own personal opinions and should not be taken as the views of my employer.

[SamFIRT]

I have interviewed  officers going for Watch Commanders posts and quoting PQA's verbatum and using all the buzz words you could possibly use but when you nail them and ask them "anyway, what are the practical risks and hazards when dealing with a fire in a high rise residential property" they dont have a clue..!

Agreed

That is exactly what I meant by technical competency…Fire service related technical competency; and the fact it should be role specific. e.g.  A person wishing to act as the operational commander of a fire engine should know the dangers associated with high rise buildings, ( and so many other special risks) how to command and sectorise, i.e. what a lobby sector, fire sector and search sector is as opposed to external command sectors etc etc etc etc etc….. but they should also understand dry/wet risers, pressurised stairwells, automatic venting systems, AFD etc etc etc etc . 

A person wishing to become a Fire Investigator should have in addition a high technical knowledge of fire related chemistry and physics and how they affect fire development. (It never fails to amaze me how many people in the Fire sector do not understand the basics of the compartment fire events of flashover and backdraught and how they affect post fire indicators). 

In my humble opinion; to be competent they should ally this ( and more) to a high technical / practical knowledge of fire safety and operational competencies.

Experience...that is no good without reflection on performance, and that is not possible without knowledge and peer review, and that is where IPDS / PDR / CPD comes in...I too could rant.