Key Skills Training

[kurnal]

Any areas that you are weak in may be just as due to having been a SubO as long as you were, the PQAs are to test the ability to be a Ff, you may be thinking too hard about what your experience tells you as a manager rather than as a newbie?

Are you saying that all this valuable experience as a sub O would be of no benefit to the service- and indeed has a negative effect and  may prevent  a former sub O being employed as a firefighter?
The system of selection means that their experience in leading and managing staff is of less benefit to the Service than employing a complete rookie?

In my experience people who revert to a lower level of responsibility by choice can be a huge asset and
positive influence in a team.

[fireftrm]

No I am not, what I am saying is that experience as a manager may mean you present your experiences in a different way than is expected of a Ff. Also, without meaning any offence, the retired SubO may not have been the sort of person we would want to have in the FRS now, I can certainly think of quite a few retired staff whose passing was lamented, but whose re-employment would not have ben considered. The service is not what it was 35 years ago, around when the retired SubO must have joined and the experience and PQAs of that individual may well not match those we now look for, just because you are int he job does not mean you have the qualities to join it now. Much the same as asking someone with a 35 year driving licence to take a test now, probably fail.

Instead of bemoaning the PQA system, which is the national selection process, the Rtd SubO should eb asking for feedback ont he areas that they answered insufficiently, or negatively, and then assessing what they need to do to ensure they pass a subsequent re-interview, not asking/demanding that the process be 'remarked'.
Perhaps, following feedback?, the questions and responses given could be detailed here for us to see what went wrong?

[nearlythere]

You are correct, it was the interview that I failed, and I have not been told on what, only that I was unsuccessful.  
Since I retired from the Fire Service I have worked in a Housing Department of a Local Authority, dealing with members of the public and working in teams of people from all walks of life. I have done this very successfully, and I'm sure that I would be given excellent references by the Local Authority if asked for.
Again, I believe that the whole concept of the PQA assessments is flawed, that it is too open to different interpretations by different examiners and that it really has no bearing at all upon the ability of candidates to do the job of being a firefighter.
This is not just sour grapes because I have failed the interview.
I have written to the Chief Fire Officer of the Brigade, (the same Chief Fire Officer who signed my leaving certificate on which it says "in recognition and appreciation of devoted and loyal service to the community in general and the Fire Service in particular"), to see if the decision can be overturned and find out if common sense and straight thinking can be used to overturn a decision made by asking obscure questions on subjects unrelated to being a firefighter.

ps

I've since been told of 3 excellent retained firefighters in the same Brigade, all with between 10-15 years experience, and with whom I have served with in the past, who also failed their PQA assessments when they tried to become wholetime firefighters. Yet they are still serving as retained firefighters in the same Brigade.

The world has gone mad.

I think your problem is that you believe they are looking for the best person for the job. This is not the case anymore. They are looking for interviewees to spout key words and phrases which allows the interviewer to tick a box. The more boxes ticked the higher up the list you go.
PQA should be renamed TMC - Totally Meaningless Codswallop.

[Tom Sutton]

The service is not what it was 35 years ago, around when the retired SubO must have joined and the experience and PQAs of that individual may well not match those we now look for, just because you are int he job does not mean you have the qualities to join it now.

Could you list all these major differences and the necessary qualities that are required today which were absent 35 years ago?

[fireftrm]

Basically the PQAs are what we expect now, in 1970ish being fit and of good character was about it. As you well know, being a Rtd member yourself, the entrance requirements were minimal. That there are substantial differences is readily identified by a strike, which some may remember, in 2002, where the FBU were arguing that the role of the modern Ff was significantly changed from that prior. In 2001 the LFBG proposed "To lobby the NJC to commence an immediate review of "The Qualified Fireman's Job Description" to encompass the broader range of duties and competences required of a modern fire officer".

[kurnal]

Good point fireftrm but it appears to many of us that the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.

[Tom Sutton]

Fireftrm
Why did I have to take a number of written and physical tests (5) followed by a primary medical and an interview. Thirty five of us started at 0900hrs, two had an interview at 1600hrs, if as you say in 1970ish being fit and of good character was about all that was needed?

I am well aware of FBU postulating its their job, but you still haven’t given me any examples.

[fireftrm]

Look at the latest entry tests then and also please tell us what the written tests you did (when too) were on.

[kurnal]

1974
General knowledge (who wrote tale of two cities?)
Basic arithmetic
Mechanical aptitude problem solving (turn this gear how many turns will this one do)
Written English- write a 500 word short essay from a short choice of topics
Dictation (from the drill book)

If successful pick up and carry a colleague a set distance in a set time

Interview

Medical

[pokkav]

The entrance exam I took in 1978 was very similar to kurnals', but that misses the point.
 I served for 24 years and in spite of what fireftrm may imagine, I was both a popular and active member of the brigade, having been the station FBU rep, social club secretary, Duke of Edinburgh instructor and many other unpaid, voluntary activities.

When I had my PQA interview I was asked to give an example of when I undertook an activity on my own according to guidelines, or how I acted with consideration of someones needs that were different to my own, etc. on 6 different topics. Most of the answers I gave were from my Fire Service experiences, and were all of a very positive nature, yet I am still not supposed to have the personal qualities and attributes to become a firefighter.
  You would think that I had said I bite babies heads off, start race riots and that I'm habitually rude to old people.

As I've said previously, I believe the whole PQA assassination (oops, sorry), assessment proceedure is flawed.

[fireftrm]

Some points, things pokkav.

I didn't say that you were unpopular, or inactive in your FRS, what I said was that sinply having been a retired member does not mean that any person would necessarily be the sort that an employer would choose to re-employ. It wasn't personal it was a general statement.

Secondly the examples you have given of two of the 6 questions are as I would expect, what you haven't done is to tell us what your replies were and what you got in feedback as to why you failed the interview. The PQAs aren't flawed, but people's answers can be and then they blame the system and not that it was their fault that they didn't make the grade.

Another one is that you used maninly FRS experiences, yet these were at least 5 years old, these were almsot certainly too long in the tooth and we ask for examples from within the last two years, as a norm.

Please tell us what questions you failed to give satisfactory responses to, the feedback you received and then we can judge. Don't just dismiss the PQAs as being flawed without providing us with the evidence to back up your theory. Maybe start with the answers you gave to working on your own to guidelines and the consideration for others different from you?

I strongly recommend fireservive.co.uk's forum for advice on PQA questiosn and answers.

[Tom Sutton]

Look at the latest entry tests then and also please tell us what the written tests you did (when too) were on.

1962
Entry requirements. (Minimum height, chest size and expansion and eyesight test.)
Basic arithmetic
Basic English Three tests, Composition, Dictation and Punctuation.
Physical Strength (picks up and carries a colleague a set distance in a set time), Enclosed spaces (rat run) and Dexterity disassemble and assemble a piece of equipment.
Medical
Interview (Chief Officer) I have no idea what qualities he was looking for.

One direct comparison with the new written tests and other indirect comparisons if the ability tests uses subjective written responses.

I fully accept that the National Firefighter Selection Tests are much better than those that went before. However I still say the essential Q&A, required by a firefighter, to carry out their core functions has not changed. I would say that if you look closely at the tests, those Q&A are still there, maybe under new labels. Any additional Q&A seems to be about making it easier to manage, take for instance “Openness to change” how does that relate to a firefighter’s core skills?

[pokkav]

Surely the whole objective of the PQA assessment for new recruits is to pick out the right candidates for future service, thereby not wasting the candidates or the Fire Service's time and resources.
In my case I have a proven record of good service, and thanks to the new legislation outlawing age discrimination, I'm now able to offer this same service as a Retained Firefighter.  I haven't changed in any other way.
In a previous response fireftrm told me to try the self selection questionnaire assessment at www.fire.gov.uk/careers/firefighter/SSQ.hcm. This I did and was told I "would have the potential ability to meet the requirements to be a firefighter" in some areas, and others in which I would find it difficult.
By way of experiment I asked several serving firefighters to undergo that same selection assessment; only 2 out of 10 were told they were suitable in the feedback.
May I invite all other correspondents to this forum to have a go and see what the results are; I guarentee that the majority will not come up to standard according to the feedback. I just have no idea how those results are obtained from the answers given to the questions.

[kurnal]

I did try it a few months ago following a similar posting on this subject.
I first answered it honestly using my real opinion and was unsuitable.

I then answered it on the basis of telling them what I thought they wanted to hear and scored a similar result to yourself.

I then read their guidance notes, learned the buzzwords and scored 100%.

So its a matter of only telling them what they want to hear and at least they give you enough information to be able to do this. But if this is the outcome then it really doesn't achieve its objectives.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Povak

I too have tried the PQas and theyre a joke!

The retained station I work at has had five potential new recruits wanting to join but they all  failed because they didnt score well on their PQAs and were asked to re-apply!

They lost interest.

They could have been 5 perfectly good potential firefighters we just lost !! And the government knows how damn hard it it to recruit for retained staff.

THe PQAs dont really relate to the job role as they should and there are some very contentious questions in the written entry level examination.

A number of senior officers in our brigade say that this PQA system patricularly for new recruits isn't working and instead of good people who could make good firefighters they are getting people who know how to say the right things and do well in an interview

I think it is disgraceful that a retired sub officer should not be re-considered for re-employment - the world has gone mad.

and ive learnt from four new recrits that during the interview they werent asked once why they wanted to be a firefigghter or join the fire service.

Instead they wanted them to give examples of where they have shown equality and diversity. Thats fine but you cant have your cake and eat it im afraid.

Here's an example - our local butcher's son wants join our station. He works with his dad and can provide an excellent level of cover. (The butchers shop is almost next door to the station)

The station and the community where this chap lives has a 100% white population, average age of the folk is 40 plus and he failed because he wasnt able to demonstrate interaction with ethnic minorities. Its not the lads fault! He is not racist! He hasnt had any opportunity to get in contact with people from different background simply because of where he lives and works!

He scores low on the PQA

So yes they are flawed.

Some of the firemen I work with (both retained and full time) took the online self assessment test - we all came out as lacking in some area. SO you are trying to tell me they aren't flawed Firetrm and co

PQAs are flawed because people know they have to bull their way through it as Kurnal said. What is the point of that?