Author Topic: Smoke alarms 'v' Operational training  (Read 23974 times)

Offline fireftrm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
Smoke alarms 'v' Operational training
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2008, 08:52:22 AM »
YEs much more sensible, many FRS are now looking at out sourcing smoke alarm fitting and using Ffs to do 'proper'  education preventative work.
My posts reflect my personal views and beliefs and not those of my employer. If I offend anyone it is usually unintentional, please be kind. If it is intentional I guess it will be clear!

Offline Big A

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Smoke alarms 'v' Operational training
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2008, 09:21:52 AM »
Quote from: fireftrm
YEs much more sensible, many FRS are now looking at out sourcing smoke alarm fitting and using Ffs to do 'proper'  education preventative work.
Fireftrm, if there is 'plenty of time' to meet these targets then surely there is no need to outsource this work. In fact let's outsource the 7(2)(d)s.

Offline Little phil

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Smoke alarms 'v' Operational training
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2008, 09:42:16 AM »
In our brigade our district has set a target of 5 a month cos we have 2 pumps and the 1 pump stations have a target of 3 but in other districts these figures can vary. These figure are set for the r/t but i am not sure what the w/t or day crewed are set at. At our station we do meet these figures and do more only because of a handful of crew that do have time  to carry these out.
I know of some stations that have never met the figures and proberly will never be able to due to work commitments or family commitments. The answer being given from management is these have to be achieved and can be because everyone is required to do community safty as part of their ff rolemap  2 times a year.  so if you carry out 2 home fire safty checks a year on a station that has 20 personel that is 40 strait away and only leaves 20 for the rest of the year.
Most people understand how important community safty is but because of time restraints this is not always possible to spend time in the community. I would rather if personnel had more time carry out extra training as 2 hours a week is really not enough time to cover every thing that is set out in ipds training.

Offline fireftrm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
Smoke alarms 'v' Operational training
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2008, 04:20:39 PM »
Big A there IS plenty of time, outsourcing of smoke alarm fitting will allow that time to be redirected to giving more safety advice, demonstration and instruction. Outsourcing 7.2.ds would mean no Firefighters receiving the correct level of knowledge of their station/service area risk, or for that matter competent rate pay.
My posts reflect my personal views and beliefs and not those of my employer. If I offend anyone it is usually unintentional, please be kind. If it is intentional I guess it will be clear!

Offline Kaiser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Smoke alarms 'v' Operational training
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2008, 09:17:34 PM »
My mistake, I took this figure as per month, my reason for this is, up until last year, we were expected to do 12 per tour, making 48 a month.  This was on top of all of the jobs I listed.  With regards to the work organisation and training being down to the CM's & WM's, I only agree to a certain extent, but not completely.  They can only achieve all of their objectives if they have support from their SM's, GM's and principle officers.  I don't just mean, the gaffers saying, "Yes , you are right, it needs to be done"  What I mean is, not coming and dumping every hair brained scheme and new initiative on watches and expecting them to do it effectively whilst carrying out all of their station duties, fire calls, standard tests, home safety risk assessments, smoke alarm fitting (4 a day), assisting the probationer with his NVQ, on station training, etc. etc.
I believe that so many JO's are as afraid as their superiors to tell the people above them that they simply can't complete the work correctly and maintain standards of training and balance skill levels.
The fact that so many senior officers don't inform their line managers that some tasks are unrealistic if they are to be achieved correctly means that in the truest sense of the word, "Crap rolls downhill" .  I for one stopped hitting targets for smoke alarm fitting a long time ago because I insisted that the job was done correctly including giving sound home safety advice where it was needed.  I also ensured that my crew were giving all the training that was required in order to maintain competency levels.  I was hauled in to the office on several occasions by the station manager telling me to "Just get it done, the targets must be met".  I remained calm on every occasion and asked him if he wished me to not do my job correctly in order to make these targets, each time , he accused me of being insubordinate.
I am in no way shape or form, some raving militant unionist, but I do feel that it is time that targets for other work were put secondary to maintaining operational readiness.  It is clear to most of the firefighters that have served 10 years or more that standards are very often not being maintained to a suitable level.  The scary thing is that in a few years time, the firefighters that are developing now with insufficient knowledge and skills are going to be the mentors and JO's in charge of new trainees and probationers.  When skills and knowledge are no longer there, it's gone for good.  The loss of the fire service promotion exams means that there are so many people being promoted without proper knowledge of vital information for junior officers.  We will all be fantastic at running airport terminals and sports complexes but no bloody good at commanding stressful and dangerous operational incidents where underpinning knowledge can often save lives by creating a more efficiently run and safe incident ground.  

I am a firm believer that we should carry out community safety work, I embrace putting up smoke detectors and I value the aims and objectives of my brigade, but let's all remember that when the bells, whistles, pips and sirens go, we are driving to the unknown and our skill levels better be good enough or someone could very easily get seriously hurt or killed.  I for one am not prepared to put the safety of myself, my crew or the public I serve at risk, so that some manager gets a star next to his name for hitting targets.

Sorry for going on a bit but the soap box was very stable and I didn't want to get off.

Quote from: fireftrm
Kaiser, a maths lesson maybe? 78 x 4 x 112 = 34944 (nearest whole number was used to get 78), 78 is per ANNUM!!. So that is 6.5 per MONTH, maybe 3 HFRAs, plenty of time to do them properly!

Your last sentence hits the mark, though. That is a really important point, though I stress that it starts with CMs.
Malo Mori Quam Foed Ari

Offline Kaiser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Smoke alarms 'v' Operational training
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2008, 09:53:06 AM »
I couldn't agree more Kurnal, this is why I would rather do my job right the first time, every time and forget about the numbers.  For me it's more about the positive impact on my community than number chasing and doing a poor job to please others who obviously are more interested in their career paths than the folks we serve.


Quote from: kurnal
It all goes to show that counting detectors is a hopeless indicator of the value of the fire prevention work carried out by fire crews and may even be harmful if crews start number chasing for the sake of the targets as they do.

One HRA carried out in a deprived part of lewisham is probably worth 10 in knightsbridge in terms of its contribution to reducing the risk to life from fire. And probably 10 times harder to win.

A better indicator may be the number of persons engaged with combined with the number of hours spent per crew member qualified with deprivation factors, ethnic and age issues and type of housing?
Malo Mori Quam Foed Ari

Offline Kaiser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Smoke alarms 'v' Operational training
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2008, 10:06:58 AM »
Quote from: fireftrm
Big A there IS plenty of time, outsourcing of smoke alarm fitting will allow that time to be redirected to giving more safety advice, demonstration and instruction. Outsourcing 7.2.ds would mean no Firefighters receiving the correct level of knowledge of their station/service area risk, or for that matter competent rate pay.
I think I agree with this comment but only if the people who are fitting the alarms are given full and correct training not only in the fitting of smoke alarms, but also in the identification of hazards and how to deal with those hazards correctly.  In addition to this, number targets should be realistic enough to prevent slackers and shirkers whilst at the same time giving the employee the time to carry out realistic home safety risk assessments that are of value to the public.  It should also be noted that some of the premises we enter are where extremely vunerable people live, if we are inviting others to do work on our behalf, they will be representatives of the brigades we serve, therefore it is of paramount importance that we select the right people for the job and not just any old Tom, Dick or Harry off of the street.

The outsourcing of 7.2.d's would be a catastrophic mistake in my opinion, there is no better information than local in depth knowledge of a premises combined with the back up written information gained from these visits.  Firefighters that have local knowledge of the premises are way more informed of hazards, layout and water supplies associated with these premises and can respond much more effectively at incidents
Malo Mori Quam Foed Ari

Offline Big A

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Smoke alarms 'v' Operational training
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2008, 02:31:37 PM »
It seems that one or members of the forum have taken me at face value when I facetiously suggested outsourcing 7(2)(d)s to allow more time to fit smoke detectors (I was wrong about LFB target, it's actually in excess of 80,000 for 2007/8 + more invarious partnership schemes). Nothing could be further from the truth. (I thought that would have been evident enough from my previous postings in this thread)

Offline fireftrm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
Smoke alarms 'v' Operational training
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2008, 07:50:12 PM »
80,000, a much more unachievable and terrifying target, I can see why this upsets operational crews. Takes it to the nearly impossible 178 detector fittings per annum, per watch. With 45 sets per year that is 4 per set. With two fitted in most HFRAs, where the house had none before, that is an incredibly time consuming and training-preventing 2 HFRAs per set. How can they cope?
My posts reflect my personal views and beliefs and not those of my employer. If I offend anyone it is usually unintentional, please be kind. If it is intentional I guess it will be clear!