Fire Service Roscommon

closecall

http://www.thejournal.ie/firefighters-suspended-as-roscommon-requests-defence-forces-assistance-284869-Nov2011/



FOURTEEN FIREFIGHTERS HAVE been suspended from Roscommon Fire Service as the chief fire officer today confirmed he has requested assistance from the Defence Forces as a precautionary measure.
Firefighters are in dispute over a breathing apparatus refresher training course which was due to take place today but which 14 firefighters did not attend leading to their suspension in what Chief Fire Officer Cathal McConn said was an “unprecedented” move.
The firefighters argue that they have concerns about the standards of the test but the fire service, operated by Roscommon County Council, says the course is necessary under health and safety requirements that need to be fulfilled in accordance with legislation.
As a result, the 14 firefighters were taken off the payroll, as well as having their pagers and access keys removed from them this morning. A hearing is scheduled at the Labour Relations Commission tomorrow.
Roscommon’s Chief Fire Officer Cathal McConn has told TheJournal.ie that Defence Forces’ assistance has been requested as a “contingency” and insisted that there was presently “adequate cover”.
“You wouldn’t be able to mobilise Defences Forces immediately,” McConn said. “They have to plan their resources as well. As of today and all day tomorrow we have no problem with our standard of cover. It’s only if things get worse.”
Implications

The Defence Forces have been requested to assist with emergency fire cover in Roscommon Town from midday on Wednesday, it is understood.
Roscommon has 58 firefighters in total across six stations in the county but with 14 now out-of-action, services will be stretched with the Irish Firefighter and Emergency Services Association (IFESA) warning of the implications this may have on the service’s ability to operate properly.
An IFESA spokesperson told TheJournal.ie it had concerns that it was fire officers and not firefighters who were delivering training.
“These instructors have never worn a breathing apparatus (BA) in a house fire and they’re trying to tell somebody who has been wearing it for years how to do it,” the spokesperson said. ”They’ve never worn it in a real-life situation.”
Concerns have also been raised about the stringent conditions which mean that officers who fail the refresher course cannot operate. McConn, rejected these complaints.
He insisted that the instructors who are fire officers “have been trained to the highest level” and that those who do not pass get another opportunity to do so.
“If at first you might not succeed then try and try again. They are always given that opportunity. It is never envisaged that they will be stood down,” McConn said.

Delancey

I'd suspect there is more to this than first appears.

karbonkoncepts

ive personally been shouting nationally for years about the compentency of our instructors, and this is what happens when they are allowed to instruct us, the majority of them have absolutley no operational firefighting experience but yet they are telling us how to do it from a book...all wrong..this needs to be tackled now before the public are put at risk from their incompentence, how can they pass on experience to new recruits...answer...they cannot..to be deemed competent under the health and safety act you need to have the qualifications, the education and the experience and 2 out of 3 won't make do.. the majority of instructors do not have the experience, for christ sake id say most of em havent even sat in the back of a lorry to a real job... finally it is going to be challenged..I want a front seat for this one...been a long time coming..

eyescreamcone

Are the retained firefighters afraid that they will fail the refresher course?

Or do they want to be trained up as instructors themselves and get extra MONEY for instructing on these courses???

Pass the popcorn ...

Paulzx

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Are the retained firefighters afraid that they will fail the refresher course?

Or do they want to be trained up as instructors themselves and get extra MONEY for instructing on these courses???

Pass the popcorn ...

Or do you not have a fcuking clue what you are talking about?

Don't choke on your popcorn

Paulzx

Paulzx wrote: »

Or do you not have a fcuking clue what you are talking about?

Don't choke on your popcorn

Well what do they want?

Maybe they think no course is better and safer than any course.

Many of us have to attend what we feel are pointless courses in our jobs.

eyescreamcone

Paulzx wrote: »

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Are the retained firefighters afraid that they will fail the refresher course?

Or do they want to be trained up as instructors themselves and get extra MONEY for instructing on these courses???

Pass the popcorn ...

Or do you not have a fcuking clue what you are talking about?

Don't choke on your popcorn

Please enlighten us with your vast knowledge on the subject - your attitude would imply you THINK you know it all

Thanks for the advice re the popcorn also
I'll do my best

I hear that a lot of what drives this is that firefighters used to be allowed retrain and retake the test, but this time a fail = suspension. They see it as an attempt to "encourage" the more experienced (and higher paid) firefighters to leave.

eyescreamcone

SeaSlacker wrote: »

I hear that a lot of what drives this is that firefighters used to be allowed retrain and retake the test, but this time a fail = suspension. They see it as an attempt to "encourage" the more experienced (and higher paid) firefighters to leave.

But that's not what the CFO said.
See earlier post where he said that these tests can be retaken if failed.

How hard are these refresher courses anyway???
I would imagine not very hard!

Smokey Bear

Briefing note issued by IFESA on subject:

IFESA have reviewed the guidance document on the provision of BA Training and have also received feedback from operational Fire Fighter and operational instructors.

This is a relatively new addition to the Department of Environment publications. This has been added a full 3 YEARS after the original "The use of Breathing Apparatus in the Fire Service" 2007.

If IFESA was to be critical:
The documents continue to teach Breathing Apparatus skills separate to Fire Behaviour. In essence, the concept of teaching students to operate in "Real Fire", "fire gas filled" or" hot and humid" conditions without equipping the student to change conditions, recognise nor assess the dangers, is questionable to say the least.
Other question arises regarding students operating in Real Fire Gas Filled compartments. If students are training in these conditions, how is the environment kept safe ? Are the Instructors using hose lines to protect the students ? How do the Instructors determine if the conditions are unsafe ?
There are elements within the document referencing correct "Door Entry" and "Correct Branch Techniques" The question here:
How can Breathing Apparatus Instructors teach and assess the techniques if they are not Compartment Fire Behaviour Instructors?
There is no quantitative guidance to Instructors regarding the setting of exercise conditions i.e. maximum heat or temperature monitoring
The inclusion of hose management, branch techniques and door entry procedures are welcome inclusions to Breathing Apparatus Training. If additional skills are added to the course however, Instructor competency must be reflected in such provision. The duration of the course remains the same, what compromises have been made to include the extra training in the same time frame ?
Should firefighters be subjected to "real" fire gases, significant risk control measures must be implemented by Instructional staff.
Breathing Apparatus Instructors are not competent to teach or assess Fire Behaviour Skill- sets.

It would appear that the guidance provided for the delivery of Breathing Apparatus training is moving forward in a positive manner regarding competency based training. However, the move towards integrating BA and Fire Behaviour skills has not been thought out and the "half way" approach recommended by this document falls short of what's required. There are clear omissions in this document with regard to exercise design and risk assessment. To address these shortfalls in risk assessments we have advised allFire Fighters to ensure that the following questions are answered in writing before any member starts a BA refresher course and to forward the reply on to IFESA.

• To request the risk assessment that was conducted for the breathing apparatus training course that is being run for Fire Brigade personnel.

• What risk control measure where in place for the breathing apparatus training course?

• What guidelines are Fire Brigade management using for temperature control in the breathing apparatus training course?

• What quantitive measures are being used to determine heat exposure and temperature exposure in the breathing apparatus training course?

• What training have the BA instructors received in delivery of this breathing apparatus training course?

• How did the BA instructors determine the level of risk during each exercise of the breathing apparatus training course?

• Will a hot and humid exercise be part of the breathing apparatus training course being delivered?

• What is Fire Brigade management's policy on breathing apparatus training?

• What criteria was used to determine a safe working temperatures for “wears” during breathing apparatus course?

If we look at the Safety legislation (2005 Act) specifically requires;

10.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 8 and having regard to sections 25 and 26, every employer shall, when providing instruction, training and supervision to his or her employees in relation to their safety, health and welfare at work, ensure that –
...(c) in relation to any specific task assigned to an employee, that his or her capabilities in relation to safety, health and welfare are taken into account,

Bearing this in mind, why were firefighters facing a pass/fail when Adult Education practitioners will always encourage refresher training to be based on bringing ‘students’ along with the practitioners.

We would question the competencies of those carrying out the instruction as again the 2005 Act stipulates that;

Page 14: “(2) (a) For the purposes of the relevant statutory provisions, a person is deemed to be a competent person where, having regard to the task he or she is required to perform and taking account of the size or hazards (or both of them) of the undertaking or establishment in which he or she undertakes work, the person possesses sufficient training, experience and knowledge appropriate to the nature of the work to be undertaken”

We appreciate that these senior officers can acquire training in the form of an instructor course – knowledge by means of reading appropriate material - but are baffled as to where the instructors can avail of experience as in excess of 95% of senior officers throughout Ireland are engineers with no operational experience, i.e. they have never worn BA at incidents and have never served as Fire Fighters.

It has been common practice for Chief Fire officers and senior officers who require breathing apparatus instructor training to travel to the UK and receive their training over there. This practice of sending Chief Fire officers and assistant chief fire officers to the UK and beyond has been going on for many years. It is a total waste of money as the resources are available in Ireland to train them and the government has provided millions in training centres to do so.

In August of this year approx 5 Assistant Chief Officers went to the UK to attend a BA Instructors course even though the Fire Service Central Training Programme for 2011 had a Breathing Apparatus Instructor Course taking place in Clonmel Fire Training Centre – 12 to 23 September, 2011.
Why is money been sent out side of the Ireland for this training when it was available in Ireland. How much did this cost and how much in allowances were paid out to these officers?

eyescreamcone

eyescreamcone wrote: »

But that's not what the CFO said.

That's not what the CFO said in public....

Although in fairness, Smokey Bear's post I think really nailed the Union's position.

eyescreamcone

Is this a nationwide stance by firefighters or just a local spat??

scholar007

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Is this a nationwide stance by firefighters or just a local spat??

Typical public service - Any attempt to introduce performance measurement or have any level of required competency is opposed. I am aware of several people in another area of the Public Service who opposed exactly the same thing ( performance measurement introduction and a required level of competency) and to be quite honest they haven't a clue how to do their job and try and get away with doing as little as possible and management have to be aware of this but can't/won't act, actually management kicked it to touch - I'd say its rife! To be honest what are the boys in the Roscommon Fire Service afraid of? If they have as much experience as they say they have then this should be a walk in the park!

Melanoma

If a trained fire-fighter fails a course then the course is not pitched correctly. Example of the guards being trained on computers in night shifts when they were roistered for the previous day too. some of these guards were older and the pace of the course was too fast and they were tiered. I have no relations or current friends in the guards, but I knew two in Dublin when I lived there. I have trained older students in computers and while some are a wizz many need slow time consuming training. I have no problem with people going to England, France anywhere to be trained and bring back best practice from there. That is not a waste of money. Maybe they want to close the training facility in Ireland. They may also though want to bring in English style treatment of public servants were people are often mistreated and paper work is the main concern. We need to be wise to what is prudent and needed and what is obduracy and those in power seeking to abuse it and make everyone's life miserable for the sake of it. We are Irish. We have an ability to work out what makes sense and does not. Those who are on strike may have a case and it will be bad for those who forced them out if this emerges.

stoneill

From reading the news reports I got this impression.
The fire fighters have reservations about the quality of the instructors teaching them BA practices when the instructor has never worn BA in anger.

Is that the issue?
If so then I would have to agree with them.

ratracer

If 24 of Roscommons fire-fighters were suspended/sacked ( it's not clear which!) why have the rest of Roscommon FB not gone on strike to support them? It seems a strange situation, and no doubt there may be other local issues, but surely it should be a case of one out all out??

Neither SIPTU, the NRFA or IFESA seem to be calling for all out action, so what's really going on here? Every county has engineers teaching from a book, it's not new, the pass/referral stems from SOGS and is now for everything and not just BA AFAIK. BTW I detest receiving instruction from someone who's been sent on a course for 2 weeks and will never have operational experience of the subject s/he is then instructing.

Melanoma

scholar007 wrote: »

Typical public service - Any attempt to introduce performance measurement or have any level of required competency is opposed. I am aware of several people in another area of the Public Service who opposed exactly the same thing ( performance measurement introduction and a required level of competency) and to be quite honest they haven't a clue how to do their job and try and get away with doing as little as possible and management have to be aware of this but can't/won't act, actually management kicked it to touch - I'd say its rife! To be honest what are the boys in the Roscommon Fire Service afraid of? If they have as much experience as they say they have then this should be a walk in the park!

If a training course in Microsoft power-point is bad your presentation might misfire. If a breathing apparatus course is bad you might die. Public servants performance might be a good thing but how many people in the private sector do a course which if failed they are in trouble. Any course I ever done cost a 1000 a day per person and there was no test at the end of it. If this was a dispute about extra pay for learning new methods I'd be dead against it but before hypothesising "I'd say its rife" know the facts otherwise you are not really making much of a contribution to the debate so much as having a rant about public servants in general. If the people delivering the course are not qualified or worse pen pushers and if for example it is designed to ask difficult questions that are hard to answer (so they can justify themselves) then I think it is important to know this.

scholar007

Melanoma wrote: »

If a training course in Microsoft power-point is bad your presentation might misfire. If a breathing apparatus course is bad you might die. Public servants performance might be a good thing but how many people in the private sector do a course which if failed they are in trouble. Any course I ever done cost a 1000 a day per person and there was no test at the end of it. If this was a dispute about extra pay for learning new methods I'd be dead against it but before hypothesising "I'd say its rife" know the facts otherwise you are not really making much of a contribution to the debate so much as having a rant about public servants in general. If the people delivering the course are not qualified or worse pen pushers and if for example it is designed to ask difficult questions that are hard to answer (so they can justify themselves) then I think it is important to know this.

I do know the facts (from many years of experience). It is my understanding that these guys in Roscommon are not new recruits. They have been working with BA for years. Like how difficult can it be? Take for example if you are working with an AED every day and then you have to refresh every so often - It should be fairly easy. Likewise if you are working with a BA every day then you should have no fear of passing a course. What did we do before elfin safety?

Melanoma

scholar007 wrote: »

I do know the facts (from many years of experience). It is my understanding that these guys in Roscommon are not new recruits. They have been working with BA for years. Like how difficult can it be? Take for example if you are working with an AED every day and then you have to refresh every so often - It should be fairly easy. Likewise if you are working with a BA every day then you should have no fear of passing a course. What did we do before elfin safety?

I think we need to be careful to understand this is more about management having one view point and staff another but the most effective organisations avoid this possibility by ensuring everyone is clear and in agreement about that new work practices are effective and necessary.


I think it might not be that easy if the guys design it to be difficult. Think about questions that are designed to confuse. It may be that they are very competent in real life scenarios but do not have very high book/paper work talent.

Book smart will not save your life or keep a fire-fighter alive.

From reading posts above though the issue may be more around the expertise of the trainers.

Lets say a fireman answered I would do.... and the paper pusher that never saw a fire said hmmmm that's not what the book says to do it might be close but its not text book correct. A properly qualified instructor could use judgement and say hey good answer but a pen pusher can only go not correct. Also if you read the above posts they are saying that these instructors might not be qualified enough. If you take a first aid course you need to retake it after two years. Human memory is not that good. These fire-fighters need retraining and training on new methodologies and apparatus. Their life depends on it. So they get poor quality training and suddenly they watch a friend die after being pulled out of a fire cause the breathing apparatus failed.

Even with several years of experience they think failing a course should lead to dismissal. This makes no sense. Its a practical job and the more experienced you are the better.

scholar007

Melanoma wrote: »

I think we need to be careful to understand this is more about management having one view point and staff another but the most effective organisations avoid this possibility by ensuring everyone is clear and in agreement about that new work practices are effective and necessary.


I think it might not be that easy if the guys design it to be difficult. Think about questions that are designed to confuse. It may be that they are very competent in real life scenarios but do not have very high book/paper work talent.

Book smart will not save your life or keep a fire-fighter alive.

From reading posts above though the issue may be more around the expertise of the trainers.

Lets say a fireman answered I would do.... and the paper pusher that never saw a fire said hmmmm that's not what the book says to do it might be close but its not text book correct. A properly qualified instructor could use judgement and say hey good answer but a pen pusher can only go not correct. Also if you read the above posts they are saying that these instructors might not be qualified enough. If you take a first aid course you need to retake it after two years. Human memory is not that good. These fire-fighters need retraining and training on new methodologies and apparatus. Their life depends on it. So they get poor quality training and suddenly they watch a friend die after being pulled out of a fire cause the breathing apparatus failed.

Even with several years of experience they think failing a course should lead to dismissal. This makes no sense. Its a practical job and the more experienced you are the better.

The solution is fire (pardon the pun) the trainers and keep the firemen because they know more - begs the question though what muppet appears to be bringing in untrained / inexperienced "consultants" to conduct the course and the exam? Is that not the issue or am I missing something?

ratracer

Hi scholar,

I think it's important to note that the instructors are qualified to teach, just not experienced in what they are instructing. It is a similar situation in fire authorities right across the country.

Melanoma

ratracer wrote: »

Hi scholar,

I think it's important to note that the instructors are qualified to teach, just not experienced in what they are instructing. It is a similar situation in fire authorities right across the country.

It might be like me, a electronic engineer instructing electricians in electrical safety. I am really smart at learning from a book (well compared to many people in concerns electrical) but I'd be dangerous at instructing electrical installation work as I have no clue about it. I might also fail an answer of an experienced electrician cause I just wouldn't recognise what they are saying.

Making someone an instructor of safety can be cheaper though as they are just pencil pushers and it might be the specialist nature of their work over time might enable them to be very highly competent.

Training is sometimes better done by book people but they need to be careful to have the guys onside. A lad from Esparian gave us a course over two days costing 20,000 euro once and after day one he had to come up with a different game plan or we were gonna refuse to go back the second day. Basically in the boom our firm got a french guy over to teach is software but he was teaching the wrong stuff for what we needed.

Teaching adults is very unforgiving, they know their area and will tolerate nothing but crisp and accurate training. They hate wasting time or being left without exact answers.

But I think in current job market and problems with budget overspending everyone is quick to jump to conclusions and management might try to use that to ram home some measures to cut cost that are "good enough". I don't know what exactly is going on but it could in part be pressure to play this out in the wilderness and see where the chips fall before bringing the battle to cities.

In any event "good enough" training might get somebody dead or injured and not save much money in the long run.

Anyhow I'm sure they will work it out.

expectationlost

ratracer wrote: »

Hi scholar,

I think it's important to note that the instructors are qualified to teach, just not experienced in what they are instructing. It is a similar situation in fire authorities right across the country.

who chose to instruct those people in instructing?

eyescreamcone

expectationlost wrote: »

ratracer wrote: »

Hi scholar,

I think it's important to note that the instructors are qualified to teach, just not experienced in what they are instructing. It is a similar situation in fire authorities right across the country.

who chose to instruct those people in instructing?

Inmost rural brigades the only full time members are the engineer/officers.
They manage all aspects of the brigade I think.

ratracer

expectationlost wrote: »

who chose to instruct those people in instructing?

I have no idea, but in most cases, it wouldn't be the instructor who chooses the students.

scholar007

Melanoma wrote: »

It might be like me, a electronic engineer instructing electricians in electrical safety. I am really smart at learning from a book (well compared to many people in concerns electrical) but I'd be dangerous at instructing electrical installation work as I have no clue about it. I might also fail an answer of an experienced electrician cause I just wouldn't recognise what they are saying.

Making someone an instructor of safety can be cheaper though as they are just pencil pushers and it might be the specialist nature of their work over time might enable them to be very highly competent.

Training is sometimes better done by book people but they need to be careful to have the guys onside. A lad from Esparian gave us a course over two days costing 20,000 euro once and after day one he had to come up with a different game plan or we were gonna refuse to go back the second day. Basically in the boom our firm got a french guy over to teach is software but he was teaching the wrong stuff for what we needed.

Teaching adults is very unforgiving, they know their area and will tolerate nothing but crisp and accurate training. They hate wasting time or being left without exact answers.

But I think in current job market and problems with budget overspending everyone is quick to jump to conclusions and management might try to use that to ram home some measures to cut cost that are "good enough". I don't know what exactly is going on but it could in part be pressure to play this out in the wilderness and see where the chips fall before bringing the battle to cities.

In any event "good enough" training might get somebody dead or injured and not save much money in the long run.

Anyhow I'm sure they will work it out.

When I was at school many moons ago, only the really clever people went to college to study electronic engineering. Unfortunately, I wasn't that clever but I wish I was if someone can charge €20k for 2 days work. My God!

eyescreamcone

Any updates???