Imagine for a moment that you're the captain at a combination station. The tones have just dropped and you're waiting for volunteers to arrive. You're standing at the door when three cars pull up. The responders jump out and run in to put on their gear. First is Steve, a good guy who just started with the department. He's in Firefighter I and is doing well. Next there's Joe, a longtime member who responds regularly and has a high percentage, but down deep you know that he's really not the kind of guy you want to go into a burning building with. Finally, there's Mikey. A member for about two years, Mikey is a solid firefighter who just caught his first working job a couple months ago and did very well; there were good reports about his skills from the guys he worked with on that job.

The chief officer has just arrived on the scene and announced that it is a working house fire. You know you need a total of four packable firefighters on the truck, including you and the driver. Do you wait for more guys to show up? Do you send two men and let the third wait for the second truck? And if you opt for the latter, who goes on the first truck — Mikey, definitely, but will you pair him with Steve or Joe? Or do you take everyone you have and hope for the best? If you do, are you willing to babysit Joe and Steve and hope that Mikey can handle the hoseline with only a little help from you and none from the other two guys? What if the chief officer announced that it was a working fire with entrapment? What would your decision be then?

You could argue easily for any one of the above solutions to your immediate problem, and almost anyone else could argue for one of the alternatives. It shouldn't come down to an argument though. Determinations such as these should have been made well before the pager goes off.

How does your department determine whether someone can safely and effectively fight interior structural fires? Does he or she only have to pass Firefighter I before being considered qualified? Does he or she just have to show up at the front door of the firehouse and fill out an application? Or is passing Firefighter I just the beginning of what must be done to be considered an initial attack firefighter, a status that includes such things as experience and demonstrated performance as an adjunct to an experienced initial-attack crew?

Initial-attack firefighting is some of the most physically demanding and mentally challenging firefighting there is. Done right, it sets the stage for what will happen next. As my captain used to tell me, "The first-in crew can make or break a fire." Initial-attack firefighting is substantially different than the type of firefighting performed when the bulk of the fire is knocked down and mop-up begins.

The distinction between initial attack and other types of firefighting has long been recognized in the wildfire arena. They have designated initial-attack crews as Type II crews. While they may be called on to help mop up fires, the main purpose of designating them as an initial-attack crew is that they have the skills and experience to work on new fires without the support and assistance found in a base camp with a well-developed ICS. An initial-attack hand crew would never have 20 guys who haven't seen any fire before. In fact, NIMS resource typing requires that 60% of crew members of a Type II initial attack crew have at least one or more seasons of experience. The leadership demands that there are experienced crew members, squad bosses and crew bosses mixed with those who have little or no experience or are in training.

This should be the case in structural firefighting, as well — unfortunately, it's not always the case. Twenty or 30 years ago, when guys were hanging off the truck from every rail going to a fire, the crews generally had the mix necessary to get the job done right. Not necessarily so today. Now we are relying on a very few firefighters, often with little or no experience, to complete the tasks that many of mixed experience once did. And the problem isn't confined to the volunteer service; the difference is that in the paid service, if you can't do initial-attack work, you generally won't keep your line firefighting job.

We all know firefighters like Joe. He's a great guy, and most of the time would do anything for you. Some guys like Joe even believe they're good firefighters who deserve to be on the first-out piece. But they don't. Remember, the first-in crew decides the fire, right? If you're worrying about whether someone's going to bail or otherwise distract you from the job at hand, the fire can and will go south … quickly.

Part of the problem is that today we have precious few firefighters to choose from. They're not exactly breaking the door down to join — at least not in my station. In fact, the fire service is losing volunteer firefighters at an alarming rate (no pun intended). So there can be intense political pressure on a chief to put guys on the truck, any guys, even probies, to complete minimum crews. "After all, chief, we can't afford to hire that many guys," goes the argument from the town manager. Perhaps not, but we still have to provide the service safely.

It's likely that part of the reason we're losing volunteers is that they realize what they're being asked to do is dangerous. We've been telling them that since the day they walked into the firehouse, so unless they're pretty thick-headed, they should be aware of the danger. Yet we're asking them to perform these tasks, often for the first time at a real incident, sitting next to another firefighter who may have little more experience than they. I know I'd be pretty uncomfortable. If things don't go exactly as they said they would in fire school — and they rarely do — I'd be reconsidering whether firefighting was for me.

Yes, chief, once again it's all up to you. You have to make the tough decision and convince people it's the right one. That's why they pay you the big bucks.

Do you change the way firefighters are assigned (initial attack or mop-up) or not? What criteria could you use to decide if you don't have a written evaluation program for the volunteers? Have you been keeping track of what and how they performed on different emergencies? What rules would you set up to get to the point where categorizing a firefighter for initial attack or mop-up is easy?

The structural fire service has to change its thinking to recognize that some individuals just aren't cut out to enter buildings with uncontrolled fire. Among these are firefighters whose physical condition would normally preclude extreme physical exertion, firefighters who aren't mentally prepared to enter into an environment much like a military battle, and firefighters right out of rookie school. Chief officers need to be able recognize such conditions and stand down those who aren't able to recognize their own limitations. That doesn't mean they can't help the fire department, just that they can't be in on an initial attack or that they can't be in on an initial attack without at least two more experienced firefighters.

In addition, the structural fire service needs to develop criteria for structural firefighters — call them interior and exterior, initial attack and follow-up, initial attack and mop-up or Type I and Type II. The terms don't matter as much as the recognition that there's a difference in the physical and mental skill sets, as well as experience level necessary for each.

The structural fire community also may need to adjust its own terms to meet the criteria being set up nationally under NIMS for qualifications. Currently, a Firefighter I has basic training and a Firefighter II has advanced training under our current standard structural firefighting terminology. Under NIMS, resource typing and qualifications are based on the theory that a "I" rating is the top rating; the most experienced, the most qualified, the most highly trained. For example, a Type I incident commander is more highly skilled and trained than a Type V incident commander; a Type I Engine has greater capabilities than a Type V Engine. Therefore, the structural firefighter should be qualified as a Type II right out of rookie school and a Type I after some experience and advanced training.

Now is the time for chiefs to begin to think about how they would categorize their firefighters. It's unfair to the communities we serve to put firefighters on the trucks if those firefighters are unable, unwilling or unqualified to perform those tasks that are necessary in critical, life-threatening and minimum-staffed situations. It's especially unfair to our officers and firefighters to have to make split-second decisions as to whether responding member should be on the truck. Finally, it's unfair to our firefighters and their families to be put in a position of having to do something they are ill-prepared to do.

---

Jon B. Holcombe is fire chief of Hamilton (N.J) Township Fire District #2.