Author Topic: BFF1 (Read 18405 times)

Cameron Yelland · « **on:** February 18, 2008, 04:02:38 PM »

Gday,

Quite commonly i have people complaining to me about the current state of the BFF1 course.

What are peoples thoughts on this issue? What should be changed?

My main thought is - somehow bring the course back to fit into a weekend comfortably.

6739264 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2008, 05:17:23 PM »

It should be cut back to what it once was so that it fits into a weekend.

Perhaps there should be a separate "Pumping" course, as it seems that BFF tries to achieve what both Lvl 1 and Lvl 2 used to, but in half the amount of time.

BFF needs only to cover the basics of firefighting and wildfire fire behavior to allow people to be effective members of their brigade asap.

A slight touch on how to recognize Hazmats, and the basics of RCR fire cover would also be beneficial.

Footy · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2008, 07:45:56 PM »

BFF1 should definitley but back on time,
I was lucky enough to do it almost part time, so could fit around my schedule, but with the lack of courses leading up to fire season, would probably have not got it done in time

The course should be as it is named "Basic Fire Fighting" whats the point of the massive big folder, when only the basics need to be covered?

Yes, this puts the onus back on brigades to bring members up to a suitable standard, but, this is something they should be doing anyway, as the course is now, most goes in one ear and out the other for recruits who (like i was) had never even thought about it until a couple of weeks before joining and actually knew nothing about fire fighting.
Actually training with your crew is where you pick up a lot of stuff (as long as it is done properly)

rescue5271 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2008, 04:02:33 PM »

BFF1,needs to be cut back in the size of some of the subjects,there are also large amounts of miss information that is wrong and has not been fixed..Mind you region five has for the past few years sent request for the information to be fixed or removed...I under stand the new state training officer had the job of going through BFF1 and highlight the miss takes so that they can be fixed(at last) There are a number of subjects that overlap or the subject is repeated over and over again,there has been a submission from region five to the STC to reduce or remove a couple of the subjects....I guess in time it will happen but for the moment we are stuck with it...On a good note the 4 new state training officer are here to help groups run a course and we have used them and they did a great job,so less pressure has also been taken of volunteers....

Footy · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2008, 04:08:13 PM »

miss takes = mistakes ??

sorry, sorta funny considering you are talking about errors... lol

Bowforce · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2008, 04:32:15 PM »

I would like to see if someone is NYC then they be marked so. We had a guy who passed and word came back from the RTO that he was NYC. I know it is the responsibility of the Brigade to teach them, we have tried but he is unable to retain anything. Of course we found this all out after we voted him in!

Footy · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2008, 05:22:28 PM »

is it bad for a teacher to say that we wor about peoples self confidence more these days than them actually being competenet???

Do you really want someone who does not have a clue what they are doing on the fire ground just cos you don't wanna hurt their feelings and say they are not good enough??

rescue5271 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2008, 08:00:31 PM »

Thanks Footy apple is in the mail........NOT... I think CFS should have a section in membership that say till you pass BFF1 you are not a full member and that you only get 3 goes at it....

6739264 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2008, 10:56:03 PM »

Bill, what mistakes are in BFF1?

Pipster · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2008, 11:09:26 PM »

All of the BFF-1 modules are currently being checked / updated etc by staff at the Training Centre.

There are a number things that have changed since the BFF-1 was originally done, and that sort of info is some of what is being revamped.

Not sure how far the revamp is going to go.....

Although one thing I can tell you from the revamp - it is now the BF-1 Course, not BFF-1 Course... - Basic Firefighter -1 Course

Pip

Zippy · « **Reply #10 on:** February 20, 2008, 05:48:02 AM »

i thought we have well trained firefighters...whats with the word "basic"!

how about "Level 1 Firefighter", the course name to suit the role

A lot of a real good training still occurs within brigade training thankfully, eg firefighting technique. Itd consume a huge chunk of the weekend course if it was part of it!.

(and yes for the SES peeps out there "Level 1 Rescuer"

)

chook · « **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2008, 06:21:28 AM »

No need they are called General Rescuers

We have dropped the Basic tag, as it requires more than the General Rescue Module 1 course to "ride on the truck".
On the NYC thing
1)it is a serious breach of confidentiality to say to any one that someone is NYC, if they are NYC its is on the paperwork that is presented to the Brigade/Unit training officer or Manager. That is how the system is supposed to work, by putting C on the paperwork but then telling people that someone is NYC seriously erodes confidence in the system1
2)As a trainer if someone is NYC then they don't meet the competency standards, so I would not "give someone a tick" if I had any doubt in their abilities!
3)Telling an individual that they don't meet the standard is not a pleasant experience, however I would think it is more unpleasant standing up in court explaining why you gave someone a tick, eventhough they are not competent.
Anyway I hope you sought out your level one course, as we are just about to pilot ours.
cheers

Mike · « **Reply #12 on:** February 20, 2008, 06:49:41 AM »

The standards of training for BFF1 were substancially eroded when they lost control of the trainers. That made the course almost as useful as level 1.

Supress Wildfire has a very specific group of instructors that must be assessed by a regional officer at their first course. I would hope this is followed up with other assessments. -Point being- it creates a much more controlled, benaficial system.

By adopting a similar stance for BFF1 ensures that consistant and correct info is being communicated...

The downside is that it puts more strain on those accredited instructors...

rescue5271 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 20, 2008, 05:44:44 PM »

The list of mistakes are too long,but they are basic things,like what is the fuel mix for a firelighter?? slide says one thing book says another,there is also mention of the CFS board..I am well aware that new state training officers are working their way through the bff1 and fixing it up as they go....

Footy · « **Reply #14 on:** February 20, 2008, 08:07:32 PM »

updating the course would seem to go as follows;
its a case of integrating the new skills we need to know, with the old skills that are importnat making sure when you change things over it is all correct, but getting rid of redundant material

how often is the course reviewed/updated?

Cameron Yelland · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2008, 03:36:39 AM »

First time since it was written in 2004? i think

nomansland firefighter · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:51:34 AM »

I recently attended a group training meeting with fellow BTO's where the GTO provided us with information on the review. From the handout that was given it looks to be more of an icing on the cake job rather than taking a serious hard look at the package. As some parts of the package is poorly done ( I won't reiterate on the assessment where questions have that have errors) for instance ropes and improvised rescue techniques have not been done to a recognised standard which may result in issues arising in the future. I must admit on the good side of things that they are reworking the unit 7 extinguishers so that it becomes a national accredited unit. Where as unit 1 could of had a slight adjustment to make it to be a nationally accredited unit as well.

chook · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2008, 06:26:17 AM »

So the ropes & improvised rescue techniques you teach don't meet a recognised standard?
Are you sure?
Then why do them on a BFF1 course! Anyway thats why we need a proper State Rescue Board to audit that sought of stuff, I wonder how many brigades & individuals are out the practicing incorrect techniques in the false belief that they are doing the right thing.
And you guys are an RTO!
Oh well as long as the community we are trying to protect don't ever find out & nothing ever goes wrong everything will be sweet

That is why if CFS personnel need that type of training SES Rescue should be delivering the training to CFS:evil: After all thats IS our BFF1!
Hopefully someone from SAFECOM will see this as the future & take action - before it is too late.
cheers

Footy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2008, 05:01:28 PM »

I think it is just that it doesn't meet a nationally recognised standard, so the courses meet required OHS but at an organisationally deemed level

I think CFS is pushing more more courses and levels to attain nationally accredited level so then skills can be tranferred interstate?

Is that right or am i missing the point?

chook · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2008, 06:57:59 PM »

Sorry I may have got it wrong - if they don't meet the National Competency is one thing if they don't meet any standard then that is wrong.
However if they are not to the National competency, how do you know?
As I said above, how do you know if the training on BFF1 is actually being delivered to a "standard"?
Anyway I'm sorry if I get "passionate" about training, but as a trainer I have seen some pretty poor in house training delivered by people who think they are doing the right thing by just putting ticks in boxes
So thats all from me cheers

Baxter · « **Reply #20 on:** February 27, 2008, 08:16:41 PM »

Chook you are so right. I just had a look at that section with the BFF1 and this is what I saw

ropes (Unit 2) - a list of knots to tie and no reference to either a fire ground practice or EMA general rescue guidelines just tick a box section. The learning material described tying knots not the type of rope and the application differ from the EMA general rescue guidelines.
improvised rescue (Unit 9) - again the same as for the ropes

Now for a question unit 11 where a primary entry needs to be performed. how do brigade that are not road crash rescue meet this requirement if they don't have the tools to begin with.

bittenyakka · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2008, 08:41:07 PM »

I think the knots in CFS are just meant to be handy knots that you can use and ar not meant to be of a "rescue" since i know I would be calling SES (or closest appropriate resource) for any complex rescue.

Quote from: malleefire on February 27, 2008, 08:16:41 PM

Now for a question unit 11 where a primary entry needs to be performed. how do brigade that are not road crash rescue meet this requirement if they don't have the tools to begin with.

The same can be said for first responders to hazmat jobs however i don't think it is so much about the equipment but the trainig and knowledge that the brigades have.

Footy · « **Reply #22 on:** February 27, 2008, 08:49:18 PM »

I think it's also matter of giving an understanding of the situation.
I have heard of Captains that make their crew (as long as they are comfortable doing it...) practice a running grass fire drill, but rotate making sure everyone gets a go driving, main attack hose, mop up hose etc.

Although this sounds like common sense (and to relate it back) i think that even though i may not drive in that situation (or tie the ropes) it is good for me to have an understanding of what they may be up against as a driver (or rescue crew)

jaff · « **Reply #23 on:** February 27, 2008, 10:30:29 PM »

The BFF1 course may not be perfect,but its certainly an improvement over its predecessor,with some of the modules being nationally accredited its a far cry from the dads army training, that most of the senior(aged) posters on this site ,myself included suffered through in our early years.
AS our service evolves, so will the training,it would be no easy feat to keep the deliverable modules relevant,affordable and compact enough so you boofheads aren't gripeing about them being TOO long.The training field is a dynamic one and changes need to quickly be addressed,sadly even slight changes to methods have to be proven before the supporting documents can be written, and yes a lot of this work might have already been done by some of our interstate and overseas colleagues. The networking between the equivalent agencies is something that is starting to flow through into the training fields as well, again all of our organisations are understaffed in the training sections.
Call the minister,she sent out a fluffy warm come hug me, lets talk letter,so if you can get past her FILTERED adviser(hi brad)

let her know we need more bodies(cash) to research/refine to our environments some of the techniques that are undoubtablly used through out the world.

Cheers Jaff

chook · « **Reply #24 on:** February 28, 2008, 06:19:46 AM »

Tried that Jaff, got shot down in flames

Also tried the local member - she got a similar reply, we are putting money into training in fact blah, blah, blah!
And yes techniques are constantly evolving (for example our "basic" rescue course has been rewritten & is currently going to be used in a special pilot).
The assessment is very different to the past, however the techniques are very familiar to the past

I have also heard that the services are working more closely together to work through these issues (saves reinventing the wheel).
I know that as a service that most of the new TRK's are localised versions of our interstate cousins TRK's again this saves a lot of time.
In fact if the two fire services want to save a great deal of time, we have a number of non fire subjects either available or about to be released

And I know for a fact that my recent qualifications will almost directly transfer to the equivalents in NSW (they came from the same source

)
And our RCR course is one of the best TRK's around!
Finally I'm not sure if people realise is that a National level the fire & SES/TES work together through AFAC & the council of State Emergency Services as well as other bodies.
So all of what you said is true & I agree, however if training isn't delivered to a recognised standard or locally people take "short cuts" so they can get bums on seats then we can all quite easily slip back to the Dad's Army services that we came from (I know I have seen it happen)
So cheers Jaff & its great to see we are on the same page
PS Check out the NSW RFS training on their website it is quite an interesting comparison

Author Topic: BFF1 (Read 18405 times)

rescue5271

rescue5271

rescue5271