Follow by Email

There was an error in this gadget

Friday, May 27, 2011

Many Died For Your Three Day Weekend

Blogger Note: My dad, Staff Sgt. Walter (Gotch) Goodrich is standing in the middle of the back row.
I must admit that I have been a selfish pig when it comes to Memorial Day weekend. I have been so consumed by HOW I was going to spend it that I forgot the REASON. Did you?
When I was a young boy, I was in the Cub Scouts. Every year on the Saturday that preceded Memorial Day, we were tasked with placing the small flags on the graves of the military veterans at our community’s cemetery. We didn’t want to miss anyone. It was breath-taking to see, once it was done.
The reason that we placed a flag on every veteran’s grave is because we didn’t know who had or hadn’t died while serving our country.
After all: Memorial Day is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation’s service. Formerly, it had been called Decoration Day, because the graves of soldiers who had died in service to our country were decorated to honor them.
According to, Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on May 5, 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic. It was first observed on May 30, 1868. Flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.
So, in the beginning, Memorial Day was to honor those who fought and died in the Civil War. Sometime after World War I, the observance was changed to honor Americans who died fighting in any war.
Memorial Day is now recognized in almost every state-though I don’t know which state (s) doesn’t (I’m guessing Georgia)-on the last Monday in May (National Holiday Act of 1971; P.L. 90-363) and established the “three-day weekend” for federal employees. As you can see, the “official” date of Memorial Day is May 30, but the observance day is the last Monday in May. So, in 2012, it will fall on May 28; in 2013, it will be on May 27 and so forth.
 There are many who would like to see us go back to observing Memorial Day on May 30th because the meaning of the day has been lost on planning for the long weekend. Think about it; are we thinking about the sacrifices of our soldiers over the years as the cars whip around the track at the Indy 500 or the Coca Cola 600? Are we so worried about the menu for our cook-out that we forget our fallen soldiers on the one day that we are supposed to remember?
And, I can understand why we eventually extended the observance to include ALL American soldiers  in service to our country, but when did we decide to include not only soldiers-living or dead-but everyone in service to our country AND public safety?
Forgive me, but I am old school and somewhat a traditionalist. It seems like we aspire to be an all-inclusive society and having suffered from the trauma of not being picked when sides were chosen on the playground, I can understand to a point.
I am not going to tell anyone how they should feel or how they should observe Memorial Day. See; I can’t even refer to it as a “holiday”, because I don’t believe that having a moment of silence or flying flags at half-staff on a day of remembrance is a “holiday”.
If you want to participate in a traditional observance of Memorial Day, then you will want to recognize the red poppy as a symbol of that day, observe a moment of silence at 3:00 pm and fly the American flag at half-staff from dusk to noon. You can fill the rest of the day with however you see fit.
We can choose from an array of other “holidays” to lengthen our weekend. And honestly; there are other days in a calendar year to recognize ALL military personnel who serve. I won’t argue that we shouldn’t honor them, but the focus should be on the American soldiers who died fighting to defend freedom. Let’s get back to honoring those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country.
My father was a veteran of both the European and Pacific theaters of World War II. My mother was the dutiful World War II bride and mother to three small children at the time. Both survived the war, but are no longer here. I will visit their grave and most likely, I will read from Dad’s military-issued Bible; maybe something from the Book of John or Psalms.
And I will think of Johnny Kellett, who rode with us to school while growing up, but who died in Vietnam. He looked just like a young Sal Mineo. I can still see Johnny’s face. Johnny had a habit of slamming the car door very hard when he got out and whenever one of us kids would slam the car door too hard, Dad would say “Why don’t you slam the door there, Johnny?” Yeah; you don’t forget things like that.
One of my favorite poems is one by Kelly Strong that is entitled “Freedom Is Not Free”. It reads:

I watched the flag pass by one day.
It fluttered in the breeze.
A young Marine saluted it,
And then he stood at ease.
I looked at him in uniform
So young, so tall, so proud,
He’d stand out in any crowd.
I thought how many men like him
Had fallen through the years.
How many died on foreign soil?
How many mothers’ tears?
How many pilots’ planes shot down?
How many died at sea?
How many foxholes were soldiers’ graves?
No, freedom isn’t free.

I heard the sound of TAPS one night,
When everything was still
I listened to the bugler play
And felt a sudden chill.
I wondered just how many times
That TAPS had meant “Amen,”
When a flag had draped a coffin
Of a brother or a friend.
I thought of all the children,
Of the mothers and the wives,
Of fathers, sons and husbands
With interrupted lives.
I thought about a graveyard
At the bottom of the sea
Of unmarked graves in Arlington.
No, freedom isn’t free.

Reverend Aaron Kilbourn said, “The dead soldier’s silence sings our national anthem”.
And never more loudly than on this Memorial Day.
The opinions and views expressed are those of the article’s author, Art Goodrich, who also writes as ChiefReason. They do not reflect the opinions and views of, Fire Engineering Magazine, PennWell Corporation or his dog, Chopper. This article is protected by federal copyright laws and cannot be re-produced in any form.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Job Interviews-Articulating Introspection

I used to sit on the sidelines and watch discussions that centered on the interview portion of the hiring process for firefighters and wonder what was so problematic.

After-all; at my last three jobs, I was hired based upon the strength of my resume. There was no grueling grilling; just a few questions for clarification.

But now, I can say that I am not fond of job interviews and it is for one, simple reason: I don’t do well at them.

As my title indicates; during this phase of the hiring process, you are asked by the “interviewer” to reach inside and to share experiences that might translate to a synergy between you and the person who will ultimately decide if you are hired.

And it is here that the process differs from that of a firefighter.

A firefighter has a better than average chance at interview, because they are being interviewed by someone who is familiar with the job requirements. You can’t BS your way through an interview.

But in my experiences in the private sector, you might get a Human Resources assistant, manager, vice-president, a combination of the three, a plant manager or the guy who cleans the toilets. I have been interviewed by one and also by as many as five at one time. You just never know what to expect. The problem is that they all lack the intimate knowledge to understand good risk management. They just know that they are having too many accidents and insurance premiums are too high and the owner wants to see it improved. So; they all go off of a “cheat sheet” of questions that Fred Pryor or Zig Ziglar handed out to them at the last seminar.

I have been employed as a risk manager by the same company for the past ten years. I have benefitted greatly from this relationship, because we provide third party support to a manufacturing client. It is no exaggeration when I say that I have touched every aspect of a risk management environment. It has literally put me at the top of my game.

Unfortunately, our client is moving their assembly operation to a southern state and I have elected NOT to move, so I am conducting a job search in an area where I have lived my entire 58 years.

As my first step towards my job search, I spent $2300 to complete a certification program in my chosen field that I felt would add strength to my resume. I felt that having this certification would at least get me in the door of companies requiring as a minimum, a college degree. It is interesting to note that most companies who want a college degree don’t necessarily want the degree to be in safety and health. I guess that employers equate a college degree with one’s intelligence level.

Then, I updated my cover letter and resume with the help of a job coach from the local college.

Understanding the velocity and reach of social media, I registered with and I was already a member of LinkedIn.

To date, I have answered six ads for a safety-related position and have interviewed for two of them.

Here is where you should buckle up, because this is where my rant will begin.

I mentioned earlier that I am 58 years old. I have been a practicing member of the ASSE since 1997. I have taken numerous continuing education courses to stay current in the ever-changing world of risk management.

When you couple my real world experience with my formal safety education, I am confident that I can enhance any company’s safety performance.

But, apparently, I struggle to clearly articulate that during my interviews.

In my first interview, we talked for one hour about general topics. I scored well enough to schedule a second interview with them, but for the second interview, they wanted me to take a profile test and to prepare a 10-minute PowerPoint presentation on developing and implementing a strategic plan to improve their safety program. I would present this plan to the company president, vice-president and human resources manager.

So that you understand my dilemma; they wanted a 10-minute fix for their failing safety program.

Well, I spent a week packing as much power and detail that I could into a 10-minute presentation. I re-wrote it three times, tweaked it, rehearsed it, timed it, tweaked it some more, until I thought I had the perfect 10-minute strategic plan. I even printed off copies of the slide presentation, in case there was an equipment failure.

I gave them copies of the slides at the beginning of my interview. I presented, answered all of their questions, spoke privately with the company president and walked out of there believing that I had nailed it.

On Monday of the following week, I received an email-a frickin’ EMAIL-telling me that they “went in a different direction”. Yeah; they hired someone a lot cheaper than me to implement MY strategic plan! I won’t make that mistake again!

I have been taught to “dress” for the interview. I believe that, unless the prospective employer states it, you should wear dress slacks and a tie. Shoes should be polished. In my mind; first impressions are still important.

My next interview was a bomb from the beginning. How do I know? First; I was dressed in my very best dress slacks, white shirt with a killer Jerry Garcia tie and I was met by a guy in a uniform shirt and blue jeans. It may have been casual dress day, but he also seemed very impatient, didn’t allow me to finish the application (“that’s OK; just sign it” he said) and he wanted to know in 500 words or less how I would save the world.

Did I mention that I hate interviews? Did I mention that my contempt for them starts to come out in my replies to some of the questions?

Here’s my problem: most companies deal with safety at a philosophical or abstract level; that is, until the number of accidents and injuries start to add up. They will want to put blame on the “safety coordinator” or blame the fact that they don’t have a safety coordinator. In their mind, they thought that safety was everyone’s responsibility and therefore; everyone would be safe.

In addition, many companies believe that requiring employees to remove finger rings and to wear safety glasses in their facilities is all they need, but they won’t say anything to the “higher ups” if they don’t follow these two, simple rules. And if the wife/girlfriend of an employee wants to walk into the plant unescorted wearing a tank top, shorts and flip flops; what’s the big deal, right?

Where was I?

Oh yeah; my hatred for interviews.

I think that part of the reason is that there are all of those questions and I start hearing this voice in my head. I will hear it tell me what I would REALLY like to say and then the other voice telling me what I SHOULD say. Ah; the classic struggle of good vs. evil.

I don’t like answering hypothetical questions, although I don’t mind asking them!

The reason that I don’t like them is because I use an “adaptive” approach to providing a safety solution.

If you are serious about getting to a root cause (s) of your problem (s), then there is certain information that you must share with me, so that I can take my past experience, weigh it against accepted safety norms and then, adapt it to your current situation.

No; it seems that many companies want to treat risk issues like it’s a plumbing problem, but instead of hiring a plumber, they hire someone who will be the only person working to resolve safety issues. This type of mentality puts you years away from establishing a “culture” of safety.

Companies fail to recognize the many pieces to the puzzle and though they can’t tell you how they got into the mess, they will micro-manage and resist your efforts to get them out of the mess.

In other words; they aren’t serious about creating a safety culture. They just want their insurance company and OSHA off of their backs.

The fire service taught me many skills that I use every day of my life. It strengthened my courage and self-confidence; maybe to my detriment. The fire service also taught me to look closely at origins and causes. It not only taught me about the human condition, but human behavior. That is to say; if you can train people to run into a burning building, you can certainly teach people on how to run out of that same building.

So, I guess I’ll know when I interview with a company that is serious about their risk control programs…

They’ll hire ME!


The views and opinions expressed are those of the author, Art Goodrich, who also writes under the name ChiefReason.  They do not reflect the views and opinions of, Fire Engineering Magazine, PennWell Corporation or his dog, Chopper. Articles written by the author are protected by federal copyright and cannot be reproduced in any form.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Negative Pressure

Yeah; it is used to suck the smoke and heat from structures, but it’s also used to suck any promise that many future leaders will offer new perstpective to the old hard-line ways of a traditional fire service.

I read on fire discussion boards about concern that the “old guard” isn’t passing it down to the new guard. Along with that come complaints that the new guard isn’t interested in old stuff. They want new stuff; that is, unless it deals with the same old approach to firefighting.

There is a subculture in the fire service who believes that, since firefighting isn’t an exact science, then it isn’t right to exact a strategy that calculates risk instead of just taking them. I think that there is this fear that, if we contemplate it for too long, we will be overcome by fear and a decision-risky or not-will not be made.

The fact that some departments operate differently from others is simply the opinions of those who are willing to express them. Typically, they say that it’s wrong, because it clashes with THEIR ethos.

Think about this; why would you care about what someone whom you have never met and never worked with has to say about your department’s tactics? You can be anything that you want to be in cyberspace. Validation DOES NOT come from some internet chat group; it comes from the men and women in your area that train together and respond together for any number of emergencies. They don’t have a book deal or are on the lecture circuit. They are people who are absent of ego and they don’t succeed at someone else’s expense. They don’t have an agenda, other than a training agenda.

I found out some time ago that the internet fire service has its bullies; much like our schools and local taverns. Before you know it; you are catching it from all sides by others in service to their communities. A mob mentality takes over. With so many telling you that you are full of crap, you tend to believe it.

Hey; that picture of a DEAD bin Laden that I saw on the internet was REAL; right?

You become so pre-occupied by the pronouncements of these pyro-wizards that you lose your personal perspective and along with it your identity.

Negative pressure from your “peers” can cause us to make bad decisions.

I will only take advice or training from people that I know and trust of which there are several.

You have to ask yourself: do you want to be impressed or do you want to be taught? Many good instructors will make it clear from the beginning that their heart and mind is in the right place. They will limit their words so as not to confuse. They will be positive. They won’t suck the air out of the room to fill their puffed out chests or egos.

Their websites/blogs will be insightful, informative and intrinsically invaluable.

They have taken what they have learned and put their thumb-print on it. The skill set is what it is, but they are looking for more effective teaching methods. They don’t want to mess with the message; just the delivery.

There are too many out there willing to shake and bake their leather lid to accelerate their ascent.

They believe that their crusty lid is in direct proportion to the respect that is enjoyed by a crusty jake.

They want to climb down from their little soapbox and climb up to the big podium, even though their experience doesn’t pass the smell test.

Thermal insult?

Hell; they think that an all out thermal assault is the true test of a firefighters’ mettle.

They wear their “I survived the back draft simulator” T-shirt with pride.

So, are these “legends in their own minds” making the fire service better?

Or are they forcing us to pay them attention while diverting our attention away from more pressing matters?

What could be more important than ferreting out the wannabees and pretenders from the hallowed halls of our legion of mercurial mentors?

There is no question about it; I question their motives, their skills and their commitment to our fire service. Their certificate says that they are qualified to instruct, but it doesn’t say that they are CAPABLE.

Don’t let their negative pressure cause you to make poor decisions.

YOU have to make decisions based upon the intel that you gain at the scene. Many of us love to read about and discuss incidents that have occurred and offer critical insights of the successes or failures. Your closeness to the incident allows you a different vantage point than of those who weren’t there. However; each CAN offer perspective to a discussion. The “you weren’t there so you can’t say anything” argument doesn’t flush with me.

Because the lightweight-constructed structure was under heavy fire-load upon arrival, you couldn’t do a primary search, but did do a defensive search. In the eyes of the internet elites, you didn’t risk enough, so now, they must question your heart; even though they have done the same and have yet to perform a rescue, except in their dreams.

They have built their reputation from bravado; not bravery. They will punctuate their statements with “I, me and mine” to let you know that they are the most important person in the room.

But, it all gets them noticed. It does widen their audience. It creates more opportunities for them to spread a message that is short on substance, but long on lip service. They borrow and steal from others’ hard work to pass it off as their own and without it; they wouldn’t make a pimple on the butt of a good instructor.

Hey; they can TALK a good game.

Before you buy into and adopt their mantra, ethos or philosophy, know what you’re getting. It truly is “buyer beware”.

I’m positive that it’s negatively affecting us.


The views and opinions expressed are those of the author, Art Goodrich, who also writes under the name ChiefReason.  They do not reflect the views and opinions of, Fire Engineering Magazine, PennWell Corporation or his dog, Chopper. Articles written by the author are protected by federal copyright and cannot be reproduced in any form.

Monday, May 9, 2011

Conflict Resolution – LEO vs. FD

Well, everything was just dandy until our long time village police chief retired.
Not only did our fire department get along with Jim, but many of us had developed a real friendship with him.
The irony of this dust up between our fire chief and the new police chief is that we have terrific relationships with our county sheriff’s department and our state police.
Here is the situation that was described to me:
Our fire department was dispatched to a vehicle accident on the interstate.
Rescue 1 and Engine 2 was on their way to the scene on the 2-lane highway that leads to the interstate when our village police chief in his squad car passes both fire trucks in a no passing zone near a blind intersection and a motorist had to pull off of the road to avoid what could have been a head-on collision with our village cop.
All of the firefighters who witnessed this near miss agreed that it could have been very bad.
Our fire chief attempted to speak with the police chief about the matter, but got nowhere, as the police chief felt he did nothing wrong.
So, I called the mayor to give him the professional courtesy of informing him that the fire chief and I would attend the next village board meeting to get this matter resolved. The mayor was naturally concerned, because he knows that I can be difficult to deal with at times. And yes; this will be one of those times.
First of all, I am very aware that the law is on the side of the police officer. An LEO can literally ignore the entire Illinois Motor Vehicle Code, if they are responding to an emergency. I researched it and consulted with a good friend who was a cop for 38 years. Though he agrees that our village cop was stupid, the law permits him to pass in a no passing zone at a blind intersection, unless it causes an accident. Then, the officer could be cited for improper lane usage, failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident or reckless driving.
Did you catch that? A police officer can take all of these risks by violating the rules of the road UNLESS it causes a problem. How screwed up is that?
And if, God forbid, a fatality occurs; imagine the magnitude of the lawsuit that is sure to come.
I want this risky behavior stopped NOW; BEFORE it becomes a more serious problem. I don’t think that I am being difficult or unreasonable. The damage would be far-reaching if this type of driving ends in an accident with another village resident.
If I am writing the risk portion of the insurance policy for our village, knowing that people on the village payroll drives like what has been described, then I would want a blank check. In essence, you could not afford the insurance premium or carry enough in your umbrella coverage to cover this type of behavior.
So, ultimately; taxpayers pay!
Simply put: a rescuer cannot rescue if THEY need rescued!
I want to rescue this now before an innocent life is taken by someone who is brain dead to common sense.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author, Art Goodrich, who also writes under the name ChiefReason.  They do not reflect the views and opinions of, Fire Engineering Magazine, PennWell Corporation or his dog, Chopper. Articles written by the author are protected by federal copyright and cannot be reproduced in any form.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

If We Can Find bin Laden, Then Why Can’t We…

Like most other red, white and blue-blooded Americans, I savored the news that Osama bin Laden had been found and shot dead by a U.S. SEALs Team.
Blogger Sidebar: Has anyone else noticed that the mainstream media has been spelling “Osama” with a “U” instead of an “O”? I think you know why.
I have no doubt that bin Laden is dead. I have no reason to question the validity of our President’s claim. Therefore; I need no other “verification”, but I would view the “official” photos of a dead bin Laden, if given the opportunity.
Let Cindy Sheehan and the other nut jobs perpetuate the conspiracy theories. The rest of us should briefly rejoice and then get back to keeping our guard up and supporting our government and our troops, as we continue our war on terrorism.
But, I have to wonder; if we can find bin Laden, then why can’t we find common ground at the center of a myriad of issues?
When you think of all of the information that was processed; all of the planning required and all of the practice needed to drop our men on the “head of a pin” at precisely the right moment, in order to confront and kill bin Laden, then fixing our federal government doesn’t seem like such an arduous task.
I am sure that the members of our SEALs Team came from different social, ethnic, religious or even political backgrounds, but all of that was compartmentalized, so that they could focus on the plan/the mission.
Imagine what would happen if our military-though, at the mercy of bureaucrats for funding-behaved like our federal government behaves: nothing would get done, each would be blaming the other and we would be the laughingstock to the rest of the world.
But, fear not; our nation’s fire service isn’t far behind with their inability to find common ground on important issues as well.
We can find bin Laden, but our fire service can’t find agreement on what the top issues are.
First and foremost; I believe some of the separation is due in part to the number of trade magazines, editors, writers, bloggers and the many different agendas that are being saturated by very personal opinions.
Yes; that includes me. I don’t pretend to be an Everyman. My opinions are mine and I don’t necessarily look for agreement; I look for “diversity in opinion”.
The trades and their websites all run the same top stories (competition is brutal for who gets the story up FIRST), videos and pictures, but the similarities stop there. From website layout to cash layout; they become very different, in terms of content.
I believe that the nation’s fire service organizations are driven by the opinions of the people who populate the various committees, in much the same way that Congress operates.
In other words; our special interests group (national fire service) is being influenced by special interests groups that drive us further away from common ground and a general consensus.
The priorities identified at the national level often miss the smaller targets of local fire departments. I will use residential sprinklers as an example.
I think that it’s a great idea and a worthy project to push for a nation-wide initiative, but why would a small department struggling to keep fuel in their 30 year-old fire engine that is housed in their dilapidated, mold-infested, asbestos-lined fire station even SEE sprinklers as a blip on their radar screens?
Everyone Goes Home®?
Well, some in the fire service believes that some won’t. Some believe that firefighting, by its very nature, requires us to accept that firefighters will die in the performance of the job, so the program is a lie and a failure. I don’t believe that, but unfortunately others do. They embrace the notion that there is acceptable risk and acceptable deaths, because “that is what we do”.
We can find bin Laden, but we can’t find agreement on when to do a primary search and when it is too dangerous to do so. We can’t agree on what abandoned/vacant, tenable/untenable or even what “risk a lot to save a lot; risk little to save little” means anymore. The measure of success or failure is not that someone has been seriously injured or killed, but rather, how much risk was your department willing to take; regardless of outcome? And anything less is considered an exercise in “yard breathing”. The problem as I see it is that many of us who have worked some tough scenes won’t accept or understand someone else reacting differently to a similar set of circumstances. We are expecting the new breed to be JUST LIKE US and we are disappointed when they aren’t. They don’t have the heart or at least the same heart as we do. We want THEM to look in the mirror and see US.
We can find bin Laden, but some firefighters can’t find enough common sense to drive to an incident scene in a careful, safe manner. Whether it’s in a personal vehicle (POV) or apparatus, we still have some who believe that getting there as fast as they can without due regard is acceptable. And we can’t agree on the “honors” paid to that firefighter, who dies while recklessly putting the public at risk, because there is this twisted notion that the driving public should ALWAYS yield to the big, red fire truck! Remember that last year, a firefighter returning from a fire school was drag racing with another car and caused a wreck in which an innocent motorist and the driver that was drag racing were killed. The firefighter was given LODD status. Shameful. Yeah; some of us don’t agree on that either.
We can find bin Laden, but we can’t find agreement on reducing LODDs and especially deaths from heart attacks. We want to believe that they are caused from the thermal pounding that we take at a fire.
Yes; that would account for maybe 2% of the LODD heart attacks, but that doesn’t explain the other 98% that have an undetected, congenital heart problem, because we can’t agree that pre-employment or yearly physicals thereafter should be required (again; see “fueling 30 year-old fire engine); or high blood pressure that goes untreated; or obesity to borderline morbid to morbid obesity, because of poor diet choices and eating habits, coupled with a sedentary life-style. We can’t agree on healthy diets, because of the many different diet plans that are pushed by big, corporate money.
We can find bin Laden, but we can’t find unity of career and volunteer.
That leads to disagreements on what constitutes professionalism and builds, then nurtures, mutual respect. We argue about “purity of heart” and other “why we do what we do” issues. We can’t even find common ground on common issues, such as 360 size up or ventilation or nozzle types.
We can find bin Laden, but we can’t find objective and open-minded thought on the state of our local economies and our pension systems. In the minds of the public sector employees, their wage and benefits package has been a matter of public record, but in the minds of their taxpayers, the details have been buried in the language of their union contract and out of the public eye.
It’s one thing to read that a city employee will make a salary of X and the rest of the employee benefits package, including pension, is described in ambiguous terms. Employee will receive medical, dental and vision coverage and city will contribute to employee pension does not tell you what that costs.
So; we can find bin Laden, but we can’t find two people who agree on what is fair for public employees during an economic downturn or local fiscal crisis. The divide between career and volunteer firefighters gets wider, because cities start talking about replacing career with volunteer or paid on call personnel. In cities with career departments, the unions representing the career firefighters will unleash a torrent of public relations tools to bolster the needs for a career department.
Ironically, there is no talk of replacing street and sanitation workers or police with volunteers; only the fire department. Appeals from the career guys will go out to their volunteer “brothers”, who were, moments earlier, “scabs” to resist being used in this manner-a scare tactic pitting “brother against brother”.
Yep; we can find bin Laden, but finding unity among the factions in our fire service will remain elusive for now.
But, if we want to continue to draw comparisons between the military and the fire service, then we need to adopt philosophy, in addition to the strengthening programs.
That way; firefighters with very diverse backgrounds will come together and work with the same plans to accomplish each mission.
That’s how I see it, anyway.
The opinions and views expressed are those of the article’s author, Art Goodrich, who also writes as ChiefReason. They do not reflect the opinions and views of, Fire Engineering Magazine, PennWell Corporation or my dog, Chopper. This article is protected by federal copyright laws and cannot be re-produced in any form.