The CFOA steering group may touch on this subject and there still exists (just) a group discussing the subject in some detail but I would like to canvass our Group's views.
Let us call it 'Level 4' investigation for now. It clearly encompasses any event that effectively overwhelms the scope and capabilities of existing Level 3 investigations. Note that I did not say it overwhelms the abilities of investigators that work to level three. We all at some point are called upon to deal with incidents that are beyond our current experience but it is that very experience that is key to our effectiveness when stretched in this way.
But can 'Level 4' investigation ability be cost-effectively taught or pre-planned?
Is there a need? Is there the necessary finance?
In the past we have had to learn as we go. Many valuable lessons have been learned and applied at Atherstone for example but further lessons were learned there too.
I tend to feel that there is validity in having an established but necessarily broad procedure but training for such rare events would not be cost effective.
Seminars or travelling presentations of case studies is a good way to pass on lessons but how about a specialist team on standby call?
There is much to discuss and consider so shall we start? Share your views here. Let's get lively and straight-talking. Your pointers and opinions will be passed to the relevant discussion groups and I may precis them for the journal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, a person can be trained to this level, but it costs, it is time consuming and most FRAs will shy away from it, believing that somone can 'pick up a book' and 'manage' their way through it. Several universites offer courses or modules now and some 'Regional' FI Units have people in them or developing toward them. I understand Leeds, Teeside and UCLan all offer something and I think Glasgow does or did.
ReplyDeleteThe underpinning knowledge is essential if the experience element is to be be of maximum benefit and this is where I think there is a developing problem. Authorities are starting to push people toward FI from the new 'management' selections and many do not have the experience of fire fighting, let alone the underpinning knowledge of fire and fire behaviour to support them as they try to make sense of what any mentor - if they have one - is trying to explain.
I long ago came to the conclusion that there are no "levels" in FI - only levels of experience and knowledge.
At the risk of widening the debate, it seems the root of this issue goes back to the argument between experience and qualifications. Some people will go to 100 fires and gain very little after the first incident whereas others will go to far fewer and gain a superior wealth of relevant experience. Its a discussion that exists around Incident Command but is equally valid for Fire Investigation. Qualifications are important but it seems they are only validated with relevant experience and put simply, the qualification seems to largely serve to prove what your experience has taught you. In applying this to Level 4 type investigations the key should be relevant experience, backed up with appropriate qualifications. My biggest concern over defining an investigation as Level 4, that requires a "specialist team", is the risk that all the experience ends up shared by an elite few with those only "qualified" to Level 2 or 3 possibly viewed as somehow inferior by other agencies or the general public.
ReplyDeleteThe potential elitism is a clear issue. I wonder if there is any comparison here with the US system where there is such a team. Such teams may tend to lord over the scene when their actual task would, ideally, be to act as a service provider to the investigator or agency on whose 'Patch' the incident occurred. This goes back to another issue: Who EXACTLY is in charge at any one time (I may raise this as another discussion topic soon).
ReplyDeleteRather than levels and qualifications isn't the issue rather about the competency of the individual(s)investigating the incident.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind fire investigation is not about qualifications and cannot be solely learnt from a book, it is about cumulative experience built on a good scientific grounding.
Good investigators will learn something from most fires they attend and draw on that experience when investigating subsequent events. It is my view that the competency of the investigator is key to them being able to work through infrequent, high profile and difficult scenes. The fact that every fire scene is different means that investigators are used to interpreting patterns of burning for example and using common features seen previously to form a hypothesis.
The US system has been touched upon and here I would proceed with caution as a US NAS report conducted in 2009 on strengthening forensic science was particularly damning regarding arson investigation. It is my understanding that this was because alot of the interpretation the investigators were using had been 'handed down' and did not have any scientific basis. Therefore it is important when investigators are learning (attending conferences etc) they scientifically evaluate what they are being told.
I do not think that any training course can fully prepare the investigator for a fire scene as every incident will have different elements and this is especially true when dealing with high profile and difficult scenes. In my experience having a team of experienced investigators that you trust and who will challenge you is invaluable.
I just posted on a blog started by David on the forensic science degree course. And I feel it may be relevant to this discussion, so rather than it be lost in the depths of this forum I have re posted it here. Please see below……..
ReplyDeleteHowever to add to this discussion…..
Surely a multi-faceted, multi-agency, joint working, partnership / team, who mutually respect each other’s skills, knowledge and abilities; and can bring both scientific qualifications and fire service experience to the party, is the way to go? In my humble opinion the key is mutual respect and operating a peer review based cross checking system, where people listen to each other to get to the truth, without egos getting in the way. This can also be read in the context of MoU’s.
“The problem being there is no recognised relevant level 4 qualification for fire investigation. Take for example a person with 30 years’ service in a FRS, who may well have been a FI for 10 years or so, who may well be GIFireE (or even MIFireE), hold FRS internal qualifications in FI, and may well be a member of an external professional body such as the IFE, IAAI, or the FSSoc, but they almost certainly will not hold a degree level qualification. Does this limit their credibility to the wider community? (Scientific / Judicial / Public / Peer group?).
Forensic scientists at the FSS or in private firms hold a BSc or BA or BEng; along with a relevant MA. They have years of cold fire scene examination experience; arguably what they lack is relevant fire fighting experience, hot scene examination and emergency public engagement experience.
How to square the circle if not FI’s studying a relevant degree course and is the Forensic degree the correct route?
It is true; in order to be a competent FI a high degree of fire science knowledge is required and more importantly applied effectively. This can be obtained through either the academic or the vocational route, but most importantly, the effective FI has to interpret what is seen.
ReplyDeleteIt is no good being able to quote scientific principles or mumble on about experience if neither is applied effectively to read the fire scene. I believe the best way to do this is by multi agency, multi discipline, partnership / team working, whether formalised through an MoU, or simply by repeated joint working. The secret is to build mutual respect and trust thereby producing an effective symbiotic synergy in partnerships to bring all the differing talents to the investigation, thereby obtaining the truth.
However, all too often egos get in the way; people feel threatened or protective and thereby partnership working with the effective peer review it offers is doomed.