Every community has its potential “shark attack” — a high-risk, low-frequency event that could cause chaos if not managed well. These rare but dangerous calls capture our attention and imagination. But in the fire service, are we training for what actually happens — or for what might happen once in a lifetime?
That was the central question explored in Lexipol’s recent webinar, “What’s Your Shark Attack? Rethinking Risk and Training in the Fire Service.” Moderated by Deputy Chief Billy Goldfeder of the Loveland-Symmes (OH) Fire Department, the panel featured:
- Chief Rom Duckworth (Ridgefield, CT)
- Chief Kris Blume (Meridian, ID)
- Erin McGruder (Kansas Fire & Rescue Training)
Together, they challenge leaders to rethink how they define risk, measure training success, and prepare their firefighters for the calls that matter most.
Keep Training Real, Not Ridiculous
Across the nation, the fire service is full of instructors dedicated to preparing their people for just about anything. But sometimes, that good intention becomes overkill. Goldfeder and McGruder both point out how complex, overblown scenarios can actually weaken training rather than strengthen it.
Chief Rom Duckworth puts it bluntly: “We often throw overcomplicated scenarios at our people. We want to show total capability, so we build this huge thing — a patient in an overturned car, down an embankment, with a gas leak. But when we pile all that on, we’re missing the point.”
The point, he says, is that firefighting skills are like Legos — individual building blocks that, when mastered, fit together to enable firefighters to handle complex events. “It’s our basics, put together flawlessly, that solve the complicated problems,” Duckworth explains.
McGruder agrees, noting that overcomplicated drills can discourage confidence, especially among new members. “Basics are the building blocks,” she says. “We need to ensure consistency between academies and the field. It’s demoralizing for a new firefighter to hear, ‘Forget what you learned in training — this is how we really do it.’ That’s a failure of communication and consistency.”
When it comes down to it, the panel says, departments don’t really need to stage a simulated tsunami in Kansas. Instead, they need to create confident, competent firefighters who can execute the fundamentals under pressure.
Watch a clip:
Why Checkbox Training Isn’t Enough
If elaborate training isn’t the answer, neither is rote repetition. According to the panel, “pencil-whipped” training (checking boxes to meet regulatory requirements without meaningful learning) is a silent morale killer.
“Are we training for the right things?” Duckworth asks. “We start with fundamentals — those low-risk, high-frequency tasks. But just because we do them frequently doesn’t mean we can’t refine them. A little improvement in something we do every day has a huge combined impact.”
Duckworth also warns against too much emphasis on compliance-driven training, which can lead to “task saturation” for both training and company officers. “At some point,” he says, “we all experience the kind of training where we just agree we did it because we’re tired of jumping through hoops.”
Reinforcing that point, Chief Blume adds, “Compliance does not equal competence. If we’re just checking boxes, we’re missing the point. Training must be purposeful and measurable.”
Speaking of testing, McGruder emphasizes that evaluation is just as important as delivery. “Multiple-choice testing doesn’t measure real competency,” she says. “We should train and evaluate firefighters the way they’ll actually work — hands-on, under realistic conditions.”
Indeed, while checkbox training may satisfy a policy, it won’t save lives. Effective departments do what they can to ensure every training session — no matter how routine — produces measurable improvements in skills, safety, or teamwork.
Watch a clip:
Training Starts at the Company Level
The panel agreed that meaningful training begins with the company officer, and not in the classroom or the conference room.
“Give me good company officers and I can accomplish anything,” Goldfeder says. “If the captain of Engine 2 is into training and the captain of Engine 5 isn’t, you’ve got a problem — because we’re all going to the same fire.”
Goldfeder encourages chief officers to get out of the office and train alongside their people, at least in the command role. “If you’re going to respond to fires, you’ve got to participate,” he says. “At our burn tower, chief officers command the drill and get evaluated, too.”
Blume agrees that the true backbone of any department lies in the partnership between company and training officers. “The training officer sets the direction, but the company officers deliver it,” he says. “When that relationship is strong, training becomes consistent, morale improves, and everyone’s rowing in the same direction.”
McGruder adds that new company officers often need mentorship to become effective trainers themselves. “We have to coach the coaches,” she says. “Show them what good training looks like and help them build the confidence to lead.”
The message from all four leaders was clear: Everyone, at all levels of the department, shares ownership of the training culture. When company officers take the lead, consistency follows, and the entire organization benefits.
Watch a clip:
Real Risk, Not Just Headlines
As Chief Blume reminds the audience, true readiness begins with understanding the risks your community actually faces — not what the latest national headlines suggest.
“In the fire service, we’re not the ones who determine what’s an acceptable level of risk,” Blume says. “That’s up to our elected officials and commissioners. They define the standard, and we build our response model around it.”
Whether or not a department is seeking accreditation, Blume emphasizes, every department should conduct a community risk assessment (CRA). “The CRA becomes a foundational document,” he says. “It ensures our training aligns with our specific hazards, not national averages.”
Blume provides a simple example: “If I’m in a retirement community and you’re in a college town, our risk profiles are completely different. If we skip the process of a risk assessment, we’re creating a training plan with a blindfold on.”
McGruder adds that too many departments approach risk assessments reactively, focusing on what’s already happened instead of what’s emerging. “We need to look at trends,” she says. “Lithium-ion batteries, electric vehicle fires — those are coming to every community eventually.”
Goldfeder reinforces the importance of balancing local data with foresight. “Drive your district, review your call data, know your hazards,” he says. “If you’re spending 90% of your training time on rare events, you’re probably missing what’s actually hurting your people.”
Real risk management means using data to train smarter, not harder. Departments that align their training to actual community needs can better prepare for both the daily runs and the shark attacks.
Watch a clip:
How Do You Know Training Works
It’s one thing to conduct training, but another thing altogether to know whether it actually makes a difference. Chief Blume expresses the principle succinctly: “If it can be measured, it can be improved upon.” Departments must evaluate training outcomes, he says, not just attendance sheets.
That evaluation starts with post-incident reviews — examining whether performance in the field reflects what’s being taught in the classroom or on the training ground. “Post-incident reviews give us a snapshot,” Blume says. “Are our outcomes aligned with what we’re training for?”
Blume also urges agencies to establish a feedback loop between instructors and participants. “People need to be willing to be vulnerable and say, ‘Hey, your content’s great, but your delivery isn’t working,’” he points out. “Otherwise, the message gets lost.”
Duckworth echoes that sentiment. “Even if the topic isn’t your passion project, you have to find what excites you about it,” he says. “If you’re not energized by your own training, no one else will be.”
Training isn’t about checking attendance — it’s about driving performance. Departments should measure not just participation, but progress.
Watch a clip:
Leadership and the “Human” Factor
As the panel wraps up, Goldfeder takes on a question from the audience: “Ninety percent of our training is operational, but 90% of our personnel issues are interpersonal. Should leadership be part of the risk assessment?”
The short answer: yes.
“Before promoting someone,” Goldfeder cautions, “ask if they can lead. Can they transition from buddy to boss? Agencies should assess leadership readiness, not just tactical skill.” McGruder adds that certification doesn’t equal leadership. “Certification only proves minimum standards,” she says. “Real leadership development requires mentorship and active learning. We must teach people, not just procedures.”
Duckworth underscores the importance of emotional intelligence in leadership. “Focus on the affective domain — attitude and empathy matter as much as technical skills,” he says. Building on this, Blume draws a direct line from leadership to safety. “Command presence is vital on the fireground,” he says, “but command resonance — emotional intelligence — is essential in the station. Officers need to read the room and lead with empathy.”
Leadership development, the panel agrees, is a form of risk reduction. A competent leader can prevent the kind of personnel conflict that erodes trust and morale — and indirectly, safety.
Bringing It All Together
Throughout the discussion, a unifying message emerges: Meaningful training is realistic, measurable, and mission-driven. It’s about creating firefighters who are confident in the basics, capable in the complex, and connected to their community’s needs.
“We need to train for everything,” Goldfeder says. “But training must align with community risk.”
Duckworth summarizes the balance best: “It’s about focusing on what’s most relevant to making a difference for the firefighters in your program. Every session should be something that helps them perform better, safer, and smarter.”
In other words, it’s time to rethink what “good training” really means. It’s not about elaborate drills, endless compliance checklists, or chasing national headlines. It’s about building teams that master the fundamentals, think critically, and act decisively — no matter what kind of “shark attack” comes their way.
