Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the FireRescue1 industry report, “What Firefighters Want in 2026: Time to Train.” Explore our full coverage in the What Firefighters Want resource hub.
Some years ago, a department assistant chief with responsibility for training — someone who fancied himself an “expert” fire service instructor — asked a member when was the last time he attended below-grade training. The member answered: “Honestly, chief, all of my training has been below grade.”
The chief meant training for incidents below the surface grade. The member meant something else entirely — and not surprisingly, he left for greener pastures a short time later.
This simple exchange perfectly spotlights the often-misaligned perspectives about training — who should lead training, what training should cover, what level of proficiency means ready, and beyond. These questions were the driving force behind this year’s What Firefighters Want 2026 project, with survey questions designed to gauge how firefighters feel about their department’s training program and their individual readiness.
Are you training on the right things?
Just because you train does not mean you are prepared for what the universe will throw your way.
Is your training program based on the known risks in your community? Are you spending time on what you will reasonably do — and on the low-frequency/high-risk events you might do? Are you working the hard stuff, not just the fun stuff?
I know a department that maintained the same training schedule for years. Does it make sense to use the winter months to do inside work? Sure. But if you’re cycling through the same 12 topics year after year, the harder question is, what aren’t you training on?
The survey reveals a training diet weighted heavily toward foundational maintenance. When asked about the balance between new and existing skills, 54% of respondents said training leans mostly or entirely toward maintaining foundational skills, while 44% reported a balanced mix between new and existing skills. Just 3% said training is mostly (or entirely) introducing new skills or techniques.
That finding isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Foundational skills are exactly that — foundational. Unless you are a senior firefighter who has spent years perfecting their craft and has demonstrated it countless times in urgent situations (not just said “I can do that”), almost all of us can benefit from more reps. Furthermore, I am not sure when the fire service became the department of “one and done.” Yet when the fire officer shares the training topic of the day — stretching hose, pump operations, ladders, etc. — the lament is too often, “We just did that.” As the saying goes, we should practice not until we get it right but rather practice until we can’t get it wrong — aka in your sleep, in the dark, in the middle of a snowstorm.
The interesting thing about firefighter training is the outcomes are compounding. Basic firefighter skills add ability at motor vehicle crashes; understanding metering and monitoring helps for the gas leak or carbon monoxide emergency and the potential for a big transportation accident or WMD event. Skipping ahead, though, will only lead to failure at the most basic level.
In terms of training type, in-station, company-level operational skills training is the workhorse: 48% of respondents train on it weekly, the highest frequency of any format. But what’s being covered in those drills reveals some significant gaps. Specifically, the low-frequency/high-risk disciplines that kill or injure firefighters when they go wrong are trained least often: 22% of respondents never train on wildland/WUI; 14% never train on active threat response; 10% never train on technical rescue. Yet despite this, 67% express confidence in their department’s low-frequency/high-risk training.
What’s more perplexing is that when asked which areas they felt least prepared for, respondents resoundingly identified technical rescue and hazmat as problem areas. Notably, 68% said they train on hazmat annually or less often, and 58% train on technical rescue annually or less often. The latter is particularly concerning, given that technical rescue encompasses six NFPA-recognized disciplines.
Perhaps some respondents don’t have any wildland/urban interface areas (only perhaps), but everyone has exposure to hazmat and (regrettably) active threat. You can hope all you want that one won’t occur, but hope is not a strategy. Yes, cover all the bases for the things we know we will do. Then sprinkle in the hard, challenging new things that we might do. When you get proficient on all of those, then maybe (big maybe), you can mess around with the things that will likely never happen.
Who is evaluating — and are they qualified?
Training on the right topics is only part of the equation. Departments also need qualified people to determine whether those repetitions are producing competent firefighters.
Is anyone evaluating your skill proficiency, and if so, are they qualified to do it against a prescribed standard? How do we choose who we permit to teach and train our firefighters? The most qualified and capable? Whoever shows up? A self-appointed “expert” in whatever the topic of the day may be?
The survey surfaces a fragmented credentialing picture. Only 9% of departments require a minimum of NFPA Instructor II — the highest standard. Another 31% require NFPA Instructor I. But 16% require no formal instructor training at all, and another 10% rely only on departmental training programs.
The pattern is strongly correlated with department size: In departments with fewer than 25 members, an estimated 32% have no formal instructor requirement. In departments over 1,000, that figure drops to approximately 3%.
Evaluation of outcomes is similarly inconsistent. When asked how performance is evaluated during training, 43% said informal observation and feedback, and 21% said there is no consistent evaluation method.
Only 36% use objective skill-based evaluations. Additionally, 57% agreed their department evaluates whether training actually improves operational performance rather than just checking a box that a member attended, while 36% disagreed.
That begs the question: Was there learning? Did we get better as the repetitions occurred? Or did we just try it once and call it a day? Training to a standard that can be measured, such as ensuring a hoseline is stretched and water is flowing in X minutes, will pay dividends on the fireground.
Training culture matters
Of course, instructor qualifications and performance standards don’t exist in a vacuum. They are products of an organization’s training culture — the expectations leaders set and the accountability they enforce.
Training culture varies meaningfully by department type and tenure. Career departments consistently rate training culture higher across all five culture indicators measured. The weakest indicator across all department types is member accountability: Only 65% agreed that members are held accountable for training participation and performance — roughly 14 points below the “high-quality training is a top priority” measure. Culture outpaces enforcement.
Tenure tells its own story. Respondents with 10–20 years of service are the most critical of training culture — a U-shaped pattern where both newer and veteran members rate their departments more favorably. Mid-career firefighters may have enough experience to recognize gaps but not yet the seniority to change them.
Time to train
Even departments with strong training cultures face practical obstacles. Good intentions don’t create more hours in the day.
Scheduling training once and expecting everyone to show up doesn’t fit the pace of today’s world or the competing demands on members, career and volunteer alike. Do you schedule training at multiple times during the month? Do you repeat sessions so members who missed the first delivery can catch the next?
The data bears this out. Scheduling conflicts or lack of time is the single most common barrier to training, cited by 60% of respondents. Staffing or call coverage follows at 45%, and personal or family commitments at 37%. Together, these three time-and-availability barriers account for the vast majority of training friction — and they are structural, not motivational.
Location, location, location
There are challenges with obtaining important training that aren’t easily solvable. Where we train is a huge problem for many departments. Access to safe locations for live-fire training is far from universal.
The survey confirms it: Only 42% of departments have dedicated training facilities and props. Another 35% have limited in-house facilities and rely on regional centers, and 22% have no dedicated training facilities at all, relying entirely on external or acquired structures.
Technology hasn’t filled the gap — yet. Approximately 79% of respondents report that AI-driven simulation and adaptive learning accounts for 0–25% of their training; 78% say the same for VR/AR tools. Computer-based learning is widespread — nearly all respondents complete some form of it — but advanced simulation tools remain rare. That may be less a reflection of skepticism than of the same resource constraints limiting access to traditional training facilities. The infrastructure gap and the technology adoption gap may be the same gap, expressed differently.
Motivation is not the problem
None of those structural limitations should be mistaken for a lack of commitment from firefighters themselves. The motivation to train is not the problem: 81% of respondents cite wanting to improve their skills as their top reason for self-directed training, and 75% cite personal interest. Only 1% say they do not pursue self-directed training at all. And despite scheduling barriers, 74% attended regional training in the past five years, and 93% earned at least one certification.
Individual drive is outrunning institutional support. The “they don’t want to train” lament is often heard but poorly supported. The members might not want to train on your ill-conceived, thrown-together-at-the-last-minute goat rodeo. They will always want to train on something that will improve their skill and ability to serve the public.
The big reveal
Firefighters want to train. They are self-directing, earning certifications, attending regional programs on their own initiative. The system around them — scheduling, facilities, instructor standards, accountability structures — frequently falls short of that drive. The What Firefighters Want 2026 survey doesn’t reveal a workforce that has given up on training; it reveals one that deserves better systems to support what they’re already motivated to do.
