Every fire department has at least one ongoing conversation that starts with, “You know what training we really need? …” And the responses that follow will sound very familiar — everything from bread-and-butter skills to high-risk/low-frequency events we all quietly know we’re not practicing enough.
This year’s What Firefighters Want survey leaned into that reality. FireRescue1 asked firefighters a simple, revealing question: “What safety-related training do you need?” No drop-downs. No pre-filled categories. No multiple choice. Just firefighters speaking plainly, in their own words, about what they believe would make them safer, sharper and better prepared.
When you take hundreds of pieces of raw, unfiltered text and start sorting, consolidating and analyzing, patterns start to emerge — patterns that go beyond individual preferences. These themes reveal where firefighters feel most confident, where they’re concerned and where they believe today’s fireground is outpacing yesterday’s training drills.
After dissecting and cleaning the dataset, five major themes rose to the top. These aren’t random wishes; they’re signposts pointing toward real operational gaps and the training needs firefighters can see on the street. Let’s break them down one by one.
1. Live-fire training
Live-fire was the runaway leader, dominating the write-in responses. And it makes perfect sense. There is simply no substitute for the sights, sounds, heat, pressure and decision-making tempo under live fire. It is the only environment where all the elements firefighters face — visibility, stress, heat transfer, ventilation effects, flame paths and tactical timing — collide into one authentic learning experience. Yet, for many departments, live-fire opportunities are limited due to one or many factors:
- Facility limitations and burn building availability
- Instructor shortages
- NFPA 1403 concerns
- Consumable and fuel costs
- Regional training bottlenecks
- Burn bans or restrictive climates
Some firefighters are left with an “annual burn day,” which may check an administrative box but does little to simulate the dynamic, uncontrolled fireground conditions they face.
Why firefighters selected this: Because they know their operational confidence and competence come from meaningful reps and live fire is the crucible where those reps gain their power. Firefighters wrote responses like “more realistic fire conditions,” “actual fire growth behavior training” and “more than the same burn scenarios over and over.”
They want variety. They want complexity. They want scenarios that challenge judgment, not just muscle memory. They want heat that tests gear but also tests them — their discipline, communication and decision-making under pressure.
So, leaders, when firefighters tell you they want live-fire training, what they’re really saying is: “Give us reps that matter, not reps that maintain compliance.”
2. Driver/EVOC training
Driver/EVOC training emerged as another high-frequency request. It’s a reminder of just how critical apparatus operations are to overall safety. Firefighters repeatedly listed driver training, emergency vehicle operations, pump operations and apparatus handling — and it’s easy to see why. Modern apparatus are larger, heavier, more technologically complex and operating on roadways filled with distracted drivers. Districts change, response patterns shift and staffing levels vary greatly from call to call.
Many firefighters wrote responses indicating they had received their driver training years ago but haven’t had ongoing refreshers, especially after these types of changes:
- Apparatus types or fleet upgrades
- District annexations
- Water systems and hydrant layouts
- Response policies and staffing models
Why firefighters selected this: Because they understand that chauffeur operations are not “support tasks.” They are safety-critical roles that directly shape whether a crew arrives, operates and clears the scene without incident. A well-trained driver prevents collisions, ensures continuous water supply, supports effective fire attack and manages one of the most complex cognitive loads on the fireground.
Firefighters aren’t asking for driver training as a formality. They’re asking because they’ve witnessed or experienced near misses, close calls and inconsistencies that make them uneasy. They want to be prepared, not lucky. In other words, they want to keep themselves, their crews and their community safe from the first nanosecond of the response to the very last.
3. RIT and firefighter survival training
Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) and firefighter survival skills were often written emphatically, as in all caps or italics, and grouped together. This cluster of responses reflects a truth every firefighter knows: When things go bad on the fireground, they go bad fast and usually without warning.
Self-rescue, entanglement escape, window egress, air management and downed firefighter removal aren’t intuitive skills. They’re technical, physical and psychologically demanding. And they decay without repetition.
Why firefighters selected this: Because they have seen the data. They’ve read the NIOSH reports. They’ve watched past tragedies presented at conferences. And they’ve participated in after-action reviews where crews said, “If this had gone differently, we would’ve had a mayday.”
Firefighters want these reps because they understand that survival is not automatic. It is trained. What they’re actually asking for is not simply RIT practice. They want:
- Realistic, zero-visibility scenarios
- Stress inoculation
- Multi-company teamwork
- Challenging removals, not “drag the dummy 10 feet and you’re done”
- Scenarios where the clock is not their friend
Firefighters understand that a mayday is not just a radio transmission; it’s a fight for survival and they want the training that prepares them for that fight.
4. Incident safety officer (ISO) training
Incident Safety Officer training appeared repeatedly among the write-in responses. In many cases, firefighters expressed a desire for formal ISO training or more consistent continuing education for those who fill the role. This is a reflection that the modern fireground includes hazards that didn’t exist 20 years ago or weren’t as prevalent:
- Lightweight, engineered building materials
- Rapid fire growth influenced by wind or ventilation
- Increased thermal energy from modern fuel loads
- Lithium-ion battery risks
- Mixed staffing and multi-agency responses
- Variable ICS familiarity
Firefighters want ISOs who understand these complexities and who can function as a tactical asset not just a procedural necessity.
Why firefighters selected this: Because they’ve seen inconsistent interpretations of the ISO role. Some departments rotate the position frequently, while others assign ISOs informally based on rank, not training. Respondents said they want ISOs who are:
- Highly competent
- Operationally aware
- Comfortable calling for tactical pauses
- Able to read building construction and anticipate collapse
- Confident enough to challenge unsafe behaviors
- Equipped to support fire attack
Firefighters respect the safety officer role when it’s executed with skill, credibility and tactical awareness. They want their ISOs to be trained to that standard.
5. Accountability systems
Accountability made the top five despite being one of the least glamorous training types. There are no flames, no props, no dramatic scenarios. Yet the frequency of “accountability training” responses reveals something important: Firefighters aren’t necessarily confused about accountability systems; they’re concerned about the lack of consistency in how those systems are applied.
Accountability collapses most often at the officer level, not the firefighter level. Respondents frequently mentioned confusion that arises when they:
- Work with automatic-aid partners
- Hop between trucks or shifts
- Operate under officers with varying accountability philosophies
- See PARs done differently from call to call
Why firefighters selected this: Because they recognize that accountability is not about tags, whiteboards or software; it’s about disciplined communication and situational awareness. They’ve seen moments where accountability uncertainties delayed PARs or created confusion during critical operational windows. Simply put, when accountability breaks down, the fireground becomes exponentially more dangerous.
Firefighters aren’t asking for lectures about accountability. They’re asking for organized, system-wide training so that everyone, every shift, every rank, every agency is speaking the same language.
What these categories reveal about today’s firefighters
When evaluated together, a narrative starts to emerge. Firefighters aren’t asking for fringe training. They’re not asking for trending topics just because they’re fashionable. Instead, they’re choosing training with direct, tangible impacts on their survival, tactical confidence, scene coordination, crew cohesion and high-stakes decision-making.
The categories reveal a workforce that is not passive, disinterested or unmotivated. Instead, firefighters are saying:
- We understand the risks we face.
- We understand the gaps we feel.
- We want training that prepares us for the fireground we actually operate on, not the one people assume we operate on.
This is an encouraging sign for chiefs, officers, policymakers and training divisions. Firefighters are not shirking responsibility; they’re actively requesting the training that makes them better, safer and more capable.
Honorable mentions
Several other categories didn’t crack the top five but still generated strong write-in numbers. They weren’t statistical leaders but they were consistent themes that deserve mention.
EV fire training: Firefighters are increasingly concerned about electric vehicles, battery fires and the challenges of lithium-ion-powered equipment. They want training that is scenario-based, backed by modern research, realistic about water flow requirements and honest about limitations. The age of “it probably won’t happen here” has passed. Firefighters know these incidents are coming, and they want clear, actionable training before they arrive.
Incident command: Many respondents asked for expanded command training, especially for company officers, acting officers and those in emerging leadership roles. This reflects a national focal point: Firefighters want leaders who are competent, decisive and capable of managing multiple tactical priorities without falling behind the fire.
Mayday procedures: Separate from RIT and survival, several firefighters wrote about wanting more reps specifically focused on the timing, triggers and communication of a mayday. They want to know when to call one, how to transmit effectively and how to stay calm under catastrophic conditions. This theme reinforces the fire service’s global shift toward earlier maydays and better self-advocacy for firefighters in distress.
Firefighters are asking for life-saving training
If there’s a single unifying message from the write-in responses, it’s this: Firefighters don’t want more training; they want more meaningful training. Training that is realistic. Training that is challenging. Training that aligns with today’s hazards, today’s building construction, today’s apparatus and today’s expectations.
Live fire. Driver competency. RIT mastery. ISO proficiency. Accountability discipline. These aren’t elective skills. They’re the backbone of modern fireground safety.
And when firefighters freely choose these topics in an open-response survey, it shows a workforce deeply invested in improving themselves and the service. It shows pride. It shows ownership. It shows engagement. Most importantly, it shows a fire service that wants to get better, not for checkboxes, not for certifications, but for each other.
