Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: NC Law Review on Fire Investigation
Posted by: Sir Gary (IP Logged)
Date: September 08, 2020 02:25AM
Ran into this issue years ago with lab accreditation (ISO 17025);
powers-that-be wanted validated methods, proficiency testing etc..
(with standard deviations, etc.) - impossible to do with Fire Investigation.
You can insist on accredited training & IAAI/NAFI-certification,
but this is no guarantee for expertise, capability nor objectivity.
You can assess their casework, but other than picking up obvious errors/-omissions,
you are still dependent on what the FI chose to collects & -include to present.
Closest we ever got to proficiency testing was during training,
where the wannabee-FI was required to tag along to fires with the designated-FI,
take his own photographs & notes, and draft his own full FI-report for evaluation.
They all generally needed > 50-odd of these (of which the last 20-odd needed to be on the money)
before signing them off as competent (on top of some theory testing).
I'm still trying for local FI-accreditation, a (recent) process not dissimilar to IAAI-certification,
just also with casework (of their selection randomly off a list of two year's of one's work)
submitted for evaluation.
Be interesting to see what happens; as a lone FI, I have had no colleague to review my work;
you develop your own style of reporting, and any errors in logic/deduction go unchecked
(unless it hits a courtroom...)
powers-that-be wanted validated methods, proficiency testing etc..
(with standard deviations, etc.) - impossible to do with Fire Investigation.
You can insist on accredited training & IAAI/NAFI-certification,
but this is no guarantee for expertise, capability nor objectivity.
You can assess their casework, but other than picking up obvious errors/-omissions,
you are still dependent on what the FI chose to collects & -include to present.
Closest we ever got to proficiency testing was during training,
where the wannabee-FI was required to tag along to fires with the designated-FI,
take his own photographs & notes, and draft his own full FI-report for evaluation.
They all generally needed > 50-odd of these (of which the last 20-odd needed to be on the money)
before signing them off as competent (on top of some theory testing).
I'm still trying for local FI-accreditation, a (recent) process not dissimilar to IAAI-certification,
just also with casework (of their selection randomly off a list of two year's of one's work)
submitted for evaluation.
Be interesting to see what happens; as a lone FI, I have had no colleague to review my work;
you develop your own style of reporting, and any errors in logic/deduction go unchecked
(unless it hits a courtroom...)
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.