John:

NFPA 1033 is a great document that can now be used to train investigators. A program can be developed that relates to each job performance requirement that can be taught over time.

The point I am trying to make is that a person can meet the requirements set forth in NFPA 1033 and be qualified according to that document to conduct a fire investigation but still may not be a competent investigator. The same being the reverse, a person may not be able to answer all the got you question that can be derive from NFPA 1033 but can still be a competent fire investigator. What we are doing is taking from your case where the person could not answer the question, and for other reasons is shown not to be a competent fire investigator and derived that all persons that cannot answer those questions from memory are not competent to investigate a fire. Is that fair?

To me a qualified person is one that through education, and training is recognized as being training to conduct different activities. Whereas a person that is competent to perform a task is one having the ability, knowledge, and skill to successfully complete that task. As an example, a person may have the education and training to give a class in fire investigation, but does this mean he is competent? This person may be a terrible public speaker.

Would you agree that 1033 is minimum standards? Where in NFPA 1033 does it state the person must know the definition of a watt. I do not believe the document defines that term. Can I give the definition that it is a unit of power, or do I need to say that it is the SI unit of power, equivalent to one joule per second, corresponding to the power in an electric circuit in which the potential difference is one volt and the current one ampere.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group