searching off guidelines

[luke]

Could any one clear up a point for me? When searching off a guideline in a team of two would number two going to the outside of number one be acceptable in any training situation, as i am aware that a real world situation, if risk assessed would allow this without question.I think we call it living outside the box.(Training only)

cheers,
luke.

[burgermuncher999]

I don't understand why you would be allowed to practice someting in the real world and yet be prevented from doing so in a training environment.
The answer to the question is however that wearers in a team may work either on the inside or outside of the team leader provided that the outermost member of the team is no more than 6m (the length of the fully deployed personal line) from the main guide line or branch guide line to which they or the team leader are attached.

[luke]

Thanks for your reply, would the safest systems of work to advise on this one though be to not allow number 2 to go to the outside of number 1 as this could have the potential to allow the 2nd team member to end up 7.25m from the guideline if tenex clip failed on ither of the wearers personnel lines.Also number 2 could end up in front of number one (team leader) not safe?

cheers,
luke

[burgermuncher999]

My opinion is that guide lines are inherently unsafe and that personal lines over complicate the making of progress and the process of effecting rescue. The points you make are justified and validate my own perceptions. At the end of the day its down to effective team management, communication between team members, the co-ordinated movement of all team members and the skills of both the leader and the team members during guide line operations.

[luke]

Thanks again for your reply, appreciate your comments and completely agree with the point that guidelines are unsafe.Points were raised after a lecture session with my shift after completing a B.A.I. Once again it will come down to individuals risk assessment at the time and their ability to implement safe measures to allow them to put into work their system and justify them.This again is like you say good management and management being able to get this message across effectively.

Whats your opinion on bringing hose back out a premise each time you exit the risk area.And not leaving it in place for subsequent teams to follow?

Cheers again,
luke

[burgermuncher999]

The branch is not solely for firefighting at the scene of operations but also to protect the crew in any smoke filled area. It is essential that crews entering and exiting have with them a charged branch in order to conduct door entry procedures, compartment temperature checks and continual gas cooling of the combustible products of combustion (fire gases). I would agree that following the hose back is the most effective method of exiting a risk but it is important that the crew take with them the branch and gas cool upon exiting.
See the post on acetylene elsewhere on the forum for a comparison between the characteristics of acetylene and the carbon mononxide in the fire gases.

[fireftrm]

I am so glad to find sensible people who think that guidelines are inherently dangerous. We should start a campaign to have them retired, modern practices, health and safety and equipment make them obsolete anyway. The argumnet has gone on in other threads :

http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=160

http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=273

http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=38

I was disappointed that I did not receive a great deal of backing then, maybe we have some more converts? I have yet to find anyone who agrees to their use, except on here.

[burgermuncher999]

Prior to registering as a member i did make contribution to a previous debate on guidelines.
The focus for that discussion was improving the design of the tabs. For me a tab a is a tab and 'longest in and shortest out' or 'get knotted get out' is as good a foolproof method of memorising the way in and the way out. If only this was the sole concern about the use of guidelines we would have little to worry about.
The list is never ending;
Availability of tie off points.
Suitability of fire gloves for tying off assuming that a tie off point can be found.
The combustibility of the material used in its construction.
Poor tactical decision making on the outside leading to inappropriate use of guidelines/branch lines on the inside. Has any Officer ever been properly trained in how to carry out a risk assessment so as to determine the suitability or otherwise of guidelines at any given incident. I know the answer is probably 'NO' so therefore did we ever really learn anything in  the aftermath of Gillender St.
etc etc.

Keep it safe. KEEP IT IN THE BAG.

[Billy]

Burgermuncher 999

you say that:-
 
"For me a tab a is a tab and 'longest in and shortest out' or 'get knotted get out' is as good a foolproof method of memorising the way in and the way out.

Some points on this:
1. I thought it was longest out and not longest in, but maybe the tabs confuse me in the first place!

2. "get knotted,get out"? Does this mean that on the way out you come across the knotted one first, or is the knotted one is nearest the way out?

3. What about one we use in Strathclyde "Small steps in- big steps out"? This relates to the tab you come across first on the way out and contradicts the other two!

So as you can see, all these aide memoirs are confusing in one way or the other, not even mentioning that most brigades are using guidelines that cannot be felt with their current PPE gloves!

Here is a suggestion and I would be grateful if you could look at the points and reply on each.

We do a thorough and professional risk assessment on premises in relation to the new fire services act with respect to protection of fire crews within premises in case of fire ( I believe that there is a new duty of care on owners of premises to protect all who may have to work within their premises)

If we think that the building has a disorientation risk and we may have to use guidelines in case of fire, we will assess it to see if it has sufficient tie-off points for the guidelines.
If it has tie off points we will then mark on the Operational risk assessment that it is safe to use guidelines in this building.

If not, we will inform the building owners that we recommend that they fit securing points at correct locations to allow us to use our equipment safely and properly.

IF THEY FIT SECURING POINTS, WE WILL USE GUIDELINES- IF NOT, WE WON'T.
IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE!

We will log it in the Operational risk assessment record sheet of the owners decision and this will absolve us of any blame if we don't use guidelines and something happens.

It will also take away the pressure from the OIC as to whether to use guidelines or not.

I mentioned on another thread that there is tiny, inobtrusive, spring steel securing points that you can pull the guideline into- without tying it off!

Why can't it be as simple as  being able to properly deploy guidelines safely and we will use them, if not, we won't...

Why can't people think that a properly deployed guideline that can be fixed quickly in a smoke- filled environment would be an advantage to fire crews?

 And why are some people Hell-bent on just removing them and not replacing them with anything else!

This will solve the tie-off problem and the suitability of gloves when tying off.
 Finally, the use of a guideline the same as shown on www.simline.co.uk will solve all the other aide memoir problems and the indication of the correct way in or out.
(couldn't resist it)!

[burgermuncher999]

I went through this discussion last year elsewhere on the forum with your good self. In the end i still disagree with guidelines on principle but conceded that you yourself made some valid points about the design and construction of them in their current form.
I shall leave others to debate this one with you. You are right about the confusion with interpreting aide memoirs although i can say with confidence that the longest unknotted tab is on the way in and the shortest knotted is on the way out. Hence 'longest in - shortest out' or 'get knotted get out'. But i can see how it might be my interpretation that makes it clearer in my own mind.

[pugh]

That's all very well, Burgermuncher, but which one do you come to first?  There can only EVER be one reliable method of identifying the way out (that's the only one we want isn't it?) and that is 'the shortest tab is nearest entry control'.  No confusion, no double meanings and no misinterpretation.  End of story.

That, however, does not resolve any other issues of construction, deployment, degree of risk in use, etc.  I can only refer you to the painfully lengthy threads already mentioned above which amply illustrate the genuine concerns regarding this kit.

[dave bev]

string, bah humbug!

dave bev

[Lee999]

Ok guys. Everybody has their own way in which they interpret the G/L tabs, but I fear you may be missing the point.

Most of you ( with the exeption of the individual who it seems stands to make financial profit from them ) want to see the back of G/L's and all things related to them, on the grounds of firefighter safety.

I agree with you, so we know what the problem is - but what is the solution?

We need alternative means of searching large structures safely.

ideas?

Cheers

Lee

[dave bev]

its not so simple lee. this is a biggger issue. we need to start to ensure there is no need to be searching in the first place, then when weve exhausted that and recognised something addidtional is required we need to sort out the methods of searching - no point in changing the tyres if we dont remove the nails from the road

dave bev

[Lee999]

Dave - Im not sure im with you.

If you are saying ( in code ) that building design should be improved to a point, where we should never need to commit FF's into a smoke logged structure - then I understand your point. That won't happen in our lifetime.

If you are saying we should be educating the community to point where fires in buildings no longer occur - nice idea, Won't happen in our lifetime.

Or have I missed your point? ( ive got previous for that )

Fires in buildings will occur today and tomorrow, we as fire officers need to pro-activly ensure that we and our personnel are as competant as we can be, and that we have the right gear to do the job.

My point being - is there an alternative to G/L?

Steve