FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Frankie on February 28, 2005, 03:24:04 PM
-
Hi,
I've been set a question, can anyone tell me the maximum allowed weight of a BA set?
The question has been set to me by my leading hand, as I'm a retained recruit who hasn't gone on his BA training i'm not sure where to look for the answer. Can anyone help me?
-
IS there one? Never come across this..............
Maybe go back to the LFf and ask them where to find the information - after all his/her role is to develop you and not just send you on a chase alone. I have never come across a maximum, or suggested weight. Indeed the weight of the set was only a concern once composite cylinders came into the UK, prior to that the stell cylinder weighed so much the set weight was basically irrelevant. Sets are available in various materials from metals to plastics and of many weights, the limit would be that that a firefighter could carry on their back! If you find out that there is an actual maximum weight it may be of interest, however I consider that there are far more useful things you copuld be doing with your time. Long gone are the days when firefighters needed to know the weight of things, it is totally irrelevant that a 13.5m ladder weighs around 100kg, as long as we know it takes four to carry it! If four people cannot pick it up it is too heavy, if they can it is OK. Same goes for the technical data of most items we have - learning these used to be part of training - when do we ever need to know that a hydraulic spreader can spread to 632mm (a made up example)? It either spreads enough, or not. I have never taken out a tape measure at an RTA to check! I would never expect such detail, a how it works, what it can do, what it can't, how to fix it - if possible - and a practical demonstration of eac is much better. Please explian the new world, politely, to your LFf and ask for some meaningful development.
-
It must be one of the throwbacks to the military. A general purpose machine gun weighs 24pounds! Why I needed to know that in order to fire it I'll never know.
-
I could explain to him that i need "meaningful development" but I could also be running around drilling all night. We basically get set questions from time to time to learn about the job in hand, on my wild goose chase I have learnt things about the BA set's that i didn't know, so I think it is quite a good way of learning about the job. However, there is a European Standard for the maximum weight of a BA set, I am trying to get someone to respond to my emails from the British Standards, the HSE and the European Standards organisations.
If anyone does know what the maximum weight is off the top of their head it would be greatly appreciated.
As a parting shot, I think it encourages FF's to ask questions and seek knowledge.... whilst what I am looking for may not be important, what I learn along the way may be something that one day saves a life....
Deep man....Deep!
-
Umm, I accept your desire for knowledge but seriously doubt the wisdom of the questions being asked. I rather agree with wee brian. The modern fire service should be developing its staff to do the job, not to find out completely useless information. I do agree that there are probably loads of things about BA sets that I don't know, however in 20 years I have never had a reason to know most of what I was taught, let alone need any other information. One of the things that I was taught was the weight of the set (when I first joined - we don't bother with such trivialiity any longer) but was never told what the standard was set at for the maximum weight! The more I think about the more I am convinced that it is not you who needs menaingful development, but your LFf. You should be learning the BA procedures, not useless technical drivel. If he/she thinks about it the technical stuff should be limited to - pressure of set when full, gauge interpretation and some basics about the way the set supplies air to the wearer. No more.
We do teach the pressures in the hoses - such as 6 to 9 bar to the demand valve - however I would strongly argue that such information actually hepls the firefighter to understand zilch. What possible use is such gen? None. The set wioll supply air to the wearer at a pressure that is above that around the outside of the facemask, therefore if you are unfortunate enough to suffer nay leakage from the mask seal then it will be outward. The cylinder should be charged to 300bar and will give you 36 minutes of working time. You should be back at the entry control before that time is up and there is a gauge to show you how much air you have left. This allows you to appreciate the amount you have used so far and to decide upon the safe time to turn around and exit. What more do you need to know?
Whatever your feelings about upsetting the LFf unless he/sheis made to realise the pointlessness of their questions then you, your station and your service will not move forward correctly.
I wholeheartedly support your point about Ffs being encouraged to ask questions, however not of this type. Ask me about procedures, community safety initiatives, operational command, casualty care and more, but DO NOT ask me about the detailed techinical information of anything - I DO NOT CARE. I leave such nonesense to the standards developers, after all they are the manufacturers and make the standards to suit themselves - any maximum weight they make up themselves, not users.
-
Ok, but surely someone sent in with a set in excess of the maximum weight is in danger?
I'm sure the Standards Agencies give these levels of guidance for a reason....usually safety?......not because they wish to contribute to the depletion of a rainforest or to act as door-stops....
-
Oh please, I think you would know if the set was too heavy when you put it on! A BA set usuaully weighs less than the cylinder attached to it and present composite cylinders weigh less than a third of the original steel, so there is a lot of weigt we can add to the set itself and still be well under the combined weight of those sets. Most services had those sets until the early 90s. Danger form on etoo heavy? Who would go and out and buy sets without trying them first? Not too difficult to discover that they are too heavy to use. Please, oh please, do not try to defend the original pointless question with worse.
As to the standards bodies - most standards do little except add to the depletion of rain forests. Despite what you think they are only there for the manufacturers and they would change such as weights due to changes in their abilities to amnufacture to anew standrard. By so doing the group ensures that they keep the competition in check. Cynical maybe , but I have seen enough standards so written that I understand. A good example is the red body for a fire extinguisher. Yes red is in the European Standard, but nothing prevented the BS comitteee (made up of manufatcurers) from keeping the previous colours here. The remainder of the standard, on construction, could have been implemented and the colour scheme kept. As it was the manufacturer of extinguishers became chealer as they could use the same paint for all production. Think about most standrards and look for some real reasons............
-
I totally agree with the above.
What is the point of knowing the maximum weight of a BA set?
If it is too heavy, we won't use it- simple!
I thought these days were long gone and I once remember a perfect analogy of a senior officer talking to a pump operator and saying " all you need to know is that if you stand on the outlet hose and it is soft- you better know what the problem is and be able to fix it!"
-
i like useless information. i have lots of it. if anyone wants to swap any please state what it is you have and what you wish to swap for?
perhaps we should have e new category on the site aswell?
dave bev
-
I must admit that I would like to know what the max weight of a BA set is.
-
I'd like to know the maximum weight of a firefighter - now there is an interesting thought.............................
And to Dave Bev - yes please let's campaign for a "Totally useless and pointless" section, I think there may be many takers!
Billy - thanks for some more sense in this thread.
-
The maximum weight of a standard duration BA set is 18kgs and is laid down in BS EN137
-
Fascinating and incredibly useful, must remember to weigh each set!
-
trainer is the british standard a compulsory standard or guidance - does it include 'extra bits' - what about extended duration.
more useful information -
there are more miles of canals in birmigham than in venice
if you drive with your side lights permanantly on people will think youre driving a volvo
-
fireftrm - I apologise if i have offended you, I don't think i'll bother posting on here to ask advice again. you seem to have not an awful lot better to do than spend your time ridiculing questions asked by "juniors" (and by "juniors" i mean people with less experience).
Pointless it may be...... bothered? I am not.
Thanks Trainer for your help, much appreciated.
-
BS en137 is the current standard to which all standard duration BA sets used in the UK Fire Service must comply. The full details can be purchased from the British Standards Institute. I do agree to some extent with the need for this depth of knowledge in an operational firey. Usually this kind of info is reserved for a BAI or an engineer but there are some folk out there who maintain a keen level of interest in the details. Who are we to mock? Incidentally if the Standard did not dictate a max. weight we might all find ourselves wearing ever larger sets in the hope of extending working times etc... and who would that benefit?
-
sorry tyo be a pain but are you sure that as a british standard it is legally binding - most are only guidance, albeit pretty good guidance at times, but they are guidance not legal requirements.
as for mocking - ok i'm sorry - i did a bit - and i know i shouldnt but it is good fun. i would add though that maintaining a keen interest may be a bit lacking in 'operational fireys' currently!
-
Sorry trainer, but I disagree with you on certain points.
Firstly, Operational Fireys have more risk critical information to worry about than this depth of knowledge.
In my opinion, it is down to Officers within Operations departments to know this information, but I would bet that whatever the maximum weight is- the sets most brigades have now is much less.
We, as a service have rightly moved away from this sort of information for operational personnel as it is of no real benefit.
I knew (and still remember!) the dimensions of a steel shod lever long before I ever used one, but this depth of knowledge never helped me when I used it!
Don't mean to offend anyone, but even IPDS and assessment centres do not require this information.
If this person needs this info for a specific purpose, then I hope they find it, but if it is just to increase their depth of knowledge, I am sure there is more relevant info they could be checking.
-
British Standards are not themselves legally binding, but that does not mean other legislation cannot make them so (e.g. some fire certificates required compliance with the appropriate BS for fire system & escapelighting maintenance)
Also although they may not be binding in statute, but can be made binding in other ways - contractural requirements, tender spec's, trade body membership, approvals, etc.
So in the case of the BA sets, it's not the BSEN itself that is mandatory, it's more likley to be the government's rules for brigades or for brigade purchasing that requires them to follow it
-
Parhaps this guy's boss is cleverer than we give him credit. By getting him to find out what the max weight is, he has learnt about all sorts of other stuff, useful and otherwise.
-
AntonyB,
What do you mean the BS isn't legally binding. I have been led to believe that it is. So much so that if a landlord furnished a letted property with non BS soft furnishings and a fire resulted in the involvement of the said furnishings that contributed to the death of a tenant then the landlord could be subject to prosecution for specifically failing to provide furniture that met the BS (467 OR 476, I cant remember exactly).
Also where a BS is applicable to the material goods in question i was also led to believe that any manufacturer of the said goods must manufacture the product to the BS or else they would be prevented from legally selling the said goods for failing to meet the BS or the European Standards for that matter.
Can anyone clarify.
-
Burgermuncher.
You have been misinformed. A standard is just a book of words that a bunch of people have agreed to. It only becomes a legal requirement if it is specifically called up in legislation.
However Standards are sometimes used as evidence tending to show that something is iether above or below what is regarded as current best practice.
In the case of the BA set for instance the standard will be used by people buying them. "can I have 200 BA sets complying with BSEN XYZ please".
Its more convenient than each purchaser coming up with their own specificaction.
-
ants post says exactly what youre asking about - bs's may not be legally binding in themselves but the requirement to meet them could be the legally binding bit - so anyone not complying is not liable cos they dont meet the bs, but its because thay dont comply with the requirement to meet the bs - if ive got it right of course?
simple init!
dave bev
-
With respect to furniture it is not the BS that is law, but The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 that require you to follow it.
So to state again:
British Standards & British Standard/European Norms are not themselves law. However other legislation may refer to them in such a way that to comply with the law you follow their requirements, but they still are not law in themselves.
-
Thanks for setting me straight.
-
Frankie
Sorry if you have taken my replies to mean I wish to ridicule any juniors, quite the opposite. My point is that your LFf is doing just that by asking you to find out useless information. You should be receiving meaningful development, knowing the BSEN maximum weight of a BA set is not. I truly believed that we were well past the ridiculous fire service 'know all the technical details' and into true, relevant., development. You DO NOT NEED TO KNOW the maximum weight of a BA set. You DO NEED TO KNOW its duration and how to wear/service it and the procedures for your safety. This is the sort of true development you should be getting. Asking you to go away and find out something that you will never need to know is simply abdicating the LFf's true responsibility, he/she may not actually have enough knowledge/skill to deliver the correct level of development to you, they do appear to be in need of some development themselves.
To emphasise: I truly believe that new joiners are our future, we need to develop them correctly, we do not need to live in the past.
Trainer: if they made BA sets heavier we would have less duration as Ffs became tired more quickly, indeed the change from steel to composite cylinders was done to make sets lighter and reduce the stress on the wearer. This has the potential to reduce air consumption. Think logically!
Billy - thanks for your comments
Hopefully Frankie can see through to the sense here and that we want him/her to develop with the required skills and knowledge. Having such trivialities in their head means they may miss out on the really important information. I too learnt such fascinating facts as the length of a ceiling hook, the weight of a length of hose, the weight of a FWMP, the diameter of a guideline and many, many more. I have never needed any of these and never will. I have used a ceiling hook that was not quite long enough to reach, I couldn't have measured the gap anyway. I have carried two lengths of hose one under each arm, they were heavy and I only had two arms so no matter how light/heavy that was my limitation, I have struggled (with another 3) to manouvere a FWMP I knew it was b***dy heavy, but the weight per person is supposedly less than those two lengths of hose - it is the one-handed/slight squat carrying position that matters. I have never had to use a guideline operationally, though if I ever did I would not care two hoots what its diameter is as long as my line hook went over it.
PS I did know about BS not being legally binding and that it is their mention in any law/regulation that gives them a legal footing! But thanks for the discussion for those that didn't. This may be of benefit to a Ff asked to give advice to the public - Frankie here is some useful info!
-
For those of you thirsting for more knowledge did you know...
The white half moon under your fingernail is an air pocket. No one knows why it's there
A pound of houseflies contains more protein than a pound of beef
Rubber bands last longer when refrigerated
It is impossible to lick your elbow.
A duck's quack doesn't echo, and no one knows why.
And here's a few I haven’t figured out yet so if anyone can help I'd be...well...erm...surprised.
What colour does a Smurf go if it's choking?
If olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?
What was the best thing before sliced bread?
How many people tried to lick their elbow after reading this?
as parting statement I have one last nugget of information which a few on here need to take onboard.
When you fill a firefighter with useless information you WILL get a USELESS FIREFIGHTER !!!
-
Disagree with you on the last point. Who determines what is useful and what is useless? Over the years i have accumulated a great a deal of what others would refer to as useless information. I feel that some use the term 'useless information' in order that they can feel more secure about knowing less than they should do in order to do the job properly and professionally
Some of the information deemed to be useless in the role of Firefighter is extremely useful when it comes to seeking progression or development for another role. So please don't stifle the quest for greater knowledge and understanding by demeaning those who seek it.
It's not that long ago when the measure of a good Firefighter wasn't just how many smoke detectors they could put up in an 8 hour shift but in their ability to competently use their eqpt to the purpose it was intended together with another 20 improvised uses, they had to know its design, construction, advantages and limitations and be able to use it in all conditions of weather and light.
Much of this would now be termed 'useless' in the minds of lesser men and women who have been reared in a dumbed down education system and work culture. To those of us who are still young enough to make a contribution but old enough to know better i say that the ability to gather such information and use it to effective practical use is the one distinguishing factor between those who can regard themselves as true professionals and those who are merely 'pretenders' to the title.
-
ps How many here can remember, or indeed still use the term 'locker drills'.
-
Firefighters should still know the design uses, advantages, limitations and be able to use all the equipment in all expected situations. This is quite explicit in their roles. It is now also expectedthat they should be able tro carry out home risk assessments/fire safety checks. Anyone considering this to be useless information probably carries that nickname themselves.
What is useless is knowing how the stuff was made, how much it weighs, what size it is, what the historical version looked like etc. None of this actually helps in the practical operation.
Advancement of knowledge is never to be put down, but I don't want firefighters studying that which will be on no benefit. There are many things they can work at, for advancement, or for simple CPD. The maximum weight of something is not one of them. We are well past such triviality and into understanding the correct role of our staff.
I still use locker drills to ensure staff know where all the equipment is. Most of it gets only rare use so this is vital.
-
I think one can never know too much.
Why just over a month ago this very point was shown.
We were making sweet mince pies on station. Unfortunately our plastic pastry cutter (BS EN 7721) had failed its periodic inspection. But fear not, all was not lost. Using my immense, knowledge crammed noggin, I recalled quick as a flash the large end of our railway horn was exactly 7.2cm in diameter. The day was saved. Doyle crafted our pie lids and for weeks afterwards people could be heard saying "those lads really know their stuff !!!”
Well all except one, who pointed out I still can't fill in an Entry Control Board properly. Personally I think he was just trying to make himself feel more secure!
Roll on the assessment centres I say.
-
Will someone please enlighten me..... Why exactly do we have BS's then....?
I have actually learnt a whole load about other "more useful" things. For a start I wouldn't have found this forum.....
I think it was a cracking question to ask me..... now I know more than i did..... I think that the guys who just want to "DO" and not "LEARN" ought to watch themselves in this technological day and age.... they'll be replaced..... probably by robots who do the same thing.... over and over again, or even by paperweights....
:o)
-
B & D,
I would be asking your employer why are you even carrying railway horns. Making the lids on the pies is probably the best use for them given that we as an organisation shouldn't be putting any member of a crew inside the permanent way to act as a lookout.
Or is it useless info for any Firefighter to know the reasons why we should not.
-
..........our plastic pastry cutter (BS EN 7721) had failed its periodic inspection.............
So your plastic pastry cutter complies with BS EN ISO 7721-2:1995 "Countersunk flat head screws. Penetration depth of cross recesses"
Quite amazing! :D:D:D
-
hahahahahaha...yoooooou guys.
I bet those long winter nightshifts just fly by.
I've had a word with my 'professional' colleagues Bodie & Doyle.
Apparently they were referring to the BS (Bull Sh*t) number, something to do with not really caring about useless information. Furthermore it turns out the Railway horn in question is nowhere near 7.2cm (closer to 7.4cm really).
Lookouts! Permanent way! Are you mad...we use the horns for school visits to entertain the kids. Gives them something to do with their mouths in case they ask us questions like "how heavy is your fire engine"
As for robots Frankie...I think they're already among us.
-
Don't know where CI5 are coming from on this one. If they are trying to make a point they might do well to spell it out in plain English. I tried to draw them into a constructive debate on distinguishing between need to know (as in railway procedures), nice to know (as in technical specs) and no need to know (as in pastry cutters). But it seems they may lack the procedural or technical know how to enage constructively or competently.
-
Been on holiday and forgot all about this daft thread.
Constructive debate? don't kid yourself...lol
***"But it seems they may lack the procedural or technical know how to engage constructively or competently."***
I bet your a popular trainer with the troops :)
I think you've been in the training department just a tad too long. It's time you went back to being operational not decorational.
And if I know Training Subs like I know Training Subs, you'll definitely be back to have the last word!
I, however, won't be :P
-
You know your training Subs but you don't know me. 13 years w/t operational and 3 yrs trainer. 5 and a half years on the run as a watch commander. Experience in 3 different Brigades in 2 different countries. Entered training to balance out the bull**** you refer to that i was bombarded with from some trainers and other personnel with little expertise who either knew all about the books but very little about reality or who cultivated a degree of dubious respect by the telling of 20 yr old tales of derring-do over the brew table. If you care to read my contributions in other areas of the forum you might get a better feel for what i am and where i am coming from. I believe my contributions in the main tend to be underpinned by a degree of skill, knowledge, understanding and experience not on sarcasm and demeaning statements designed to undermine those who seek to make constructive contributions.
I feel i am fairly well thought of by both colleagues and students a statement borne out by the ample evidence i have retained in the form of character references and most importantly the students own course evaluations. You shall probably gain some form of shallow self comfort from the fact that yes i did try and get the last word in. However to make snide insinuations in the manner that you did in my mind warrants a reply to address the balance and prove you wrong at least in my own shallow mind. Remember that an ill informed opinion is no opinion at all.
'Keep it real keep it safe for fortune favours the skilled.'
-
In fact, suffocation is the third leading cause of death among smurfs. The problem is that when choking, smurfs remain blue, and thus no one can tell that they are choking and that they need the Heimlich maneuver.
-
I too have fallen foul of this little known fact when I recieved a black eye from a rather pissed off Smurf who was simply taking a nap.
Easy mistake!!!!!
-
The wherra****awe tribe in Africa are so named because the pampas grass surrounding their village is 5 feet high and they are only 4 1/2 feet tall so they have to jump up and shout .....................!
-
thought the spelling ended arewe.............no doubt a typo Billy?
-
Fireftrm
No typo error. As you are no doubt aware us Scots travelled far and wide to try and educate the rest of the world up to our standard!
David Livingstone done missionary work in Africa and obviously the tribe picked up some of the Glaswegian lingo!
Just as well it wasn't a missionary from the North East of England or they could have been called the Wherra****arewehthelads tribe- Doesn't have the same ring to it!!!
-
Ah but the tribe I knew was the wheretheferkarewee, so as to make a nice pronounciation!