FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Billy on February 03, 2010, 07:27:45 PM
-
I know we have had this discussion before but it seems that some people just bury their heads in the sand where Guidelines are concerned and hope that it wont happen to their Service or anyone they know. What really gets me is the fact that we all know what the problems are with Guidelines and I believe we have the solution in front of us but the will is not there to take action to solve the problems.
The main problem with guidelines is the securing of them within buildings and this is the one that I believe leaves most services exposed and could be resolved relatively easily.
All fire services carry out Operational Risk Assessments (ORA’s) so crews know the risks to fire-fighters within buildings should a fire occur. Your Services legal department if you have one will be able to explain the importance of these ORA’s should a fire occur in the building and a fire-fighter gets severely injured, or worse.
Within my service, we have a section on the ORA, which we have to fill in if there is a disorientation hazard within the premises. Now although we log the disorientation hazard, we do not give a list of appropriate control measures for this hazard. On questioning crews within stations they have stated that a guideline is an approved control method for a disorientation risk within a building and some can even quote the old fire service manuals which described when we used guidelines. (for those new to the job, the fire service manuals covered everything you need to know technically about fires, they even talked about a subject called building construction and stuff and yes they came in an A5 size book and not on a DVD).
Now if you consider the reason we do ORA’s is solely for the safety of Fire crews- how many services actually log on an ORA if they can safely secure a guideline within a building?
This is compounded by the fact that most people would not use guidelines at an incident because we all know we cannot properly secure them inside the building!!
So I know this might be a radical idea but see if we all know what the problem is- do you not think we should try and sort it?
The following suggestion in my opinion would resolve the problem and ensure that all fire services carried out accurate ORA’s to reflect the risks and hazards within the buildings and pass them onto the fire crews and building owners.
During an ORA, in a building where there is an identified disorientation hazard, the crews would then look at the layout of the building to see if Guidelines could be safely used and secured within the building. If they could be used and secured, it will be logged within the ORA and any crews who may attend an incident there will know that guidelines can be used safely and properly. If they cannot be used safely, this will be highlighted to the owner and they will have 2 choices.
1. fit securing devices so we can use our equipment safely or
2. Do not fit them and we will log it in our ORA that we cannot use them.
At least this way the OIC will know when they turn up if it is safe to use guidelines or not and we have done a suitable and sufficient assessment of the premises.
The initial tests done within the Service have shown the following:
Securing a guideline within a building using a conventional knot uses about 1.5 to 2 metres of line and takes anything from 30 seconds to 1 minute to tie in daylight conditions.
Securing the guideline using the new securing mechanism uses 20 cm of line and takes 10 seconds in simulated fire conditions wearing BA.
Another surprising outcome was that when one team tied the guideline to an object in the conventional manner and another used the new design, the team who used the new design got the same distance within the building using 50% less air.
Further tests will be done in at our training centre and we will look at the outcomes.
I would be pleased if people would look at the comments above and give me feedback on their opinion of the proposals. I would be grateful if anyone could give a valid reason for not looking at this and in my opinion cost should not be an issue for the following reasons:
if we work on the premise that any fire is a failure in the risk assessment within the premises,
We fit emergency lighting and fire exit signs in buildings to protect the public.
We fit smoke suppression and detection systems to protect the public
We fit sprinklers and fire escapes to protect the public.
All these for a fire that shouldn’t happen, but we accept it.
But heaven forbid we suggest something that will be solely for the safety of fire crews should a fire happen.
Furthermore, the owners will have a choice whether to fit them or not and if they decide not to, they will know that we wont use all our equipment at our disposal within their premises- simples….
Too many firefighters are being seriously injured or worse in large commercial premises and anything that makes it safer for us to do our job should be considered.
Let the debate begin.
:) :)
These posts are my own personal opinion and should not be taken as the views of my Fire and Rescue Service.
-
Interesting subject Billy, I know that the German Fire Service Institute in Munster is working with the German authorities and the Cologne Fire Service to work out an electronic solution to this problem. I have recently been in touch with a colleague there to get more information and hopefully be allowed to visit them and see first hand how this new system will work. If you PM me I will send you details as and when I get them.
Kaiser
-
Yes Billy, interesting topic. However I would suggest we go back to the basics. The purpose of the old Fire Precautions Act and the Fire Safety Order is to ensure that people who are inside the building when a fire starts are able to escape unaided. (Let us ignore residential homes for the minute). The legislation does not deal with preventing damage to the building, as far as the law is concerned the building can burn to the ground but as long as no-one is injured or killed God is in his heaven and everything is OK.
Given that why are the firefighters entering the building at all?
-
Exactly. No one to save no need to enter. Guidelines are so far down the hierarchy of risk controls that we should never consoder their use. Great for laying around the woods and blidfolding kids to follow them, or as washing lines. Otherwise? No FRS should carry them. Having building occupiers fit clip points to 'help' us use something so dangerous and pointless ? God no!!!! If the Fire Safety officer finds that the building design/use has the potential to lead to lives requiring rescue by a guideline search (though how anyone would ever live long enough in so badly smoke logged, fire under control, to be saved by a BA guideline search I know not) they should use enforcement powers to prevent its use, until it is made safe for people to escape. When we arrive then all we need do is pour water through openings, unless we can use BA safely without the need for guidelines or other controls.
-
Kaiser
Thanks for that - anything that could be of benefit in this area will be greatly appreciated.
Mike
Thanks for your comments. What i'm trying to highlight is the fact that Services carry out ORA's in potentially dangerous buildings, if they are involved in a fire, and dont even check if we can use our equipment in them.
I thought we carried out ORA's to protect Fire crews who risk their lives in these types of buildings.
These proposals would help the OIC greatly as they would know where they could and couldn't use guidelines.
On your point that we can let buildings burn down and all is well under the legislation is already affecting us in the UK for the following reason:
Now I know I am a bit of a dinosaur but I joined the job to fight fires and save lives if needed. furthermore, I thought that one of the key aspects of Risk Assessment I always used was "We will take a reduced risk in a highly calculated manner to save, saveable property".
It might be cold and wet in Scotland and our buildings may be different but the roofs and walls are made watertight, whether it is from rain or a jet of water from the outside, they are designed so that water runs off them and the inside stays dry, especially if they are on fire.
If we work on the premise that fireftrm says ,Quote: "NO ONE TO SAVE, NO NEED TO ENTER" we will do 2 things.
1. We will greatly increase the amount of car parks throughout the UK and in doing so will greatly affect the lives of countless employees who no longer have any premises left (except for 1 NCP shed per site)
1. The worst thing is that we will totally ignore the experiences of good fire crews who were previously dealing with this type of fire in these buildings day and daily and actually putting them out. When we do this we not only erode the experience of crews but we totally demoralise and demotivate them as well. So when we get a similar building on fire and heaven forbid, anyone is in it- the crews will have no experience to fall back on and I personally think we are starting to see the consequences of this.
Fireftrm
It is patently obvious from your posts that you have never actually managed to use a guideline properly and have witnessed the benefits they can give to fire crews if used properly. Have you had a bad experience at training school when you got tangled ip in one and couldn't get out. ?
You always say that they are dangerous and pointless when what you really should be saying is that the incorrect use of them is dangerous and pointless, in the same way that incorrect branch techniques/ BA search procedures and Gas cooling techniques are dangerous and pointless.
Anyway, your Service must have got rid of guidelines by now as over 3 years ago you posted on here stating that "your service were actively seeking to remove them from appliances" Surely if they were so dangerous and pointless this would have happened as a matter of urgency.. ;D ;D ;D
These posts are my own personal opinion and are not meant to be representative of the views of my service
-
Billy,
I got halfway through my last message and then got hauled off to do something else. I was one of the dinosaurs and I agree with the attitude you take, however there are two factors that have come into play since I joined the service.
The first is the general attitude to Health and Safety which is used to stop people doing things as opposed to its real role which is to make people do things safely. I am afraid your first post shows this when you say that although you carry out ORAs and you correctly identify the hazards but then you do not identify the controls needed to deal with the hazards. I don't know what your legal department says but in my view this leaves your brigade wide open to action if something goes wrong. Would your Fire Safety Department accept a Fire Risk Assessment that identifies a hazard and then does not say what needs to be done about it?
The second is the construction of modern buildings particularly industrial ones. Today most of these are almost disposable, the general idea is that if you buy a industrial site you first bulldoze what is there and then throw up a factory as cheaply as possible. Compare these to the older prewar buildings where you could work underneath a fire doing salvage work relatively safely, in fact we had equipment to drill through the ceilings to let the water out and catch it in hoppers to prevent damage to the rest of the building.
These factors and the general attitude to the fire service from the government and the unions in my view have led to the deskilling of the service leading to the problem you find yourself in now.
-
I’m with Billy and if you are dinosaur then I must be the primeval soup. Those who wish to get rid of guidelines what happens if you arrive at a large smoke filled hotel and confronted with persons unaccounted for, do you just leave them to their fate. If you decide to have a go without the assistance of guidelines then check out http://www.fire.org.uk/FireNet/ba.php especially Covent Garden and RAF Neatishead.
-
PPV, TIC, Fire Safety measures..........................
Guidelines are form the primordial soup and should crawl back in. There is no example that I can think of where they are a suitable safe control.
Smoke filled hotel? Then deal with the fire and ventilate! Guidelines laid, searched off and then what? As it will be an hour + before the rooms have been searched the fire will have either a) killed everyone, or b) been out for ages. The safe and correct way to dela with this = fire fighting and search and rescue, using BA teams with TICs (if required) or PPV. The corridors will have smoke and fore resistant doors across long corridors and all rooms will have FR doors too with fire detection. If the residents are all still in their rooms and we end up laying a guideline then normal fire safty measures have failed, all our normal response procedures have failed and we are into the fantasy land of rescue by string.
I thnak god that the dinosaurs are extinct in my reality. The alternative universe that Billy and twsutton live in kills people by its inability to see.
-
I thought that one of the key aspects of Risk Assessment I always used was "We will take a reduced risk in a highly calculated manner to save, saveable property".
Quote: "NO ONE TO SAVE, NO NEED TO ENTER"
Yes we need to provide firefighters with the tools to do the job safely and in my opinion this must include all the kit that you all mention and decent wayfinding systems. Guidelines were all we had for many years and they are fraught with problems especially that they slow you down so much in making your egress.
There really is no excuse for their remaining in use in 2010. When security guards have the technology to see through our clothes and when the American air force can direct a bomb into a bunker hatch by remote control we should not need to lay a piece of string to use as our guide to save our fire fighters lives. Its down to inertia at all levels and a lack of investment in proper Safe Systems of Work.
Firefighting is by its nature a dangerous occupation. How many deaths have arisen from the use or failure to use guidelines? As an electon looms it prompts me to ask what value the Politicians place on a firefighters life?
Is there any difference in expectations, tolerance of fire fighter losses or attitude to investment between the Political Parties?
-
fireftrm it goes without saying you would be firefighting at the same time as searching and if all these wonderful control measures you high lighted worked it would not be smoke logged and no need for guide lines. If it was found that guidelines were never required then there would be case of getting shut. But I suspect there are many large complicated premises were they could be require but if smoke logged building are a thing of the past then I stand corrected.
Kurnal I agree and if there is state of the art wayfinding system that is better than guide lines then use it instead. If you check out the link above you will see a number of fatalies because guide lines were not used or available to them.
-
If There is a state of the art wayfinding system that is better than guidelines then we should use it, but at this point there isn't.
So why dont we use what we have correctly.
Fireftrm
You mention a "smoke filled hotel" with all the appropriate precautions in place- what you went on to describe was everything that Rosepark Nursing home had in place.
Nuff said...
Oh- and you still haven't explained why your Service still has Guidelines when you know they dont work- maybe they disagree with you on this one. ???
-
Interesting debate!
My view is that whilst guidelines are still carried on those big red lorries they should be used properly, and safely.
Many of you have pointed out that this is the 21st Century and that technological advances should have consigned guidelines to the big brigade bin in the sky long ago. However guidelines are still with us and crews still train on their use. I suspect there is good rerason for this.
Whilst some would say satisfactory fire precautions in premsies should, in theory, mean that fire service intervention will be minimised and rescues will almost be a thing of a past and that fire will be detected, contained and suppressed quickly, the reality is that life isn't quite like that, and accidents will always happen.
So if anyone can guarantee that an incident wont go belly up or that we will never ever have another huge fire in a large sprawling building with multiple persons trapped, or that there is a better alternative to guidelines out there which is cost effective, is small enough to be carried on one of those fire engine things and allows crews undertaking SAR to quickly resume searches when another crew has come out of the building then I'll happily listen to it!
-
I cannot imagine a hotel where every fire safety measure has failed, where the fire is out, or uder control, where the smoke logging is such that no one can get out of their rooms and where a guideline will be a safe means of then getting around. Twsutton will have firefighting gear as well as carrying out a search, great and to be expected. So why lay a guideline? Follow the hose. You cannot serioulsy expect that laying a guideline will help? Explain how and how this can be done quickly enough to kee up with offensive firefighting and help SAVE lives?
Guidelines were used to rescue the living at Rosepark?
We have PPV, we have hose, we have fire safety measures, we have TICs we have no need for string
My service is examining the removal of guidelines......................
-
fireftrm I used a hotel as an example because it can be complicated and I agree it is unlikely that guidelines would be required in that situation. It is more likely to be a basement or underground type incident like the Covent Garden or RAF Neatishead was. I also agree it is a rare situation when they are needed but if they are then they are essential for crews to find their way out safely.
I wasn’t suggesting one crew did everything it would be a number of crews which was the norm in major incidents or it was at the jobs I attended. It is not essential it should be laid out quickly it should be done methodically and follow up the fire fighting crew maybe in a four man team. If things go pear shaped then the crews at least can find their way out and if properly trained it can be effective.
As for using hose it was the standard procedure until Covent Garden which was one of the reasons why two of our colleagues died.
Does each crew who are committed have a TIC with them and does it have a homing device that shows the way out?
If guidelines were used at Rosepark then maybe that was a mistake but I do not know the full details of that incident and the Oic should be certain that they are necessary before committing to their use.
I still say you should stay with them until a better wayfinding system is produced for those smoke logged incidents.
-
I agree with your points, to a point. I am glad that you don't think that a hotel, or nursing home would be good examples of where guidelines would be suitable. However, you use Covent Garden as a rationale for guidelines. Perhaps we can examine the report into that fire, which did lead to the string line being adopted:
i.No guidelines - Hose used for this purpose was difficult to trace in the deepening water which eventually reached four feet in depth. (could you imagine us having such quantities of water used and, if we did, crews exposed to it today?)
ii.Men worked alone - In trying to rescue a colleague, one fireman became so exhausted he barely made it back to street level to summon assistance. As it happened he collapsed and vital minutes were lost in the rescue attempt. (we always work in pairs now, guidelines would not help!)
iii.No recording and supervising procedures for men entering and leaving the incident in BA.(we now have ECO and some services have telemetry)
iv.No method of summoning assistance in an emergency as with present day DSU. (we have now and some have telemetry)
v.Communications were bad to non-existent - These consisted of signals or as was often practised, the mouthpiece was removed thereby allowing the ingress of toxic products into the respiratory tract. (radios...............)
vi.No minimum charging pressure for BA cylinders. Many were only 2/3 full. (80% minimum rule........)
vii.No low cylinder pressure warning device. (we now have a 10 min safety margin, ECO and some even have telemetry)
viii.Many donned BA but did not start up until it was absolutely essential by which time they had taken in quantities of smoke and gases which had its effects. It would appear that an ability to “eat smoke” and the time taken to service sets were contributing factors in this procedure. (not the procedure today)
So Covent Garden does not show why we need guidelines, indeed all the other , modern practices would negate a need.
May I refer the readers to Gillnder Street and Staple Hill Supermarket fires? In bith cases guidelines were used, uneccessarily, and were contributory to the deaths of three firefighters.
-
I agree with fireftrm's comments although we should not forget that guidelines are a consideration of the Incident Commander to ensure safe systems of work are employed.
They originate from the tragedies of fire fighter deaths at the incidents mentioned, but have also contributed to them, such as at Gillender Street.
They are used (a) to enable a team of BA wearers to retrace their steps to the entry point, (b) to enable subsequent teams to locate a team of BA wearers, and (c) enable subsequent teams to locate the scene of operations.
Being realistic, a safe system of work may be to adopt defensive firefighting and not commit crews, even when there may be persons reported - a decision which is difficult and contraversial - but where the situation is right, subject to dynamic risk asessment, crew briefing etc etc, guidleines may have to be used 'on the instructions of the Incident Commander' to quote TB1/97
There is a nice list of considerations to work through too .... so it won't be a rash decision.
The successful use will depend on crews experience, following the local SOP's in their use, but also being well trained. That raises the question of how many times do crews train with guidelines and run through the procedures in place?
-
In addition to the shortcomings Billy highlighted, Gillender Street raises another problem marking of guidelines or would adequate training resolve this. Check out http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/justice-public-order/106169-1.html
-
I for one am not convinced that having something crimped onto the line is a good idea. The report identifies that the directional arrows can be easily replaced, but in the hostile environment of an incident, there is potential for more of them to detach or be ripped off. This would surely place crews at greater risk as they would have to follow more line to find the next marker ..... which could be the wrong way for them which requires them to double back. This could add to the wear time and place the BA team at risk, particularly if air is low.
The current tabs are part of the line, being spliced in and allow for the snap hook of the personal line to run over them. Surely a device crimped to the line will require bigger snap hooks or the wearers to continually unattach and reattach to the line? What are the cost implications of that to services who are already facing budget cuts?
Why re-invent the thing?
I think the use of guidelines is a training issue .... issues arise as procedures are not practised on a regular basis as they aren't used operationally that often. In fact in my lengthy career, I've only used them once!
This coupled with all the other demand placed on crews makes training difficult.
-
You have hit the nail on the head BM. Gillender street was an unforgiveable cock up which resulted in the deaths of two firefighters needlessly. That wasnt through the fault of guidelines , it was through th epeople who laid them which goes back to the lack of training. Guidleines are perfectly fine if used properly. The fact is we dont use them much and forget how to use them in the right way. Ive only ever been on two jobs where guidelines were used in a 30 year career. Luckily my crew didnt have to lay it. So dont knock guidelines knock the training and procedures which have caused problems in the past. What is the current alternative? And sorry did I hear someone say we dont have big fires in hotels? Then what was Penhallow all about? Granted guidelines werent used there, but it does show what can happen despite being in the 21st century.
-
Baldyman
Good points but I would like to clarify some of them: The indicator tabs are capable of being jumped on by fire crews and not breaking (not quite firefighter proof, but nothing is) and have been tested by a line tester to see if they would slide along the guideline. They required a force of 40Kg before they moved and would stop at the next one, although we could come up with no reason why a 40 Kg sideways force would ever be applied to it anyway.
In Strathclyde we have recently amended our PPE procedures in relation to Guidelines as crews can now take off their gloves to tie the knots and to feel the tabs as long as they carry out a DRA first.
In my opinion this either means the gloves are faulty or the marking of the guidelines are not up to standard. Since the report from Gillender street and the Fire Experimental Unit have both agreed that the marking could be improved, I tend to agree with them.
This means that we are accepting a piece of equipment that does not fully operate with the required PPE that we use. Would we allow Fire Crews to use cutting gear or extend ladders without their gloves on just because it might be easier- I dont think so, but we seem to accept all the problems with guidelines and even reduce our PPE to try and overcome them.
These comments are my own personal opinion and are not meant to be representative of my Service.
-
Billy,
While I appreciate the points you raise about the outcomes of testing and research, I'm a firm believer in the old addage of 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it'.
Guidelines have been in use for many years and mostly with no significant incident. Procedures exist for their use in TB1/07 and individual Service SOP's based on it.
Many Services have amended procedures to allow for the fire-fighting gloves issue, it's a knock on of giving us modern PPE and I'd like to think that the crews are putting gloves back on after they have tied the knots.
I would also say that there is not a problem with the guidelines, it's those using them with inadequate training and procedural knowledge.
I have to ask you to consider a simple question. In the current position of central Government likely to cut Fire and Rescue Service funding, which is the better and more financially beneficial option:-
i) Buy new guidelines, rewrite procedures and retarain all personnel, or;
ii) Provide suitable training in guideline procedures?
Personally, I think it's a no-brainer, but thats just my opinion.
-
Baldyman
You have said that "if it isn't broke, dont fix it" but one of the main outcomes of all the Gillender Street reports was that a better marking system should be considered. I do totally agree with you on the training issue and believe, like you that if we train more with them, we should be able to use them more safely than we do at present.
As a bit of background to the new guideline design, I carried out extensive research and used the most important people in this whole debate- the fire crews who actually use guidelines.!!!
I carried out presentations to Wholetime Retained and Training Centre personnel from all over Strathclyde and also every other Scottish Fire Service and had over 200 questionnaires filled in with a 99% approval rate of the new design. I received endorsements from the Fire Experimental Unit at Moreton who said that if they had trialed this design a number of years earlier, they believed all UK services would be using it by now.
I am still currently selling the indicator tabs world-wide with repeat orders so whilst I agree that some of these countries have never used guidelines before, some have and have decided to change to the new design.
The cynic in me has made me concede that I really no longer care whether the UKFRS use a guideline that 99% of crews who were involved in the trials said it was better and safer than the current one in use (what do they know anyway…!)
This post was never about guideline design but more about how all services carry out ORA’s and don’t check and see if we can use any sort of guideline in a building where we may have to - possibly contravening the ethos of risk assessment..
That is the main topic I was highlighting
This is my own personal opinion and is not meant to reflect the opinion of my employer.
-
Baldyman
I carried out presentations to Wholetime Retained and Training Centre personnel from all over Strathclyde and also every other Scottish Fire Service and had over 200 questionnaires filled in with a 99% approval rate of the new design.
With all due respect Billy, that's a small percentage of the overall numbers of firefighters who would be using guidelines at incidents.
The cynic in me has made me concede that I really no longer care whether the UKFRS use a guideline that 99% of crews who were involved in the trials said it was better and safer than the current one in use (what do they know anyway…!)
Again, with respect, the end users, while agreeing it is better don't consider the financial implications of provision and training of the kit.
This post was never about guideline design but more about how all services carry out ORA’s and don’t check and see if we can use any sort of guideline in a building where we may have to - possibly contravening the ethos of risk assessment..
I think you'll find that within this thread, there are numerous references to when guidleines are used, who initiates their use and the guidance that that backs it all.
The bottom line is, that successful use still depends on the competence of the crews using them and the control procedures in place, not just for use, but for monitoring during the incident and re-evaluating the risk assessment.
-
Have to agree with Baldyman. The main issue here is definately training. I cant see any major leaps forward progressing from guide lines.
-
Baldyman
I will cover your points as you have listed them
With regards to the small percentage as you say, This was a cross section of Fire crews from W/T RDS and training centre staff from Scottish services and also Training centre staff and BA teams from moreton. Whilst it is a small percentage of end users, in my opinion it is an accurate and varied group and I feel that it is totally representative. I cannot think of it changing greatly if more crews were involved.
In relation to the financial implications of provision of training and kit and you rightly stating that even though the crews think it is better but they dont consider cost, I think you will also find that the HSE report into Gillender Street where it stated that "a better method of marking the guidelines and branch Lines should be sought" also was more concerned with crew safety than cost.
I have stated that this is not about guideline design and you say that within this post it is mentioned Quote:” numerous references to when guidelines are used, who initiates their use and the guidance that that backs it all"
All the things you have mentioned are irrespective of whether you use the current guideline or the new design.
It doesn’t matter if you are the best trained in the world with guidelines and you train and use them day and daily, if you turn up to a building and you have no means of securing that guideline within the building- guidelines are totally useless.
More importantly if you have carried out an ORA in that building, highlighted a disorientation risk (for which Guidelines are a recognised control measure) and have not checked to see if you can secure them, I think at the very least you are unprofessional, and at worst negligent.
This is my own personal opinion and should not be taken as the views of my Service
-
Billy
Are you bitter or just twisted. The whole idea of doing site risk survey as it is called now or 11d inspections as it was in my day is to highlight operational issues like this. Baldyman isn't being negligent at all.By the sounds of it either you or your brigade is. Perhaps you have a training need if you dont know what to do if there are no tying off points available for guidelines because to me it sure as hell doesn't seem you know what the hell you are talking about. Maybe thats why you always state your views are your own and not that of your brigade.
-
I think I agree with C3 on this, but maybe in a more diplomatic fashion.
From my experience what is missing are the three Rs - Training, Training, Training.
I have been a Brigade BA trainer and a BA training recipient. Meaningfull BA training of firefighters was only carried out every 3 years. I say meaningfull because proper facilities, as one finds in a training centre, are not available to all for regular training.
Anytime the guidelines were brought out there was the inevitable comedy of errors. The only thing that was learned was to avoid using guidelines wherever possible.
-
Clevelandfire 3
How am I being bitter and twisted ?
You said Quote: "The whole idea of doing site risk survey as it is called now or 11d inspections as it was in my day is to highlight operational issues like this"
Are you then telling me that when you inspect a premises and you have a disorientation risk where you may use guidelines, you actually "highlight" whether you can use them safely or not?
Under risk assessment to "highlight" any issue is insuffiecient unless you also put down some sort of control measures.
Quote:"Baldyman isn't being negligent at all.By the sounds of it either you or your brigade is. Perhaps you have a training need if you dont know what to do if there are no tying off points available for guidelines because to me it sure as hell doesn't seem you know what the hell you are talking about"
Firstly, I never accused Baldyman of being negligent and was making a generalisation.
I know it might be stating the obvious but what do you do if you have no tie off points for guidelines because you say i Dont know what I am talking about. Are you implying you would try and tie them off and then stop using them if you found no tie-off points
Personally, I would like to know even before I went to use them in a building if I could use them safely or not but that's just silly old me.
You have still never answered the question of how training solves the problem when you cannot tie them off in buildings.
Nearlythere
As a Brigade BA trainer, did you work in your training centre, and if so did your Brigade have to fit door handles to their BA chambers so they could use guidelines safely?
And as you state, Guidelines were they a "comedy of errors" was this because you could never tie them off properly any where else but in the training centre?
And finally, Clevelandfire 3,if I have to explain why I always state that these are my own personal opinions and should not be taken as the views of my service then it seems that you dont know what you are talking about, not me.
-
Billy,
If you are marketing a device, then good for you.
If you are a serving fire-fighter, then you really are missing the point here.
When buildings are visited under 7(2)(d) of the Fire & Rescue Services Act, it is for the purpose of risk information. That is the risks on site which determine whether an operational plan is required and also to familiarise crews with access, water supplies and location of significant hazards that may need specific actions.
It is almost impossible to determine whether crews will become disorientated in a premises as you can't actually tell how conditions will be inside during a fire. That is clearly an unknown quantity.
As part of the risk assessment, control measure identified would be 'consider the use of guidelines' or 'utilise defensive firefighting'
As for tying off, there is no need for specific tie off points. There are recognised techniques for tying off, what can be used as a tie off point and the type of knot to be used ........ which starnge as it seems stems back to appropriate training.
There are specific criteria for guideline use and I suggest you obtain a copy of TB 1/97 and familiarise yourself with the sections covering their use in terms of command and control and procedures.
-
Baldyman
You say that I am missing the point but then you say things that I cannot help but disagree with.
Quote from Baldyman:"It is almost impossible to determine whether crews will become disorientated in a premises as you can't actually tell how conditions will be inside during a fire. That is clearly an unknown quantity"
We have buildings in Strathclyde that are "Rabbit Warrens" and people get confused and lost in normal conditions, never mind in smoke, so I think that during a fire, you could get disorientated quite easily.
Quote from Baldyman:"As for tying off, there is no need for specific tie off points. There are recognised techniques for tying off, what can be used as a tie off point and the type of knot to be used ........ which starnge as it seems stems back to appropriate training.
I strongly disagree with this as the key to my whole post is the definitive need for tie-off points.
It doesn't matter if crews know how to tie off and where to tie off if there is nothing in the building to tie off to.!! All the training in the world will not allow a guideline to be laid properly if there are no suitable tie off points.
And thanks for reminding me about TB 1/97, paragraph (d) on page 16 which states
"The guideline is to be secured to suitable objects at intervals on the route by other members of the guideline team. tie off points need not be close together but at sufficient intervals to keep the line off the ground. The line is to be made secure on the side of search and the crossing over from one side to another is to be avoided as far as possible"
Just a quick question, how many internal corners in modern day buildings have a suitable tie off point for guidelines?
If you familiarise yourself with TB 1/97 you will also be aware that it it does not tell you which knots to use, what you tie the line off to and what to do if there are no tie-off points, all this is down to local Operational notes.
I feel some of the last posts have veered off the initial topic so I will ask specific questions to try and get my point over.
1.When crews in your Service carry out an ORA in certain buildings, do you consider the possibility that you may have to use guidelines in it if it was on fire.?
2. If the answer is yes, do you check to see if you can safely use them as per TB 1/97 (thanks for reminding me Baldyman).
3. If the answer is NO to one or both of these questions, do you believe that a suitable and sufficient ORA has been done for this building?
Simples!!!
This is my own personal opinion and should not be taken as the views of my Service
-
Hiya Billy
In answers to your questions:
1/ Yes
2/ Yes
3/ Hopefully, depends on how competent the people doing the assessments are.
On the issue of no tie off points - I have seen very few places where this would be an issue. There are of course buildings out there where places to tie off are few and far between, leading to the possibility of slack guidelines etc, but no tie of points at all?
The problem comes when negotiating corners potentially, but again it comes down to training training training.
My BA probationary training was incredibly intense, and our instructors were very very strict about guideline techniques (as you would expect). The problem came that once on station we just didnt practice guidelines at all.
I sympathise with your comments and appreciate you are trying to be proactive and make life better and easier for the ops crews, but unfortunately we come across situations do not fit the guide book. Now weigh that against the times we actually use guidelines and you have to balance how big the problem really is.
When they come up against a scenario which doesn't fit SOPs or guidebooks crews and commanders need to employ a little firefightership to get round the issue. (I believe firefightership is still allowed in a few brigades - well atleast until management completely stamp it out of course)
No realworld replacements are as yet available for guidelines, and until they are the status quo is retained.
In the meantime training, and other equipment at our disposal, can assist us in getting by safely until something else comes along. If that doesn't happen then Im afraid serious questions have to be asked of the crews and commanders involved.
-
Billy,
You seem very hung up on the need for tie off points. What were you taught during training?
If you're telling me that there is never anything to tie off to, then I'm staggered. There are techniques for using a door jamb as a means of securing the line, and, if a room has been searched, the door handle may be used as an indicator and tie off.
At a corner, the line shouldn't be tight anyway and it's permissable to allow the line to go round it without being tied off.
In answer to your questions and to keep you happy,
1) Yes - I'm sure I mentioned before that they are a control measure to reduce risk and would be recorded as 'consider the use', subject to a dynamic risk assessment.
2) No, I would refer to my services SOP for Breathing Apparatus.
I take it you are a qualified risk assessor and fully understand what 'suitable and sufficient' means when carrying out ORA's?
I also agree with Midland's comment about using common sense and fire-fightership .... and proper dynamic risk assessment.
-
Baldyman/Midland McMidland
Thanks for your comments and I really do value your honest views and opinions on this subject.
Our training centre has had to fit tie off points so we can use and safely tie off guidelines properly.
I was directly involved in 2 off-site training buildings which were unoccupied and were generously given to our area to be used predominately for BA training. One was an old hospital building of single storey construction, 10m by 40m and consisting of about 8 rooms. The other was a single storey unoccupied industrial unit of about 40m by 20m. it had a large open area within which was an office area consisting of about 6 rooms. Both buildings were ideal for training with guidelines but before we could, we had to fit door handles to allow us to use them properly. I have a NEBOSH and so has the Area trainer who is also a BAI and we both agreed that we could not safely deploy guidelines in any of these buildings without fitting tie off points. These buildings are the type of building that we could get called to and have to make the decision, in certain circumstances, if we would use guidelines or not.
Now imagine a situation where you not only have to make a decision to use guidelines, but you also do not know if you can secure them properly in the building.
So with that in mind, I think I could easily justify NOT using guidelines within a building.
But if I ever get called to court and have to justify why I didn't use them, it would be ok until the man in the curly wig pulls out the ORA and asks me why I have rightly included a disorientation risk but failed to check if i can safely use one of our recognised control measures.
Again, I thank all concerned for their comments, and even though we can agree to disagree on certain things, one thing seems certain and that is that we all want what is best and safest for Fire crews.
This is my own personal opinion and should not be taken as the views of my Service
-
So you're talking about buildings used for training then?
I still don't agree with having to provide tie off points. Training should be undertaken in realistic scenarios which is closely supervised. Providing tie off points isn't going to teach recruits anything, they could come to expect them in areal incident.
Just a question, How do you search a large open space? How are you fire fighters taught?
-
So you're talking about buildings used for training then?
I still don't agree with having to provide tie off points. Training should be undertaken in realistic scenarios which is closely supervised. Providing tie off points isn't going to teach recruits anything, they could come to expect them in areal incident.
Just a question, How do you search a large open space? How are you fire fighters taught?
I think the Training Centre environment, which provides an abundance of tie off points, is fine as it enables teams to practice proper procedures and familiarises with tying off, so long as it is acknowledged that it is only refresher or familiarisation training to compliment that undertaken at station level.
However, we do know that this is not necessarily the case and in many stations periodic BA refresher training in a Training Centre is usually the only time that guideline work takes place.
-
The point I was trying to make is that we all concede that we need to secure tie off points into our training buildings so we can use and train safely and effectively with guidelines and these buildings are well controlled and monitored. This will never be the case at a real incident and the only reason we will consider using guidelines is to save, saveable lives or property. With the increase in Firefighter deaths, especially in larger buildings where guidelines could conceivably be used, should we not be looking at everything and anything to reduce the risk to fire crews, including pre-planning to decide if we can or cannot use guidelines and properly secure them within the premises.