FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: luke on June 13, 2005, 11:22:03 AM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)!
-
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.
-
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.
-
string, bah humbug!
dave bev
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
correct on all counts - we should still have principles and things we should aspire both to and for!
alternatives - the best at the moment may be using telemetry matched to building plans (after all its the most complicated that give us issues) - i saw a system not too long ago as part of the bdag working group that was well on the way to achieving imporved methods - no idea where it went but i suspect its only been implemented in 'govt' buildings - perhaps even for other reasons? they even had a great and accurate mapping system for something else (sorry but not sure if its public knowledge?) that really would be useful (and i am being genuine)
dave bev
-
Lee 999
You said that we need alternative means of searching large structures safely, but do you mean an alternative to the current procedures?
I prefer to keep things really simple and what is simpler than a piece of equipment that can be laid in premises quickly, without having to tie knots, and can be read with all types of gloves on?
This is my solution to the problem, and until anyone comes up with a better one, I will continue to try and convince people of its merits.
As for me making financial profit from them, I would like to know your thoughts on how much you think I have invested in this?
How much I have made in profit?
And finally how much is going to the Fire Services National Benevolent Fund?
-
Billy
It was not my intention to offend. If I did then I am sorry.
I have tried to study your idea. The shortcut you provide took me somewhere quite different!
Lee
-
Sorry to sound touchy lee, but I am a fire Officer, and when you do presentations to committees and they ask if I am going to make money out of this venture- forgive my cynicism, but I feel some think I should not be able to do this and sound somewhat envious!
I can assure all that I have not made more than I have invested.
I truly think it is better than what we are using just now.
A sizeable percentage of any profits made will be donated to the Fire Services National Benevolent Fund.
I can honestly say that if someone came out with a better method of searching complicated buildings- it would receive my full backing, but until then why not try my suggestions to see if they are an improvement?
If they don't work any better- then at least we will have tackled the problem and tried to solve it!
Anyway Lee - No apology required, but thanks all the same.
-
Whilst at the college of all knowledge, I spoke to a BAI from Tyne and Wear.
He told me that they do not commit people to smoke filled enviroments, following the introduction and development of advanced PPV tactics.
T+W have been using PPV since the early 1990's. My Brigade do not use, and have no plans to.
A clear and defined national policy seems to required, fast.
On the same issue, I would like to learn more about personal lines which stow tham selves automatically, if anyone uses them
-
PPV, TIC all great. BAGL - awfully dangerous. Don't do it. We don't commit people to smoke filled environments with GLs, nothig to do with PPV more to do with RA and realising that they cannot do the job safely. Been discussed so may times before, but Billy (bless him) will try and get his new line out there, rather than argue against them in total. TWFRS are at the frefornt of PPV use, but if we continue to look for merits in new design GLs, or (god forbid) tie off points being fitted to large buildings (what absolute b!*'*"ks) we continue to miss the point that technology and well applied procedures have long passed them by. What we do is allow FRS not to invest in correct risk reduction equipment and we should not be going there, stop now.
PS Billy if yoyu haven't made any money it is because (and I am sorry to have to say this) you are flogging a dying horse. BAGLs are for museums, no matter how 'improved'. Also I note that a 'sizeable' chunk of the profits would go to the FSNBF, no bad thing as BAGLs cause families to lose loved ones. I assume that a remaining sizeable chunk would remain yours? So you would make money if you could sell them, right?
Retractable personal lines are available from FSE ( I ma sure that was where ours came from!) though not on the site http://www.firesafetyequipment.net/
-
Fireftrm
I honestly think you are missing the whole point with guidelines so I will write it in really simplistic terms so everyone can understand- even you!
It was the improper DEPLOYMENT of guidelines and the inability to READ THE INDICATOR TABS were major factors that led to the deaths of 2 fire-fighters at Gillender street in London- This is established facts backed up by the H.S.E., the F.B.U and also London Fire Brigade who also investigated.
Are you with me so far- or do you disagree with all these people as well!
Now this is where it gets really- really simple and even people with no knowledge of guidelines will agree!
IF THE GUIDELINES WERE DEPLOYED PROPERLY AND THE FIREFIGHTERS COULD READ THE TABS, THEY WOULD HAVE FOUND THEIR WAY OUT AND NOT HAVE DIED!
Are you still with me?
SO IF WE DEPLOY GUIDELINES PROPERLY AND CAN READ THE INDICATOR TABS PROPERLY, WE WILL AVOID A REPEAT OF GILLENDER STREET EVER HAPPENING AGAIN?
All I am talking about just now are the facts above, which most people will look at and agree with – hopefully even FIREFTRM?
Fireftrm
Now onto your statement that “BAGL’s cause families to lose loved ones”
“What obsolete b***ocks”
GUIDELINES THAT ARE NOT DEPLOYED PROPERLY AND WHERE YOU CANNOT READ THE TABS CAUSE FAMILIES TO LOSE LOVED ONES!
And if you want to deal with facts, which are backed up by statistical evidence: -
MORE FIRE CREWS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY IMPROPER USE OF P.P.V. THAN THEY HAVE BY IMPROPER USE OF GUIDELINES!
Based on this, and your own analogy that you should not use guidelines because they cause families to lose loved ones- will you stop using PPV as they cause more families to lose loved ones?
Or will you do what I am trying to do in relation to guidelines, and try and make them as safe as possible to use?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My posts reflect my personal views and beliefs and not those of my employer. If I offend anyone it is always unintentional.
-
I think the point Mr Firey was trying to make is that the use of GL's is a scenario that most OIC's throughout the country would not do unless there was no other avialable method of searching a premises. And even then I would think carefully!!
The facts may be in black and white, however I believe in this case the facts do not paint a true picture.
If you consider how many times that PPV is deployed against how many time GL's are used in anger, I'm sure you would agree that PPV is used on most building fires, therefore the statistics are not worth the paper they are written on.
If you speak to any fire fighter, fire officer or senior officer, they will all tell the same, no one likes using guidlines, why?......... because they are very dangerous.
Billy, can you put your hand on your heart and say you would be totally happy in searching off a GL and the laying a branch GL, if you do then I think you would be the only person I have ever spoken to who would be!! And please do not say, ' I would be happy if they were layed correctly'.............How would you know?
The the truth of the matter is to use GL's effectivley you need to be training with them all the time, for which I know does not happen!!
Come on Billy no one likes Guide Lines!!
-
Fireftrm
When you say TWFRS do not commit G/L to smoke filled enviroments, do you mean this is a Brigade policy? If it is would you be able to send me details?
Or is this an "unwritten rule"
If any Brigade has officially said that G/L will not be used to seach in smoke then I would be interested to hear.
lee
PS, whats your opinion of retractable P/L?
-
Lee I never said anyhting about TWFRS. I did say we don't commit people into smoke filled environments with GLs and that the reason was risk assessment. As PSmith says "If you speak to any fire fighter, fire officer or senior officer, they will all tell the same, no one likes using guidlines, why?......... because they are very dangerous" and the we in my post is we on the ground not we TWFRS (for whom I don't work anyway).
I really hope that a FRS will come out against GLs soon, a good start is needed to get rid of them and that would be a good start.
Retractable PLs are very nice, much easier becasue of the large karabiner, but if we get rid of GLs are they really needed? As a local clip to each other they are so much better, not so much snagging as they keep reasonably taut.
-
Fireftrm, Thanks for the reply
Sorry for insinuating you may be a member of TWFRS!!!!!!!!!! I must stop offending people around here.
If i may, I would like to press you further on an earlier comment you made.
When you made the comment regarding G/L and smoke, were you giving a personal opinion as an OIC, or is this a Brigade wide pre-meditated policy? If it's the latter then give us all details, as this information will add power to our elbows in the fight to get rid of the guidelines.
lee
-
Not a FRS SOP, no. But I, along with every other officer I have met (not just in my FRS) would not use GLs.
I only wish we could make it a SOP, as there qare none of us who would consider their use it may be possible, can we start a poll on here, better still 'come out' and be counted?
-
Would never use or ask others to do so!!
-
Keep going that is 3..........
-
PSmith
You said earlier "I think the point Mr Firey was trying to make is that the use of GL's is a scenario that most OIC's throughout the country would not do unless there was no other avialable method of searching a premises. And even then I would think carefully!!"
I come into this category and I totally agree with your comments!
So we are in agreement that we would only use them if there was no other available method of searching the premises, and even then we would think carefully.
You said that no one likes using guidelines because they are dangerous, and again, I agree with you.
If you could then post a reply to this and tell me why they are dangerous, then I could continue this discussion.
It must be other than the problems of securing them and the problems of reading them with your gloves on as I have already covered these problems in detail !
-
Billy,
Guide Lines are possibly the one item on a fire appliance that no one ever hopes to use in their career. They are used in conditions that are of the most challenging. As you have already said the fact that tie off points are unreliable and very difficult to tie, especially with the fire gloves used, even with the modern soft leather yellow type (sorry can not remember what they are called) the task of moving through a building with a line bag clipped to your BA set in conditions that you need every sense available to you is one I would wish upon no one.
In addition to this, I think if we were all totally honest here, to be totally proficient, competent and at ease with using this kit, then it would need to be used in training on a frequent basis, and the fact of the matter is that it simply is not. No one want to use it, no one likes using it so everyone does the bare minimum to get the tick in the box. As I think you would all agree this simply is n’t sufficient for this type of kit.
Again, all Stations are competent with using kit such as PPV fans, RTC kit, and in general the kit that is used on jobs every day of the week. Guide lines do not come into this category. Serving officers with many years service only ever use them on the drill ground once or twice a year. And from past experience I have seen things that would make you think twice to committing this kit on the drill ground, never mind in anger.
In simple terms, human behaviour, we have all seen the effects that heat and humidity have to stress levels and logical thought. Try to deploy a guide line under such conditions, no thank you.
Only my opinion, but I think you will see a general consensus of opinion.
Paul
-
Psmith
I just think that if you could secure guidelines properly in buildings and if you could read the indicator tabs in all conditions, they would be far better and safer to use than they are now!
Obviously some people on here disagree, although they have not said what the other problems are.
All people have said is that "I would never use them", "they are really dangerous" and they "cause families to lose loved ones"
Heaven forbid any one ends up in court for a fatal accident enquiry and guidelines have been cited- whether used or not.
We as a service are so open to claims either way!
If we use them and things go wrong the OIC is exposed for using a piece of equipment he may believe to be "really dangerous"
If we don't use them and things go wrong, the OIC is exposed for not using a piece of equipment for the purpose it was designed for!
If people cannot see these facts then I really despair.
It won't be long before fire fighters who are injured, sue fire authorities for bad decisions made by OIC and here is a prime example of how it could happen.
-
Billy,
I just think that in the age of GPS and such marvellous technology, to be relying upon a line that is tied to something, even if it is a purpose made tie off point, surely there must be something better than guide lines. Surely moving away from lines and working from a GPS type system would be the way forward??
I do get where your coming from but, I really do think its time we revisited the whole process in a radical manner. After all, this technology was not available when such antiquated and essentially dangerous equipment first came into service.
Paul
-
Paul
I totally agree with you in that we should try and find a better method of searching large buildings and if something comes up- I will be one of the first to welcome it.
But until then, lets sort out the things we all know are wrong by coming up with systems tested and endorsed by firefighters who say that the new design is a vast improvement on the current one.
In relation to your reference to antiquated and dangerous equipment, what is so dangerous about a piece of equipment that should lead you out of a building in zero visibility?
That is how it should work and that is how we need it to work!
And we also need guys like Fireftrm and yourself to not only challenge what we do just now, but come up with solutions!
PS.
GPS would be great, but it cannot be relied upon to work within premises.
-
Billy, this threa had run before, I have given full and detailed reasons why GLs are dangerous, why they should never be used and what we can do without them. I am not going into the whole lists again but will use some here:
With the equipment available to the modern firefighter there should be no time when we go into a zero visiblity building large enough that a GL would have been used in the past.
Why search the zero visiblity building anyway? If it is on fire you have a hose and your string will burn through. If there were people in before the fire started (and the smoke is such to give zero visibility) then by the time you have laid the line they will be dead anyway. If there is no-one in then neither should we be. In any on eof these conditions ventilating would have solved the problem and GLS exarcerbated it.
Forget tie off points, nobody is ever going to persuade building occupiers to fit hooks all round their walls in case we want to use a GL. After all the very great majority of Ffs would tell them that we wouldn't be using such stuff anyway. Different identification of the travel drection may help the antiquated thing gain some followers, but does nothing about the time it takes, or the futility.
Remember to ask the question.........'Why are we searching the building?' When answering also accept that GLs were designed to aid Ffs finding the way out of buildings they were SENT IN TO SEARCH. Remove the reason for the 'search' and the GL loses any rationale.
As an aside and for Lee we no longer require Ffs to demonstrate competence in the practical use of GLs during their NVQ, they require the knowledge and understanding of them. We have accepted that this is a piece of equipment we would do anything and everything our arsenal of techiniques and equipment capabilities give us to avoid. For maintenance they need to get one out once a year - though Q&A would still be acceptable.
-
Hi' this is my first look at this site and I’ve read some of your comments regarding Guidelines, i am in my last 6 months of 30 years service, this last year I’ve been tasked as a BAi with running around the brigade refreshing all ops personnel on guidelines and their associated procedures,
Why?
Well we had a disastrous set of exercises in 2003 which if they had been jobs we could have lost quite a few.
I find it strange that i can agree and disagree with the comments that you all make. For instance, guidelines by definition must be a reasonable safe system of work,
Why?
Well, I’m connected to a line that is tied off out side the risk; I have a defined route out that must be safer than no guideline,
I think the key thing to remember is that it’s an old system of work, devised in the days of the Covent garden & Smithfield Market incidents, Proto sets with one hour duration, lack of command and control of BA wearers etc etc.
I believe that the main cause in the loss of confidence in this piece of equipment is the lack of a coherent written policy! 1/97 and deployment strategies by brigades for the use of guidelines and its associated procedures, further to that the lack of a robust training regime in brigades at all levels ff to CFO adds to an air of indecision and confusion when using guidelines.
A Risk Based Approach
We are now and have been for some time using a risk-based approach in all aspects of our work environment and as such must continually review and update our so-called safe systems of work.
I believe that we the fire service as a whole have failed to do this regarding guidelines.
Why must we wait for national guidance, when we are sure in our own mind what needs to be done, we have already carried out a review of our procedures and found them lacking we can make the guideline procedure much safer with (in some cases) minor alterations, to certain pieces of equipment and procedures (a safer system of work)
I believe that there is not a court in the land that would prosecute a brigade for making a system of work safer?
Offensive Fire Fighting using Hosereels
Following the incident in Hertfordshire, which resulted in the tragic loss of life of two fire fighters, we have realised that there is a need to review the safe system of work for the committing of BA crews into a fire risk environment (Offensive Fire-fighting) and have developed and implemented a training program to reflect this, the major implication being that a BA team should not enter a risk area without the minimum of a fire fighting hosereel.
This is a sound principle but can be difficult to implement and it needs more work
This procedure will have a direct effect on guideline use, as the maximum effective penetration depth of a BA team will be other than the contents of your cylinder, will be the length of one-hosereel drum, this being effectively 60 metres.
We should now be considering set duration and hosereel length as the defining factors as apposed to guideline length?
Along with the improvements in technology, I think we are now moving towards the possibility of making guidelines redundant?
The Future
With the current development in technology, Thermal Image Head up displays, GPS, Night Vision, Telemetry, PPV, and a robust system of communications, I now believe that we are moving towards the possibility of making Guidelines redundant,
I believe that with the following 3 key points are in place as a safe system of work.
I think we could re-evaluate guidelines as a safe system of work
1. A robust system of communications.
2. On reaching stage 3 PPV offensive, and
3. Effective Thermal Image.
Lee999 your question is there an alternative to G/L? Well how about this.
We all use the ICS system of sectors
Teams of five to enter 1 & 2 on the branch pulsing, guided by 3 who has the thermal image camera
He could lead the team to the casualty or seat of the fire, with number 4 and 5 as the rescue team.
It must be quicker than using guidelines and it may still be salvable life
Defining factors
Cylinder contents
Hosereel length 1 possibly 2 drum lengths
Physical effects on the team
Resources in manpower and equipment
This is only a small part of my recomendations all the above are my thoughts and not the thoughts of my brigade
cheers people, keep talking we need to communicat to solve these issues.
-
Swampy
Far too much sense in your comments as obviously you have looked at this in great detail.
I totally agree with your comment,
QUOTE- "Along with the improvements in technology, I think we are now moving towards the possibility of making guidelines redundant?"
My point was, and always has been sorting the problems we all know there are with guidelines just now until something better comes up.
We don't have TIC's on all appliances though, but I think your suggestions are the best I personally have heard so far.
-
TICS have been ordered for all front line appliances by the ODPM in England, or enough to make up that many allowing for FRS existing equipment, where this is not the case (no idea about Wales and Scotland) then the correct way forward is to campaign for them, not a new GL design.
-
Fireftrm
I think it is the case in Scotland that we are getting discounted TICs, but in my Service, we have no where near a TIC on all appliances!
-
"MORE FIRE CREWS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY IMPROPER USE OF P.P.V. THAN THEY HAVE BY IMPROPER USE OF GUIDELINES!"
Billy, with regards to the above statement, what information do you have to back it up?
-
rips
I can only think of 2 deaths using guidelines in the whole of the UK ever!
Look at instances where US fire crews have been killed using PPV improperly. Even people on this site have made mention of the dangers of PPV if not used correctly and to learn from their experiences!
Iwill no doubt be able to check the web and get you details if you require so let me know.
-
Billy wasn't Fleur using a GL?
-
Fireftrm
I didn't hear that her death was due to improper use of Guidelines, and thought it was a rapid collapse of a sandwich panel building, although I may be wrong!
-
Nope it was a standard construction supermarket (like you would find in many small towns - converted/extended from a standard shop in a row of same) - apparent confusions over the use of the GL as well as HR made the incident worse.
The LISP building was in H&R and was a cold store.
-
Fireftrm
Confusion of the GL, you say- Could they not read the tabs or had they nowhere to secure it onto?
-
Fireftrm: just for the record, Sun Valley was not a cold store.
I do, however, suspect that sandwich panels were a feature in the Bristol fire but a lot of information doesn't seem to have emerged from that tragedy (unlike in H & Worcs). No doubt this is because the HSE waded into H & Worcs but strangely not Avon.
-
Definitley no sandwich panels in Bristol, it was a two-storey buiulding supermarket in a row of shops, traditional construction.
Yep Sun Valley was a food prep factory, part correction agreed. However the Corbett block (where the fire occured) was a meat processinga nd cold storgae facility. The latter being the reason that insulated sandwich panels were used in its construction.
-
We're in danger of veering off of the thread; however, sandwich panels are used much more extensively than in just cold or chill stores. I therefore challenge the veracity of your last comment above.
Also: are you sure the ceiling in the supermarket was not composed of sandwich panels?
-
No I am not, but their use in existing standard buildings is hardly normal now and would have been less so 10 years ago. This was not a new build supermarket, it was a long standing one and the likely ceiling (being as it was in a standard shopping row like any estate area) would have been painted, or suspended ceiling tiles. Having studied it duringa JOA at Moreton the primary reasons for the tragedy were a flashover (contents/lowish ceiling height) and the confusion over location/guideline/hosereel. There were also problems due to the fire attack at the rear with attack/entry at the front at the same time meaning poor ventilation for the fire gases. this may have contributed to the flashover.
-
Fireftrm: thanks for that information. However, please be advised that it is increasingly normal to have sandwich panels installed in existing 'standard' buildings. They're even making houses with them now!
-
I know and also that they are unlikely to be LISP and also more often than not of a fire retardant/non-combustible filling nowadays.
-
Sorry Billy, shouls have added UK to the comment about PPV deaths. Know internationaly there have been problems with PPV