FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Lee999 on August 04, 2005, 08:36:30 PM
-
I think it would be fair to say - We in the British Fire Service dont appear to like guidelines much -
Do we need them?
How do Brigades in other countries search large, complicated smoke logged structures?
mmm
-
I too in my country were thought to use guideline. However in my 39 years of firefighting,not even once we use them. To me there is no strict rules as to use or nt to use the guidelines as a means of moving in smoke log situation. To me what i did was to crawl or stay low. This is basic as we all firefighters know, heat air rises and these excess contaminated air will escape throug the natural ventilation. That is why the air at the base is more better and we get better visibility, thus making it easier to locate the site of the fire
-
We need guidelines in the same way we need seatbelts in cars. We don't want to use them but there are times when we can't do without them.
Remember guidelines were brought in because a number of our colleagues died when they got lost in smoke. Look for the Smithfield Market Fire and the RAF control complex in Norfolk (RAF Raynham I think).
How do Brigades in other countries search large complex smoke logged buildings? Being cynical, they sacrifice firefighters!
-
the RAF control complex in Norfolk (RAF Raynham I think).
It was Neatshead, Norfolk Try http://www.fire.org.uk/ba/1966.htm for more info
-
I know of 1 job where a BA guideline was used....
It got burned through and so was useless.
-
How did the BA team get out if the fire was burning behind them?
I thought that 1 of the first rules of BA is to make sure you put the fire out before you pass it- it was when I was in the job?
-
This is a topic which if you look through some of the posts you will see has been discussed at great length on this forum, there are many different views all with their individual justifications.
My personal view is that it is an outdated piece of equipment that has little use in a modern day fire and rescue service and frankly should be removed from all front line appliances!!
-
Are there any alternatives that have been designed or evaluated?
Les
-
Why would you be entering the risk area unless there was a life risk? If this was the case preparing and laying GL's would be too time consuming, if you are going in you would NEVER do so without a firefighting medium such as a HRJ in which case you could use this to re trace your steps on the way back out!!
-
Andy
How times have changed!
When I was in the job I thought that crews would take a high level of risk to save saveable lives.
They would take less of a risk to save saveable property.
They would take no risk to save life or property that is already lost.
You asking why would you go into the risk area unless there is a life risk proves that you fight fires differently than when I used to go into buildings.
At least I know why I read of buildings burning down nowadays that we would have put out 10 years ago.
Sounds like this dynamic risk assessment stuff is an excuse for people who don't know how to put out fires any more, fighting them from the outside!
Maybe buildings are also different now, but in my time buildings were built to be wind and watertight-so pouring water onto it from the outside is just like heavy rain!
PS
I remember only once in my career searching off a guideline which was really difficult!
Can you search off a hosereel?
-
I've had this discussion so many times that I'm not getting into it again!!, have a look at the post titled 'Guidelines' on here you'll find it's a bunch of us having the same argument that I can see this post turning into!!
Toidi,
Your risk assesment sounds similar to the one I would adopt now! there is no doubt in my mind that the fire service is different now to how it was 10 years ago, however I believe our fundamental role is to save life and property!, as far as I am aware this hasn't changed, for you to imply that we now let buildings burn down because we don't know how to put them out or we are making excuses not to put them out is, in my opinon,unnessercary and insulting!
I have always embraced the views of others on this forum and made a point of paying particular attention to those of you who have many years of valuable experience and knowledge who are prepared to impart some of it on us relatively inexperienced members, I'm pleased to say that on the whole they've been very receptive and given me the oppurtunity to see many different approachs to situations meaning that dare I say it my own knowledge may have increased improving my own firefighting!! I hope that you will be the same and offer useful, suggestive and informative posts in the future!
-
Andy
how can you say our risk assessments are similar and at the same time question why you would enter a building if there is no life risk!
you would do it to save saveable property- so I don't understand why you imply that you wouldn't do it unless there is a life risk!
The fire service is now carrying out more defensive firefighting than it was 10 years ago- this is a fact which could be backed up by most people on this site!
I do think that a lack of operational knowledge is a reason for incident commanders going defensive and this opinion is shared by a lot of friends who are still in the job.
If you find this opinion unnecessary and insulting- I really do not know what to say other than it is probably the opinion of a great deal of experienced fire service personnel who can't all be wrong.
As for you asking me to offer useful suggestive and informative posts in the future- I think it would be useful and informative if you did not contradict yourself with your risk assessment opinions- that's my suggestion!
-
Why would you be entering the risk area unless there was a life risk? If this was the case preparing and laying GL's would be too time consuming, if you are going in you would NEVER do so without a firefighting medium such as a HRJ in which case you could use this to re trace your steps on the way back out!!
Guide lines aren't only used for searching, they are also used to trace your way to crews who are working some distance away from an ECP and back out again. With regards to the comment about re tracing your steps along a firefighting medium, I've been in loads of jobs where at some point, the hose reel or hose has been a big pile of crap in one particular area and the confusion this has caused has been horrific. Guidelines are crap for searchin for casualties in a hurry, I agree, but they do have their uses too, especially when a short time laying a guide line well can prevent major escalation of an incident.
I know guide lines can be a pain in the backside, but sometimes they do have an advantage.
-
If you get a chance look at the report on RAF Neatishead. One of the reasons given why the men lost their lives was that they were trying to follow the firefighting medium back and got lost.
I agree that most firefighters will never use a guideline in anger, I never had to in my service and I'm glad I never had to. However I trained with them and I trained my crews with them, so if the need ever arose we could use them. I suspect every brigade has at least one premise where they would be needed to get to the seat of a fire. Even then remember the reinforcing situation where although it may not be on your patch you may still get called into it.
At the end of the day you may hate them but ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
Consider how the men at Neatishead died. They got into a room with a flush door and the handle at a odd height and they went round and round the room trying to find the exit until they ran out of air. The investigator knew that by the handprints on the walls.
-
The Gillender Street incident where two firefighters died in 1991 shows that following guidelines to retrace your steps is not infallible either.
-
The Gillender Street incident where two firefighters died in 1991 shows that following guidelines to retrace your steps is not infallible either.
Gillinder Street proved two things.
1. Guidelines need to be packed correctly in order show the way out.
2. Crews need to train with guidelines in order to be familiar with them and be confident in their usage.
Both of these points are bread and butter firemanship, the problem is that drilling (or training) doesn't happen enough these days due to overloading of CFS duties. It is going to take a few dead firefighters before anyone accepts this and then the blame is more than likely going to be pushed on to the wrong people. It's time senior management pulled their heads back out of the sand and started to look at the fire service basics as well as being politicians.
-
Well said kaiser......................its about time fire fighters became fire fighters again....and not carpenters fitting smoke alarms,, or knocking on peoples doors on Sunday afternoons........I thought the recent narrative by the retiring station officer summed up the fire service today... in their tatty uniforms....petty H&S rules....how many of todays alleged fire fighters would ever contemplate hook ladders..Ooops I shouldn;t mention that!!
Hope that gets some of you going?
Conqueror.
-
It does yes, but not as yu might think. I am totally against GLs, a subject more than covered in a prior thread. We are still firefighters when we need to firefight. We also still train in these skills, we also now do community safety work, as our first goal is to save life. This has always been the case, but which is actually better saving a life that is alreay in peril, or saving it from getting into the peril?................ Yes the former may give you hero status and be more exciting, but the latter gives more satisfaction and is morally, socially and humanely more acceptable. So I would rather fit 1000 smoke detectors that prevent people being trapped in a fire than rescue 1 from a fire.
Now to GLs...then modern Ff has many tools at their behest, DRA (oh no Health and Safety? well yes sorry it is, but it is no petty rule it is sense) that will inform the IC when not to commit, PPV that will clear smoke logging, TICs that allow you to have visibility and then there is the 7(2)d that will have created a plan already, the FSO who will have recommended precautionary fittings (smoke extraction, sprinklers, protected areas etc) all these together should mean we do not go into large buildings following a piece of string.
Yes Gillender St showed the need to use GLs correctly if they are to be used at all, but how many people have actually looked at the size and layout of that building? Would you have ever dreamt of using a GL? If, and we know this is the case, they are so difficult to operate safely and correctly then why have them? Yes if you train with them constantly you will improve, but they will still cause accients, take too long to layout to be of any use in saving lives and we have so many other safer things to use instead. The real story to come out of that (and Fleur Lombard's death was in a small supermarket - size like you find in suburban estates not a supestore size at all - where GL was also being laid) is do not use GLs. The hose lines in G St were not submerged, indeed some had no water in so the posssibility of submersion through run-off was a tad unlikley. If you want to argue that G St did nothing to demonstrate the inherent dangers associated with GL use then you need to see the full picture, not just the bit about the teams getting confused at the branch line join. Remember how they became confused for a start, ages in a very hot atmosphere (no water applied to fire by them, time spent laying a GL and no ventilation in use) being mainly contributory.
It's about time Firefighters were professionals using the latest equipment and not old ladies knitting with bits of string.
-
Fireftrm
I have no wish to contribute to this argument more than I have to so I would be grateful if you could clarify one point.
Over a year ago you said that your FRS are actively working to remove guidelines from all appliances.
If they have done so- it seems that your view of guidelines being nothing more than (quote) 'old ladies knitting with bits of string' is shared by your management.
If not- either your service is really slow at doing things or the management are in agreement with all other FRS in the UK that guidelines have a place in certain circumstances.
P.S. A simple 'Yes- we still have them or 'No- we have got rid of them' will suffice.
Thanks
-
I didn't think you two would have fallen into the trap of being drawn into this old debate again!! LOL
-
LOL @ Andy. Billy, nowe still have them, but I am pursuing their removal constantly. FRS management do not 'agree that GLs have a place in certain circumstances', what they do is 'not agree on their removal and not wanting to take that vital step'
-
At my station in Derbyshire, next week we are due to have an annual BA audit, all areas of BA operational activity will be assessed, and we have been specifically told that BA Guidelines will be a major factor in the event. Apparently Derbyshire are bringing them back with a vengeance.
We all thought they were going, but they are back... and more important than ever!
Luckily I have not done my BA training yet, so will not be faffing around with them too much.
-
Fireftrm
You may be pleased to know that I could not order crews to use guidelines in a real life situation!!
The reason for this is that I have what is known as 'guilty knowledge' of the severe limitations of the current guideline.
When I was evaluating the new guideline I had over 200 questionnaires filled in by Whole time and RDS personnel throughout the Scottish FRS.
The majority of these said that they could not feel the current cord indicator tabs with their gloves on!
Could I confidently defend myself if I ordered the use of Guidelines and a crew member injured their hand as they had to remove their gloves to feel the tabs?
Worse still, what if they got confused by the tabs as they did in Gillender St and went the wrong way?
I have guilty knowledge of these facts as both were highlighted in the evaluation of the new Guideline and I still have the written questionnaires as evidence!
So at least we are in agreement about something- the difference is that I feel Guidelines have a place in certain situations and want to improve them, You just want them removed with nothing to replace them!
Fireftrm- I don't want a slanging match and I readily concede that you may be right and I may be wrong but at least we can agree that we both want to make it as safe as possible for crews to fight fires in structures where they might have to use Guidelines.
To use them in their present form is not an option and we either improve or remove ( in my opinion)!
These views are my own personal opinion and are not meant to reflect the views of my employer.
-
It does yes, but not as yu might think. I am totally against GLs, a subject more than covered in a prior thread. We are still firefighters when we need to firefight. We also still train in these skills, we also now do community safety work, as our first goal is to save life. This has always been the case, but which is actually better saving a life that is alreay in peril, or saving it from getting into the peril?................ Yes the former may give you hero status and be more exciting, but the latter gives more satisfaction and is morally, socially and humanely more acceptable. So I would rather fit 1000 smoke detectors that prevent people being trapped in a fire than rescue 1 from a fire.
Now to GLs...then modern Ff has many tools at their behest, DRA (oh no Health and Safety? well yes sorry it is, but it is no petty rule it is sense) that will inform the IC when not to commit, PPV that will clear smoke logging, TICs that allow you to have visibility and then there is the 7(2)d that will have created a plan already, the FSO who will have recommended precautionary fittings (smoke extraction, sprinklers, protected areas etc) all these together should mean we do not go into large buildings following a piece of string.
Yes Gillender St showed the need to use GLs correctly if they are to be used at all, but how many people have actually looked at the size and layout of that building? Would you have ever dreamt of using a GL? If, and we know this is the case, they are so difficult to operate safely and correctly then why have them? Yes if you train with them constantly you will improve, but they will still cause accients, take too long to layout to be of any use in saving lives and we have so many other safer things to use instead. The real story to come out of that (and Fleur Lombard's death was in a small supermarket - size like you find in suburban estates not a supestore size at all - where GL was also being laid) is do not use GLs. The hose lines in G St were not submerged, indeed some had no water in so the posssibility of submersion through run-off was a tad unlikley. If you want to argue that G St did nothing to demonstrate the inherent dangers associated with GL use then you need to see the full picture, not just the bit about the teams getting confused at the branch line join. Remember how they became confused for a start, ages in a very hot atmosphere (no water applied to fire by them, time spent laying a GL and no ventilation in use) being mainly contributory.
It's about time Firefighters were professionals using the latest equipment and not old ladies knitting with bits of string.
Some excellent points made here, but there are a few points that should be considered in addition to your points.
YES we should be saving the lives of the public in the best way possible, if this means that we put up lots of smoke alrms to do this then I am fine with that, what I'm not fine with is the way that certain senior officers come along with unreasonable targets which are just grasped from nowhere other than their empty minds and demand that operational firefighters "Just get on with it" The fact that probationary firefighters are missing out on their training due to watch managers desperate not to fail in their target returns shows the bad management of the watch managers and the bosses in charge of them. I always remember the saying that "we save ourselves first, then the public", "not save the public when they are in their homes by fitting smoke alrms and not train at all then not have a bleedin clue if we get a job anywhere else"
You mentioned Fleur Lombard, the fact that a guideline was being used at the time in no way overcomes the bad practice of entering a building which is well alight without firefighing media, I think that may also have been a major contributing factor.
Gillender Street, you are making my arguments for me, crap training regimes and lack of discipline on all counts, you mentioned that the hose lines wouldn't be under water, fine, I agree, but were they not using it as a method of tracing their path to and from the seat of fire?
The fact that they applied no water to the fire once they got to it...... again, lack of training and discipline.
I have no doubt that we should investigate the use of other methods and use other equipment when fighting fires but once again, these items of equipment need just as much training or the use of them will be just as dangerous. I have experienced very recently a watch manager who had received offensive ppv training only 1 week before who wanted to switch on a ppv fan to ventilate a building which had 2 ba teams in it, yet there was a loss in radio comms and no exhaust had been made. This was his DRA and mine was to tell him to get his head back in his books before he killed somebody.
In addition to this, I have also come across firefighters who did not understand that a TIC will give a false image if pointed at a reflective surface such as a mirror or a flat vehicle panel. Neither did they know that it would not show depth the same as normal vision and there was still a need to use the correct BA shuffle whilst moving along. This is because when they received new TIC's, it was switched on, everyone took a glance through it at each other then passed it along without knowing anything about it........... Lack of training !!!!!
All these points come down to lack of training with the equipment, the comments about Gillender St and Fleur Lombard...... what can I say, we are all a bit older and wiser these days but the messages are still the same, we need to be proficient with our equipment before we are sent on the run putting up smoke alarms. Guide lines are there and as long as there are gaffers wanting to use them we better be damn sure we know what we are doing with them or some high flier will get a firefighter or 2 killed and at the end of the day it will be everyone's fault for not knowing their job.
-
I agree with you Kaiser. At the end of the day the job is to get people out of the deep and smelly, and to do that the firefighters will have to put themselves at risk. The only way to reduce the risk is to be fully competent in all the equipment at your disposal and that means knowing its strengths and its weaknesses. It does not help to throw your toys out of the pram just because you don't like them!!!
Putting up smoke detectors is fine, yes it will save lives, but at the end of the day if the building is on fire, someone has to put it out, that is the job of the fire service. Not matter what safety precautions are devised someone will always get themselves into trouble and need extracting, that is also mainly the job of the fire service. My aim, when I was in the service, was to do that job and go home at the end of my shift. When I was a gaffer my aim was to make sure my people also went home. I aimed to make sure my people had what they needed to do this and this included the training and the practice, in short to make sure that they were competent to do the job.
No matter how good you are at putting smoke detectors up it won't help when something like Buncefield happens.
-
I feel that a majority of FRS have lost their way slightly when it comes to our core business of saving lives and fighting fires!
Yes that is what I believe our core business still is and where we are at greatest risk to both our crews, and the people we may have to rescue when we are dealing with emergencies.
I find it hard to believe that I am actually having to state what may be patently obvious to most operational crews when the same crews perception is that Community Safety initiatives and partnership working are more important to their managers than practical training that could save their crews lives and the lives of others.
I would like to state that Community safety initiatives and partnership working is extremely important - but having a highly trained, competent workforce who can deal with emergencies in a professional and safe manner takes precedence over all else.
We must not lose track of what our core business is, and if you ask the public what the role of the firefighter is - probably about 75% would say fighting fires and rescuing people.
If that is what the public think and this is what Operational crews think- why do crews think that fitting smoke alarms is more important to management than training that could save lives?
Forgive my cynicism but I cannot recall any firefighters dying on duty whilst fitting smoke alarms or doing Home Fire safety visits, but I could give evidence of crews having near misses or worse at incidents and experienced personnel wondering how crews could carry out such acts!
Fire And Rescue Services need to get back to basics and use the experiences of the majority of personnel to develop and assist the less experienced personnel before the experienced personnel become a minority!
As our prevention and Community Safety Strategies begin to take effect, our chances of developing our intervention capabilities at emergency incidents will decrease, so we must INCREASE our training proportionately to maintain operational readiness!
(Sorry for the Bullsh*t, but translated means that the less fires we fight, the more we must train so we can fight them safely)
To deal with these Incidents, we must use all equipment available, and if we have guidelines, we must be able to use them in a safe and competent manner.
If this means that instead of fitting smoke alarms, we become competent in using our equipment that may save our lives, then the choice is a no- brainer!
These views are my own personal opinion and are not meant to reflect the views of my employer.