FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: crashball75 on August 23, 2005, 01:39:17 PM
-
What is anyones view on performing search with Hose reel and then using the hose reel as a guide line to get back to the entry point. I am very uncomfortable with this as not only does it mean the BA search team do not have control of the branch (for use in gas cooling and proper door entry procedures) but I can see no way that you could be sure the hose would either stay in the same place or even worse you attach your personal line to a hose which ends up in a big jumbled mess and you are totally disorientated.
I am pretty new to firefighting so didn't want to overly argue the point but would welcome any comments from more experienced members
(excellent site by the way which I stumbled accross by accident)
-
I have never heard of anyone attaching themselves to hose. Is this something new??
I don't even like the idea of guide lines never mind this scenario.I don't have a problem with using the hose as a guide to quickly find your exit, as this has been common for years.
-
using something you brought with you to find your way out is nothing new, whatever activity you undertake. however what you do use is based very much on the practicality and effectiveness of previous use/experience. i am not a fan of string or hose (and would never advocate anyone attching themselves to hose!) but until something else exists is there any alternative - i actually think there is. if you cant get out, dont go in!
dave bev
-
I once was witness to an exercise where 4 hosereels went in the same door and one then retreated due to a supposed problem with a BA set.
I think we all know what the outcome was?
Use hose to get back to an exit by all means but remember, it will be pulled out from the corners and you will not have walked on that area before so use proper safety procedures at all times.
As for searching a building with a hose reel- I feel a rant coming on so I will quickly sign off!!!!!!
-
Well all these concerns are ones I agree with and whilst I would be happy even as you said trying to trace the hose back...clipping on just seemed ridiculous but I was wondering if I had missed something....
espesacially when I possibly add that there was no reason not to come away from the walls to exit as we went in on a right hand search so it was to me simply a case of exiting on a left hand and we would get out safely.....
as for the four hose reels in the one door...... well I learnt three technical terms for this on my BA training which I always liked the sound of which would mprobably sum up the scene....
1) bunch of b*****ds
2) bag of b*****ks
and my particular favourite
3) the cake and arse party
-
Hi crashball,
Who has instructed you to clip onto a H/R?
-
thats what I'd like to know??
-
Crashball,
I will be amazed if you are a member of a British public FRS, and have been given the instruction you describe.
If you are, and have, then it needs to be investigated now. Please give more details.
Lee
-
I thought whenever you are in a building involved in fire you should always keep a firefighting medium (i.e. HRJ) with you at all times!, I have heard of tracing the hose back to find the way out so long as you use the proper safety procedures (even if you have already walked across before it may have changed/developed by the time you want to come back!).
I only did my BA training about 10 months ago and they stressed the importance of having a firefighting medium with you all the time (at least one per team) and they never mentioned anything about clipping yopur personal line onto the hose.... doesn't sound like a very good idea though!
-
In all my born Life I have never heard of attaching yourself to a hose.
What county do you serve Crashball??? Because if they have taught you this then I would love to know what else they teach.
velly Intellesting
-
well I know people are keen for me to name names but as far as I am aware it is not a county wide thing.
lets just say I had a discussion with my Sub and I definately was told that as a matter of safety you should aways exit with the branch so that you have firefighting medium at all times and also you should never clip on to anything that is not attached to the wall such as a properly laid guide line.
so I can comfort you all by saying its not a county policy its more a local issue.... I have left it at the point where I informed my sub I would never do that and he said he would loook into it for clarification
I guess the reason I raised it is that I was pretty confident it was wrong ...but being so new I didn't want to push it too far...my sub was going to clarify but to date he hasn't got back to me.....
-
I have read these posts and am slightly confused about the 'clipping on to the HR' - this seems to have been a misinterpretation issue - everyone read back through them and see if I am missing something PLEASE!
Crashy said - "using the hose reel as a guide line" - not as a guideline and this is where the confusion started? He also added 'even worse the personal line' where diod that come from , surely not because he was told that following the hose was a suitable means to guide you out? As Andy says "I have heard of tracing the hose back to find the way out so long as you use the proper safety procedures ", I rather think this was what was meant when Crashy was given the suggestion, by whoever it was. This is a perfectly sensible idea and does not negate taking that same hosereel with you, that is unless you can think of a way of following it while carrying it that would mean you couldn't do so?! Seems to me that you turn round and follwo that bit that does tend to be lying on the floor, it will follow you out, but is trhat a problem, other than to crews going in who would not have it to trace?
Crahsy did you actually think this meant to clip to it? If so I am of the opinion that you maybe misunderstood. I would be seriously concerned if you had been taught that, I am sure that no one had taught you that - unless they too fallen foul of chinese whispers.
I am glad to hear it is not a policy and I am fairly confidetn that if you ask you may find you have been misreading the intention, did you not come up with the personal line thing yourself?
One thing you can be assured of is that the hosereel/hose will lead to the door you took it through, more likely that it would survive a fire than string too. Watch out for the semantics - I say a hose can be used a s a guide line to guide you out does not mean a guideline, which is a piece of string.
-
Fireftrm
I have been confused by your posts on this topic and have noticed that at every turn you have dismissed guidelines- even to the extent of saying that you can use a hose reel as a guide line to guide you out, but not use a guideline which is a piece of string.
You then state that
"a hose/reel would more likely survive a fire than string too".
the main questions on this are:
1. The first thing I was taught when wearing BA is never pass fire and always make sure you have an exit, so how would this situation arise where the fire could burn the hose/reel or the guideline?
2. if there is a raging inferno blocking the way you came in- are you really concerned whether it burnt through the hose or the guideline?
3. The melting temperature of the new guideline is over 300 degrees celsius-
What is the melting temperature of (a) Hose?
(b) Firefighters?
4. If someone came up with a guideline that was full of water, would you be happier ?
Just curious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Billy
Although i really do admire your detemination, you are never going to convince the majority of ops ff's that g/l's are safe.
What do they do in other countrys?
Can sectorisation deplete the need for g/l's?
Can risk assessing your station ground, and producing pre-fire plans for large buildings help?
I think you are flogging a dead shire horse
-
Lee 999
I totally agree with most of your points, especially the convincing the majority of ops that guidelines are safe, as they most definately are not safe the way we use them just now!!
But if you tried the suggested procedures and they worked, would you use them?
-
I would of course listen to any suggestion.
-
I would listen if there were any new procedures...........and not just a new design of something that should be in a museum.
You may note that I did not say that a hosereel could be aguideline in the same sense that a guideline would be used, GLs are for laying to provide a path to follow, the hosereel does this admirably as a way of getting out, plus (rather handily) can cool and extinguish. I would have the rell as one of the many tools to be used with that ball of string in a cupboard somehwere in an outdoor adventure camp (for following around trees blindfolded)
As to the hose/reel burning through I was, of course, referring to the possibility that the fire may have spread behind you. The very idea of taking a guideline into a burning building fills me with terror, string does burn so well.
Now for your new one - 300C is great, but it still takes ages to lay and is still a guideline, and so unecessary. After all you agreed with Lee's points - good ICS, RAs etc do away with the GL
Billy the horse isn't just dead its been buried for years, give it up! I am sure that the stablelads of old had similar arguments against the buiders/designers of steam engines and they, in turn, with the internal combustion engine proponents.
PS I also respect your determination!
-
Fireftrm
I think that you better tell your bosses that the Guidelines are dead because it is them, not me who still keep them on ALL appliances and it is them who will expect YOU to use them in certain circumstances!
And if you don't use them when your procedures say you should, the lawyers will have a field day!!!
So before you tell me to give up on trying to improve the faults with them, try telling your bosses or your legal section that you would never use guidelines in any circumstances, and see what their reaction is?
-
My sentiments entirely Billy!
-
I know I said I wouldn’t get involved but this is just infantile.
There is not a lawyer in the land who would have any such case. As you all should know, every incident is dealt with dynamically. If the OIC deems it too dangerous to use GL’s at the scene and occupants died, I would put my house on the line to say that I honestly do not believe that a lawyer would be able to prove that had GL’s been deployed then persons would have been saved, now come on and get a &&5$$ grip.
I have never in all my born life heard of anything so unbelievable. You all go on about not being operational and that some of us are old sweats, but come down to my patch and speak to any officer / JO/ FF. If you gave them this argument not a single person would comprehend such willingness to commit FF’s into a building. The problem here is you need to think of the bigger picture and not what you have been indoctrinated in. The risk here is committing colleagues and friends to a dangerous environment clipped onto a length of string.
I bet each and everyone of you would be lining up to clip onto a GL given the opportunity. For reference I have done this before any comments come back. Perhaps this is why I don’t advocate it.
-
Psmith: has at ever crossed your mind that conditions in a large complicated building can change during firefighting operations? Or do you NEVER go into a building on fire now?
Also: I certainly do not share your confidence that the lawyers would not have a case! (although, of course, we are discussing possible firefighter deaths and/or injuries - not just occupants) They said this in West Yorks (Bradford City fire) and Hampshire (Digital fire) although different issues, of course - but the courts were not too impressed with either fire services I recall who could not argue their case in the outside world. I do have sympathy with your fears, however, I'm trying to get you to think outside of the fire station mess room here.
Finally, your penultimate paragraph is confusing.
-
Psmith
I think you are totally missing the point here as there is a major difference between doing a dynamic risk assessment and deciding not to use guidelines for justifiable reasons and having the mindset that you would NEVER use guidelines in any circumstances.
The first one is highly commendable and the second would result in a claim against your Service as they are Vicariously liable for your actions and your justification for not using them would expose major faults in guidelines that we all know are there, but have done nothing about!
Or I suppose if any case went to court you could just lie!!!!!
-
Ian - Pauls entire post is extremely clear and no confusion that I can see, perhaps you still don't want to accept the reality of the modern FRS, where we will not always enter a building on fire.
To you and Billy:
I really cannot believe (though am faced with enough of your comments on here to be dismayed by the evidence), in this day and age, that there are still Ffs who are of the opinion that a guideline will be of any value (and worse still that it will actually be a safe method for Ffs) to use in a building on fire.
I am absolutley convinced that the lawyers would have no case, because the DRA would have clearly identified that the GL was not a safe system of work and therefore not a suitbale control measure. The IC would have a demonstrable RA and the suitable control chosen. Billy says "And if you don't use them when your procedures say you should, the lawyers will have a field day!!!" - which procedures? I know of none that say 'YOU WILL USE A GUIDELINE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES' what I do know is that the IC must make a risk assessment and I know of no (with the exception of you two) any ICs who would include a GL as a safe method of searching a building on fire and I cannot believe that anyone would be so naive as to consider that a GL will allow a search to rescue people still alive.
Billy please give me an example of an incident (real or imaginary) where, having carried out a DRA (list it please) the ONLY option to allow a safe search for the fire (please don't include life rescue because they will be dead before the line is laid - if not already). As to the vicarious liability - my FRS would not be responsible because you will note that I said - "I cannot imagine any such incident". Ian, I am not arguing at the mess table, I am giving real world RA answers, it seems to me that the GL would be the hard one to defend in that real world, there are (unfortunately) examples where it could have been so tested.
As it happens my 'bosses' (with whom I have operational discussions regularly) agree, but we still have GLs as they remain (unfortunatley) in the Ff NOS. They, along with all my peers, are campaigning to have them removed from the British FRS, but die-hards, who still think it is acceptable to send Ffs into dangerous burning buildings with little chance of saving the proeprty and no lifes to rescue, want GLs - because they are there now and change is so frightening. Hopefully they will all be retired soon and off selling GLs to the unwary so we can move forward.
As to the case potentially demonstrating the major flaws in the GL, I think you just answered why the case would fail to find that I, or my service, were at fault over not using them, rather that we were acting in the best interests of the safety of our personnle by leaving them in their bargs. A perfect response to the lawyer, thanks for pointing that one out as a great benefit to the case for the defence, especiallyas the RA decision not to use them would be a good indicator that we had done something about their problmes and dangers - by not using them. Brilliant as a clear reason for the DRA decision, all ICs out there note Billy's comment - it will aid your RA. Billy - I think we may yet have you saved, at last you have started using the rationale that we have been using, they are dangerous, we know the faults, so our DRA will say don't use them. Thanks again for seeing reason, even if you haven't yet realised it.
I remain, solidly, in the same camp as Paul, and I beleive Lee. I also think that Andy has more than a slight grasp on the ideal.
-
Fireftrm
We are closer than you think in relation to these problems, but when you think that by stating that the DRA would clearly demonstrate that a guideline is not a safe system of work, you have not protected yourself in my opinion, merely implicated yourself!
Please forget all that has went before and deal with these facts as they are presented
My reply to you and your FRS is:
1. Why do you have a piece of equipment that is not a safe system of work on all your appliances?
2. If you have identified that it is not a safe system of work, what have you done to resolve this problem?
Call me cynical but I cannot see any FRS entering a court room admitting that a Guideline is not a safe system of work because they would be immediately found liable for allowing it on all appliances in the first place!
Therefore your FRS would probably state that they believe under certain circumstances, and used properly, guidelines are safe.
I also believe that we are getting bogged down with whether we use them or not and the main point is if the lawyer or QC even asks why we did or didn't use them?
Fireftrm- I think you totally misunderstand me so let's clear up some points.
I have already cleared my costs in developing this new design and money was not the driving force anyway!
The reason that I started this venture is because of all the points YOU have agreed with about how dangerous Guidelines are in the first place.
My solution (you'll like this Fireftrm!)
Take all guidelines off all frontline appliances as in their present form, they are dangerous, we can't use them properly and we all know it.
Find an alternative way of searching large buildings safely for Fire crews.
This will take time and meantime we should consider the merits of the new guideline as an interim measure- we may not need to if we can justify not using them at all.
If my design is proved to be no better than the current one in use, we put both in a museum of your choice Fireftrm!
What do you think?
that is my personal opinion and not that of my employer.
-
Yipeeeeeee!
You said it Billy, lets get rid of them today.
Sectorisation, PPV, Tactical ventilation, TIC.
I believe that the vast majority of structures can be searched and cleared using any combination of the above.
Stations need to risk assess every large building on their respective grounds, formulate a prefire plan and attach it to the risk card for that premises. Simple.
G/L's not required!
If however you have a particually complex, unusual structure then its not so simple. For instance an underground military facility, special procedures will need to be adopted.(not to include a 60m bit of string in a bag!)
Interesting to note that G/L were introduced following a fatal fire in an underground military facility.
-
Lee 999
I think you will find that a lot of underground military facilities have pre-laid guidelines already fitted and the crews using them say they work great!
So why wouldn't you include them if they work?
Just a point!
-
As I suggested, special procedures will need to be adopted.
Luckily, 99.99999% of buildings we protect are not complex, underground military establishments.
-
They may not be underground military establishments, but a lot are complex buildings and we need to have procedures in place to search them!
-
I agree with you.
What are your thoughts with regards to my suggestions above?
-
I agree with most of your points but i am a little uneasy of going into a large complicated building with only a TIC to find your way out!
PPV should be used if only we had it on all appliances. Risk assessments as you suggested could be improved and we should all remember that we are assessing the risk for fire crews in case of fire!
-
You wouldn't have only a TIC though would you you'd have a Hose reel with you aswell!! theres your 'guide' out of the building!
The whole attitude and lack of confidence in GL's seems to me to be sufficent enough reason to get shot of them once and for all!
Billy
In your response to Firetrm you said 'If you have identified it is not a safe system of work, what have you done to resolve it' I believe he has already answered this by saying he is campaigning to have them removed but there are still die-hards out there scared of change!
firetrm
I can assure you I am firmly in your camp, although I must confess I have never had the misfortune of using GL's in anger which is just aswell given how we got on with them in training!
I don't think there is room in the mordern day FRS for Die-harders who are afraid of change!
-
Andy
If you get rid of them, what do you use then?
Lack of confidence is no reason on its own to get rid of guidelines!
Campaigning to have them removed is not enough as in the meantime his FRS are still using them on all appliances- therefore his FRS think they are safe!
I take it you are referring to someone else here as a die-hard and are afraid of change as a die-hard would not openly admit to the defeciencies in the current system and try and improve it!!
You also mention that you had problems with them in training and hopefully these problems never included lack of tie off points or not being able to feel the tabs with your gloves on?
If so you really should read all my postings.
I totally agree with your last post about there being no room for die-harders who are afraid of change- I refer to them as dinosaurs and we all know what happened to them!
if you knew me- you would never accuse me of being a dinosaur, (although I probably have the same size of brain)!
-
Strange how our FBU friends are keeping silent on this.
-
Billy,
I wasn't acusing you of being a Die-harder or indeed a Dinosaur (like the analagy!) simply pointing out, as you do, that they are quite rightly a dying breed and in this mordern fast changing FRS there is no place for them!
I disagree, I think that having full confidence in the equipment you are using is essential, you have enough to be concerned about without adding to that the inadequecies of your equipment. I have on a number of occasions suggested that a HR be used instead of a GL and as yet I haven't been given a scenario where this wouldn't be possible, perhaps a little inpractable but not as much so as a GL!.
My comments about the training with GL's was intended to illustrate that the level of training dedicated to GL's is such that I can see a possibility that they will be disposed of in the near future, I must stress that this is only my perception and not any policy that I know of!
As I have also stated in many of my posts I am a new FF and am not in these forums to criticise any others in any way, I apologise if this is how my posts are percieved, I am merely putting accross my opinion just as I am keen to gain as much as I can from your posts perhaps you could use mine as a guide to how a new FF might be thinking?! (that isn't to say that I speak for all or indeed any other new FF's)
With upmost respect,
Andy
-
Billy,
I have on a number of occasions suggested that a HR be used instead of a GL and as yet I haven't been given a scenario where this wouldn't be possible, perhaps a little inpractable but not as much so as a GL!.
You take your FF media where ever you go, on your way out you take it with you, makes it a little difficult for the next crew to follow the guideline (your hosereel) to the fire.
-
Andy,
How refreshing to hear somebody new to the Service, with such a positive and humble outlook.
Also, I make you right in all that you say above.
We dont need G/L's because we can deal with ALL structural fires by:
1. Pre-plannning/Risk assessing
2. PPV
3. Tactical Ventilation
4. Use of thermal imaging equipment
5. Sectorisation
Billy, you may not agree, but I am positive that all of the above procedures render any form of G/L OTR.
Any scenario or incident you will attend can be effectivly and safely concluded using this approach.
-
I still maintain that the procedures for a GL are a writtren 'safe sytem of work', but that there are much safer ones, that is how I would use the argument. I can not be convinced that there is a situation where they would be the ONLY option, nor have you given us any example - the one you tried was for a premises with pre-fixed lines - not one where we would comnsider that laying a line was the ONLY option.
I am delighted that Andy is so mature, professionally, he is a credit to his training and his FRS.
Lee - I can't agree more.
Scott - maybe it does, but safer - which would you rather be doing on the way to a fire in a building:
going in with a hosereel
following a guideline?
-
Scott,
I totally agrree with Firetrm, As I have already said before, taking a Hosereel with you to relieve someone at a branch might be a bit difficult but is far safer than following a GL you then hand over the HR youv'e brought in for the team you are relieving to make thier way out with, it couldn't be any simplier than that could it?
Thanks for the words of encouragement guys I'll try and remember my humble begginings when I'm CFO!
-
So let me get this right- I am in a BA team with a HR and to get relieved at the scene of the fire, another BA team comes in with a HR, we change over HR's and then my BA team go out with their HR.
Is this the suggestion?
-
Billy,
Let's not get bogged down with specifics. The point being made is that G/L's are no longer needed at fires, for the reasons outlined above.(PPV,Tac Vent,RA,Pre plan,TIC,sectorisation)
I'm sure you will be able to tie Andy(probationary FF) up in Knots over his H/R theory - but is that really the point?
As you(and Mr Gough) are the greatest supporters of G/L's around these parts, why not address the points made against them?
ps Sorry Andy, Im not digging you out. Billy has many more years of experience than your good self, and therefore will have more in depth knowledge.
-
Thank you nuff said!
-
To be honest Lee I think that must be game set and match.
We can not go on, I think I have lost interest in life talking about guide lines. I guess I might buy one now though.
Feel like hanging myself if this goes on any longer, so what better, a lovely guide line would do the job just fine.
Any other takers!!
-
Psmith
Sorry to keep going on about my shop (getting almost as bad as GL's) but just one last suggestion, If I provide the pulley (at cost obviously) could I use the other end of your Guide line please?
-
Sorry for asking a question unrelated to guidelines, but relating to practical operational procedures!
I am really pleased that you all have sorted out the problem and removed Guidelines from every appliance in your FRS and we will never use them, or train with them again!
This has been achieved as every front line appliance must now be equipped with :
PPV
TIC
Pre-planning and risk assessments for every premises in your area
Personnel who are trained on Tactical ventilation
Plans of additional Sectorisation carried out by the owners for us.
But just in case, when you do the vehicle checks in the morning- make sure the Guidelines have been removed!
Finally, If all your FRS say guidelines should be on appliances- they must think that they have their uses- looks like they disagree with you!!!
-
Billy,
Yes you have a point. Now what you must understand is that no one on this forum has ever said there is a quick fix to the issue of using or not using guide lines. If you trawl back through the threads you will see that mine and other threads are simply saying that we should be looking at improving the tools we have available.
II wont go through each point, not because I don’t have example of each but simply because this is becoming boring now. But if we take tactical ventilation. If used offensively, those that have witnessed it all agree that it is the way forward. Not only does it make conditions for fire fighters much improved, but it provides an environment that has never been seen before at compartment fires, on any scale.
Because of this fact, and of those that have seen it in operation will tell you, it simply is the biggest thing since sliced bread. OK so if we look at its history and we see that it not at all that new. It has been used for a number of years in the US, however there have been problems as not enough was understood of the danger of incorrect use of offensive tactical ventilation and the resulting consequences where a significant amount of FF’s lost their lives.
This can not be said about the UK FRS, as it has been acknowledged that research must be carried out to prevent similar occurring over in the UK. So, UK FRS have been for the last 6 years at least been trailing PPV. Firstly with defensive operations, and now some are starting to use it offensively, with fantastic results.
Now if we consider something that Andy said, that training with the equipment we use allows us to have confidence in the equipment we use, quite right Andy, this is fact, and from such a virginal FF this is quite profound. We have all sent how equipemtn works in training and this provides FF’s with the confidence in its abilities to the job.
On the other side of the coin. Guide Lines have in themselves been their own worst enemy. They do not breed confidence and they simply do not make a FF feel safe in the environment they are entering, which is unique for the kit that is carried on wagons in this day and age.
The simple fact is that we should rely on our instincts and equipment that has demonstrated to protect in dangerous situations. FF;s should not rely on a length of string to do this.
I ask the question Billy. If you were not trying to market this product would you not agree. Surely you can see the issues here. You may of given statistics that say that FF’s would prefer this than the current GL, but this is not true in context. I bet if they read this forum they would be of a different opinion.
Paul
-
I believe that the Ffs prefer Billy's Simline, but like you Paul, note that this is in preference to the existing line. A rather loaded question.
* out of 10 cats used to prefer Whiskas - even allowing for the change to that saying to '8 out of 10 cat owners (who express a preference) choose Whiskas' still really only means little.
-
Fireftrm
How is -"do you prefer the old guideline or new Guideline" a loaded question?
What else should I have asked them when evaluating a new piece of equipment against what is already in use?
As for the BA teams going in with a HR to an incident to relieve another BA team and swapping over HR's so they can find their way back out - I ask again, is that what you are suggesting?
-
It is only a loaded question when it is to be used to attempt to demonstrate that the new guideline is 'preferred' as in
"All Scottish Brigades have tried them and 95% out of over 200 firefighters prefer them-Their words not mine." - now preferred to ..... the old line? If so then yippee do-da. No surpise there. If the question was do you prefer this guideline to the myriad of other tools and procedures we can utilise then what would the answer have been.....99% of Ffs say that they would prefer never to see a GL?
Anyway what about the 'new procedires' you keep going on about? A significant thing that you keep avoiding?
-
Fireftrm
If the "myriad of other tools and procedures we can utilise" you refer to is PPV and TIC's which are not on all front line appliances - how can we utilise them if we don't have them?
It was you who said a Guideline is a safe system of work and under the hierarchy of control measures- if you don't have PPV or a TIC,(which a lot of appliances don't),a guideline is an acceptable control measure, or do you disagree with H&S, Rep bodies and your own FRS?
I think the new procedures you keep going on about may be referring to my suggestion to try and achieve the following:.
1. do as Lee 999 suggests and carry out thorough Risk assessments on all major risks within the Station area.
2. If we think we may have to use guidelines, we see if we can use them safely within the premises.
3.If we can't use them safely, due to lack of securing points, we inform the owners of the outcome of the RA.
4. If they don't fit them, we won't use them- it's that simple!
5. If they do fit them, we know we can use them safely and quickly.
Please, please tell me what is wrong with a piece of equipment that you have physical contact with and will lead you back to your place of entry in zero visibility!!!!!!!!
Now please tell me if you agree with the suggested procedure of taking a HR in to relieve a BA team, swapping HR's with them, and then they will come out with your HR?
-
Brilliant!
I can see a couple of minor changes required to the process and to your new procedures:
1. No change
2. Examine control measures, starting with ventilation (either ours or fitted) and then include on fire plan. Inform the premises occupiers that we may not be prepared to commit internal firefighting resources where the RA deems the building to remain high risk after control measures.
3. If we consider that the ONLY possible control measure is GLs inform the premises occupiers that the building is too dangerous to commit Ffs
4 and 5 would not crop up anyway
What is wrong with equipment for use in zero visibility? here goes:
a. what are we doing in zero visibility? - first improve visibility
b. why would we want to use a piece of string that requires ages to run out when the fire would have either become too big, or any occupants still alive would have died
c. it is damned dangerous, difficult and there are many, better, safer and quicker alternatives
As to the last point - in consideration it is a considerably safer and quicker method of tracing the route to/from a fire than a GL - so in essence yes I do.
-
Billy please tell me why you think my HR theory is faulted? this is a genuine question.
I have always been taught never to enter a building or move around inside it without having a firefighting medium with you!, I cannot see how you can do this and not have a guide to your exit in your hand!. as far as I can see this guide also happens to double up as a handy tool for doing any gas cooling or door entry procedures which may have become nessercary because of an unexpected development in the fire!
I realise by now that you are a firm supporter of GL's and to be quite honest I am aware that as a proby I am the last person on this forum who is going to convince you to think otherwise, it is therefore not my intention to attempt to do so but I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter!
I look forward to hearing from you
Andy
-
Andy
My thoughts on the practice of taking a HR in to relieve a crew, swapping HR's and them bring your HR back out is totally unnecessary, and I kept on about it because I thought someone else would tell you so!
If you are going in to relieve a crew on a branch, the last thing you should come across is a fire before you get to the branch!
The first rule of firefighting is never pass fire, so there shouldn't be any fire before you reach the BA team.
If there is, you can retreat, but the biggest danger to anyone in there is to the initial team!
So all you are taking the HR in for is to pass it to the other BA team so instead of that, why not just follow their HR till you get to them.
Easier for you to get in- Easier for them to get out!
It also cuts down the number of HRs being dragged into the building and the amount of pump operators required.
Imagine a large fire with say 4 HRs, or even worse 4 Jets in use- using your method you would require 8 HRs or jets and would require more physical effort from BA teams.
I thought someone else may point this out to you, and gave them ample opportunity to do so but it never happened!
I have been to numerous large fires and if BA teams needed relieved, the new BA team followed the HR or hose and relieved them!
This means that either I have been doing it wrong for years or other people haven't been to any large fires!
I will leave it for others to decide!!!!!!
-
I appreciate what you are saying, I have to say that I was always told to have a Firefighting medium with me at all times which is where my confusion stems from, I am however not going to argue that point because as we both know you are the one with the superior knowledge and experience!
You do say in your answer to me 'why not just follow their HR till you get to them. Easier for you to get in - Easier for them to get out!' (please see Billy's post to see this quote in context) in saying this are you not in essence supporting my main point which is that GL are unnessercary as HR's can be used as a guide in and out instead?
-
Andy
I never mentioned Guidelines in relation to the HR scenario!
Other people including Fireftrm say that Guidelines are a safe system of work, but don't think for one minute that you can use HRs instead.
If your point is that Guidelines are unnecessary and you can use HR's instead- how do you know if you have fully searched an area or room if you are dragging a HR behind you?
-
Dear God Almighty!!!
Clip onto the hose, sounds like a training centre wallah invention.
The way to guarantee that you find your way back to the point of entry is to ensure that you pay full attention to the route you took on the way in.
Does everyone remember Gillander street and what happens when loads of hose takes the same route?(not withstanding the other issues which contributed to that tragedy)
The problem that we are finding in my brigade is that not nearly enough time is spent training with BA anymore or anything else for that matter, and little things like this can creep in without being addressed.
The demise of the BAI in some brigades will be regreted later and
I can quote one senior officer in my Brigade who said "Why do we need to train special instructors in BA, its just another piece of kit".
-
Dearer God almighty..............hoiw many peopl ehave heard the 'follow the reel as a guide line back to the entry' and MADE this inot 'clip onto the reel'? Chinese whispers or what. The real reel point would have been to follow the reel as a guide line to the entry point. Surely, and I can see no other true meaning of the term, a guide line meant a line (direction) guiding you on your way not as a 'Guidleline' which is a specific name for a piece of equipment. If the misunderstanding of what the individual was told is taken into account then the whole clipping to the reel is easily dismissed as any sort of suggestion by the trainers or otherwise.
Read the posts again and see my point?
-
PS docfin, remember that the hose was a side issue to the real reason for Gillender St disaster, that being the use of a Guidleine, instead of hose. That there was way too much, uncharged, hose lying around only made matters worse. Had they taken a charged line, no Guideline, and followed that then perhaps it would have all been different?
-
Fair point about Gillender St. I think my rant was more to do with the demise of the BAI than anything else.
Does anyone else feel this, coupled with the emphasis being placed on training by video or electronic means is a mistake.
In my brigade (Kent) I have heard even the most bone idle of old sweats complaining that we dont do nearly enough drills anymore.
-
PS docfin, remember that the hose was a side issue to the real reason for Gillender St disaster, that being the use of a Guidleine, instead of hose. That there was way too much, uncharged, hose lying around only made matters worse. Had they taken a charged line, no Guideline, and followed that then perhaps it would have all been different?
Fireftrm
Your argument is so flawed it is laughable- Don't use Guidelines but use hose instead which has no markings of direction of travel!
You say that the Gillender St "disaster" was that they used a Guideline but I have stated on previous posts that you cannot follow hose from a building if there is large amounts in use?
You even say that the disaster was due to using a guideline instead of hose!!!
Docfin
Totally agree with your point on the demise of the BAI- all FRS need to use the knowledge and expertise of personnel such as the BAI to pass on their experiences to crews and ensure uniformity of training!
-
Correect me, then, if I am wrong......the problem which resulted in the deaths of the two firefighters was not the use of the guideline?
A lot of hose was there and that was the cause?
Where in saying that using a guideline instead of hose caused the disaster is there a problem? If they had taken a length, charged, as the only team in that area they would have been able to return all the way to their entry point, it is not possible for others to pop along and make divisions on your length without your knowledge and follwoing a 70mm hose line back would have been somewhat easier.
I am interested to hear a good description, from the users here, of the Gillender St premises and the area that the team were in, plus the purpose for which a guideline was in use and what hose was in use and whether charged/uncharged?
-
G'day to you all from the Great Southern Land.
I have been a firefighter for 15 years in the NSW Fire Brigades, and in all that time have never seen, let alone used a guideline. Is the idea supposed to be that you lay it on your way into a Structure Fire, and then follow it back out at the end? We have always been trained to either follow hoselines (If you have the wet end, the rest of the hose must lead back to the pump...), or if operating without a hose in a purely rescue mode to reverse the direction of your search. As for knowing if a room has been searched, we fold matresses over or put a large cross on the door in chalk.
We are also trained to operate as low to the floor as practical, to enhance vision and avoid exessive heat. We also ventilate as soon as possible... by opening windows and doors, not knocking holes in the roof as our American cousins seem to be so fond of!
All in all, I am surprised to see such a level of debate over a piece of string!
Richard Halcomb
Deputy Captain (Retained)
Narellan Fire Station
NSW Fire Brigades
-
Hi Richard
Just to clarify a couple of points you raised.
Firstly- I totally agree that if you are in with a hose or jet and you want to get out, you simply stay away from the wet end and when your head hits the pump inlet, you are out!
But if there are numerous hose in the building and you are being relieved by other crews, if you leave the branch and try and follow the hose out- you may get confused with all the hose and end up back at another wet end again!
You mention that if you are in on a purely rescue mode- you simply reverse the direction of search.
This sounds like the way we used to search buildings as if we went in on a left hand search we simply turned around and came back out on a right hand search.
We now do what is called box searching and have to search the first room before moving on.
If this room is large and has numerous doors off it- we have to count the doors and if you have went through a number of doors- retracing your steps can cause confusion.
You should also realise that this "piece of string" is only used in large, complicated buildings where there is a severe risk of crews becoming disorientated and finding it difficult to find their way out.
If you were in a large building and you had a "piece of string" that could lead you to your exit in Zero visibility- would you use it?
I know that there are Brigades in Australia and New Zealand who use similar Guidelines to ours and they are looking at improved methods of marking them, E-mail me and I will give you more information.
-
Billy - Good point about the problems regarding multiple hoses in the risk area. If you need to find a means of improving the ways of marking guidelines you should get in touch with a guy called Steve Kemp. He is a sub O (I think) serving at the channel tunnel site (KFB)
and he came up with some brilliantly innovative ways to mark the difference between main and branch lines. To their shame the powers that be decided that they would ignore him.
-
Docfin
I also suggested putting a small 10mm split ring on every guideline positioned at 1 Metre from the snap hook.
When you use the guideline as a branch line, the BAECO attaches the branch line tally onto the snap hook and this allows the BA crews to attach the branch line onto the guideline by the snap hook if they wish as the snap hook is smaller than the indicator tabs.
It also means that there is absolutely no dubiety as to which is the branch line and which is the main guideline.
Thanks docfin for the info- I might give him a phone and see if he has hit his head against the same brick walls as I have!
-
Billy
Not a bad idea but how do you differentiate between branch and main lines once inside the risk?
If as is sometimes the case you come across someone elses guideline at say the middle of the line confusion is possible.
Steve Kemp's idea (as far as I can recall) proposed that there should be a further "short leg" spliced in to show that the line is a branch and not a main line.
Simple but effective.
-
Wouldn't it be possible to just put big shiny < marks on the H/R? you couldn't lose then...... well not easily anyway!
-
Frankie
The problem with big shiny marks on the HR is that the only one of your senses that is guaranteed to be of use to you in a fire is your sense of touch- this coupled with the confusion of numerous lengths of hose in the same door would make this more problematic than the current method in use.
-
Now just how worrying is this scenario:
"loads of hose lines going into a building (thus 'loads of teams') and guidleines as well"?
now what is likely to happen and how many funerals will result?
When will we get a consensus that many such fires should be delat with from outside and that guidelines are INHERENTLY dangerous?
-
Well..... loads of hose reels in a door way wouldn't be a problem with my idea because....... all the arrows would be pointing back to the pump.....
Someone please tell me the difference between 10 hose reels in one door and 10 guidelines.....? because surely... and i've not done my BA course yet.....loads of bits of string coming off each other will be a nightmare..... large shiny < arrows (possibly as raised bumps?).... WILL guide you back.
-
Start off you can only have two guidelines going through that door.
More than that needs the branches with the associated disaster scenarios - to a maximum of four branches.
I still have an issue with 'loads' of hoses too, we should not have loads of teams in a fire that is likleyt o be complicated, we should be outside for our own safety. Having said that the hoses are quite clearly identified for dirction at couplings anyway (assuming you can see them) and there are designs of hosereels with embedded colour and arrows already. They do help.
Bits of string are Billy's desire - he sells them. If you read through here you will find a core of sense that wants GLs disposed of altogeether.
-
Fireftrm
You said, Quote: - "Having said that the hoses are quite clearly identified for dirction at couplings anyway (assuming you can see them)"
Firstly- If you think that hose is "quite easily identified for direction at couplings anyway", especially in fire conditions with BA on, then I really do question your judgement!
Secondly- you say at the end, "assuming if you can see them" - well at the risk of stating the patently obvious, FIRES ARE SMOKEY AND IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO SEE AT TIMES!
You then go on to advocate the use of hose with embedded colour and arrows already that help- that sounds like my new Guideline design to me!
You still haven't suggested how we systematically search a large area if it is smoke-logged- ( and before you say PPV- all appliances don't have PPV but they all have Guidelines !)- Or maybe you think the Judge would forgive us for missing a fatality in a large area !
Your suggestions and solutions for not using guidelines seems to be far more dangerous than using them properly!
You state that bits of string are my desire, but I only want guidelines that work safely and easily, and as stated earlier, all your bosses think they work as they are, because they still keep them on all UK front line appliances!
Finally, you state that there is a core of opinion that wants guidelines disposed of altogether- well forgive my cynicism, but if it was that simple, your bosses would take them off every appliance- the fact that they haven't speaks for itself- or do you disagree with them as well!
-
I can't be bothered to go there again so simply copy and paste a previous post: (typos and all)
.I really cannot believe (though am faced with enough of your comments on here to be dismayed by the evidence), in this day and age, that there are still Ffs who are of the opinion that a guideline will be of any value (and worse still that it will actually be a safe method for Ffs) to use in a building on fire.
I am absolutley convinced that the lawyers would have no case, because the DRA would have clearly identified that the GL was not a safe system of work and therefore not a suitbale control measure. The IC would have a demonstrable RA and the suitable control chosen. Billy says "And if you don't use them when your procedures say you should, the lawyers will have a field day!!!" - which procedures? I know of none that say 'YOU WILL USE A GUIDELINE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES' what I do know is that the IC must make a risk assessment and I know of no (with the exception of you two) any ICs who would include a GL as a safe method of searching a building on fire and I cannot believe that anyone would be so naive as to consider that a GL will allow a search to rescue people still alive.
Billy please give me an example of an incident (real or imaginary) where, having carried out a DRA (list it please) the ONLY option to allow a safe search for the fire (please don't include life rescue because they will be dead before the line is laid - if not already). As to the vicarious liability - my FRS would not be responsible because you will note that I said - "I cannot imagine any such incident". Ian, I am not arguing at the mess table, I am giving real world RA answers, it seems to me that the GL would be the hard one to defend in that real world, there are (unfortunately) examples where it could have been so tested.
As it happens my 'bosses' (with whom I have operational discussions regularly) agree, but we still have GLs as they remain (unfortunatley) in the Ff NOS. They, along with all my peers, are campaigning to have them removed from the British FRS, but die-hards, who still think it is acceptable to send Ffs into dangerous burning buildings with little chance of saving the proeprty and no lifes to rescue, want GLs - because they are there now and change is so frightening. Hopefully they will all be retired soon and off selling GLs to the unwary so we can move forward.
As to the case potentially demonstrating the major flaws in the GL, I think you just answered why the case would fail to find that I, or my service, were at fault over not using them, rather that we were acting in the best interests of the safety of our personnle by leaving them in their bargs. A perfect response to the lawyer, thanks for pointing that one out as a great benefit to the case for the defence, especiallyas the RA decision not to use them would be a good indicator that we had done something about their problmes and dangers - by not using them. Brilliant as a clear reason for the DRA decision, all ICs out there note Billy's comment - it will aid your RA. Billy - I think we may yet have you saved, at last you have started using the rationale that we have been using, they are dangerous, we know the faults, so our DRA will say don't use them. Thanks again for seeing reason, even if you haven't yet realised it.
I remain, solidly, in the same camp as Paul, and I beleive Lee. I also think that Andy has more than a slight grasp on the ideal
-
Fireftrm
Cutting and pasting does not cover the points you, yourself raised on the last but one post and in any case, I believe I have already responded to those points?
I am sorry you made comments that when challenged, you cannot be bothered to respond to!
-
That's the way it is though.
-
Fireftrm
Don't feel bad about it - loads of people make comments or opinions and when challenged, cannot back them up with reasoned argument!
-
It isn't that and I don't feel bad. What it is is that I am sick of giving reasoned argumnets and you coming bak to the same lame and well worn points.
I won't be bothering to respond so save yourself the trouble.
-
Fireftrm
Sorry you feel that way but if you read the posts, I challenged you on the fact that you think you can look at hose couplings in a fire condition which will involve reduced visibility and whilst wearing BA, you can tell the direction of travel to your exit!
I just find this claim bizarre in the extreme!
-
Oh - here goes...........
Hold the pointy wet end, with the hose in your hands walk the opposite way. When you get to the end you will be at the pump. Alternativley pick up the hosereel at any other point and move to a coupling - look at it (it is possible to hold it close and to use a torch too) if it is lay flat hose the coupling is eeven asier to identify by direction. End of story.
-
Fireftrm
We all understand the "hold the pointy wet end and walk the opposite way" as I suggested on a previous post, but I take the alternative other methods you suggest mean you are confused and don't know which way is in or out?
As to the others- Firstly, we use Hemaphrodite couplings on hosereels in my FRS and you don't have any indication as to which way is in or out- even in open air and under no pressure whatsoever.
Secondly- using the way the male and female hose is connected to find your way out is even more confusing than the markings on the current guideline!
I think you forget that this is a fire you are in and you may be tired, hot, have little or no visibility and also have BA on, and you think that the way the hose is connected is easy to identify the direction in or out!
When I was doing initial tests on the new guideline, members of a Scottish FRS didn't see any problems with the current one, although they conceded the marking is easier to understand on the new design.
They train regularly with guidelines, are totally familiar with them and use them at incidents safely and without any problems.
They would be laughing their heads off at people suggesting using the way hose is connected to find your way out of an incident!
-
Billy you still haven't given an example of when you would ever use a GL following a DRA! I still fail to see why you think the HR is an inadequete means of tracing your way out, It really can't be simplier can it?
-
Andy
I have stated frequently that if HRs are numerous or if they are submerged, trying to trace them is almost impossible. I am certain that BA procedures say that if this is the case, guidelines should be considered.
As for using a Guideline following a DRA, what if the Operational intelligence you had on the building said there was large open areas and a disorientation hazard within the premises and PPV was unsuitable or unavailable?
If you just stood back and did nothing because you thought guidelines were too dangerous and you had no confidence in them, you would be torn apart in court.
Finally, how do you search a large area systematically dragging a HR or a main jet behind you- or are we saying that we don't have to stick to procedures in relation to searching if there is no life risk anymore?
-
As it says in the good book:
Guidelines are used to enable a BA team to retraice their steps to their entry point, to locate a BA team working in the risk area, or to quickly reach the scene of operations. The guideline should be used where no other practical or appropriate means are available for tracing their way out of the risk area.
-
Exactly splidge. As there are always practical and substantially more appropriate ways of dealing with the incident then GLs should be sent to outdoor activity centres where they can use them for blindfolded sessions of fun.
What would we be doing searching large open areas in a building full of smoke. I am saying that if there is no life risk we shouldn't even be in there - let alone searching using a piece of satring for heaven's sake!
As to the 'torn apart' in acourt for not using thjem, you are under a large misapprehension that having some equipment and a TB menas that you should use the equipment. If they are considered to be dangerous, inappropriate and that there are other means of carrying out the task it would be using them that would have you potentially 'torn apart'. I, for one, am quite happy that my RA would stand.
-
Fireftrm
So you think it is OK to stand up in court and say that a control measure provided by your employer is dangerous and the lawyer or QC won't question it further!
Do you have a legal department in your FRS and are they aware that your defence could have serious implications for your FRS?
As for saying that we shouldn't be in large areas if they are full of smoke, I thought we will take a moderate amount of risk to protect saveable property- if you don't have PPV or it is unsuitable, this suggestion sounds like you are going to stand by and let it burn down unless you can use PPV ?
I think it is you who may be under the large misapprehension that you or your FRS will not be made to look unprofessional by your stance on your RA- You are saying that Guidelines are dangerous, but would your FRS agree with you, and incriminate themselves in doing so- I think not!
-
If we go back to the original question:
Performing a search with a hose reel is standard isn’t it, if you have finished the search and remembered your training to note familiar land marks on your search and reverse your route to come out then there shouldn’t be a problem and of course you should bring your hose out with you? Shouldn’t you?
If your OIC has made the assessment that a guideline is to be used for a deeper penetration then surely unless your instructed to leave the hose in situ? you would bring it out with you, following your guideline to your exit point and having the hose reel with you as you normally would. As for clipping onto the hose reel I cant think of to many frs teaching that, but I could be wrong, I certainly would not clip on to the hose reel!
For the (proper door procedure) don’t for get that you have already passed through the doors on the way in and that the hose reel is keeping those doors open, how many thresh holds are you going to cross, if this is a search and rescue?
In my opinion guidelines are like any other equipment that the frs use if you are taught how to use them correctly and you keep up your competency with that piece of equipment then you should be competent in the use of it, but this will not allay the fears of those ff’s who think of it as a piece of string will it?
-
Splidge
I suppose if you have that mindset, Guidelines are just pieces of string, but I see them as a method of getting fire crews back to their point of entry in zero visibility, (silly me)!
Maybe if I seen PPV as being just like big hair dryers, hosereel as being really good water pistols or flash hoods as ear warmers I would also think of guidelines as pieces of string- Thankfully I don't!
-
Billy
Thankfully I dont either, but irrelevant of what term you use for each piece of equipment ie: guideline - piece of string! If you are not trained adequately in using the equipment then you wont be compitant in its use, will you?
-
Billy,
Refering to your response to Firetrm's last post,
Point 1 - Let the Lawyer/QC question it further they are not going to be able to come up with an argument for using a Guidelihne that doesn't have a safer alternative.
Point 2 - The defence that the FRS legal team need is that the DRA concluded it was best not to use them!
Point 3 - We are more than happy to take a MODERATE risk for saveable property however I feel and I think Firetrm will probably agree that GL's do not fall into the category of Moderate risk!
-
I agree with every point Andy.
-
Andy
I will try and cover your points
Fireftrms whole argument is that a Guideline, which is a UK recognised control measure is dangerous.
Guidelines, if used properly by competent personnel are a means of reducing the risk to fire crews.This is an undisputed fact, so it sounds like fireftrm is conceding that either crews using them in his FRS are not competent or his management are forcing them to carry "dangerous" equipment which he believes increases the risk to crews.
Which ever it is, to try and defend any of these points in court would be extremely difficult.
As to taking a moderate risk for saveable property, Fireftrm stated he would not even be in a large area if it was smoke logged- end of story!
This is not a Guideline issue but more of a practical firefighting issue.
If I have a large area which is smoke logged and I have thorough DRA which would include, plans operational intelligence on all risks, thorough briefings to crews, and if necessary, Guidelines and I also thought that committing crews would reduce damage to property then if the chances of success outweighed the risks, I would commit crews.
To say that you simply would not commit crews is part of the reason why experienced firefighters are becoming more and more frustrated as they stand by and watch buildings burn down nowadays, that ten years ago they would have saved without injury.
-
Billy,
The way I understand firetrm's argument is that he is not trying to say that his FRS is not competent enough to use GL's or that his FRS management is Forcing him to carry dangerous equipment simply that in his professional opinion as an OIC GL's are dangerous pieces of equipment that he would not be prepared to use, the fact that this is his opinion anyway is really of irrelevance because each incident is going to have a seperate DRA and all he needs to say in his defence is that as the OIC he felt following the DRA that there was a better alternative to a GL, no court can argue with that that's his job to make those descions!. I also believe that if you read through his posts he has on numerous occasions said that they are actively campaigning to have them removed from their appliances anyway!
Firetrm,
I don't like to quote people or indeed appear as though I am talking on their behalf so please feel free to correct me on anyhting you disagree with.
Billy,
I can't understand why you would be prepared to commit crews to a smoke logged area, why not use the equipment that all appliances (certainly in Somerset as far as I'm aware) carry and get rid of the smoke before entering using tatical ventilation, the point is as soon as you put a GL in use you instantly change the risk from moderate to high!
Andy.
-
Billy,
Can't believe your still going onabout this??
-
Andy
I am quite happy with your use of my comments, I am pleased that you have understood the gist of them, unlike some others. Your summary is good!
PSmith - neither can I. Having said that do we encourage him by arguing back I recommend we all cease responding and maybe the argument can pass to others.
-
agree
-
Andy
To say that as soon as you use Guidelines, you increase the risk from moderate to high just underlines and compounds the fact that you cannot use them properly!
Guidelines are a recognised method of reducing the risk under certain circumstances(Fireftrms words, not mine) and whether you can use them competently or not, other crews can and do it regularly!
As for saying that you are actively campaigning to remove them from appliances confuses me!
If they are as dangerous as you say they are- there shouldn't be any resistence and they should already be taken off - end of story!
Or could it be that others disagree with your point of view including, Management, Health and Safety and the representative bodies!
If everyone in your FRS thinks they are dangerous, yet you still have them on all your appliances - this doesn't say much about your Risk assessment and equipment auditing procedures.
Thankfully Psmith and Fireftrm won't be commenting any more as they seem totally unwilling to accept any one elses view that differs from theirs- most FRS are aware of the dangers of not being competent with any equipment and take steps to remedy this by increased training and familiarisation.
Some of the ones I have dealt with have done this to good effect with guidelines and have no problems with them.
Finally- we don't have PPV on all appliances and I know a number of other FRS that are the same, but they still all have guidelines, so why not use them properly or take them off now- not "actively campaign to remove them" and hope everything is OK in the interim!
-
I still think your getting hung up on the same old arguments the point isn't that I would be unable or not competant enough to use a GL in a smoke filled area it's just that I STILL haven't been given a scenario where I (as a relitively junior fireman) can't come up with a viable, therefore safer, alternative. If there was no alternative then I would use them and feel confident in my ability as a FF to do so, it is the principle of the GL that I lack confidence in!.
Point of fact, I have never said that I, or as far as I am aware, my FRS is actively campaigning to have GL's removed from all front line appliances I was infact quoteing Firetrm.
Maybe my FRS do disagree with my point of view and to be completley honest with you I don't know their position on it, it is however my perogative to have my own opinion just as it is your's!
I am not totally unwilling to accept any one else's view on this in fact if you read back through previous posts you will see that I am actually very willing to hear other peoples views that being one of the main reasons I use this forum, to gain and expand on my knowledge! this doesn't however mean I am obliged to agree with everyones views.
-
Andy
Some scenarios where you may consider Guidelines are: -
Fires in ships.
Fires in structures that could cause crews to get disorientated such as large warehouses, complex structures and basements.
Multiple lines of hose through the same entrance.
Submerged hose lines.
These may be few and far between and as I have said earlier, it would be easier if you could use PPV, but you cannot use PPV in every scenario, so what would you use to retrace your steps if it was smoke logged?
-
The only scenario in that list that I am not able to think of an alternative for is a fire in a ship, this is because I have never come across one and have never recieved any training on them, (my station is a small 1 pump RT about an hour and a half from any ship!). I would be interested to hear Firetrms views on what method he would use in a ship I know he doesn't want to be involved in the debate any longer but it would be intresting to know if he knew of a viable alternative.
I have only said PPV is one alternative I have repeatly said re tracing your HR is the obvious alternative, as you should have at least this with you, as for it becoming sub merged what happens if your GL becomes submerged?, multiple hoses through the same entrance shouldn't present a problem if you are only following one, and as I think someone has pointed out before it is possible to tell by the couplings which way to go besides why would you have multiple hoses going through the same entrance this implies you have alot of FF's commited to a high risk area, why would you do that? one BA team only needs one HR regardless of the size of the team.
My main concern with GL's is the time taken to lay them in the first place, if there was a life risk do you not think you may be increasing the risk to the casulty by taking the time to lay a line? perhaps if this problem could be addressed they might be more praticle?
-
Andy
What about as a viable alterative, the use of guides? use the force sorry the knowledge of the people who work in these places.
-
Yeah valid point we should always seek to use the knowledge of people on the scene who are familiar with the risk area, we should indeed endeavour to make ourselves familiar with high fire risk properties which I believe we already do, not entirely sure what you mean by using them as guides though?
-
Andy
In a ship I would use the on board ventilation, wherever possible and high-ex foam for large compartments. With no life risk the useof firefighters directly in the fire area would be kept to an absolute minimum anyway, with their hoselines being their route markers. Should there be a very great heat build up (common in ships as they are large metal cans) then GLs would not be in my tool box as they are flammable and thus of little use on very hot metal bulkheads and fittings, not to mention the confusion and loss of time they cause.
Your point about many hose lines meaning many teams and 'why would you do that?' shows a great depth of understanding of the modern DRA process. Well done. Why indeed!
Splidge you point about guides is extremely sensible, if there are works/ship fire teams use them.
One last (as I have been tempted and feel I must) if you haven't PPV, or other means of removing smoke from large, or complex smokelogged buildings why are you in there? Life? Well if so that GL isn't going to save them. Stay outside and fight the fire from there.
-
Fireftrm
You always seem to go back to the point that guidelines can burn and on ships they would be useless as they are flammable.
This seems to imply that you would pass compartments on fire which I was always taught not to under any circumstances.
To consider not using guidelines as they may melt also implies that you are willing to put fire crews into extremely high temperatures where they may also melt!
At least if you used guidelines and they started to melt it would give you an indication that you shouldn't be there in the first place!
On your last point about staying outside and fighting the fire if there is no life risk- I thought we also had to protect property as well and I would rather use everything possible to reduce the risk to fire crews and carry out my statutory duties, and if this required putting crews into smoke and having to use control measures, amongst which could be guidelines, then I would do so.
-
Although training has changed in leaps and bounds and even with the addition of DRA's and ppv we should not forget that ff's have lost their lifes by getting lost either by trying to follow hose reels or guidelines to their exit points.
I wonder out of all of these fatalities just how much was down to lack of training, bad luck, bad equipment you get the point.
Training in the most basic forms of firemanship should be parramount until some genius comes up with a safer meaans of extracting ourselfs from any form of building small or large. Getting lost intodays technilogical world should not be an option.
-
I have also lost my copy of the Bradford City Fire. If anyone knows where I might obtain a copy, digital of VHS, please contact me at mikegibrn@yahoo.com
Thanks a million,
Stay Safe
-
thank goodness for that I thought someone had kicked it all off again!
-
no that comes next week at southport andy! and it wasnt me that picked the fight, but fight i will!
dave bev
-
You'll have to forgive my ignorance I am after all only a nieve youth, (who can't spell I don't think) but what's in Southport?
-
sorry andy - fbu recall conference where the pension issue is the only item on the agenda!
storm clouds are building!
dave bev