Breathing Apparatus Guidelines

[Guest]

Just some points relating to the use of Guidelines within buildings.

Most fire crews admit that the main reason we do not consider using guidelines in certain buildings is the lack of tie-off points.
So if we, as Firefighters have identified that there is no means of securing the guidelines in most premises, what have we done about it?
 The answer invariably is NOTHING! (apart from thinking that we will never have to use them anyway!)

In my opinion we have failed in at least 2 counts in relation to guidelines.
1. We have identified a potential hazard, but done nothing more, so if there is a fire in the premises we have 2 choices (A)  Use guidelines in the knowledge that they will not be laid properly and will in most cases, be more of a hindrance than a help.
(B) Do not use them at all and hope that everything turns out all right and no one is injured as it would be difficult to justify not using them if there was an accident inquiry.

2. We have also not made the owner or employers of the building in question aware of the problem as they may be willing to do something about it. I know that there is legislation coming into force soon that will make it the owner/employers responsibility for the health and safety of anyone who may have to work in the premises, but in the past, during our 1.1.d visits, we have identified loads of buildings where we should use guidelines, but we know we cannot secure them properly.

Here then is a suggestion of what we could do to stop problems in the future.
When crews are carrying out Operational information gathering on a certain building  and they think that there is potential for utilising guidelines if the building was involved in fire, they should see if there is any means of securing them. If not, they will inform the building owner of this, and put the responsibility onto them to provide means of securing the guidelines. If they refuse, we can then say that they were made aware of the problem and did nothing about it, which would absolve fire authorities from any possible litigation.
 More importantly, it would make it safer and easier for Breathing Apparatus crews to search buildings.
 The cost of fitting the Guide line securing Hooks would be minimal, and not all buildings would require them.

I would appreciate comments and opinions on this matter.

[Guest]

following 20 years in the job I have only used Guide lines in Training. Instead of looking at the ways to use guidlines we should be devising ways to get rid of them for something better.

[Guest]

Animal

Numerous reports have looked at alternatives to guidelines, but none have been an improvement. Most people don't use guidelines because historically, there have been problems securing them inside premises.

I have used them both in training, and also at operational incidents, and if they are laid properly, they do give you a certain amount of security.
I totally agree that we should be using the best equipment possible in these conditions, but at this moment, there is no better equipment on the market.
We should then be ensuring that the Guidelines are as effective as possible, and if this means fitting hooks inside buildings then so be it.

If buildings can be fitted with hooks for window cleaners on the outside of them to reduce the risk of injury, why can't they fit hooks inside buildings to allow us to do our job more effectively, and reduce the risk to fire crews?

[AnthonyB]

Simple - cost.

There are going to be window cleaners using eyebolts on buildings far more times than a fire fighter would use guidline hooks.

You will never get building owners to shell out on something that in the majority of places will never ever get used.

And the burden to industry is such that the Govt will never require it. If anything safety is degregulating not getting more stringent and unfortunately like most things it will remain a "wish list" item only

[Guest]

Anthony B

What about legislation- for example, the employers of any building are responsible for the health and safety of anyone who may have to work in the premises.
 What if fire crews identify a disorientation risk in a building and decide that the risk could be reduced by the use of Guidelines, should a fire occur.

If this fact is pointed out to the building owners, and they do not have any securing hooks for the guideline, then they may have a problem.
 Could they argue that they took all reasonable care in relation the fire safety measures within the premises if a risk was identified and they chose to ignore it ?
Do you think their insurance would pay out if this was the case?

You mention cost and you also state that
"You will never get building owners to shell out on something that in the majority of places will never ever get used" .

Building owners already pay a lot more than the cost of the Guideline hooks for sprinklers and other fire detection measures that in the majority of cases will not get used, so this comes into the same category.

Also Fire Authorities have a duty of care towards their personnel, and if they carry out a dynamic risk assessment on a premises and decide that to reduce the risk within the premises in a fire situation, the use of guidelines should be considered, they should take into account the securing of the guidelines and any tie off points.
If there is nowhere to secure them, and the employers have been informed of this, then as a fire officer I could justify not commiting crews into this building on Health and Safety grounds.

I would have no defence if I had to stand up in a court of law and have to try and justify myself if I allowed them to use Guidelines, knowing they had no means to secure them properly.

I know that it is only certain buildings that would require the hooks to be fitted, but these are the buildings where there is the greatest risk to fire crews.

[AnthonyB]

The test would be "so far as is reasonably practical" and i'd be suprised if anyone would consider it so outside of the fire service.

Unless there is a specific line in a bit of law saying "install hooks" it won't happen except in particularly enlightened premises.

This isn't to say I disagree with your desire, just am used to the reaction of typical clients when it comes to yet another zero-return expense (sprinklers are dear too, yes, but have a statistical benefit in life & property safety reducing loss in ££)

[Guest]

Anthony B

I totally agree with your points, but I am being slightly selfish here and I am looking at the problem from the point of an Operational Fire crew and also a Fire Authority who wants to give the best level of protection possible to its personnel.

 Fire Brigades already carry out information gathering solely for familiarisation of Firefighters in case of fire within the premises. They have a legal and moral obligation to do this and was originally done under 11d of the fire services act.
The crews will look at the layout of the building and the potential risks to fire crews in case of fire. If the building has a disorientation risk and has the potential for crews to get lost under fire conditions, this information should be recorded in the risk assessment sheet for the premises.
If we are saying that they may become disorientated, we are also implying that guidelines should be considered in case of fire within that particular building.
The point I am trying to impress is that Fire Authorities should also look at the method of securing the guidelines within the premises, and if there is nothing to tie them onto, then we should make the owners/ employers aware of this fact.
We, as a Fire Authority have now done our duty " SO FAR AS IS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE" and it would then be up to the employers of the premises to decide on their course of action.

Finally, most people are aware of the incident at Gillender street in London more than 10 years ago when 2 Firefighters lost their lives whilst using guidelines. It is generally agreed that one of the causes of this was the crews becoming so disorientated that they could not read the directional indicators on the guideline, but a contributory factor was also the guideline being incorectly secured within the premises.
I believe that the fitting of hooks would help reduce the risk to fire crews of this happening again.

[Guest]

I agree with a lot of the comments on this thread, but think that Guidelines either need improved or replaced as they are quite ineffective in the way they are used at present.
Putting hooks on buildings would make it easier for fire crews and would have to be cheap enough to make it viable, but what price do you put on the safety of fire crews?

[MShaw]

How about a permanent guideline fitted to escape routes in the building so staff can use them during an evacuation in smoke? They could be available in various colours to blend in with the decor of the building or perhaps replaced at this time of year with a seasonal Christmas guideline with mistletoe instead of tabs (the shortest bit of mistletoe indicating the way out)!!

Guideline hooks? - I don't think so. I have used guidelines once in 27 years, and with senior officers becoming increasingly frightened to choose offensive firefighting tactics (instead, being satisfied in flooding the building with aerials), I can see a day when guidelines are withdrawn.

That would really pi** off London Underground management, if they had just forked out on installing 23 million guideline hooks thruout their network!!!

[Guest]

You can only justify withdrawing a piece of equipment if you think that you will never have a use for it again, or you have something safer or better.
What would we use in place of Guidelines to systematically search a building safely?
What if it was your colleague or friend in the building- would you not want to use everything available to effect a rescue and reduce the risk to BA teams in the process.

It appears ro be a vicious circle with Guidelines as people are scared to use them because they cannot read the marking tabs, and there is nowhere to tie them onto within a building, so they don't use them!
So why don't we look at the problems and come up with solutions.

If you had the choice of using a Guideline at a large complex building that was correctly fitted at all points and the indicators were easy to read, would you use it ?

I don't know enough about these hooks, but would imagine that they would only be fitted in internal corners within rooms as  i think the guideline could be pulled tight around external corners?

I believe that guidelines would only be used in certain complex buildings, so only these buildings would require the hooks?

And even if the London underground had to fit these hooks but it was justified as it made it safer for BA teams to search the area, then so what!

I am curious to know if there are any securing points within underground stations for guidelines, and if not, has the London Fire Brigade made them aware of this, based on the points made earlier on this post which do seem to make some sense.

[MShaw]

Dear Guest above (can't we all use a name - it'd make things much easier)

The design and procedures governing the use of guidelines preclude their use for (public) rescues.

The fact that they would only be used in very smoky conditions, possibly in a complex environment and taking into account the time and resources it takes to establish a guideline, it is unworkable to use them as a rescue tool.

The idea that anyone would be able to survive those conditions long enough to find (and retrieve) them is unlikely at least.

London Underground have done much to improve safety since Kings Cross including spending millions on AFD and other improvements designed to safeguard passengers and staff. Spending money on millions of hooks would not improve the safety of passenger or staff, and would be better spent on FS infrastructure such as falling mains, pressurised lobbies or firefighting lifts.

I reckon R&D aimed at major changes to the line and procedures is the only way forward if we are going to continue using this kit. The design must be 50 years old and has been used virtually unchanged since it's conception, whilst other BA kit has moved on considerably in the same time period.

[Guest]

I have just looked at an article in Octobers IN ATTENDANCE Magazine and it talks about a SIMLINE ? which sounds the same as the guideline, but the marking is different as it seems to use tabs that feel smooth on the way out of the building.
It sounds an improvement on the guideline we are using at the moment, but I would like to try it out for myself first.

[Guest]

MSHAW

I was the one who came up with the new Guideline design  and I totally agree with your point that this equipment needed major changes in it.
 
Thin pieces of cord hanging down that you can't even feel with your gloves on and numerous aide memoirs that just lead to more confusion were just a few of the reasons  why the present design needed changing.

I also agree with your points on the safety improvements since the Kings Cross Incident, but I think that even if the Whole of the London underground stations were fitted with guideline hooks, it would probably cost no more than £20,000.
Heaven forbid we have a similar incident to Kings Cross, but in this era of  increased threats from terrorists, Fire brigades must take every precaution to ensure the safety, or reduce the risk to crews if such an incident happens.

Finally, you mentioned earlier (with tongue in cheek) about a permanent Guideline fitted to escape routes so staff could use them during an evacuation in smoke. You also said that the line could be made of various colours to blend into the decor of the building.

My answer to this is- WHY NOT?
I done a presentation on the new design to members of the public at the Glasgow Science Centre, and one immediately latched on to the fact that if you grasp the line and the tab feels smooth, you are going towards an exit. He said that he recently seen the video of the 9/11 incident and was amazed at how there was absolutely zero visibility when the first tower came down. the filming was taking place in the 2nd tower and survivors from there said that they were lucky to find their way to an exit.

The person at the presentation said that he thought that if an escape line was fitted in the entrance foyer of this building, it would have helped to get people to an exit.

It slightly saddens me that although this design is still going through the evaluation commitees in Scottish Fire Brigades, both American and Indian fire service equipment suppliers (to name but a few)have tried it, like it, and I am in the process of securing export deals to these countries.

Please visit the website www.simline.co.uk and then let me know what you think.

[Billy]

Sorry Messyshaw, My name is billy Sim and I posted the one above,but it never logged me on! ( probably my fault)

[Billy]

I would like to know what people thnk about the points raised on this subject, and also what other brigades do in relation to 11d's/ Operational information gathering on the risks within their area if they think there is a disorientation risk within a building?