Breathing Apparatus Guidelines

[Guest]

Surely a lot of the time, the decision to use guidelines is down to the OIC and his initial DRA of the premises?

[Guest]

The answer is simply training, training and more training. Much of the problems caused by the use of the current design is a lack of training needs identification and rectifying of deficiency.
This is not to say that the current design is in any way half decent but if Firefighters and their managers pulled their heads out of the sand they might realise that it is not the equipment or the procedures for the use of guide lines that are inherently dangerous it is the competency of the operators and those who determine their use at incidents.
If a building is deemed not suitable for the use of guidelines then both a GRA and the OiCs DRA should determine that they stay in the bag.
There are many alternatives to the use of guidelines and over the years many successful stops have been achieved in large complex structures with crews simply using charged HrJs or jets to penetrate, withdraw or subsequently return to the scene of ops.
As for withdrawing them, why not. There does not need to be any better or safer alternative in order for any eqpuipment to be withdrawn. Take hook ladders for example, they were binned simply as a result of the passage of time and their relevance becoming outdated. The same principle could apply to guide lines. If they were withdrawn tomorrow we would evolve newer and safer practices and in time would look back on them in the same way as we now do hook ladders.
Any alternative to guidelines which still involves Ffs following a piece of string is by definition a guideline and as such my original point regarding training, training and more training would be just as valid in the future as it is now.

[Guest]

Anderson

Could you explain how training, training and more training  will help you to feel the  tabs with your gloves on when you cannot do it just now?

[Guest]

I do not know what gloves are issued in various Brigades but there are various styles on the market which are sufficiently dextrous in order for the tabs to be felt and correctly identified (the problem might then be knowing which direction to take as opposed to feeling the tab).
On the other hand if difficulty is experienced in locating a set of tabs and identifying the route out then i would personally take a glove off  and identify the longest/unknotted from the shortest/knotted.
If i read you correctly the problem may not be the line but the quality of the glove.
Don't get me wrong however i personally do not like the guidelines on the run at present and the philosophy of train, train, train is only a stop gap until a decision to get rid or change is eventually taken.

[Billy]

Anderson

I have read your post and have to disagree with some of your assumptions.

Firstly, training will not help fire crews to feel the current guideline with their gloves on, but changing the marking system will.

Secondly, to imply that it is not the equipment or procedures that are inherently dangerous, but the competence of the operators and the OIC of incidents is way off the mark.
In my Brigade we carry out 11d's and identify buildings where there may be a disorientation risk if it is involved in fire. They will then put the details onto our vehicle mounted data system (VMDS) so that all crews can view it.
The crews are more than competent to carry out this task and they have done their duty as per procedures.
The fact that the procedures (as yet) do not require the crews to identify any securing points for guidelines, should they be needed means that it is the procedures that are inherently dangerous, and not the competency of the crews.

You say that if a building is deemed not suitable for the use of guidelines, the DRA and GRA should determine that they should stay in the bag.

I agree, but brigade procedures do not go far enough in fully identifying the hazards and risks in premises to allow this to happen.

You mention that they should be withdrawn, but how would you systematically search a large or complex building without a Guideline?

More importantly, do you think that you could stand up in a court of law and justify why you never followed written procedures for searching buildings, and never used all the equipment available?

You accuse fire crews and managers of having their heads in the sand, but the same people have identified the problems with the guidelines, namely the marking and securing of them, and came up with feasible improvements to make it safer for fire crews to use them.
[/b]

[ian 2243]

The idea that training will solve the problems associated with guidelines is a bit off the mark. Anybody who has taken part in a major exercise which used guidelines will tell you that they still end up in a confusing mess. As someone who worked at a station with docks (remember them?) in the local area regular training was done using the guideline, however no amount of training comes close to having to use them for real.
Anything which makes their use easier or safer is certainly worth looking at.
As for the original point regarding tie-off points, it's a good idea but not going to happen. You will not get businesses to agree to something that in all probability will never be used.
Handy for hanging the Xmas decorations all the same!
A good new year to all on the BBS.
Ian.

[Guest]

Ian

You are partly right about the businesses being reluctant to fit them, but think of it this way.

You identify a building  that represents a disorientation risk to crews if it was involved in a fire.
This means that you would consider using guidelines, so you then check to see if there is any where to secure the guidelines onto.
if there is not, you inform the employer of the building that they need to fit hooks and ask them to contact their fire equipment supplier who will advise them on the positioning of the hooks.

The brigade has then carried a thorough risk assessment of the premises.

If the employer has been informed of this risk and the building is involved in a fire and no hooks are fitted, we will not use guidelines as we have identified a risk and given the employer advice on how to reduce the risk to crews.
 Do you think his insurance would pay out if they found out he had went against the guidance of the fire authority?

If  brigades are carrying out 11ds' and identify buildings that have disorientation risks, they should also be looking at how to reduce that risk- not just by considering guidelines, but by ensuring they can be deployed properly.

How many buildings in your station area would you consider using guidelines in at present?

Is there anywhere in these buildings to attach them onto?

The answer to the last question is probably NO.

[Billy]

Sorry, I wrote the post above but forgot to log on!

[ian 2243]

Billy,
I am not against the principle of tie-off points in buildings, god knows it's hard enough finding suitable points to secure a guideline. In reality however fill any large building with smoke and you have a disorientation risk.
I am not an insurance expert but I wouldn't have thought that they would be particularly interested in hooks for guidelines as I don't see how they would affect fire losses from a loss adjusters point of view. Perhaps Chris Houston would be able to shed some light on the insurance position.
To reiterate, given the number of times the brigades actually use guidelines I do not think you would get agreement to have hooks fitted. The risk assessment may well identify the desire but as risk is about probability I think you would find that the requirement a non-starter.

Ian.
 

[Billy]

Ian

Good valid points and I find it hard to argue against them, but I was thinking of Health and Safety legislation where the employer is responsible for the health and safety of ALL personnel who may have to work in the premises.
Firefighters come into this category, and if we identify a risk and nothing is done to reduce that risk- who is at fault if an accident happens?

[AnthonyB]

So far as is reasonably practicable is a key phrase as is risk assessment & cost benefit analysis in H&S and using these you will conclude that hooks are not a legitimate expense as the need for them is so rare - if you are compying with all your other H&S and fire safety requirements you won't have a fire.

you'll never get hook in via H&S or insurance rules

[MShaw]

I have to agree that it's not he lack of tie off points, or the marking system which makes guidelines dangerous, it's the potential for confusion which leads to accidents such as the incident at Gillender St in London where two FFs died whilst using a guideline.

In that job, there were plenty of tie off points and they did manage to 'read' the way out tabs, but it was confusion with the way the line had been laid  which caused the major problems. (at one location there were two guidelines laid parralell on either side of a corridor giving conflicting information which way was out).

The simple (and cheap) anwser is more training, revised procedures (including a ban on tie off points above waist level) and encouragement to use them at the early stages of a job to cover the eventuality that the smoke logging may worsen later. More guideline use would give valuable experience and above all, confidence in the kit.

[Guest]

just to quickly add to this debate, when you are deploying BA crews into risks and are using guidelines do they take hosereel protection in with them as well.This is something we discuss on station, as smoke is now perceived as unburnt gases should crews enter without any form of protection.

[Guest]

In relation to MSHAW post that it is not the lack of tie off points that cause the problems,I would have to disagree.

Not just modern buildings, but also most older buildings have little or no tie off points, especially in corners where you need them most.

[Billy]

I once checked out a number of BA training buildings and asked crews how they trained with guidelines within the buildings, and how they secured the guideline within the building.

A friend said that they could not do any Guideline training within the building until they fitted tie-off handles at the corners and at doors.
He said that any training without first doing this would mean that the guideline exercise would be pointless.

How is it then that we train in premises where there is handles or hooks at waist height positioned throughout the building, but we all know that when we go to a premises on fire and we have to use guidelines- we will not have the luxury of tie-off points where we need them!

I thought that training should replicate as much as possible, the conditions at a real incident, and in my opinion Brigades should be at the very least, making building owners or employers aware of the potential risks to crews if they have to use guidelines within their premises.