Breathing Apparatus Guidelines

[MShaw]

Fair point Andy about taking (at least) a hose reel.

If the jobs worth laying a guideline, then it's definately woth having a reel in with you. But (acknowledging the apparently universal poor training which seems to becoming a trend here) how many times does this happen during a training session?

[fireftrm]

In response to hte original question: reply posted under Technical Advice

No.

We should be discouraging the use of any such trivial piece of equipment. Do you really think that putting a few hooks on walls in buildings would make guideline use safer/easier? ........................ I cannot use the words I want to!

They are inherently dangerous, difficult, confusing, outdated, slow, etc. What possible reasons would we have for promoting their use?

When did they save people rather than kill them? Gillender St etc.......

Why would we want to send Ffs into a BURNING building to lay out a piece of string (flammable) in order that they could find thier way back? When would we ever send someone in there without firefighting equipment!!!!!!!!!!?? So why not use the hosereel/hose - easier to follow (they would have it in their hands and it is a tad bigger) and it can be used to fight the fire! Also it is less likely to burn through - as it is internally cooled by water flow.

Why not use some piece of equipment like a TIC? What are they for otherwise?.

If the building is so heavily smokelogged and yet the fire is not so dangerous as to burn through the piece of string then use PPV! Or, if properly trained, use it offensively - once you can see you don't need to play 'follow the string'

Guidelines should be removed and put in a museum with leather hose, bellows BA and steam fire pumps. A good idea (?) when they were designed but no place in the modern firefighter's toolkit.

No one should be carrying out risk assessments on buildings and considering - 'how do I lay guidelines in here?' they should  be thinking 'if the building is smokelogged and there are persons reported how best can I clear the smoke?'! Also if there are no persons reported 'should I even consider committing BA teams?'

[fireftrm]

PS to Messy's posting

 - If a job needs a hosereel then what the hell are we doing wasting time and energy laying out a piece of flammable string for?

Dump the guidelines on outward bound centres where they can play with them with people blindfolded following the lines as a challenge - in the open air where they may be safe.

[fireftrm]

Response to Billy:

Much better tabs - but still a guideline with all the other problems.

How many buildings in my area would I consider using a guideline? Absolutley NONE. I would have PPV (offensive), PPV (defensive), TIC, normal BA search procedures, don't go in at all -  as my hierachy of controls and nowhere would guidelines EVER come into those controls.

[Billy]

To Firefrtm

could you explain the problem with a piece of equipment that will lead you to an exit even in total darkness?

How do you systematically search a building with a hosereel?

What is the significance of a guideline being flammable when the first basic rule of firefighting is never to pass fire?

How do you think that somewhere to secure a guideline onto would be a bad idea?

Could you explain what the problems with guidelines would be if you could read the tabs and also secure them properly within premises?

I thought that TICs should be used in conjunction with guidelines and not in place of them?
Finally, if you are advocating the use of hosereels instead of guidelines- try putting 5 BA teams with hosereels in the same doorway in a medium to large building, and then withdraw them in the order they went in and see what happens?

[Guest]

Who has ever used a guideline to effectively search for and locate live casualties in a real incident.
The reality as to why guidelines were introduced was to allow Firefighters to retrace their steps back in the days of proto sets (Smithfield meat market was the instigator). Given that times have moved on and no-one but no-one ever engages in free searching anymore i would suggest they are binned.
Assisting in the search for casualties might sound good in theory but the reality as to the practicality of this is somewhat different. In this day and age the saving of life in large complex structures is not by Ffs on guidelines but by AFD and effective m.o.e.
I apologise for my earlier references to training, i have now realised that all i was serving to do was justify a redundant work practice (shame on me).

[Guest]

Anderson

Are you trying to say that we no longer have to ensure that an area is fully searched, and if this is the case, do you want to make your legal experts aware of this.
I am sure they would love to know how to defend you in court if this happened at an incident.

Basically, you do not have to justify it in relation to finding live casualties, but only to ensure that we have carried out a full and proper search of the premises as per our procedures.

[Billy]

I agree with the post above as the reason we use guidelines is to do with accountability and crew safety.

does anyone remember how box searching actually came about?
As far as I can remember, a Brigade was taken to court over an incident where BA teams went in on a left hand search and, as was the procedure, stayed on the left hand wall and if they came to a door, they went through it. This system was easy to understand, and all you had to do to get out is turn and keep the wall on the right hand side.
The problem was that some time into the incident the OIC decided to put BA teams in on a right hand search and they found a casualty almost immediately!
When it went to court the prosecution lawyer produced a picture from the old manual of Firemanship which showed how to search a room,(remember the dotted lines to denote the search pattern going around the room and then a diagonal line across the middle).

He asked why the crews never followed procedures laid down in the manuals, and the brigade struggled to defend its actions. This is why box searching was introduced.

The reason we may have to use guidelines is to ensure we have searched areas according to our procedures and can defend this in a court of law, if necessary.
ANDERSON's post above suggested that he/she was justifying a redundant work practice when they said training is the problem with guidelines.

I hope he/she has an alternative method of searching large, complicated buildings before he/she suggest to bin them.

[Guest]

In considering the types of premises where guidelines are considered to be appropriate i would once again as per my last post suggest effective fire safety measures as being the definitive means to save life in such premises. If we can detect fire and evacuate prior to the arrival of the Fire Service then why risk Ffs by putting them in on a piece of string.
If we as a service do indeed consider guidelines and their procedures to have shortcomings regarding their safe and effective use then our only defence in a court of law (for not using them) needs to be that the risk to Ffs in using them (incorrectly) was present.
Lets be honest not many with an operational background could ever claim to be happy at the prospect of using guidelines at an incident given the manner in which things go pearshaped in training.

[Guest]

ps to the above.
I am always keen to know of situations where litigation reinforces or indeed alters accepted work practice. As such can you provide the case details so that i can study the case further. All i will need is the year and the Fire Service involved.

[Guest]

ANDERSON

If we as a service do indeed consider guidelines and their procedures to have shortcomings regarding their safe and effective use then our only defence in a court of law (for not using them) needs to be that the risk to Ffs in using them (incorrectly) was present.

To simplify your arguement, you appear to be saying that we shouldn't use them because we can't use them properly.
why don't we use them properly then, by ensuring the marking of the guidelines can be read easily, and we have somewhere to secure them onto within premises?

I don't know too much about legal issues but your defence seems to be an admission of liability as you already state that we are aware of the problem, but have done nothing about it.

[Guest]

correct

[Billy]

In relation to guidelines,I like to keep things simple so that if your life depends on it, you can still understand it, under any circumstances.

I have spoken to hundreds of fire fighters and almost everyone said that the marking of the SIMLINE was an improvement, but there would still be problems in tying the line off inside the building, and if we could solve that, we would solve the problems with guidelines.

Put the responsibility of supplying securing points for guidelines (if required) onto the employers of the premises and we have solved the problem.

If they fit the building with securing points, we will be able to use them to lay the guideline safely and properly within the building. This will assist fire crews and also ensure a systematic search is carried out if necessary.

If the employers choose not to fit the hooks, we will not use guidelines within their premises as we already know what the problems are going to be and will not put fire crews under that increased risk.

why should they fit the hooks?

Because we as fire crews have identified a hazard and made the employers aware of it. If they do nothing about it, they could be liable?

It might sound too simple to work, but the simplest  ideas usually are the best ones.

[Guest]

All excellent points and all well delivered. I particularly like the bit about transferring liability and how this ties right into my point about us as a rescue service justifying exactly when and where the lines should or should not be used (instead of continually feeling bound by a set of woolly moral obligations).
Well done Billy, you perhaps have a convert.

[Billy]

In this new era of IRMP, all Fire authorities have the best opportunity yet of making huge steps to ensure the safety of crews and enhance our reputation as a professional service in relation to guidelines than we have ever had since their inception.

ANDERSON is right in his points about the problems with guidelines, but we have the chance to overcome these problems with solutions that will make it easier  for the OIC to decide whether to use them or not.

A very senior officer within my brigade once told me of an incident he attended which involved a ship which was converted to a night club.
When he arrived the ship was heavily smoke-logged, and BA teams were already commited to the ship to find the fire.
He asked the initial OIC if he considered using Guidelines on the ship, and the OIC said that, in hindsight, he probably should have, but he had no faith in the guidelines, and that is why he never used them.

I confess that given the same circumstances, I would probably have made the same decision as the OIC, but more importantly, the Senior Officer, who had more knowledge of procedure than any one I know, agreed with his decision, although I am certain that he was aware of the bigger picture.

The point I am making is that we are all aware of the problems with guidelines, and that is why we should try and overcome these problems, and why people like ANDERSON, MSHAW, FIREFRTM  and others should be applauded for giving open and honest opinions.

This posting has been of great benefit to myself, and hopefully will be of benefit to others, and I thank every one who has participated in this discussion.