Guidelines (again)

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I agree with fireftrm's comments although we should not forget that guidelines are a consideration of the Incident Commander to ensure safe systems of work are employed.

They originate from the tragedies of fire fighter deaths at the incidents mentioned, but have also contributed to them, such as at Gillender Street.

They are used (a) to enable a team of BA wearers to retrace their steps to the entry point, (b) to enable subsequent teams to locate a team of BA wearers, and (c) enable subsequent teams to locate the scene of operations.

Being realistic, a safe system of work may be to adopt defensive firefighting and not commit crews, even when there may be persons reported - a decision which is difficult and contraversial - but where the situation is right, subject to dynamic risk asessment, crew briefing etc etc, guidleines may have to be used 'on the instructions of the Incident Commander' to quote TB1/97
There is a nice list of considerations to work through too .... so it won't be a rash decision.
The successful use will depend on crews experience, following the local SOP's in their use, but also being well trained. That raises the question of how many times do crews train with guidelines and run through the procedures in place?

[Tom Sutton]

In addition to the shortcomings Billy highlighted, Gillender Street raises another problem marking of guidelines or would adequate training resolve this. Check out http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/justice-public-order/106169-1.html

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I for one am not convinced that having something crimped onto the line is a good idea. The report identifies that the directional arrows can be easily replaced, but in the hostile environment of an incident, there is potential for more of them to detach or be ripped off. This would surely place crews at greater risk as they would have to follow more line to find the next marker ..... which could be the wrong way for them which requires them to double back. This could add to the wear time and place the BA team at risk, particularly if air is low.

The current tabs are part of the line, being spliced in and allow for the snap hook of the personal line to run over them. Surely a device crimped to the line will require bigger snap hooks or the wearers to continually unattach and reattach to the line? What are the cost implications of that to services who are already facing budget cuts?

Why re-invent the thing?

I think the use of guidelines is a training issue .... issues arise as procedures are not practised on a regular basis as they aren't used operationally that often. In fact in my lengthy career, I've only used them once!
This coupled with all the other demand placed on crews makes training difficult.

[Clevelandfire 3]

You have hit the nail on the head BM. Gillender street was an unforgiveable cock up which resulted in the deaths of two firefighters needlessly. That wasnt through the fault of guidelines , it was through th epeople who laid them which goes back to the lack of training. Guidleines are perfectly fine if used properly. The fact is we dont use them much and forget how to use them in the right way. Ive only ever been on two jobs where guidelines were used in a 30 year career. Luckily my crew didnt have to lay it. So dont knock guidelines knock the training and procedures which have caused problems in the past. What is the current alternative? And sorry did I hear someone say we dont have big fires in hotels? Then what was Penhallow all about? Granted guidelines werent used there, but it does show what can happen despite being in the 21st century.

[Billy]

Baldyman

Good points but I would like to clarify some of them: The indicator tabs are capable of being jumped on by fire crews and not breaking (not quite firefighter proof, but nothing is) and have been tested by a line tester to see if they would slide along the guideline. They required a force of 40Kg before they moved and would stop at the next one, although we could come up with no reason why a 40 Kg sideways force would ever be applied to it anyway.
 In Strathclyde we have recently amended our PPE procedures in relation to Guidelines as crews can now take off their gloves to tie the knots and to feel the tabs as long as they carry out a DRA first.
In my opinion this either means the gloves are faulty or the marking of the guidelines are not up to standard. Since the report from Gillender street and the Fire Experimental Unit have both agreed that the marking could be improved, I tend to agree with them.
This means that we are accepting a piece of equipment that does not fully operate with the required PPE that we use. Would we allow Fire Crews to use  cutting gear or extend ladders without their gloves on just because it might be easier- I dont think so, but we seem to accept all the problems with guidelines and even reduce our PPE to try and overcome them.


These comments are my own personal opinion and are not meant  to be representative of my Service.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Billy,
While I appreciate the points you raise about the outcomes of testing and research, I'm a firm believer in the old addage of 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it'.
Guidelines have been in use for many years and mostly with no significant incident. Procedures exist for their use in TB1/07 and individual Service SOP's based on it.

Many Services have amended procedures to allow for the fire-fighting gloves issue, it's a knock on of giving us modern PPE and I'd like to think that the crews are putting gloves back on after they have tied the knots.
I would also say that there is not a problem with the guidelines, it's those using them with inadequate training and procedural knowledge.

I have to ask you to consider a simple question. In the current position of central Government likely to cut Fire and Rescue Service funding, which is the better and more financially beneficial option:-
i) Buy new guidelines, rewrite procedures and retarain all personnel, or;
ii) Provide suitable training in guideline procedures?

Personally, I think it's a no-brainer, but thats just my opinion.

[Billy]

Baldyman

You have said that "if it isn't broke, dont fix it" but one of the main outcomes of all the Gillender Street reports was that a better marking system should be considered. I do totally agree with you on the training issue and believe, like you that if we train more with them, we should be able to use them more safely than we do at present.

As a bit of background to the new guideline design, I carried out extensive research and used the most important people in this whole debate- the fire crews who actually use guidelines.!!!

I carried out presentations to Wholetime Retained and Training Centre personnel from all over Strathclyde and also every other Scottish Fire Service and had over 200 questionnaires filled in with a 99% approval rate of the new design. I received endorsements from the Fire Experimental Unit at Moreton who said that if they had trialed this design a number of years earlier, they believed all UK services would be using it by now.
I am still currently selling the indicator tabs world-wide with repeat orders so whilst I agree that some of these countries have never used guidelines before, some have and have decided to change to the new design.

The cynic in me has made me concede that I really no longer care whether the UKFRS use a guideline  that 99% of crews who were involved in the trials said it was better and safer than the current one in use (what do they know anyway…!)

This post was never about guideline design but more about how all services carry out ORA’s and don’t check and see if we can use any sort of guideline in a building where we may have to - possibly contravening the ethos of risk assessment..

That is the main topic I was highlighting

This is my own personal opinion and is not meant to reflect  the opinion of my employer.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Baldyman


I carried out presentations to Wholetime Retained and Training Centre personnel from all over Strathclyde and also every other Scottish Fire Service and had over 200 questionnaires filled in with a 99% approval rate of the new design.

With all due respect Billy, that's a small percentage of the overall numbers of firefighters who would be using guidelines at incidents.

The cynic in me has made me concede that I really no longer care whether the UKFRS use a guideline  that 99% of crews who were involved in the trials said it was better and safer than the current one in use (what do they know anyway…!)

Again, with respect, the end users, while agreeing it is better don't consider the financial implications of provision and training of the kit.

This post was never about guideline design but more about how all services carry out ORA’s and don’t check and see if we can use any sort of guideline in a building where we may have to - possibly contravening the ethos of risk assessment..

I think you'll find that within this thread, there are numerous references to when guidleines are used, who initiates their use and the guidance that that backs it all.

The bottom line is, that successful use still depends on the competence of the crews using them and the control procedures in place, not just for use, but for monitoring during the incident and re-evaluating the risk assessment.

[Midland Retty]

Have to agree with Baldyman. The main issue here is definately training. I cant see any major leaps forward progressing from guide lines.

[Billy]

Baldyman

I will cover your points as you have listed them

With regards to the small percentage as you say, This was a cross section of Fire crews from W/T RDS and training centre staff from Scottish services and also  Training centre staff and BA teams from moreton. Whilst it is a small percentage of end users, in my opinion it is an accurate and varied group and I feel that it is totally representative. I cannot think of it changing greatly if more crews were involved.

In relation to the financial implications of provision of training and kit and you rightly stating that even though the crews think it is better but they dont consider cost, I think you will also find that the HSE report into Gillender Street where it stated that "a better method of marking the guidelines and branch Lines should be sought" also was more concerned with crew safety than cost.

I have stated that this is not about guideline design and you say that within this post it is mentioned  Quote:” numerous references to when guidelines are used, who initiates their use and the guidance that that backs it all"

All the things you have mentioned are irrespective of whether you use the current guideline or the new design.

It doesn’t matter if you are the best trained in the world with guidelines and you train and use them day and daily, if you turn up to a building and you have no means of securing that guideline within the building- guidelines are totally useless.

More importantly if you have carried out an ORA in that building, highlighted a disorientation risk (for which Guidelines are a recognised control measure) and have not checked to see if you can secure them, I think at the very least you are unprofessional, and at worst negligent.

This is my own personal opinion and should not be taken as the views of my Service

[Clevelandfire 3]

Billy

Are you bitter or just twisted. The whole idea of doing site risk survey as it is called now or 11d inspections as it was in my day is to highlight operational issues like this. Baldyman isn't being negligent at all.By the sounds of it either you or your brigade is. Perhaps you have a training need if you dont know what to do if there are no tying off points available for guidelines because to me it sure as hell doesn't seem you know what the hell you are talking about. Maybe thats why you always state your views are your own and not that of your brigade.

[nearlythere]

I think I agree with C3 on this, but maybe in a more diplomatic fashion.
From my experience what is missing are the three Rs - Training, Training, Training.
I have been a Brigade BA trainer and a BA training recipient. Meaningfull BA training of firefighters was only carried out every 3 years. I say meaningfull because proper facilities, as one finds in a training centre, are not available to all for regular training.
Anytime the guidelines were brought out there was the inevitable comedy of errors. The only thing that was learned was to avoid using guidelines wherever possible.

[Billy]

Clevelandfire 3

How am I being bitter and twisted ?

You said Quote: "The whole idea of doing site risk survey as it is called now or 11d inspections as it was in my day is to highlight operational issues like this"

Are you then telling me that when you inspect a premises and you have a disorientation risk where you may use guidelines, you actually "highlight" whether you can use them safely or not?

Under risk assessment to "highlight" any issue is insuffiecient unless you also put down some sort of control measures.

Quote:"Baldyman isn't being negligent at all.By the sounds of it either you or your brigade is. Perhaps you have a training need if you dont know what to do if there are no tying off points available for guidelines because to me it sure as hell doesn't seem you know what the hell you are talking about"

Firstly, I never accused Baldyman of being negligent and was making a generalisation.
I know it might be stating the obvious but what do you do if you have no tie off points for guidelines because you say i Dont know what I am talking about. Are you implying you would try and tie them off and then stop using them if you found no tie-off points

Personally, I would like to know even before I went to use them in a building if I could use them safely or not but that's just silly old me.

You have still never answered the question of how training solves the problem when you cannot tie them off in buildings.

Nearlythere
As a Brigade BA trainer, did you work in your training centre, and if so did your Brigade have to fit door handles to their BA chambers so they could use guidelines safely?
And as you state, Guidelines were they a "comedy of errors"  was this because you could never tie them off properly any where else but in the training centre?



And finally, Clevelandfire 3,if I have to explain why I always state that these are my own personal opinions and should not be taken as the views of my service then it seems that you dont know what you are talking about, not me.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Billy,

If you are marketing a device, then good for you.

If you are a serving fire-fighter, then you really are missing the point here.

When buildings are visited under 7(2)(d) of the Fire & Rescue Services Act, it is for the purpose of risk information. That is the risks on site which determine whether an operational plan is required and also to familiarise crews with access, water supplies and location of significant hazards that may need specific actions.

It is almost impossible to determine whether crews will become disorientated in a premises as you can't actually tell how conditions will be inside during a fire. That is clearly an unknown quantity.
As part of the risk assessment, control measure identified would be 'consider the use of guidelines' or 'utilise defensive firefighting'

As for tying off, there is no need for specific tie off points. There are recognised techniques for tying off, what can be used as a tie off point and the type of knot to be used ........ which starnge as it seems stems back to appropriate training.

There are specific criteria for guideline use and I suggest you obtain a copy of TB 1/97 and familiarise yourself with the sections covering their use in terms of command and control and procedures.

[Billy]

Baldyman

You say that I am missing the point but then you say things that I cannot help but disagree with.

Quote from Baldyman:"It is almost impossible to determine whether crews will become disorientated in a premises as you can't actually tell how conditions will be inside during a fire. That is clearly an unknown quantity"

We have buildings in Strathclyde that are "Rabbit Warrens" and people get confused and lost in normal conditions, never mind in smoke, so I think that during a fire, you could get disorientated quite easily.

Quote from Baldyman:"As for tying off, there is no need for specific tie off points. There are recognised techniques for tying off, what can be used as a tie off point and the type of knot to be used ........ which starnge as it seems stems back to appropriate training.

I strongly disagree with this as the key to my whole post is the  definitive need for tie-off points.
It doesn't matter if crews know how to tie off and where to tie off if there is nothing in the building to tie off to.!! All the training in the world will not allow a guideline to be laid properly if there are no suitable tie off points.

And thanks for reminding me about TB 1/97, paragraph (d) on page 16 which states
"The guideline is to be secured to suitable objects at intervals on the route by other members of the guideline team. tie off points need not be close together but at sufficient intervals to keep the line off the ground. The line is to be made secure on the side of search and the crossing over from one side to another is to be avoided as far as possible"

Just a quick question, how many internal corners in modern day buildings have a suitable tie off point for guidelines?

If you familiarise yourself with TB 1/97 you will also be aware that it it does not tell you which knots to use, what you tie the line off to and what to do if there are no tie-off points, all this is down to local Operational notes.

I feel some of the last posts have veered off the initial topic so I will ask specific questions to try and get my point over.

1.When crews in your Service carry out an ORA in certain buildings, do you consider the possibility that you may have to use guidelines in it if it was on fire.?

2. If the answer is yes, do you check to see if you can safely use them as per   TB 1/97 (thanks for reminding me Baldyman).

3. If the answer is NO to one or both of these questions, do you believe that a suitable and sufficient ORA has been done for this building?

Simples!!!

This is my own personal opinion and should not be taken as the views of my Service