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
