BA Seacrh procedure with Hose reel

[fireftrm]

It isn't that and I don't feel bad. What it is is that I am sick of giving reasoned argumnets and you coming bak to the same lame and well worn points.

I won't be bothering to respond so save yourself the trouble.

[Billy]

Fireftrm

Sorry you feel that way but if you read the posts, I challenged you on the fact that you think you can look at hose couplings in a fire condition which will involve reduced visibility and whilst wearing BA, you can  tell the direction of travel to your exit!

I just find this claim bizarre in the extreme!

[fireftrm]

Oh - here goes...........

Hold the pointy wet end, with the hose in your hands walk the opposite way. When you get to the end you will be at the pump. Alternativley pick up the hosereel at any other point and move to a coupling - look at it (it is possible to hold it close and to use a torch too) if it is lay flat hose the coupling is eeven asier to identify by direction. End of story.

[Billy]

Fireftrm

We all understand the "hold the pointy wet end and walk the opposite way" as I suggested on a previous post, but I take the alternative other methods you suggest mean you are confused and don't know which way is in or out?

As to the others- Firstly, we use Hemaphrodite couplings on hosereels in my FRS and you don't have any indication as to which way is in or out- even in open air and under no pressure whatsoever.

Secondly- using the way the male and female  hose is connected to find your way out is even more confusing than the markings on the current guideline!

I think you forget that this is a fire you are in and you may be tired, hot, have little or no visibility and also have BA on, and you think that the way the hose is connected is easy to identify the direction in or out!

When I was doing initial tests on the new guideline, members of a Scottish FRS didn't see any problems with the current one, although they conceded the marking is easier to understand on the new design.
They train regularly with guidelines, are totally familiar with them and use them at incidents safely and without any problems.
They would be laughing their heads off at people suggesting using the way hose is connected to find your way out of an incident!

[Andy Cole]

Billy you still haven't given an example of when you would ever use a GL following a DRA! I still fail to see why you think the HR is an inadequete means of tracing your way out, It really can't be simplier can it?

[Billy]

Andy

I have stated frequently that if HRs are numerous or if they are submerged, trying to trace them is almost impossible. I am certain that BA procedures say that if this is the case, guidelines should be considered.

As for using a Guideline following a  DRA, what if the Operational intelligence you had on the building said there was large open areas and a disorientation hazard within the premises and PPV was unsuitable or unavailable?

If you just stood back and did nothing because you thought guidelines were too dangerous and you had no confidence in them, you would be torn apart in court.

Finally, how do you search a large area systematically dragging a HR or a main jet behind you- or are we saying that we don't have to stick to procedures in relation to searching if there is no life risk anymore?

[splidge]

As it says in the good book:
Guidelines are used to enable a BA team to retraice their steps to their entry point, to locate a BA team working in the risk area, or to quickly reach the scene of operations. The guideline should  be used where no other practical or appropriate means are available for tracing their way out of the risk area.

[fireftrm]

Exactly splidge. As there are always practical and substantially more appropriate ways of dealing with the incident then GLs should be sent to outdoor activity centres where they can use them for blindfolded sessions of fun.

What would we be doing searching large open areas in a building full of smoke. I am saying that if there is no life risk we shouldn't even be in there - let alone searching using a piece of satring for heaven's sake!

As to the 'torn apart' in acourt for not using thjem, you are under a large misapprehension that having some equipment and a TB menas that you should use the equipment. If they are considered to be dangerous, inappropriate and that there are other means of carrying out the task it would be using them that would have you potentially 'torn apart'. I, for one, am quite happy that my RA would stand.

[Billy]

Fireftrm

So you think it is OK to stand up in court and say that a control measure provided by your employer is dangerous and the lawyer or QC won't question it further!

Do you have a legal department in your FRS and are they aware that your defence could have serious implications for your FRS?

As for saying that we shouldn't be in large areas if they are full of smoke, I thought we will take a moderate amount of risk to protect saveable property- if you don't have PPV or it is unsuitable, this suggestion sounds like you are going to stand by and let it burn down unless you can use PPV ?

I think it is you who may be under the large misapprehension that you or your FRS will not be made to look unprofessional by your stance on your RA- You are saying that Guidelines are dangerous, but would your FRS agree with you, and incriminate themselves in doing so- I think not!

[splidge]

If we go back to the original question:
Performing a search with a hose reel is standard isn’t it, if you have finished the search and remembered your training to note familiar land marks on your search and reverse your route to come out then there shouldn’t be a problem and of course you should bring your hose out with you? Shouldn’t you?
If your OIC has made the assessment that a guideline is to be used for a deeper penetration then surely unless your instructed to leave the hose in situ? you would bring it out with you, following your guideline to your exit point and having the hose reel with you as you normally would. As for clipping onto the hose reel I cant think of to many frs teaching that, but I could be wrong, I certainly would not clip on to the hose reel!
For the (proper door procedure) don’t for get that you have already passed through the doors on the way in and that the hose reel is keeping those doors open, how many thresh holds are you going to cross, if this is a search and rescue?
In my opinion guidelines are like any other equipment that the frs use if you are taught how to use them correctly and you keep up your competency with that piece of equipment then you should be competent in the use of it, but this will not allay the fears of those ff’s who think of it as a piece of string will it?

[Billy]

Splidge

I suppose if you have that mindset, Guidelines are just pieces of string, but I see them as a method of getting fire crews back to their point of entry in zero visibility, (silly me)!

Maybe if I seen PPV as being just like big hair dryers, hosereel as being really good water pistols or flash hoods as ear warmers I would also think of guidelines as pieces of string- Thankfully I don't!

[splidge]

Billy
Thankfully I dont either, but irrelevant of what term you use for each piece of equipment ie: guideline - piece of string! If you are not trained adequately in using the equipment then you wont be compitant in its use, will you?

[Andy Cole]

Billy,
Refering to your response to Firetrm's last post,

Point 1 - Let the Lawyer/QC question it further they are not going to be able to come up with an argument for using a Guidelihne that doesn't have a safer alternative.

Point 2 - The defence that the FRS legal team need is that the DRA concluded it was best not to use them!

Point 3 - We are more than happy to take a MODERATE risk for saveable property however I feel and I think Firetrm will probably agree that GL's do not fall into the category of Moderate risk!

[fireftrm]

I agree with every point Andy.

[Billy]

Andy
I will try and cover your points

  Fireftrms whole argument is that a Guideline, which is a UK recognised control measure is dangerous.
Guidelines, if used properly by competent personnel are a means of reducing the risk to fire crews.This is an undisputed fact, so it sounds like fireftrm is conceding that either crews using them in his FRS are not competent or his management are forcing them to carry "dangerous" equipment which he believes increases the risk to crews.
Which ever it is, to try and defend any of these points in court would be extremely difficult.

As to taking a moderate risk for saveable property, Fireftrm stated he would not even be in a large area if it was smoke logged- end of story!

This is not a Guideline issue but more of a practical firefighting issue.

If I have a large area which is smoke logged and I have thorough DRA which would include, plans operational intelligence on all risks, thorough briefings to crews, and if necessary, Guidelines and I also thought that  committing crews would reduce damage to property then if the chances of success outweighed the risks, I would commit crews.

To say that you simply would not commit crews is part of the reason why experienced firefighters  are becoming more and more frustrated as they stand by and watch buildings burn down nowadays, that ten years ago they would have saved without injury.