BA Seacrh procedure with Hose reel

[Andy Cole]

Billy,

The way I understand firetrm's argument is that he is not trying to say that his FRS is not competent enough to use GL's or that his FRS management is Forcing him to carry dangerous equipment simply that in his professional opinion as an OIC GL's are dangerous pieces of equipment that he would not be prepared to use, the fact that this is his opinion anyway is really of irrelevance because each incident is going to have a seperate DRA and all he needs to say in his defence is that as the OIC he felt following the DRA that there was a better alternative to a GL, no court can argue with that that's his job to make those descions!. I also believe that if you read through his posts he has on numerous occasions said that they are actively campaigning to have them removed from their appliances anyway!


Firetrm,
I don't like to quote people or indeed appear as though I am talking on their behalf so please feel free to correct me on anyhting you disagree with.


Billy,
I can't understand why you would be prepared to commit crews to a smoke logged area, why not use the equipment that all appliances (certainly in Somerset as far as I'm aware) carry and get rid of the smoke before entering using tatical ventilation, the point is as soon as you put a GL in use you instantly change the risk from moderate to high!


Andy.

[Paul]

Billy,

Can't believe your still going onabout this??

[fireftrm]

Andy

I am quite happy with your use of my comments, I am pleased that you have understood the gist of them, unlike some others. Your summary is good!

PSmith - neither can I. Having said that do we encourage him by arguing back I recommend we all cease responding and maybe the argument can pass to others.

[Paul]

agree

[Billy]

Andy

To say that as soon as you use Guidelines, you increase the risk from moderate to high just underlines and compounds the fact that you cannot use them properly!
Guidelines are a recognised method of reducing the risk under certain circumstances(Fireftrms words, not mine) and whether you can use them competently or not, other crews can and do it regularly!

As for saying that you are actively campaigning to remove them from appliances confuses me!

If they are as dangerous as you say they are- there shouldn't be any resistence and they should already be taken off - end of story!

Or could it be that others disagree with your point of view including, Management, Health and Safety and the representative bodies!

If everyone in your FRS thinks they are dangerous, yet you still have them on all your appliances - this doesn't say much about your Risk assessment and equipment auditing procedures.

Thankfully Psmith and Fireftrm won't be commenting any more as they seem totally unwilling to accept any one elses view that differs from theirs- most FRS are aware of the dangers of not being competent with any equipment and take steps to remedy this by increased training and familiarisation.
 Some of the ones I have dealt with have done this to good effect with guidelines and have no problems with them.

Finally- we don't have PPV on all appliances and I know a number of other FRS that are the same, but they still all have guidelines, so why not use them properly or take them off now- not "actively campaign to remove them" and hope everything is OK in the interim!

[Andy Cole]

I still think your getting hung up on the same old arguments the point isn't that I would be unable or not competant enough to use a GL in a smoke filled area it's just that I STILL haven't been given a scenario where I (as a relitively junior fireman) can't come up with a viable, therefore safer, alternative. If there was no alternative then I would use them and feel confident in my ability as a FF to do so, it is the principle of the GL that I lack confidence in!.

Point of fact, I have never said that I, or as far as I am aware, my FRS is actively campaigning to have GL's removed from all front line appliances I was infact quoteing Firetrm.

Maybe my FRS do disagree with my point of view and to be completley honest with you I don't know their position on it, it is however my perogative to have my own opinion just as it is your's!

I am not totally unwilling to accept any one else's view on this in fact if you read back through previous posts you will see that I am actually very willing to hear other peoples views that being one of the main reasons I use this forum, to gain and expand on my knowledge! this doesn't however mean I am obliged to agree with everyones views.

[Billy]

Andy

Some scenarios where you may consider Guidelines are: -

Fires in ships.

Fires in structures that could cause crews to get disorientated such as large warehouses, complex structures and basements.

Multiple lines of hose through the same entrance.

Submerged hose lines.

These may be few and far between and as I have said earlier, it would be easier if you could  use PPV, but  you cannot use PPV in every scenario, so what would you use to retrace your steps if it was smoke logged?

[Andy Cole]

The only scenario in that list that I am not able to think of an alternative for is a fire in a ship, this is because I have never come across one and have never recieved any training on them, (my station is a small 1 pump RT about an hour and a half from any ship!).  I would be interested to hear Firetrms views on what method he would use in a ship I know he doesn't want to be involved in the debate any longer but it would be intresting to know if he knew of a viable alternative.

I have only said PPV is one alternative I have repeatly said re tracing your HR is the obvious alternative, as you should have at least this with you, as for it becoming sub merged what happens if your GL becomes submerged?, multiple hoses through the same entrance shouldn't present a problem if you are only following one, and as I think someone has pointed out before it is possible to tell by the couplings which way to go besides why would you have multiple hoses going through the same entrance this implies you have alot of FF's commited to a high risk area, why would you do that? one BA team only needs one HR regardless of the size of the team.

My main concern with GL's is the time taken to lay them in the first place, if there was a life risk do you not think you may be increasing the risk to the casulty by taking the time to lay a line? perhaps if this problem could be addressed they might be more praticle?

[splidge]

Andy
What about as a viable alterative, the use of guides? use the force sorry the knowledge of the people who work in these places.

[Andy Cole]

Yeah valid point we should always seek to use the knowledge of people on the scene who are familiar with the risk area, we should indeed endeavour to make ourselves familiar with high fire risk properties which I believe we already do, not entirely sure what you mean by using them as guides though?

[fireftrm]

Andy

In a ship I would use the on board ventilation, wherever possible and high-ex foam for large compartments. With no life risk the useof firefighters directly in the fire area would be kept to an absolute minimum anyway, with their hoselines being their route markers. Should there be a very great heat build up (common in ships as they are large metal cans) then GLs would not be in my tool box as they are flammable and thus of little use on very hot metal bulkheads and fittings, not to mention the confusion and loss of time they cause.

Your point about many hose lines meaning many teams and 'why would you do that?' shows a great depth of understanding of the modern DRA process. Well done. Why indeed!

Splidge you point about guides is extremely sensible, if there are works/ship fire teams use them.

One last (as I have been tempted and feel I must) if you haven't PPV, or other means of removing smoke from large, or complex smokelogged buildings why are you in there? Life? Well if so that GL isn't going to save them. Stay outside and fight the fire from there.

[Billy]

Fireftrm

You always seem to go back to the point that guidelines can burn and on ships they would be useless as they are flammable.

This seems to imply that you would pass compartments on fire which I was always taught not to under any circumstances.

To consider not using guidelines as they may melt also implies that you are willing to put fire crews into extremely high temperatures where they may also melt!

At least if you used guidelines and they started to melt it would give you an indication that you shouldn't be there in the first place!

On your last point about staying outside and fighting the fire if there is no life risk- I thought we also had to protect property as well and I would rather use everything possible  to reduce the risk to fire crews and carry out my statutory duties, and if this required putting crews into smoke and having to use control measures, amongst which could be guidelines, then I would do so.

[splidge]

Although training has changed in leaps and bounds and even with the addition of DRA's and ppv we should not forget that ff's have lost their lifes by getting lost either by trying to follow hose reels or guidelines to their exit points.
I wonder out of all of these fatalities just how much was down to lack of training, bad luck, bad equipment you get the point.
Training in the most basic forms of firemanship should be parramount until some genius comes up with a safer meaans of extracting ourselfs from any form of building small or large. Getting lost intodays technilogical world should not be an option.

[mikegibrn]

I have also lost my copy of the Bradford City Fire. If anyone knows where I might obtain a copy, digital of VHS, please contact me at mikegibrn@yahoo.com

Thanks a million,

Stay Safe

[Andy Cole]

thank goodness for that I thought someone had kicked it all off again!