Rope Rescue Training Consistency

[Reverend]

First off I would like to applaud all who chose to train on skills rather than the couch. With that said, I have a concern related to rope rescue & the Technical Rescue Task Force.

I have seen postings for classes that Departments are self sponsoring in the area of rope rescue. Along with the ESTC sponsored classes. I believe the Tech Rescue Task Force uses Urban Hart for its training, and other Departments use other companies(Start,Roco,Road Rescue,etc.) Having taken some of the above programs I have noticed that each company has there own way of teaching.

Would it not be better to have one company setting the basic skill set for all of the County FD's instead of several companies?

My concern is that the lack of consistency in training will actually make our operations less efficient. I have no doubt the goals will be met, but the smoothness of the operation may be effective. Example: Squad 27 and Truck 24 working together on an incident. Both have knowledge of what needs to be done but when a decision is made on the operation to be performed only half of of the crews know 100% what the other is doing. Instead one crew knows 100% and the other crew knows 50%. With the still infant Tech Team would it not be better to be training all County companies one way? Not just the Task Force.Understanding that with experience comes versitility, and we all need to know 10 ways to do everything. But the County FD's need to have a default training standard which should be consistent.

[thelurker]

We are consistant, we consistantly buy tons of new shit, lear how to use it, then put it away and never touch it again...eventually, we buy another trailers, shoehorn it in a station then consistantly bitch about the space it takes up.

[WebBoss]

thelurker said:

We are consistant, we consistantly buy tons of new shit, lear how to use it, then put it away and never touch it again...eventually, we buy another trailers, shoehorn it in a station then consistantly bitch about the space it takes up.

Any useless or under-utilized equipment, and/or equipment that was purchased only for budget justification purposes can be donated to the Fire Service Goodwill Depot Site located at 780 Woodlane Road, Westampton NJ. ;D

[thelurker]

admin said:

thelurker said:

We are consistant, we consistantly buy tons of new shit, lear how to use it, then put it away and never touch it again...eventually, we buy another trailers, shoehorn it in a station then consistantly bitch about the space it takes up.

Any useless or under-utilized equipment, and/or equipment that was purchased only for budget justification purposes can be donated to the Fire Service Goodwill Depot Site located at 780 Woodlane Road, Westampton NJ. ;D

Not a chance, we wont part with it until it is so dry rotted the field mice wont even gnaw on it.

[daveconstantine]

Yo Rev, the County Tech document and team was devised with two training companies in mind, that are so similar in their instructional material and a bit different in their terminology. START and Urban Hart have been chosen as the standards.

The County document has been passed and is the standard in which those that wish to participate and those that want to know what the format is when the Teams show up. Is there more work that needs to get done to finish this off and move everyone forward, absolutely. Did Captain Scholey and Chief Ward break their bottoms getting this thing into a usable document, absolutely. There are FEW Departments that have the time to be truly be proficient in the Tech Rescue arena. 95% of the time spent in this area will be in training and not in an actual incident. This does not mean I trained once two years ago and call myself readay to-go. Training must be a commitment and have the support and backing of the Department.

Moorestown dove head first into Rope Rescue in about 1990. We purchased equipment, trained, did demonstrations as a way to keep the members interested and the program went by the wayside. Members left, the Commission questioned the the viability, no more equipment or training purchases happened until about two years ago. We had some members get trained thanks to D22 and last year purchased some equipment with more to come in 2008. We have 7 very interested members now, with more waiting to get trained in the spring of 08.

[Reverend]

daveconstantine said:

Yo Rev, the County Tech document and team was devised with two training companies in mind, that are so similar in their instructional material and a bit different in their terminology. START and Urban Hart have been chosen as the standards.

The County document has been passed and is the standard in which those that wish to participate and those that want to know what the format is when the Teams show up. Is there more work that needs to get done to finish this off and move everyone forward, absolutely. Did Captain Scholey and Chief Ward break their bottoms getting this thing into a usable document, absolutely. There are FEW Departments that have the time to be truly be proficient in the Tech Rescue arena. 95% of the time spent in this area will be in training and not in an actual incident. This does not mean I trained once two years ago and call myself readay to-go. Training must be a commitment and have the support and backing of the Department.

Moorestown dove head first into Rope Rescue in about 1990. We purchased equipment, trained, did demonstrations as a way to keep the members interested and the program went by the wayside. Members left, the Commission questioned the the viability, no more equipment or training purchases happened until about two years ago. We had some members get trained thanks to D22 and last year purchased some equipment with more to come in 2008. We have 7 very interested members now, with more waiting to get trained in the spring of 08.

Yes I am aware that Start & UH are the basis of the program. I was concerend that consistentcy ended at the tech task force and could be applied to all County FD's. So if they did chose to train they would be in the same skill set as the Task Force. As you know these type incident often require alot more players than the Task Force could deploy quikly, ie. someone gets their first access' and starts to deploy equipment before the other units arrive. That is all. This by far is notthe only non-consitentcy issue the County has, but I recently saw a couple training sessions advertised utilizing other companies.

[daveconstantine]

Sorry for the confusion, I will in the future stay out of the Tech Rescue commenter.

Just another area the experts must identify as place to begin to treat and triage the consistency we lack as a service provider to the community.

[WebBoss]

Chief Constantine

By all means there is no reason to stay out of the future commentary as yourself and the good Revered have both made good posts that most people (partially including myself) have learned something from.

My thoughts (for what it's worth):

To me, one of the biggest problems isn't nessecarily the consistancy of training, but rather the consistancy of practice and further training after the initial class. However, this problem is wide-spread in most places and most facets of our service. Just as auto extrication, there is an alarming rate of companies who "Dabble" in the field, and only a few that are actually good at it or prepared to handle an incident. Then again, we're all fire alarm technicians who just dabble in the fire suppresion field I presume.

Also, I again believe that the county is maybe moving in an ill fated direction (this is only my opinion) whereas we are putting all our technical rescue eggs in one basket with the county wide team. We have several strong companies who could be more then capable of handling one facet of technical rescue or another with the proper ongoing traning and equipment. Single companies have always proven to be better prepared to handle individual assignments simply because there already is a commraderie in place amongst it's members. One night a month or so is not going to get people comfortable enough to play together in the thick of it. So why not pick one company to handle high angle, then one to handle confined space, then maybe another to handle trench, and so on and so on. It really isn't that hard, but somebody has to be up on these companies to ensure that there proficiency is up.

Again, just my opinion. I would rather have 10 guys who are real good with each other and ready to jump into action at a moments notice, in lieu of 30 people who may or may not have attended the past couple months worth of drills, that took an hour to assemble and mobilize.

[daveconstantine]

First I want to apologize to Rev for my inexcusable outburst of frustration earlier in this posting. Web Boss, Papacheese and 3102, thanks for the head butt back to civilization.

Web Boss you bring up several good points to ponder. There is so much training, preparation, equipment expense, vehicle considerations, longevity of personnel to the program and support from the upper management/leadership that goes into the undertaking of one of the pieces of the system that your thoughts are right on. Under that program though, one would be able to state or ask the same; placing all of our eggs in one basket concept. My understanding of the system was to get everyone to the baseline of Rope training since most of the work is related to that topic. Once that is made "proficient" we move onto other areas and identifying the companies or departments that would be interested in say trench or con space or structural collapse.

Another part of the challenge is bringing all of those departments that have received their training or are on their way to training together in all facets. The idea was to post a program that everyone could get in line with at various level of true commitment, training and equipment even if their initial training prior to the Tech document was different. Training everyone together would bring the terminology and systems together. we faced this and began to address this when some of the teams got together in Cinnsuaken numerous months ago. NFPA 1670 still sits out there as the only "standard" to follow. There is no National certification or training curriculum to get in the hay with.

Another portion of this was not to have the ENTIRE team show up from the north or south divisions. A "Recon" officer will be sent with a portion of the team to investigate and determine the assistance needed from the local Chief and the severity of the incident. From that, whatever the needs are, is what would be sent to assist the local Chief in bringing his/her incident to a successful conclusion.

With so few people available to train let alone manage the programs one would be correct to say unfortunately it has been moving slow. You know yourself how busy you are and those that are busy seem to get busier because the busy person will get the job done. This can be related to local fd's or even on the County program level.

Without getting to long winded, we are moving and have not gotten to the "split" portion of the system as of yet. With the support and assistance of others that are truly committed to the program I am sure that Chief Ward and Captain Scholey can make the difference the system needs.

For those that do not know where to find this stuff or those that would like to look at the County Tech Rescue document or any other County document go to the Burlington County Fire Chiefs web-site. Look on the left side of the home page and there are several categories to click onto.

[chief3102]

No problem there Nicky Stache. I know that you would do the same to me and probably a whole lot more!!!!!

[thecutman]

Gentlemen,

I was involved at the inception of the first 4 meetings in reference to the county technical rescue team when I was still at the 27. I am not sure what the current sog is for the rope rescue, or confined space (if any) so bear with me.

I have thought about the reasoning for using these two companies and I see your concerns but we should look at the cost factor involved for all departments. I think start and Urban Hart are both over $500 per person for a rope class. This is a large sum of money for many departments. No matter what training you it is only maintained through repetition. So to say someone with a rope cert from either company from three years ago is accepted but someone with a cert from 2 months ago is not, due to the name on the certificate is not truly justified. The competency is what you should be looking at.

If a station has a member who has trained under another company, but they can pass proficiency testing than they should be able to try out for the team by completing a set of practical tests.

What I am saying is that if ABC fire Department runs a class conducted by themselves or another training company, are there members going to be able to participate? They would have a cert, just not a Start or Urban HART Cert? Again they are trying to save money.

I feel that the policy should be written to the levels that are designated by NFPA 1670. I also feel that there should be an initial practical test to get onto the team. This session should include setting up certain stations on your own such as haul stations 4:1, 3:1, piggy backing systems, belay stations, anchor stations, patient packaging stations with a sked, a stokes, LSB half back or similar device, pickett hold fast systems, and whatever else may present itself based on the level of training that the responder has.

I know we discussed so many drills per year to stay active on the team(not sure of the number). A yearly proficiency test should be mandatory for each member to complete to 100% accuracy which would include all applicable stations that were discussed above to stay active on the team. You can have a few of these practical testing dates yearly making it feasible for all members. These practical tests would assist at keeping the teams level of competency up to par and ready to respond. This would also allow ample opportunity for new members to try out for the team.

I have to agree with Sean that keeping a few smaller teams that train together on a constant basis would work best. Have a few smaller teams trained to the same level (preferably 24hr houses) due to the response times.

I think it is time the county freeholders take a page out of Middlesex Counties book and make a HazMat Tech/ Rescue/confined space unit with full time Fire/EMT's with one medic per shift during the weekdays and on call personnel for nights and weekends. This way you would get a team specifically designated to perform both operations as well as EMS for patient considerations, supported through inter-local service agreements with towns that chose to operate under the technical rescue guidelines. This would alleviate some of the duplicate equipment needed by each department. The reason for having technical rescue and hazardous material personnel all in one is a cost saving measure and for any unforeseen hazards especially during confined space operations. The medic part would be for better patient care.

These are just some of my ideas, concerns and possible solutions.

[thecutman]

Stations that should be mandatory (yearly refreshers) for all rope rescue (technicianlevel) responders per NFPA 1006 Profesional Qaulifications for Technical Rope Rescue (Chapter 6):

Chapter 6 Rope Rescue
6.1 General Requirements.
The job performance requirements defined in 6.1.1 through 6.1.10 shall be met prior to certification in rope rescue.
6.1.1 Construct a multiple-point anchor system, given life safety rope and other auxiliary rope rescue equipment, so that the chosen anchor system fits the incident needs, the system strength meets or exceeds the expected load and does not interfere with rescue operations, equipment is visually inspected prior to being put in service, the critical angle is not exceeded, the nearest anchor point that will support the load is chosen, the anchor system is system safety checked prior to being placed into service, the integrity of the system is maintained throughout the operation, and weight will be distributed between more than one anchor point.
(A)* Requisite Knowledge: Critical angles and effects and risks of exceeding the critical angle, safety issues in choosing anchor points, system safety check methods that allow for visual and physical assessment of system components, methods to evaluate the system during operations, integrity concerns, weight distribution issues and methods, knots and applications, selection and inspection criteria for hardware and software, formulas needed to calculate safety factors for load distribution, and the concepts of static loads versus dynamic loads.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to determine incident needs as related to choosing anchor systems, select effective knots, calculate expected loads, evaluate incident operations as related to interference concerns and set-up, choose anchor points, perform system safety check, and evaluate system components for compromised integrity.
6.1.2 Construct a compound rope mechanical advantage system, given a load, an anchor system, life safety rope, carabiners, pulleys, rope grab devices, and rope rescue equipment, so that the system constructed accommodates the load, reduces the force required to lift the load, operational interference is factored and minimized, the system is efficient, a system safety check is completed, and the system is connected to an anchor system and the load.
(A) Requisite Knowledge: Determination of incident needs as related to choosing compound rope systems, the elements of efficient design for compound rope systems, knot selection, methods for reducing excessive force to system components, evaluation of incident operations as related to interference concerns and set-up, rope commands, rigging principles, system safety check procedures, and methods of evaluating system components for compromised integrity.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to determine incident needs as related to choosing compound rope systems, select effective knots, calculate expected loads, evaluate incident operations as related to interference concerns and set-up, perform system safety check, and evaluate system components for compromised integrity.
6.1.3 Construct a fixed rope system, given an anchor system, life safety rope, and rope rescue equipment, so that the system constructed can accommodate the load, is efficient, and is connected to an anchor system and the load, and a system safety check is performed, and the results meet the incident requirements for descending or ascending operations.
(A) Requisite Knowledge: Knot selection, calculating expected loads, incident evaluation operations as related to interference concerns and set-up, rigging principles, system safety check procedures, and methods of evaluating system components for compromised integrity.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to select effective knots, calculate expected loads, use rigging principles, evaluate incident operations as related to interference concerns and set-up, perform system safety check, and evaluate system components for compromised integrity.
6.1.4 Direct the operation of a compound rope mechanical advantage system, given a rope rescue system incorporating a compound rope mechanical advantage system and a load to be moved, so that a system safety check is performed; the movement is controlled; the load can be held in place when needed; operating methods do not stress the system to the point of failure; operational commands are clearly communicated; and potential problems are identified, communicated, and managed.
(A) Requisite Knowledge: Methods to determine incident needs, types of interference concerns, rope commands, system safety check protocol, procedures for continued evaluation of system components for compromised integrity, common personnel assignments and duties, common and critical commands, methods for controlling a load’s movement, system stress issues during operations, and management methods for common problems.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to determine incident needs, evaluate incident operations as related to interference concerns, complete a system safety check, continually evaluate system components for compromised integrity, direct personnel effectively, communicate commands, analyze system efficiency, manage load movement, and identify concerns.
6.1.5 Complete an assignment while suspended from a rope rescue system, given a rope rescue system, an assignment, life-safety harnesses, litters, bridles, and specialized equipment necessary for the environment, so that risks to victims and rescuers are minimized, the means of attachment to the rope rescue system is secure, selected specialized equipment facilitates efficient rescuer movement, and specialized equipment does not unduly increase risks to rescuers or victims.
(A) Requisite Knowledge: Task-specific selection criteria for life-safety harnesses, personal protective equipment selection criteria, variations in litter design and intended purpose, rigging principles, techniques and practices for high-angle environments, and common hazards posed by improper maneuvering and harnessing.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to select and use rescuer harness and personal protective equipment for common environments, attach the life safety harness to the rope rescue system, maneuver around existing environment and system-specific obstacles, perform work while suspended from the rope rescue system, and evaluate surroundings for potential hazards.
6.1.6 Move a victim in a high-angle or vertical environment, given a rope rescue system, victim transfer devices, and specialized equipment necessary for the environment, so that risks to victims and rescuers are minimized, undesirable victim movement within the transfer device is minimized, the means of attachment to the rope rescue system is maintained, the victim is removed from the hazard, selected specialized equipment facilitates efficient victim movement, and the victim can be transported to the local EMS provider.
(A) Requisite Knowledge: Task-specific selection criteria for patient transfer devices, various carrying techniques, personal protective equipment selection criteria, design characteristics and intended purpose of various transfer devices, rigging principles, methods to minimize common environmental hazards and hazards created in high-angle environments.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to choose patient transfer devices, select and use personal protective equipment appropriate to the conditions, attach a transfer device to the rope rescue system, reduce hazards for rescuers and victims, and determine specialized equipment needs for victim movement.
6.1.7 Direct a team in the construction of a highline system, given rescue personnel, life safety rope, rope rescue equipment, and suitable anchor system capable of supporting the load, so that personnel assignments are made and clearly communicated, the system constructed can accommodate the load, tension applied within the system will not exceed the rated capacity of any of its component parts, system safety check is performed, movement on the system is efficient, and loads can be held in place or moved with minimal effort over the desired distance.
(A) Requisite Knowledge: Determination of incident needs as related to operation of highline systems, capabilities and limitations of various highline systems (including capacity ratings), incident site evaluation as related to interference concerns and obstacle negotiation, rigging principles, system safety check protocol, common personnel assignments and duties, common and critical operational commands, and common highline problems and ways to minimize these problems during construction.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to determine incident needs as related to construction of highline systems, evaluate an incident site as related to interference concerns and setup, identify the obstacles or voids to be negotiated with the highline, select a highline system for defined task, perform system safety checks, use rigging principles, and communicate with personnel effectively.
6.1.8 Direct a team in the operation of a highline system, given rescue personnel, an established highline system, a load to be moved, and personal protective equipment, so that the movement is controlled, the load is held in place when needed, operating methods do not stress the system to the point of failure, personnel assignments are made and tasks are communicated, and potential problems are identified, communicated, and managed.
(A) Requisite Knowledge: Ways to determine incident needs as related to the operation of highline systems, capabilities and limitations of various highline systems, incident site evaluation as related to interference concerns and obstacle negotiation, system safety check protocol, procedures to evaluate system components for compromised integrity, common personnel assignments and duties, common and critical operational commands, common highline problems and ways to minimize or manage those problems, and ways to increase the efficiency of load movement.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to determine incident needs, complete a system safety check, evaluate system components for compromised integrity, select personnel, communicate with personnel effectively, manage movement of the load, and evaluate for potential problems.
6.1.9 Ascend a fixed rope, given an anchored fixed rope system, a system to allow ascent of a fixed rope, a structure, a belay system, a life safety harness worn by the person ascending, and personal protective equipment, so that the person ascending is secured to the fixed rope in a manner that will not allow him or her to fall, the person ascending is attached to the rope by means of ascent control device(s) with at least two points of contact, injury to the person ascending is minimized, the person ascending can stop at any point on the fixed rope and rest suspended by his or her harness, the system will not be stressed to the point of failure, the person ascending can convert his or her ascending system to a descending system, and the system is suitable for the site and objective is reached.
(A) Requisite Knowledge: Task-specific selection criteria for life-safety harnesses and systems for ascending a fixed rope, personal protective equipment selection criteria, design and intended purpose of ascent control devices utilized, rigging principles, techniques for high-angle environments, converting ascending systems to descending systems, and common hazards posed by maneuvering and harnessing.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to select and use rescuer harness, a system for ascending a fixed rope, and personal protective equipment for common environments; attach the life safety harness to the rope rescue system; configure ascent control devices to form a system for ascending a fixed rope; make connections to the ascending system; maneuver around existing environment and system-specific obstacles; convert the ascending system to a descending system while suspended from the fixed rope; and evaluate surroundings for potential hazards.
6.1.10 Descend a fixed rope, given an anchored fixed-rope system, a system to allow descent of a fixed rope, a belay system, a life safety harness worn by the person descending, and personal protective equipment, so that the person descending is attached to the fixed rope in a manner that will not allow him or her to fall, the person descending is attached to the rope by means of a descent control device, the speed of descent is controlled, injury to the person descending is minimized, the person descending can stop at any point on the fixed rope and rest suspended by his or her harness, the system will not be stressed to the point of failure, and the system is suitable for the site and objective is reached.
(A) Requisite Knowledge: Task-specific selection criteria for life safety harnesses and systems for descending a fixed rope; personal protective equipment selection criteria; design, intended purpose, and operation of descent control devices utilized; safe rigging principles; techniques for high-angle environments; and common hazards posed by maneuvering and harnessing.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to select and use rescuer harness, a system for descending a fixed rope, and personal protective equipment for common environments; attach the life safety harness to the rope rescue system; make attachment of the descent control device to the rope and life safety harness; operate the descent control device; maneuver around existing environment and system-specific obstacles; and evaluate surroundings for potential hazards.