Recently I was involved in a discussion involving Personal Escape Systems (PES) and related training in their usage. The fire service industry is flooded with varieties of systems and devices, each of them promising a safe transfer to the outside world when things get untenable within the structure. So where does one start the research involving the decision to pick the best system for their needs? This month, I will provide some points of consideration when considering a system that will suit the needs of the user.
System training vs. hazard identification
I am a firm believer that if one is well trained in the science of combustion and building construction, you just may make it through your career without ever having the need to deploy your PES. That is certainly the choice I have made throughout my career. However, I am continually amazed to see how little the emphasis is on both of the above mentioned topics. “Fire” is the first part of our job titles, yet in my home state, the entry-level training program that spans nearly 200 hours only spends 3 of those hours on fire behavior or building construction. ONLY 3 HOURS! Would you opt for the services of a mechanic-plumber-brain surgeon who only spent 3 HOURS on the core competencies of their profession? I would think not. Yet, when reviewing NIOSH LODD reports, one of the top three critical factors listed in almost every report is the lack of training in identifying potential dynamic fire events on scene. We need to invest the monies we spend on the latest and greatest escape devices on training that would negate the need to “escape” in the first place (Photo 1).
But, since we are on this topic, consider the initial size-up when you walk up to the point of entry into this structure; what are you looking at, and why (Photo 2)? The crew making entry should consider these points in case things start to go badly:
- What type of occupancy is this, and how will it affect fire behavior?
- Where are the occupants? (Survivability Profiling…)
- Location and extent of the fire? (More Survivability Profiling…)
- How am I making entry?
- How do I get out in a hurry?
- What is happening to the structure from the effects of the fire?
Please do not misunderstand my position: I am a true proponent of having a PES on every firefighter’s PPE in the world. My position is also based on that these systems should be considered as a secondary consideration, and not a replacement for having firefighters who are confident in the effects the fire is placing on the structure, and how to deal with them safely from within the structure.
Factors regarding a Personal System
The use operation of the PES is truly a personal one. It is extremely difficult to purchase one specific type of PES and anticipate that this will be the optimum choice for EVERY firefighter in your department. There are too many critical factors that must be considered for each firefighter:
Demographics of Response Area—One of the first considerations when considering systems. Heights of structures, materials in construction, high or significant life hazards and high hazard fuel loads can provide clues to potential emergency situations.
Skill Level—Each member will have varying degrees of skills when it comes to rope work and rappelling. Some members may even have a fear of heights, which will add hindrance to any attempt for that member to navigate out a window on a rope in an emergency situation. Are they well versed in the use of the device, and can it be easily manipulated by the end user with a gloved hand (photo 3)? Consider this: think about the types of PES that are currently in your fire stations. When was the last formal training session on the correct use and deployment of the device? If you cannot remember, it has been way too long.
Comfort Zone—When deploying this system, you will have to separate yourself from fire spread, find a suitable anchor, attach the system to that anchor (with gloves on), deploy the system while keeping tension on the escape line (staying low to avoid heat), manipulating the descent control device to provide slack for you to make it past the sill, get out of the structure and positioned on the wall for descent, and get to the ground (photo 4). Think you will be able to do that effectively in less than 30 seconds? If not then there’s work to be done before the device is placed in service.
Dominant Hand—Does the system that has been purchased for every firefighter work on every firefighter’s dominant hand? Some systems deploy from the right-handed position, some deploy from the left-handed position, and some can be set up so that they can deploy from either side (photo 5). Some PPE manufacturers are now offering PES pockets into the bunker pants; is there a consideration made as to the dominant hand of the wearer prior to fitting them for gear?
Brake Hand—The Brake Hand is the one that is used to control the speed of the descent, and is usually placed near the back side of the user. However, some systems employ devices that prefer the Brake Hand to control at a 90-degree angle from the descent device. Can the device be set up so that either hand can be utilized as the Brake Hand?
Experience—Before our systems were placed in service at my department, each member had to attend a training session on the system, including use and maintenance of the system, and each member had to show proficiency by rappelling on the device nine times: three times in full PPE without the facepiece on, three times in full PPE wearing the facepiece, and three times in full PPE, on air, blindfolded (photo 6). Additionally, members are required to re-qualify on the system we use annually. This method confirms muscle memory in the event system deployment is necessary. It is not advisable to wait until the emergency arises to confirm competency with the system.
System Components—What is included in the “System” that is used? Some systems employ a seat harness to be utilized with the descent device; some are built in to the back plate assembly of the SCBA, and use the lower strap as the contact point for the device (photo 7). How does the rope or cord travel through the device? How is it loaded through the device, can it be manipulated with a gloved hand? Can the device be loaded at the escape point, or must the material be threaded through the device while keeping tension on the system? Can it be kept taut so tension stays on the anchor to keep it in place? Does it require additional wraps into the device to compound friction, to compensate for the weight of full PPE and an SCBA on the user? These points of consideration will be critical when deciding on a PES for emergency use.
BOTTOM LINE: Many of the points I bring up here will vary based upon the user’s preferences. Each end user in the department will have separate preferences that must be addressed, as they are relying on this device in an emergency situation. So in regards to personal preferences, that means it is a personal consideration and choice, as not one device will suit all needs.
System limitations
All systems have advantages and disadvantages as well, and it is imperative to find the system that suits one’s personal needs. But there are limits to their use; for example, the time it would take for the emergency escape to be completed must be less than the rope or cord’s ability to withstand thermal insult. That is, you had better be on the ground before the rope or cord burns through; if thermal damage wasn’t potentially present, then why are the crews rappelling out the windows? Length of rope/cord is to be considered. Most professionals agree that the most efficient escape can cover two stories and not much more, so there has to be enough material to connect to the anchor, deploy across the room, and then out the window to the ground.
Next, the descent control device has to be simple for the user to operate (photo 8). There are a lot of options, but the one that works best is the one the end user feels the most comfortable with. Lacing a mini-brake bar rack for the seasoned rope enthusiast may be easy, but could be detrimental to the user who sees it for the first or second time. Perform the research on the many types of devices in the field today, as there are some great improvements in technology and equipment in this topic. Do not limit the search to one specific type or brand.
A major consideration is where the system will be kept in the “ready” position (photo 9). Some are designed in the back-plate assembly of the SCBA, some are worn as a waist-belt assembly. There are some that incorporate a pouch that slides into the bunker pants pocket, and there are PPE manufacturers that are including PES pockets designed specifically into their bunker gear. As it is kept at the “ready” can it be deployed from either side to facilitate the dominant hand and brake hand of the user?
Last, but not least: Who performs the initial training on the system after it is purchased? Most reputable PES dealers will require attendance at a training class where the end user must show competency in the system before the user is allowed to add the system to their PPE ensemble. Purchasing a PES and issuing them without training is a definite recipe for disaster.
Conclusion
Personal Escape Systems for use in the fire service are vast and in demand. There is a large quantity of systems available to firefighters, but choosing the right system for the specific firefighter is a personal choice, based upon the end user’s skill level, comfort zone, dominant and brake hands, experience, and deployment status. The best type of PES is the one that is never used; it is worn by the firefighter who can recognize the clues of a dynamic event in fire behavior and acknowledge the right action to mitigate the situation. It is worn by the firefighter with a thorough knowledge of smoke and fire behavior, heat release rate and the flow path influencing fire growth that can react and abate the situation prior to the emergency escape level. Consider that topic for review PRIOR to the research on the right PES; both will probably save your life someday.
Until next time, stay focused and stay safe.
