2 or 1 Rescuer for High Angle.

[JAFA62]

I'm looking to see who uses what method. The 2 man rescue team over the wall or the 1 man rescuer over the wall on a Low or High Angle rescue Pick off. No Basket

I perfer the 2 man rescue theory.For many reason. The biggest reason is that you have 2 rescuers who can help each other out. Doesn't matter how good you are just having another partner there to assist if needed will take alot of stress off the primary rescuer.
So let us know which one you prefer and why..Lets not make this a battle ground:).

NOTE: I havent been able to find anything in NFPA to state which one is prefered.

[Riversong]

I perfer the 2 man rescue theory.For many reason. The biggest reason is that you have 2 rescuers who can help each other out.

NOTE: I havent been able to find anything in NFPA to state which one is prefered.

NFPA doesn't mandate (or recommend) rescue techniques, only manufacturer's standards and rescuer proficiency levels.

You state that you have "many reasons", but mention only one. I'd be interested in knowing what your other reasons are.

The primary purpose of the pick-off is to execute a quick and efficient patient removal from a danger zone with minimal manpower and equipment. This can often be accomplished by the Hasty Team before the rest of the crew arrives with all the gear.

A single rescuer pick-off is far more likely to meet all three goals - quick, efficient, and simple - than a two rescuer pickoff.

I can imagine almost no condition in which it would be advantageous to employ two rescuers for a simple pick-off. This requires setting up (particularly if your team requires belays) as many anchors and ropes as a full litter evacuation.

- Robert

[JAFA62]

Riversong,
Your right about NFPA, I know it purpose but their is always someone out there that will state NFPA when in fact is does not. I just worded it wrong.
When we send 2 rescuers over the wall etc. They are not attached to a belay line they are teatherd together.1 rescuer is the primary rescuer and does all the work while the 2nd rescuer is simply a backup. The anchor system is not all that much bigger. Do you ever send 2 rescuers? Im far from a Rope Rescue GURU. This is why I asked 1 or 2.... Does your City have a technical Rescue Team? And if so how many on Shift at a time. I simply like the 2 man rescue. We use a 2 man team method for 90% of the fire service so why not rope. Im not saying its better,quicker I just happen to like it. I just want to see what other Dept's use. You state a Hasty Team what level are they trained too?

[Riversong]

When we send 2 rescuers over the wall etc. They are not attached to a belay line they are teatherd together.1 rescuer is the primary rescuer and does all the work while the 2nd rescuer is simply a backup.
This can be a real danger. If I were going to send two people rappeling over the edge, they would never be tethered together. If rescuer A is performing the pickoff (two man load) and rescuer B loses control, then rescuer A suddenly has a three-person load on his descender. And, if it's a rescue-8 as is common in the fire service, then it will not have enough friction to control a 3-person load. Now you've turned one possible casualty into three.

We use a 2 man team method for 90% of the fire service so why not rope.
On a fireground, it's a different story. If something goes bad, you need a backup to immediately remove the victim. On rope, you always want the minimum number of people to do the job, with the rest of the team managing the ropes, comms, logistics, etc.

You state a Hasty Team what level are they trained too?
I'm talking about wilderness search and rescue, in which a medically-trained hasty team of at least three is sent in light and fast to locate, access, and stabilize the victim, and possibly extricating them if no more help is needed.

Typically a larger (and slower) rescue team goes in soon behind the Hasty Team to bring additional gear and personnel, and to assist with the rescue and/or evacuation.

- Robert

[resqtek]

JAFA, my department used to use what sounds like the same system. Winnepeg and Regina used the same one as well. The second person on rope is not neccesary and the risk of a three person load on a single system is huge. There is also an extreme risk of injury to the rescuer in the swing fall resulting from the arrest with the tether. Also, you need to be careful how the conection to the tether is made. It is most likely the system with the two person load will be the one to fail. If this happens, how will that load be applied to the secondary system? A lot of rescuers will attach the tether directly to their harness. This would mean the two person load will be impacting your harness.

NFPA has clear language about the requirements of a belay system. One requirement is that risk of injury to the rescuer and or patient is minimized. It also states that a belay system should not be loaded until it is actuated. That system does not meet these requirements. I was finally able to convince them that what they had was the illusion of safety. A second rescuer and bigger rope and systems does not always result in a safer operation. A difficult concept for firefighters to grasp a the best of times. We now use a smaller, lighter weight, and more versatile system.

FYI, I have a video of the system being drop tested. Rescue Randy died a couple deaths that day due to the system's lack of ability to catch a 3 person load.

[Ack8236]

We would send one person to do a pick-off. I would never risk putting a 3 person load on one system and we do not have the personnel resources to man another system for a two-man rescue team. As Riversong stated; quick, efficient, simple.

[tecrsq]

One man over the wall has been our strategy and he has an appropriate belay on a seperate system.

Dont forget the belay and keep the rescue load to 2 persons for the 2 person rope.

3 person load on the rope is just setting yourself up as a future case study.

Read about the case studies and apply your training and safety practices to prevent to possibility of becoming one!

[jmatthe2]

This is the second time I have seen someone in Canada refer to a "tethered" 2-nd rescuer. I just can't mentally picture what the heck you guys are talking about. Anywhere I can see some pics?

I agree that using two rescuers may make things slightly easier on the rescue side, but on the flip-side would significantly complicate things from a rigging and system managment standpoint. I just can't see the practicality of sending two guys over.

Low-Angle, in my opion, is a different story for obvious reasons. People have to carry the basket, and it may take more than one person to treat and package the victim.

[Riversong]

This is the second time I have seen someone in Canada refer to a "tethered" 2-nd rescuer. I just can't mentally picture what the heck you guys are talking about. Anywhere I can see some pics?

I've used this technique for teaching rappelling recreationally. Rather than use a separate top belay for a novice reppeller, I anchor the middle of the rope and rappel alongside the student to coach him/her through it and use a short (3') sling to connect our harnesses as a safety for the student.

But for qualified rescue techs, there is no reason to use this system. And, as several have noted, for pickoffs it's downright dangerous. Not because there's a possibility of placing a three-person load on a single rope (this is commonly done with a litter rescue with two attendants), but rather because of placing a three-person load on a one-person descender (with some shock loading).

- Robert

[JAFA62]

Gentlemen,
You all make great points and I will take them into considerations.
Let me explain some things first. The rescuers are using Rappel Racks not
Fig(8). I understand where your all coming from. Safety is a must but how many case studies show a rope breaking. The rescuers tie off before they pick-off. The rescuers are only 5ft apart. resqtek Im sure you do have a video and I would love to see it but Im sure something was compermized in order for the results. Guys Im not saying Im right your wrong. You may have been doing rope for over 20yrs.The fact is Ive never seen or heard of perfectly fine equipment failing. Equipment has failed due to human error. But is it the equipment or rope? I have seen no studies that say so.
I will find some photos and show you what I mean. Dont get your feathers up I hear you all and taken it into account. But what are the Facts on this. If you are simply going by what you were taught or your beliefs show me facts.
LET ME FIND SOME PICTURES.DONT BE A HATER....This is why I started the thread.

[JAFA62]

I got a picture but I will email it if u want to see it.
so let the email addresses begin :)

[Riversong]

how many case studies show a rope breaking.Who's talking about a rope breaking? The issue is one of the rescuers losing control for whatever reason: human error, rockfall, victim going ballistic.

Ive never seen or heard of perfectly fine equipment failing. Equipment has failed due to human error. But is it the equipment or rope? I have seen no studies that say so.
"Perfectly fine equipment", assuming its the proper equipment, doesn't fail sitting on the shelf. But in use there are any number of possible failure modes. There was a case of a rock climber fatality in Minnessota due, apparently, to grit getting drawn into a Grigri which severed the rope.

The local rescue squad here in Vermont severed a brand new 1/2" rope during vertical training and permanently damaged a new ascender (which is what cut the rope) which had been used (improperly, in my mind) as a progress capture device on the mainline.

The rescuers tie off before they pick-off. The rescuers are only 5ft apart.
Tying off is standard safety procedure. But, if the either rescuer loses control on descent, particularly the one with the two-person load, then you've got a potential 5' fall (tether length) and shock loading onto the other system - and particularly on the other descender.

Are both rescuers on 1/2" (13mm) general use ropes? If one is on a 7/16" (11mm) rope and suddenly takes the 3-person load, then that rope is severely overloaded and, at a minimum, will stretch considerably - and the stetching on a rock face can result in rope shearing on an edge.

But what are the Facts on this.
This isn't about "facts", just common sense. If you can't understand that having two rescuers tethered together can result in a sudden 3-person load on one of the rope systems (anchor, edge protection, descender, and likely the rescuer's harness if that's where the tether is attached), and that such a possibility can be catastrophic, then you need some additional training.

- Robert

[jmatthe2]

JAFA62,

email me at technicalrc@comporium.net

Thanks!

Jeff

[Riversong]

If you have two rescuers and two ropes to perform a pickoff, there are a couple of safer and more effective alternatives to two rescuers rappelling over the edge tethered together.

1) Rescuer A rappels for the pickoff, with rescuer B belaying rescuer A (and the two-person load after pickoff) with the second rope. This affords a proper rescue backup without the complication of having two rescuers over the edge.

2) Rescuer B lowers rescuer A to the victim for pickoff, converts to short raise (with a jigger, for instance) to help unload the patient from his rope, dc's the haul and continues lower. This way the pickoff rescuer only has to deal with the patient and not the rappel.

- Robert

[JAFA62]

Riversong do you have an email address and I will send u a picture of what I mean. Im not disagreeing with you at all. Im just saying that this is one of the methods I have learned. And I happened to have liked it.
High Angle has so many differnet setups. This is just one of many.
I use a 6-bar rack where as you might use a Fig 8.
You gave your point and I GOT IT. :D

[Riversong]

Riversong do you have an email address and I will send u a picture of what I mean.[QUOTE]
Please do. Rescue@Ponds-Edge.net

[QUOTE]You gave your point and I GOT IT.
I'm glad to hear this, but I was repeating myself because it didn't seem as if you were willing to hear what far more experienced practitioners and trainers were trying to tell you.

Im just saying that this is one of the methods I have learned. And I happened to have liked it.
And this is how questionable practices get promulgated. An "instructor", who typically has himself received minimal training, passes on techniques or "facts" (you wouldn't believe how many times I've heard people claim that a bowline has no place in rescue), which continue to get passed along and eventually become dogma.

High Angle has so many differnet setups. This is just one of many. There are many variations which are more or less equally functional, efficient, and safe. There are some which aren't.

I use a 6-bar rack where as you might use a Fig 8.
I used the example of a rescue-8 because it is, unfortunately, widely used in the fire service in the US. It offers less friction than any other rappel device (including most recreational devices), and - IMHO - is inappropriate for rescue work, particularly for anything more than a one-person load, and should never be used as a rescue belay.

- Robert

[resqtek]

The system which I have video footage of utilized a brake rack as well. The problem is, if you have a problem while lowering(the rack is not locked off), you can easily create enough force to overcome the friction of the rack. Keep in mind how many bars you would practically have while lowering.

This does not rule out the hazard of a rescuer and patient being subjected to an uncontrolled swing fall when captured by the tether. I have seen the tether lengthened in order to accomodate anchorage and edge transitions as well. In a couple cases, the tether was up to 20 feet long. Proponents of this system will respond with, " it is never going to be needed any way, the system (16mm rope) is too strong". My response to them was, "get rid of the tether then if you are so confident." I think you can imagine where that conversation went.

I will try to scan some of the old documantation for you guys to clarify what we are talking about.

[Riversong]

Looks perfectly safe to me. They have a swing scaffold to catch a fall!!!!!:eek:

[jmatthe2]

I know there is a local flavor for rope rescue. I have been to a lot of places where I have said, "I would do it different". I'm not saying if this is right or wrong....but....

I look at a rope system based on its safety and efficiency. Does this look safe or is it providing "safety" to the resuce? This is open to debate. The pendulum alone would be significant enough to create significant rope movement along the edge, and a sudden load to the second rescuers system could be catastrophic as there would be a sudden three person load (Although the peak force would be slightly less due to the pendulum and not a full drop.) How is the tether attached? This could also put a three-person load on the harness or descender. I tend to lean more toward the maybe this isn't the safest way to effect the rescue.

Is it efficient? What purpose does this serve? The second rescuer is nearly 20' away and, in no way, help in the extrication. It seems like a lot of extra rigging and risk or putting another rescuer over the edge and gaining no benefit.

resqtek - you mention 16mm (5/8) rope. Is that just for the tether? (I hope it is) I have a concern of loading three people onto 1/2" rope (which is what the majority of Urban fire departments carry). You guys who comment that 5/8 rope won't break are probably right, but it is only one component of many that could fail...including human error!

Another point of contention is how many belay lines are in this scenario? If the second rescuer is the "safety", than we have violated the long standing practice of not loading the secondary, or belay line.

I just don't see the benefit to this system in a pick-off rescue. If there was a stokes basket and obstacles I would certainly use a second rescuer, but they would be attached to an independant system, or the typical two person stokes configuration.

[Riversong]

resqtek - you mention 16mm (5/8) rope. Is that just for the tether? (I hope it is)
Actually, using a thicker - and more static - line for the tether would NOT make sense if it could take a shock load. The heavier rope should be the load lines, though it's almost never necessary to use such thick rope which won't be compatible with most rescue hardware.

I have a concern of loading three people onto 1/2" rope.
Raising or lowering 3-person loads is not uncommon (litter and two attendants), and is done even in mountain rescue with 7/16" rope. 1/2" rope can easily handle such loads. NFPA guidelines are based on a max 600 lb rescue load (15:1 SF) and wilderness rescue is typically based on a 10:1 safety factor.

If the second rescuer is the "safety", than we have violated the long standing practice of not loading the secondary, or belay line.
This "long-standing" practice is based more on dogma than on either function or safety.

A number of mountain or back-country rescue teams utilize a two-tensioned rope system for lowers, with each rope loaded and serving fully redundant functions. Keeping a belay or safety line loaded prevents the possibility of shock loading, which is the greatest danger when using low-stretch ropes.

In my mind, having identical, fully redundant and interchangeable rope systems is the safest option. This is what I've taught for industrial rescue, as it best meets the KISS principle.

- Robert

[jmatthe2]

Actually, using a thicker - and more static - line for the tether would NOT make sense if it could take a shock load. The heavier rope should be the load lines, though it's almost never necessary to use such thick rope which won't be compatible with most rescue hardware.

I wasn't clear on this. 16mm rope is not common as mainline rope, at least in my part of the country. I pity the people who have to lug around 16mm rope in a high angle scenario.

Raising or lowering 3-person loads is not uncommon (litter and two attendants), and is done even in mountain rescue with 7/16" rope. 1/2" rope can easily handle such loads. NFPA guidelines are based on a max 600 lb rescue load (15:1 SF) and wilderness rescue is typically based on a 10:1 safety factor.

I make this statement not that a 3-person load cannot be put on a 1/2" rope, but the way this system would load the rope in the event of a failure.

This "long-standing" practice is based more on dogma than on either function or safety.

A number of mountain or back-country rescue teams utilize a two-tensioned rope system for lowers, with each rope loaded and serving fully redundant functions. Keeping a belay or safety line loaded prevents the possibility of shock loading, which is the greatest danger when using low-stretch ropes.

I agree that a two-tensioned rope system is a viable option. However, there are some differences of opinion in how safe rope rigging and rescue is done between mountain and urban rescue teams. (This could be a topic all on it's own!) Instead of saying an unloaded belay is based on dogma rather than on function and safety, I would say it is based on the environment, comfort level of the rescuers, and team preference.

[Riversong]

there are some differences of opinion in how safe rope rigging and rescue is done between mountain and urban rescue teams.The primary difference is that urban rescue generally involves NFPA standard equipment (1/2" rope, steel carabiners) and wilderness rescue generally involves 7/16" rope and aluminum carabiners.

Other than that, and specific precautions for the particular environment, rigging principles are the same.

Instead of saying an unloaded belay is based on dogma rather than on function and safety, I would say it is based on the environment, comfort level of the rescuers, and team preference.
Please suggest a valid reason for keeping a belay line unloaded, other than the use of a belay device or technique which cannot work under tension (prusiks, 540).

[resqtek]

The mainlines were made with 16mm rope. The tether was made with 11mm dynamic rope. The tether was commonly attached to the rescuers harness which created some dangerous scenarios if the tether were ever needed.

Each system acts as the belay for the other. The mainline is captured by tandem prussics which are attached to the hauling system(3:1). The potential for a problem while hauling opens the door for catastrophe. At this point the haul system would not be tied off and would rely completely on the haulers to make the catch......or how about while resetting the haul?

As for the force created in the swing fall; the force created in a swing fall is the same as a straight vertical drop covering the same vertical distance. The jolt is less in a swing fall since the force is applied and increases over a greater distance. The peak force, however, at the apex of the arc is the same. This common misconception has been a topic in the fall protection community for years.

[kferrara2002]

We teach and practice the single rescuer method when dealing with "Pick-off" rescues. I note several reasons for this. First it reduces the risk to rescuers because we are not putting more personnel over the wall then we have to. If the rescuer needs equipment, the personnel above them can simply lower it down using a utility line. Second, using a single rescuer reduces the strain on manpower. Most small departments may not have the manpower needed to conduct a full scale rope rescue. By having a single rescuer performing the actual rescue, the other personnel up top can operate the belay systems and set up any other equipment that may be needed on scene. Regarding belay systems, we prefer to use the tandem prussic belay system as opposed to the 540 belay system.

One major factor that I have not seen in the threads posted here is the fact that no matter what system you set-up, you need to start at the anchor. If you do not have a BFR anchor, or multiple anchor points, then there is no need to overload the ones you have; hence going back to the single rescuer method. Obviously, the lighter the load, less risk is found. I certainly hope that everyone is practicing setting up your belays to a separate anchor point rather then to the same one your rappel line is attached to. Should that main line fail, the only direction you and the victim are going is down.

I’m sure each rescue is going to be dictated on the situation. There may be times where a two rescuer scenario will work. But we must always ensure safety and reduced risk is our number one priority.

[JAFA62]

Its all good. I still prefer 2 man over one. You all have made your points. What you need to realize.. Im not a Rock climber but I'm a firefighter. most of you prefer 1 man but Im 100% sure Im not the only one who prefers 2man. If man power is there.

Have a good day. Be safe.

[Riversong]

Its all good. I still prefer 2 man over one.

It's NOT all good. And the system you describe - two rescuers on two separate ropes, tethered together, with no belay - is a recipe for disaster.

Other than making an inappropriate analogy to fireground partnering, you haven't offered a single valid reason for your preference.

If you can't understand the dangers of your system, then you need to reconsider your involvement in rope rescue.

- Robert

[JAFA62]

I do understand, the system Im talking about.I USE IT as well as many other Fire departments across North America. But maybe your right I should get out of the Rope business and I dont know become an garbageman or something like that. Besides when there are guys like you who seem to know it all. We should just allow you to do it all. But then again are you even in the Fire Service???
Robert This is ONE method, You choose not to use it good for you bad for me. The question I asked was 2 or 1 man rescue for pick off..You choose 1 made your point NOW MOVE ON..

[resqtek]

Hey JAFA, please try not to take it personal. Robert does have a lot of experience and has seen a lot of different teams doing things many different ways.

When you are exposed to a variety of teams, you see many of them that simply do what their instructors have told them with out much thought as to why it is done that way. In fact many of these instructors are often simply regurgitating the same stuff that was taught to them with an equal absence of thought. I encourage my students to challenge anything I tell them because I am confident what I am teaching them is proven, safe and simple. It can be extremely frustrating trying to help people that do not want to take a close look at what they are doing. Particularly when what they are doing violates common standards and laws. (OSHA,NFPA,OH&S) We all mean well(even Robert) and just want to see people working safely and be able to justify their actions. Better to try to find justification now than in court.:o

Play safe:)

[kferrara2002]

Resqtek / everyone,

I agree with what you are saying. Here at our academy, we strive on teaching the newest and obvious safest techniques out there. We demonstrate to our students the simplest methods of performing various rescues. Only when they understand the basics do we move onto the more advanced and riskier methods. We get our training from companies such as CMC and rescue departments around the world. Most departments I have found are self taught though. By operating in that manner, they open themselves for disaster. Just because you got away with it one time and nobody was injured or worse yet died, does not mean you will get away with it the next time. You really need some type of formal training.

We are the same as you regarding challenges presented by students. It’s their feedback that drives us to be better instructors. Granted NFPA does not state that you have to have either one or two rescuers. But it comes down to common sense. As a rescuer, the question must be asked “do I place more risk on myself and other rescuers to get this guy or do I play it safe?” I would certainly hope that the Incident Commander is asking that question initially and throughout the rescue operation. Should the worst case ever occur, you can be guaranteed that when the investigators come in to determine what happened, they will be asking why. Why did the rescuers perform the way they did? Why couldn’t they perform the rescue with one person rather than two?

We can go on and on with this thread, but basically it comes down to safety; and I think that’s what resqtek, myself and everyone else here is stating. If it works, use it but please be safe when setting up and operating the systems.

[MEDIC0372]

JAFA62...Don't let Riversong upset you. He loves to domunate threads with his "know-it-all" attitude and I don't think that he even realizes that people stop listening to him after a while...they just get sick of seeing his ranting posts. He does have some good points but people tend to "tune people like him out" even though he may have something good to say.

.............................. .............................. .............................. ............
You stated in you post...

So let us know which one you prefer and why..Lets not make this a battle ground.

NOTE: I havent been able to find anything in NFPA to state which one is prefered
.............................. .............................. .............................. ...........

Here is my answer...I prefer "one rescuer" to "one rope". If you have enough to send two rescuers (each attached to their own rope) I think that would be great. I do not like the idea of two rescuers and one rescuee attached to one rope.

There are MANY situations where two rescuers would be GREAT and in fact BETTER than one. I just think that it would be BETTER and MUCH SAFER to have two systems in place. I also would not tether the two rescuers together.

If using 1/2" rope NFPA does state that it is only for two people (600lbs). NFPA stated that 1 person weighs 300 lbs and that 2 people weigh 600lbs. If using 15 to 1 safety margin that would then equal 9000 lbs. Most 1/2" rescue rope is rated at 9000 lbs.

Always think safety and keep asking questions. Many of the people here including Riversong stated some good things. We all need to keep an open mind and remember our goal here..."Keep the rescuers alive and well and to save people..."

Be safe, shoot straight but most of all have fun.
MEDIC-0372

[Riversong]

JAFA62...Don't let Riversong upset you. He loves to domunate threads with his "know-it-all" attitude
Excuse me for trying to share my knowledge with others. The problem here is not people with considerable experience and expertise offering legitimate and vital criticism to inefficient or unsafe practice.

The problem is people who think they know more than they do and insist on perpetuating faulty practice. That problem, of course, becomes exacerbated when such people "tune out" those who might help them improve their practice. And it's why the fire service is notorious for bad and outmoded practice. Egos and dogma = danger.

If using 1/2" rope NFPA does state that it is only for two people (600lbs). NFPA stated that 1 person weighs 300 lbs and that 2 people weigh 600lbs. If using 15 to 1 safety margin that would then equal 9000 lbs. Most 1/2" rescue rope is rated at 9000 lbs.
Sorry, Medic, but NFPA applies the 600lb standard to general use (not 2-person) loads. That could easily include, and in mountain rescue often does, a three-person load (victim/litter and two attendants). NFPA doesn't give a hoot how many people or how much equipment constitutes the 600 lb load, as long as that limit isn't exceeded.

And excuse me, once again, for correcting a misunderstanding. Feel free to "tune me out".

- Robert

[MEDIC0372]

Riversong...you are right that the standard applies to a 600 lbs load and they now do call it a General Use rescue rope. The standard states that General Use rope (formaly two person load) will be rated at 40kN or 8992 lbs. A few years ago the NFPA determined that a two person rescue load will be defined as 600 lbs. The NFPA determined that there shall be a 15 to 1 safety margine which for 600 lbs is 9000 lbs. That is where the 9000 lbs rope came from...now some of the terms may have changed over the yrs but the "intent" is still the same. In MY Opinion...(NOTE "MY" opinion), A general use rope (formaly known as "two person") is for two people not three. I know that you can hang way more than two people on a 1/2" rope but I like to leave room for the "unexpected" (which in rescue should be planned for) like shock loads.


.............................. .............................. .............................. ............
Riversong stated...
The problem is people who think they know more than they do and insist on perpetuating faulty practice. That problem, of course, becomes exacerbated when such people "tune out" those who might help them improve their practice. And it's why the fire service is notorious for bad and outmoded practice. Egos and dogma = danger
.............................. .............................. .............................. .............

Sometimes you should state your thought and back them up with proof. Give examples of what you have seen and/or done. Or just state your opinion and back off. By beating some one to death you not going to help them.

The idea is to teach some one something that they can use...not to prove that YOU are the one with the "considerable experience and expertise".

By the way...I will not "tune you out" but people in the Fire Service that act and speak the way you do often do get "tuned out".

Take care

[Riversong]

In MY Opinion...(NOTE "MY" opinion), A general use rope (formaly known as "two person") is for two people not three. I know that you can hang way more than two people on a 1/2" rope but I like to leave room for the "unexpected" (which in rescue should be planned for) like shock loads.

And that "unexpected" is what the extraordinarily high 15:1 safety factor is for (mountain and cave rescue has always been safe with a 10:1 or even 8:1 safety factor).

NFPA is being very conservative in insisting that a General Use rope be limited to a 600 lb live load. There is no reason you can't place four people on a 1/2" rope if they weigh 150 lbs apiece.

In mountain and cave rescue, three person loads are placed - quite safely - on 7/16" rope.

- Robert

[MEDIC0372]

I can't agree more...but the question was asked about what the NFPA had to say about this type of rescue. What I gave was my "best" answer and my opinion.

There may be some "overkill" in the NFPA standards. Even though these standards are not "law" it is wise to stick to them as best you can if you are a Fire Department. On our FD we do High Angle, Con-space and all that sort of stuff...Not only do we look at NFPA but we look at OSHA and BWC rules and regs to name just a couple.

We also do Water, Ice and Dive Rescue. You want to see some NFPA guide lines. See what it takes for a FD to dive in and save someone with SCUBA gear.

PS...now see. We are having an nice two way conversation with out bold printing and harsh talk.

Take Care Brother.

[swcfpd340]

Generally your rope is not the weakest component in a system, so calculating a 15:1 or 10:1 ratio based on tensil strength won't give you an accurate safety margin. Let's not put an idea like that into some newbie's head.
As far as everything else...ask 10 different people get 10 different answers.
State your opinion and why, and move on. Why waste half the thread with arguing and trying to prove your infinite knowledge, and why everyone who has an opposing opinion is not as good as you.
In short there is no authority that states what practice "will" be used, it is all a matter of trial and error. Your organization will use what is best for it, based on personal prefrence, experience, budget, and staffing...etc.etc.
So let's please keep the threads as profesional as we all want to appear.

[Riversong]

Generally your rope is not the weakest component in a system, so calculating a 15:1 or 10:1 ratio based on tensil strength won't give you an accurate safety margin.

The weakest link in a rescue system is typically the rescue technicians.

But, if you're talking about the rigging, the "software" (rope, cordage, webbing) is the link which requires the greatest safety factor because it is so much more vulnerable than the "hardware". Vulnerable to abrasion and cutting, to acids and alkali, to UV and water and mud and ice.

All rigging disciplines employ a standard safety factor to account for these vulnerabilities as well as wear and tear. Hardware and cable often requires only a 5:1 safety factor. Some accessory gear, 8:1 or 10:1.

The Working Load Limit (WLL) for any rigging gear is determined by applying an accepted safety factor to the tensile strength. This is standard engineering practice and the basis for NFPA and other Safe Working Load standards. It was, in fact, exactly how the NFPA came up with their requirement for a 9,000 lb tensile strength for a general use rope (600lbs load x 15 SF).

- Robert