Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 45 of 45
  1. #41
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbrescue View Post
    Maybe I missed it in this discussion, but we are all over using hardware. I am all for setting up pre-rigged bags and systems, but too many guys are dependent on them. I tend to talk to guys from teams all over the place and pick their brains for ideas. Our team has decided to stick with the basics and do them well. That does not mean that we are not capable of doing difficult rescues or scenarios at all. It just means that we are no becoming dependent on hardware and gadgets. We have looked at all the gadgets and have decided to stick with the good old prussic systems for what we do. Why do we need to replace our perfectly good gear, with the expensive toys on the market? Anchor straps are great, but it never fails that the wrong one is in the wrong bag or part of the situation when needed. If the guys can’t work past that, they get stuck and nothing progresses. We are trying to teach a more minimalistic approach to rigging, with less hardware. This allows the hardware to be available where it is truly needed. Also, we are teaching and pushing all of our members to use and get proficient with the multi-loop bowline. This is a very versatile know and can replace valuable hardware in a lot of situations. There are many ways to do the things that we need to accomplish. Too many guys in the rescue community can only see one way to accomplish certain tasks.

    Hello...may I comment on a couple things.

    1) Anchor Straps...I think that they are one of the greatest things that we invested in. Again they are fast / safe / easy to use. Some of the situations that we are confronted with are very complex. We deal with heights that are in the 200 to 400 ft range. Sometimes the only anchor point is a large, hard to access and precariously situated structural member. Placing a webbing "wrap 3 pull 2" anchor in some of these cases is a very difficult, time consuming and risk increasing task. We have found that in such situations we are able to throw a properly sized and padded anchor strap over or around such an anchor point to form a proper anchor much more safely. All our anchor straps are protected / padded by running them through a 2.5 inch fire hose. We also use large tri-links to secure the straps.

    2) I agree 100% with the pre-packing issue. We will unload and stage all equipment at the scene and pack what is needed at that time.

    3) You are right...there are many ways of doing things. Please don't make it sound wrong that we use anchor straps. Organizations need to spend time on learning as many ways possible to do the job quickly, safely and easily. Its hard to say what tactic is "better" than another in all situations. Remember...what works great in on situation may not work in an other situation.
    Last edited by FIRECAPT62; 03-02-2012 at 04:49 PM.


  2. #42
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    N. Ridgeville, Ohio
    Posts
    811

    Default

    Hopefully I did not sound like I am against anchor straps. They are a great piece of equipment. The problem tends to be that you have the wrong one when you need another one frequently. The newer ones that allow one ring to pass through the other for a girth hitch are an imporvement as well. My big complaint is that too many guys only know how to do things one way and forget that they can do a lot with what they may have on hand instead of depending on other pieces of gear. The basics are important and need to be second nature as a fall back when the bigger and better things fail or are not available.
    Jason Brooks
    IAFF Local 2388
    IACOJ

  3. #43
    Forum Member FiremanLyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by servantleader View Post
    If necessary, I can elaborate on why I think a 10:1 SSSF for a 600 lb rescue load used to be built into NFPA 1983. Short on time...shouldn't even be playing in FireHouse right now...
    10:1 is a pretty high number. Use one prussick in a system (most rated prussick loops ~4000) and you are looking at a 6 or 7:1. Use anything not rated at over 6000lbf and you'll be under 10:1.

    We teach a 7:1 goal for a SSF. We will gladly take a greater SSF if possible, and will work with a less than 7:1. The reason we are proffesionals at this is because we understand the capibilities and limitations of our equipment and assess at what point we are willing to risk or find another solution.
    ~Drew
    Firefighter/EMT/Technical Rescue
    USAR TF Rescue Specialist

  4. #44
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    eastern WA
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FiremanLyman View Post
    10:1 is a pretty high number. Use one prussick in a system (most rated prussick loops ~4000) and you are looking at a 6 or 7:1. Use anything not rated at over 6000lbf and you'll be under 10:1.

    We teach a 7:1 goal for a SSF. We will gladly take a greater SSF if possible, and will work with a less than 7:1. The reason we are proffesionals at this is because we understand the capibilities and limitations of our equipment and assess at what point we are willing to risk or find another solution.
    Certainly. I agree. For an 8 mm prusik the SSF is down to about 7:1 for a 600 lb (2.7 kN) load. But, if you define a rescue load as 2 kN (450 lbs), as is commonly done by wilderness rescue teams, the SSF for the prusik is just at 10:1 instead. [Given a 14 kN unknotted strength for 8 mm cord (Lipke p 181) and a 30% strength reduction at the knot (Lipke p 181), the prusik SSF is calculated to be 7.4 for the 2.7 kN load and 9.8 for the 2 kN load.]

    So, the issue of how a rescue load is defined continues to hang over our heads. There is no consensus. For the 8 mm prusik, 10:1 clearly cannot be claimed by a wilderness rescue team rescuing a 400 lb (1.8 kN) patient. But, the SSF for the prusik clearly exceeds 10:1 for a 200 lb (0.89 kN) firefighter rescuing a 150 lb (0.67 kN) patient. So, your statement about understanding the capabilities and limitations of our equipment based on the anticipated loading is definitely key. The issue is that many teams just want a cookie cutter approach to rope rescue. Everyone on this forum knows that the cookie cutter approach is a hotly debated topic.

    A few members of my team attended a “technician refresher” class last week. The class had five groups of students from agencies around the state. All but one group claimed a minimum 15:1 SSSF for their systems. When asked why, they mumbled something about the fire academy and NFPA…

    My statement about NFPA 1983 referred to life safety rope. Some claim that NFPA 1983 requires a 15:1 SSF for life safety rope (for a 2.7 kN load) because the tensile strength of unknotted ½” rope is about 40 kN and 40 kN/2.7 kN = 15. But, ropes need knots to be functional. So if we reduce the tensile strength of the rope by 30% to account for the knot, we're at about 28 kN (40 kN x 0.7 = 28 kN) and the SSF is 28 kN/2.7 kN = 10. This is the correct SSF for the rope because it accounts for how the rope is actually going to be used.

    The only reason I mentioned this is because people are still incorrectly quoting 15:1 for general use life safety ropes per NFPA 1983, even though the functional SSF for ½” rope with a 600 lb load is 10:1. Even worse, some still claim that NFPA 1983 mandates a minimum SSF of 15:1 for all rope rescue equipment used by the fire service even though NFPA 1983 (a) does not deal with some types of equipment (for example prusiks) (b) is a standard for manufacturers, not for users and (c) does not explicitly state or discuss a required SSF for anything.

    Even even worse, some will point to that 8 mm prusik in their system and tell you it doesn’t meet a 15:1 SSF but that’s OK because our ½” rope and steel biners do meet the a 15:1 SSF as required by NFPA 1983…

  5. #45
    Forum Member FiremanLyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by servantleader View Post
    Certainly. I agree. For an 8 mm prusik the SSF is down to about 7:1 for a 600 lb (2.7 kN) load. But, if you define a rescue load as 2 kN (450 lbs), as is commonly done by wilderness rescue teams, the SSF for the prusik is just at 10:1 instead. [Given a 14 kN unknotted strength for 8 mm cord (Lipke p 181) and a 30% strength reduction at the knot (Lipke p 181), the prusik SSF is calculated to be 7.4 for the 2.7 kN load and 9.8 for the 2 kN load.]
    And the wilderness guys go to a General Load of 450lbs? Interesting, then you should be able to aim for 10:1 each time. They do this because people walking in the woods are thinner?

    Quote Originally Posted by servantleader View Post
    The only reason I mentioned this is because people are still incorrectly quoting 15:1 for general use life safety ropes per NFPA 1983, even though the functional SSF for ½” rope with a 600 lb load is 10:1. Even worse, some still claim that NFPA 1983 mandates a minimum SSF of 15:1 for all rope rescue equipment used by the fire service even though NFPA 1983 (a) does not deal with some types of equipment (for example prusiks) (b) is a standard for manufacturers, not for users and (c) does not explicitly state or discuss a required SSF for anything.

    Even even worse, some will point to that 8 mm prusik in their system and tell you it doesn’t meet a 15:1 SSF but that’s OK because our ½” rope and steel biners do meet the a 15:1 SSF as required by NFPA 1983…
    Bing-Freaking-O
    ~Drew
    Firefighter/EMT/Technical Rescue
    USAR TF Rescue Specialist

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Wanna lose Weight or Build Muscle
    By backdraft663 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 01:00 AM
  2. high pressure
    By CdnFyreGuy in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 10:33 PM
  3. FF High School Program
    By Rugby16911 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-14-2004, 04:25 PM
  4. Leather Vs. Plastic Vs. Kevlar Vs. Fiber Glass, The....
    By SamsonFCDES in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-11-2004, 12:12 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 06-21-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2004, 08:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts