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.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 41 to 45 of 45
Thread: High Strength Tie Off
03-02-2012, 05:31 PM #41
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
Last edited by FIRECAPT62; 03-02-2012 at 05:49 PM.
03-02-2012, 07:20 PM #42
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- N. Ridgeville, Ohio
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
03-03-2012, 12:00 AM #43
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
USAR TF Rescue Specialist
03-14-2012, 05:02 PM #44
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- eastern WA
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…
03-15-2012, 12:28 PM #45~Drew
USAR TF Rescue Specialist
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By backdraft663 in forum The Off Duty ForumsReplies: 20Last Post: 06-16-2010, 02:00 AM
By CdnFyreGuy in forum Apparatus InnovationReplies: 20Last Post: 06-11-2009, 11:33 PM
By Rugby16911 in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 6Last Post: 12-14-2004, 05:25 PM
By SamsonFCDES in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 30Last Post: 08-11-2004, 01:12 PM
By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily ReportReplies: 0Last Post: 06-22-2004, 09:45 AM