High Rise Evacuation/ Entry system

[nmfire]

Has anyone else noticed something here? Every reason we've come up with why this contraption won't work is answered by "that is being worked out in the standard". What that really means is "I don't know how to make that work so I'll use this as a quick way to answer without answering".

It won't work. It isn't practical. Nobody will use it. George is right, modern building codes with proper life safety equipment will do 10x more good and probably cost less than this death trap.

[KenNFD1219]

I wonder what the proposed standard will say about people from multiple floors bailing out on the same track at the same time, hitting each other as one peson slides down while another is connecting the the track.

Even in non-existant event this system is approved, why would a building owner install it if it is not required by building code? It is nearly impossible to get sprinklers installed in new construction unless it is required by law and even then there is a often sellouts, er I mean tradeoffs, made with the builders.

As has been stated before-preventing the fire from occuring, containing a fire that does occur, and having a properly designed and operating sprinkler extinguish the fire will save more lives than this contraption.

I could possibly see a very limited application for building maintenance and repair using this system, but it will never be used for occupants to exit a building.

[aji549]

You keep talking about a standard. Is that a standard on design of these things? a standard on requiring buildings to have these? What kind of standard? And at $300 a foot, how many buildings are you expecting to go and get these? What benefit to the building owner other than cleaning his windows? Are you looking at some type of insurance discounts or something for the building owner to get them to install these? Are you looking for the government to mandate installation/training/maintenance of these items on buildings? Are you considering what a buildings insurance company may do to that building's insurance coverage when they have an external system that anyone can hopefully clip a harness correctly, not panic, not fall, not get hurt, not get killed?

Your not a firefighter at all are you? FF's don't run down the stairs and abandon the fire, they put it out.

No I am not a FF. That is why I am here seeking your insight and wisdom.

I guess no body had to carry an injured brother down the stairs removing 3 FF from the fire? Hook him up and send him down the track he gets help quicker and you stay and fight. Oh I am also working on a bracket that attaches to rescue baskets so you can send it down as well. Please keep in mind I am exploring all the possibilities.


Only you can tell me what will be beneficial to you. It might work out to only be used for scaffolding. That will still be safer than the ones used today. My design will work with existing scaffolds, only need my support brackets and track.

Ok again the ASTM E06.77 Is working on a testing standard for the controlled descent devices. It covers cable and rope devices as well as rail and track devices. It is the standard that will dictate load requirements, testing requirement, Overload requirements, Heat,wet,cold,ice exposure testing.
It lays out what UL would need to test. It uses many existing test standards as base for these devices. It addresses anchor point stress requirements and others it is 56 pages in it's current draft. Some of the issues raise here I will be conveying to the committee as they are very valid concerns I will not push this down your throat. I will in the future demonstrate that it is a safe device and we will see then after compliant testing if it is better received.

It is hard to understand until you hold it in your hand it is very stout I want it to convey confidence from the moment you put it in your hand. That plays to the psychology in trusting it for use.

As far as building standards that still needs to be addressed. ASTM E06.77 is the first step.

Yes insurance incentives are also going to be pursued (leaving out the civilian decenders for this example). That can not be pushed until the ground work is laid out first.

I want building owners to want it. Retrofit is the tough sell. Incorporating it in new buildings is what I want to see happen.


$300.00 a foot is a ballpark that will reveal it's self when we see what the final load requirements are going to be and actual testing is done. This will give us the final wall thickness of the track and a manufacturing method ( Extrusions, Cold drawn, hammer forged, Billet, Ect...) Same for the descenders I don't want cost to be an excuse. I want it to be affordable and wide spread. This is not a get rich quick gimmick I am trying to solve some tactical problems that exist.

Outside of the debate about Civilian deployment this system solves quite a bit as far as FF are concerned. My opinion.

Thanks

[aji549]

I wonder what the proposed standard will say about people from multiple floors bailing out on the same track at the same time, hitting each other as one peson slides down while another is connecting the the track.

Even in non-existant event this system is approved, why would a building owner install it if it is not required by building code? It is nearly impossible to get sprinklers installed in new construction unless it is required by law and even then there is a often sellouts, er I mean tradeoffs, made with the builders.

As has been stated before-preventing the fire from occuring, containing a fire that does occur, and having a properly designed and operating sprinkler extinguish the fire will save more lives than this contraption.

I could possibly see a very limited application for building maintenance and repair using this system, but it will never be used for occupants to exit a building.

I can not tell you the contents of the Standard. I am under non-disclosure agreement with ASTM. I can only tell you is that your question has already been asked and is being addressed. Other people working on the standard have the same concerns raised here.

This is not to replace any existing safety measures. That is not my intent.

And it will be cheaper than a sprinkler system.

It's primary us is maintenance however there are other uses that open up they don't all have to be exploited.

Also there can be multiple people on the track at the same time the hydraulics control the rate of descent people will not run into each other. You would simple wait for the person above to pass and then you go.

Yes there is still the debate about being able to stop the unit manually. There is also another debate about cable devices and people trying to jump on them in a panic creating an overload condition at the achor point.

How do you keep people from jumping on your rope? Should you not use it because there is the possibillity that some one above you might try to use your rope in a panick?

What about the possibility of a window blowout above you and a shard of glass severs your rope? There are endless scenarios that can be concocted to disprove any mechanical devise.

[SAFD46Truck]

Because this idea is simply ludicrous. Also, I have an opinion. In case you haven't noticed, I normally do not hesitate to state my opinion when I feel strongly about something.

For a fire service professional to give this idea one moment of consideration as being a feasible alternative to the technology of high rise life safety as it exists today is a scary insight into their knowledge of life safety.

Yeah George I know you never hesitate to say anything thats on your mind. I disagree with a lot of your posts, but usually you make strong, well thought out points. In this case it just seems like you're being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Even if this guy's idea is not workable you don't need to ride his *** about it, he didn't do anything wrong. That's all I'm saying and I'm done on this topic.

[nmfire]

Do you really think the property owner will get an insurance discount for having this thing? What is more likely is their rates will skyrocket.

[aji549]

GEORGE is my toughest critic. He is helping me to shape this leave him alone.

George you win no Civillan deployment(for now)

lets change this a bit.

New idea.

I get the track installed (Let me worry about that), take out Civilian deployment and argue with me the fact that you as FF can't see any benefit for you with the system installed.

Forget about Insurance and all that, Purely hypothetical.

lets go.

[MrYuk]

Here is my .02

I agree that you are thinking outside the box and are at least trying to come up with some sort of safety plan which is great but our posts against your product are not to bad mouth you but simply to let him know that some of these things are not feasible. If no one (such as George) mentions the bad things about your product then you will think everything is fine and end up endangering many lives. The idea is a start, the product will probably not make it but yes it could lead to further ideas and possibly a safer solution.

One thing I do have to mention is the fact that you changed your idea from the average Joe using this product, to now it will only be used by rescuers. I have heard you make references to both and it seems as if your ideas still have not been completely thought out.

On the other hand, your ideas for robotic window cleaning and those types of ideas are in my opinion where you need to focus your attention. Although the price will still be high and selling will be difficult, you will not have to worry about any life safety issues. I am willing to bet the first time someone falls off this contraption, you will have lawsuits coming from every direction.

[Bones42]

As a FF, instead of an external "escape" track, I'd rather have a functional sprinkler system. I'd rather have a way to ensure standpipe systems are working when needed. I'd rather have alarm systems that notify people of the need to leave (and people actually pay attention to the warning). I'd rather have the manpower needed to fight the fire and rescue the occupants that need rescuing.

I have a really hard time imagining any FF going and hooking his partner up to this and dropping them off the side of a building.

Another thought, what about a building that is built up in steps, meaning every few floors the width of the building gets less? What then? Is there someone needed at each step to remove people and transfer them to the next system and so forth?

[MrYuk]

Another thought, what about a building that is built up in steps, meaning every few floors the width of the building gets less? What then? Is there someone needed at each step to remove people and transfer them to the next system and so forth?

Good point. How about they just make buildings like this all the way to the ground? Then we could just walk down!!!!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Yeah George I know you never hesitate to say anything thats on your mind. I disagree with a lot of your posts, but usually you make strong, well thought out points. In this case it just seems like you're being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Even if this guy's idea is not workable you don't need to ride his *** about it, he didn't do anything wrong. That's all I'm saying and I'm done on this topic.

Really.

I have already given about six or seven solid, "well-thought-out" reasons why this is a stupid idea. That is not being a jerk. It seems as though it is you with the ulterior motives because you have difficulty seeing through your dislike of my style to see that I was offering strong points.

[aji549]

Here is my .02

I agree that you are thinking outside the box and are at least trying to come up with some sort of safety plan which is great but our posts against your product are not to bad mouth you but simply to let him know that some of these things are not feasible. If no one (such as George) mentions the bad things about your product then you will think everything is fine and end up endangering many lives. The idea is a start, the product will probably not make it but yes it could lead to further ideas and possibly a safer solution.

One thing I do have to mention is the fact that you changed your idea from the average Joe using this product, to now it will only be used by rescuers. I have heard you make references to both and it seems as if your ideas still have not been completely thought out.

On the other hand, your ideas for robotic window cleaning and those types of ideas are in my opinion where you need to focus your attention. Although the price will still be high and selling will be difficult, you will not have to worry about any life safety issues. I am willing to bet the first time someone falls off this contraption, you will have lawsuits coming from every direction.

Thank you all for your input. I was not expecting everyone to bow to the idea.

I am testing the water. I need to know the negatives. Up till that first post I have not been able to get real feedback on it.

I will and have changed my position on it's deployment as needed. Nothing in the design can not be changed or modified to suit.

I am a flexible man and if the professional opinion is that Civilian deployment is to high of a risk I will yield my position.

Remember this is in development stages. I will not sell anything that will be seen as an endangerment. There are people selling cable descenders and there is no standard for the use they are advocating, that is irresponsible.

Some of them require you to wait until it is rewound to use again.

There are people selling Parachutes.

Civilians have ordered climbing gear for there condos and don't know how to use it.

I want to workout the bugs now and any controversy.

Keep in mind you have not see the production version(it is not built yet). You do not know the mechanical details. You are going on your conception of an idea I put in your head. Your vision is not the same as mine. I know how it works, I know what it can do I know how it functions mechanically. That is why I have confidence in it. My problem is going to be the conveyance of it to you.

This is great debate and I am listening to you. I will make some changes to the website to reflect what I have acquired here.
In the future I will prove it functions and can meet the testing standard and the code writers will dictate how it can be deployed. At that juncture there will be more study on the feasibility of use for life safety.

Also remember the track is not on the building solely for life safety it just happens that I can extend it's capabilities in that direction.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

GEORGE is my toughest critic. He is helping me to shape this leave him alone.

George you win no Civillan deployment(for now)

lets change this a bit.

New idea.

I get the track installed (Let me worry about that), take out Civilian deployment and argue with me the fact that you as FF can't see any benefit for you with the system installed.

Forget about Insurance and all that, Purely hypothetical.

lets go.

I guess no body had to carry an injured brother down the stairs removing 3 FF from the fire? Hook him up and send him down the track he gets help quicker and you stay and fight. Oh I am also working on a bracket that attaches to rescue baskets so you can send it down as well. Please keep in mind I am exploring all the possibilities.

First of all, who the hell do you think you are? When was the last time you got your lazy *** out of bed at 0300 on a sub-freezing morning to go fight a fire? Who are you to lecture to us about fire fighter safety? Who are you to invoke injured FF's as a rationale for one of the most absurd things I have seen in a long time.

You want help with this? Go find a bunch of your looney inventor friends and play with your imaginary standard.

[Bones42]

Hey, since we're "helping" you design this....how much commission do we get?

[aji549]

Hey, since we're "helping" you design this....how much commission do we get?

"Shape it" not design it that is already done.

[aji549]

First of all, who the hell do you think you are? When was the last time you got your lazy *** out of bed at 0300 on a sub-freezing morning to go fight a fire? Who are you to lecture to us about fire fighter safety? Who are you to invoke injured FF's as a rationale for one of the most absurd things I have seen in a long time.

You want help with this? Go find a bunch of your looney inventor friends and play with your imaginary standard.

George 1st you know nothing about me so back up.

I am sorry I touched a nerve I guess I was thinking that in my spare time I would run a fire nozzle up a building for kicks and my own sake. Or maybe play with a radio repeater for my own good. I guess the next time I want to wash windows I don't want to be blown off the building. Yea I am doing this to solve my own problems.

No I get up at 3:00 am to check on my disable son who can not walk or talk. I feed him through a tube in his stomach because he does not eat. I hold him when he as a seizure that I can not stop.

That is who I am.

So do not think because I do not do your job you are superior to me.

[Firescueguy]

You replied to my statement about a panicked civilian not being able to don a harness properly by saying that "if they can put their pants on, they can put this harness on"...question for you...how many panicked civilians have you dealt with on an emergency scene???

Ever been in a vehicle that's been mangled in a crash with a civilian who panicks & tries to start the car (or worse drive away) you just climbed into??? Ever been punched, kicked, bit, "knee'd", etc. while trying to rescue a civilian from a burning building??? We all have...and we can tell you that a panicked civilian is not going to be able to think cognitively enough to effectively don, adjust & attach a harness to a framerail 15 floors up while in blinding smoke & searing heat.

You may have asked somebody off the street to try donning your harness & they did it relatively easy but now let's add the fact that there is high heat, blinding smoke that inhibits your ability to not only breathe but to think cognitively, add the panic factor in coupled with the fact they know they are X amount of floors above the ground and let's see what happens. You cannot REALISTICALLY believe that this would not make a difference...there is no such thing as "foolproof" (remember, there's always a fool who will prove that theory wrong).

Lastly, you came on here to promote/discuss your product so you have to be able to accept constructive criticism (constructive, not simply ragging on your idea). With that said, I think you need to do considerably more testing and market research before you try promoting this to the owner of a 10 story building by telling him that you tested this on YOUR SHED. Sliding 6-8 feet from your shed roof to the ground is considerably different than what might be encountered in the real world. Imagine some 200 lb. panicked woman in high heels with a fear of heights trying to don your harness in blinding smoke so she can mount a framerail 10 floors above the ground...sound far fetched??? Not in the real world...

I applaud your intention to make a product to provide added safety but there are just way too many variables here that make this thing have the potential to be a deathtrap.

Just my 3 cents (it's a follow-up reply, it costs more...)...

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

aji...

As noble as your quest is, it is doomed to failure because you forgot the one element that cannot be tested by Underwriter's Laboratories, Factory Mutual, ASTM or any other independent testing lab.. and that is human nature and behaviors in fire conditions.

There are simple signs outside of every elevator that read as follows:

"In case of fire, do not use the elevators, use the stairs"

I can't tell you how many times I have captured the elevators via the Firefighters 3502 key and found it full of occupants during a fire alarm activation.

We have a hard enough time convincing someone that we will not drop them or let them fall when we are evacuating them over a ground ladder, aerial or platform.

We have a hard enough time evacuating any residential apartment or office building because people ignore the fire alarms.

Your idea is extremely cost prohibitive at $300 a foot. Multiply the number of tracks that would be necessary in the average high rise building, accounting for not only the height of the structure, but the width and square footage. Contractors yell and scream about the expenses when they have to just meet the fire codes, let alone adding additional fire protection devices.

Money would be better spent on sprinkler and standpipe systems, radio repeaters for firefighter communications (structural steel eats radio signals) occupant fire safety training and firefighter training in high rise operations.

[aji549]

You replied to my statement about a panicked civilian not being able to don a harness properly by saying that "if they can put their pants on, they can put this harness on"...question for you...how many panicked civilians have you dealt with on an emergency scene???

Ever been in a vehicle that's been mangled in a crash with a civilian who panicks & tries to start the car (or worse drive away) you just climbed into??? Ever been punched, kicked, bit, "knee'd", etc. while trying to rescue a civilian from a burning building??? We all have...and we can tell you that a panicked civilian is not going to be able to think cognitively enough to effectively don, adjust & attach a harness to a framerail 15 floors up while in blinding smoke & searing heat.

You may have asked somebody off the street to try donning your harness & they did it relatively easy but now let's add the fact that there is high heat, blinding smoke that inhibits your ability to not only breathe but to think cognitively, add the panic factor in coupled with the fact they know they are X amount of floors above the ground and let's see what happens. You cannot REALISTICALLY believe that this would not make a difference...there is no such thing as "foolproof" (remember, there's always a fool who will prove that theory wrong).

Lastly, you came on here to promote/discuss your product so you have to be able to accept constructive criticism (constructive, not simply ragging on your idea). With that said, I think you need to do considerably more testing and market research before you try promoting this to the owner of a 10 story building by telling him that you tested this on YOUR SHED. Sliding 6-8 feet from your shed roof to the ground is considerably different than what might be encountered in the real world. Imagine some 200 lb. panicked woman in high heels with a fear of heights trying to don your harness in blinding smoke so she can mount a framerail 10 floors above the ground...sound far fetched??? Not in the real world...

I applaud your intention to make a product to provide added safety but there are just way too many variables here that make this thing have the potential to be a deathtrap.

Just my 3 cents (it's a follow-up reply, it costs more...)...

Yes more study on behavior is needed.

You people just cant seem to get past this I have already conceded the fact that I understand your concerns regarding the Civilian use again I will bring it up with the committee.

That does not mean it cannot benefit you. There is more than one way to deploy it. You have not addressed any of the other aspects. You only have aproblem with one.

No I have not been nor did I ever say that I was a FF or pretend to know anything about the job. in fact I recall thanking you.

If I thought I had it all figured out I would not be here.

I came here and put my design on the table.

Oh here is the imaginary link to the imaginary standard I was making up.

http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/E0677.htm

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

Yes more study on behavior is needed.

You people just cant seem to get past this I have already conceded the fact that I understand your concerns regarding the Civilian use again I will bring it up with the committee.

That does not mean it cannot benefit you. There is more than one way to deploy it. You have not addressed any of the other aspects. You only have aproblem with one.

No I have not been nor did I ever say that I was a FF or pretend to know anything about the job. in fact I recall thanking you.

If I thought I had it all figured out I would not be here.

I came here and put my design on the table.

Oh here is the imaginary link to the imaginary standard I was making up.

http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/E0677.htm

I beg to differ...

I came up with a few aspects. You have not addressed them as of yet.