All headfirst ladder slides are unsafe
Here we go again with these “bailing out” headfirst ladder slides. In the October 2000 issue (“The Headfirst Ladder Slide: Three Methods” by Rick Lasky; John J. Salka, Jr.; and Bob Pressler), we can select from three methods. They are all unsafe! Recent events prove it, notably the death of a fire captain who was going to show his crew what he had learned.
I was at least glad to see that safety ropes were used for the bail-out training in the article. However, this points out the real dangers in teaching the headfirst bail-out technique.
At the local level, I have talked with several fire departments about this technique. In every case, each department has had a firefighter fall off the ladder. One volunteer training officer stated, “Yes, we have had some cadets fall off, but they were not hurt badly because we only allow them to do it from the second floor under close supervision.” One paid training officer stated, “Sure, we have had some people fall, but it does not change the fact that we need to teach our firefighters how it’s done.” What will happen in an emergency with no supervision when they bail out headfirst on a ladder set at 70 to 75 degrees?
First, I would like to point out that all three methods shown used ladders set for rescue:
(a) That means the ladder beams will be set below the windowsill and cannot be seen by firefighters in the building.
(b) It also means the ladders are set at less than 70 to 75 degrees. These ladders may even be less than 60 degrees based on the photos shown.
(c) With a rescue set, the ladder is positioned in the center of the window. Not so with a ladder set for fire attack. In fire attack, the ladder is positioned in the window with several rungs above the windowsill and positioned to one side. This allows for entry and exit and allows hoselines to be placed so they do not cross over the ladder.
We must remember the reason for placing fire attack ladders in the window three to five rungs above the sill: safety. The ladder should be visible to firefighters working inside, and it helps to secure the ladder so it will not slide to the side and fall. It’s also a safety issue to have a second means of escape from the floors above the ground.
Second, the rungs above the windowsill, while providing a visual location of the ladder, also provide a handle when entering or exiting the window. It is much safer to hold onto the ladder when climbing in and out of the window.
So, it seems that a training officer who pushes the bail-out technique has forgotten some of the safety rules of ground ladder use. If firefighters are going up the stairs to make an interior attack, several ladders should be set for emergency use if needed. That means the ladder has to be seen and has to be three to five rungs above the windowsill. If you are using a ladder to gain access through a window, you must set at least one additional ladder for a second means of escape. Both ladders should be set with three to five rungs above the windowsill. Not only does this provide the visual location needed, it also allows the firefighter’s hand to hold onto a rung while testing the floor before letting go of the ladder. When egress is most important, the firefighter can use the extended ladder rungs to assist him as he gets into the window and onto the ladder. This same rule applies to roof work. It’s a safety issue.
If we want to train our personnel to slide ladders in an emergency, let us do it safely. Diving out (bailing out) headfirst is not safe. First, for a fire attack (not a rescue), the ladder must be set with rungs above the windowsill. That means you cannot crawl out over the ladder. The proper technique would be to train a firefighter to use the extended rungs to assist him in getting on the ladder and then sliding down feetfirst-not jumping out headfirst. I would agree that once the firefighter gets on the ladder, most of the emergency is over; a safe sliding technique can be used to get him to the ground.
The questions I have about the bail-out technique are the following:
- If a ladder is set for fire attack, is the ladder going to be reset below the windowsill during the fire attack? Who will reset it? Will it be reset only after a radio call is received? In a true emergency, rollover or flashover, there is no time to request that a ladder be reset or moved into the rescue set position.
- Ladders set for fire attack are set at an angle of about 70 to 75 degrees. This allows for maximum strength. Why are ladders for bail-out training set at lesser angles? Why would we train on ladders that are set at unsafe angles?
- If a ladder is set for a second means of egress and is set below the windowsill, how can a firefighter tell which window to go to in an emergency? Would firefighters be required to check each window? Exit signs are lighted, but a ladder set under the windowsill cannot be seen.
- Several firefighters are involved during rescues. Two or more are in the building assisting the injured firefighter-one firefighter on the ladder and one or more firefighters heeling the ladder (who keep the ladder from sliding off to the side and falling). Where are all of these safety personnel during an emergency ladder bail out when seconds count?
- What about the firefighters who cannot reach the rungs outlined in Method A: “Reach under the ladder rung just below the windowsill until the inside of your elbow joint is against the rung and your hand is grasping the next rung down”?
- What is the liability of teaching a technique that has been proven dangerous, and with ladders set at angles not recommended by the manufacturer?
Don Smith
Chief
Travis County Fire Control
Emergency Services District #4
Austin, Texas
Bob Pressler responds: Don Smith brings up several interesting points. He points out that because of recent events-the death of a captain during training-the bail out is dangerous. Yet in the past year, we have also had deaths while testing hose, directing traffic, and during other training operations. Yes, firefighting is a dangerous occupation. The purpose of training exercises is to acquaint firefighters with operations with which they may not be familiar and to do things in a safe AND realistic manner. This includes the use of safety lines.
Any procedures that involve members’ practicing emergency escapes should be undertaken with safety lines in place, especially if the student has never practiced the evolution before. If, as Smith states, every department at his local level has had firefighters fall off the ladder and the claim was that no one was hurt “because we only allow them to do it from the second floor,” those in charge should take a serious look at how those firefighters are being trained. If they actually fell, where were their safety lines? Who was doing the training?
At the FDIC in Indianapolis, approximately 2,000 firefighters have gone through the Firefighter Safety and Survival course-with safety lines. Have there been injuries? Yes, several minor injuries-a sprained wrist or two and a few other injuries in some of the other evolutions that make up the Safety and Survival class. But 2,000 students have been trained in evolutions that just might save their lives.
Smith makes several points about ladder placement and then claims that training officers who teach bailing out have forgotten some safety rules. Just the opposite is true. The training officers who develop and teach ladder positioning have found that maybe there is a better way to position ladders on the fireground. Maybe the climbing angle in use for many years has been a little steep; it may be acceptable for climbing, but it may be too steep for victim removal and firefighter rapid escape.
Maybe the positioning of the ladder alongside a window for entry needs to be revisited because, with the ladder alongside the window, the firefighter has to be up in the window, exposed to all the heat and smoke exiting the building. As far as being visible from within the burning building is concerned, that is true only if there is no smoke condition. The heavier the smoke, the more invisible that ladder tip will be. The farther the ladder is in the window (three to five rungs!), especially if the window is narrow, the more that window will be blocked. (Video footage from a large midwestern city as well as a cover photo from this magazine show how having several rungs in the window is a dangerous practice.)
As far as teaching the proper technique of using “the extended rungs to assist in getting on the ladder” is concerned, when it’s time to go in an emergency situation, the firefighter must stay as low in the window as possible. The high heat conditions associated with rapid fire development, one of the scenarios behind firefighter survival, would preclude the firefighter’s standing in the window, trying to get by the extended ladder, and coming down feetfirst. And more than one firefighter’s trying to get out that small opening in an emergency would really make it interesting.
With reference to the questions raised, I can answer some only by asking questions in return: What is fire attack via portable ladders? Operating handlines in windows? If this were the only thing the ladder is being used for, then evidently no firefighters are in the building, so a rung in the window wouldn’t seem to matter.
We set ladders for firefighters’ use-for vent-enter-search; as escape routes; and sometimes for stretching handlines over and into the building. We always set the tip of the ladder at or below the windowsill. Entry is done low, over the windowsill, to keep firefighters as low as possible in the window opening. This also puts them nearer the floor, where our victims are usually found. Climbing in from the side, high in the window, almost always ensures that this area, directly below the window, gets searched by boots, not hands.
Ladders are set at lesser angles for bail-out training for several reasons. Probably the single biggest reason is that the people teaching these techniques are out there fighting fires every day. They have found through experience the same thing that firefighters have found for hundreds of years-that just because it’s written somewhere, it doesn’t mean that there may not be a better way to do it.
In a perfect world, there would be ladders at every window on the fire building. Communications have come a long way in the fire service, as have standard operating procedures (SOPs). SOPs can be as specific as to say that we will always throw a portable ladder to the windows on the exposure 2-3 corner and the 1-4 corner porch. Better yet is to announce over the radio where the ladders are. This way everyone knows. And the firefighters who go through the survival training are also shown several things to do IF there is no ladder. Your three rungs in a window may not be too visible under heavy smoke conditions in an emergency situation.
With reference to the phrase “several firefighters involved,” Smith must work in a place that has no staffing problems. He states, “… two or more in the building, one on the ladder, and one or more heeling the ladder.” That’s a minimum of four and the possibility of six or more. Unfortunately, in many places that is the entire responding complement, including the pump operator. Rescues are made with substantially fewer, and sometimes it isn’t pretty. And, bail out is for emergencies! Things aren’t going just right; it’s time to leave and fast!
There are several methods of the bail out to cover situations such as the firefighter’s not being able to reach the rungs. We teach this and other survival techniques at the FDIC because firefighters across the country have used them to successfully remove themselves from dangerous situations. It is important training that should be taught to ALL firefighters as part of basic training.
It’s true that in a rollover or flashover, you do not have time to request that a ladder be reset or moved. But if flashover is occurring, you also would not have time to climb over the three rungs extended into the window and separating you from the outside of the fire building. Again, the heat at that level and the difficulty in getting around or over those rungs may mean the difference between escape and death.
With respect to the liability of teaching a technique “that has been proven dangerous,” operating in a fire building, searching above the fire, and ventilating on the roof are dangerous! Dying in a fire is “dangerous”!
Giving firefighters a second chance at survival is one of the noblest things we can do for our brothers.
What constitutes “wanton and reckless behavior”?
I don’t get it. I have just read in News in Brief (Fire Engineering, November 2000) that the actions of the homeless couple who allegedly knocked over a candle and failed to report the fire in the Worcester, Massachusetts, warehouse in which six firefighters died do not constitute wanton and reckless behavior!
I don’t know what else to call these actions. Obviously, Judge Timothy Hillman and I disagree strongly about what constitutes wanton and reckless behavior.
Erik Eriksen
Assistant Chief
Ripton (VT) Fire Department
Proposes incentives for pursuing higher education
While reading “Promoting Higher Education” by William C. Rivenbark, Ph.D., and George H. McCall (Fire Engineering, September 2000), several questions come to mind:
- Why is the fire service just now jumping on the bandwagon for more highly educated people?
- Why do so many municipalities make it hard for fire service personnel to attend college classes?
- Why don’t municipalities increase employees’ reimbursement for such education as an incentive?
As a 23-year veteran of the fire service, I have for the most part continually gone to school during my career. I currently have two associate’s degrees, one in fire protection and one in arson investigation. Through the years, I have had to spend many, many hours of my personal time to attend classes. I am currently back in school after a lengthy absence from the classroom, trying to get my bachelor’s degree. The city for which I work reimburses a classified firefighter up to $30 a semester for college classes. At the same time, I see posters and bulletins to the effect that the city is reimbursing many of the nonclassified (civilian) workers up to $500 per semester for going to class. Were it not for being a Texas veteran, which makes me eligible for tuition payment under the Hazlewood Act, I probably would not be able to afford to attend classes, especially when putting a child through college at the same time. It appears to me that the fire service has some extensive catching up to do.
Steve Merrel
Investigator
Arson Bureau
Houston (TX) Fire Department
NFPA 1710 fallout
I respect Bill Manning’s right to express his opinions in “A Tale of Two Standards” (Editor’s Opinion, October 2000). I do, however, take great exception to his conclusions and arguments in support of NFPA 1710. His opinions are fraught with error and misrepresentations of fact. Having spent 37 years in the fire service, 27 with the Los Angeles City Fire Department, I believe that I have some idea of what is involved in firefighter safety and deployment of resources.
Although I do know what the difference is in staffing with three as opposed to four, I deeply resent the conclusion that anyone in our business who does not “know or won’t listen should get out of the fire service.” This demonstrates clearly to me that he has no clue as to what is involved in providing fire protection services for a community. It totally disregards the efforts of chief officers throughout this country who put their careers on the line daily as they fight to add and retain resources for their departments. In almost every case, a primary focus of these efforts is personnel safety.
I support well-developed and diverse views on all subjects. This column clearly represents Manning’s emotional and political opinion on the subject, but I found nothing that clearly describes the need [for the] approach that NFPA 1710 will bring to our nation.
Peter R. Lucarelli
Chief
Bellevue, Washington
Bill Manning responds: First, in my mind, campaigning to reverse the decimation of fire company staffing over the past 20 years is one of the most responsible things we can do for firefighters.
Second, there are no “errors” or “misrepresentations of fact” in the piece. It is factually accurate. However, the primary purpose of the editorial was not to render an academic account of 1710 but rather to elicit a strong opinion on a controversial issue.
Third, while I am not a fire chief, having spent a considerable period of my professional life studying the fire service and communicating with firefighters, I am comfortable in my understanding of how community fire protection services are provided.
Fourth, I have a very high regard for chief officers who, as Lucarelli puts it, “put their careers on the line daily as they fight to add and retain resources for their departments.” Nothing in the editorial says otherwise. It’s the nonleaders in this business, lacking courage, creativity, and conviction to do what is right, who are a cause of great concern in a national sense. They are at least partly responsible for a 20-year downward spiral of fireground deployment that has resulted in increased fireground injury and death rates per structure fire, in a greater rate of civilian casualties per structure fire, and in increased property loss rates per structure fire.
Chalk me up as one more fire service professional who subscribes to the notion put forth by Chief Dwight Van Zanen (Letters to the Editor, December 2000) pertaining to the proposed NFPA 1710. “Real world” is, I believe, that cities across our nation that are already paying for four or five personnel per company per day trying to keep three on the rig are not just going to suddenly significantly increase operational costs to meet another standard which, at best, is highly controversial among the very members it purports to help.
There is nothing magic about the number “four.” Fire departments respond to hundreds of emergency incidents every day in this country for which a three-person crew is adequate. For some other situations, a four-person crew would be adequate, and a three-person crew would not. For still others, a five-person crew would be adequate where a four-person crew would not. All of us have responded to fires where even if we had had 10 more people riding every piece of apparatus we still could not have made a safe aggressive interior attack on the fire or changed the outcome in terms of loss incurred. Again, the number four no more denotes “adequate” staffing for every incident for every fire company in the country than would three or five or 10 or any other number.
It is unreasonable to think that all the fire companies in my department should be staffed at all times as companies in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Phoenix. It is just as unreasonable to think that the little town of 7,000 where I grew up, which to its credit has maintained a paid fire department for many decades, should be forced to staff its two fire companies as my current department in a city of 58,000 does. Cities, driven by their citizens and the comforts or discomforts of those citizens related to fire loss experience, should determine for themselves what constitutes an adequate (and affordable) level of protection for their communities.
If NFPA 1710 is adopted, it will surely lead to a widening of the gap between fire department unions and city administrations and to increased litigation against cities, neither of which any of us needs. As a compulsory standard, 1710 is bad news and needs to be soundly defeated.
Mickey Jackson
Chief
Fayetteville (AR) Fire Department
Overhaul/investigation story on the mark
The article “Overhauling for Successful Fire Investigation” by Mark Wallace and Dr. John DeHaan (Fire Engineering, December 2000) hits the nail squarely on the head, to use an old phrase. I have been in the fire service for a little more than 30 years and a reader of your magazine for about that long.
Ted Itchon
Fire Inspector
West Valley City (UT) Fire Department
