Ladder bail out is undoubtedly one of the most disputed subjects circulating in fire service training today. It is dangerous, but so is the profession. And, we would rather try to get out of a “hot oven” potential flashover situation than get baked.
Interior fires are generally the same here in Spain as they are in New Jersey, Toronto, London, Paris, and Tokyo. The major difference is generally the “container”-the type of building materials used in constructing the building that is burning.
As an instructor to various Spanish fire departments, I [George Potter] have delved into the ladder bail out and programmed a hands-on training session in the forthcoming Spanish National Firefighters Congress in June. During trials of the procedure, the Antequera, Spain, Fire Department has been trying variations of the exercise and has discovered from the outset a major and very preoccupying problem: What happens to the 30+ pounds of unbalanced SCBA that slides “down/up” your back as you snake out of the window and start the headfirst ladder slide? Nowhere in any of the articles or criticisms of the procedure has anyone mentioned or showed in photos participants in the exercise wearing SCBA. If a firefighter is inside an environment he is going to have to get out of in a hurry, he will be wearing SCBA.
We are looking for ways to improve safety for this procedure, since we know it can save lives when executed properly. We know a Spanish fire service officer who did indeed bail out and slide down a ladder some 15 years ago and survived a potentially fatal increase in fire intensity (it wasn’t a flashover but was pretty close).
The procedure is valid when fire conditions deteriorate and leave no other option. But here again is another aspect of interior firefighting: having an adequately charged handline to mitigate the “rollover” and dilute the fire gases before they can ignite. Anyone who has participated in a flashover course is well aware of this fact.
Without a doubt, there will be much more commentary on the ladder bail out. As we have stated above, we are continuing to practice and perfect the procedure, using all means of safety-harness, lifeline, ladder footing, and so on.
George H. Potter
Fire Safety Instructor
ITSEMAP, STM
Julio Maqueda Macias
Chief
Antequera, Spain, Fire Department
Implementation of ICS
I was reading The Ol’ Professor in the March 2001 issue and enjoying the wealth of information from Francis L. Brannigan. He mentioned that the Washington (DC) Fire Department’s new chief holds incident commanders accountable to implement the incident command system (ICS) when an SCBA is used. I have learned an infinite amount about firefighting from this section of the magazine that I otherwise never would have known, but the subtleness of this mistake compels me to take issue with the use of the ICS in the United States.
The obvious point here is, if you have an IC at the incident, you have already implemented the ICS. I certainly hope we have eliminated the good old standby, “We don’t use the ICS unless we have the Big One.” You might as well not practice with SCBA until you have a fire. I guarantee you won’t be very good at either one!
The incident command system was developed to create a common incident management system used universally by emergency service providers. It allows us to speak a common language with common communications under a common management structure. There have been attempts to ensure that we have trained on a national level to accomplish the goal of a common language. Because of not-so-subtle efforts by some fire service leaders, a lack of understanding of ICS, and our own worst enemy-turf (also known as maintaining autonomy)-we have now come full circle to where we were pre-1970 (“You know, this ICS stuff is okay, but it just doesn’t fit in with our operation”). We now have fire service providers who don’t know if they have a tender or a tanker; a sector or a segment; or a group, a division, a zone, or a branch. Is it functional or geographical, strategy or tactics, command or tactical? I won’t even go into service and supply under logistics or finance vs. administration. In essence, when we have incidents that cross jurisdictional lines, such as last summer’s wildfires, we are not speaking the same language. The result is reduced efficiencies, which will on occasion translate into an unacceptable increase in risk in an already rather risky business. Thus we are back to where we started.
Once again, I am not chipping on Brannigan, because his message is not intended to be critiqued for organizational accuracy. Perhaps the National Fire Protection Association should put half the effort into an acceptable management system as it has into 1710. Now that I think about it, it probably wouldn’t work here anyhow.
Michael S. Terwilliger
Chief
Truckee (CA) Fire Protection District
