[ CLICK to view ]

Register and get this Rescue News Letter for free - just click and send  [ Add my e-mail address to your list ]

Dear Reader - In this issue we continue with our serialisation of 'Firefighter Protocols for Life Threatening Situations' and Fatal Crashes - Truck V's Car'. We have revisited our study program on Boron Steel and revised it to include answers to the various questions that have been put to us in recent months - see below.  We have also added two new useful links that are well worth keeping an eye on - Crowd Dynamics and The Centre for Auto Safety. Both sites offer considerable information on their relevant subject matter. On a more personal matter I would like to draw your attention to Firefighter fatalities in relation to heart attacks and occupational cancers (Links attached). These important issues affect all firefighters all over the world and for most part are totally ignored, brushed under the carpet or blatantly side stepped as irrelevant by their Superiors and Government. The prevailing attitude adopted in most developed countries is mercenary and derisory, relegating firefighters and their families to suffer alone and unaided.  A wonderful legacy for devotion to duty!!! I think not. I would welcome your comments and any experience in these matters that you are personally aware of - I, Len Watson editor -  [ FEEDBACK ] - 

Firefighter Protocols for Life Threatening Situations .../....

Extrication Evolution for Dual IC and SIPS 

The MPV people carrier that comes to rest on-its-side after a collision, especially where several of the occupants are seriously injured, will invariably result in entrapment. Injuries such as spinal, fractures and dislocations will require a known degree of handling and 'roof fold down' invariably offers best practice extrication evolution.

The quantity of passive airbags that could be encountered in these vehicles where SIPS do not or fail to deploy, can complicate the extrication instantly . Understanding how these systems work is vital in recognising risk, especially where the battery cannot be disconnected. 

At best the configuration for SIPS deployment is complicated and that's without all the different configurations incorporated within this range of vehicles as a whole.

MPV SIP systems vary considerably and at the crash site must be investigated thoroughly to identify all aspects that are likely to be affected by the extrication evolution that is to be performed. In this instance we are going to discuss a 7/8 seat MPV with Duel IC airbags installed on either side of the vehicle. The SIPS sensors are designed to deploy in a 'side-on' impact but not for a roll-over'. The front seats have side airbags installed in the seat backs. 

Crash Detail - The vehicle in question has encountered a front 1/4 oblique impact and has ended up on its side. Frontal airbags have deployed but all other airbags remain undeployed.

The extrication has taken on a new dimension as it is fully laden with passengers and their personal items of belongings. This infers that removable seats cannot be taken out as normal.  Some casualties are laying on top of others and the forcible removal of seats may not be possible due to seat movement encroaching on the casualty/ies injuries.

To broaden the picture, the driver has encountered front 1/4 intrusion into the footwell and his condition indicates that his release be given priority, further identifying that 'roof fold down' is the best option.

Proactive SIPS predictability - Understanding how SIPS work is essential to safe working practice. A firefighter who fails to recognise or short-change this fundamental rule is one step away from inflicting further injury on a casualty or fellow rescuer. 

Measuring the predictability and potential of risk cannot be undertaken without a practical fundamental knowledge of SRS and SIP systems. Without a reasonable working knowledge to underwrite decision making, there can be no excuse when things go wrong: furthermore the risk control measures put in place must equate to the risk; not the perceived risk but the actual risk.

Before we delve into the risk control measurers and extrication detail I would ask the reader to familiarise themselves with our Document for discussion - 'SRS smart systems Logic' - [ CLICK ]. This study document will enable the reader to fully recognise the risks involved and equate the SIPS configuration to the extrication evolution.

To be continued - In the next ISSUE of the RESCUE news Letter we will discuss the risk assessment,  control measures and the extrication detail alongside critical risk information.

REVISED!!! Boron Steel in Vehicles Study - Implications of HSLA/UHSS and Boron Steels have for Rescuers

We would like to draw your attention to our revised study document on 'vehicle extrication rescue and boron steel'. The study has been broadened to include cutter blades and to give a more in-dept understanding of cutting forces and cutting techniques in relation to evaluating tools -  Topics covered

Join our study and read the full document and offer comment [ CLICK ]

NEWS & VIEWS

Charleston Firefighter Fatality  Investigative Report (Fire, June 18 2007)

The City of Charleston has published its post incident assessment and review into the sofa superstore fire where nine firefighters lost their lives. 

Phase 1 of the report highlights many improvements that are intended as a guide to significantly enhance the Charleston Fire Department and has listed them under their respective headings and are given an implementation timeframe  - Priority A that need to be implemented at once, Priority B - those that need to be implemented. 

In developing its recommendations the review Team looked beyond minimum standards and instead focused on best practice, exemplary standards and procedures which extended well beyond remedial recommendations. 

In phase II, the Fatality Investigative Report looked deeply into all aspects of the building, operations of the Charleston Fire Department, incident chronology and all phases of the operational strategy before underwriting their analysis.

The report concludes with the lessons learnt, the key factors identified and the Teams recommendations - Read full reports - 

• Phase 1  -  [ CLICK ]

• Phase II  -  [ CLICK ]

Firefighters had no warning coolstore was death trap

A Fire Service Report has identified nine factors which might have prevented the tragic outcome of New Zealand's Tamahere coolstore explosion where two Firefighters died - Read full story [ CLICK ]

FDNY Report On Fatal Deutsche Bank Fire Details Problems, Lapses

The Fire Department of New York has issued a report that details a litany of problems at a toxic ground zero skyscraper that caught fire one year ago and killed two firefighters - read full story [ CLICK ]

Calcium scoring urged for firefighters at risk of heart attack

Heart attack is the leading cause of death for firefighters, according to the U.S. Fire Administration, which found heart attacks accounted for 44 percent of all on-duty fatalities among firefighters between 1990 to 2000.

For more information go to nj.com [ CLICK ]

Cancer takes heavy toll on Seattle firefighters - City defends itself against charge 'it could do more'

Startling revelation on the significance of cancer stricken firefighters. Its quite disturbing when we realise that UK firefighters on-duty deaths do not take heart attacks into account and there is a real reluctance when it comes to consider cancers and toxic poisons - Read more on Seattle's cancer toll - [ CLICK ] 

FURTHER RESEARCH

Useful Links:

Before we can go into any in-depth discussion about existing operating procedures that prevail within fire departments, we must set out the playing field for risk assessment, particularly if we are to debate ‘continual dynamic risk assessment’. What a wonderful turn of phrase that is!! But what does it actually mean and what can be gained from it?

Risk assessment as a subject matter has grown almost out of control and in some areas can be seen to interfere with performance without offering any benefit. As a tool it has been put in the hands of the inexperienced where the risk perceived is in fact no risk all or counter productive when measured as benefit versus risk.

Unfortunately, the fire and rescue service has a service requirement that cannot be filled effectively. The appointment of senior management, particularly with two-tier entry, has a rudimentary dysfunction; that of operational inexperience and managerial cloning. It takes many years of hands-on operational involvement to become an experienced firefighter and only then, where the individual has the acumen, and the workload has been sufficient, can the firefighter be considered bloodied. Of course firefighter initial training plays its part in preparing the recruit for their initial role but to a much lesser degree than one might think. There is no near-substitute for the real thing as life-threatening fear cannot be introduced into training, experience is the vital commodity and one that can only be gained as the necessary situations arise to offer the familiarisation and know-how so that risk can be measures realistically.  

Assumptions that prevail in dynamic risk-assessment

The fire service as a whole has a tradition of making operational decisions based on assumptions rather than factual experience; assumptions that have been repeatedly proven flawed, and they have continued in this vein to the point of being reckless. Inexperienced fire-fighters and those that fail to learn from experiences react to what they have been told and what they have been trained and instructed on; especially what their senses and emotions are telling them. In essence they only see what they want to see. 

Seeing what you want to see, firefighters -

• evaluate risk by relying on their emotions - if you don't feel anxious, it's not risky; because nothing has happened so far you are safe to continue!

• estimate risk by relying on unusual dramatic events - if it hasn’t already happened, it's not likely to happen

• have no structured gathering of information as to the real "averages" and "odds"

• focus on a feel-good factor – they have handled similar before and they can handle it again

• ignore ‘cumulative risk’ – the odds of repeatedly transgressing a risk. 

• often switch off ‘risk awareness’ and perform in automatic mode

• do not want to experience the discomfort of making a change -"its too hard" or “why mend it if it isn’t broken”.

• on recognising risk that is not affecting them right now, they decide to deal with it when and if it becomes a problem"

If they feel that the risk is low or that they are in control of the risk, they generally consider that it is reasonable and practical to assume that it is safe to continue.  What we should realise here and now is that ‘feelings’ play no part in ‘risk assessment’. If we are to banish feelings and emotions from our ‘continual dynamic risk assessment’ we need to replace it with a criteria that is functional, workable, available to everyone and sets safe protocols that actually remove or minimise risk.

The ‘continual dynamic risk assessment’ referenced to Health & Safety in the UK fire service is a lesson on how a ‘play on words’ can incorporate all the correct buzz-words without laying down any functional protocol for actual risk recognition and assessment. The process is meant to support firefighters when confronted with situations based on assessment and evaluation of previous decisions and their outcomes. Sounds great - but does it stand up to scrutiny? Rather than go into the depths of the procedure it is much easier to relate to the vital components that are blatantly missing -

Missing components:

• Collection and analysis of firefighting performance and procedures

• Risk recognition and near-miss reporting and investigation

• Risk ‘estimation of potential’ and analysed probability

• Standard operating procedure revision and improvements based on intelligence gathering, structured study, trial and audit.

Collection and analysis of firefighting performance and procedures:

One would imagine that firefighter performance is sufficiently measured and meets health and safety requirements for safe working practices. To my knowledge all such measurements are made in the training environment while none are made in any depth operationally.  Do you know of any taken from operational involvement? How many near misses’ have you seen recorded, investigated and ‘significant findings’ circulated? Moreover, actual ‘hands-on’ firefighting performance has no measurement in place except for the correlation and interpretation of national ‘fire-loss’ statistics. Fire reports have remained unaltered in living memory and ‘one-rule fits all’ still remains firmly in place.

The collection of rationalised information pertinent to firefighting has never been looked at and, of course, in that respect no analysis has ever been undertaken. The legacy that this has left is difficult to identify and only with long-term operational exposure can anyone begin to speculate as to the deficiencies that exist – for example: 

 Click image to enlarge subject profile and logic

As a firefighter, what would you imagine has made the victims jump from the fourth floor? Which of the following do you believe to have the greatest significance –

1. The increasing intensity of the smoke

2. The increasing intensity of the heat

3. The vast volume of steam produced from the water entering the windows on the second floor

4. A combination of all three as the vast expansion of steam carries smoke particles in suspension and steam has a greater intensity on the body than radiated heat.

Consider a simple experiment where one can immediately appreciate the effects of steam. Remove the wire racking and warm a domestic oven to around 200^OC (450 F). Carefully open the oven door and, taking due care not to touch any metal parts, cautiously place your hand inside. The intense radiated heat can be borne for several minutes without too much discomfort. The steam produced by a boiling kettle will instantly burn when it comes in contact with the skin – read the Profile for an in-dept understanding

Nowhere do I ever recall it mentioned or seen it written down the considerations necessary to aid risk assessment when attacking a fire when performing certain types of rescue.  The traditional drill of pitching a ladder to the third floor with a covering jet, never considered the effects of volume-steam generation.  If experiments were ever carried out at the fire research station to analyse this situation, I have no recollection of any. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Fire propagation in high rise buildings has been investigated but, with protected staircases and other fire codes in place, this has mainly been for fire spread via the outside of the building. This phenomenon has been responsible for a number of devastating fires over the years. The fire progresses from the floor of origin through a window and attacks windows on upper floors as the flames and thermal plume rise through the effects of thermal rise. How firefighting actually effects fire spread has never entered the equation.

Of course it is far more involved than I have outlined above but, all the same, it is worthy of thought and debate to broaden, analyse and investigate the subject.

Other areas of concern that come to mind to name but a few are –

1. Does steam temperature decline as it rises through significant heat?

2. What are the effects new building materials and construction methods have on firefighting

3. Has new methods of construction accelerated fire spread

4. Can the use of hose-lines passing through doorways significantly affect single staircases protected by smoke doors and lobbies in multi occupancy buildings

5. Prediction of behaviour and performance of fire when firefighting in various diversities

6. What effects has water spray and fog on firefighters when moving in extreme heat conditions

7. What effects has water fog when firefighting within an enclosed area with no windows and limited egress.

There are literally scores of topics that need addressing so that firefighting performance and procedures can be analyses, measured and risks identified properly.

In the Next issue - 

We will present the reader with 'risk recognition and near misses' and discuss the estimation and potential of risks; and how familiarity can breath risk.

Addressing The `Truck V’s Car problem'

Statistical analysis by the University of Michigan shows that truck drivers are not to blame for most fatal crashes involving trucks and passenger vehicles. In a study of national crash data on fatal two-vehicle accidents involving a heavy truck, Daniel F. Blower of the university's Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) found that the actions of drivers of passenger vehicles contribute to 70% of the crashes. On the other hand, truck drivers commit driving errors in 16% of the accidents, while both drivers make errors 10% of the time.

He states that "Taken at face value, this seems to indicate that passenger-vehicle drivers contribute disproportionately to fatal crashes involving a truck and a passenger vehicle." Blower argues that in crashes where both drivers survive, the driver of the passenger vehicle is still the primary cause more than twice as often as the truck driver.

Using data from National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Blower analyzed over 5000 fatal accidents between truck and passenger vehicle. He found that almost 23% of crashes where passenger vehicles crossing the center line into the truck's path; eight times that of a truck crossing over into a passenger vehicle; that drivers of passenger vehicles are six times more likely to sideswipe a truck heading in the opposite direction; four times more likely to hit a truck from behind, and twice as likely to turn across the path of a truck or sideswipe a truck going in the same direction - read the full article USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education)  

An excellent analysis but it does not attempt to address the ‘truck versus car’ mechanisms and crash worthiness relationship. In the last issue we looked at velocity change and mass differential which hopefully has given the reader a clearer insight of the forces that can prevail.

When the federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration was created by US Congress in 1999,. 5,380 people died in crashes with big trucks in the USA. “That figure has barely budged,” Joan Claybrook, chair of Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, said at a news conference by the coalition of truck safety groups said the system had failed. In the USA deaths in crashes of large trucks numbered 5,212 in 2005, plus 114,000 injured. Large trucks account for 3 percent of registered vehicles but nearly 13 percent of traffic fatalities.  Although with the knowledge that road transport has grown 24% in the same period it could be shown that a 16% reduction had actually taken place. This is largely because the US have invested millions of dollars working with the state and local law enforcement community to do more safety reviews and roadside inspections of trucks and buses than ever before.

Frontal under-ride – The end result of mass differential, velocity change and ground clearance mismatch with superficial bumper/fender restraint

Over-run – The end result of a high speed collision where the truck has completely over-run a family car

But of course none of this relates to our discussion. I must be blatant and reinforce the real issue of our debate ‘the disparity between truck and car’ in a collision. Not so much the inevitable differences of mass and weight but rather vehicle design and lack of crash mitigation, coupled with road engineering and traffic laws; and of course we must not forget the rescue initiative necessary to recover the dead and dying.  It’s a universal problem where little real initiative has been shown so far and few measures have been taken to mitigate the obvious problems and workable solutions that could be put in place.

Truck v’s Car - Reducing Death Crashes

Ground clearance – Apart from mass and size the other most noticeable difference is ground clearance. Private vehicles come in many shapes and sizes which broadens the issues involved, especially when they are low slung and sleek. 

When viewing the front end of the modern truck one can easily be mislead into thinking that the bumper/fender composition is designed to suppress the truck from over-running the car. Bumpers/fenders have been lowered but this is purely a façade: a design trend that plays no part in preventing under-rides except in walking speed accidents.

Unfortunately this supposition bears no resemblance to the truth; the real horror and carnage that prevails on our roads are proof of the real issues.

Truck chassis - ‘Under-ride’ Prevention and Emergency Reduction Systems (UPERS)

It has often been bandied about by rescuers that rounded bumpers/fenders and external pneumatic aircushions could offer a considerable advantage, not only for truck versus car but for pedestrians also. The pneumatic air cushion would act as a ride down mechanism and the rounded bumper as a means of deflection.

The design concept incorporates an pneumatic cushion with inflated compartments coupled with a sprung cross-member. Equipped with an intelligent supplemental inflation system that further inflates the compartment/s, affording additional ride-down to mitigate the higher speed impact.

Supplemental Pneumatic Airbag Ride-Down (SPAReD)

This design concept incorporates an pneumatic cushion with permanently inflated compartments supported by a sprung cross-member mounted to the chassis. The plastic covering could be made to house the trucks lighting system whilst remaining relative pliable to give sufficiently to protect pedestrians and cyclists. The system could be equipped with an intelligent supplemental inflation system that will instantly activate brakes and inflate the compartment/s to mitigate the higher speed impact and offer sufficient ride-down to curtail car under-run.

Volvo Truck Corporation was proud to present the third generation of its highly-successful new flagship the FH12 where they introduced an important safety innovation. The front under-run protection system (FUPS) is now standard and fully integrated in the cab design. In the event of a frontal collision with a car, FUPS is designed to prevent or reduce the extent the car will penetrate underneath the front of the truck. The cross-member is supported by sprung calipers to offer a degree of ride down; How successful this is has not been revealed and we are left to imagine whatever we want but in principle, an applaud- able step forward.

Such design concepts offer some sort of solution to this fundamental and unacceptable issue.  Although it offers no physical advantage to truck or bus occupants it is very likely to save car users lives and lessen morbidity and the traumatic experience of all those involved including witnesses. Of course there is no escape for the high-speed head-on truck v’s car crash as the forces generated will always disrupt vital organs and vessels and exacerbate contra-coup brain injury.

There are trucks that are required for rough terrain and the need for a high ground clearance is essential.  At face value these systems would appear to be unsuitable for such vehicles.  Indeed with some such vehicles the need doesn’t arise as they may never be driven on public highways at all.

COMING NEXT - In the next issue we will discuss what the future could hold to mitigate these problems and ‘The Trail of Destruction and Rescue’ that is a daily occurrence in poorer countries and the enormity of the problem that faces Rescuers in these regions.

New Products

Ruth Lee - Fire and Rescue Equipment

Fire fighters spend £200000 on equipment to rescue animals ...

Volunteers needed to test sea rescue equipment - Larne Today

www.resqmed.com/DailyNewsSheet.htm

New eBooks - Crash Rescue - 'Vehicle entrapment rescue and pre-hospital trauma care' is the first book of its kind to interact the disciplines of technical and medical rescue.  Know more about 'best practice' for in-vehicle resuscitation and patient management and learn what the paramedic can reasonably expect from their attending fire department. And RTC extrication RESCUE - The most advanced manual available today.  An up to the minute technical production for Vehicle Entrapment Extrication that offers risk assessed evolutions, safety measures and alternative options that cater for the very real world of rescue - For more information click on banner image under -

Visit resQmed's Study Program - Its INFORMED and FREE and we are offering its benefits to you in the hope of encouraging you to participate in, what we believe to be, a very worthwhile platform for sharing information and keeping abreast all the new developments in rescue.  To access, click this link 

  www.resqmed.com/Study.htm