NDSC to Host Roco Rescue Training

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

NDSC to Host Roco Rescue TrainingJoin us in Bismarck, ND, for Roco’s Industrial I/II course at the Safety Council’s new training facility. The NDSC has an indoor confined space rescue prop designed with input from Roco Rescue. Click here (or the picture) to download the flyer information.

This course is for industrial and municipal rescuers who handle confined space and high angle rescues in industrial environments. Course dates are November 13-17, 2017.

Call the NDSC at 800-932-8890 for more information; or contact Roco at 800-647-7626. We will also be conducting additional Roco courses at the NDSC in 2018.

read more

Planning for Successful Confined Space Rescue

Thursday, September 21, 2017

By Dennis O'Connell, Roco Director of Training & Chief Instructor

I am often asked by plant managers or rescue team supervisors about getting their team on the right track as far as training and competency is concerned. Here are a few tips for doing just that…

First of all, I always recommend that they choose a single provider for their confined space and high angle rescue training. Using multiple training providers (even if they are similar) adds to the confusion of team members as to what techniques and equipment are being used – especially during a real rescue!

Planning for Successful Confined Space RescueI then suggest that the team’s training records be reviewed in order to determine what level of training has been completed. I also strongly recommend getting everyone to the same level; especially if your facility is what I refer to as an “island unto itself.” In other words, do you have nearby facilities or other local agencies who can offer additional manpower, equipment, etc. in an emergency – or, are you fairly isolated?

Same Page, Same LanguagePlanning for Successful Confined Space Rescue
If your facility is somewhat isolated, getting all your rescue team members on the same page, talking the same language, and at the same level of training is extremely important. You may have some experienced rescuers who have completed a variety of courses from different providers and are trained to different levels. Is this previous training properly documented should you be asked about it and to what levels? Having everyone on the same level – with the same basics under their belt – is key to performing a timely and successful rescue
And, do you have a particular goal or level you want your team to strive for, achieve, and maintain? Determining your overall goal for the team is significant in planning for and achieving results. Haphazard training “just for the sake of training” is not necessarily a good thing, and it tends to generate complacency among team members. Besides the obvious, your team “needs to be able to perform a rescue should the need arise.”

Is It Documented?
Take a look at how the training was conducted, documented and what standards were met, if any. And, if you have permit spaces or personnel working at height, I’m assuming that OSHA compliance is a given, but what about meeting requirements of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for rescuers; namely, NFPA 1006 and 1670.

If there is an incident and OSHA or some other regulatory organization were to investigate, how would you provide the documentation that your team is capable of doing what is required of them? Remember, if it can’t be documented, it doesn’t exist!
Using NFPA 1670 (“team” standards) and NFPA 1006 (“individual rescuer” standards) as a basis for the team’s training level will help to provide the needed documentation and add to the credibility of your team’s capabilities. Ideally, all your team members should be certified to the Confined Space Rescue Technician level (NFPA 1006) along with the documentation to back it up.

Because NFPA’s Confined Space Rescue Technician includes confined space and high angle (elevated) rope techniques, I don’t necessary suggest that industrial clients be required to achieve “Rope Rescue Technician.” The added skills of Rope Rescue Technician include less-seldom-used techniques in industrial rescue such as rope ascension and traverse. Do make sure, however, that the course you choose for Confined Space Rescue Technician incorporates some (not all) of the high angle skills you would need to perform elevated rescue at your site.

A Mix of Confined Space and Rope Rescue

If you have a variety of experience and training levels among your team members, it’s important to get them consistently trained and all trained to the same level. Of course, I would recommend Roco’s Fast Track 80™ course, which includes a two-year certification. This course was designed to meet the needs of industrial facilities with a mix between “confined space” and “rope” technician skills needed. The class is geared for confined space rescue with some of the additional rope technician skills needed for elevated or high angle rescue. The class efficiently gets the rescuer to the Confined Space Rescue Technician level in only 80 hours using both performance-based and written testing.

Of course, the next challenge is getting the entire team trained to the same level. It’s not going to be easy to get an entire team released for training all at once – thus compromising the availability of rescue personnel onsite should an emergency arise. Therefore, you may have to run a couple of classes to get everyone certified – or send some of your team (or new team members) to an open-enrollment course.

Testing to the NFPA 1006 Professional Qualifications standard is conducted on the last day of the Fast Track 80™ class. Note: If some of your personnel have already completed this class, they can join the class for the last four days in order to be recertified. This will allow the new members and more experienced team members to work together in realistic practice scenarios. It will help get everyone on the same page as far as techniques plus give the experienced personnel a 3-day refresher and practice time before re-certification testing.

Training Cycle for CompliancePlanning for Successful Confined Space Rescue
Once all team members are trained to the same level, I recommend going to a two-year rotation. For example, once everyone is certified, the next year would be a Roco Team Performance Evaluation (TPE) where we come for two-to-three days and run teamed-based evaluations using multiple rescue scenarios. Each scenario is critiqued by evaluators to adjust any problems found along the way. The TPE would be followed by a written report to document the scenarios conducted as well as discrepancies found and corrected. The following year would be Re-certification to NFPA 1006 (three-to-four-day session) that includes Individual Performance Evaluations (IPE) where team members would refresh personal skills as well as run several scenarios before testing for re-certification to Confined Space Technician level.
This rotation will help with OSHA compliance by meeting the minimum annual practice requirements as well as by providing a performance evaluation of rescue services as stated in Note to paragraph (k)(1) from 1910.146: “Non-mandatory Appendix F contains examples of criteria which employers can use in evaluating prospective rescuers as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section.”
In addition, both OSHA 1910.146 and 1926.1211 require timely and capable rescue services for permit spaces. They also require minimum annual rescue practice in the applicable types of confined spaces as well as proficiency for team members. This cycle of training works well in documenting that you have met these minimum requirements while also meeting the requirements of NFPA.

The TPE supporting documentation also provides a “snapshot” of where your team and its individual rescuers stand in terms of competency. This information can then be used as a tool to design internal drills that correct any discrepancies while getting the most from your “all too limited” practice time.

I hope these recommendations are helpful in planning for the success of your rescue team – especially when it’s all on the line during an emergency situation. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to call me at 800-647-7626 or send an email to info@rocorescue.com.
read more

Roco CASEVAC II for Tactical Team Members

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Roco CASEVAC II for Tactical Team MembersCrank It Up a Notch with Roco’s CASEVAC II Training

It has been an honor for us to expand our support of our nation’s heroes to the greater SOCOM community. When we developed the TCCC CASEVAC Extraction kits and subsequent training, our goal was to assist operators around the world in saving the lives of their buddies in need. While SOCOM did a commendable job in bridging a broad capabilities gap with the CASEVAC Set, a training gap still exists for more advanced extraction training.

Roco trained over 700 operators within all four branches of our military during the time we offered NET courses at the Roco Training Center. Now that this training and equipment has been used in the field for a few years, we would like to propose the following questions:

  • When was the last time you practiced the skills learned in the NET course?

    Or, broke out the Micro RIES® and built a haul system?

    Or, the last time you lifted a vehicle or debris using the lift bags?

    What about the skills that the NET course didn’t cover?

Now is the time to take it to the next level with Roco’s CASEVAC Extraction Level II. This course builds upon the foundation of the skills offered in the NET course and gives operators a few more ways to get the job done.
Roco CASEVAC II for Tactical Team MembersThe beauty of these “rescue” skills is that most of them can be applied to everyday missions outside of the context of rescue. If you can haul Mongo onto a roof while he’s packaged in a Sked litter, then you can definitely haul up some equipment. If you can rappel into a well to save a fallen teammate and ascend back out, then you can access and bail out of OPs more quickly, safely, and efficiently. Lifting and extrication tools and techniques can be applied to SSE as well as rescue.

We’d like to invite you to help drive the curriculum of this course. Roco will be holding two (2) pilot courses in order to validate the curriculum we’ve developed. A detailed description is located at our Tactical Courses page. Your feedback will help determine which skills are vital to include.
Not currently under SOCOM’s umbrella? No worries. While this course was designed with the CASEVAC Set of equipment in mind, the principles apply universally.
Since equipment changes, we focus on the principles. In this course, we start from the ground up, refreshing things covered in NET, and using equipment from the CASEVAC Set as well as gear that is used by other SOF units around the world. By using several variations of equipment, you’ll gain higher proficiency and be able to use your team’s equipment more effectively, whether it’s the CASEVAC Set or not.
read more

Confined Space Rescue: Non-entry or Entry Rescue?

Monday, April 14, 2014

ISHNMarch-01The following article was featured on the cover of the March 2014 issue of ISHN, and authored by Roco's own Chief Instructor Pat Furr.

It’s a Saturday night December 21st and the plant is running on a skeleton crew. Operations wants to get a head start on annual preventative maintenance and decides to knock out several permit required confined space entries before the majority of the work is to be done when the regular shifts return after the New Year. Randy has just finished the third of five vessels that are identical in configuration. His authorized attendant and good friend Hector have been working together for over 15 years and they both know the drill. They have changed out the stainless steel bolt sets on the agitator blades of these vessels every year at about this same time. The entry supervisor just closed out the permit for the third vessel and after reviewing the permit for the fourth vessel and helping with the pre-entry atmospheric monitoring; he signs the permit authorizing entry.

Hector checks Randy’s harness and the attachment of the non-entry rescue retrieval cable to his dorsal D-ring, and double checks the davit arm and the mounting point of the self-retracting lifeline with the built in retrieval winch. As Randy climbs 25 feet down the rope ladder to access the bottom of the vessel, all is going according to plan. As he steps off the ladder and begins to loosen the first bolt set, he slips on the concave floor of the stainless steel vessel. Before he can react, he strikes his head on the agitator blade which causes a 5 inch gash to his left temple and knocks him unconscious. He falls between two of the agitator blades and then slides to the bottom of the vessel with his retrieval line wrapped over one of the blades and under another. Hector tries to winch his friend out of the space only to find that Randy’s limp body gets wedged under the agitator blade. You can probably guess what happened next.

Realizing there is no entry rescue capability on this shift; Hector’s gut reaction is to enter the space to help his friend. In his rush, he slips from the rope ladder and falls 20 feet to his death. When the entry supervisor arrives 30 minutes later to close the permit and initiate the last entry, he sees two bodies at the bottom of the space.

Understand OSHA rescue requirements  

Are there permit required confined spaces at your worksite? Are employees allowed to enter these spaces? If you answered yes to these two questions, it is critically important to understand the OSHA requirements for rescue. As part of a written permit space program, the employer must “Develop and implement procedures for summoning rescue and emergency services, for rescuing entrants from permit spaces, for providing necessary emergency services to rescued employees, and for preventing unauthorized personnel from attempting a rescue”.

ISHNMarch-02

When considering what methods should be used for rescuing authorized entrants, the safety of the rescuer(s) should be considered as important as the effectiveness of the rescue technique. If it is possible to perform non-entry rescue of the entrant(s), that should always be the first choice. It’s always a given – keep additional personnel (even rescuers) out of the space unless absolutely necessary. It is important to consider potential scenarios that could arise when determining if non-entry (or retrieval) rescue is sufficient.

Non-entry rescue

What are the requirements for non-entry rescue? OSHA states “To facilitate non-entry rescue, retrieval systems or methods shall be used whenever an authorized entrant enters a permit space, unless the retrieval equipment would increase the overall risk of entry or would not contribute to the rescue of the entrant.”

Let’s examine this further. What conditions would preclude the use of non-entry retrieval systems? Here are some guidelines that OSHA will use to make this determination:

• A permit space with obstructions or turns that prevent pull on the retrieval line from being transmitted to the entrant does not require the use of a retrieval system.
• A permit space from which an employee being rescued with the retrieval system would be injured because of forceful contact with projections in the space does not require the use of a retrieval system.
• A permit space that was entered by an entrant using an air supplied respirator does not require the use of a retrieval system if the retrieval line could not be controlled so as to prevent entanglement hazards with the air line.

 

Assess the space

The ONLY way to determine if a non-entry retrieval system will provide adequate safety for entrants and satisfy OSHA’s requirement is to perform an honest and thorough assessment. This assessment should provide careful consideration for the capabilities and limitations of the retrieval system for any planned or unplanned condition that may arise during entry. We have all heard of “Murphy’s Law” and most of us have experienced the effects of that particular law. I encourage you to remember that Murphy is always lurking close by.

So when evaluating these spaces to determine if non-entry or entry rescue is the appropriate choice, always ask yourself “what if?” For the fictitious accident that opened this article, the plan was to do all the work on the near side of the agitator blade directly below the top portal. In that case, it would have been safe to assume non-entry retrieval was the only plan needed for rescue. Enter Murphy…… Was the rescue plan developed with the assumption that the planned work activities would always ensure the successful use of the retrieval system, but failed to consider the “what ifs”? Some might say that we can “what if” things to death. Let’s turn that around; we SHOULD “what if” these questions in an effort to PREVENT death.

When evaluating permit spaces to determine the appropriate rescue capability, please explore those “what ifs”. This is not to say that in the case cited above that the only option would have been entry rescue. That may not be necessary and if the non-entry retrieval system would have worked, then there is no need to expose rescuers to the hazards of entering the permit space. But there was a potential for the condition to change, and it sure did. So recognizing that potential, an entry rescue capability should have been planned in the event that the change in conditions rendered the non-entry rescue system ineffective.

Backup plan

 

The point of this article is to consider non-entry rescue as the default for assisted permit space rescue unless the conditions cited by OSHA are present. At that point, entry rescue must be planned. But this isn’t necessarily a one or the other choice. As we can see from this story, it is sometimes best to plan for non-entry rescue as the primary technique, but if there is any reasonable potential for an unplanned change in conditions, then an entry rescue capability must be in place as a back-up.

read more

How to Haul a Victim in Half the Time: Part 2

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

How to Haul a Victim in Half the Time: Part 2Well, maybe not half the time, but certainly some fraction of the time.

In How to Haul a Victim in Half the Time: Part 1, we covered ways to reduce the time needed to haul a rescue package by taking advantage of changes of direction.

Here, we want to address OSHA and ANSI guidance regarding retrieval systems – specifically mechanical devices used for rescue.

OSHA 1910.146(k)(3) states “To facilitate non-entry rescue, retrieval systems or methods shall be used whenever an authorized entrant enters a permit space, unless the retrieval equipment would increase the overall risk of entry or would not contribute to the rescue of the entrant.

Additionally, OSHA follows the ANSI Z117-1-1989 approach that was in effect at the time of OSHA 1910.146 promulgation, which states, “A mechanical device shall be available to retrieve personnel from vertical type PRCS’s greater than 5 feet in depth.” It also adds, “In general, mechanical lifting devices should have a mechanical advantage adequate to safely rescue personnel.”

Subsequent revisions to ANSI Z117 included the recommendation that “The mechanical device used should be appropriate for rescue service.” The revised standard adds,“Mechanical lifting devices should have a mechanical advantage of at least four to one and the capacity to lift entrants including any attached tools and equipment.”

How to Haul a Victim in Half the Time: Part 2Two key points that must be considered: (1) OSHA follows the ANSI approach that was in effect at the time 1910.146 was promulgated which did not recommend a minimum mechanical advantage ratio; and, (2) The rule makers intended to leave a degree of latitude for the rescue service to select a lifting device that is most appropriate for the particular situation encountered.

Roco’s rule of thumb is… the mechanical device used should be appropriate for rescue service – and the employer should not use any mechanical device that could injure the entrant during rescue, which would include a mechanical device with too great a mechanical advantage (MA) for the number of people operating the system. Here’s a guideline we use for determining the proper number of rescuers for a particular system – it should take some effort to haul the victim, but not so much effort that it wears the rescuers completely out. And, it should not be too easy, or you won’t as readily feel if the victim gets hung-up.

Because 1910.146 is a performance-based regulation, it does not specify the rescue procedures that are most appropriate for any given PRCS. It leaves this to the responding rescue service based on their assessment of the PRCS in terms of configuration, depth, and anticipated rescue load. Current ANSI Z117 recommends that the MA “should” be at least four to one. Notice that it does not state “shall” and thus the discretion of the rescue service is taken into account. A generic recommendation of a 4:1 is a good start but should not be considered as a catch-all answer to the problem of lifting the load. Even a 4:1 may not be enough if the person doing the hauling is not strong enough and may require a greater M/A in order to remove the load from the space.

Must we always use a minimum MA of 4:1, or could there be justification in using an MA below the 4:1 ratio when there is a need to provide a faster means of hauling the rescue package? Consider the possibility of reducing the mechanical advantage ratio when there is plenty of haul team members. If you have 4 haul team members for a 250 pound rescue package, do you really need that 4:1 MA? Consider going with a 3:1 or even a 2:1, especially if the throw is short and the haul is long. However, keep in mind that the package will be traveling much faster by reducing the MA – so it is imperative that a “hole
watch” be assigned to monitor the rescue package and be ready to call an immediate “STOP” should the package become hung up.

Caution: If you’re using a piggyback system, make sure the haul team does not outpace the individual taking in the mainline slack through a ratchet device. Should a lot of slack build up in the mainline and the haul team lose control of the haul line, the resulting free-fall of the load could spell disaster. Of course we always encourage the use of a safety (belay) line, but on rare occasions the urgency of the rescue may warrant not using a safety line on the victim.

Ultimately it is the employer’s responsibility to evaluate the selected rescue service’s ability to provide prompt and effective rescue. If the rescue service is able to demonstrate their capability using an MA that is less than the current ANSI recommendation, then that would meet the performance-based nature of the standard. In reality, by using a reduced MA, the time required to extricate the rescue package can be cut by 1/3 to 1/2 depending on the situation. In certain emergencies, that saved time could very easily mean the difference between a successful rescue and a body recovery.
read more
1 .. 3 4 5 6 7

RescueTalk (RocoRescue.com) has been created as a free resource for sharing insightful information, news, views and commentary for our students and others who are interested in technical rope rescue. Therefore, we make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, or suitability of any information and are not liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. Users and readers are 100% responsible for their own actions in every situation. Information presented on this website in no way replaces proper training!