Rescue Toolbox: Webbing Adjustment Technique

Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Here's a handy Webbing Adjustment Shortening Technique for adjusting webbing length when rigging litters.


To watch more safety tips from Director of Training Dennis O'Connell check out our YouTube channel. Keep checking back for more videos from Roco Rescue.

read more

Horizontal Pick & Pivot Rescue Technique

Thursday, October 24, 2013

The video below shows a Horizontal Pick & Pivot technique taking place onboard the USS Kidd in downtown Baton Rouge, LA. The scenario took place this week, at a Roco open-enrollment class - Industrial Rescue III, and features students from Texas, Louisiana & Alaska. This technique is critical when performing a horizontal raise, when there are no available high-points.

This predominantly "scenario-based" course challenges individual rescuers (and teams) in a wide variety of confined space and high angle rescue exercises. With the addition of new and more advanced techniques, students will enhance their skills and teamwork abilities in numerous practice scenarios. As the problems progress in difficulty, students get a feel for executing an entire rescue operation from start to finish.

By placing specific time limitations on each scenario, Industrial Rescue III gives students the experience of "working under pressure," just as in a real emergency. You can see from the short video above taken by a chief instructor, Roco classes provide a thrill a minute. Great job guys!

read more

Update: Question to OSHA on Individual Retrieval Lines

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Update: Question to OSHA on Individual Retrieval LinesReport submitted by John Voinche', Sr. Vice President/COO, Roco Rescue

In July, a group of Roco instructors conducted a Confined Space Rope Rescue demonstration for OSHA representatives from Washington, DC. These agency officials represented both General Industry and Construction. This demo was used to clarify our concerns about a pending Letter of Interpretation (LOI) concerning Individual Retrieval Lines in confined spaces that was brought to our attention last year. Here is a little background…

Last July (2011), we brought you a story entitled, “What’s the talk about individual retrieval lines?”  At the heart of the issue was a pending LOI from OSHA regarding how retrieval lines are used inside confined spaces. [Note: This LOI is pending and has not been published in the Federal Register.]

Here’s the question to OSHA from a gentleman in Maryland which initiated the LOI…

“Does OSHA 1910-146 (k)(3) require that each individual entrant, including workers and/or rescuers, entering into a confined space be provided with an independent retrieval line or can more than one entrant be connected to a single retrieval line?”

The proposed answer from OSHA stated that each entrant should have an “individual” retrieval line, despite the fact that the word “individual” is not included in this section of the standard [1910.146 (k)(3)(i)].
 
Roco then wrote a letter to OSHA requesting clarification about the forthcoming LOI. A portion of our letter stated that, “This pending interpretation is different from our understanding of what’s required by the regulation. While this particular technique is one option of providing external retrieval, there are other alternatives currently being used by rescuers.”


One of the techniques being used is a “single retrieval line” for multiple entrant rescuers. The first rescuer to enter the space is attached to the retrieval line via an end-of-line Figure 8 on a Bight. Any subsequent rescuers enter the space attached to the same retrieval line using mid-line Butterfly knots. In our opinion, this satisfies the intent of the regulation in that each entrant is attached to a retrieval line.

However, in the case of multiple entrants, requiring “individual” lines as mentioned in the proposed LOI may represent an entanglement hazard. This, in effect, may cause entrants to opt out of using retrieval lines due to potential entanglement hazards (which is allowed by the standard if entanglement hazards are a concern). So, in our opinion, this effort to bring more clarity to the issue may further complicate the matter.
 
Again, we believe the single retrieval line method described above is one way to rescue entrants while satisfying the intent of the standard at the same time. More background is available by reading our original story.

Fast-forward back to July 2012… the demonstration lasted about four hours. During this time, Roco demonstrated numerous retrieval line techniques as well as the “pros and cons” for each system. There was a great deal of discussion back and forth on how this pending letter of interpretation could affect rescuers and entrants – and their ability to perform their jobs safely and efficiently.
 
We would like to thank OSHA for allowing us to offer our feedback concerning this topic. We also want to say a special thanks to the Baltimore Fire Department for allowing us to use their training facilities. We don’t know when a final LOI will be issued, but we will keep you posted!
read more

SKED Procedural Change with Cobra Replacement Buckles

Thursday, May 24, 2012

SKED Procedural Change with Cobra Replacement BucklesHere at Roco, we have recently discovered a minor issue when the SKED stretcher is updated with Cobra buckles. The Cobra buckle replacement system is attached by girth-hitching the components into the grommets. The girth hitch takes up more room in the grommets than the sewn loop that was previously used. This makes it more difficult to pass the vertical bridle rope through the grommet holes that we’re accustomed to using.

Skedco was contacted and has approved the following alternative method (see photo). After tying a square knot at the bottom of the SKED, bring the tail ends of the rope back up and pass them through the bottom grommet hole of the handles before tying the second square knot. Note: “Handle” holes may be used with the old style buckle system.

SKED Procedural Change with Cobra Replacement Buckles
read more

Mechanical Advantage Systems: How Strong?

Friday, May 11, 2012

MASystemsIn this and upcoming articles, we want to give you an idea of the actual forces that are put on M/A systems versus theoretical forces that you may read about. What’s the difference?

With theoretical, we’re referring to the amount of force that is “supposed” to be produced, while the actual is just that…the actual amount of force that is produced when the system is built and operated.

For example, calculating the force if you built  a 3:1 mechanical advantage “on paper” (theoretically) versus physically building the system. With the actual system, you would have to consider the friction loss created by the system components, so the “actual M/A” may be 2.5:1 with the same 3:1 system.

We decided to do some informal testing out at the Roco Training Center with the assistance of some of our students. The systems were tested as they are generally used in the field. The numbers shown are an average of the tests we conducted. The average is from a random sample of 10 to 20 tests using the same equipment and set up. We used a Dillon 25,000 lbf dynamometer with an error factor of +/-20 lbf. Note: These test numbers are designed as a reference only and should not be used as exact force data.

Test #1: Straight-line Pull

Student Set-up: Students were asked to pull on the line in a horizontal plane and exhibit as much force as they could without tugging/jerking the line. They were then asked to maintain that tension and tug/jerk the line.

Equipment Set-up: 12-ft of 1⁄2” PMI rope tied with a Figure 8 knot and attached to the dynamometer by two 2-ft pieces of 1” basket-looped webbing and two auto-locking steel carabiners to a rigid anchor with another basket-looped webbing loop.
MASystems

What the Numbers Mean

First of all, they will serve as a baseline for future informal tests when comparing different types of M/A systems. We will evaluate the efficiency of the different systems as well as the possible forces that are put on the components of the system when using typical rescue haul teams.

Grasping at Ropes

MASystems-03One interesting fact that we can take away from these numbers is that even though the vast majority of the persons involved in the testing (random rescue students) weighedin excess of 160 lbs, they were only able to generate a maximum of 160 pounds of force on the 1⁄2-inch rope. This is largely due to the student’s ability to grasp and hold onto the 1⁄2” line before it pulled through their hands.

Similar tests using 9mm rope had an average force of 120 lbf for a single-person pull. There was only a slight difference of about 2 lbf between the 1⁄2-inch rope and the 9mm rope. We had anticipated a greater disparity as the rope diameter decreased and the ability to grasp the smaller line was lessened. However, we did observe that with the smaller diameter rope, haulers had a tendency to twist their hands making a 90-degree turn in the rope. This added additional friction making it possible to put more force on the line before it slipped.

Stay tuned as we continue this informal, real-world testing in future blog posts. It should be interesting to see how the forces translate from 1,2,3, and 4-person Haul Teams when using these various Mechanical Advantage systems.
read more
1 .. 2 3 4 5 6

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!