A Bridge Between The Aerial And Roof

[x635 4,066]

Thoughts? This had got to be Photoshopped.

Credit to the anonymous Twitter user who posted this

[Haggerty 1029 16]

It's real, I know who the gentleman is who took the photo, it's taken today from Louisville KY, they also did the "church raise" or what ever each area of the country calls it with the 50' extension and stay poles.

[Dinosaur 844]

WHY?

[msm232 69]

From a person who has been in and around the fire service for the 28 Years, I can not think of any reason to do this.

Even if you used webbing to tie off the the end on the ladder, this is NUTS!!!

Come on, This is a NIOSH report waiting to happen.

Stay safe.

[mfc2257 464]

The amount of movement that even a modern aerial has far exceeds the overhang buffer that the ground ladder has either to the top of the parapit or to the tip of the stick. The guy has no climbing harness or other PPE to support this type of adventure either. Even if you could tie it off the chances of failure for this system seem high but I'm unfamiliar with its use. I'd cut the tree down and put the stick up to the building if it was a legitimate job requiring roof access.

[lad45der 78]

It's just plain stupid this is why our trade has gotten into trouble.

[Scottyk107 9]

Have seen this floating around on various social media sites today as well. From what I can gather the picture is as stated from a Louisville, KY probie class and is called the ladder bridge. It sounds like it is also practiced in Detroit as well. Some photos of rescues from Detroit, FDNY, and South Florida have also surfaced with some variation of a ladder, anywhere from a 50 foot extension to a short roof ladder, added to the aerial in some variation for extra reach.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Scottyk107

[Scottyk107 9]

This is one out of Ft. Lauderdale in the 80's.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Scottyk107

[RES24CUE 168]

The amount of movement that even a modern aerial has far exceeds the overhang buffer that the ground ladder has either to the top of the parapit or to the tip of the stick. The guy has no climbing harness or other PPE to support this type of adventure either. Even if you could tie it off the chances of failure for this system seem high but I'm unfamiliar with its use. I'd cut the tree down and put the stick up to the building if it was a legitimate job requiring roof access.

This tactic does seem risky and I really cannot think of any practical use for it. That said, if I had to think outside the box and rig this contraption together in an effort to save my own life or rescue a fallen firefighter, then I'd climb across it. It can be done...it shouldn't be done...but it can be done...

Now comes the double-edged sword...If it can be done, do you practice the tactic so that firefighters know this is feasible even though it is not recommended? Or is it too dangerous to even train on this tactic? I probably would have thrown a safety line on the guy at the bare minimum if it were me running the training! God forbid one of these guys gets hurt while practicing it though...lawsuit waiting to happen!

[provfd 49]

This is one out of Ft. Lauderdale in the 80's.

Holy crap. That roof ladder is almost vertical. The players in that photo would be a great subject of a "where are they now" to see how that changed their lives beyond needing new undies.

[mfc2257 464]

This tactic does seem risky and I really cannot think of any practical use for it. That said, if I had to think outside the box and rig this contraption together in an effort to save my own life or rescue a fallen firefighter, then I'd climb across it. It can be done...it shouldn't be done...but it can be done...

Now comes the double-edged sword...If it can be done, do you practice the tactic so that firefighters know this is feasible even though it is not recommended? Or is it too dangerous to even train on this tactic? I probably would have thrown a safety line on the guy at the bare minimum if it were me running the training! God forbid one of these guys gets hurt while practicing it though...lawsuit waiting to happen!

I see your point of view regarding "if you had to... you could".... But this seems too risky to train on for me. No harness, not tied off, and you are putting a level of stress on the ladder that it wasn't designed to hold. I'm not an expert on ground ladder capacities and testing, but the strength of the ground ladder is dependent on much of the force being transmitted down to the ground. In this case 100% of the force is being transmitted the opposite way.... The exact same way that aerial devices typically fail.

[Scottyk107 9]

I see your point of view regarding "if you had to... you could".... But this seems too risky to train on for me. No harness, not tied off, and you are putting a level of stress on the ladder that it wasn't designed to hold. I'm not an expert on ground ladder capacities and testing, but the strength of the ground ladder is dependent on much of the force being transmitted down to the ground. In this case 100% of the force is being transmitted the opposite way.... The exact same way that aerial devices typically fail

I agree, would like to see a belay from a high point. From what I ascertained from comments on people that were there, the roof ladder is tied off to the aerial. No mention on what the other side was going to, what and how far is anything below, if there are any passive fall protection. Would definitely be interested in knowing the ladders, both aerial and roof, capabilities used in this manner. Having witnessed ground ladder testing this is the same way that they are set up with a horizontal load placed in the center. Its actually pretty violent to watch and I'm not sure I gain or lose confidence every time that I watch the annual inspections.

[Scottyk107 9]

Not my photo but you get the idea

[AFS1970 504]

I am just guessing looking at the one picture but here are some thoughts on this bridge.

Even tied off to the aerial, that tie off would seem to make a hinge point. That means if the aerial shifts at all the ground ladder risks falling. By nature it would have to be this way at least until the first FF makes it across to tie it off on the building somewhere. As for a belay point, it seems like the only application for this would be somewhere where there is no higher point to tie off to. Harnesses and fall arrest systems seem like they would be of limited use until both ends of the ladder are secure. Even after being secure, a catastrophic failure would likely be in the middle and would thus leave the ground ladder hanging by its tie offs and dropping the FF a good distance before the fall arrest device would kick in.

As for the training issue, I think the only way to train for a tactic like this would be with a prop made of an old fly section and put only a few feet off the ground. Perhaps only tall enough to allow standing on the fly to tie off the ground ladder. Not perfect but safe®. I am reminded of the scene from Bridge on the River Kwai where they decide not do do a practice jump because the chances of injury go up with each jump. Thus they decide it will be better for the paratrooper to make his first actual jump on the mission to blow up the bridge. The paratrooper was trained on ground based props only before the mission.

[16fire5 693]

So we always hear about this thing called a risk benefit analysis. Apparently most people don't know what it is or don't do them. You should be doing it in your head quickly all the time.

So is this risk worth the benefit?

[Scottyk107 9]

So we always hear about this thing called a risk benefit analysis. Apparently most people don't know what it is or don't do them. You should be doing it in your head quickly all the time.

So is this risk worth the benefit?

Depends, is your family member the one on the other side? I agree we shouldn't put ourselves in this kind of danger during training but this is another tool in the toolbox when it hits the fan. While not directly related to this picture or any posts I think the shift in the order of life safety in the fire service over the past few years is disheartening.The risk benefit analysis is something we should always be using but shouldn't use it as a crutch to not do our jobs. Lt. Ray McCormack said it best several years ago in his FDIC keynote speech, "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." If you haven't heard the speech give it a listen, really sums it up. Here is a great read just posted yesterday http://www.backstepfirefighter.com/2014/08/20/women-and-children-first-by-dave-leblanc/ I am sure I will take a beating for this but again I am not promoting any unsafe acts or "John Wayne time", just think we need to take a step back and see what our "progression" looks like from the eyes of the public.

[Bnechis 3,961]

So is this risk worth the benefit?

"Depends, is your family member the one on the other side?"

The Benefit maybe to the firefighters widow, since I think you would not fair well in court.

You may want to look at what a UL inspector would do if he was asked to do the annual ladder test on that Arial, after seeing this picture. The ones I have spoken with have said if you use it beyond its designed limit, they will de-certify it.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Depends, is your family member the one on the other side? I agree we shouldn't put ourselves in this kind of danger during training but this is another tool in the toolbox when it hits the fan. While not directly related to this picture or any posts I think the shift in the order of life safety in the fire service over the past few years is disheartening.The risk benefit analysis is something we should always be using but shouldn't use it as a crutch to not do our jobs. Lt. Ray McCormack said it best several years ago in his FDIC keynote speech, "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." If you haven't heard the speech give it a listen, really sums it up. Here is a great read just posted yesterday http://www.backstepfirefighter.com/2014/08/20/women-and-children-first-by-dave-leblanc/ I am sure I will take a beating for this but again I am not promoting any unsafe acts or "John Wayne time", just think we need to take a step back and see what our "progression" looks like from the eyes of the public.

I'm in agreement with your overall view, but with regard to the original post photo I think the risk is too great, as the real "reward" is merely a confidence measure. Many of us have done things beyond our training, some more often than others, but there will always be that time that a little more length is needed, you need to crawl that much further, the heat is just above what most would consider safe to endure. These one-offs will always exist and we will never be able to train everyone for every eventuality. What we can do is train beyond the everyday routine to ensure we're ready, but we do owe it to our families and the families of those who work for us to not accept undo risk when the reward is not directly in front of us.

The only thing that picture proves to me is that some people will do anything they're told. Does anyone believe the rest of the fire service that doesn't take part in this kind of "confidence testing" really all "Sally's"? There is something to be said for a person who has enough presence of mind, self-confidence and sense to hesitate and question some orders, not all of us are 100% right 100% of the time.

Edited August 21, 2014 by antiquefirelt

[Scottyk107 9]

You may want to look at what a UL inspector would do if he was asked to do the annual ladder test on that Arial, after seeing this picture. The ones I have spoken with have said if you use it beyond its designed limit, they will de-certify it.

Wow, good to know Captain. When you say designed limit do you mean weight or intended use? Always wondered if the way FDNY and other departments used their aerials to take windows voids any warranty or like you stated decertified the ladder.

The only thing that picture proves to me is that some people will do anything they're told. Does anyone believe the rest of the fire service that doesn't take part in this kind of "confidence testing" really all "Sally's"? There is something to be said for a person who has enough presence of mind, self-confidence and sense to hesitate and question some orders, not all of us are 100% right 100% of the time.

I am with you and would have a very hard time doing this in a training situation, unless there is some kind of fall protection or something we cannot determine from the photo. Do any departments still do pompier ladder training? I think much could be said the same about the "confidence building" that was done with these ladders. Im sure a few of the senior members on this board have at some point been on one as a requirement for the academy. Unfortunately I doubt they were in an era where saying no was an option.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Wow, good to know Captain. When you say designed limit do you mean weight or intended use? Always wondered if the way FDNY and other departments used their aerials to take windows voids any warranty or like you stated decertified the ladder.

I doubt any builder would "allow" you to poke windows or the like if the issue saw the light of day. I had the great opportunity to go out for dinner with two aerial engineers and a now retired FDNY Lt who asked if they could build an aerial tip that was replaceable such that they'd not require extensive testing when the FD used the tip to take windows. Their answer: It likely could be done (some have removable tip sections), but never would get past any legal counsel as there's no way anyone could guarantee the glass would be taken properly. They asked, "What happens when the operator runs it into the sill or the wall?" Far too many variables leading back to their liability. Still, always a good conversation when you can put designers/engineers in the same room with end users.

[Bnechis 3,961]

1) Wow, good to know Captain. When you say designed limit do you mean weight or intended use? Always wondered if the way FDNY and other departments used their aerials to take windows voids any warranty or like you stated decertified the ladder.

2) Do any departments still do pompier ladder training? I think much could be said the same about the "confidence building" that was done with these ladders. Im sure a few of the senior members on this board have at some point been on one as a requirement for the academy. Unfortunately I doubt they were in an era where saying no was an option.

1) More about force than weight. Was it designed to have force in that direction? A number of ladder failures in the past were when one side was against the building and the other was not, as you crawl out does the weigh shift multiply because of the "level" you have created?

That's one reason why replaceable tips came into existence. Also many depts. do not test or do not care.

We had a catastrophic ladder failure in the 1990's and the litigation was in our favor because it was being used as designed and we had 100% compliance with the manufacturers maintenance policies and a recertification test 4 weeks before the failure.

2) we still train with them (but have not carried them in over 30 years). And you climbed or went home.

[antiquefirelt 994]

The difference between this picture and the use of Pompier ladders for confidence building is the design. One is used as it was designed and when used properly distributes the forces in a safe manner, so on top of being a confidence builder and physical ability test, it's also a decent lesson on distribution of forces. The aerial/ground ladder bridge is being used to defy the forces for which either ladder was designed and thus the lesson will hurt.

[16fire5 693]

Depends, is your family member the one on the other side? I agree we shouldn't put ourselves in this kind of danger during training but this is another tool in the toolbox when it hits the fan. While not directly related to this picture or any posts I think the shift in the order of life safety in the fire service over the past few years is disheartening.The risk benefit analysis is something we should always be using but shouldn't use it as a crutch to not do our jobs. Lt. Ray McCormack said it best several years ago in his FDIC keynote speech, "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." If you haven't heard the speech give it a listen, really sums it up. Here is a great read just posted yesterday http://www.backstepfirefighter.com/2014/08/20/women-and-children-first-by-dave-leblanc/ I am sure I will take a beating for this but again I am not promoting any unsafe acts or "John Wayne time", just think we need to take a step back and see what our "progression" looks like from the eyes of the public.

I'll bite. I really don't correlate those who propose safe fireground practices with writing off civilians. Most fire service leaders who advocate these changes are doing their jobs and looking to protect their members. The thought that our attempt to be safe on the fireground is killing or going to kill more civilians in fires is backed up by what? They are dying because they don't have working smoke detectors. The fact is the vast majority of fireground traumatic fatalities occur when there was no legitimate civilian life hazard. Are there savable civilians who die in fires? Probably but I doubt the cause is a safety mindset in the fire service. If we could get some departments on scene faster and train all our members to be on their A game when they get off the rig we'd be better serving the civilians that count on us. When the homeowner meets you on the lawn and says everyone is out should get treated differently then when you pull up and 3AM and no one meets you. Those the preach things like aggressive search regardless of intelligence gathered during size-up are pandering to the group that wants to hear that. I get it we all want be aggressive and fight fires but being a professional is not about doing want we want to do but doing what we should be do.

[Scottyk107 9]

I'll bite. I really don't correlate those who propose safe fireground practices with writing off civilians. Most fire service leaders who advocate these changes are doing their jobs and looking to protect their members. The thought that our attempt to be safe on the fireground is killing or going to kill more civilians in fires is backed up by what? They are dying because they don't have working smoke detectors. The fact is the vast majority of fireground traumatic fatalities occur when there was no legitimate civilian life hazard. Are there savable civilians who die in fires? Probably but I doubt the cause is a safety mindset in the fire service. If we could get some departments on scene faster and train all our members to be on their A game when they get off the rig we'd be better serving the civilians that count on us. When the homeowner meets you on the lawn and says everyone is out should get treated differently then when you pull up and 3AM and no one meets you. Those the preach things like aggressive search regardless of intelligence gathered during size-up are pandering to the group that wants to hear that. I get it we all want be aggressive and fight fires but being a professional is not about doing want we want to do but doing what we should be do.

Well said.

[FirNaTine 370]

Many Fireground fatalities, both civilian and FF also occur due to complacency, lack of interest, lowering the standards, etc.etc.etc.. Not just a lack of working smoke detectors. Again many times we are our own worst enemy!!!! Unfortunately the Fire Service has lost "Tradition"!

Edited August 23, 2014 by FirNaTine

[16fire5 693]

Many Fireground fatalities, both civilian and FF also occur due to complacency, lack of interest, lowering the standards, etc.etc.etc.. Not just a lack of working smoke detectors. Again many times we are our own worst enemy!!!! Unfortunately the Fire Service has lost "Tradition"!

I'm pretty sure we are on the same page. 75% of those who die in fires don't have working smoke detectors so although that's not that glamorous it should be a push. When we see fire departments frazzled with a simple working fire we know they are not going to be able to handle a fire with people trapped. I'm sure if you have experienced both you know the difference. If you are calm cool and collected on the fireground on a normal basis which is helped by training you will have the best shot at addressing life hazards. If a normal working fire is a cluster you probably won't be able to up your game when the real pressure is on.

[mfc2257 464]

.....When we see fire departments frazzled with a simple working fire we know they are not going to be able to handle a fire with people trapped. I'm sure if you have experienced both you know the difference. If you are calm cool and collected on the fireground on a normal basis which is helped by training you will have the best shot at addressing life hazards. If a normal working fire is a cluster you probably won't be able to up your game when the real pressure is on.

This statement alone defines the health of most fire departments, rural or not, paid or not.

[robert benz 344]

I just came back from Detroit, I talked to guys who were at the Buhl building fire June 11 1982.(google) has a few pics of a 16 foot roof ladder lashed to the tip of a 100 stick, and the boys getting a 50 extension ladder to the tip of another 100 aerial to make multiple rescues.

[huzzie59 75]

http://www.rjhaig.com/fire-talk-014.php

[wraftery 1,275]

1) More about force than weight. Was it designed to have force in that direction? A number of ladder failures in the past were when one side was against the building and the other was not, as you crawl out does the weigh shift multiply because of the "level" you have created?

That's one reason why replaceable tips came into existence. Also many depts. do not test or do not care.

We had a catastrophic ladder failure in the 1990's and the litigation was in our favor because it was being used as designed and we had 100% compliance with the manufacturers maintenance policies and a recertification test 4 weeks before the failure.

2) we still train with them (but have not carried them in over 30 years). And you climbed or went home.

Re: Pompier ladders: We used to practice with them but not carry them. Way back when we had rubber coats and "Johnny and Roy" helmets, we also had a Deputy Chief who decided training for a day would be Pompiers. He had us pull two Pompiers off a rig that was going to be cannibalized for parts and had sat out in the weather for about 6 months. Bnechis said "Climb or go home" were the two options, but we came up with a third. We refused to climb them because they were abused by the weather and not tested. We refused to climb them but agreed if we got tested ladders from the training center, we would climb them with no problem. It became pretty touchy, but the DC eventually saw the light.

Re: The Ladder Bridge: Bridging with a ground ladder was an acceptable practice for many years but I think that aerial-to-roof bridge is stretching the safety limits way too far. If you want to train on it (for that day you may have to use it), Why not do your risk/benefit calculation and come up with something with a little more common sense for training. How about aerial-to-3rd Floor Window instead of aerial-to-roof. From above add a belay line to a harness on the Firefighter. If you can find a tall building that abuts a shorter building, even better.

Edited September 2, 2014 by wraftery