MOAB FIRE DEPT: [ MFD ] members received a Garmin E-Trex
for Christmas. On Jan 11, their training was GPS familiarization, hosted
by Bego. Map info, GPS set-up, 3 coord systems, marking waypoint, GOTO
Fun. Lively
.
-----------------------------------------------------
Glen Canyon Dam Operations
Releases from Glen Canyon Dam in March, April and May will total 600,000
acre-feet each month. This is an average of 9800 cfs.
Upper Colorado River Basin Hydrology
February 2006 was a dry month in the Colorado River Basin. As February
began, basin wide snowpack above Lake Powell was above average. As The
month progressed, however, snowpack dropped below average with a total
decrease of 15 percentage points during the month. Precipitation in the
Upper Colorado River Basin during February was approximately 50 percent of
average. Basin wide snowpack (as of March 2, 2006) is currently 93 percent
of average. The distribution of snow in the basin varies greatly by
geographical location. Snowpack in the San Juan River Basin, for instance,
is only 40 percent of average, while snowpack in the Yampa and Colorado
River headwaters is about 115 to 120 percent of average.
Inflow to Lake Powell in water year 2006 (which began on October 1, 2005)
has been near average, although it dropped off somewhat in February.
Unregulated inflow from October 2005 through February 2006 was 94 percent
of average. However, unregulated inflow in February 2006 was only 79
percent of average.
In response to the minimal amount of precipitation in February, the
National Weather Service has reduced the inflow forecast for Lake Powell
this spring. The current forecasted April through July unregulated inflow
to Lake Powell for 2006 is 7.2 million acre-feet, 91 percent of average.
The current elevation of Lake Powell is 3,589.7 feet (110.3 feet from full
pool). The water surface elevation of Lake Powell is now near its seasonal
low. The current projected high elevation of Lake Powell in 2006 is about
3,620 feet (80 feet from full pool), occurring in mid-July. Upper Colorado
River Basin Drought
The Upper Colorado River Basin experienced five consecutive years of
extreme drought from September 1999 through September 2004. In the summer
of 1999, Lake Powell was essentially full with reservoir storage at 97
percent of capacity. Inflow volumes for five consecutive water years were
significantly below average. Total unregulated inflow in water years 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 was 62, 59, 25, 51, and 49 percent of average,
respectively. Lake Powell storage decreased through this five-year
drought, with reservoir storage reaching a low of 8.0 maf (33 percent of
capacity) in early April of 2005.
Hydrologic conditions improved in water year 2005 in the Upper Colorado
River Basin. Lake Powell increased by 2.77 million acre-feet (31 feet in
elevation) during water year 2005. Unregulated inflow to Lake Powell in
water year 2005 was 105 percent of average.
-----------------------------------------------------
Gene Pool says: "#Days on the River / Total river miles on trip. Divide
the two numbers to arrive at some "meaningful" measure of dalliance or
zoomery."
-----------------------------------------------------
Rope Rescue Discussion Area Forum Dec 15 2005
From British Columbia Canada: SARBC
Subject: Live patients during practice?!?
From:dberman
Our plant compliance manager has openly stated that he does not
feel it is safe to use live patients during rescue practice sessions. He
acknowledges that he is not familiar with any of the equipment and/or its
uses and/or the safety factors, but feels there is an inherent risk, one
in which little can be done to justify the use of a person. After
significant debate he has granted our team some time to gather information
to document the "why it is necessary" along with the benefits of using
live patients, and the opportunity to document practices which help
mitigate risks.
I hate the fact that I'm having to look it up and document it, but
such is life. ........ note the benefits of using live patients (or the
negatives of using live patients...... I'm not totally closed mind to the
possibility that its an outdated practice...
Dave Marietta OH
From:Rusty
I think that after being the "subject", any rescuer will retain the
feeling of being in a litter. Not having padding at crucial points, or not
having something under your knees in a basket, or being tied in correctly
are all things that become part of the training environment that sticks
with you years later.
Rusty - San Deigo Mtn Rescue Team
From:Michael Dunn
Hi Dave and all others who have to struggle with this issue,
Unfortunately, we have to deal with clients with this attitude on a
semi-regular basis with our training company. Here are some of the reasons
we have come up with to help justify to them why we do what we do:
1. A mannekin can't tell the rescuers if their patient packaging
techniques are causing pain and discomfort which leads the rescuers to
continue reinforcing bad habits and possibly dangerous techniques. (The
mannekin didn't fall out so it must have been safe. Right?) We can package
real people in a horizontal position on the floor but that still doesn't
tell us if we did it right or not if we have to make a vertical raise or
lower.
2. Rescuers will never treat a mannekin with the same care and
concern that they show a real person. Come on, be honest. When was the
last time you actually treated that CPR mannekin like a real person? I
have seen mannequins dropped and equipment destroyed during training
because the attitude of the rescuers was "it's just a mannekin and we
can't hurt it, put some more muscle into the haul system"
3. Mannequins do not bend like a real person. OSHA says you have to
practice making rescues from the actual or simulated confined spaces. The
mannekin won't fit in that 16 inch diameter opening so not training in
that space puts you in violation of OSHA regulations.
4. Mannequins are heavy and aren't weighted like a real person. It
is much easier (and safer) to move a rescuer playing victim around than it
is a mannekin. The only injuries we have ever had during a class happened
to instructors trying to position that heavy, unbalanced manikin for a
rescue drill. Strains and back pains are common when dealing with
mannequins. With rescuers as victims I can just tell them to get into
position for the drill. No strain. No pain.
5. If we are inspecting and caring for our software and hardware
according to the manufacturer's recommendations, NFPA and ASTM standards,
then our equipment is safe.
6. If we are keeping our rescue knowledge level up where it needs
to be instead of training by in-breeding then our techniques are safe.
7. If we are conducting a pre-job safety analysis before and/or
during the training session, then we are identifying risks and coming up
with solutions to eliminate or reduce them to an acceptable level. I
usually do this throughout the training session to get the students in the
habit of identifying and dealing with hazards. Not all risk can be
eliminated but not doing the training because there is still risk involved
(even though it is managed) creates a greater risk for the rescuers
because they won't truly learn how to deal with the situation before a
real life rescue happens.
8. You need to be sure that you are backing your mainline raising
or lowering system up with a proven effective belay system that passes the
whistle test. This is also required by OSHA in their fall protection
standard.
9. Rescuers need to understand what a patient experiences during a
rescue. It make you a better, safer rescuer.
10. Mannequins should be used in all training evolutions that
present an unacceptable level of risk. Examples are trench rescue,
collapsed structure rescue, underwater rescue, vehicle extrication,
structural firefighting search and rescue, etc.
11. Budgets are tight. Mannequins are expensive. Rescuers are easy
to replace. (Just joking) Be sure you don't joke about it with your
compliance manager. He won't see the humor in it. He is very uncomfortable
with a subject he admittedly doesn't understand and is giving you the rare
opportunity to "help him understand".
Be professional in your presentation to him. Take pictures of some
of your more challenging rescue areas (ones that are especially hard to
put a mannekin in) and explain the rescue problems.
A rescuer that is not allowed to perform realistic training is an
unsafe rescuer. If it is perceived by upper management as not safe to do
in training under carefully controlled conditions then how can they ever
consider the untrained rescuer to be safe when performing a rescue under
real life stresses?
Mike Dunn - President, Emergency Response Training, Inc.
From:Riversong
Just ask him whether he'd prefer using live patients for training
or having dead patients in the event of a real rescue.
Robert
From:irv lichtenstein
Using real persons for practice victims is appropriate in a
controlled situation where your crew has practiced the maneuvers with a
dummy or a weight to get it right first. The most difficult part is
selecting the victim. Having a live victim reduces your crew by one or
more (unless you can use non-member (like the manager?) and may therefore
affect performance.
Managers are risk averse. They see long hours in workers comp and
grievance hearings, not reduced costs from increased safety training. Back
in ye old days I worked on a site with about 7000 persons spread out over
50 buildings. We had 75 EMT trained employees, gear equal to any BLS
ambulance in every building, and two way radio to talk to the county
dispatch center. We saved an average of 10 days hospital cost on every
cardiac and equivalent on lesser injuries. Most of the responders were
hourly, and most of the patients were salaried engineers. When the stats
were presented to the company that acquired us the program was expanded to
all their sites as well.
irv lichtenstein
ilichten1@verizon.net
-----------------------------------------------------
NFPA Rope Rope Rescue
Rope Rescue Discussion Area Forum SARBC ??
What is the NFPA standard for the weight rating for 2 person rescue rope?
> 40 kilonewtons or 9000 lbs minimum breaking strength, with a safe
working load of 600 lbs (15:1 safety factor).
Subject: 2 person rescue rope Jan 2, 2006
Happy New Year everyone,
There is no such thing as a 2-person rope and safety factors are
not addressed in the NFPA standards. The 4 current NFPA standards that
address rope in one form or another are - NFPA #1006 Standard for Rescue
Technician Professional Qualifications, 2003 edition; NFPA #1500 Fire
Department Occupational Safety and Health Program, 2002 edition; NFPA
#1670 Standard on Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue
Incidents, 2004 edition; NFPA #1983 Standard on Fire Service Life Safety
Rope and System Components, 2006 edition.
NFPA #1983 is the standard quoted incorrectly most often by rope
rescue instructors. It is a manufacturing document, not an end user
document. From chapter 1 - "This standard shall specify minimum design,
performance, testing, and certification requirements for new life safety
rope and new system components including escape rope, water rescue
throwlines, life safety harnesses, belts, and auxiliary equipment used for
rescue and training by the fire service or similar emergency service
organizations." We don't design, test or certify equipment. We use it.
The current ratings are for "light use" and "general use"
equipment. Light use rope = 20 k/n (4496 lbf). General use rope = 40 k/n
(8992 lbf).
NFPA does not specify rescue techniques. That is up to the
authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). If you want to perform a rescue
without a belay line and it is okay with your AHJ then the NFPA doesn't
care. If you want to perform a rope rescue of six 300 pound people at the
same time on light use rope with no belay and it is okay with your AHJ
then the NFPA doesn't care.
Lets all make a resolution for 2006 to stop quoting/misquoting NFPA
standards from several editions ago and get current.
Mike
-------------------------------------------
2 person rescue rope Jan 2, 2006
From: irvin lichtenstein
While 1983 may not specify how to rescue, 1006 and 1670 specify
skills and imply usage. NFPA 1500 is referenced by and references all
other NFPA fire operations standards and so be careful what your AHJ
mandates.
The NFPA text says it is up to the AHJ (which is not the rescue
organization by the way) to specify what you can do and to what service
delivery standards you will be held to on their calls. The problem is the
AHJ may have specified a specific edition of the standard and not used the
language "in effect at time of purchase or training" and some lawyer got a
judge to rule that NFPA is best practice, no matter how stupid the rules
are or how incomplete. Weigh your firefighters in full turnout with SCBA
and see how many are under 300 pounds. Then realize that the general
purpose rope is specified at roughly 9000 pounds and figure two
firefighters, fully geared up, is the working load it is supposed to
support. The original editions specified one person and two person ropes
with the strength or break strength specified to be 15 times the assumed
working load. This is how that factor got in the literature. By
eliminating the load specification the current standard implies that a
9000 pound rope can do anything without breaking.
The important work for your organization to do is to establish what
your practices are and document them. If the AHJ has specified a
particular standard get a copy of that and make sure that is the edition
they want you follow and then train that way. Unlike other standards
making bodies who usually call their documents guidelines, the NFPA
specifies procedures that must be followed in detail if adopted.
Irv Lichtenstein
-----------------------------------------------------
Subject:Re:2 person rescue rope Jan 3 2006
From:Michael Dunn
??? The questioner didn't ask about use, but about NFPA rope standards.
Very true Robert, she did ask about NFPA rope standards.
Specifically, she asked "what is the nfpa standard for the weight rating
for 2 person rescue rope?" While past editions of NFPA #1983 defined 1 and
2-person rope and 1 and 2-person loads, the current edition does not. It
defines minimum breaking strengths for light-use (20 k/n) and general use
(40 k/n) ropes and eliminates 1 and 2 person load definitions. ??? I think
we all know that the terminology has been changed to clarify the intent,
but the historical usage of one or two-person rope still has some validity
in the proper context (for instance, as a rule of thumb for those who
aren't going to, and don't need to, remember MBS numbers).
I think you are incorrect on part of this one Robert. Many (dare I
say a majority?) rope rescuers and instructors have not kept up with the
always changing standards. I still see supposedly knowledgeable rescuers
and instructors quoting the original 20 year old NFPA #1983 standard that
said rescue rope had to be brand new, never been used before rope that
then had to be destroyed after the rescue.....or used for training.
I still see a tremendous amount of rescuers quoting 1 and 2-person
rope and 1 and 2-person loads and a safety factor of 15 to 1. The only
safety factor ever mentioned by NFPA in any edition of 1983 was a 10 to 1
safety factor and it dealt with rescue harness strength, not rope. The 15
to 1 everyone likes to quote as NFPA gospel was merely an implied safety
factor that came from dividing the 1 and 2-person loads into the 1 and
2-person rope MBS. If those same people that quote that as gospel would do
the math on other auxiliary equipment MBS such as pulleys, ascenders,
descenders, etc., as listed in previous editions of 1983 they would find
an implied safety factor as low as 8 to 1. Hmmmmm. Thats almost 50% lower
than the implied but never stated by NFPA 15 to 1 safety factor. Why don't
the knowledgeable rescuers ever mention that?
I agree with you that there may be some validity, in the proper
context as you said, but I almost never see the proper context being used.
You did not mention in your reply to Megan that there was a current
edition of the standard and that it differs from the Information she was
seeking. Instead of trying to further her knowledge in the field of rope
rescue, you simply passed on old information.
Unfortunately, the old, outdated standards are quoted as gospel by
some people who haven't changed their outlook on rescue in the last 20
years or so. I also know from reading many of your previous postings that
you are definitely not one of those unchanging dinosaurs. ??? You know as
well as any of us, Mike, that it's not whether the NFPA "cares", but about
whether one is using materials and techniques responsibly (regardless of
what the AHJ allows), and how a jury will interpret these standards.
Sorry, "NFPA cares" was an attempt at being facetious by me. I
fully agree with you on this one Robert. It is all about using Materials
and techniques responsibly. The problem, and I see it as a huge problem,
is that to use materials and techniques responsibly requires training
(initial and on-going) from a knowledgeable instructor or instructors who
are truly keeping up with the constantly changing world of rope rescue.
Far too many instructors learn one thing in a long ago class and hold onto
it like a dog with a juicy bone even when it is no longer valid. Much of
the rope rescue training available to upcoming rescuers comes from
instructors who were minimally trained and never really understood the
whole process to begin with and who haven't been to update classes.
As far as the issue of "the lawyers", everyone had better be in the
process (if they haven't already done it) of documenting and justifying
why we do what we do in rope rescue and why it is safe. As part of that
process, you need to get resumes from your various rope rescue instructors
to document their background and experience. I personally know rope rescue
"instructors" (at least they claim to be) who have no high angle or
confined space rescue problems in their response areas and have never made
a response to either type of emergency. Does the rope rescue instructor
truly have 20 years experience or were they involved in one rope rescue 20
years ago and they have merely been reliving that one experience for the
past 20 years?
Hope I didn't step on too many toes to start the new year off.
Unless, of course, the toes belong to unchanging, non-learning so-called
rope rescue instructor/dinosaurs that need to retire and get out of the
rescue business for the safety of all of us. ;-)
Mike
-----------------------------------------------------
2 person rescue rope Jan 3 2006
From:Riversong
> While past editions of NFPA #1983 defined 1 and 2-person rope and
1 and 2-person loads, the current edition does not.
And I think it was about time they eliminated those confusing
labels, since (for instance) it didn't address a steep-angle litter raise
with a patient and three litter bearers (4-person load?).
But the old standard also defined those categories as 300# and 600#
working load - and those were at least useful and have been retained in
the current standard.
> I still see supposedly knowledgeable rescuers and instructors
quoting the original 20 year old NFPA #1983 standard that said rescue rope
had to be brand new, never been used before rope that then had to be
destroyed after the rescue.....or used for training.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the 2001 edition of NFPA
1983 that changed 1 & 2-person to light-use and general-use? If so, that's
only 5 years ago, hardly old enough for a dinosaur!
> I still see a tremendous amount of rescuers quoting...a safety
factor of 15 to 1. The only safety factor ever mentioned by NFPA in any
edition of 1983 was a 10 to 1 safety factor and it dealt with rescue
harness strength, not rope. The 15 to 1 everyone likes to quote as NFPA
gospel was merely an implied safety factor
Actually, the 15:1 SF was explicit in 1983: 4-1.2.1 stated: "The
maximum working load for class one- and two-person rope shall be expressed
in pounds and be calculated by dividing the new rope minimum breaking
strength as specified in 5-1.1 or 5-1.2, as applicable, by a factor not
less than 15."
> If those same people that quote that as gospel would do the math
on other auxiliary equipment MBS...they would find an implied safety
factor as low as 8 to 1.
I've never heard anyone use the 15:1 SF to refer to anything other
than rope.
> Hope I didn't step on too many toes to start the new year off.
I didn't feel any pressure on my toes. And I think we're on the
same page when it comes to thorough and current training and using the
most important piece of gear in the toolbox: one's brain.
Robert
-----------------------------------------------------
NFPA Jan 16 2006
From:Riversong
> correct me if I am wrong but, NFPA only has standards on
equipment?
The most commonly referenced NFPA rope rescue standard, 1983
Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and System Components, is a
manufacturer's testing and labeling standard.
But, in addition, there is NFPA 1670 ROPE RESCUE Standard on
Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Incidents, which
lists general competency standards for Awareness, Operations, and
Technician level.
And there is NFPA 1006 Standard for Rescue Technician Professional
Qualifications, which goes into detail on performance requirements for
rope rescue, surface water rescue, vehicle and machinery rescue, confined
space rescue, structural collapse rescue, and trench rescue.
But NFPA does not specify how to set up systems, beyond the
essential principles necessary to do that safely, effectively, and
efficiently.
For instance, 1006, chapter 6 (Rope Rescue) begins: 6.1 General
Requirements. The job performance requirements defined in 6.1.1 through
6.1.10 shall be met prior to certification in rope rescue. 6.1.1 Construct
a multiple-point anchor system, given life safety rope and other auxiliary
rope rescue equipment, so that the chosen anchor system fits the incident
needs, the system strength meets or exceeds the expected load and does not
interfere with rescue operations, equipment is visually inspected prior to
being put in service, the critical angle is not exceeded, the nearest
anchor point that will support the load is chosen, the anchor system is
system safety checked prior to being placed into service, the integrity of
the system is maintained throughout the operation, and weight will be
distributed between more than one anchor point. 6.1.2 Construct a compound
rope mechanical advantage system 6.1.3 Construct a fixed rope system 6.1.4
Direct the operation of a compound rope mechanical advantage system 6.1.5
Complete an assignment while suspended from a rope rescue system 6.1.6
Move a victim in a high-angle or vertical environment 6.1.7 Direct a team
in the construction of a highline system 6.1.8 Direct a team in the
operation of a highline system 6.1.9 Ascend a fixed rope 6.1.10 Descend a
fixed rope
NFPA Jan 21 2006 09:56
From:Mark
The NFPA 1983 standard does not specify a SWL for life safety rope.
It only specifies a MBS. If you look in a recent Sterling rope catalog,
you will notice that they use a 10:1 ratio to determine SWL. Manufacturers
are responsible for establishing SWL for their products. Sterling is one
of the few manufacturers that seems to keep up to the changes in the NFPA
standards. Understandably, this can be a huge pain in the ass to have to
constantly change your labeling and literature every time the standards
change. >
-----------------------------------------------------
NFPA Jan 25 2006
From:Robert Riversong
> Like I said, Sterling has tried to stay current with the latest
standard and their 40kn rope has a SWL of 4kn. It is always best to look
at manufacturers recommendations.
Those aren't "recommendations" - they are legally-mandated limits.
And the term SWL (safe working load) has been largely discarded for the
more accurate WLL (working load limit), which is defined as the maximum
load a piece of equipment can handle in a straight-line force with no
modifications of equipment (no knots, no deflections, no edges, no shared
loads, etc).
Where SWL is still used, it is defined as a down-rated WLL,
determined by a competent technician, for a particular application of the
component. [see:
http://www.irata.org/uploads/healthandsafety/WLLSWL.pdf]
> Why limit yourself to 600lbf when you are allowed to go up to
900lbf.
There is nothing in NFPA which "limits" a load to 600 lbs. It is simply
the testing standard chosen to represent a "typical" rescue load.
But if you're using any component of a rescue system at or near its
WLL, then you have failed to properly analyze the system and make an
appropriate judgment of SWL for that specific application.
This is not a simple thing for even qualified technicians to do
under the stresses of a rescue scenario. Hence it is entirely appropriate
to adopt standard "rules of thumb", such as a 15:1 or a 10:1 component
safety factor to remove some of the guesswork. Having said that, I'm a
strong advocate of technical rescue technicians having the mechanical
understanding necessary to make appropriate judgment calls in unusual or
complex (or even simple) scenarios.
NFPA Jan 27 2006
From:Riversong
> What about 1006? IS this just a standard which outlines what a
Technician should be or does it cover operations level as well?
NFPA 1006 details specific competencies and their requisite
knowledge and skill sets in the general field of Rope Rescue (as well as
surface water rescue, vehicle and machinery rescue, confined space rescue,
structural collapse rescue, trench rescue, and - in the 2003 edition -
subterranean rescue, dive rescue, and Wilderness rescue)
For instance, for Rope Rescue, one competency is: 6.1.1 Construct a
multiple-point anchor system, given life safety rope and other auxiliary
rope rescue equipment, so that the chosen anchor system fits the incident
needs, the system strength meets or exceeds the expected load and does not
interfere with rescue operations, equipment is visually inspected prior to
being put in service, the critical angle is not exceeded, the nearest
anchor point that will support the load is chosen, the anchor system is
system safety checked prior to being placed into service, the integrity of
the system is maintained throughout the operation, and weight will be
distributed between more than one anchor point.
(A)* Requisite Knowledge: Critical angles and effects and risks of
exceeding the critical angle, safety issues in choosing anchor points,
system safety check methods that allow for visual and physical assessment
of system components, methods to evaluate the system during operations,
integrity concerns, weight distribution issues and methods, knots and
applications, selection and inspection criteria for hardware and software,
formulas needed to calculate safety factors for load distribution, and the
concepts of static loads versus dynamic loads.
(B) Requisite Skills: The ability to determine incident needs as
related to choosing anchor systems, select effective knots, calculate
expected loads, evaluate incident operations as related to interference
concerns and set-up, choose anchor points, perform system safety check,
and evaluate system components for compromised integrity.
> From what I understand NFPA recognizes 1. Awareness, 2.
Operations, 3. Technician levels. IS there a Specialist level too?
NFPA 1670, which is specific to Rope Rescue, categorizes the three
levels of competency: awareness, operations, and technician. There is no
"specialist" level because this standard is for organizations, not
individuals.
-----------------------------------------------------
06-1 1-28-06 Agency Assist Arches Natural
Park Search for Missing Female
The undependability of some eyewitnesses. A guy with 2 gals was
driving in the park after 10 pm. The gals argued and exited the vehicle by
the side of the road. Moments later (?) one gal walked up road, one down
road. The guy picked one of them up (?), turned around on the road and
spent 1 (?) or was it 2 (?) hours looking for her.
He then contacts Arches Ranger Karen (A222) at 0130 hrs. Other
Rangers were contacted and at 0245 GCSAR was paged.
Where is the search area? The guy and gal said there were about 1/4
mile outbound from the Courthouse Wash Bridge (?). Or were they at the
parking lot just next to the Bridge (?). We began searching that area. Sam
brought the Command Post. Nancy and Shalla and Margy did the SARDOG thing.
We covered the area pretty well. And we all agreed that our new
flashlights are the best. About 5 am we gathered at the Command Post to
develop the next plan. It would be light soon.
Brian stepped out of the CP for some reason and there she was,
sitting in the guy’s parked car. They didn’t come tell us.
The lost gal said she had walked the whole time, never leaving the
road. She said she passed the Delicate Arch Road, Panorama Point Road and
the Windows Road. She found a tourist at Balanced Rock and asked for a
ride into town.. The tourist took her to the parking lot where we all
were.
So, if the walking girl’s story is true, the argument must have
happened way up near Devil’s Garden, not at courthouse Wash, a difference
of 15 miles. Oh.?
Responders: Bego, Nancy, Shalla, Margy,
Jim, Jon, Dave, Barbara, Sam
ARCHES: Glen
220, Gary 221, Karen 222 Even 1 T Brian 10
Larry Van Slyke: "Expect the unexpected."
-----------------------------------------------------
Snowmobile Training by Tony White, Utah State Parks Morning in the
classroom, after lunch up at Geyser Pass in shallow snow. Responders:
Steve Brownell, Kris Hurlburt, Jim Gostlin get full credit. Paula, Shawn,
Bego (Zzzzz) get partial credit.
-----------------------------------------------------
From Happy Morgan--- "Mere occurrence brings us no where near the
truth. What happens is fact, not truth. The truth is what we THINK about
what happened." ( Story by R. McKee )
-----------------------------------------------------
06-2 2-4-06 Stranded Female at Snowed in
Cabin Beaver Creek
Him and her were driving west over the mountain from Gateway to
Moab.. The vehicle broke down. They went to a known near-by cabin.
Leaving her in the cabin (light and heat), he hiked out from 3 pm
to 7 am on the snowy road. Good moon . He got in to an unlocked car near
Willow Basin just before dawn to warm up. He waited for first light. Then
he walked to Bill Howard’s cabin. Bill got him to a phone.
Zane, that’s Deputy Zane 1T9, and Bego got the snowmobiles. Zane
got stuck just before Fisher Point. Frank, who came up for Communications
relay, and got him unstuck.
We machined to the gate just before the cabin over on Beaver Creek. There
was no key to the lock where they said one should be. Zane walked to the
cabin and escorted the gal with 2 dogs walked out to the machines.
Responders: Zane, Bego, Frank
06-3 2-5-06 Stranded Vehicle Polar Mesa Rd
A vehicle with 2 folks and a dog had a flat tire up in the snowy
road off Polar Mesa. They walked a half mile to the Gateway Road to cell
phone out. The 911 call went to Delta, Colorado, who patched to Grand
County SO who patched to our cell phone. Loud and clear.
She said she was on page 191 of Well’s book. Said she was standing
on the snowmobile tracks we made yesterday.
Sam and Frank, in the Big Bronco with chains on all 4 tires, drove
thru the snow and night to fetch them up. Dave had the snowmobiles at
Willow Basin in case the Bronco couldn’t get there.
Responders: Dave, Barbara, Sam, Frank,
Bego
06-4 2-12-06 Agency Assist Arches NP Carry Out
A small oriental gal in slippers injured her ankle up near Wall
Arch. Karen went to see, paging GCSAR and EMS on the way.
A litter and wheel did the trick.
Responders: Dave, Barbara, Bego, Sam,
Duckie, Cody, Mike
NPS: Karen,
Gary and several others
NOTE: Arches NP has so few personnel that GCSAR will be paged for all
carry outs.
-----------------------------------------------------
NEW SEARCH AND RESCUE FEES- approved by the County Council
Basic Callout
$1275.00
ATV, PWC, Snowmobile
$125.00
River Rescue Boats
$250.00
Low Angle Rope Rescue
$800.00
High Angle Rope Rescue
$1600.00
Back Country Litter Carry-Out $800.00
A high angle rescue, carrying out the subject would cost $3675.00
if it happened right by the main road. (That’s $153 per month for 2 years)
Note: Other Utah counties are looking this way for guidance on charging
for SAR activities. Some counties don’t have the tax base to do it for
free. Some people think having to pay for SAR is NOT right / ethical.
-----------------------------------------------------
GCSAR Training 2-14-06 NIMS
John Flahie, MFD, has been dealing with the ICS thing from the
beginnings 25 years ago. So he taught "IS-100 Incident Command System" to
us and went over the test. This and several other NIMS-driven courses are
now required by the Feds for various reasons.
Training Officers Frank and *Sally are making the NIMS courses
doable. thanks yous
-----------------------------------------------------
History: Andy Hall, one of Major Powell’s men, wrote home
Ehrenburg arizona ter March 6, 1870
Dear sis it is a long time sins I have herd frome home on acount of
drifting about so much frome one place to another I have ben in seven or
eight diferent teritorys and part of california i am now on the collorado
river that runs betweene irasona and california whare I think I will stop
this sommer this is the hotest place i ever was in snow is never knowne
here I dont like this warme climate in the foul I will either come home or
go to colorado and start a rencio [rencho?] my last years work has beene
all throne away exploring this river i started wih the intention of
finding some god farming land and failed to find any there is some good
land nere prescot and vegtebels and grane is very hy but the indians will
not let the country git setled a man can not go out to the plow withought
his gun and pistole with him and carful as they are theyre is always some
one geting kiled the country is so rough around there that the soldiers
can't follow them I have no more newes at present if you get this leter
write soon give my love to all your truly from your wild nefue A Hall
-----------------------------------------------------
2-18-05 Search Island in the Sky
TBerry and Louis found some overdue bikers on the White Rim Trail well
after dark.
-----------------------------------------------------
06-5 2-18-06 Overdue Bikers
Porcupine Rim
These teens started their ride at 3:30 pm. It got dark before they
finished. Duh.
The two faster riders discovered they had a light after all. They
came down the singletrack to call for help. They had no idea where they
became separated and not much of a clue otherwise.
We were going to send two people up the trail and two in the top on
ATVs. Just as we were leaving the shed, the missing two showed up at the
Aarchway Inn.
Responders: Bego, Dave, Barbara, Mike,
Aug and Steve Brownell.
-----------------------------------------------------
Mock Winter Rescue- Grand County Search and Rescue and the S.E. Utah
Winter Rescue Team
Paged at 0805 hrs. A ski accident at 38º 29.379' x 109º 13.952'.
All at once: - Start the call down list.
- Continue gathering information about the incident
- Gather equipments in the GCSAR Shed- Radios, spare batteries, hypo pack
- Go get the snowmobiles at EOC: Helmets, tow sleds, hitches, handles,
snowshoes, etc
- Page an ambulance??
- Will this event expand and need a larger ICS arrangement??
By 0915 we are all in the Geyser Pass Trailhead parking lot.
- Get Hasty Team ready with warm stuff and first aid.
- Unload snowmobiles, do pre-flight checks, get set up to tow 2 Skiers
behind each machine
- Who and what goes uphill on first, second, third trips by the machines.
- Which tow sleds go? What equipments go? Sequencing, timing,
COMMUNICATION
At 1015, the machines and 4 Hasty Team reach the end of possible/practical
snowmobiling.
- Hasty Team proceeds ahead toward subject using the given Coordinates as
a GOTO
- Machines return to Base
It was 1045 when the Hasty Team reached the subject
(Paul Frank plays "Jimmy" who was hurt bad)
Hasty Team gives assessment and begins to warmly package Jimmy.
Rescue by helicopter discussed. Stomp out an LZ? U of U has a winch.
Mechanism of injury vs time of day, WIND
10:55- machines return to Base for 2nd round of equips and people.
By Noon, we were ready to bring Jimmy down to Base. However, we stayed up
in Moonlight Meadows taking turns running the Toboggan downhill, returning
uphill via the machines.
We then decided to ski Jimmy out, no machine tow. Fun.
Debrief:
To keep the machines from overheating on the very packed road, we
drove off the side of the road into the
thick snow as often as possible to keep the track flicking snow up on the
radiator.
A pull cord broke. Jim had a piece of 3mm cord which we wrapped
around the clutch housing and pulled. Started!
What should really be in a Hasty Team first aid kit?? Stuff to warm
the subject but what else?
Base should be appraised fairly often as to what is happening on
the mountain.
-->As usual, Radio Communication was the hardest thing to solve.
The signal was not clear from just anywhere
in the Moonlight/Geyser area down to Base.
Responders: TBerry, Bego, Barb, Mike
WRT: Dave
Madera the Forecaster, Mark, Craig, Kalen, Paul (Jimmy)