The rescue was a success, pity the victim died!

[Rolfe]

So, adherence to health and safety procedure is more important than saving someone's life, to at least one fire service manager.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Firemen-stand-by-as-rules.6117739.jp

In a second day of evidence to Sheriff Desmond Leslie, commander Stewart was asked by procurator fiscal depute Nancy Beresford if he considered the rescue mission to have succeeded.

He replied: "It was a successful outcome in the fact that we managed to get the casualty out.

"Unfortunately, it was not successful in terms of what happened to the casualty." Commander Stewart assumed control of the operation during the night after arriving to handle media inquiries and finding he was the senior officer present.

Fireman Sandy Dunn was already down the hole with Mrs Hume and vowed not to come up without her, but commander Stewart agreed if he had been in charge from the outset, he would never had allowed officer Dunn to enter the shaft.

Other firemen voiced their "frustration", he admitted, that more was not being done but he said sending more people into the shaft was "not an option" on health and safety grounds.

In a heated exchange, Gregor Forbes, representing Mrs Hume's family, accused headquarters-based Mr Stewart of actively preventing firemen with more experience from doing their job.

Mrs Hume was eventually brought out of the shaft by a mountain rescue team, but died shortly after from heart failure.

Mr Stewart said while he sympathised with opinions, he could not have considered anything in the July 2008 incident without a full risk assessment.

This is buging nuts!

Rolfe.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Yeah, I was a bit gobsmacked when I heard that too.

 

[Big Les]

Well, OK, but how many lives should one send after ones already in danger? What level of risk is acceptable before cutting the proverbial losses?

Personally I think if individuals are OK with risking their lives, they should be allowed to, but equally I don't think this is a straightforward case of 'Elf an safety gone maaaad, either.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

There are really two issues here. The first one - not being allowed to use their ropes to hoist the injured person up I agree is ridiculous (especially if you know that a better alternative (the mountain rescue team) is going to take too long to be any use. The second issue (caused in this instance by the first) of not sending in more people to a dangerous situation is entirely justified I think.

 

[Alt+F4]

The second issue (caused in this instance by the first) of not sending in more people to a dangerous situation is entirely justified I think.

But thats's what firefighters do. If they arrived at a fire and heard someone screaming from a window they wouldn't just stand around and say it's not justified for us to go in and try to rescue that person because it's a dangerous situation.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

But thats's what firefighters do. If they arrived at a fire and heard someone screaming from a window they wouldn't just stand around and say it's not justified for us to go in and try to rescue that person because it's a dangerous situation.

My brother is a firefighter, so I know a little about this issue. There are situations in which firefighters are ordered not to enter an area because there is too great a risk to their lives or they don't have adequate protective equipment for the task.

 

[Rasmus]

But thats's what firefighters do. If they arrived at a fire and heard someone screaming from a window they wouldn't just stand around and say it's not justified for us to go in and try to rescue that person because it's a dangerous situation.

If the situation is too dangerous even for firefighters, I should hope that's exactly what they would do.

Still leaves them plenty of situations to save lives where you and I couldn't and ensures that a lot of them will stay alive to be there at the next fire.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I wonder what prompted the memo that said the ropes should not be used for rescuing members of the public? There might be more to this story than we are getting.

 

[Alt+F4]

My brother is a firefighter, so I know a little about this issue. There are situations in which firefighters are ordered not to enter an area because there is too great a risk to their lives or they don't have adequate protective equipment for the task.

True, but clearly not the case here, in which I would think the risk was acceptable. Unlike this poor woman's situation, it's often hard to determine how serious a fire is from the outside.

 

[Alt+F4]

I wonder what prompted the memo that said the ropes should not be used for rescuing members of the public? There might be more to this story than we are getting.

I wouldn't be suprised if it's revealed that either a civilian or a firefighter was hurt or injured in the past in a rope rescue.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

True, but clearly not the case here, in which I would think the risk was acceptable. Unlike this poor woman's situation, it's often hard to determine how serious a fire is from the outside.

Why is it clearly not the case here? Maybe the mineshaft was unstable and could have collapsed at any time? Sending more than one firefighter into a situation like that may have been an unacceptable level of risk to take.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Well, OK, but how many lives should one send after ones already in danger? What level of risk is acceptable before cutting the proverbial losses?

Perhaps you've heard of the War in Iraq?

 

[Darat]

Why is it clearly not the case here? Maybe the mineshaft was unstable and could have collapsed at any time? Sending more than one firefighter into a situation like that may have been an unacceptable level of risk to take.

Or they simply didn't know whether the shaft was stable or not. I think this story has been spun to be a 'elf and safety story rather than what I (only suspect of course) think is simply a matter of good practice by the fire-force. Fire-fighters are in a risky occupation, but that doesn't mean they should be foolhardy.

 

[Alt+F4]

Why is it clearly not the case here? Maybe the mineshaft was unstable and could have collapsed at any time? Sending more than one firefighter into a situation like that may have been an unacceptable level of risk to take.

From the OP:

Christopher Rooney, the first senior fire officer at the scene, admitted it would have been possible for his crew to have rescued Mrs Hume from the shaft, had it not been for the memo.

He's the senior fire officer, he felt that the risk was acceptable, it was that darn memo holding them back.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

If you reread what I said, Alt+F4, you will see that I was considering the rope issue, and the sending more people down the shaft issue seperately.

 

[Moss]

I find it somewhat curious that nobody ignored the memo and used the rope. I may have seen too many movies.

 

[Alt+F4]

If you reread what I said, Alt+F4, you will see that I was considering the rope issue, and the sending more people down the shaft issue seperately.

Ah, ok. Well I think if they were not forbidden to use the rope they would have made an attempt to rescue her.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Or they simply didn't know whether the shaft was stable or not.

Yes, this can be a problem.

Huh huh huh huh huh

 

[Rolfe]

As I read it (I was reading a different newspaper account, that doesn't seem to be online), the experienced firefighters thought it was an acceptable risk, and were going to carry out the rescue. However Stewart, a desk jockey, showed up to "deal with the media". When he got there he realised he was actually the most senior member of the fire service there, and took operational charge. He refused to allow the experienced firefighters to carry on, or for a paramedic to be lowered to help Mrs. Hume in situ. He wanted to bring the fireman who was already down there to the surface, but that man refused to leave Mrs. Hume.

The shaft was unstable. The reason she fell was that it had collapsed only about 36 hours previously, and nobody had realised. So it wasn't cordoned off and she wandered into it in the fog. However, the entire thrust of the story seems to be of experienced professionals saying it was doable and let's just do it, being countermanded by one man with limited or no practical experience, because "I would have to have a full risk assessment".

Did the mountain rescue team wait for a full risk assessment? Not that we know about. They just did it. But of course they weren't under Stewart's direct command.

The other report also referred to a specialist mine rescue service who should have been called, but Stewart didn't make any attempt to contact them either, but just stood around waiting to see what would happen.

Of course there are situations so dangerous that emergency personnel have to think of their own safety. But there's a lot about this situation that suggests this wasn't one of them, or not to the extent where it was an unacceptable or suicidal thing to do.

Rolfe.

 

[TX50]

The entire executive of that pathetic fire service should be sent on a study trip to "Ground Zero" in New york. To show them how real firemen are supposed to behave.