That said, not all departments are leaping into making the transition so rapidly. For starters, it can be very costly to make this transition because, depending on what other equipment is being used, things like rope grabs and descenders must also be replaced at the same time. It is very important to ensure that all critical life safety components that are diameter dependent be matched to the rope diameter being used. If you are using bollard type descenders like the CT Sparrow, Skylotec Sirius, or Petzl ID, these are very diameter dependent and would need to be replaced when you go to 11mm. This is also true for rope grab devices such as the Grip and Rescucender. On the other hand, if you are using adjustable friction devices such as the brake rack, prusiks, etc, the same size device can be used on both diameters of rope. When it comes to prusiks, the 8mm diameter prusiks used by most rescuers on 12.5mm (1/2” rope) will also work on 11mm, but it does behave differently so – as with all cord-on-rope configurations – you should do your own testing/experiments specific to your application to make sure that the two are working together in the manner that you prefer.

As far as performance properties… to get a bit of perspective here we can take a step back and consider how we ever got caught up in the half-inch rope philosophy in the first place. It’s a simple story, really… in the early 1980’s the IAFF wrote a whitepaper that said a rope should be able to withstand a 2-person load of 600lbf with at least a 15:1 safety factor. In those days, we used laid ropes and it took a 5/8” or ¾” rope to get to 9,000lbf, and before you know it standards writers and rescue trainers were singing this tune.

Despite that first standard being only a few pages long, there were a lot of things in it that have perpetuated misinformation ever since. Things like having to discard rope after use, 15:1 safety factors, ½” rope, and more. Some of this was a result of limitations in materials and products in those days, but much was because the standards writers took the approach of being design restrictive rather than writing a performance based standards. In subsequent years since, standards writers have worked hard to try to un-do some of these misperceptions, and with each passing edition the standard seems to become less design-based and increasingly performance-oriented.

By the time the first NFPA 1983 standard was rewritten in the early 1990’s kernmantle was on the scene, and it only took a 1/2” rope to get to 9,000lbf MBS, so suddenly ½” became the magic diameter. In subsequent editions of the standard, as the fire industry began to better understand the quality and performance of true life safety rope, smaller diameters and lower strengths would be permitted… including 11mm rope for ropes used for lighter weights, and diameters as small as 7.5mm for personal escape.

In fact, 11mm (and lower) diameter ropes have been permitted in context of NFPA for over a decade, and have been used in mountain rescue, cave rescue, rope access, and industry for even longer. Some of these environments are extremely harsh

The durability, abrasion resistance, flexibility, and stretch of an 11mm rope are all engineered features, just as they are in a 12.5mm.  I can show you 11mm ropes that are more durable than a 12.5mm rope, and vice-versa, just depends on materials and construction.

Earlier this year, PMI released a blog post talking about NFPA 2500 – what it is, what it might mean to you, and how to use it. If you want to review that information, you can find it on our website, at www.pmirope.com.

One of the things we talked about in that post was the release date of the NFPA 2500 document and just how long it might be before you actually see gear being marked to the new standard.

Today I am here to let you know about an important update to NFPA 2500; but if you haven’t reviewed the original post you might want to check that out too.

There are more than 30 people who are part of the NFPA Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment Committee that oversees NFPA 2500.  The people who sit on this committee are not just manufacturers, but also represent test labs, fire departments, training companies, rescue teams, and more.  NFPA standards development processes are compliant with ANSI protocol, and prevent any one interest group from becoming a majority. This may come as a surprise to some who might believe that standards are written by and for manufacturers themselves.

The NFPA 2500 standard combines what used to be three separate documents… NFPA 1983 (which was equipment focused); NFPA 1858 (which provided selection use and care information) and NFPA 1670 (which outlines team competency for Technical Rescue.) Now, the substance of all three of those documents is contained in just one standard.

This is important, because if you are a fire department you might be accustomed to looking for markings on your equipment that say NFPA 1983, along with some year-reference.

But pretty soon the equipment you’re used to seeing with these markings is going to be marked NFPA 2500, with (1983) in parenthesis, and then the effective year – in this case, 2022. This standard is updated once every five years, so it will be awhile before that effective date is changed again.

Here’s where the new information comes in.  In our previous post, we talked about the fact that the standard was released in 2021, with a 2022 effective date, and we talked about how manufacturers were given a deadline of September 2022 to get all their gear re-tested and re-marked to the new standard.

However, earlier this year NFPA released a Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA), extending that deadline for an additional six months, due to administrative delays.

As a result of this change, marking to the new NFPA 2500 (1983) 2022 standard, which was released all the way back in 2021, is actually not required until early 2023!

Please keep in mind that there is no limit on when you have to stop buying or using equipment that is marked to older versions of the NFPA 1983 standard; in fact, most of the provisions and requirements for equipment testing have not really changed.  There are no NFPA requirements to stop using certain equipment, there are no particular hazards or concerns associated with continuing to use gear marked to a previous version of the NFPA standards. Their only rule is that as of Spring 2023 MANUFACTURERS have to stop selling equipment marked to the 2017 edition of 1983.

Stay vertical, and keep on climbing with PMI!

<< Back to Part 2

“Unless you are a fire department, NFPA is probably not the right resource to guide you”

On the topic of standards and regulation, sometimes people look to NFPA 1983 for guidance in selecting a harness for rescue. Unless you are a fire department, NFPA is probably not the right resource to guide you, but let’s start there anyway.

NFPA 1983 is a manufacturing standard, and acknowledges two types of harnesses: Class II and Class III – the former being a Seat Harness style, and the latter being a Full Body harness style. This standard is largely written by and for urban/municipal fire department personnel, with the result being that many rescuers in the large, urban fire departments do wear Class 3 full body harnesses. Even so, the standard does still allow for seat harnesses – primarily for the benefit of the large proportion of rural or small town fire departments that do not see the frequency of industrial accidents and who may not need full body harnesses.

NFPA 1858 is the user-companion document to NFPA 1983; it is intended to help address some of these kinds of questions and can be viewed here.  The bit of this standard that deals with harnesses is section 5.4. It explains that the organization shall consider its needs for performance or features – and then has an appendix dialog (A5.4) which says (among other things): Specialized harnesses might be required for different types of operations and then goes on to describe the differences between Class II and Class III, finishing with the statement that “While both types of harnesses are capable of fall arrest, the most commonly used industrial fall protection attachment points are sternal or dorsal, which requires a full body harness. NFPA 1983 requires that both the Class 2 and Class 3 harnesses pass a head-down drop test to verify the harness will not allow the user to fall out of it.” Again, you can see here, both harnesses are considered appropriate for vertical work, and the main reason for using a Class 3 harness would be to accommodate industrial fall protection connections such as are common to fire departments in urban environments – which, again, is the primary population served by this NFPA equipment standard.

NFPA 1983 can also be viewed online, free of charge, here. If you look at paragraph 1.1.5, you will see that it specifically states that “this standard shall not specify requirements for any rope or associated equipment designed for mountain rescue, cave rescue, lead climbing operations, or where hazards and situations dictate other performance requirements.” So, what this says is that, according to the NFPA 1983 standard, the NFPA 1983 standard doesn’t apply to you if you are engaging in mountain rescue operations.

“what are your criteria for choosing a harness?”

A more applicable standard relative to Mountain Rescue activities is ASTM F1772, Standard Specification for Harnesses for Rescue and Sport Activities. This standard is promulgated by the ASTM F32 Committee on Search and Rescue, which is written by and for members of mountain rescue teams, rather than the fire service.

The ASTM F1772 standard “covers harnesses for human use in technical rope rescue and climbing, mountaineering, caving, canyoneering, and other rope-based sport activities” (para 1.1) and further clarifies that “Due to the diverse requirements of various rescue activities and environments, any of the included harness types may be suitable for rescue, including those marketed principally for climbing” (para. 5.3).  The standard specifications and test methods found in this standard are essentially analogous to those found in the UIAA 105 harness standard and the European EN 12277 standard.

So, what are your criteria for choosing a harness? As a mountain rescuer, I would suggest

• Wide enough waistbelt and leg loops to allow the harness to be comfortably worn in suspension for a reasonable period of time
• A low enough ventral attachment point to be able to lead climb if you need to
• A high enough ventral attachment point to allow the wearer to sit reasonably upright
• Lightweight enough to be able to comfortably carry and use in the backcountry
• Low profile enough to permit the kinds of agility usually required in mountain and wilderness environments
• Not a lot of metallic parts to conflict with mountaineering gear
• Highly adjustable for different weather/clothing situations

If you are a fire department or an industrial rescue team doing mostly industrial/urban operations, NFPA Class III would be a very appropriate standard for you to use as a reference.

If you are a fire department that does mostly urban-interface operations, an NFPA 1983 Class II harness would be a very appropriate standard for you to use as a reference; or, if you want extra weight to carry, an NFPA Class III harness would work also.

If you are a mountain, wilderness, or cave rescue team, an ASTM F1772 harness – or a European equivalent – makes a lot more sense for you.

Hopefully, this information will help provide at least some guidance that will result in the most appropriate harness choice for your application, and will also help purchasing agents to realize how a “more-is-better” approach could actually result in increased risk to rescuers.

This will enable you to better utilize the same sorts of industrial fall protection equipment used in these types of workplaces.  This, incidentally, is why you see many urban municipal fire departments using full-body, industrial-type harnesses for rescue – most of their responses are to those kinds of workplaces, and they generally can drive their truck to within a short distance of the subject. We will talk about standards in a moment, but typically this is what we refer to as an NFPA Class III harness. These will typically weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 pounds, and cost around $300-500 and upward, depending on features.
On the other hand, if you are a fire department with relatively few industrial callouts, but mainly working in the urban-interface of parks with cliff faces, car-over-the-edge, or similar areas, a full body harness is probably overkill – especially if you need greater agility. In this case you might more appropriately consider a Seat Harness, such as an NFPA Class II or an ASTM 1772 harness. You’ll find these weighing in at 2-4 pounds and at a cost around $200-300, again depending on features.

However, if the majority of your rescue operations are in a mountain or wilderness environment, you are likely much better served to consider choosing something akin to a climbing harness, but with more padding and adjustability. Most importantly, you will probably want to avoid metal D rings (and the alignment challenges they present) so that you can better utilize the same sorts of mountaineering equipment used in such environments and so that it is not too heavy. This is why you see so many rural, wilderness, or backcountry rescue teams using climbing style seat harnesses for safety – because most of their responses are to mountain environments where this type of gear is most appropriate – and they often have to carry gear a great distance. These might meet ASTM 1772 or a European equivalent standard will weigh around 1 pound, and can often be purchased for under $100.

Each of these types of harnesses is perfectly safe and appropriate for working at height, in suspension, but their different features make them more appropriate to different applications. Kind of the same reason we don’t wear turnout boots or bunker gear in the backcountry. Trying to use industrial rescue equipment in wilderness environments would make about as much sense as trying to use wilderness rescue equipment in industrial environments. Although there may be some crossover with a limited range of equipment, the criteria for choosing is quite different.

“A belay is a standard operating procedure”

The topic of belay in co-worker assisted rescue is one that tends to get people worked up, perhaps because so many of us have roots in professional rescue such as fire departments and rescue teams. A belay is a standard operating procedure in Professional Rescue environments, and a rescuer would scarcely think of performing a rescue without one.

On the surface, then, it would seem that employing a belay would only make sense in a workplace environment as well.

“This topic has been heavily debated in ANSI Z359.4 Subcommittee meetings”

From a practical perspective, however, this doesn’t always bear out. This topic has been heavily debated in ANSI Z359.4 Subcommittee meetings, and OSHA has addressed the matter as well at both state and federal levels. All end up at the same general premise: After a fall, the fallen worker needs to be rescued as safely and expeditiously as possible – but it is highly unlikely that use of a belay would be reasonably achievable in most such cases, and even where it may be feasible it may not be desirable.  The interpretation letter at OSHA website provides a nice overview.

Regulatory authorities and practitioners with the most experience seem to land at the same conclusion: Self-Rescue and Co-Worker Assisted Rescue practices may, but are not required to, include the use of some means of secondary belay. In fact, in some cases a belay could expose rescuers to additional hazard (e.g., where it would be precarious to attach a secondary system, where redundant systems may be likely to become entangled or create a snag, or where a belay could easily be inadvertently activated and leave the rescuer[s] and/or subject[s] in a precarious position).

“A belay should definitely be considered”

Careful consideration should be given to whether a given situation warrants the additional complexity and manpower for a belay. A belay should definitely be considered where:

• There is a high likelihood of failure of the main system.
• The primary raising/lowering system being used for rescue does not automatically stop/lock if the user lets go.
• The protection provided by the belay outweighs the potential hazards that the belay might create.

Belay systems are appropriate only when they protect against a credible threat, when it is safe to operate them, and when they prove to increase survivability for the rescuer and patient.

In short, there are pro’s and con’s to belaying… and while most organizations do favor the use of belays during training evolutions, in a real situation where self-rescue or co-worker assisted rescue is being performed, belay is optional.

Here at PMI we are committed to safety and compliance in equipment for work at height. In fact, we participate in several professional standards development efforts related to ropes, equipment, and training for high angle work and rescue.

In 1992 I was operating a research and testing lab called Alpine Center for Rescue Studies when Steve Hudson approached me and asked if I would represent PMI to the NFPA 1983 committee. Since then I have participated in this and several other NFPA committees including as chairman of NFPA 1958 and as an inaugural member of NFPA 1670.

Those of you who use, or are subject to, NFPA standards for rescue equipment, operations, and training should be aware of some upcoming changes to the NFPA standards that may impact your world.

—Watch the video or keep reading—

“Familiar documents”

A meeting was recently held to discuss the first draft of what will become an NFPA Consolidated Technical Rescue document, soon to be known as NFPA 2500. The official title of NFPA 2500 is: Standards for Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Incidents and Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services. Don’t let the fancy title throw you, though. This NFPA 2500 is nothing more than a bundled package containing three documents with which you are probably already familiar:

NFPA 1983 – Standard on Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services

NFPA 1858 – Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services

And

NFPA 1670 – Standard on Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Incidents

The first, most obvious question is WHY is NFPA doing this?!

“NFPA 2500 is nothing more than a bundled package”

NFPA’s theory in all of this is simple. They want to make the standards more user-friendly while at the same time making them less expensive and time consuming to develop. According to the NFPA website, they’ve got over 250 committees managing more than three hundred standards documents…  with requests on the table for at least a hundred more! By bundling like-documents related PPE and Pro Qual, they’ll be taking 116 separate documents and consolidating them down to 48 –  theoretically reducing the time investment and travel for meeting required by the more than 9,000 committee members who write them.

In implementing these changes, NFPA has acknowledged that there are two things firefighters hate:

1. change, and
2. when things stay the same.

So, with this in mind, they are going to accommodate all of us:

First, by changing the way the standards are packaged, and

Second, by keeping the existing reference numbers the same,

so if someone wants to implement just one of the standards in a group you can still do that.

“Combination of the three”

Chapter 1 of the new NFPA 2500 will be kind of an umbrella, outlining the scope of the entire document.  In chapter 1,  each of the existing standards: NFPA 1983, NFPA 1858, and NFPA 1670, will still be called out and identified by name, so your AHJ will be able to continue to adopt whatever it is you already use without having to change any terminology or numerical references. You can choose to adopt just NFPA 1983, just NFPA 1858,  just NFPA 1670, or some combination of the three.

“The meat of the document begins”

The way the new NFPA 2500 is organized you’ll find Chapters 1-3 just to be administrative oversite information. The new chapter 1 is just that high-level overview we talked about, explaining how the documents are bundled. Chapter 2 is nothing more than a list of references – same as it is now – and Chapter 3 is definitions. Then the meat of the document begins. Chapters 4-23 will be the content that you presently know as NFPA 1670.  It will still be called NFPA 1670, so if you presently use 1670 for Training and Operations you will still be able to do that. Chapters 24-28 will be the content that you presently know as NFPA 1983. Again, it will still carry the numerical designator NFPA 1983, so the equipment you’re buying will still have that reference number on it.

And, finally, Chapters 29-35 will be the content that you presently know as NFPA 1858.

“NFPA 1858 just released a year or so ago”

You might not even be familiar with this 1858 document yet, because it was just released a couple of years ago. It is designed to provide guidance for Selection, Care and Maintenance of NFPA 1983 Rope Rescue Equipment.

After this, you will find all of the Annexes and Reference Materials for all three of these documents.

Now, there’s just one thing we want to add, and that is: DON’T SHOOT THE MESSENGER!!!

Rest assured, this was not PMI’s idea! Although Loui McCurley from PMI has sat on the committee for more than 20 years, she is just one of many members. This action was mandated by the NFPA, not chosen by the committee… so committee members are just doing the best they can to try to catch NFPA’s VISION for this and carry it out in time for a GOOD standard to be produced in 2020. Although we didn’t create it, PMI is – as always – going to do our level best to walk with you, support you, and assist you in navigating this change with as little impact as possible on your organization.

We’d love to hear your comments and questions here, and will try to answer any specific questions you might have along the way.