Rope-rescue operations fall into the high-risk/low-frequency category of incidents for most fire departments. Because of their rarity, training for them probably does not receive the priority it should, especially when the potential complexities of the rescue operation and the hazards to response personnel and the victim are considered.

Equipment and methods for high-angle rescue continue to improve and evolve. Rescue incidents are evaluated, research and testing is performed, papers are written, and presentations are made. The consensus standards, such as ASTM and NFPA, that establish performance levels for training and equipment are reviewed and updated every five years. If your department has a rope-rescue protocol in place — or has not developed one, but has the potential for high-angle rescue incident — you also should consider reviewing it on a regular basis. Here are some common misconceptions that are worth a second look as part of that review process.

Misconception No. 1: Rescue hardware for the fire service is required to be made from steel

While the fire service traditionally has used steel carabiners — and sometimes, but not always, steel descenders, anchor plates and other hardware — it never has been required by a standard. There are several reasons why some departments thought steel was required, but testing has proved that none of those reasons are valid.

Strength: Hardware currently is classified in NFPA 1983, Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services, as G (general use), L (light use) or E (escape), depending upon its intended use. General use has the highest performance requirement, which in the current edition is 40kN (8992 lbf.) for carabiners. There are aluminum-alloy carabiners that easily meet this standard, and which offer the added advantage of weighing half as much as their steel counterparts. That can be a savings of several pounds or more for the firefighter climbing up a structure to perform a rescue. Using lighter equipment will reduce fatigue and allow your firefighters to carry more equipment. It also could reduce the number of personnel required to perform the rescue operation.

Durability: It was said that if you dropped aluminum hardware it would develop microscopic fractures that could later fail under load. When several manufacturers of rescue carabiners were asked if this was true, the answer was "it isn't an issue with the alloys used today."

When a piece of hardware is dropped accidentally in one of our classes, we immediately pull it out of service and log the distance it fell, the surface upon which it impacted, the ambient temperature and other data. Later we destructively test (break) those dropped items. We have yet to see one fail below specification.

Upon hearing that account, a major manufacturer of carabiners conducted its own tests, also under controlled conditions. They dropped dozens of aluminum carabiners from 27 and 54 feet onto concrete and asphalt paving, with similar results. How the carabiner lands — which is beyond our control — affects the outcome of the test, but the fact remains that overall there was no significant loss of strength due to the drops. Of course, no one is suggesting that you pre-drop your rescue hardware. Any hardware — aluminum or steel — that has been subjected to a significant impact should be taken out of service.

Temperature: Aluminum begins to corrode and weaken rapidly above a temperature range of 190°C to 204°C (375°F to 400°F), but who is performing rescue operations in those conditions? Is that really a concern? Most firefighter emergency-escape anchors and descent devices intended for exposure to fireground temperatures are made of aluminum.

Corrosion: Aluminum does corrode when exposed to certain chemicals and steel will rust. If you are working in corrosive atmospheric conditions, you should consider using stainless-steel hardware. If the conditions are that corrosive, you also should be cognizant of what those chemicals are doing to your rope, your protective clothing and your firefighters.

Misconception No. 2: Safety knots are required

This is a subject on which we at CMC Rescue have turned 180 degrees. In the earlier editions of the CMC Rope Rescue Manual, we included the statement, "A knot is not a knot until it is tied off." Other rope-rescue manuals have similar statements. After many years of observation and study we have abandoned that position and in the fourth edition of our manual the above statement is absent. What changed our position from this previously accepted practice?

First, consider the safety knots themselves. Safety knots have varied over the years as rescue ropes have evolved. Thirty-five years ago, when three-strand Goldline was the state-of-the-art rope, the half hitch was considered the proper safety knot — if one was used at all. It was not particularly effective and usually untied with very little movement of the rope, but it did provide a sense of security. Eventually, the overhand knot became the accepted safety knot, because it was thought to be more secure than the half hitch. But when the more-flexible kernmantle ropes moved from climbing and caving into rescue — replacing Goldline rope, which hardened as it was used — the overhand knot was viewed as insecure and the double-overhand knot became the standard.