By Stephen Eller
When I first started in the fire service 15 years ago, I learned rope rescue with brake bar racks, load-releasing hitches, figure 8s and tandem Prusik belays. I remember instructors throwing out all kinds of NFPA standards, but they rarely elaborated on where they came from or what exactly they meant.
In the context of the life safety rope and equipment used by fire crews across the country, let’s explore NFPA 1983 and the questions I was curious about in my early years on the job: What was the origin of NFPA 1983? Was NFPA 1983 a law that governed us, or was it geared toward the manufacturers of our equipment? Was there a more efficient way of building systems, and how well tested is the equipment we use?
| WEBINAR: Smarter specs: How to optimize fire apparatus design
Of course, it’s important to note that you may not see “NFPA 1983” stamped on new hardware and equipment anymore, as on Sept. 15, 2021, three NFPA standards — NFPA 1858, NFPA 1983 and NFPA 1670 — were consolidated into one standard, NFPA 2500: Standard for Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Incidents and Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services. NFPA 1983 still exists, and equipment without the stamp or with both NFPA 1983 and 2500 is still serviceable.
Where did NFPA 1983 come from?
On June 27, 1980, two FDNY Rescue 3 firefighters, Gerald Frisby and Larry Fitzpatrick, were killed after falling from the seventh floor of a building. Fitzpatrick was lowered from the roof of a working fire on a half-inch nylon rope that was 150 feet in length to Frisby, who was trapped at a window. With the rope supporting the weight of both men, the line snapped and they fell to their deaths.
After this tragic event, the IAFF published a white paper titled “Line to Safety.” The opening of the white paper, which set the groundwork for the first edition of NFFA 1983, stated that while a 7:1 and 10:1 safety factor was adequate for industry use, it was “inadequate for critical rescue use.” This is where you begin to hear that a two-person load is 600 pounds, a 15:1 safety factor is ideal, and the minimum breaking strength (MBS) of rope equipment had to be at least 9,000 pounds.
It is important to know that during this period, ropes had to be thicker than a half-inch to meet this requirement. For example, the paper mentions five-eighths-inch and three-quarter-inch rope. But where did these numbers come from?
After the events of June 27, 1980, the fire service, the IAFF and the NFPA technical committee wanted rope and rope equipment to be over-engineered to mitigate unknown factors, abuse of the rope, and misuse caused by rescuers.
After the IAFF released its white paper, the NFPA technical committee developed NFPA 1983: Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and System Components. This standard was released on June 6, 1985, and was just five pages in total. Over the next 40 years, this document saw many revisions and additions. NFPA 1983 has gone from five pages to upwards of 90, and the name changed to NFPA 1983: Standard on Life Safety Rope and Equipment for Emergency Services.
What did NFPA 1983 cover?
Before we cover safety factors, it is important to note that there were no prescribed loads or ratios; your department is the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). This standard simply tells manufacturers how to create, design, test and label the equipment. You and your department must decide what gear and load limits meet the needs of your response area.
NFPA 1983 contained three main categories of life-safety rope and equipment. Those categories are escape use, general use and technical use (once called light use).
We’ll focus here on general use and technical use:
- General use rope and connectors must have an MBS of 40kN/9,000 pounds.
- Technical use rope is 20 kN/4,500 pounds, and carabiners are now 22 kN/4,950 pounds.
During the creation of NFPA 1983, a 10:1 safety factor was observed in other industries, and the NFPA committee pushed to have the requirement raised to a 15:1 specifically for ropes. You may be asking yourself why 15:1 and not 10:1. This is because most knots placed in a rope reduce the strength of the rope by one-third. In reducing 15 by one-third, you would be able to maintain a 10:1 safety ratio.
The NFPA technical committee calculates the 15:1 safety factor by using a 300-pound load for each rescuer or the patient on the rope system. General use equipment can support a two-person load (600 pounds), and technical use can support a one-person load (300 pounds).
- For general use, the math looks like this: 2 x 300 pounds x 15 = 9,000 pounds, which is roughly 40kN.
- For technical use, it’s 1 x 300 pounds x 15 = 4,500 pounds, which is around 20kN.
At this point, you’re probably wondering why a system rated at 4,500 pounds can’t support a load of more than two people, and this is where it’s important to maintain your training and skills. You must understand how a 300-pound load is going to transfer through the entire system from the load to the anchor and at any change of direction in between the two points. When NFPA 1983 was created, there wasn’t a lot of information on the effects of shock-loading rope and hardware, the degradation of nylon and polyester over time, and the infinite number of human errors/what-ifs that can occur in a rope system. Luckily today that’s all just an online search away.
Furthermore, if you’re purchasing equipment, training with equipment, or inspecting your equipment, you’ll likely notice that some of the hardware meets and exceeds the 40kN rating while other hardware may not. Why is this? The committee that wrote NFPA 1983 groups equipment into different categories:
Ropes/software:
- G Rated 40kN
- T Rated 22kN
Carabiners:
- G Rated 40kN,11kN on the minor axis with the gate open
- T Rated 22kN, 7kN on the minor axis with the gate open
Pulleys:
- G Rated 36kN, 22kN on the becket
- T Rated 18kN, 11kN on the becket
- Portable anchors
- G Rated 36kN
- T Rated 18kN
Advancements over 40 years
Rescue equipment has improved tremendously in the last 40 years. In the 80s and 90s, fewer than a dozen pieces of equipment were designed specifically for rescue and engineered to our needs. Today we get to choose from a large variety of equipment. But that can make it difficult to pick the best device/manufacturers for teaching purposes.
In the early years, the figure 8 descender, bar rack and load-releasing hitch were must-haves in every rescue cache. Now that CMC clutches and Aztecs are becoming more common, how do we decide what devices to teach from? Do the clutches and Aztecs take the place of the “old-school” devices? Which setup do you decide to teach first, or do you just pick one over the other? These are questions without easy answers, but I believe we must draw the line somewhere and decide to progress with the times instead of doing things the way we always have.
With advances in equipment come advances in skills and how we handle building the systems. We must begin to look at the devices that can limit the forces that are applied to our systems. For example, look at the benefits of twin tensioned rope systems (TTRS) (figure 1) compared with single tensioned mainline (STM) and untensioned belays) (figure 2).
During the International Technical Rescue Symposium in 2014, significant attention was paid to devices that can limit the forces applied to rope systems. Essentially devices like the Petzl Maestro, Petzl ID and CMC clutch can all “slip” at predictable values without damaging the rope or the system. CMC conducted a test of the clutch in which they used nine different ropes, both 13mm and 11mm, from a variety of manufacturers. The test concluded that the clutch slipped between 4.59kN (1032lbf) and 11.15kN (2507lbf) (see figure 3).
Why does this matter to us? It means devices shouldn’t break or explode like originally thought when the 15:1 safety factor was a new thing. When looking at the TTRS systems compared with the STM and UTB systems, researchers have proven the efficiency and benefits of the TTRS, including the integrity of the rope from damage, fall distance and reduced force from impact.
Keep in mind that with the TTRS system comes a human reaction time when configured in a lowering setup. Some studies have shown that when one line is cut away, the operator may have a delayed reaction realizing the load is falling and releasing the handles, which could result in a large fall or in some cases making ground contact.
Where do we go from here?
The main thing that we as rescue professionals must do is stay proficient in our skills and our understanding of systems and stay informed about what the current equipment is capable of. We are truly our own worst enemies when we stick with the status quo based on comfort or complacency or we don’t keep up with advancements in standards and equipment. Those who call on us in their time of need desperately need us to be on our A game and proficient in our skills. It’s my opinion that far too often we get complacent and accustomed to the way it’s always been. Learn the whys behind how things are done and don’t be afraid to ask questions and seek the answers that you need.
Since the creation of NFPA 1983, a significant number of changes in equipment have made building systems easier and allow us to carry less equipment. Early on there weren’t many classes available, and very few understood rope and hardware outside of industrial work, caving and mountain climbing. With professionals not only seeking training under the fire service but also venturing out into the world of industrial rope work, including the Society of Professional Rope Access Technicians (SPRAT) and the Industrial Rope Access Trade Association (IRATA), I can only imagine the advancements we’ll see in training, skills and equipment in the years to come.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Stephen Eller is a career firefighter with over 15 years of service currently working for the Anderson Fire Department in South Carolina. A seasoned responder and team leader, he specializes in technical rescue operations, including rope rescue, confined space, trench collapse, and structural collapse. Eller is currently assigned to a ladder company and is one of the rescue managers over the Tech Rescue Team developing training for the team.
REFERENCES
- Mauthner, K. (2014). Does evidence support an un-tensioned back-up (belay)? [Digital Video]. Golden, CO: International Technical Rescue Symposium.
- Mauthner, K. (2016). EMBC Rope Rescue NIF Equipment Testing Summary Report. Invermere, BC.
- McCullar, J. (2015). An Analysis of Traditional and Two Tensioned Rope Systems. Portland, OR: International Technical Rescue Symposium.
- McCullar, J., Walker, DJ. (2014). Slow Pull Testing of Progress Capture Devices. Denver, CO: International Technical Rescue Symposium.
- CMC Clutch Slip Test 13mm
