Roco Rescue



NDSC to Host Roco Rescue Training

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Join us in Bismarck, ND, for Roco’s Industrial I/II course at the Safety Council’s new training facility. The NDSC has an indoor confined space rescue prop designed with input from Roco Rescue. Click here (or the picture) to download the flyer information.

This course is for industrial and municipal rescuers who handle confined space and high angle rescues in industrial environments. Course dates are November 13-17, 2017.

Call the NDSC at 800-932-8890 for more information; or contact Roco at 800-647-7626. We will also be conducting additional Roco courses at the NDSC in 2018.

read more 

Planning for Successful Confined Space Rescue

Thursday, September 21, 2017

By Dennis O'Connell, Roco Director of Training & Chief Instructor

I am often asked by plant managers or rescue team supervisors about getting their team on the right track as far as training and competency is concerned. Here are a few tips for doing just that…

First of all, I always recommend that they choose a single provider for their confined space and high angle rescue training. Using multiple training providers (even if they are similar) adds to the confusion of team members as to what techniques and equipment are being used – especially during a real rescue!

I then suggest that the team’s training records be reviewed in order to determine what level of training has been completed. I also strongly recommend getting everyone to the same level; especially if your facility is what I refer to as an “island unto itself.” In other words, do you have nearby facilities or other local agencies who can offer additional manpower, equipment, etc. in an emergency – or, are you fairly isolated?

Same Page, Same Language
If your facility is somewhat isolated, getting all your rescue team members on the same page, talking the same language, and at the same level of training is extremely important. You may have some experienced rescuers who have completed a variety of courses from different providers and are trained to different levels. Is this previous training properly documented should you be asked about it and to what levels? Having everyone on the same level – with the same basics under their belt – is key to performing a timely and successful rescue
And, do you have a particular goal or level you want your team to strive for, achieve, and maintain? Determining your overall goal for the team is significant in planning for and achieving results. Haphazard training “just for the sake of training” is not necessarily a good thing, and it tends to generate complacency among team members. Besides the obvious, your team “needs to be able to perform a rescue should the need arise.”

Is It Documented?
Take a look at how the training was conducted, documented and what standards were met, if any. And, if you have permit spaces or personnel working at height, I’m assuming that OSHA compliance is a given, but what about meeting requirements of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for rescuers; namely, NFPA 1006 and 1670.

If there is an incident and OSHA or some other regulatory organization were to investigate, how would you provide the documentation that your team is capable of doing what is required of them? Remember, if it can’t be documented, it doesn’t exist!
Using NFPA 1670 (“team” standards) and NFPA 1006 (“individual rescuer” standards) as a basis for the team’s training level will help to provide the needed documentation and add to the credibility of your team’s capabilities. Ideally, all your team members should be certified to the Confined Space Rescue Technician level (NFPA 1006) along with the documentation to back it up.

Because NFPA’s Confined Space Rescue Technician includes confined space and high angle (elevated) rope techniques, I don’t necessary suggest that industrial clients be required to achieve “Rope Rescue Technician.” The added skills of Rope Rescue Technician include less-seldom-used techniques in industrial rescue such as rope ascension and traverse. Do make sure, however, that the course you choose for Confined Space Rescue Technician incorporates some (not all) of the high angle skills you would need to perform elevated rescue at your site.

A Mix of Confined Space and Rope Rescue

If you have a variety of experience and training levels among your team members, it’s important to get them consistently trained and all trained to the same level. Of course, I would recommend Roco’s Fast Track 80™ course, which includes a two-year certification. This course was designed to meet the needs of industrial facilities with a mix between “confined space” and “rope” technician skills needed. The class is geared for confined space rescue with some of the additional rope technician skills needed for elevated or high angle rescue. The class efficiently gets the rescuer to the Confined Space Rescue Technician level in only 80 hours using both performance-based and written testing.

Of course, the next challenge is getting the entire team trained to the same level. It’s not going to be easy to get an entire team released for training all at once – thus compromising the availability of rescue personnel onsite should an emergency arise. Therefore, you may have to run a couple of classes to get everyone certified – or send some of your team (or new team members) to an open-enrollment course.

Testing to the NFPA 1006 Professional Qualifications standard is conducted on the last day of the Fast Track 80™ class. Note: If some of your personnel have already completed this class, they can join the class for the last four days in order to be recertified. This will allow the new members and more experienced team members to work together in realistic practice scenarios. It will help get everyone on the same page as far as techniques plus give the experienced personnel a 3-day refresher and practice time before re-certification testing.

Training Cycle for Compliance
Once all team members are trained to the same level, I recommend going to a two-year rotation. For example, once everyone is certified, the next year would be a Roco Team Performance Evaluation (TPE) where we come for two-to-three days and run teamed-based evaluations using multiple rescue scenarios. Each scenario is critiqued by evaluators to adjust any problems found along the way. The TPE would be followed by a written report to document the scenarios conducted as well as discrepancies found and corrected. The following year would be Re-certification to NFPA 1006 (three-to-four-day session) that includes Individual Performance Evaluations (IPE) where team members would refresh personal skills as well as run several scenarios before testing for re-certification to Confined Space Technician level.
This rotation will help with OSHA compliance by meeting the minimum annual practice requirements as well as by providing a performance evaluation of rescue services as stated in Note to paragraph (k)(1) from 1910.146: “Non-mandatory Appendix F contains examples of criteria which employers can use in evaluating prospective rescuers as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section.”
In addition, both OSHA 1910.146 and 1926.1211 require timely and capable rescue services for permit spaces. They also require minimum annual rescue practice in the applicable types of confined spaces as well as proficiency for team members. This cycle of training works well in documenting that you have met these minimum requirements while also meeting the requirements of NFPA.

The TPE supporting documentation also provides a “snapshot” of where your team and its individual rescuers stand in terms of competency. This information can then be used as a tool to design internal drills that correct any discrepancies while getting the most from your “all too limited” practice time.

I hope these recommendations are helpful in planning for the success of your rescue team – especially when it’s all on the line during an emergency situation. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to call me at 800-647-7626 or send an email to
read more 

Keeping Pace with Fall Protection

Tuesday, August 08, 2017

We all know that initial safety training is a crucial element of our programs that aim to keep our employees protected from harm at work. For any and all hazards (or potential hazards} to which we expose our workers, we must ensure they understand the nature of the hazards and how to protect themselves.

Initial safety training and proper safety equipment, combined with good old-fashioned experience, goes a long way in ensuring a safe work environment. But, at times, we must provide re-training for our employees – and there are many reasons for this.
For example, if our employees demonstrate a lack of knowledge or acceptable performance in regards to any particular hazard, we must provide re-training. If the process or equipment changes, we must provide re-training. If new safety equipment (includes systems as well) is brought into the program, we must re-train our employees on its proper use. And, finally, if there are changes to safety legislation or best-known practices, we need to re-train.

It seems that every week a new piece of fall protection equipment is brought to market – and for the most part, these emerging technologies make work-at-height safer than ever before. Additionally, these newer fall protection items tend to be lighter, more comfortable, easier to operate, and can even perform multiple safety functions. This is all great news, but not every item/system is right for the varied situations encountered at our workplaces. But when we do introduce a new piece of fall protection equipment to our workforce, it nearly universally calls for some degree of re-training. The manufacturer’s instructions for use may be a great starting point to satisfy this training, but it is always a good idea to provide some degree of formal training on the equipment, and then document that training.

The extent of this re-training is dependent on the complexity of the new equipment and the authorized person’s general knowledge base. Sometimes the user manual does not cover all the points that the re-training should convey. For example, harness-mounted self-retracting lifelines are becoming more and more prevalent in the work-at-height environment. In addition to the standard training for pre-use and periodic inspections, proper mounting, operating capabilities and limitations, at least one other point of training seems to be required. The worker cannot walk too quickly away from their anchorage lest they engage the arresting mechanism which abruptly stops the worker in their tracks. This may at times create a new hazard by jerking the worker off balance or causing them to drop objects they may have been carrying. I have even heard some tales of individuals suffering minor injuries due to the sudden stop. So, even though you may not find this point of training in the user’s manual, it comes with experience and should be included in the re-training for this type of new equipment.

Another reason to provide re-training for fall protection has to do with an observed deficiency in an authorized person’s knowledge or performance regarding fall protection. Now this can become a little tricky to find the root cause of the deficiency. Is it truly a lack of knowledge on the authorized person’s part, or is it a disregard for required procedures? Sometimes it's a mix of both. No matter the primary cause of the deficiency, if that authorized person is to remain on that job, it is incumbent on the employer to provide proper re-training. And I will say it again, document that re-training!

We have recently had a significant legislative change to the general industry standard for fall protection. On Nov. 18, 2016, OSHA 1910 Subpart D “Walking-Working Surfaces” was published and became effective on Jan 18, 2017. The major changes to this final rule have to do with physical changes to existing and future structures regarding the phase-in of ladder safety systems,

• Eliminating the outdated general industry requirements for scaffolds and adopting the construction industry’s scaffold standards,• Guidance on the use of rope descent systems and qualified climbers, as well as some other changes. But the most significant changes that will drive training and re-training requirements is the added flexibility of using personal fall protection systems for authorized persons. These personal fall protection systems include fall restraint, work positioning, and personal fall arrest systems (PFAS). OSHA has eliminated the mandate to use guardrail systems as the primary fall protection method and now allows the general industry employer to determine the fall protection method that they feel is best suited for the nature of the work at height. And this now includes personal fall protection which was not addressed prior.

For general industry employers, who prior to the new Subpart D did not allow their employees to use personal fall protection systems other than in accordance with 1910.66, the option to do so now will be deemed compliant. And, of course, this will require initial training and re-training for the use of personal fall protection equipment and systems. Additionally, employers that introduce the authorized use of work positioning and personal fall arrest systems to their workplace will also have to provide training on rescue of these workers if they are relying on an in-house rescue capability.

In the years I have been involved with safety and rescue training, one subtlety that I observe is this:

Oftentimes an employer or their employees do not realize they have a training deficiency until after they've gone through the training.
This is certainly true when it comes to rescue training. At the conclusion of nearly every rescue class I teach, at least one of the students says they never realized what all was involved in rescue and what the limitations of certain rescue systems were. And this is consistent with my interviews and reviews of rescue programs when I am asked to perform needs assessments at various facilities. Unless you have a background in technical rescue, it is very difficult to visualize the systems, skills, and equipment required to safely access and rescue a fallen/suspended victim.

Both OSHA and ANSI require employers to provide "prompt rescue" of employees they authorize to work at height while using personal fall arrest systems. OSHA has published a Safety and Health Information Bulletin recognizing suspension trauma as a workplace hazard affecting workers that use personal fall arrest systems. Many employers address rescue of fallen/suspended workers in their fall protection programs, but stop at merely developing written policies that may fall well short of the requirements needed at the time of an incident. This falls back to my earlier point that an employer that has a limited background and understanding of the complexities of performing rope rescue, especially if it requires technical skills beyond the simplest rescue, may not understand what the true requirements are for their facility. Sort of like that general saying last year that “We don’t know what we don’t know.” So, training for rescue is a subcategory of fall protection training that does not have as much easily accessed guidance and resources to rely on as a guide.

Quality training will include several of the points that I have detailed so far. The training will be pretty specific to the job with very little time spent on irrelevant material. The training will be of the type that best transfers the information in either a vocational or academic manner. The training will close the gaps that have been identified and arm the employer and the students with a better understanding of what is truly required to perform the job, which is especially true for rescue. But finally, the training should be delivered in such a manner that it captures the students’ interest. The best outcome of training, the classes where the student finishes with the highest level of retention, understanding and performance, are the classes that compel the students to engage in the learning.

I think it is a safe assumption to say that we have all sat through classes wondering when and hoping for the class to end. Looking at our watch is one thing, but when we are tapping it to see if it is even still working is a really bad sign. I am not suggesting that educators have to provide entertainment, but there is a demonstrated positive difference in classes delivered by an engaging trainer as compared to a very dull, monotonous trainer.

In addition to seeking an engaging trainer, it is important for the trainee to take some ownership in the learning process as well. This is where the adult learner has an advantage over younger learners. We as adults generally understand that the training will result in a better understanding of the job requirements and in many cases is a factor in career progression.

I encourage you to seek out the training that your employees need. Or, as an employee yourself, seek out quality, applicable training. Review the course syllabi and determine if it will close those knowledge and skills gaps that you have identified. Always back up those fancy sales brochures by reaching out to others to get their opinion on their experiences with the training in the past. Also, remember to consider re-training as needed and always document. These things are important for the overall quality and credibility of your safety training programs.

Article by Pat Furr, Safety Officer & VPP Coordinator for Roco Rescue, Inc. 

read more 

Roco CASEVAC II for Tactical Team Members

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Crank It Up a Notch with Roco’s CASEVAC II Training

It has been an honor for us to expand our support of our nation’s heroes to the greater SOCOM community. When we developed the TCCC CASEVAC Extraction kits and subsequent training, our goal was to assist operators around the world in saving the lives of their buddies in need. While SOCOM did a commendable job in bridging a broad capabilities gap with the CASEVAC Set, a training gap still exists for more advanced extraction training.

Roco trained over 700 operators within all four branches of our military during the time we offered NET courses at the Roco Training Center. Now that this training and equipment has been used in the field for a few years, we would like to propose the following questions:

  • When was the last time you practiced the skills learned in the NET course?

    Or, broke out the Micro RIES® and built a haul system?

    Or, the last time you lifted a vehicle or debris using the lift bags?

    What about the skills that the NET course didn’t cover?

Now is the time to take it to the next level with Roco’s CASEVAC Extraction Level II. This course builds upon the foundation of the skills offered in the NET course and gives operators a few more ways to get the job done.
The beauty of these “rescue” skills is that most of them can be applied to everyday missions outside of the context of rescue. If you can haul Mongo onto a roof while he’s packaged in a Sked litter, then you can definitely haul up some equipment. If you can rappel into a well to save a fallen teammate and ascend back out, then you can access and bail out of OPs more quickly, safely, and efficiently. Lifting and extrication tools and techniques can be applied to SSE as well as rescue.

We’d like to invite you to help drive the curriculum of this course. Roco will be holding two (2) pilot courses in order to validate the curriculum we’ve developed. A detailed description is located at our Tactical Courses page. Your feedback will help determine which skills are vital to include.
Not currently under SOCOM’s umbrella? No worries. While this course was designed with the CASEVAC Set of equipment in mind, the principles apply universally.
Since equipment changes, we focus on the principles. In this course, we start from the ground up, refreshing things covered in NET, and using equipment from the CASEVAC Set as well as gear that is used by other SOF units around the world. By using several variations of equipment, you’ll gain higher proficiency and be able to use your team’s equipment more effectively, whether it’s the CASEVAC Set or not.
read more 

The Clock's Ticking on Timely Response

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

By Dennis O'Connell, Roco Director of Training & Chief Instructor

As Director of Training, I get many questions about rescue techniques and regulations from our students and readers. In the past month alone, I have received three inquiries about "timely response for rescue teams" regarding permit required confined spaces (PRCS). So, let's break it down and try to clear the air on this subject. For clarification, we will refer to the General Industry Standard 1910.146; the Construction Standard 1926-1211; and the Respiratory Standard 1910.134.

In 1910.146, OSHA provides guidance on timely response in Subpart K (Rescue and Emergency Services) and again in Non-Mandatory Appendix F (Rescue Team or Rescue Services Evaluation Criteria). Subpart (k)(1)(i) states: "Evaluate a prospective rescuer's ability to respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner, considering the hazard(s) identified."

This one sentence actually says volumes about response times. The first question to be answered is, "Can the rescue service respond in a timely manner?" It then gives a hint as to what a timely manner should be based on. The second part of the sentence refers to "considering the hazard(s) identified." What this so eloquently says is the response time must be determined based on the possible hazard(s). This means the "known and potential hazard(s)" must be identified for each space to be entered. The hazards discovered -- based on severity, type, how rapidly the hazard could become IDLH or injure the worker, how quickly the need to treat the injury, or how quickly hazards might interfere with the ability to escape the space unaided -- would then be used to determine an acceptable response time. This is why OSHA only alludes to response times and does not set hard and fast times to follow -- it depends on the hazards of that particular space.

Another aspect we need to consider is that "response time" begins when the call for help goes out, not once the team is on scene. It ends when the team is set-up and ready to perform the rescue. So, how long will it take your team to be notified, respond and set-up is a big portion of that acceptable response time calculation. For example, a dedicated onsite fire/rescue team would be able to respond faster than workers who have other responsibilities and need to meet at the firehouse before responding. Or, more quickly than an outside service, such as a municipal department, that would have to respond to the facility, get through the gate, and be led to the scene.

In the note to paragraph (k)(1)(i), it adds: What will be considered timely will vary according to the specific hazards involved in each entry. For example, OSHA 1910.134, Respiratory Protection, requires that employers provide a standby person or persons capable of immediate action to rescue employee(s) wearing respiratory protection while in work areas defined as IDLH atmospheres.

Here we see OSHA better defining an acceptable response time for IDLH atmospheres -- i.e., immediate action! However, it's important to note this doesn't just refer to low O2...depending on the type of contaminant in the atmosphere, other respiratory equipment such as half- or full-face APRs could be used. It may include a dusty environment where the entrant wears a mask and visibility is less than 5 feet. Technically, that would be considered an IDLH environment. Many people get hung up on the use of SAR/SCBA as the trigger for a standby team, and that is just not the case.

For an IDLH atmosphere where respiratory protection is needed, an adequate number of persons (rescuers) is required to perform a rescue from the type of space involved - ready, trained, equipped and standing by at the space -- ready to take immediate action should an emergency occur. So, when dealing with possible IDLH atmospheres, we are looking at "hands-on" the patient in 3-4 minutes as possibly being an appropriate response time. Basically, this is about how long an entrant can survive without air. The only way to safely make rescue entry in that time frame is to have rescuers standing by, suited up and ready to go!

So, if dealing with an IDLH atmosphere, we revert back to 1910.134. Many people think that that is the only time we need a team standing by ready to take immediate action. I pose the question, "If the hazard is a liquid (engulfment hazard), what would be a reasonable response time?" If the victim is Tarzan or Johnny Weissmuller (okay, Michael Phelps, for you younger people), we may have a longer stay-afloat time. But if a non-swimmer, or in an aerated solution or other engulfment hazard, immediate action may be their only chance of survival! And, what about radiation (time, distance, shielding)? I am sure you can think of a few more possibilities.

And, while OSHA referred to an IDLH atmosphere in this example, it's important to consider other IDLH hazards as well. Here's where we note that the definition of IDLH in the Respiratory Standard (1910.134) differs slightly in Permit-Required Confined Spaces (1910.146). The Respiratory standard specifically refers to an IDLH "atmosphere" while the PRCS standard states the following: Immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) means any condition that poses an immediate or delayed threat to life or that would cause irreversible adverse health effects or that would interfere with an individual's ability to escape unaided from a permit space. This includes more than simply atmospheric hazards! 

OSHA NOTE: Some materials -- hydrogen fluoride gas and cadmium vapor, for example -- may produce immediate transient effects that, even if severe, may pass without medical attention, but are followed by sudden, possibly fatal collapse 12-72 hours after exposure. The victim feels "normal" until collapse. Such materials in hazardous quantities are considered to be "immediately" dangerous to life or health.

In Non-Mandatory Appendix F (I hate that non-mandatory language), OSHA gives guidance on evaluating response times under Section A - Initial Evaluation. What are the needs of the employer with regard to response time (time for the rescue service to receive notification, arrive at the scene, and set up and be ready for entry)? For example, if entry is to be made into an IDLH atmosphere, or into a space that can quickly develop into an IDLH atmosphere (if ventilation fails or for other reasons), the rescue team or service would need to be standing by at the permit space. On the other hand, if the danger to entrants is restricted to mechanical hazards that would cause injuries (e.g., broken bones, abrasions) a response time of 10 or 15 minutes might be adequate.

Not a bad paragraph for a non-mandatory section of the standard! Here they explain what they are looking for in regards to response times. They even take the OSHA 1910.134 IDLH atmosphere requirement for a team standing by at the space a little further by adding "or into a space that can quickly develop into an IDLH atmosphere." It also states if the hazard is mechanical in nature, 10-15 minutes might be adequate. That’s right, "might" not will be, but might be. Again, it depends on the hazard.

Paragraphs 2-7 in Appendix F goes on to describe other conditions that should be considered when determining response times such as traffic, team location, onsite vs. offsite teams, communications, etc. If you have not done so, I highly recommend that you review the not-so-Non-Mandatory Appendix F. It is also important to note that while it's not mandatory to follow the exact methods described in Appendix F, meeting the requirements are! OSHA also uses the word "should" in Appendix F, not following the OSHA recommendations could certainly lead to some hard questions post incident.

OSHA 1926 Subpart AA Confined Spaces in Construction closely mirrors 1910.146. In this relatively new standard, they simplified the definition of timely response and omitted Non-Mandatory Appendix F, which helps to eliminate the confusion of the "non-mandatory" language, and included the requirements right in the standard, which is good. However, 1910.146 really gives you a better idea of what timely would be for different situations through the notes in Section (k) and Appendix F.

Section 1926.1211 of the Construction Standard for Rescue and Emergency Services (a)(1) states: Evaluate a prospective rescuer’s ability to respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner, considering the hazard(s) identified. This is immediately followed by: Note to paragraph 1926.1211(a)(1). What will be considered timely will vary according to the specific hazards involved in each entry. For example, OSHA1926.103, Respiratory Protection (for construction) requires that employers provide a standby person or persons capable of immediate action to rescue employee(s) wearing respiratory protection while in work areas defined as IDLH atmospheres.

In closing, these regulations are driving you in the same direction for identifying what a timely response would be...THERE IS NO SET TIME FRAME! Each space must be evaluated based on potential hazards and how quickly rescue would need to take place. I hope this will make you take a closer look at "how and what" you consider a timely response. An employer's PRCS program must identify and evaluate the rescue resources to be used. It is then up to the entry supervisor to make sure the identified rescue service is available to respond in a timely manner, which can literally mean life or death for the entrants.

read more 

Previous Next
1 2 3 4 5 .. 7

RescueTalk ( has been created as a free resource for sharing insightful information, news, views and commentary for our students and others who are interested in technical rope rescue. Therefore, we make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, or suitability of any information and are not liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. Users and readers are 100% responsible for their own actions in every situation. Information presented on this website in no way replaces proper training!