Extrication Training

[RiverAux]

It occurred to me recently that CAP should include some basic training in our ground team program on how to extricate people from crashed aircraft.  Before you underwear gets too bunched up due to what some of you may consider a skill too advanced for CAP members:
1.  Obviously, at most crash scenes that we go to this won't be necessary due to a lack of survivors and therefore there being no need to touch the plane at all.

2.  At the few sites where there are survivors, in most cases there will probably be trained firemen or others capable of handling this aspect of the rescue, so CAP members won't need to do it. 

3.  So, I am talking about incredibly small percentage of crashes which 1) have surivors, 2) the survivors stuck in the airplane, 3)There is an imminent danger that requires that the survivors get out of the airplane ASAP, and 4) CAP is the only team on scene. 

4.  Given my third statement, we obviously don't need a 2-day class on how to use the jaws of life, but at least one task on this subject should be included in the task guide with a few pages of information on the basics. 

I did a search in the GT reference text and the closest I found was this (page 14):

Shovel, ax, saw, or other extrication tools: Aircraft are not the easiest things to get into to rescue survivors, and teams will often carry extra tools to do the job. Remember though, that you should not bring it if you don't know how to use it. Let the professionals do their job. Just because you own it or brought it with you does not mean that you should use it or are qualified to do so. In some cases, you may not even have to use them. No team should bother carrying, buying, or acquiring equipment that they themselves are not competent to use.

So, this implies that properly trained and equipped CAP members certainly could perform this task as far as CAP is concerned, but they don't go on to explain what to do. 

Thoughts?

[Stonewall]

I have a picture somewhere, but at one of my squadrons in DCWG we had a B&E kit.  This wasn't something we threw together to sound or look cool, we actually spent squadron funds to buy a crowbar, hacksaw, sledge hammer, towing rope, work gloves, eye protection and a set of bolt cutters.  Even had a CAP white on ultramarine name tape sewn to the red bag that said "MVCS B&E KIT".

We trained with it on occasion and used it to cut a few locks.  When we did demos at air shows and recruiting drives, we laid it out and had a high speed cadet explain the purpose.

I know PJs have Jaws of Life among other power rescue tools in their aresal of gear.  Carry'em on rescue helicopters and everything.  We had to service them when I was a Life Supporter at a PJ squadron.

[♠SARKID♠]

We carry a pry-axe/Biel tool (as much as I would like love a Halligan) in our vehicle gear.  Do I know how to use it?  You bet.  That said, if I'm about to go tramping through the woods looking for a plane, I'm grabbing that thing and bringing it along for the trip.  If CAP weren't occasionally first on the scene, they wouldn't call them "searches".  As we used to say in the Boy Scouts, "Be Prepared".

[isuhawkeye]

I would not recommend conducting extrication training unless you have team members who are capable of assessing the patient, and handling them appropriately during the extrication.

Now, if you have a first responder or higher on your team I'm all for it

[Stonewall]

Now, if you have a first responder or higher on your team I'm all for it

Which we did.  Including myself, we had 3 to 4 EMTs in our squadron at any given time.  But I agree, having a bunch of "first aid" qualified folks humping around extrication gear could be disasterous.

Remember folks, you remove the vehicle from around the patient.  You don't remove the patient from the vehicle.

[es_g0d]

Extrication training is certainly reasonable as a continuing education topic.  If nothing else, its generally a good idea to extend the olive branch to other agencies.  I'd start with a Crash Fire Rescue unit at a major airport and then try whatever local PFD or VFD has the most experience next to use as experts.

In comparison to automobile extrication, I've never really heard of huge problems with aircraft (although I'm certainly open to the possibility, Murphy's Law of course applies).  Since most aircraft are constructed of aluminum or composites, forced entry is not as difficult as with automobiles.  In all honesty, simple hand tools would be enough to perform the job.  Its all a matter of how quickly you want the job done.  Dollar for dollar, pound for pound, and the probability of need would dictate to me that I wouldn't carry anything more than a Leatherman multi tool on my person, and have a hacksaw, axe, shovel, and prybar back at the truck.  I'm glad River quoted the manual on that as it was my gut reaction as well...

More difficult than the forced entry is patient stabilization, packaging, and transport.  I bet our EMT / paramedic types would agree.  If I were going to prioritize training time, I'd put that higher on the list.

Awesome thoughts, though!  I like how we're thinking.

[Stonewall]

More difficult than the forced entry is patient stabilization, packaging, and transport.  I bet our EMT / paramedic types would agree. If I were going to prioritize training time, I'd put that higher on the list.

+1

Last night was "ES training night" and the cadets were practicing one and two-man patient carries; the kind you learn in Basic First Aid classes.  After that there was a lull in the program.  Being fairly new and not knowing how the schedule works, I asked the C/First Sergeant if anyone had any hip-pocket-training prepared.  3x5 cards (usually laminated) that have impromptu classes referenced on them.  Mostly for those times where you finished something early or you're waiting for transportation, which is always late.  Pull out your hip-pocket-training and get to work with your 5 to 10 minute class.

I suggested things like patient assessments; stop bleeding, immobilized an extremity and of course CPR.  Practical stuff that's more likely to be used than extrication.  But I too like how people are thinking.  Not all training has to be something that you know you'll use.  Why not do some interesting training that may come in handy one day.  You never no...

[RiverAux]

Of course you could have a relatively uninjured survivor trapped inside the plane and unable to get themselves out.  A trapped person is not necessarily an injured person. 

[es_g0d]

Wow, its interesting how many good things come out of parenthetical discussions!

Stonewall, if you could share such 3x5 outlines with the group, we can post them online for everyone to use.  No sense reinventing that round load bearing transportation object!

[Slim]

Skip the hacksaw.  By the time you're done using it to hack the metal away, your entire team will be too exhausted to do anything else.

If you're going to the trouble of obtaining tools for this specific purpose, get a battery operated reciprocating saw, or sawzall.  Put a metal cutting blade in it and you can do the same job in just a few minutes.  Just be careful to maintain clearance between that blade and the victim.

My motorsports rescue team carries 2 of them on each truck, and they will tear the skin off a race car (which is similar to an aircraft, mostly just sheet metal) in about ten minutes.

[Stonewall]

Can you mount it on a rucksack frame?  Kidding.  I know you can because I've seen it done for breaching a fence line.

We hack saw was just a little more portable and less costly for our simple CAP ground team.  All the best intentions I assure you.

[EMT-83]

My FD took the battery powered saws off our rescue truck and threw them in the trash, went back to corded ones. Battery maintenance was always an issue, and they always seemed to be dead no matter how often you swapped them around in the chargers.

It's amazing what can be done with some simple hand tools on vehicle extrication, so aircraft should be similar. One such tool that comes to mind is a short section of an old leaf spring, with one edge sharpened and some duct tape for a handle. Wack it with a hammer, and it's a great panel cutter that's small and easy to carry.

[isuhawkeye]

get your hands on a simple set of tin snips. 

[Major Lord]

When I went through the auto-extrication course as part of EMT training, we were first trained only to use a hacksaw ( with two blades for added strength) a spring punch, and a hatchet for the first iteration of the training. With two guys, we could take out the A and B pillars of a car in about 4 minutes and fold the roof back. Low tech, but highly effective. Those caveman-like techniques probabaly saved a few people. ( the cool power tools came later) Often, in messy crashes, you can't do a patient assessment until you have made a pathway to the victim.

I think the chances of our having to extricate a patient from a  fiberglas airplane are pretty slim ( given that they tend to fracture into about a trillion surfboard-like pieces) But they make aircraft out of metal too! I think the NTSB would lose ther minds if we cut up an airplane to get to a patient..after all, a tidy investigation is just as important as saving a life, right?

Major Lord

[es_g0d]

I realize the last comment was tongue in cheek, but lets be perfectly clear: MOVE WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO in order to access your patient.

Without sacrificing rescue efforts, plenty of photos are obviously a good idea before things are moved.  With the advent of cell phone cameras, this becomes a more realistic task.  In all honesty, most investigators can see past moving aircraft parts during rescue.  For whatever its worth, the NTSB often delegates GA accident investigation to the FAA. 

Isn't it interesting that we've had no dissenters that say extrication training is a bad idea?  And to think that in another recent thread it was stated that, (paraphrasing) "we don't do rescue."

[PHall]

The Lawyers are probably drooling at the thought of CAP doing extractions.

How much liability insurance coverage do you have?

The Good Samiarian Act don't cover that and any lawyer who can pass the Bar would probably be able to win his case against CAP/You.

I would leave the extraction to the folks who have both the equipment and the training to do it properly.

[es_g0d]

The Good Samaritan Act covers you up to your level of training.  If you receive training from qualified individuals (such as from sources suggested above), then you are covered.  Furthermore, while on a SAR mission for CAP you are in essence a federal employee, covered by FTCA.

Don't ever exceed your training, but don't be afraid to use it, either.  If you DO have the proper equipment in training, you then (likely) have a duty to act.  Standing by isn't an option either in that case.

[PA Guy]

Two sites that might be of interest re: Good Sam laws and duty to act:

http://www.cprinstructor.com/legal.htm

http://blog.usfa.dhs.gov/2009/01/duty-to-act.html

[RiverAux]

I would leave the extraction to the folks who have both the equipment and the training to do it properly.

As I said at the beginning of the thread, in most cases this is probably just what is going to happen, but there is certainly the potential for it to need to be done quickly and with only CAP members available. 

[Pumbaa]

This is what I carry when I fly, and in my truck.... Has glass plexi breaker, saw on the back, strap cutter, electric insulated and fire resistant handle...

[RADIOMAN015]

Liability issues come to my mind on this-- Remember even with Good Samaritan Laws you still might find yourself in court ---  On highly probable actual crash responses we should be bringing local fire/rescue & EMS personnel with us as part of the ground team.  We should be practicing this on a regular basis with fire/rescue/EMS personnel in our applicable response area.    I'm very surprised as part of the AF evaluation process of CAP Wings' SAR operations that they don't mandate this type of joint response training.  All AF bases are required to train & orient their local fire/rescue/EMS personnel on aircraft fires/rescues. 
RM 

[Pumbaa]

if that is the case, then violators will be shot, and survivors shot again...

Good Sam suits be darned...

[RADIOMAN015]

if that is the case, then violators will be shot, and survivors shot again...

Good Sam suits be darned...

It's very unfortunate that the world is like it is, as far as potential litigation. Therefore, we volunteers in CAP need to only meet what the ES standard is for that specific mission position.  No more or NO less.  When you start adding in additional things, e.g. extrication tools, etc. you run the risk of putting YOURSELF in a personal liability situation that CAP/USAF isn't going to cover you on (and even if they do that doesn't prevent a litigation lawyer from tying up some of your assets during the process, as well as you having to pay for a lawyer and attend court using your personal time off from work).  Again you have to think about your families well being first in all situations.

Local fire/rescue departments train in extrication methods on a regular basis.  They are the ones responsible for this in their communities (you won't see the police department doing this since they aren't trained to do this).  They SHOULD be part of CAP's outreach ES briefing program plan and SHOULD be invited to train with us on a regular basis.   That is the prudent approach we should take.  Again the USAF during ES evaluations should require that wings show them that CAP has an effective method(s) wing wide for coordinating assistance with these experts when required and appropriate outreach briefings have been given.
RM

[es_g0d]

I haven't been doing this business for nearly 20 years to allow a patient to expire inside a wreck simply because I'm afraid of liability.  I HAVE been trained in extrication, and I'll use those skills if the situation calls for them with no alternatives.

If you are so terribly worried about liability, consult an attorney to see exactly what your risks are.  Consider personal liability insurance.  As for myself, I'm confident enough with our Federal Tort Claims Act coverage as well as Good Samaritan protections, so long as I don't exceed my training.

(PA Guy -- good links to post!  Thanks!  I'll tuck that one away for GES training)

[Gunner C]

There's plenty of training that needs to be addressed:

• The use of a short backboard
• Scene fire suppression (there's gas all over the place - don't use sparking stuff)
• Where are the fuel lines in different aircraft (cut through the metal on either side of the windscreen of a C172 and you get a lapfull of what's left in the fuel tank
• Patient assessment (when is it better to wait for the pros to get there, when is it better to extract right now)

I believe this could be effective training, but it has to be done professionally.  There's a lot to consider but it is IMO within the capability of many units with a GT capability.

[RADIOMAN015]

I haven't been doing this business for nearly 20 years to allow a patient to expire inside a wreck simply because I'm afraid of liability.  I HAVE been trained in extrication, and I'll use those skills if the situation calls for them with no alternatives.

That GREAT you are trained!!!  BUT The vast majority of CAP ground team members haven't been trained in extrication.  The best alternative for most is to take the local fire/rescue professionals with them.  I just don't see why time & time again, the CAP attitude seems to be "we can do it alone".   Isn't this potential "jointness" in response one of the reason we are taking all those FEMA ICS courses???

I think our primary nationwide consistent, available, & well trained ES response team(s) is our aircraft mission crews/ airborne search capabilities.  The entire ground team capabilities & response aspects (perhaps with the exception of UDF), varies so greatly among wings (and even within certain geographical areas within wings) that it would be litigation lawyers heaven for an IC to only depend upon dispatching CAP ground teams and or for that matter not requesting stanby/assistance from profession extrication teams in a high probable aircraft crash area.   Most press reports on CAP involvement (using google news) seem to indicate that non CAP civilian ground rescue(recovery) teams are more likely to respond than CAP ground forces.

I'm not sure all this additional time & money needs to be spent on this type of training, that likely will never be used on a CAP related mission.
RM   

[PHall]

I haven't been doing this business for nearly 20 years to allow a patient to expire inside a wreck simply because I'm afraid of liability.  I HAVE been trained in extrication, and I'll use those skills if the situation calls for them with no alternatives.

That GREAT you are trained!!!  BUT The vast majority of CAP ground team members haven't been trained in extrication.  The best alternative for most is to take the local fire/rescue professionals with them.  I just don't see why time & time again, the CAP attitude seems to be "we can do it alone".   Isn't this potential "jointness" in response one of the reason we are taking all those FEMA ICS courses???

I think our primary nationwide consistent, available, & well trained ES response team(s) is our aircraft mission crews/ airborne search capabilities.  The entire ground team capabilities & response aspects (perhaps with the exception of UDF), varies so greatly among wings (and even within certain geographical areas within wings) that it would be litigation lawyers heaven for an IC to only depend upon dispatching CAP ground teams and or for that matter not requesting stanby/assistance from profession extrication teams in a high probable aircraft crash area.   Most press reports on CAP involvement (using google news) seem to indicate that non CAP civilian ground rescue(recovery) teams are more likely to respond than CAP ground forces.

I'm not sure all this additional time & money needs to be spent on this type of training, that likely will never be used on a CAP related mission.
RM   

Amen Brother...

[es_g0d]

Radioman015:
Kindly take a read back.  My first post said that extrication training is a great "continuation training" activity, it is CLEARLY above and beyond basic qualification.  Anyone who knows me will also know that I firmly believe in all risk / interagency response.  "Going it alone" is NOT the right answer, but sometimes its all you have.

In short, I agree with most of what you are saying!  You are, however, making it a personal attack and attempting to use snark.  The premise of the thread was that CAP doing extrication is WAY down the list of possibilities.  Even so, we shouldn't be ignorant to it just because its a one-in-a-thousand scenario.  Whenever possible, I'm not going to use a hack saw and a pry bar when I have a heavy rescue unit within response time/range. 

You are, of course, quite right that capabilities, equipment, and training vary extremely widely from location to location.  I've been fortunate enough to live and be a CAP member in a good sampling of locations and wings and experience that firsthand.  And again, you're right that our concentration should be on continuing to establish a consistent baseline of responders.  That should never preclude, however, advanced training for those who are ready for it.  For what its worth, "local fire/rescue professionals" can vary greatly as well, although generally its in the range from "excellent" to "outstanding."

That's the same place I want CAP to be!  Excellent to Outstanding!  Advanced continuation training is part of that formula.  Help me with that, please!

[RiverAux]

That GREAT you are trained!!!  BUT The vast majority of CAP ground team members haven't been trained in extrication. 

Gee, didn't I suggest in the opening post of this thread that we actually include training in extrication in our curriculum?  I don't see this any differently than the survival tasks in the GT curriculum -- almost no CAP members are ever going to use those skills on a CAP mission, but we want to be prepared just in case.   

[flyerthom]

Contact Cirrus. They have a specific proceedure for dealing with the ballistic parachute. If you haven't reviewed it you should not approach a downed SR 20 or 22.

[davidsinn]

Contact Cirrus. They have a specific proceedure for dealing with the ballistic parachute. If you haven't reviewed it you should not approach a downed SR 20 or 22.

Same goes for some 150-182 Cessnas. I've seen three in one place with the BRS installed. Something to be aware of.

[Stonewall]

Found a picture.  I think this is from 1999 or so.  Cadets demonstrating the B&E kit I mentioned on page one of this thread.

[lordmonar]

I think some extraction training would be a good thing.

I don't think we need to go so far as requiring "assited" extraction (those requiring K12 saws or Jaws), but we definatly need short board and C-collar training as well as (as mentioned before) fire suppression training.

Yes it is unlikely we will ever use it...but we can be ready for the 1 time out of a 1000 we will encounter.

As for liabilty......I don't see us picking up any more liabilty than we had before.  Extraction and spinal cord management is still within basic first aid/first responder training.

The good samaritan laws apply to all non-professional rescuers.   By the legal definition that is anyone who is not paid to do the rescueing and of course on all AFAM missions we are covered by the FTCA.

[arajca]

The good samaritan laws apply to all non-professional rescuers.   By the legal definition that is anyone who is not paid to do the rescueing and of course on all AFAM missions we are covered by the FTCA.

In which state? The parameters of Good Samaritan laws differ between states. For example, one state refers to non-professional rescuers meaning not paid. Another state refers to "organized search and rescue teams" regardless of pay status.

Everytime someone asks about Good Sam laws, they are quickly told to contact their wing legal officer for more information because of the varying verbage in the laws, which can significantly affect who it applies to.

[RiverAux]

Drifting off topic folks.  For sake of all future discussions on this thread, lets assume the person is trapped but uninjured.  We have other threads on medical issues.

[lordmonar]

The good samaritan laws apply to all non-professional rescuers.   By the legal definition that is anyone who is not paid to do the rescueing and of course on all AFAM missions we are covered by the FTCA.

In which state? The parameters of Good Samaritan laws differ between states. For example, one state refers to non-professional rescuers meaning not paid. Another state refers to "organized search and rescue teams" regardless of pay status.

Everytime someone asks about Good Sam laws, they are quickly told to contact their wing legal officer for more information because of the varying verbage in the laws, which can significantly affect who it applies to.

http://www.cprinstructor.com/legal.htm