**Rappel Work Group Meeting**

**January 24 -- 26, 2007**

**Boise, ID**

**Group Members and Advisors Present**

Ken Ross

Tim Lynch

Jeff Power

Keith Wendell

Jim Lucas

Brent Campbell

Hank Dominguez

Greg Deacon

Introduction provided by Ken Ross, need commitment from all work group
members to get involved and commit to completing assigned tasks in a
timely manner.

Handout of agenda topics to be discussed as well as the meeting notes
from the Rappel Working Group from 2003 and 2004 meetings.

Ken also presented a handout on Rappel Equipment and Procedures
committee recommendations.

First item of business was to review the four recommendations presented
by the Equipment and Procedures Committee (NREPC).

**Recommendation #1:** 300 foot Accordion Pack for deploying cargo in
taller timber. The container width is the same as the 250 foot but the
bulk is a little larger. Tests were accomplished without any problems.

**Work Group discussion:**

1.  How do we distinguish the lines so that they are readily
    identifiable?

2.  There must be a good clean way to identify the 300 foot line from
    the 250 foot.

3.  Need language crafted for inclusion into the Interagency Helicopter
    Rappel Guide.

**Action Items:** Proposal approved with the following conditions:

1.  NREPC needs to craft language for the Interagency Helicopter Rappel
    Guide.

2.  NREPC to determine the method/process to identify the 300 foot lines
    so that they are readily identifiable.

**Due Date:** April 15, 2007

**Recommendation #2:** Large Klamath Bag

The large Klamath bag was tested up to 60 Knots suspended from the
helicopter without any problems.

**Work Group discussion:**

1.  We have an established threshold of 80 knots max VNE for external
    loads.

2.  Currently the Rappel Working group has not established any testing
    standard/protocols for testing of new equipment.

3.  Rappel Working Group needs to establish protocols in order to test
    rappel equipment to consistent standards.

4.  Tim Lynch is currently working on establishing testing protocols.

> **Action Items:**

1.  Approval on the large Klamath Bag is **not** granted at this time.

2.  Tim Lynch will conduct and record additional test up to 80 knots
    VNE.

3.  Tim will work with Tim Pfahler (R1 HIP) to see if this can be
    accomplished utilizing proficiency monies or if additional funding
    from the National Office is required.

4.  Tim will report back to the RWG as soon as additional tests are
    completed.

5.  If there are no problems the bag will be approved via conference
    call or emails.

6.  Although the small Klamath Bag is approved for use we have no
    documentation verifying tests that were originally conducted. Flight
    tests will include both the small and large Klamath bag.

7.  NREPC needs to write a request to do additional flight testing with
    the large Klamath Bag for an air speed of 60 to 80 knots.

> **Due Date: February 14, 2007**

8.  Rappel Working Group needs to establish criteria for a minimum
    weight to be tested in both the Large and Small Klamath bags.

> **Important Note:** The Large Klamath Bag is **not** approved at this
> time for neither internal nor external use until additional tests are
> completed.
>
> **Due Date:** April 15, 2007
>
> **Recommendation #3:** Equipment change from the old click lock
> buckles that are no longer available to the new click lock buckles on
> BD Bags.
>
> **Work Group Discussion:** No issues
>
> **Action Items:** Approve as Recommended

1.  Tim Lynch will revise web site to include new click lock buckles.

2.  Ken Ross will look at the IHRG to see if there is any change
    required. No references are made in the IHRG regarding this product,
    no action required.

3.  NREPC need to complete a more detailed review of the IHRG to ensure
    not changes are required.

> **Recommendation #4:** Shoulder Strap Retainer (Trout Strap),
> currently in use but not identified as an approved piece of equipment.
>
> **Work Group discussion:** No issues or concerns.
>
> **Action Items:**

1.  Shoulder Strap Retainer recommendation is approved as submitted.

2.  Tim Lynch will complete a drawing and list this item on the web
    site.

End of Recommendations submitted by the NEPC.

The group digressed from the agenda and discussed maximum Forward Air
Speed with a rappeller on the rope in a situation where you must fly
them to an alternate site.

-   Philosophy is that slower is better

-   Rope begins to roll back and forth on the skid at higher speeds.

-   40 knots is too fast, 20 knots is probably too fast as well.

-   Work Group will revisit this at a later time.

There is a concern that a company that manufactures equipment that we
utilize in rappel operations is advertising products as, "Approved by
the Forest Service". Tim Lynch will visit with Bagmaker regarding
labeling of products that say "Approved by the Forest Service".

> Next item of business was to review the Rappel Working Group and
> Equipment and Procedures meeting notes from November 18 -- 21, 2003 to
> ensure nothing was outstanding that required action. The following
> items are identified as outstanding requiring action by this group.
>
> **Findings:**
>
> **Item #1:** RQ3
>
> **Discussion:**

1.  The RQ3 has been out for field testing for the last two years.

2.  Fourteen (14) were purchased and distributed to different regions
    for field evaluation.

3.  MTDC (Tim Lynch) needs direction from this group on whether to
    proceed with this effort or not.

> **Action Items:**

1.  Rappel work group recommends that Tim proceed with collecting the
    surveys from the field and present them to the NREPC.

2.  NRECP will evaluate the surveys and determine whether to make a
    recommendation to the Rappel Working Group.

3.  NRECP needs to consider that they are adding another piece of
    equipment that does the same thing as approved equipment already in
    the system.

4.  NRECP will send their recommendation on to the Rappel Working Group
    if they recommend approval of the RQ3.

> **Due Date:** None set at this time
>
> **Item #2:** Spotter tether design standard (3RC Extendable)
>
> **Discussion:**

1.  If we implement the Miller Harness we will need the new tethers.

2.  We need the new tethers to bring us into OSHA compliance.

3.  This new piece of equipment will require \$9,000.00 to manufacture
    the new tethers.

4.  All spotter tethers would be standardized for all aircraft with the
    exception of the AStar and the S-58.

> **Action Items:** None at this time
>
> End of 2003 meeting notes review.
>
> Next item of business was to review the Rappel Working Group meeting
> notes from December 6 -- 10, 2004 to ensure nothing was outstanding
> that required action. The following items are identified as
> outstanding requiring action by this group.
>
> **Findings:**
>
> **Item #1:** Rappel Working Group still needs to review and publish
> rappel platform evaluation standards.
>
> **Action Item:** Jeff Power will look for any kind of tracks in
> electronic files regarding Tom York's' tenure as chair of the Rappel
> Working Group and send them to Ken Ross.
>
> **Item #2:** World Tour Inspection Checklist.
>
> **Action Item:** Ken Ross will follow-up with Jami regarding where we
> re with the World Tour Inspection Checklist.
>
> **Item #3:** Need corporate history on the Rappel Program for
> inclusion into the Rappel Operation Plan.
>
> **Action Item:** Ken Ross will deal with compiling the corporate
> history on the rappel program for the Operations Plan.
>
> End of review of 2004 meeting minutes.
>
> **Discussion:**
>
> World Tour Reviews have identified the following:

1.  We need standard consistence protocols.

2.  These types of review are of value to the program.

3.  We have a lot of un-standardized procedures through out the program.

4.  Reviews should be formalized.

5.  Allow for local/regional emphasis within the standardized protocols.

6.  Out brief with area Fire Directors/HOS/RAO/RASM.

> **Discussion:** Model specific power point presentations.

1.  We still don't have these in place.

2.  Tim Lynch needs help with prioritizing which models should be
    completed first.

3.  This question should be asked of the NREPC to determine which
    platform is a priority.

4.  NRECP needs to develop the story board for the power points.

> **Action Item:** Agenda topic to be discussed during the combined
> meeting with Rappel Working Group and NREPC on Thursday 1/25/2007.
>
> **Action Item:** At the next Rappel Working Group meeting, review the
> meeting notes from the December 6 -- 10, 2004 meeting to see if this
> group has corrected the dysfunctions that were identified in that
> meeting (pulse check).

Discussion Items for combined meeting with NRECP on Thursday, January
25, 2007.

1.  Dates for a National Rappel Meeting.

2.  Agenda Items

    a.  Safecoms

3.  Determine how much instruction/presentation time and workshop time
    is needed.

Suggestion by Tim Lynch

Tim suggested that we schedule conference calls and meetings at least 6
months out.

**COMBINED MEETING WITH NRECP AND RAPPEL WORKING GROUP**

**Thursday, January 25, 2007**

**Members and Advisors Present**

Kieth Wendell Greg Deacon

Rick Dunlap Jim Lucas

Brent Campbell Phil Hawkins

Tim Lynch Jeff Power

Eric Small Brandon Culley

Andy Guest Dallas Van Gordon

Ken Ross Jim Lawson

Ryan Stailey Hank Dominguez

Intro provided by Rick Dunlap

Phil Hawkins/Ken Ross -- We all understand issues and concerns that have
occurred/ developed over the last couple of years. Everyone here today
understands those concerns. It is time to regroup and move forward and
develop a team the field will have confidence in.

**Jim Lucas -- Bell 407 & L4 Center of Gravity discussion**

Jim has been in contact with Bell Helicopter, he reported that Bell says
if we need a larger CG envelope to conduct our rappel operations outside
the skid, they will issue it. It is yet to be determined if they follow
through with this. Once the CG issue is resolved we need to see if we
can proceed to utilize the overhead anchor. Need statistical data.

**Action Item:**

1.  Jim will continue to work with Bell to see if the CG limitations can
    be expanded to meet our needs. Bell needs to provide written
    documentation.

**Due Date:** Report back to Rappel Working Group by February 25, 2007
on status of this issue.

**Keith Wendell -- Spotter Tether attachment for Bell 206 L4 and 407**

**Background:** Three (3) years ago this was discussed; almost everyone
uses the seat belt hard point. Keith did a destructive pull test on a
crashed aircraft (407). Test pull determined that at 800 pounds the hard
point (seat belt attachment) failed. We need a hard point other than the
seatbelt attachment that will sustain more than 800 pounds. Keith has a
new design that will provide a centerline attach point for the spotter
that he presented to the group. Keith needs concurrence from this group
that the location and installation is agreeable and will work for us as
currently designed.

**Discussion:**

-   R & D costs -- Costs to complete R&D with a Supplemental Type
    Certificate (STC) for this design could be anywhere from \$30,000.00
    to \$60,000.00.

-   Is it more cost effective/feasible to purse an STC on this new
    equipment or would it be better to use the existing dog bone anchor?

-   Jim informed the group that Bell makes a seat belt kit that is
    stronger that the standard design. This may be an option.

**Action Item:** Prior to any decision, Tim Lynch will do measurements
for the dog bone anchor to spotter position as well mockups to see if
the dog bone is an option.

**Due Date:** Tim will report back to the Rappel Working Group by
February 14, 2007

**Follow-up:** If Tim determines that the dog bone is not an acceptable
solution for the spotter tether attach-point, the Rappel Working Group
will deal with the necessary action that needs to be taken. If this is
acceptable it will address immediate issue for the 407 but not for the
L4.

Brandon Culley -- Presentation on Helicopter Rappel Spotter Training
Handbook

Brandon provided a handout of the Handbook. Spotter training records are
cumbersome when trying to determine the level that a trainee is at. This
handbook provides clear documentation of where a spotter is, in the
development and approval process.

**Discussion:**

-   This document is designed to multiple platform approach.

-   Will it work for single base/platform?

-   How would this work for a base with Cargo Letdown operations and no
    rappel operations?

-   This document does an excellent job of documenting spotter training
    all in one location.

**Proposal:** NRECP look at the proposed handbook to see if it can be
refined to fit a single base versus multiple base/platform spotter
training.

**Action:** NREPC assign small group to work on modifying this document
to a single base/helicopter and Cargo only document.

**Due Date:** Report back to Rappel Working Group by March 16, 2007.

Keith Wendell -- Presentation on MTDC's Rappel Simulator/ Tower Project

Tom York (R-5) HOS recommended this project. Philosophy is that one (1)
standard tower design that meets everyone's needs. Proposal also
included looking at the Fork Lift and simulator. The fork lift is
currently approved by the California OSHA off but after Keith engaged
them is some discussion they were vague on how they approved it. Keith
reported that the Denver OSHA office would not budge on giving approval.
The Forest Service, WO would not support pursuing this concept. MTDC
collect copies of all tower designs that were available. A steering
group established for this tower/simulator design project has identified
features that they feel need to be addressed in the design.

**Tower Design Features:**

-   Lower level platform 10 to 15 feet tall

-   Single base training - 2 to 4 people.

-   Upper platform, observation area for additional personnel, 8 plus

-   Tower height anywhere from 20 to 40 feet, group agreed on 30 feet

-   Looked at both steel and wood towers

-   Group suggested 2 designs, one wood and one steel.

**Associated Costs:**

-   Wood tower with steel simulator is approximately \$65,000.00.

-   Estimated cost of steel tower is \$80,000.00 to \$100,000.00.

> Simulator Design Features:

-   6' X 10' simulator -- re-configurable

-   Sliding doors

-   Fixed door anchor

-   Modular seats

-   Generic skid

-   Seat belts not included

Keith provided that group with a handout, Design Specs for Standard
Forest Service Rappel Tower.

Issues associated with trying to design one tower that fits every ones
needs it:

-   Trying to please everyone

-   Too many designs

-   Current designs are locally approved not nationally approve/accepted

-   This one will be a nationally approved standard design that will
    meet all standards.

-   OSHA compliant

-   Design costs covered up front

-   Meets criteria to allow for single base or multi base training.

**Action/Decision:**

1.  Focus efforts on one steel design only.

2.  Ken Ross will follow up with Keith on funding and any other items
    the Rappel Working Group needs to deal with.

Group reviewed meeting notes from the Rappel Working Group on Wednesday
and discussed the recommendations presented by the NRECP.

**Discussion:** RQ3

-   NREPC would like to do one more year of field testing.

-   Would like to send out instructions to field on how to properly use
    the RQ3.

**Decision:** Rappel Working Group concurs with another year of field
evaluation.

**Action Item:**

1.  NRECP will put together detailed instruction on how to use the RQ3
    and send them out to bases that are part of the evaluation.

2.  NREPC needs to review IHRG to see if any changes are needed.

**Miller Harness**

**Discussion:**

-   NREPC has received most of the evaluations back from the field.
    Initial indication is that it is an acceptable harness.

-   In order to global replace all of the harness's currently in us is
    approximately \$20,000.00.

-   If accepted and the decision is made to accept the harness, all of
    the tethers need to be permanently attached.

-   Harnesses would all have to go to a central point (MTDC) so tether
    could be attached.

-   MTDC still needs to manufacture the tethers (\$9,000.00).

-   If the decision is mandated we need support in funding. Local units
    probably don't have the monies to purchase new harnesses.

**Action Item:**

1.  NREPC will submit Miller Harness recommendation for approval to the
    Rappel Work Group as soon as they can.

2.  Ken Ross will look into national funding for replacement costs.

**National Rappel Workshop**

**Discussion:** Need to establish dates for the workshop and identify
how much time to dedicate to presentations and how much time we need for
workgroup/training presentations. Rappel Work Group can
schedule/identify agenda items for presentations and the NREPC can
identify/schedule agenda items for operations needs. We need to decide
on a date and location.

**Workshop Date:** Week of January 28 -- February 1, 2008, number of
days to be determined.

**Location:** McClellan Facility, Sacramento, CA

**Action Items:**

1.  Jeff Power, reserve rooms at McClellan for scheduled dates.

2.  NREPC provide a rough agenda to the Rappel Work Group by March 23,
    2007

Model Specific Procedures -- Power Point

**Discussion:** At the Rappel Work Group meeting yesterday it was
recommended and decided hat this needed to go back to the NREPC to
prioritize which platform was the most important. It was also
recommended/decided that the NREPC need to ask a group to develop a
story board for this project. It is not cheap to develop one of these
presentations so this needs to be a consideration.

**Action Items:**

1.  NRECP will determine which platform is a priority and let the Rappel
    Work Group know.

2.  Ken Ross will develop a tasking for the NREPC and send it to Phil.

**Due Date:** None identified

**Spotter and Rappeller Training and Syllabus**

**Discussion:**

-   NRECP should look at tasking a group of Subject Matter Experts
    (SME's) to assist in developing this.

-   Take a look at the spotter training syllabus currently in use.

-   SME's should look at the current syllabus and possibly get hands on
    look at training that is going on at different bases.

-   Group is not constrained to current format that is currently in use.

**Action Item:**

1.  Ken will task the NREPC for this project.

2.  NREPC will establish a task group of SME's.

3.  Assign individual(s) from the NREPC to provide oversight to the task
    group.

Phil Hawkins, Chair NREPC provided the group with suggestions and
highlights from their meeting.

-   Recommend 2 day meeting with Rappel Work Group and schedule meetings
    to accommodate that.

-   Fearful of commitments the NREPC can't keep.

-   Sitting together and talking without getting emotional is great.

-   Emphasis in supporting the field and gaining their trust.

NREPC will prioritize the two (2) proposals pushed back and also the
model specific priority and submit it back to the Rappel Work Group.

**Future Proposals forthcoming from the NREPC:**

-   Rope Bag proposal standardizing rope bags.

-   Securing of rope bag in aircraft.

-   Base reviews

-   Gunner strap placement

-   Fingerless Heater Gloves

-   IQCS (Done)

**Action Item:** Rappel Work Group gave concurrence to NREPC (Rick
Dunlap) regarding IQCS proposal. Rick will ensure that Rappel Spotter
training and re-currency as well as Rappeller training and re-currency
are entered into the national IQCS system. This will have no effect on
AMD positions.

**COMBINED MEETING WITH NRECP AND RAPPEL WORKING GROUP**

**Friday, January 26, 2007**

**Members and Advisors Present**

Keith Wendell Greg Deacon

Rick Dunlap Jim Lucas

Brent Campbell Phil Hawkins

Tim Lynch Jeff Power

Eric Small Ken Ross

Ryan Stailey Hank Dominguez

**Eric Small -- Presentation on SAR Rappel in Yosemite NP**

This presentation outlined the difference between Fire Rappel and SAR
Rappel operations. The message is that procedures work well but the
equipment needed for SAR operations is different and current approved
equipment does not meet the needs for SAR operations. It is understood
that the Rappel Guide is designed for Fire Helicopter Rappel Operations.

There currently is a proposal to MTDC to look at different control
devices and ropes for the rappel program.

Yosemite Short Haul training is scheduled for May 13 -- 15, 2007 at
Sierra, Trimmer Helibase.

**Action Item:** Rappel Work Group and NREPC work with Tim Lynch (MTDC)
on new decent devices and ropes for the rappel program.

**Ken Ross - Equipment Screening and Evaluation Process**

**Discussion:** We currently do not have protocols established to
evaluate aircraft and equipment to see if it works well within the
rappel program.

-   Don't need to spend a lot of time discussing the merits of having
    protocols established, it speaks for itself.

-   We should establish a work group to develop protocols.

-   We need to go back and look at what we did in 1999 and see if we can
    establish a Screening and Evaluation Board along with funding so
    that we can finalize these protocols.

-   Need to see if someone from this group would like to take the lead.

-   Probably need a helicopter maintenance and pilot inspector on this
    group.

**Proposal:**

1.  Identify a representative from the Rappel Work Group and NREPC to
    visit with folks from the Smoke Jumper Screening and evaluation
    board.

2.  Gather the package from the work that was done in 1999 and discuss
    it at the next Rappel Work Group meeting.

**Action Item:**

1.  Disseminate 1999 version as well as the short version to Rappel Work
    Group members for review and comments prior to next meeting.

    a.  **Due Date:** Ken Ross, by February 2007

2.  Rappel Work Group members review both document and provide comments
    back to Rappel Work Group.

    a.  **Due Date:** March 12, 2007

**Rappel Work Group Chair Position**

The Chair position on the work group is vacant at this time due to Tom
York retiring.

Ken Ross is willing to accept the chair for the next 2 years

Ryan Stailey nominated Ken Ross for the Chair of the group.

Nomination seconded by Jeff Power

Motion voted on and passed unanimously by Rappel Work Group voting
members present.

The Vice Chair position will be discussed at the next meeting.