FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Guest on December 03, 2003, 07:38:44 PM
-
Just some points relating to the use of Guidelines within buildings.
Most fire crews admit that the main reason we do not consider using guidelines in certain buildings is the lack of tie-off points.
So if we, as Firefighters have identified that there is no means of securing the guidelines in most premises, what have we done about it?
The answer invariably is NOTHING! (apart from thinking that we will never have to use them anyway!)
In my opinion we have failed in at least 2 counts in relation to guidelines.
1. We have identified a potential hazard, but done nothing more, so if there is a fire in the premises we have 2 choices (A) Use guidelines in the knowledge that they will not be laid properly and will in most cases, be more of a hindrance than a help.
(B) Do not use them at all and hope that everything turns out all right and no one is injured as it would be difficult to justify not using them if there was an accident inquiry.
2. We have also not made the owner or employers of the building in question aware of the problem as they may be willing to do something about it. I know that there is legislation coming into force soon that will make it the owner/employers responsibility for the health and safety of anyone who may have to work in the premises, but in the past, during our 1.1.d visits, we have identified loads of buildings where we should use guidelines, but we know we cannot secure them properly.
Here then is a suggestion of what we could do to stop problems in the future.
When crews are carrying out Operational information gathering on a certain building and they think that there is potential for utilising guidelines if the building was involved in fire, they should see if there is any means of securing them. If not, they will inform the building owner of this, and put the responsibility onto them to provide means of securing the guidelines. If they refuse, we can then say that they were made aware of the problem and did nothing about it, which would absolve fire authorities from any possible litigation.
More importantly, it would make it safer and easier for Breathing Apparatus crews to search buildings.
The cost of fitting the Guide line securing Hooks would be minimal, and not all buildings would require them.
I would appreciate comments and opinions on this matter.
-
following 20 years in the job I have only used Guide lines in Training. Instead of looking at the ways to use guidlines we should be devising ways to get rid of them for something better.
-
Animal
Numerous reports have looked at alternatives to guidelines, but none have been an improvement. Most people don't use guidelines because historically, there have been problems securing them inside premises.
I have used them both in training, and also at operational incidents, and if they are laid properly, they do give you a certain amount of security.
I totally agree that we should be using the best equipment possible in these conditions, but at this moment, there is no better equipment on the market.
We should then be ensuring that the Guidelines are as effective as possible, and if this means fitting hooks inside buildings then so be it.
If buildings can be fitted with hooks for window cleaners on the outside of them to reduce the risk of injury, why can't they fit hooks inside buildings to allow us to do our job more effectively, and reduce the risk to fire crews?
-
Simple - cost.
There are going to be window cleaners using eyebolts on buildings far more times than a fire fighter would use guidline hooks.
You will never get building owners to shell out on something that in the majority of places will never ever get used.
And the burden to industry is such that the Govt will never require it. If anything safety is degregulating not getting more stringent and unfortunately like most things it will remain a "wish list" item only
-
Anthony B
What about legislation- for example, the employers of any building are responsible for the health and safety of anyone who may have to work in the premises.
What if fire crews identify a disorientation risk in a building and decide that the risk could be reduced by the use of Guidelines, should a fire occur.
If this fact is pointed out to the building owners, and they do not have any securing hooks for the guideline, then they may have a problem.
Could they argue that they took all reasonable care in relation the fire safety measures within the premises if a risk was identified and they chose to ignore it ?
Do you think their insurance would pay out if this was the case?
You mention cost and you also state that
"You will never get building owners to shell out on something that in the majority of places will never ever get used" .
Building owners already pay a lot more than the cost of the Guideline hooks for sprinklers and other fire detection measures that in the majority of cases will not get used, so this comes into the same category.
Also Fire Authorities have a duty of care towards their personnel, and if they carry out a dynamic risk assessment on a premises and decide that to reduce the risk within the premises in a fire situation, the use of guidelines should be considered, they should take into account the securing of the guidelines and any tie off points.
If there is nowhere to secure them, and the employers have been informed of this, then as a fire officer I could justify not commiting crews into this building on Health and Safety grounds.
I would have no defence if I had to stand up in a court of law and have to try and justify myself if I allowed them to use Guidelines, knowing they had no means to secure them properly.
I know that it is only certain buildings that would require the hooks to be fitted, but these are the buildings where there is the greatest risk to fire crews.
-
The test would be "so far as is reasonably practical" and i'd be suprised if anyone would consider it so outside of the fire service.
Unless there is a specific line in a bit of law saying "install hooks" it won't happen except in particularly enlightened premises.
This isn't to say I disagree with your desire, just am used to the reaction of typical clients when it comes to yet another zero-return expense (sprinklers are dear too, yes, but have a statistical benefit in life & property safety reducing loss in ££)
-
Anthony B
I totally agree with your points, but I am being slightly selfish here and I am looking at the problem from the point of an Operational Fire crew and also a Fire Authority who wants to give the best level of protection possible to its personnel.
Fire Brigades already carry out information gathering solely for familiarisation of Firefighters in case of fire within the premises. They have a legal and moral obligation to do this and was originally done under 11d of the fire services act.
The crews will look at the layout of the building and the potential risks to fire crews in case of fire. If the building has a disorientation risk and has the potential for crews to get lost under fire conditions, this information should be recorded in the risk assessment sheet for the premises.
If we are saying that they may become disorientated, we are also implying that guidelines should be considered in case of fire within that particular building.
The point I am trying to impress is that Fire Authorities should also look at the method of securing the guidelines within the premises, and if there is nothing to tie them onto, then we should make the owners/ employers aware of this fact.
We, as a Fire Authority have now done our duty " SO FAR AS IS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE" and it would then be up to the employers of the premises to decide on their course of action.
Finally, most people are aware of the incident at Gillender street in London more than 10 years ago when 2 Firefighters lost their lives whilst using guidelines. It is generally agreed that one of the causes of this was the crews becoming so disorientated that they could not read the directional indicators on the guideline, but a contributory factor was also the guideline being incorectly secured within the premises.
I believe that the fitting of hooks would help reduce the risk to fire crews of this happening again.
-
I agree with a lot of the comments on this thread, but think that Guidelines either need improved or replaced as they are quite ineffective in the way they are used at present.
Putting hooks on buildings would make it easier for fire crews and would have to be cheap enough to make it viable, but what price do you put on the safety of fire crews?
-
How about a permanent guideline fitted to escape routes in the building so staff can use them during an evacuation in smoke? They could be available in various colours to blend in with the decor of the building or perhaps replaced at this time of year with a seasonal Christmas guideline with mistletoe instead of tabs (the shortest bit of mistletoe indicating the way out)!!
Guideline hooks? - I don't think so. I have used guidelines once in 27 years, and with senior officers becoming increasingly frightened to choose offensive firefighting tactics (instead, being satisfied in flooding the building with aerials), I can see a day when guidelines are withdrawn.
That would really pi** off London Underground management, if they had just forked out on installing 23 million guideline hooks thruout their network!!!
-
You can only justify withdrawing a piece of equipment if you think that you will never have a use for it again, or you have something safer or better.
What would we use in place of Guidelines to systematically search a building safely?
What if it was your colleague or friend in the building- would you not want to use everything available to effect a rescue and reduce the risk to BA teams in the process.
It appears ro be a vicious circle with Guidelines as people are scared to use them because they cannot read the marking tabs, and there is nowhere to tie them onto within a building, so they don't use them!
So why don't we look at the problems and come up with solutions.
If you had the choice of using a Guideline at a large complex building that was correctly fitted at all points and the indicators were easy to read, would you use it ?
I don't know enough about these hooks, but would imagine that they would only be fitted in internal corners within rooms as i think the guideline could be pulled tight around external corners?
I believe that guidelines would only be used in certain complex buildings, so only these buildings would require the hooks?
And even if the London underground had to fit these hooks but it was justified as it made it safer for BA teams to search the area, then so what!
I am curious to know if there are any securing points within underground stations for guidelines, and if not, has the London Fire Brigade made them aware of this, based on the points made earlier on this post which do seem to make some sense.
-
Dear Guest above (can't we all use a name - it'd make things much easier)
The design and procedures governing the use of guidelines preclude their use for (public) rescues.
The fact that they would only be used in very smoky conditions, possibly in a complex environment and taking into account the time and resources it takes to establish a guideline, it is unworkable to use them as a rescue tool.
The idea that anyone would be able to survive those conditions long enough to find (and retrieve) them is unlikely at least.
London Underground have done much to improve safety since Kings Cross including spending millions on AFD and other improvements designed to safeguard passengers and staff. Spending money on millions of hooks would not improve the safety of passenger or staff, and would be better spent on FS infrastructure such as falling mains, pressurised lobbies or firefighting lifts.
I reckon R&D aimed at major changes to the line and procedures is the only way forward if we are going to continue using this kit. The design must be 50 years old and has been used virtually unchanged since it's conception, whilst other BA kit has moved on considerably in the same time period.
-
I have just looked at an article in Octobers IN ATTENDANCE Magazine and it talks about a SIMLINE ? which sounds the same as the guideline, but the marking is different as it seems to use tabs that feel smooth on the way out of the building.
It sounds an improvement on the guideline we are using at the moment, but I would like to try it out for myself first.
-
MSHAW
I was the one who came up with the new Guideline design and I totally agree with your point that this equipment needed major changes in it.
Thin pieces of cord hanging down that you can't even feel with your gloves on and numerous aide memoirs that just lead to more confusion were just a few of the reasons why the present design needed changing.
I also agree with your points on the safety improvements since the Kings Cross Incident, but I think that even if the Whole of the London underground stations were fitted with guideline hooks, it would probably cost no more than £20,000.
Heaven forbid we have a similar incident to Kings Cross, but in this era of increased threats from terrorists, Fire brigades must take every precaution to ensure the safety, or reduce the risk to crews if such an incident happens.
Finally, you mentioned earlier (with tongue in cheek) about a permanent Guideline fitted to escape routes so staff could use them during an evacuation in smoke. You also said that the line could be made of various colours to blend into the decor of the building.
My answer to this is- WHY NOT?
I done a presentation on the new design to members of the public at the Glasgow Science Centre, and one immediately latched on to the fact that if you grasp the line and the tab feels smooth, you are going towards an exit. He said that he recently seen the video of the 9/11 incident and was amazed at how there was absolutely zero visibility when the first tower came down. the filming was taking place in the 2nd tower and survivors from there said that they were lucky to find their way to an exit.
The person at the presentation said that he thought that if an escape line was fitted in the entrance foyer of this building, it would have helped to get people to an exit.
It slightly saddens me that although this design is still going through the evaluation commitees in Scottish Fire Brigades, both American and Indian fire service equipment suppliers (to name but a few)have tried it, like it, and I am in the process of securing export deals to these countries.
Please visit the website www.simline.co.uk and then let me know what you think.
-
Sorry Messyshaw, My name is billy Sim and I posted the one above,but it never logged me on! ( probably my fault)
-
I would like to know what people thnk about the points raised on this subject, and also what other brigades do in relation to 11d's/ Operational information gathering on the risks within their area if they think there is a disorientation risk within a building?
-
Surely a lot of the time, the decision to use guidelines is down to the OIC and his initial DRA of the premises?
-
The answer is simply training, training and more training. Much of the problems caused by the use of the current design is a lack of training needs identification and rectifying of deficiency.
This is not to say that the current design is in any way half decent but if Firefighters and their managers pulled their heads out of the sand they might realise that it is not the equipment or the procedures for the use of guide lines that are inherently dangerous it is the competency of the operators and those who determine their use at incidents.
If a building is deemed not suitable for the use of guidelines then both a GRA and the OiCs DRA should determine that they stay in the bag.
There are many alternatives to the use of guidelines and over the years many successful stops have been achieved in large complex structures with crews simply using charged HrJs or jets to penetrate, withdraw or subsequently return to the scene of ops.
As for withdrawing them, why not. There does not need to be any better or safer alternative in order for any eqpuipment to be withdrawn. Take hook ladders for example, they were binned simply as a result of the passage of time and their relevance becoming outdated. The same principle could apply to guide lines. If they were withdrawn tomorrow we would evolve newer and safer practices and in time would look back on them in the same way as we now do hook ladders.
Any alternative to guidelines which still involves Ffs following a piece of string is by definition a guideline and as such my original point regarding training, training and more training would be just as valid in the future as it is now.
-
Anderson
Could you explain how training, training and more training will help you to feel the tabs with your gloves on when you cannot do it just now?
-
I do not know what gloves are issued in various Brigades but there are various styles on the market which are sufficiently dextrous in order for the tabs to be felt and correctly identified (the problem might then be knowing which direction to take as opposed to feeling the tab).
On the other hand if difficulty is experienced in locating a set of tabs and identifying the route out then i would personally take a glove off and identify the longest/unknotted from the shortest/knotted.
If i read you correctly the problem may not be the line but the quality of the glove.
Don't get me wrong however i personally do not like the guidelines on the run at present and the philosophy of train, train, train is only a stop gap until a decision to get rid or change is eventually taken.
-
Anderson
I have read your post and have to disagree with some of your assumptions.
Firstly, training will not help fire crews to feel the current guideline with their gloves on, but changing the marking system will.
Secondly, to imply that it is not the equipment or procedures that are inherently dangerous, but the competence of the operators and the OIC of incidents is way off the mark.
In my Brigade we carry out 11d's and identify buildings where there may be a disorientation risk if it is involved in fire. They will then put the details onto our vehicle mounted data system (VMDS) so that all crews can view it.
The crews are more than competent to carry out this task and they have done their duty as per procedures.
The fact that the procedures (as yet) do not require the crews to identify any securing points for guidelines, should they be needed means that it is the procedures that are inherently dangerous, and not the competency of the crews.
You say that if a building is deemed not suitable for the use of guidelines, the DRA and GRA should determine that they should stay in the bag.
I agree, but brigade procedures do not go far enough in fully identifying the hazards and risks in premises to allow this to happen.
You mention that they should be withdrawn, but how would you systematically search a large or complex building without a Guideline?
More importantly, do you think that you could stand up in a court of law and justify why you never followed written procedures for searching buildings, and never used all the equipment available?
You accuse fire crews and managers of having their heads in the sand, but the same people have identified the problems with the guidelines, namely the marking and securing of them, and came up with feasible improvements to make it safer for fire crews to use them.
[/b]
-
The idea that training will solve the problems associated with guidelines is a bit off the mark. Anybody who has taken part in a major exercise which used guidelines will tell you that they still end up in a confusing mess. As someone who worked at a station with docks (remember them?) in the local area regular training was done using the guideline, however no amount of training comes close to having to use them for real.
Anything which makes their use easier or safer is certainly worth looking at.
As for the original point regarding tie-off points, it's a good idea but not going to happen. You will not get businesses to agree to something that in all probability will never be used.
Handy for hanging the Xmas decorations all the same!
A good new year to all on the BBS.
Ian.
-
Ian
You are partly right about the businesses being reluctant to fit them, but think of it this way.
You identify a building that represents a disorientation risk to crews if it was involved in a fire.
This means that you would consider using guidelines, so you then check to see if there is any where to secure the guidelines onto.
if there is not, you inform the employer of the building that they need to fit hooks and ask them to contact their fire equipment supplier who will advise them on the positioning of the hooks.
The brigade has then carried a thorough risk assessment of the premises.
If the employer has been informed of this risk and the building is involved in a fire and no hooks are fitted, we will not use guidelines as we have identified a risk and given the employer advice on how to reduce the risk to crews.
Do you think his insurance would pay out if they found out he had went against the guidance of the fire authority?
If brigades are carrying out 11ds' and identify buildings that have disorientation risks, they should also be looking at how to reduce that risk- not just by considering guidelines, but by ensuring they can be deployed properly.
How many buildings in your station area would you consider using guidelines in at present?
Is there anywhere in these buildings to attach them onto?
The answer to the last question is probably NO.
-
Sorry, I wrote the post above but forgot to log on!
-
Billy,
I am not against the principle of tie-off points in buildings, god knows it's hard enough finding suitable points to secure a guideline. In reality however fill any large building with smoke and you have a disorientation risk.
I am not an insurance expert but I wouldn't have thought that they would be particularly interested in hooks for guidelines as I don't see how they would affect fire losses from a loss adjusters point of view. Perhaps Chris Houston would be able to shed some light on the insurance position.
To reiterate, given the number of times the brigades actually use guidelines I do not think you would get agreement to have hooks fitted. The risk assessment may well identify the desire but as risk is about probability I think you would find that the requirement a non-starter.
Ian.
:)
-
Ian
Good valid points and I find it hard to argue against them, but I was thinking of Health and Safety legislation where the employer is responsible for the health and safety of ALL personnel who may have to work in the premises.
Firefighters come into this category, and if we identify a risk and nothing is done to reduce that risk- who is at fault if an accident happens?
-
So far as is reasonably practicable is a key phrase as is risk assessment & cost benefit analysis in H&S and using these you will conclude that hooks are not a legitimate expense as the need for them is so rare - if you are compying with all your other H&S and fire safety requirements you won't have a fire.
you'll never get hook in via H&S or insurance rules
-
I have to agree that it's not he lack of tie off points, or the marking system which makes guidelines dangerous, it's the potential for confusion which leads to accidents such as the incident at Gillender St in London where two FFs died whilst using a guideline.
In that job, there were plenty of tie off points and they did manage to 'read' the way out tabs, but it was confusion with the way the line had been laid which caused the major problems. (at one location there were two guidelines laid parralell on either side of a corridor giving conflicting information which way was out).
The simple (and cheap) anwser is more training, revised procedures (including a ban on tie off points above waist level) and encouragement to use them at the early stages of a job to cover the eventuality that the smoke logging may worsen later. More guideline use would give valuable experience and above all, confidence in the kit.
-
just to quickly add to this debate, when you are deploying BA crews into risks and are using guidelines do they take hosereel protection in with them as well.This is something we discuss on station, as smoke is now perceived as unburnt gases should crews enter without any form of protection.
-
In relation to MSHAW post that it is not the lack of tie off points that cause the problems,I would have to disagree.
Not just modern buildings, but also most older buildings have little or no tie off points, especially in corners where you need them most.
-
I once checked out a number of BA training buildings and asked crews how they trained with guidelines within the buildings, and how they secured the guideline within the building.
A friend said that they could not do any Guideline training within the building until they fitted tie-off handles at the corners and at doors.
He said that any training without first doing this would mean that the guideline exercise would be pointless.
How is it then that we train in premises where there is handles or hooks at waist height positioned throughout the building, but we all know that when we go to a premises on fire and we have to use guidelines- we will not have the luxury of tie-off points where we need them!
I thought that training should replicate as much as possible, the conditions at a real incident, and in my opinion Brigades should be at the very least, making building owners or employers aware of the potential risks to crews if they have to use guidelines within their premises.
-
Fair point Andy about taking (at least) a hose reel.
If the jobs worth laying a guideline, then it's definately woth having a reel in with you. But (acknowledging the apparently universal poor training which seems to becoming a trend here) how many times does this happen during a training session?
-
In response to hte original question: reply posted under Technical Advice
No.
We should be discouraging the use of any such trivial piece of equipment. Do you really think that putting a few hooks on walls in buildings would make guideline use safer/easier? ........................ I cannot use the words I want to!
They are inherently dangerous, difficult, confusing, outdated, slow, etc. What possible reasons would we have for promoting their use?
When did they save people rather than kill them? Gillender St etc.......
Why would we want to send Ffs into a BURNING building to lay out a piece of string (flammable) in order that they could find thier way back? When would we ever send someone in there without firefighting equipment!!!!!!!!!!??????????? So why not use the hosereel/hose - easier to follow (they would have it in their hands and it is a tad bigger) and it can be used to fight the fire! Also it is less likely to burn through - as it is internally cooled by water flow.
Why not use some piece of equipment like a TIC? What are they for otherwise?.
If the building is so heavily smokelogged and yet the fire is not so dangerous as to burn through the piece of string then use PPV! Or, if properly trained, use it offensively - once you can see you don't need to play 'follow the string'
Guidelines should be removed and put in a museum with leather hose, bellows BA and steam fire pumps. A good idea (?) when they were designed but no place in the modern firefighter's toolkit.
No one should be carrying out risk assessments on buildings and considering - 'how do I lay guidelines in here?' they should be thinking 'if the building is smokelogged and there are persons reported how best can I clear the smoke?'! Also if there are no persons reported 'should I even consider committing BA teams?'
-
PS to Messy's posting
- If a job needs a hosereel then what the hell are we doing wasting time and energy laying out a piece of flammable string for?
Dump the guidelines on outward bound centres where they can play with them with people blindfolded following the lines as a challenge - in the open air where they may be safe.
-
Response to Billy:
Much better tabs - but still a guideline with all the other problems.
How many buildings in my area would I consider using a guideline? Absolutley NONE. I would have PPV (offensive), PPV (defensive), TIC, normal BA search procedures, don't go in at all - as my hierachy of controls and nowhere would guidelines EVER come into those controls.
-
To Firefrtm
could you explain the problem with a piece of equipment that will lead you to an exit even in total darkness?
How do you systematically search a building with a hosereel?
What is the significance of a guideline being flammable when the first basic rule of firefighting is never to pass fire?
How do you think that somewhere to secure a guideline onto would be a bad idea?
Could you explain what the problems with guidelines would be if you could read the tabs and also secure them properly within premises?
I thought that TICs should be used in conjunction with guidelines and not in place of them?
Finally, if you are advocating the use of hosereels instead of guidelines- try putting 5 BA teams with hosereels in the same doorway in a medium to large building, and then withdraw them in the order they went in and see what happens?
-
Who has ever used a guideline to effectively search for and locate live casualties in a real incident.
The reality as to why guidelines were introduced was to allow Firefighters to retrace their steps back in the days of proto sets (Smithfield meat market was the instigator). Given that times have moved on and no-one but no-one ever engages in free searching anymore i would suggest they are binned.
Assisting in the search for casualties might sound good in theory but the reality as to the practicality of this is somewhat different. In this day and age the saving of life in large complex structures is not by Ffs on guidelines but by AFD and effective m.o.e.
I apologise for my earlier references to training, i have now realised that all i was serving to do was justify a redundant work practice (shame on me).
-
Anderson
Are you trying to say that we no longer have to ensure that an area is fully searched, and if this is the case, do you want to make your legal experts aware of this.
I am sure they would love to know how to defend you in court if this happened at an incident.
Basically, you do not have to justify it in relation to finding live casualties, but only to ensure that we have carried out a full and proper search of the premises as per our procedures.
-
I agree with the post above as the reason we use guidelines is to do with accountability and crew safety.
does anyone remember how box searching actually came about?
As far as I can remember, a Brigade was taken to court over an incident where BA teams went in on a left hand search and, as was the procedure, stayed on the left hand wall and if they came to a door, they went through it. This system was easy to understand, and all you had to do to get out is turn and keep the wall on the right hand side.
The problem was that some time into the incident the OIC decided to put BA teams in on a right hand search and they found a casualty almost immediately!
When it went to court the prosecution lawyer produced a picture from the old manual of Firemanship which showed how to search a room,(remember the dotted lines to denote the search pattern going around the room and then a diagonal line across the middle).
He asked why the crews never followed procedures laid down in the manuals, and the brigade struggled to defend its actions. This is why box searching was introduced.
The reason we may have to use guidelines is to ensure we have searched areas according to our procedures and can defend this in a court of law, if necessary.
ANDERSON's post above suggested that he/she was justifying a redundant work practice when they said training is the problem with guidelines.
I hope he/she has an alternative method of searching large, complicated buildings before he/she suggest to bin them.
-
In considering the types of premises where guidelines are considered to be appropriate i would once again as per my last post suggest effective fire safety measures as being the definitive means to save life in such premises. If we can detect fire and evacuate prior to the arrival of the Fire Service then why risk Ffs by putting them in on a piece of string.
If we as a service do indeed consider guidelines and their procedures to have shortcomings regarding their safe and effective use then our only defence in a court of law (for not using them) needs to be that the risk to Ffs in using them (incorrectly) was present.
Lets be honest not many with an operational background could ever claim to be happy at the prospect of using guidelines at an incident given the manner in which things go pearshaped in training.
-
ps to the above.
I am always keen to know of situations where litigation reinforces or indeed alters accepted work practice. As such can you provide the case details so that i can study the case further. All i will need is the year and the Fire Service involved.
-
ANDERSON
If we as a service do indeed consider guidelines and their procedures to have shortcomings regarding their safe and effective use then our only defence in a court of law (for not using them) needs to be that the risk to Ffs in using them (incorrectly) was present.
To simplify your arguement, you appear to be saying that we shouldn't use them because we can't use them properly.
why don't we use them properly then, by ensuring the marking of the guidelines can be read easily, and we have somewhere to secure them onto within premises?
I don't know too much about legal issues but your defence seems to be an admission of liability as you already state that we are aware of the problem, but have done nothing about it.
-
correct
-
In relation to guidelines,I like to keep things simple so that if your life depends on it, you can still understand it, under any circumstances.
I have spoken to hundreds of fire fighters and almost everyone said that the marking of the SIMLINE was an improvement, but there would still be problems in tying the line off inside the building, and if we could solve that, we would solve the problems with guidelines.
Put the responsibility of supplying securing points for guidelines (if required) onto the employers of the premises and we have solved the problem.
If they fit the building with securing points, we will be able to use them to lay the guideline safely and properly within the building. This will assist fire crews and also ensure a systematic search is carried out if necessary.
If the employers choose not to fit the hooks, we will not use guidelines within their premises as we already know what the problems are going to be and will not put fire crews under that increased risk.
why should they fit the hooks?
Because we as fire crews have identified a hazard and made the employers aware of it. If they do nothing about it, they could be liable?
It might sound too simple to work, but the simplest ideas usually are the best ones.
-
All excellent points and all well delivered. I particularly like the bit about transferring liability and how this ties right into my point about us as a rescue service justifying exactly when and where the lines should or should not be used (instead of continually feeling bound by a set of woolly moral obligations).
Well done Billy, you perhaps have a convert.
-
In this new era of IRMP, all Fire authorities have the best opportunity yet of making huge steps to ensure the safety of crews and enhance our reputation as a professional service in relation to guidelines than we have ever had since their inception.
ANDERSON is right in his points about the problems with guidelines, but we have the chance to overcome these problems with solutions that will make it easier for the OIC to decide whether to use them or not.
A very senior officer within my brigade once told me of an incident he attended which involved a ship which was converted to a night club.
When he arrived the ship was heavily smoke-logged, and BA teams were already commited to the ship to find the fire.
He asked the initial OIC if he considered using Guidelines on the ship, and the OIC said that, in hindsight, he probably should have, but he had no faith in the guidelines, and that is why he never used them.
I confess that given the same circumstances, I would probably have made the same decision as the OIC, but more importantly, the Senior Officer, who had more knowledge of procedure than any one I know, agreed with his decision, although I am certain that he was aware of the bigger picture.
The point I am making is that we are all aware of the problems with guidelines, and that is why we should try and overcome these problems, and why people like ANDERSON, MSHAW, FIREFRTM and others should be applauded for giving open and honest opinions.
This posting has been of great benefit to myself, and hopefully will be of benefit to others, and I thank every one who has participated in this discussion.
-
Billy
Thanks for your comments, very pleasing to have someone who listens to others views.
I do consider your design a considerable improvement on the existing line, however I stick with the use of any other means of reducing the hazard - such as PPV/TIC rather than a line. Again if you are going to go near a fire the line is no use, if nowhere where the line could be burnt then get rid of the smoke!
Building owners providing places to tie off? I am still against - in carrying out a building risk assessment considering how to deal with expected hazards guidelines would not be in my repetoir, PPV would be. If I ws to ask the building owner to do anything fitting smoke extraction would be the thing.
Anyway a good discussion - thanks.
-
FIREFTRM
You said that you would rather use PPV or get the building owners to fit smoke extraction measures rather than fitting hooks.
The fact is that the fitting of hooks would be only a fraction of the cost of fitting smoke extraction systems to premises, and once fitted, the hooks have almost no maintenance costs.
PPV on every appliance would be a cost incurred by fire authorities, as opposed to hooks which would be spread evenly over each different business who required it, and in my opinion is a Health and Safety issue, which is difficult to ignore.
I admit that if there was a bottomless pit of money for building owners and fire authorities, we would have TICs and PPV on every appliance, and all buildings would exceed the minimum requirements in relation to fire protection.
But we know this is not the case, and I feel Fire authorities should be pro-active in ensuring the best protection for fire crews in all situations.
-
Hi Billy:
The fact is that the fitting of hooks would be only a fraction of the cost of fitting smoke extraction systems to premises, and once fitted, the hooks have almost no maintenance costs.
PPV on every appliance would be a cost incurred by fire authorities, as opposed to hooks which would be spread evenly over each different business who required it, and in my opinion is a Health and Safety issue, which is difficult to ignore.
PPV is a higher level of hazard reduction (not my words but those of the HMI H&S Officer) than allowing smoke to be there and using BA/PPE/Procedures (like guidleines) therefore using H&S PPV should be a first thought. PPV is now an accepted piece of equipment by the MAJORITY of UK fire services and not providing it could be demonstrably endangering Ff lives. TICs are yet to be commonplace but once again as they provide a greater level of hazard reduction..............
I am still against guidleines in principle!
-
Hi FIREFTRM
I think we are both in agreement here as we both seem to think that more should be done in relation to firefighter safety.
The key phrase is "AS FAR AS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE" and I think we are in agreement that if businesses (including fire authorities) can conform to this, then they will be happy.
If employers can conform to this by spending the least amount of money, then I am sure that this is the option they will go for.
Hooks will cost less than extraction systems, so under new legislation about to be issued, will this be construed to be "AS FAR AS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE".
In relation to Fire Authorities, what is wrong with PPV AND methods of securing guidelines in premises , should the situation merit it, especially if it doesn't cost any increased expense to fire authorities?
-
Billy,
I think you have gone off at a bit of a tangent here. Smoke control/extraction and fire suppression equipment are not fitted for the benefit of firefighters but to protect lives of the occupants or the property itself. The hooks would therefore be of no benefit to the occupants, it is not an either/or situation where we trade off hooks for smoke control.
Ian
;)
-
Where extraction systems are not fitted and in many older large premises they are not then quite correctly PPV is an excellent means for Ffs to more quickly and effectively clear the fire gases and assist with searching.
However total reliance on PPV should never be assumed to be fully effective under all circumstances. Often Ffs will be reasonably expected to search through smoke filled corridors and rooms simply in order to create ventilation outlets and establish routes through the building from inlet to outlet. In larger buildings this systematic clearance of fire gases whilst quicker than the use of natural ventilation will still take time to achieve. Time which in the early stages of an incident could also be utilised in searching for casualties. I do not agree with the principle that Ffs should wait for buildings to clear of smoke prior to effectively locating casualties. In training scenarios i have witnessed Ffs create an outlet and stand watching the fire gases leave before turning attention to search and rescue, something i will always seek to discourage.
Bear in mind that PPV only assists with the search for casualties, the primary tool for search and rescue is still a Ff who more often than not might still have to enter unventilated compartments to search for and locate trapped persons.
PPV and guidelines are both tools in the FfS tool box and there may well be incidents where both, either or neither are relevant to the job iin hand.
As a convert to Billys train of thought i would discourage anyone from completely dismissing any eqpt or practice which might in someway assist the grunts (and i consider myself one) to get the job done not only safely but effectively.
-
ian 2243
You're right mate- I did go off on a tangent, but the point I was trying to make is that both smoke extraction and smoke suppression systems will reduce the risk to fire crews who may have to work within the premises.
I am taking it for granted that the occupants are all ready protected by all the other fire safety measures already in place within the premises.
When the new legislation comes in which will make the employers even more liable for any one who works, or may have to work within their premises, the fitting of hooks would be a cheaper option than fitting smoke extraction/suppression systems, solely for the benefit of fire crews.
I also think that if fire crews carry out a risk assessment of a building, and identify the need for securing points for guidelines, the employers would be wary of ignoring their request, especially if there was a fire within the premises.
-
Anderson,
If you read back over my previous posts in this discussion you will see that I am not against Billy's Simline or indeed the possibility of tie-off points fixed in particular buildings. The problem is whether the onus can be put on to owner/occupiers as a requirement to fit them and I don't believe it can justifiably be done.
Anything which simplifies guideline usage is preferable to the old confusing 'memory aids' concerning short tabs, long tabs, knots etc!
The Simline is a vast improvement in removing confusion during guideline operations but that is not going to make the fitting of hooks in a building a requirement under any legislation.
I digress for a minute but do all roofs have to have fall arresters in case firefighters have go up there? I am sure risk assessment can identify many situations where safety could be improved but 'reasonably practicable' covers a multitude of sins.
Ian.
;)
-
Ian
(Billy, here, but I can't log on)
I agree with your points concerning the problems in convincing owners/occupiers as to fit hooks within their premises, and you are also right in saying that they have to be justifiable.
The simple fact is that we in the fire service know that using guidelines in premises without tie-off points is a bigger hazard than not using them at all.
The owners/occupiers of premises are unaware of this fact, and this is the first instance where I feel fire authorities are slightly negligent, as we should bring this to the attention of the owners.
Secondly, what can fire authorities do to try and force them to fit the hooks? The answer is transfer the liability to them if they don't!
If we make them aware of the problem and they choose to ignore it, we are not to blame.
We have also got to remember that we are in a unique position in so far that the current fire safety measures are designed mainly to get the occupants out of the building, and they do this to an extremely high standard.
When we arrive in a fire situation, we need additional measures to ensure our safety, and one of these measures is BA guidelines in certain circumstances. You have also to remember that the owners are responsible for our safety if we have to work within the building, and I believe the new fire safety bill will shift the liability even more onto the owners/occupiers.
If a brigade is taken to court over an incident where guidelines were used and it goes wrong, I feel they are in a no win situation.
they cannot blame the owners for not providing tie off points because the brigade never told the owner of the potential risk.
If we have identified a serious disorientation risk within a building and not used guidelines for whatever reason, the brigade could also be at fault as guidelines are a recognised control measure.
Finally, you mention that all roofs do not have fall arrestors in case fire crews have to go up there, but we have additional control measures such as securing lines and roof ladders to minimise the risk.
What additional control measures can we take if there is no securing points for guidelines within buildings and we have identified that guidelines should be considered?
The only choice we have is not to use them, which seems stupid as we know what the problem is, and we also know what the solution is.
-
On the subject of roofs the 'construction (h,s &w) regs 1996' state that a hierarchy of measures apply where there is the potential for a fall of 2m or work is carried out within 2m of an unprotected edge where a fall might occur. A legal requirement is also placed on all employees to carry out risk assessments in compliance of the 'management of health &safety at work regs 1992' and this includes working on roofs.
In a nutshell, whilst climbing ladders Ffs are permitted to be unrestrained. However if working for a protracted period on a ladder or an any surface above 2m with the potential for a fall to occur then control measures in the form of PPE and safe systems of work do apply. These control measures can take the form of restraint systems, work positioning systems or fall arrest systems and an integral part of each of these systems is the provision of a suitable and sufficient anchor being in some cases the ladder itself, physical features or purpose built eye bolts.
Ian, i judge from your comments that your service has not carried out such a risk assessment or implemented such safe systems of work so as to meet the risk assessment.
The fact is that whether it is BA guidelines, working at height or working near water there are obligations placed on us all as Fire Service employees to carry out our obligations in as safe a manner as possible.
If Billys simline goes someway to achieving this then i admire his efforts.
-
On the subject of roofs the 'construction (h,s &w) regs 1996' state that a hierarchy of measures apply where there is the potential for a fall of 2m or work is carried out within 2m of an unprotected edge where a fall might occur. A legal requirement is also placed on all employees to carry out risk assessments in compliance of the 'management of health &safety at work regs 1992' and this includes working on roofs.
In a nutshell, whilst climbing ladders Ffs are permitted to be unrestrained. However if working for a protracted period on a ladder or an any surface above 2m with the potential for a fall to occur then control measures in the form of PPE and safe systems of work do apply. These control measures can take the form of restraint systems, work positioning systems or fall arrest systems and an integral part of each of these systems is the provision of a suitable and sufficient anchor being in some cases the ladder itself, physical features or purpose built eye bolts.
The main difference between roofs and smoke filled buildings is that you can see the physical features on a roof to which you can anchor yourself, in a smoke filled building you cannot see the features which might act as improvised tie-off points
The fact is that whether it is BA guidelines, working at height or working near water there are obligations placed on us all as Fire Service employees to carry out our obligations in as safe a manner as possible.
If Billys simline and his proposal for the provision of tie off points goes someway to achieving this then i admire his efforts.
-
Anderson
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I fear it may be too simplistic for those who advise the people who make the decisions.
I contacted the relevant department and they seemed to feel that the argument was weak!
For example, they actually asked if I was suggesting that guidelines should only be used if the building was fitted with securing points!
THE ANSWER TO THIS IS UNDOUBTEDLY YES!, But the fact that they cannot even recognise the dangers of using a guideline within a building without securing it is beyond my understanding.
The good news is that this is only my brigade who think this way, and I have been contacted by others who like the idea, and want more details.
If any other brigade is interested in a suggestion how they may be able to ensure that premises are fitted with suitable tie-off points for guidelines, let me know and I will send it to them.