Breathing Apparatus Guidelines

[fireftrm]

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.

[Billy]

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.

[fireftrm]

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!

[Billy]

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?

[ian 2243]

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
 

[Guest]

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.

[Billy]

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.

[ian 2243]

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.
 

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Billy]

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.