Guidelines

[Billy]

On another thread, I have advocated the use of guideline hooks to be fitted to premises so that we can attach guidelines, quickly, safely and with more confidence than we ever could before.
 I have stated that our Operational Risk Assessments should indicate premises where we think we may use guidelines and see if there are sufficient tie off points to allow us to use our equipment properly.

If not, we make the owners aware of this and ask them to fit the hooks. If they fit them we will use guidelines- if not we will not use them as the outcome of the risk assessment has shown that we cannot use them properly.

This helps the decision making process of incident commanders and shows the fire authority as carrying out a thorough risk assessment to protect the people that may have to risk their lives within the premises.

Could anyone explain the difference with this suggestion and the fact that a lot of building owners now fit hooks for window cleaners to allow them to do their job properly?

They also couldn’t use their equipment safely, or carry out their job properly if they had no hooks!

Window cleaners are like us, as the building owners are responsible for their Health and Safety if they are working on the premises.

The main difference is that whilst window cleaners are there to carry out a job as well, Fire crews may have to enter the building to save lives and property belonging to the owners, and more importantly fire crews are doing this knowing that they may be under a significant risk themselves.

Is it not ‘reasonably practicable’ for crews to expect to be able to use their equipment safely, based on the outcome of a thorough risk assessment?

Is it not ‘reasonably practicable’ for fire authorities to say that we will not use guidelines in certain premises because we know we can’t use them properly?

Is this not the reason why we carry out Operational Risk Assessments in the first place?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter!

[Paul]

Billy,

Have we not been down this rocky road before??

[fireftrm]

God yes - we have.

Rather than go through it all again perhaps the mods could lock this thread?

For those who haven't come across this before Billy is an ardent believer in guidelines (produces, sells and distributes a design of hos own too) and cannot accept the modern alternatives.

As to the point of us wanting building occupiers to put in hooks to hang them on - no way, sorry cannot agree at all.

[Billy]

Fireftrm

Please explain why this thread should be locked?

You seem to have a major hang up on the fact that someone has the temerity to try and improve something you disagree with!

Your reply is full of inaccuracies and did not deal with the main point I made in any way whatsoever!

Firstly, I am in no way an ardent believer in Guidelines- I know they don’t work in their present form- so do you and the rest of the UK fire services so why would anyone be an ardent believer in them!

Your statement that I produce, sell and distribute a design of my own has no relevance unless you are implying that the new Guideline is no better than the old one and I am only trying to make money out of it.
If this is the case you should try and convince the hundreds who have tried the new one and say it is a vast improvement.

I am curious to know about this modern alternative I cannot accept?
What is the modern alternative to searching a large smoke- filled building if you cannot ventilate it?
A  T.I.C.?- you still have a disorientation hazard.

Don’t put crews in because it is too smokey and we may get lost- I would use Guidelines that work to solve this problem myself!

I do agree that the things I have just listed above detract from the main point I made which was not answered, so I will try again.

If owners can fit hooks for window cleaners so they can use their equipment safely, could fire authorities ask for them to fit hooks so we can use ours safely?

[Paul]

This thread should Be locked because you are using firenet as a medium to promote your product.

Chris,  surely if we all tried to sell our services then this would not be an open and honest forum, but one that is biased to each and every product promoted.

Given we have already exhausted the particular subject, then surely Billy is just running a re-advertising campaign to the newest members.  No one else does it!!

[kurnal]

I dont necessarily agree that the thread should be locked. Alright it gets a bit repetitive but maybe someone will one day come up with a real alternative. Nobody has done yet. TICs and PPV may be one small  part of the answer and not committing crews into dangerous situations is another partial approach. But I believe that use of a guideline may still make all the difference in some circumstances when you have to commit to carry out a rescue and PPV may not be an option. Ship fires, persons reported being a case in point.

Technology moves on and in this world where we can direct a missile into a bunker through a trapdoor there is no reason why we should not be able to find a way of assisting firefighters out of a building or ship. In some way using tracking technology it should be technically possible to use direction finding equipment in conjunction with cad plans of a building for crews rather like a sat nav system. Even better if the plan were shown as a head up display in the visor of the BA set. Utopia I know and it would rely on accurate plans and maintained conditions.

But till we get there I personally see the guideline as a small potential  component  of a safe system of work to enable  us to carry out a key task or rescue that would not be safe without it. The bit of string in addition to the belt and braces.
The big problem of course is that  we have to deploy it from the outset of the job. Its probably more time consuming and is much less use than taking a hose in with you. But still of value in some situations.

[Billy]

Fireftrm / Psmith

You 2 are having a laugh- aren't  you?

Did you 2 phone each other before the other one replied?

3 Times now you have replied and not answered the question I asked!

Why?

If I am running a re-advertisement campaign as you say- surely an open and honest answer on the point I have raised would sort it out?

It sounds like every one else can say Guidelines don't work in their present form, but as soon as I mention it, give possible solutions and invite open and honest discussion on the solutions- this is wrong !

Back to the point I raised originally and directed to anyone other than Psmith and Fireftrm who have had ample opportunity to respond, but chose not to -

If owners can fit hooks for window cleaners so they can use their equipment safely, could fire authorities ask for them to fit hooks so we can use ours safely?

I truly would appreciate peoples thoughts on this issue.

[kurnal]

Billy
I think Fireftrm hit the nail on the head in a previous thread and I agree with him. But we are all entitled to our opinions.
It all comes down to the principles of prevention. Guidelines are a poor risk control measure. OK as a backup in an unplanned and unforseen  emergency situation where despite operational pre-planning,  good design and use of the building, good management by the responsible person,  good control of flammable sunstances, good training of staff and good procedures the unforseen event happens and a serious fire occurs putting employees at risk, trapped by fire.
In these circumstances a guideline may be the one piece of kit that enables a rescue to be carried out where otherwise it would be unsafe.

But I think it go totally against the principles of prevention to install hooks for guidelines in buildings. We should exhaust all other methods of controlling the risk first,  and not be satisfied that we have done our job until the hazards have been eliminated or reduced to the extent that guidelines are unnecessary. This is the only acceptable level of residual risk.  So placing hooks in buildings  would be an admission of failure - that the level of residual risk is unacceptably high.

When we go on holiday we would feel uneasy if the air stewardess handed out parachutes and before taking off we had to attend training on how to use one.  I am happy to accept the residual level of risk of flying without a parachute, but recognise that if an engine fell off a parachute may save my life. But I dont want to plan my holiday round the use of parachutes and become reliant on it.
The test pilot may be different- he may take a parachute with him as a last resort if everything else has failed. But it would be wrong to send him up in a dodgy or faulty aircraft and rely on the parachute as his safe way out of the plane. We shoud as far as possible make sure the plane is safe to fly. But we may give him the chute and  train him in its use. But we wont modify the plane, fit an ejector seat and quick release canopy to facilitate its use.

And thats how I see  hooks for guidelines. Planning for unacceptable failures elsewhere.

[fireftrm]

Thanks for that Kurnal.

As you no doubt be unsurprised to hear I agree entirely. We should not be seeking to have items fitted, for us to use, in any premises that we would only use if there was a total failure of all other risk reduction systems. A guideline can only be of any use if the building is smokelogged and with casualties alive in the smoke filled areas. As said requesting fitment of hooks would mean we accept that the building will get to that state, we should never be in susch a position as to be advising this, which would be an abject failure.

On the point of hooks for maintenance staff - they are there because the risk assessment has determined that there is a reasonable possibilityt of the mmbeing needed (maintenance is likley to happen) and that they are a practicable control. Apply the same argumnet to the results of a fire and you should not come up with hooks (on internal walls so likely to be a hazard in themselves anyway!) for the fire service to use. You will come up with ventilation systems (mechanical, or natural - i.e fenestration), fire supression systems, evactauon routes etc. Indeed you will never get so far down the hierachy of control to the hook............

[Billy]

Fireftrm/ Kurnal

I thank both of you for your balanced and well presented opinions- It is much appreciated and I will try and reply when I have time.

Thanks again.

[Billy]

Fireftrm/ Kurnal

Firstly we need to face some of the facts in relation to Guidelines as they are at present and I hope this is where we are all in agreement.

1. Guidelines are difficult to use at incidents as it takes time to deploy them correctly.

2.Most modern buildings have little or no tie off points to allow us to secure them properly.

3. Guideline indicator tabs are difficult to feel with our fire gloves on.

I think that in general almost 99% of people reading this thread would agree with the points above?


So let's now move on to Operational Risk Assessments.

We carry out ORA's primarily to assess the risk to fire crews in the event of a fire in the premises.

If the premises are spacious and  have a complicated layout where fire crews could become disorientated- would we think at this point whether it would be feasible to consider guidelines if there was a fire in the premises?

If we have a piece of equipment such as a Guideline on all front line appliances throughout the UK  and we carry out ORA's on risks within our area- I think that building owners and more importantly, the courts could reasonably expect us to have identified where we may have to use it and where we can use this equipment safely.
I am sure that we would be critical of a FRA if it never took into account that some equipment provided could not be safely used within the premises.

If you consider the 2nd point raised concerning how most modern buildings have no securing points for guidelines- have we then carried out a suitable and sufficient ORA if we have not identified this and recorded this fact?

Could we all be accused of having "guilty knowledge" if we know the inherent risks and do nothing about them?

Let's forget about any possible improvements that may or may not be of benefit and deal with the facts as they are at the moment.

Guidelines are an accident waiting to happen in their present state and at the very least we should be trying to protect crews by identifying the areas where we know we cannot use them and recording it- this would be suitable and sufficient and is the reason why we carry out ORA's in the first place!

[kurnal]

Hi Billy
I agree with points 1,2,3.
But then on operational risk assessment

If the premises are spacious and  have a complicated layout where fire crews could become disorientated- would we think at this point whether it would be feasible to consider guidelines if there was a fire in the premises?

This is where we differ. I would not consider planning my fire strategy based on the use of guide lines. I would identify the hazards, determine who was at risk, evaluate the risk and choose a risk control system that was based on elimination of the risk, or removing the hazards. If the only way we could protect the property was by using guidelines and nothing else would work, we would remain in defensive mode and advise the responsible person of this decision. If the unthinkable happened and we did get called out I may consider using guidelines for rescue purposes
if their use would enhance the safety of fire crews. But I would not plan for their use.


Moving on it would be wrong to base a safe system of work around a guideline. To do this  would be on a par to basing your safety strategy for work in an cyanide factory on PPE.

I would react to the inherent risks by devising a strategy that would be based on the principles of prevention in which the use of PPE and guidelines wuld be bottom of the list. Far from doing nothing, I would be following the European directive on the management of risk.

We agree that guidelines are an accident waiting to happen and this is why I would not sanction a safe system of work based around them. But I do hope that before too long someone will come up wih a better system, and in the meantime would recommend their continued availability as a possible additional risk control measure.

[fireftrm]

I can't think of anything to add to Kurnal's perfect answer.

[Billy]

Kurnal
Surely the mere fact that crews have been mobilised to a fire incident already is evidence that the control measures the owners of the building have in place have failed?

You state that you would not plan your fire strategy based on the use of guidelines, but surely pre-planning for occasions and premises where you may have to use them would be more professional and is the true ethos of Operational Risk Assessment?

You also said : -(quote) "If the only way we could protect the property was by using guidelines and nothing else would work, we would remain in defensive mode and advise the responsible person of this decision. If the unthinkable happened and we did get called out I may consider using guidelines for rescue purposes"

The OIC has enough of a dilemma with incidents of this nature so why not make their decision making process easier by pre-planning and stating prior to the incident whether guidelines can be deployed safely or not.
This does not however remove the need for a DRA prior to their deployment.

In relation to the Hierarchy of control measures I think you will find guidelines come under the second measure of control as one of the main reasons we use them is to prevent crews from becoming unable to find their way back to their point of entry and become disorientated.

If there is a disorientation risk, the first control measure is Elimination which can be achieved by not putting crews in.

The next method of control is Reduction of the risk and this can be achieved by guidelines which are designed to allow crews to retrace their steps back to their point of entry.

Whether anyone agrees or disagrees- Guidelines are considered as a safe system of work and a method of risk reduction for crews under certain circumstances.
This is why we carry them on all Front line appliances in the UK.

[kurnal]

Good response Billy.

Its all about perception of whereabouts in the hierarchy of control measures the guideline sits. My gut feeling is that it sits down at the bottom with PPE. Your view is that it sits much higher as an engineering control to reduce the hazard level and I can see some merit in this.

I will give it some more thought over the next couple of days- I'm the wrong side of a bottle of wine at the moment.