A fire engine may not be sent

[Paul2886]

And whilst a fire crew are chasing yet another false alarm someone somewhere is in need of rescuing?

You've missed the points being made

[Midland Retty]

And whilst a fire crew are chasing yet another false alarm someone somewhere is in need of rescuing?
Doesn't seem fair on the local tax payer

And if my auntie had a beard she'd probably be my uncle. No one is arguing that false alarms are underisable or tie up the fire service's time.

But being realistic you won't get a care home to throw cash around installing additional measures or employing extra staff particularly during the current financial climate. And my personal opinion is that sleeping risks must not be call challenged full stop. You could reduce the pre-determined attendance maybe, but not sending any appliances at all is, in my view, not good enough.   

[colin todd]

Retters as always you speak some sense.  Call challenging of calls from care homes will one day lead to another disaster, adnt eh FRS will not out of it well.

[Bruce89]

Call challenging in care homes should not in my view be undertaken. However back to my point in relation to Art 15(1)(b) if insufficient resources are available e.g. only 2 staff on at night, no facility to call on additional local resources etc. this should and does get enforced by some FA's, I know a large care home costed an additional member of staff and concluded that it was cheaper to reduce the number of occupants in the sub compartment, thereby leaving a vacant bed space, than employing the additional staff member when a candid risk assessment concluded that safe PHE could not be achieved with the number of staff present at night. As we know all courts can vary but in my personal experience they do tend to take a dim view of profit before safety.

[SamFIRT]

You've missed the points being made

Really ? Why? 

Are the posts on this thread not saying a fire appliance should respond to all FA activations regardless of what causes the activation ? Are they not saying this is because employers of staff at these premises will not provide sufficient staff to keep a safe eye on residents and check on their well being in the event of a FAS activation?

If so I may have missed the point. 

Suggestion .... how about a call is made to the FRS. They dispatch a fire appliance, or a car, or a motorbike "whatever" to check on the premises ...at normal road speed. The resources responding can be redirected to a real incident if required by the FRS control. Bit like the ambulance service do. Or perhaps they don't respond at all. Bit like the police in regards to burglar alarm activations.

[Paul2886]

No your'e missing the point, that's not what's being implied. Read the threads from the beginning. My point is not that they should just attend when a fire signal is generated but when done so by an inaccessible detector head such as in loft spaces and maybe the head of lift shafts when verification is going to be difficult for staff.
How would you address this during a fire training session.
I think the comments made by Kurnal and Colin are sound and worth considering. I am addressing this by recommending that these inaccessible areas are served by two detectors each linked to individual remote indicators so if both remotes are illuminated it is probably a problem that should encourage a 999 call. The FRS will respond to a 'double knock' surely. Thanks yout replies are appreciated

[SamFIRT]

I believe this problem cannot be looked at in isolation. FA engineers, Fire Risk Assessors and the RP must work together to reduce unwanted alarms. However, there obviously comes a point where a FRS has to be called. Should be called! It is morally right they are called! ... and there may be negligence on the part of the RP if they are not called! This may be when there are obvious signs of fire, (flames, visible smoke etc.); clues there may be a fire (smells of burning or spurious sounds along with a head activation etc.);  or possibly electronic multiple detections of fire. However if it is the latter, then the FA engineers cannot let the problem continue if there is no fire detected. For obviously if the problem continues there is either a smouldering undetected fire, or the system is at fault, or there is a problem with the RA allowing some spurious agent to activate the system.

Don't forget there are many less fire appliances now than there were. Don't forget there are many less fire control staff than there were. AND there will be many, many less in the coming years. The recession is not just affecting private industry and RAs should not rely on a stretched public sector to prop up failing systems of work or engineering. The FRS should be the last resort not part of a RA.

However, there may be other ways of working that can allow investigation by FRS (trained) staff whilst maintaining emergency cover?

*discuss*

[jokar]

The answer is simple, FRS attend every call and then charge for those that are not fires.  Then the debate with regard to cost benefit analysis can be conducted properly.  This will focus the mind of the RP who in turn will get the FA engineer to ensure that the design, installation and maintenance of the system is done properly and the system is effective.  Either that or bash the local MP to ensure that FRS are served by a proper budget that will allow those extra applinances and staffing levels to attend everyhting without recourses to any thoughtful process.

[Mike Buckley]

Sam,

It is a Catch 22 situation, less calls means less fire appliances needed, the answer cannot be to reduce the number of calls.

A major part of the issue is the way people look at the fire service. it was explained in the way of a corner shop, the usual indicator is the number of pots of strawberry jam which the shop sells, and if it sells out that is fine.That is not the way the fire service has to operate it has to make sure there is always a pot of strawberry jam available to be sold.

It does not matter if there is a job like Buncefield in progress with a large number of fire engines attending, a house fire 3 miles away from Buncefield will still need fire appliances to turn up in the usual attendance time.

We don't want to go down the line of the ambulance service and the NHS where casualties are left waiting for an ambulance or on trolleys in corridors, and it does happen there is a news story in the East Midlands where an old lady fell over and was lying on the ground outside for 3 hours before the paramedics turned up, she is now in hospital with a broken hip and some fractured ribs!

As far as the unwanted fire signals go, the firms who maintain and look after their alarm systems so that there is a minimal number of unwanted signals should be encouraged and the firms who do not should be penalised. The correct answer cannot be to discourage the good firms because of the rogues. In police terms it is like throwing everyone in prison because that way you can be sure to get the crooks in prison!

[Wiz]

The answer is simple, FRS attend every call and then charge for those that are not fires.  Then the debate with regard to cost benefit analysis can be conducted properly.  This will focus the mind of the RP who in turn will get the FA engineer to ensure that the design, installation and maintenance of the system is done properly and the system is effective.  Either that or bash the local MP to ensure that FRS are served by a proper budget that will allow those extra applinances and staffing levels to attend everyhting without recourses to any thoughtful process.

Unfortunately nothing is absolutely black and white as to the cause of every 'false alarm' so surely we continue do everything possible to reduce the level of false alarms AND provide enough resources so that the FRS attend every call, 'just in case'. If you asked Joe Public if he would be prepared to pay whatever was needed for this service, I'm convinced he would say yes. Obviously, Joe Public would prefer that the cost of providing the service was met by making savings elsewhere. I guess he would like those savings to be made from reducing benefit payments to immigrants, local and national government officials and any 'poor' countries with their own space programmes.

[Colin Newman]

Maybe there's a solution!

What if, whenever there was a fire alarm activation that could not be readily investigated, the care home staff called a private fire fighting company.  The private company wouldn't need all the resources of the fire service, but would have just enough to ensure an initial investigation and fire fighting response.  If they attended and found that additional resource was necessary, they could make a 999 call to the FRS and then withdraw upon their arrival.

The private fire service would deal with all those nasty unwanted fire calls, and would charge the care home appropriately for their services.  This would leave the FRS to respond to real emergencies and do the fire safety things they do.

There is a potential downside though, the number of calls sent to the FRS may reduce to the level whereby the need for local resources may be questioned with the result that the local fire station loses appliances or changes to retained.  This may mean that the availability of FRS resources in response to a 999 call by the private company may not be assured resulting in the care home provider having to consider the potential of the greater risk.  Perhaps the private fire fighting company could provide sufficient additional resources to deal with the problem.  

Hmmmmmm, seems that the fire service has somehow ended up privatised!!!  

This is all nonsense, but so too is refusing to respond to a sleeping risk involving vulnerable occupants!

[nearlythere]

Maybe there's a solution!

What if, whenever there was a fire alarm activation that could not be readily investigated, the care home staff called a private fire fighting company.  The private company wouldn't need all the resources of the fire service, but would have just enough to ensure an initial investigation and fire fighting response.  If they attended and found that additional resource was necessary, they could make a 999 call to the FRS and then withdraw upon their arrival.

The private fire service would deal with all those nasty unwanted fire calls, and would charge the care home appropriately for their services.  This would leave the FRS to respond to real emergencies and do the fire safety things they do.

There is a potential downside though, the number of calls sent to the FRS may reduce to the level whereby the need for local resources may be questioned with the result that the local fire station loses appliances or changes to retained.  This may mean that the availability of FRS resources in response to a 999 call by the private company may not be assured resulting in the care home provider having to consider the potential of the greater risk.  Perhaps the private fire fighting company could provide sufficient additional resources to deal with the problem.  

Hmmmmmm, seems that the fire service has somehow ended up privatised!!!  

This is all nonsense, but so too is refusing to respond to a sleeping risk involving vulnerable occupants!

Of course the private fire fighting company could be developed to deal with more than  just investigating and assessing so that the FRS could devote practically all its time doing other things without those pesky care homes causing such annoyances. Mind you what other things would they be doing?

Step in the interfering politician who wants to know what the FRS is being paid for if a private fire service is dealing with the fires. Modernisation needed (remember that word which actually means sacking people and getting rid of appliances).
So get rid of the FRS and use the private outfit which now becomes the FRS.

So the new FRS gets a little cross with going out to AFD going off when they shouldn't. Get in a private outfit to just investigate and assess so that the FRS can devote practically all its time.............................................................................

[SamFIRT]

It is a Catch 22 situation, less calls means less fire appliances needed, the answer cannot be to reduce the number of calls.

Mike

That is where we are. Trust me I check the overnight stats for my FRS every day and we have never been so quiet. The whole service is now responding overnight to what one station was on a night shift 15 years ago. And that is success! Less people are in danger and therefore not calling for help. Both from fires (and other emergencies) and from rapid response large emergency vehicles proceeding to incidents . And that is reflected all over the country (ies).

However, you are right that success means appliances are being cut from every FRS. Maybe there just aren't enough to respond to AFA's and still be operationally ready for another simultaneous incident? Unless they respond in a non emergency status way and can be redeployed .... perhaps.     Or send a light vehicle... perhaps? 

[Mike Buckley]

Maybe there just aren't enough to respond to AFA's and still be operationally ready for another simultaneous incident?

If you can't respond to an AFA and a simultaneous incident, then you can't respond to two incidents at the same time!

It is very similar to the NHS (again). The hospitals had a target for bed occupation and the hospitals were getting rates of beds being occupied for 95% of the time. What happens? A spell of freezing weather, an increase in people coming in with broken bones and then people on trolleys in corridors and scheduled operations being cancelled right left and centre.

I still argue that this new policy is a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. I agree that places who do not maintain effective fire alarm systems causing an excess of unwanted signals should be penalised but not at the cost of the places with effective properly maintained systems.

[Steven N]

They way this is developing it seems to me that some people want the fire service to attend every single alarm actuation regardless how many times that premises may have had an actuation. Alternatively especially in these cash strapped days the fire service tries to force the responsible person to take responsibility for there premises. I assumed this was a basic principle of the FSO as we were long told that premises know fully well what fire precautions etc they need.
Its funny but it doesn't seem to be working like that all.
My view is a degree of call filtering/challenging to many premises is a good ideal, it will reduce the number of call outs and make the responsible person take responsibility for their premises. I do however draw the line at premises where people sleep. My view is the service should attend these then if an investigation is carried out whilst the service are on there way and it turns out they are not required, the service can be informed and turned back.
I do ask though what all the anti-fire service service posters on here suggest the service do? Just keep attending numerous false alarms and say hey ho it keeps us busy turning out wheres the issue, or do the service do something to make responsible persons take some action to make sure there system really only goes off when there is a fire? Because as people like Wiz state the systems these days are state of the art, its mainly user error that causes the call outs.
Confused Steve