Hampshire proposing to send only an officer to AFA calls

[Chris Houston]

Which sounds ridiculous to me.  What if a user has incorporated sequential verification and has no history of false alarms?  Why tar everyone with the same brush.

[jokar]

When you think that in a number of cases FRS IO's and RA's have specifically asked to upgrade fire alarms to L systems without real cause which has significantly changed the scenarios for many non sleeping risk premises.  The outcome of this is that FRS are now saying we will not attend, weird.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Means of Escape Newsletter for last month carries a report that Essex FRS are proposing non-attendance at AFAs in commercial premises altogether.

They aren`t the only ones, there are more to follow. But to reassure everyone it isn`t about saving money 

[AnthonyB]

Sort of defeats the point in going to the expense of an Alarm Receiving Centre link if it relies on key-holder or mobile patrol attendance to confirm an out of hours alarm.

Sounds as if you want property protection time to install sprinklers regardless of building size (at least the fire is being contained until the key holder arrives or heaven forbid someone passing actually dials 999 in response to the sprinkler gong!)

Cost cutting disguised as road safety.

Wonder how long before we have private insurance brigades again for property protection/out of hours response!

I will however say a lot of Buildings have ARC links now with absolutely no life safety risk requiring it

[Chris Houston]

!

I will however say a lot of Buildings have ARC links now with absolutely no life safety risk requiring it

Protection of property is also a legitimate objective and reason to summon the fire service.

[AnthonyB]

Legitimate, but not a legal obligation in most cases.

Too many normal risk premises are paying equipment installation & monthly monitoring fees for ARC links that don't need them as the client has been mislead into thinking they are a life safety requirement and if they knew they were for property protection only wouldn't bother (nor would their insurers require it).

It's these premises that don't really need them that have caused the rocketing in AFA calls which previously would probably have been at a constant from the premises where they were needed.

[Chris Houston]

Agreed. Although if installers actually put in systems fit for purpose and trained the users on how to use them, that wouldn't be a so much of a problem.

[Steven N]

A cracking debate, it does keep coming back though to what do we do with premises that either cant or wont run there system properly and summon the fire service when they are carrying out there weekly test, an engineer is working on the system or minor construction works or taking place on the site?

[SamFIRT]

In my FRS we have sequential graded call challenging by Control and response to AFA’s depending on the type of risk, time of day and occupancy. If we respond at all it may be just an officer, one pump or the full attendance depending on circumstances; seems to work well.

[Midland Retty]

I have to agree with Anthony B

Manage your systems properly, and you don't need to call the fire service.

I am amazed that a local hospital in the West Midlands calls the fire brigade everytime there is a fire alarm activation, stating that they would never contemplate investigating an alarm "because of patient safety", and yet a neighbouring city a similar sized hospital is able to investigate the cause of activations, and only calls the fire brigade when there is genuine problem.

In a former life I managed fire safety at a large site, with varied risks. Getting staff to attend fire safety training or to volunteer as fire wardens was a big problem - a problem common to alot of organisations.

But we overcame it, and put systems in place to ensure that we only ever called the people in those big red trucks when necessary. 

It really isn't rocket science, and I simply can't see why certain sectors of the corporate and public sectors are moaning that the fire service won't respond to AFAs. They use dramatic language, claiming that "lives will be lost" and the like. Poppy cock.

My response to them is that they should be managing their systems so that if the there is a genuine problem the fire service are called and in the meantime you have the precautions in place to ensure everyone is evacuated safely.

[colin todd]

Big A on a point of accuracy I think that the essex position is that other than high life risk premises they do respond to ARC calls at any time 24 hours-only if a fire is confirmed by someone at the premises.

[tmprojects]

In my FRS we have sequential graded call challenging by Control and response to AFA’s depending on the type of risk, time of day and occupancy. If we respond at all it may be just an officer, one pump or the full attendance depending on circumstances; seems to work well.

This seems reasonable. but i do know of one brigade that has taken it to one extreme in my view.

They challenge all calls raised by an AFA. thats ALL premises regardless of its type or occupancy. they will not dispatch a single appliance or vehicle until its a confirmed incident. They say 'please go and investigate and call us back when you know its a fire!!!'

In an office fine! but in a homeless hostel? That worries me.

As for sending an officer. why? thats not an operational response. What can he do? Either you deem it an emergency and treat it as such or don't send anyone.

Am i missing something? can someone explain why a brigade would send an officer?

[tmprojects]

Additionaly.

Another Brigade i know is currently 'in discusions' about charging repeat offenders a call out charge!

Now this brigade says anymore than x a year and your a repeat offender. regardless if you have 10 or 10,000 heads.

Can anyone else see the potential risks here? most 'offenders' are either high risk premises or poorly managed buildings.

i see this leading to swing in the publics view of the fire service from a reliable service to a threat of a fine. and as a result a culture of 'call the brigade as a last resort' ' i'll put it out myself' 'A charge! i'd rather turn the alarm off'

[SamFIRT]

Well, for example, should someone call 999 and say their AFA system is making a beeping noise from the control panel and not in full alarm and they are in an agitated state cannot be pacified to call an engineer, or if we have received a full alarm twice in quick succession and then receive a third from the same premises; we may send an Officer, probably a FS Officer to, audit the premises. It is a Control Officer’s judgement call. That is what they are paid for. To receive the request for assistance and send appropriate responses thereby not tying up a lifesaving vehicle without justifiable cause.

[tmprojects]

Thanks sam.

But how does the Control officer know 'its just a beep' other than by the interpretation of the caller?

I sincerely do not wish to appear confrontational or difficult. merely wish to understand.

how can a control officer truely know what is happening at the other end of a line? a 999 call is just that. it should not be down to the control officer to make that judgement.

Don't get me wrong, i have no problem with call challenge per say. here the caller makes the decision under the control officers guidance. But its either an emergency or not. isn't it?

they recieve an afa. they are challenged and investigate. if its nothing then call ends. if in any doubt then you attend.

In short. why an officer? if its nothing then sending them is a waste of resources. if its something then you would send an appliance.