FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Bert on May 06, 2006, 09:26:46 PM
-
I’m being told by a H&S adviser that staff MUST be instructed NOT to use fire extinguishers unless they have been trained to do so. I accept that extinguishers are more effective in the hands of trained staff, but I don’t agree that training is a prerequisite to using them.
Extinguishers are after all, designed as simple to use first aid fire fighting appliances and have clear user instructions printed on them. In over twenty years of fire safety and fire fighting I have not come across any instances were people have sustained injuries from using correctly maintained and serviced fire extinguishers. (Has any one else?)
Bearing in mind that something like 70% of all fires are extinguished using hand held extinguishers, then if people are dissuaded from using them unless trained, the risk of injury and death resulting from uncontrolled fires will increase significantly. Furthermore, if training is essential, then surely all extinguishers must be made inaccessible to none trained staff ?
-
I know of circumstances where lack of training has lead to problems - such as a RIDDOR reportable injury to a member of staff because they tried to tackle an F Class Fryer Fire with a CO2 extinguisher an ended up blasting superheated oil all over their arms & upper body, seen footage of poorly/un-trained people using Powder extinguishers on Class B spills in life safety situations and not extinguishing the flames (started discharge too far away, directed wrongly so ended up chasing flash back around, etc, etc) and so on.
The risks in some environments of injury from misuse are less, especially with advances in technonogy and practice - an office fire point would not necessarily result in injury as both the extinguisher and accompanying signage would clearly & pictographically indicate how to use it, what to use it on and what not to use it on, the water additive or foam extinguisher would have 35kV protection against accidental use on electricity, the CO2 would have a frost free horn, etc (all depending on whether the appropriate makes & models of extinguisher are chosen, whether all the appropriate signage is bothered with, etc)
You could argue that the need is risk based - what could go wrong if the extinguisher isn't used to its best - would it involve injury to the operator? would it involve injury to others (e.g. in life safety situations like motorsport).
Ideally everyone should receive full practical training - but doesn't always happen.
Strangely the only person who normally receives practical training is the fire warden - yet their job is to entail safe evacuation, not act as a works fire brigade - perhaps they should be called evacuation wardens not fire wardens...
WRT H&S people, they sometimes come up with the most insane drivel when they try & dabble in fire matters, especially where most have no more knowledge than the contents of a wardens course - I've seen & heard some crazy stuff!
-
Its important to note that the new RRO places much more importance on the role of fire fighting equipment.
You can stop a small fire becoming a big one and so whilst the operator of the extinguisher may face a minor risk it may prevent a large number of people facing a major risk if the fire develops.
A view that is in line with the principles of prevention.
I too have heard this argument about injury and training before. But what is adequate training? A video? or hands on?
My clients tend to want most staff to have an overview by explanation and video, with fire wardens having the full hands on with the gas fired simulator.
Where I plan fire strategy in the bigger places I usually plan some redundancy into the complement of wardens so there is capacity for investigation, evacuation, firefighting and liason.
-
Some thoughts:
Here,s a different way of looking at it - how many injuries have been caused by wrongly using them.
Does he also ban the use of lifts, stairs, chairs and desks without training?
Health and Safety legislation, in my opinion, sugests that staff are trained to use the equipment given, rather than telling them not to use things without training. so his objective ought to be to have everyone trained as opposed to restricting use.
-
Pointing and shooting an extinguisher is the easy part, if you have time to read the instructions and you have english as your first language. However, the emphasis in the RR(FS)O is on fire-fighting, now isn't that a slightly different term than that of any used before? The problem is, trained or untrained staff, are not taught to fight fire and Companies could be open to all sorts of litigation in the future if the Judiciary decide what this term actually means. If the decision is to behave like a firefighter then suitable and sufficient training could and should include more than pointing extinguishers at a target as some training does.
-
I think there are 2 issues here.
First - Health and Safety being what it is, should (my opinion) instruct people not to use the fire extinguisher if untrained. After all it is their role to ensure the safety of persons, and people should be instructed to first make all persons aware of the fire, and the H&S "global" remit, is to safely get all people out.
Even if a fire is going to be extinguished by a single extinguisher, by the discoverer, I think we would all agree that an evacuation is necessary. By instructing all untrained staff to Not focus on the Fire, but to raise the alarm and get out, H&S are doing their Job.
Secondly - In a land where the Pay as you Go Lawyers are on many high streets, companies have to protect themselves, (Sad but true), from poor use of equipment, or equipment failures, or tackling a fire too large, or any of many other reasons, it is therefore unrealistic to expect them to say, have a go if you think you can handle it. I am aware of many offices staffed by (and I do not mean to offend) petite ladies in heels, who may have difficulty wielding a standard fire extinguisher. Is it safe to halve the size of the extinguisher and tell them to make 2 trips?
Hopefully common sense will prevail, and the 70% of fires dealt with by a competent, and possibly untrained person will continue to be dealt with in the same manner.
-
There is a requirement ("where necessary" of course) under RRO Artilce 13 Fire fighting and fire detection for the responsible person to "take measure for fire fighting in the premises ........ and to ensure that "their training and equipment available to them are adequate"
.... and if you want a good example of a training video take a look at the Fawlty Towers episode where Basil tries to deal with a kitchen fire.
-
I was very interested in the 70% figure, could you point me in the right direction to find the source? I'm involved in a debate about the merits of staff extinguisher training.
-
The figures are produce by the extinguisher manufacturers. FETA or BFPSA I think.
Its a well extablished fact that more fires are put out by people that are not firefighters than those that are.
Of course when they get past the extinguisher stage then you need people with the right kit and training.
My experience of a lot of H&S people is that they dont consider things on balance.
-
I was very interested in the 70% figure, could you point me in the right direction to find the source? I'm involved in a debate about the merits of staff extinguisher training.
Gasmeter,
I believe the original source for the figure is the British Crime Survey. A subset of questions deals with fires which were not notified to the local brigade. Not sure when the next set of results is to be published.
-
The BCS was retitled the Briths Housing survey or somethinglike that - the fire bit was on the ODPM website but I dont think it covers Commercial premises. (I looked at the FETA website and it wasnt there)
-
Thanks for the help, I'm concerned that while it is fine to tell folk to 'Get Out, Get the Fire Brigade and Stay Out', people still need to have some elementary knowledge of first aid firefighting; if current thinking in some organisations prevails then then fires that can quickly and easily be put out by some one with basic training will be allowed to develop unecessarily.
-
I am aware of many offices staffed by (and I do not mean to offend) petite ladies in heels, who may have difficulty wielding a standard fire extinguisher. Is it safe to halve the size of the extinguisher and tell them to make 2 trips?
There is no excuse for having fire extinguishers that cannot be wielded by staff. Reputable manufaccturers and suppliers have overcome this. There is no reason to buy a 14 kilo charged weight 9 litre water extinguisher any more when you can install a far lighter 3 litre water additive that has the same fire fighting capacity (13A).
Yes prior to this you had to double up as a 6 litre plain water only had an 8A rating & before ratings the codes required either one 2 gallon or two 1 gallon extinguishers per 200m2. Thats why Boots, M&S and Woolworths stores used to have double extinguisher points goingback over the last 40 years as they deliberately used 1 gallon & later 6 litre extinguishers to take account of largely female staffing
CO2 extinguishers are now available again in 1 kilo sizes with a frost free horn to complement the water additives.
The LPG rigs now favoured are a clean safe way of training, but do give a rose tinted view of fire that instantly goes out and produces no smoke - my training was all real fuel - if you didn't apply the extinguisher correctly the fire didn't go out or flashed back and you stank of smoke as a result!
However even this is far far superior to a sign on the wall or a page in an H&S handbook which is what many staff get. Proper training forms a key part of fire response using the triple-A method - Alarm, Assist (evacuation), Attack
-
The figures for fires extinguished (or not) by first aid firefighting equipment was produced by Chubb for FETA.
-
Well that's what I call independant evidence!!!!!!
(It's about as reliable as to 8/10 cats prefer Whiskas - how did the market research people come to that conclusion??)
Remember: 4/5 of all statistics are made up
-
They have to replace fire extinguishers when they are used. They ask what they have been used for and compare this with the national fire stats.
Its about as reliable as the stats produced using FDR1 forms.
However the NHS keep their own stats and this shows that Nurses put out more fires than Fire fighters do. This is a more reliable system but produces similar figures to the industry figures.
I wouldnt worry too much about the exact numbers but it is clear that fire extinguishers do get used a lot and that not having them would be a mistake.
-
I am pleased that the H and S Advisor is not employed in our NHS Facilities Consortium. If we told 7000 staff in 250 buildings not to use PFE why would we have them in the premises at all. As far as training every member of staff is concerned we try to cover that by including PFE training in our annual fs talk.
Imagine giving practical training to all. 10 persons per session. 700 sessions, 200 working days. 3.5 sessions per day. I cannot fully agree with the member that said training is not necessary but we have to be sensible. We are going to train staff according to a training needs analysis (as soon as the DOH change the present mandated fire safety training regime) This will mean analysing where the fires are most likely to occur (historical evidence) and training the staff in those areas.
In the meantime I believe that instructions on the equipment is not sufficient and recommend the user signs above each extinguisher.
We had an incident recently where a nurse successfully extinguished a blaze in a microwave oven in the middle of the night on a ward. She unplugged it and used a fire blanket. Job done. She remembered the theoretical training we had given to her. The only injuries I can remember in ten years (hospital treatment for smoke inhalation) occurred when four nurses tackled a fire using a hose reel. Thankfully all hose reels in patient areas have now been removed.
-
They have to replace fire extinguishers when they are used. They ask what they have been used for and compare this with the national fire stats.
Its about as reliable as the stats produced using FDR1 forms.
However the NHS keep their own stats and this shows that Nurses put out more fires than Fire fighters do. This is a more reliable system but produces similar figures to the industry figures.
I wouldnt worry too much about the exact numbers but it is clear that fire extinguishers do get used a lot and that not having them would be a mistake.
All extinguisher supliers need to sell and what better way than manipulating stats to suit their marketing and sales needs. (obviously I am not suggesting a fine company Chubb do this..ahem)
So I agree, NHS stats are probably more reliable, indeed if anyting they may well underplay the actual situation as I have known many an incident in NHS premises not be properly reported (mainly due to staff not knowing the system)
-
I think we are all in agreement that fire extinguisers are a good idea.
Brain C makes a good point about training. we can't realisticly put everybody through a practical course but theoretical training is a good start with practical stuff for those most likely to need it.
Over time you find people move around so eventually the word does spread. I did some about 10 years ago and I have worked for two other employers in that time.
-
Not just Chubb actually - FETA statistics have been collated for over a decade via all FETA member companies.
Fire Service figures are not truthful either - they can only count fires they have attended - the many fires extinguished quickly by PFE that do not result in a brigade attendance are not recorded in their figures which can also give false results.
-
Are the stats on FETA's web site? - I couldnt find them
-
The figures are in the 'Joint Protocol on Portable Fire Extinguishers, produced by CACFOA, FETA & the LGA; its available for download in PDF format at www.fire-uk.org.
-
This is the exact link: http://www.fire-uk.org/PDF%20DOCS/FETA-CACFOA-LGA%20Protocol.pdf
-
Cheers
-
Nice debate but back to the first point. The problem, as I see it, comes from the way H&S is being used or abused particularly in liability and litigation. If someone who is not trained to use PFE is injured whilst doing it all hell breaks loose and the first thing you get is letters from the no win, no fee lawyers claiming that the company was negilgent in not training the person to use the PFE, they hadn't had the manual handling training, the process of fighting that particular type of fire had not been Risk Assessed and the assessment had not been made known to the employee. Hence the instruction has to go out if you are not trained, don't use it.
At the end of the day I think that the insurers have a lot to answer for where they pay out for small claims without fighting. The employee looks at it from the angle they can get a holiday out of the claim, the lawyers get their share and the premiums go up.
-
At the end of the day I think that the insurers have a lot to answer for where they pay out for small claims without fighting.
I think that's both harsh and unfair.
Think about it, why would any insurance company pay out if they thought they could defend it. Obvioulsy they wouldn't. They pay out when the insured party hasn't provided the evidence needed in court to defend a claim (or of course, if paying out is the correct thing to do, after all insured parties are sometimes negligent.)
-
They pay out when they consider it will cost them less to pay out than to fight it.
-
Back to the point of persons tackling fires .......
Even if appropriate training has been given to employees, they should only tackle a fire "if it is safe to do so and without putting themselves at risk" ...... down to their own risk assessment.
Training is given in a controlled environment where lack of intervention will not have drastic effects. When the crunch comes and the person is faced with a small but growing fire, they may decide that it's not worth trying to put out and evacuate.
Can they be forced to fight the fire? No, they can't.
How would it stand in court in a subsequent claim?
-
If an employer makes a 'reasonable' effort to train staff in first aid fire fighting, that is sufficient under their FRA, then surely that's all that can be expected.
-
It comes back to the original point that if an employee has been given the appropriate training on first aid fire fighting then the "if safe to do so......" instruction will stand. However if an employee has not been given appropriate training then the instruction must be not to attempt to fight the fire and evacuate.
I agree that trained employees can't be forced to fight the fire as the training should have emphasised the personal risk assessment aspect.
What would happen to a claim in court if an trained employee was injured fire fighting I don't know. My best guess would be that, provided no one had attempted to influence the employee's risk assessment and there were no other prosecutions, the arguement may well revolve around the adequacy of the training given and the competence of the trainer. However the only real answer will come when there is a court case.