FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Billy on May 21, 2006, 09:12:54 PM
-
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!
-
Billy,
Have we not been down this rocky road before??
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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............
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
I can't think of anything to add to Kurnal's perfect answer.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I am, fortunatley, unaffected by wine ans ocan argue the point.
Guidelines would actually not appear at all int he control measures, they would not be consdiered in any RA as the controls are on the basis of the risk assessment of the building OCCUPIER in case of fire. Therefore they would not be considering guidlines as they are a piece of equipment that the FRS use, not them.
They fit hooks for window cleaning as they exepct to regularly require this service.
Against fire they will have:
Passive protection first (eliminate) in the form of fire resistant materials in construction and furnishings - can't burn, won't burn
Change exisitng construction or furnishings (substitute)
Active protection (reduce) in the form of sprinklers, ventilation to remove fire gases etc
Alarm systems to warn people to get out (safe system of work)
PPE would generally not be applicable, though equipment (extinguishers) may be.
If We decide that guidelines are the required control, when there is a fire, so be it, however this could not be used as part of the risk reduction measures in the building. After all it is not a control for the risk (which is a fire) at all. It is a control for reducingt he risk to firefighters assuming that every control of the fire had failed! I still maintain that it would sit in the bottom in our DRA:
Eliminate - well the fire is here so the elimination of risk to ffs is defensive firefighting
Substitute - em, not really possible int his case
Reduce - ah, now we are talking - firefighting, ventilation, TIC
Safe system of work - SOPs, TB1/97 (yes the GL procedures are here, but.....)
PPE - BA, fire kit and guidelines (which I agree with Kurnal sit here)
this list is OUR hierarchy of control and NOT that of the occupier, so suggesting that THEY fit hooks is ridiculous. Instead we would be advocating their list of controls as these will, automatically, mean that we don't have the risks ourselves. If their active and passive systems and their safe syems of work mean there is no one in and the fire is reasonably controlled we have a simple task in extinguishing. If hte fire is bigger then we can carry out defensive operations. Simple and absolutley no reason, whatsoever, for us to consider the GL, or even worse that the occupier should be planning for us to do so!
-
I would like to try and analyse why I disagree with Billy as to the status of guidlines in the hierarchy of control measures, and I think Fireftrm makes a good point about whose control measures hooks would be.
Taking this a bit further and taking fireftrm's point perhaps the argument does not hinge on the hierarchy of control measures at all.
Take the hierarchys stance on PPE, which is always a control measure of last resort. Yet every fire we attend poses similar generic hazards to firefighters so the safe system of work includes, in every case, fire kit, and BA as standard precautions, backed up by a specific site related plan and a dynamic risk assessment.
PPE at the top of the list- but as the control measure identified by the generic risk assessment. On the face of it we have turned the hierarchy on its head- but only so we can put a whole set of hazards on one side and focus on the operational tactics and challenges unique to the incident in front of us. This is both the answer and the problem. Generic risk assessments lead to standard precautions and then we take the control measures for granted as it becomes the automatic way we do the job.
But we then tailor the generic risk assessment to plan for specific operational risks and produce the pre plan, and when the chips are down we use this in conjunction with the dynamic risk assessment.
And I think this is the crux of the matter. At which level of risk control (generic, specific or dynamic) does it become appropriate to introduce guidelines ( or CP suits for that matter) as a control measure?
It appears that the majority of posters to this thread look on guidelines as a very poor control measure of last resort. Equipment that has so many disadvantages that, given the opportunity to pre-plan, we should engineer out altogether. So with the luxury of forsight, whilst preparing a site specific operational plan thats what we should do. To introduce hooks would be an admission of defeat and give the building owner an excuse not to reorganise the layout, or improve the design or facilities to assist safe and effective firefighting.
The building reulations ADB5 document ( in England) sets out some basic facilities to support firefighting and from October we have the RRO to ensure that these facilities are maintained. In addition to that, I have found a letter to a building owner, advising them that as a result of the specific risk assessment that we will not commit firefighters into a building and advising them to inform their insurance company can be very effective.
So I maintain my opinion that guidelines are a control measure appropriate only for use under dynamic risk assessment, and then only when despite all their disadvantages they may offer an additional safety margin to enable crews to be committed for rescue purposes where otherwise the risks may not balance.
-
Fireftrm
You said :- (quote) 'Guidelines would actually not appear at all in the control measures, they would not be consdiered in any RA as the controls are on the basis of the risk assessment of the building OCCUPIER in case of fire. Therefore they would not be considering guidlines as they are a piece of equipment that the FRS use, not them'.
I beg to differ here but I think you will find that OUR ORA is for the protection of OUR fire crews and even the building owners risk assessment has to take into account ALL persons (including Fire crews) who may have to enter the building.
This is why owners provide hooks for window cleaners who are not occupiers of the building in the same way that fire crews are not occupiers.
When you also say that fitting hooks is ridiculous, I think there could be an argument against some of your methods of active fire protection on the grounds of cost/benefit analysis.
If I have a building with a low fire loading but it may become severely smoke-logged due to its layout, we would all reasonably expect the fire alarm system to evacuate the premises, therefore the smoke hazard would only be to the oncoming fire crews and any unfortunate casualties within the building.
so if we accept that I am not planning for a fire in the first place and it is extremely unlikely that I will have one- why would I pay tens of thousands of pounds for a smoke extraction system to remove the smoke when I could provide hooks at one hundredth of the price so that crews could use their equipment safely and put the fire out for me, in the unlikely event that I ever have one that is!!
-
I give up. But not without a final comment.
Why would the occupier want to provide hooks for the Ff to use to search the building (smokleogged because my RA showed that it could become so and I chose to ignore all the control measures) to find a fire. No persons to rescue too.
Why would the FRS decide to send personnel in? The building occupier has made no attempt to reduce the risk of the fire causing smokelogging, despite having assessed that it could do so (otherwise why consider fitting hooks for guidelines), but has made sure all persons are out. FRS DRA - defensive firefighting and let the building burn as there is a clear risk to Ffs entering and no life to save.
-
Fireftrm
Operational Informantion gathering on the types of premises where you may consider using guidelines as a last resort, in my opinion is vital.
Why force the OIC to make a decision based on limited information gained from the DRA when they can make a more calculated and informed decision based on the vast amount of information that should be gathered from the ORA?
This decision on whether we can use guidelines or not could already be made and included in the operational plan to make the OIC's job easier.
By all means justify not using them for numerous reasons such as no securing points, layout of building would mean they would be of no benefit, or any other justifiable reason- and then log the findings and include it in the ORA.
But to say that you would not use them because they are (Quote)
"Inherently dangerous" sounds like this is based on your own personal opinion and not backed up with any factual evidence relating to any specific incident.
-
Billy
The IC would have the information from the ORA - it would be "the premises occupiers have done nothing to prevent smoke logging of their building in the event of fire. The layout is extremenly complex and presents significant hazards to persons entering if smoke logged. There are no active measures in place to reduce these hazards. The fire alarm is satisfactory and the passive fire sfatey measures meet the requiremnts of the Regulations applicable to the building. The occupier has been made aware that we will not commit crews to protect the building if smoke logged. The ORA determines that a defensive tactical mode be taken"
The hooks for window cleaners are there because THERE IS A DEFINITE NEED FOR THEM, they are not "just in case" and the window cleaner will be contracted in/employed at the building on a regular basis. Not having them may mean having to pay for scaffolding, just to have the windows cleaned. The safer alternative is windows that can open inward to allow cleaning from within, but this may be more expensive, or not suitable due to the requiremnts to have no egress throug the opening. In Scotland they are a requirement, even in homes.
PS actual incidents where GLs have been part of the reason for loss of Ff lives do exist, no point in going over them though as you will never agree that a GL is "inherently dangerous", with which I stick.
-
Fireftrm
So now you think that identifying buildings that may be complex when smoke-logged, and putting that information on the ORA is a good idea and you also agree that we should tell the building owner of the outcome of our ORA.
I think that if you look back to the start of this thread- that was one of my initial points- only I was slated for it and you requested this thread to be blocked!
So we agree on that but where we differ is how we proceed from here.
You have stated (Quote) "The occupier has been made aware that we will not commit crews to protect the building if smoke logged."
If I was a building owner and you said to me that your crews were not going into a building because it was complex and they may become disorientated, i would ask you why you carry Guidelines on all appliances in the UK?
You would probably reply " they are inherently dangerous and I would never use them"
I would then ask "why is a recognised control measure carried on all appliances inherently dangerous"?
you could respond by saying: -
"crews have no confidence in using them"
"crews don't train enough with them"
"we cannot use them correctly because we have no means of securing them in your building" (this final point would show up on your ORA if you done it properly!)
I would then say that it is your responsibility to deal with the training and lack of confidence in them but I will fit securing means so you can use your equipment properly.
Obviously this will be done at the ORA information gathering stage where you would inform me that you would not use guidelines until means of securing them properly was fitted.
If you were professional and to protect your crews and make the OIC's job easier, you would inform all personnel of this outcome.
As a building owner- I would be liable if a fire occurred and you would not commit crews- after all, you have already carried out a thourough ORA and informed me of the risks.
But if I fitted means of securing your guidelines and you never used them if the building was smoke-logged, I would want to know your reasons for it- not just the cover all of "I have carried out a risk assessment and have decided it is too dangerous"!
On your other point of the window cleaners being contracted, I believe it is totally irrelevant whether a contract exists or not as the owners have a duty of care- regardless of contract.
-
No as a building owner I would ask what is a guideline and why do you need it? I would then ask how likely is it that my building would catch fire and become totally smokelogged given that I have carried out my Fire Risk Assessment and implemented the measures I have found in that? How much will it cost? How often are guidelines used?
From this I would guess that the chances of having a fire that needs guidelines are probably worse than me winning the lottery and I have a more urgent need for the money I would spend on fitting securing points for guidelines that will probably never get used.
Think about the number of firms that are retrofitting sprinklers or specifying them in new buildings.
As far as the window cleaners go, I know I need them in once or twice a year and if I don't fit the safety hooks I will not get my windows cleaned and my MD is complaining he can't see the view from his office.
-
Mike
Fair points you made there
Firstly- probably less than 0.5 % of buildings in the UK would ever require fire crews to use guidelines and even then, as you say what are the chances of that particular building going on fire?
You would probably be right in saying that you have a better chance of winning the lottery than having one used in your building!
That apart- the risk is still there and the problems are known to all fire services so I believe we should make people aware of the risk.
How many instances have you heard of Petrol stations forecourts being accidently blown up by someone using their mobile phone? None I guess but it has a slight risk that it may happen and people are informed of it because of this.
So as you are a building owner, I would much rather tell you of the risk before hand and let you make the decision if you want to fit securing hooks or not.
You may well take the stance that you won't ever need them but it will be your decision and the Fire Authority may rightly decide not to enter the building as a result of not being to deploy their equipment properly.
And I really do agree with you that you probably will never need them in the same way that you will probably never need your smoke alarm, Sprinkler systems or smoke extraction systems.
The only difference is that if it was down to me, I would give you the choice of fitting them or not, so the owners take responsibility and Fire services know if we can use our equipment safely or not.
-
The point is not that we will never need them. The point is that it is a battle to justify precautions, such as sprinklers etc., that are not legal requirements but may well save the building and reduce the damage to its contents let alone the more refined idea of BA tie off points.
The arguement will come down to would tie off points help save the building in the same way a sprinkler system would. The FRS may well be faced with an owner saying "I fitted the tie off points, why is my building a wreck?"
Surely prevention is better than cure and the aim should be to prevent the building reaching the state where guidelines are needed. It is a big arguement to say to a building owner that if the building ever caught fire it would be too dangerous for the FRS to enter so sprinklers etc are needed. Rather than give them an excuse not to upgrade.