FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Cut Fire Service Pay on August 19, 2007, 12:09:29 PM
-
I watched the news yesterday in horror as the Penhallow Hotel in Newquay burned. This is a place i've stayed at in the past. There are so many unanswered questions coming out of this that wouldn't have been just a couple of years ago.
Why no AFA activation and attendence from Cornwall FB?
Why only ONE pump out of TWO at Newquay was on the run?
Why Newquays' broken HP was not replaced with a reserve?
Why Truros' HP was also off the run?
Why no one listens to operational Firefighters anymore? We predicted this would happed under this 'Modernisation' culture.
The risk assesment process that has replaced fire service inspections was always going to be a sham. Just another excuse to cut a few CFS jobs. Its ironic that both of the unavalible HPs are currently under threat of the modernisation AXE. Even more ironic is the appliance that attended from Plymouth is due to be cut and management have been tring to get rid of it for years!
Anyone that says that an HP/TL would have had no impact on the outcome has obviously never seen one at work. bearing in mind that if Newquays' was avalible to attend it would have been there in the early stages.
The fire service should go back to attending ALL AFAs and stop this penny pinching that is costing lives. No more of this nonsense of asking callers 'do you actualy have a fire?'
Someone needs to take the balme for this tradgedy on the fire service side and i think we can start by asking the CFO or whatever he calls himself down there to resign!
God rest the souls of the dead and thoughts go to the relatives left behind.
(yes I am very angry)
-
Pete
I think your jumping the gun more than a little, yes anyone in the fire service community will be angry that any life is lost but let the investigation provide the facts and not the press or rumours or even speculation.
How do you know there was no AFA activation were you there? and from what I can see Cornwall FS were inattendace or were my eyes deceiving me.
One pump from Newquay, crewing levels, IRMP, holidays could be endless reasons and only the investigation will find out and it could have been the case before the service went down the risk assessment road.
How many rural services do you know that have reserve aerials, in 31 years in the job we never had the luxury or money to have one stuck in workshops just incase. I dont doubt that a TL/HP would have had an effect and as a former TL operator I know only to well, but we all have a degree in hindsight if only we could see the future.
Having been in the position of managing crewing levels along with that of appliance availability I know how these things can and do change by the minute. You have to look at the whole picture within a service and place both pumps and specials where the greatist risk is perceived to be, its a balancing act that occasionaly does not work out but we work with what is avalable and dont have a magic wand.
Speculation is not good for anyone including service members but more so for the families of those that died or were injured give them some peace not speculation or possible political point scoring
-
It's probable that the full facts will never be known with the virtual obliteration of the site. Those of us in fire safety will all be thinking to ourselves that there must have been several fire safety issues associated with the premises, but I doubt justice will be done as the evidence is a mere pile of bricks.
As said, best wait until some more info emerges
-
The following is an extract from a Bt Yahoo article,
"Harry Hill checked into room 33 at the Penhallow Hotel in Newquay, Cornwall, at 7.30pm on Friday, just a few hours before the blaze which destroyed the building.
The 49-year-old, from the Isle of Wight, was there to celebrate his 50th birthday and said that when the alarm went off he thought people were just playing around until staff started banging on his second floor room."
A situation I have heard about and witnessed myself - people’s response to operating fire alarms.
-
A mother, daughter and grandson were interviewed on TV; they said that when the alarm went off they thought it was "just a practice" but on leaving their room found smoke in the corridor, realised it wasn't a practice and left very quickly. So it would seem that the FA was actuated, although by detection or manual operation has not yet been made public.
-
Above and Beyond all speculation it is still a terrible tragedy and my thoughts are with those who have lost their friends and family as well as the Firefighters who clearly did all they could!!
RIP
-
Yes its very strange how the fire took hold so quickly.
Its speculated that the hotel was recently inspected...
You just don't know what happened and we probably never will... I guess we just dont expect such a tradegy of this scale to happen these days.
-
Two hotel employees interviewed on TV said that the "electrics went off, we smelt smoke soon after and then the fire alarm went off" - they then proceeded to see that guests were awake and getting out.
-
The CFO of Cornwall gave an interview on radio 4 at 1730 today. He was asked it it was unusual for both aerial appliances to be unavailable at the same time and answered that it was a most unusual occurrance. The interviewer then asked how many aerials were available for a fire in cornwall tonight. The answer was that they are both still off the run, one awaiting a part from the USA, the other with a computer problem.
Hmmm.
-
I have just returned from holiday in Newquay and on the night before the fire at Penhallow, actually walked by the place commenting to my partner how nice a building it was ......
As an experienced firefighter and Aerial appliance operator (HP/TTL and ALP) the argument for how one would have impacted on operations is, in my opinion very clear ...... it would not have been able to get to work.
The reason I say this is that the streets around the hotel are very narrow with cars parked either side of the streets therefore access would have been difficult to say the least. What good could it have done with only one pump in attendance and the aerial requiring a dedicated feed from that pump? It could not have been used until adequate resources were on scene to provide the water supplies for it to be effective in firefighting.
When operating an aerial, the crew is responsible for their safety, that of crews in the vicinity and the appliance. A decision would have to have been made on what the use of it was to be ...... rescue platform or water tower. Then there is the question of exposing the cage operator to risk ........ would the outcome outweigh the risk? Probably not in this instance.
Why blame the modernisation agenda? What an easy target that is.
Yes, IRMP has an impact, yes appliances off the run has an impact, (on which point I have to say that if crewing was only available for one appliance, then maybe, even if available, the HP would not have turned out) lack of reserve appliances has an impact, but can a shire authority such as Cornwall actually justify having the best part of £500,000 of appliance sitting in a garage "just in case"?
I feel for the family of the male occupant who suffered fatal injuries and extend my symapthies to them and all the others affected by this incident. They need to come to terms with their loss aswell as find out the answers to their questions.
Why should the CFO resign? Is it his fault that the place went from nothing to total involvement in under 8 minutes? No it isn't, so lets be realistic about it.
There will be many questions asked and hopefully answers will be given. It will take time and the investigation will be thorough to establish the facts.
Despite the ferocity of the fire, we should be grateful that more individuals did not lose their lives, although it was confirmed by the Police they are expecting the toll to rise.
I would also commend the fire-fighters that attended, especially on the initial attendance for doing a sterling job in difficult conditions (considering how windy it was and the intensity of the fire they were facing) and confining the fire to one building and not letting it spread to adjoining premises.
-
I agree with you Baldyman
-
I to agree with you
-
So do I!!
-
As an experienced firefighter and Aerial appliance operator (HP/TTL and ALP) the argument for how one would have impacted on operations is, in my opinion very clear ...... it would not have been able to get to work.
The reason I say this is that the streets around the hotel are very narrow with cars parked either side of the streets therefore access would have been difficult to say the least. What good could it have done with only one pump in attendance and the aerial requiring a dedicated feed from that pump? It could not have been used until adequate resources were on scene to provide the water supplies for it to be effective in firefighting.
I agree with all your points and there is no doubt that all the fire personnel attending would have moved heaven and earth to do their best for those affected by the fire and to save the property. Clearly they may have been initially challenged by a shortage of resources and as always would have made the best of a difficult situation. No doubt the enquiry will identify how long it took to get additional pumps and high rise in attendance and then people may judge whether this is was acceptable and the reasons for it.
My point is simply over the provision of high rise cover for a county. For many years we have had no laid down attendance times for aerials, but they were primarily seen as life saving appliances and so were strategically placed where the building density survey carried out as part of the risk categorisation review ( which we no longer have in the wake of IRMPs) identified sufificent buildings higher than 4 floors. Has modernisation led to a further erosion of cover? Do we still carry out similar surveys under the guise of the IRMP?
Whether the availability would have made a difference in this case is not my point, the point is that the incident has highlighted a problem with the availability of high rise appliances in a county, mirrored I know across the whole country.
No we cant have a £500k appliance sitiing in a reserve garage in case its needed - that would be wasteful but to have two £500k appliances off the run at the same time awaiting spares or repair is doubly so, however unfortunate or unforseeable this may be. I was surprised that the CFO did not say more in the interview to justify this as I thought the lack of any attempt to justify this spoke volumes.
Meanwhile I still have to ensure my clients provide and maintain access to their buildings for high rise appliances under the building regulations and the RRO- how many high rise are available nowadays up and down the country as part of the LAFB fleet?
-
I think it's unfair to lay blame on the fire brigade whatsoever. Yes there was undermanning, yes there were 2 HP's being repaired yes a pump was off the run etc etc.
The CFO was interviewed in the morning while the building was being demolished and I felt that he answered the questions he was asked extremely well without having the time to plan a response to each question.
The journo's were asking "is it normal to have both HP's offline" and he answered quite simply "no, but if theyre both broken it is" can't say fairer than that
I think having a £500K appliance in a garage just in case is a perfectly reasonable expectation to have. Not one per county. But a national pool of reserve vehicles isn't an unreasonable ask from the tax payer.
The HP not being in attendance wouldn't have made that much difference, especially when the place burned to the ground so quickly.
I think the building managers have a lot to answer for. It'd be interesting to see the FRA. If there even was one. Watching that building burn down, we all new that propped open fire doors, uncontrolled combustibles and ignition sources, poor fire safety/building management had a far greater significance than the lack of brigade turn out.
-
I certainly wouldn't blame the fire service, after all in a commercial building occupants should be able to escape without their intervention anyway, thats the point of the legislation.
Reports suggest the spread was so rapid it wouldn't have mattered if the whole fleet was able to turn out on first alarm, a bit like the Bradford FC fire
-
I agree I don't blame the fire service which was doing the best it could and if the fire spread was that rapid then unless the pumps were sitting outside there was not much they could do.
However the brown smelly stuff has hit the fan and the hunt for a scapegoat is on. I am afraid that the local problems will be used to hide the bigger issues.
There is a problem getting suitable retained cover wherever you are, machines do breakdown, need routine maintenance etc. but this happens all over the country.
The bigger issues such as the effectiveness of the RRO, how the RRO is policed, what funding is available, is the IRMP a good way to go are very likely to be pushed into the background.
Unfortunately all the public and the press see is that one fire engine couldn't turn out and both the aerials were off the run. Then its a case that today's headlines are tomorrow's chip paper.
-
Indeed Anthony, given how rapidly the entire building became involved and the fact that the ultimate attendance was by all accounts over 20 pumps, it's hard to see how it would have made a difference whether the second pump had arrived 2 minutes behind the first, or 10 minutes...
As Big T says, the more significant factors would have been the building design and fire precautions and procedures, along with how well both the staff and guests (how many people even bother to read the fire action notices in hotels?) adhered to the precautions and procedures. A real fire situation with staff having to bang on doors of still-inhabited rooms when an AFA is obviously far from ideal! Perhaps the shock of reading about those who have lost their lives will change peoples complacent attitudes, but then again probably not. Maybe we need to take a similar approach to that of the recent drink-driving adverts and put up posters featuring photos of charred bodies!
As for a national pool of reserve HP/ALP vehicles, this could potentially work but only with very careful planning about the types of vehicles in such a fleet. Obviously there are vast variations between the types of vehicle used by the various brigades, and an equivalent vehicle would need to be provided as a spare or their HP/ALP operators would need retraining to operate it. This alone would probably make the idea too much of a logistics nightmare, but maybe things will be different in 10 years' time, if the FireBuy project results in the anticipated restriction on the purchasing choices of brigades...
-
The most recent thing I heard from Cornwall was that there is to be an internal investigation. It is unfair of the press to ask the CFO questions he does not have the answers to, hence the investigation.
This is possibly the first serious fire involving loss of life since the introduction of the Fire Safety Order. It will be interesting to see how the owners of the premises fair under scrutiny of the level of compliance, if any. They were last inspected in 2006 ....... before the introduction of the FSO, so were they still hiding behind the fire certificate?
I hope the investigation reveals some answers and those in positions of responsibility are held accountable.
Out of the tragedy, some good has to come. This is possibly the time to fully test the legislation.
-
When will some bright spark reinvent the Fire Certificate?
-
Hopefully not soon if the premises' certificate is found to date back to the early 80s and the source of inadequate (by todays standards) compartmentation, procedures, training & alarms!
-
Hi AnthonyB, I take it you are quite comfortable with the FRA culture?
I have asked a number of hoteliers for their FRAs and haven't yet seen one that would satisfy even the most basic scrutiny in terms of the Legal obligations imposed by Part 3 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005.
There are potentially many more Newquay type fires to come I fear.
-
Hi Lawman it is not the FRA culture that is the problem, its self regulation and enforcement. Forty years ago experienced inspection officers did use FRA may be not to the same extent as today but enforcement was more rigorous. Because the system was comparatively easy inexperienced fire-fighters could conduct inspections and if there was any problems pass it on to the FP department.
Consequently thousands of inspections were conducted now days an experienced inspecting officer is required to conduct an audit and only in high risk premises what happens to the medium and low risk premises? Also fire safety departments have been decimated over the last ten years, in my opinion it does not look good for the future but I sincerely hope I am wrong.
-
No, I'm not comfortable with the current FRA culture as the only reason the existing builds I visit have decent precautions is because of the FP Act and new builds the Building Regs - if it was down to most users FRAs they would be woefully unequipped and constructed. Fire Certs were of great use, especially in our area of multi occupancies where a minimum common standard throughout the building was enforced, but did have their drawbacks of legitimising outdated precauations as well.
I think twsutton has hit the nail on the head with why the current thinking of up to date risk based precautions whilst good on paper is falling down.
-
I sincerely believe that the whole thing will go full circle but not before there is a significant number of fatal fires.
The Rose and Crown fire was some 38 years ago, we shouldn't be anticipating more incidents like that.
-
Assessment of fire risk by building owners / occupiers has developed from the general HASAWA and Management Reg’s Health and Safety risk assessment regime, which relies upon those occupants to have the best knowledge of their workplace and what goes on in it, and who are thus best placed to identify the hazards and assess the risks. Why treat fire safety any different – the same people are responsible and it should be assessed in exactly the same way as the myriad of other safety risks that are dealt with successfully on a daily basis? This argument is, in my humble opinion, fundamentally flawed, for some key reasons.
For most hazards, responsible and vigilant managers should be able to identify them, and assess the seriousness of the consequences. It’s fairly straightforward to identify that a mezzanine without handrails could result in someone falling to their death, and to identify a suitable risk reduction measure, for example. Most people are nowhere near equipped to conceive how a fire can start and develop – how fast it can grow inside a building, how much smoke can result from even a small item burning and how smoke can move more quickly than you can run and how little time their might be to mobilise a response. Their sole experience of a big fire might be warming their hands in front of a nice, big friendly bonfire on November the 5th. Without this experience, unless they have clear and easy-to-follow guidance, they cannot be expected to adequately assess fire risk, or to identify appropriate risk reduction measures. I’d argue that the current RR(FS)O Guidance is neither clear nor is it easy-to-follow.
The second key issue is that the consequences of a fire can be vastly different to the consequences of almost any other workplace hazard. Most hazards might cause significant risk to one or two people. Fire can (and has) caused multiple casualties. Society has an intolerance of such incidents, especially in places where people place themselves in the charge of others (like hotels, transport premises and places of entertainment). People expect, rightly or wrongly, complete safety when they ‘surrender’ themselves into the care of others in those places. This is a prime reason why we have had incident-led legislation, following fires such as King’s Cross and Bradford.
The third key issue is that, for most building managers, there is an underlying assumption that a fire will never happen in their building. This makes fire safety a ‘grudge purchase’ – they see no benefit in investing in it, and will not do so unless someone forces them to do so. Even if they have conscientious safety people who recommend improvement, my experience is that the Bean Counters simply say “Show me where the law says that I have to do it” and, of course, the law actually mandates very little – you can do more or less what you like, provided that you believe you’ve assessed the risks. Weak and woolly ‘enforcement concordat’ – type regulation is the greatest supporter of such people, and undermines those in those organisations who want to do reduce fire risk, but cannot rely upon the Brigades to back them up with firm advice, or even enforcement. Believe me – it happens.
I predict that fire deaths in certain types of premises (hotels and other sleeping risks, and in places where a significant number of the occupants are disabled) WILL rise, as a direct consequence of this legislation. If all goes as planned, and the fire authorities target domestic fire safety, we might, though, see a reduction in deaths in the home. With a limited amount of money to spend on fire safety in the UK, maybe this is as it should be? Let’s not pretend, though, that the current risk-based regime will improve, or even maintain, fire safety in non-domestic premises, because I just don’t see the mechanism by which this will happen.
Rant over!
-
Hi,
Very well put.
Allied to the concerns regarding these properties is my fear that as "domestic bread and butter" incidents are reducing through CFS, firefighters are going to be exposed to greater risks when they are turned out to incidents such as a hotel fire for example due to not being as "hands-on" with BA.
Worrying times ahead!
-
Fishy on your predictions, at least those premises you mentioned are getting audits, so the RP are reminded of their responsibilities. What about the medium and low risk premises, they will be getting no audits and once the fire precautions required by the FPA becomes inadequate what then.
-
One advantage of the FPA system of Certificates was that a copy were held off the premises by the local Fire Brigade. In the event of a catastrophic fire at least the fire service had information about the precautions that had existed at the time of issue of the certificate. With FRAs, held only on the premises (unless possibly part of a larger business with copies held at company HQ), it is likely that no-one will hold such information and inquiry into fires like this one will be considerably hampered because it will not be clear what the FRA had concluded and what work, if any was done as a result of the FRA.
Is there a case to require all businesses to lodge their FRAs with the local FRS? I can see several advantages to this:
(a) a copy of the FRA would be held off the premises for reference in the event of a major fire;
(b) the FRS could see which businesses had not yet carried out or submitted their FRAs;
(c) a quick check of each FRA should be a good guide as to the seriousness with which each business takes its fire safety responsibilities;
(d) the FRS check on FRAs should also highlight the 'cowboys' carrying out poor quality FRAs and thus, hopefully, help to deter them or weed them out.
-
Surely someone should have forseen this in the risk assessment environment we operate in.
-
Nice idea John and I can see the advantages. However I think it is probably a non starter, logisitically it would be a nightmare for the FRS.
a) How up to date is the FRA? Yes the requirement could be to review the FRA annually and send an updated copy in but how many would do it and how could the FRA deal with all the paper? Let's face it with the old Fire Certificate it was a requirement to inform the FRA when carrying out alterations, how many companies actually did?
b) A fire cert was required for a premise employing more than 21 people (roughly) a written FRA is needed for a company employing over 5. Remember the discussions as to whether a company employing 10 people over 5 premises needed a written FRA? Who will crosscheck the businesses with the FRAs received?
c) Who is going to check the FRA and then what will the FRS do about it? Will this be used as a cop out by the business? "I sent my FRA in and the FRS said nothing about it. They are the experts it must have been OK"
d) As c)
Either the FRS would drown in paper or it would need to divert a large amount of manpower to dealing with the paperwork and this would cut into the holy grail of home visits, not to mention training etc.
Yes I agree with fishy, on average a fire is a once in a lifetime experience for most people and how a fire starts, travels, the damage it does and the speed it moves are a closed book to most of the population (including HMG). Whereas if you have been in engineering for example you will have met or at least heard of someone who has trapped their hand in a machine.
I work in a small company and we have about 50 accident reports a year and 2 years ago a dust extractor caught fire, that was the biggest fire we ever had.
The aim of putting fire safety in the same scheme as health and safety sounded good but it was impractical.
-
Mike,
The same thoughts about the logistics also crossed my mind, but I thought it was still worth floating to see what opinions would be expressed. Would it be easier on the FRS if it was just the "significant findings" that were sent to them?
Or does the FRS need to set (or be set) targets of random 'snap inspections' on a range of property types to encourage people to do what is expected of them in case they are one of those selected?
-
John, That is exactly what the Government have set out in IRMP Guidnace Note 4 and in the National Framework document that supports the Fire and Rescue Act 2004. FRS have to have a risk based inspection programme that deals with high risk premises and this should include those premises where numbers of people gather either to sleep or resort. The trouble is numbers of FSO's are busy inspecting offices and other commercila type premises such as special treatment centres and night cafes where the risk is considerably lower.
-
jokar using the guidance you quoted how many of the disasters in the last century would have required an audit. My view is all premises should be subject to an audit and the risk level should dictate the frequency. I know it will not happen because the cost cutting in FRS would not allow it.
-
John,
I agree the topic is worth floating, alhtough whether any of the ideas will be taken up is a different matter.
I don't think just sending the significant findings would help as the businesses that would send the findings are probably the ones who are doing a reasonable job. The ones that need to be caught are the ones who are not doing a FRA at all and how do we weed those away from the businesses who do do a FRA but believe they have no significant findings.
I would say that snap inspections could work but there needs to be a significant threat of being caught, especially now in the initial stages. It is just like drink driving, people will still do it if they think that they are not likely to get caught.
So what is needed is a massive blitz by FSOs who know and understand fire risk assessment and not just apply the old Fire Safety Act. I don't think the FRAs have the resources of trained personnel to do this. The other problem is it just needs a couple of idiots to discredit the whole process and we have seen from this forum FSOs like this are about.
Mike
-
I think it's grossly unfair to lump the whole of the RRO principal together and insist that it doesn't work because in our opinion the average joe has no idea how a fire starts and what the larger consequences are.
For the majority of companies out there the RRO has made fire safety the top of the agenda in the vast majority of board meetings. When has fire safety ever had that kind of exposure in business? When has a fire safety manager ever been invited into a board room PRIOR to a fire starting?
The reality is that if the RRO had not been in place this hotel WOULD have still burned to the ground.
If completed properly the Fire risk assessment is a fantastic document that highlights the obvious fire hazards and allows business to set reasonable times for fixing them.
The health and safety at work act which uses the risk assessed approach has had some truly significant hicups where people have died as a result of poor risk assessment. You won't see the HSE revoking the whole RA process and doing it themselves.
It's a sad fact but, whether we have Fire certificates, Risk assessments or some other process, major fires will occur in business forever.
Every single aspect of a buildings fire safety strategy could be perfect. The building could still burn down and people could still die. FRA or not. Fire Certificate or not, brigade snap inspection or not.
Incidentally SOME brigades are dealing with the RRO. Meeting with business and believe it or not providing advice and ensuring the Risk assessments are being completed.
-
For the majority of companies out there the RRO has made fire safety the top of the agenda in the vast majority of board meetings. When has fire safety ever had that kind of exposure in business? When has a fire safety manager ever been invited into a board room PRIOR to a fire starting?
BigT have you any evidence of this I would suspect in the majority of companies, quite the opposite, and fire safety would be way down the agenda if on at all. I can see it being on the agenda if they have been prompted in some way.
-
Every company was prompted. As soon as the first convictions under the new order were published, most companies started to employ people to deal with the issue.
Most companies are binning managers, not employing more. So for any company to offer the position of a fire safety manager or similar says that the board of a company are taking the RRO seriousy. If they wern't there wouldn't be any jobs in business for Fire safety managers / engineers. You only have to look at the employment websites and proffesional magazines to see that many companies are employing due to the RRO.
Look at the quantity of Fire safety firms that exist. Someone is paying for them. Some of their work is of questionable quality as is always discussed here, but there are some absolute gems of fire safety consultancies out there catering for companies who can't afford to employ a specific Fire safety manager.
The amount of money in the fire industry suggests to me that complying with the order is high on the agenda of the majority of companies who comply with H and S law. Just look at the quantity of companies providing Fire risk assessment training or fire safety upskilling for managers. They seem to be doing alright financially!
I'm sure you understand that It becomes quite frustrating when companies like mine who are genuinely dealing with the RRO are lumped in with the ones who don't. The forum here blames the RRO when the fault is with the minority of companies who flought the new legislation and don't give a hoot about the consequences.
-
The forum here blames the RRO when the fault is with the minority of companies who flought the new legislation and don't give a hoot about the consequences.
Yes and no. Personally, I'm having a pop ot the RR(FS)O because it's based on a fundamentally flawed rationale. You can't adequately assess a hazard to conclude what the risk is without relevant training and experience (i.e. competence). General H&S risk assessment relies heavily on the employers' / employees' experience (of the workplace), normally with a little training - IOSH / NEBOSH - type stuff. With fire, it will be rare for an employer to have anyone 'on the books' with experience of a significant fire in a building. So... there are only two ways you can address this - either with extensive training (which, generally speaking, happens nowhere except very big companies and public-sector organisations) or you buy the expertise in (which is PRECISELY what all the blurb and Impact Assessment the Government produced to accompany their proposals said they absolutely did not want to happen). This is key - there are 2 million businesses in England alone - and even if only 10% of them have any significant fire safety issues, can they all have or buy the competence to adequately assess fire risk?
You're right, of course, re: the Newquay blaze; although the speed of the development strongly suggests to me that some key risk reduction measures were either missing or were ineffective, it would be entirely wrong to conclude (at this stage) that the risk assessment or fire safety management was inadequate. It is in the nature of risk assessment that you can do it perfectly well, but death or injury can still happen. Nor is it possible to say (again, at this time) with any surety that fire safety at the Hotel would have been better controlled under a FP Act 1971 - type regime. No doubt subsequent investigation will reveal more detail.
I have no doubt that many companies are genuinely trying to comply with the Order - but that's not the issue. It's whether it is credible that more than a small proportion are equipped to successfully and appropriately assess and manage fire risk that's at issue. I have my doubts - only time (and statistics) will tell...
-
Extensive training? The fire service college will train someone in industry up to be a "competant person" in 5 days for under a grand.
You could take a total layman and get them tech grade in the IFE with under a fortnights training from a certain H and S training company
Most small - medium sized companies can afford a few grand on training so based on that, the Impact Assessment the Government produced to accompany their proposal was quite correct. Simply because for a couple of hundred quid more than a risk assessment would cost from an external contractor a company could have a "competant person" with IFE accreditation in under a month.
I'm not saying that I agree that they can make someone competant in that time frame, but until the fire service college cease to say you can become a "competant person" in a week and the IFE stop allowing people with 2 weeks fire safety experience to gain Tech grade the arguement that the RR(FS)O is flawed doesn't hold any water with me at all.
I think that perhaps the reality is, we ALL think a Fire risk assessment needs to be more complex than the government, the Fire service college and the IFE do. However, those of us who are competant and who carry out a FRA and deal with the action plan the RR(FS)O works.
-
For the majority of companies out there the RRO has made fire safety the top of the agenda in the vast majority of board meetings.
I wish you were right, you have been lucky to be dealing with these companies, but I must disagree with this statement.
And much as I am an advokate of companies taking fire safety seriously, even I would not expect it to be the number one issue on the vast majority of board meetings. I think even the most vocal of us, will acknowledge that companies have lots of issues to concearn themselves with.
-
I'll revoke that statement then. Just to clarify, I didn't mean every board meeting that has occured since the RRO. My point was that the board of most companies have at least acknowledged the requirement for an FRA and put steps in place to deal with the legislation.
If this isn't the case then these companies won't be taking H and S seriously either. Most H and S managers worth their salt have looked at the RRO and worked out how they can deal with it. By employing a fire safety manager, employing a consultant, having training themselves etc.
It gets a little bit frustrating when all we discuss on here is how pants the RR(FS)O is. Quite a few people who contribute to this forum have made a life for themselves on the back of the order.
Why don't we embrace it rather than just moan about how the government have ruined a perfectly good system.
The most important thing is that the FRA principal hasn't alienated people who used to take fire safety seriously prior to the order, if anything it would have enforced the fire safety culture within that company.
From speaking to various fire safety consultants, some (i wont say "the vast majority" ever again) of the companies they have risk assessed originally had no fire evacuation plan, no training, unserviced extinguishers, fire stopping issues etc etc. These are now action planned and the building is risk assessed. These customers chose to have a risk assessment due to the new order. Under the old regime these companies would not have assessed their fire safety provision and wouldn't have dealt with the issues highlighted. Surely that is a good thing and a relative success.
-
Big T
I don't contest that some companies do take fire safety seriously and they do a good job, it is not these companies that cause concern. It is the companies that put fire safety low on the agenda that create the problem. I remember a company from a brigade I was in who under the old act were liable for a fire certificate because they had passed the magic 21 employees. The boss did no more than fire a couple of employees to bring the company under the figure. OK this is an extreme case but the attitude is still there.
Re the training appart from the fact that the FSC is strongly influenced by the government. The college can train someone with no fire experience to become a "competent person" in 5 days, how come it used to take the same college 12 weeks, with a additional period back at the brigade to gain experience, to train an experienced fire fighter to become a FSO to go and solve the same problems that face the competent person?
-
Big T I do not agree on your views on how effective the RR(FS)O has been, only time will tell. I do agree with you regarding the slagging off of the order which serves no purpose, its here, you have to accept this. Constructive criticism is the way forward and we may be able to improve the order in the future.
-
Mike,
It is an extreme case, your right, but it is relevant. You've highlighted that under the old regime there were ways out of the fire certificate, extreme to sack a few people, but it was possible. Where is the out now? aside from employing 4 people, that isn't viable for any medium sized business (unless a consultancy or similar perhaps). Send a FSO to any business now and see if they has a FRA. If they haven't you can cause them serious problems.
I think the reason for the course is that the college can make a quick buck out of it because I don't agree that you can become competant in that period of time but as i mentioned above its sold to us all that it can be done.
This is my point: I think that we assume a FRA needs to be more complex than it needs to be.
Either we accept that the FRA is supposed to be a simple document highlighting the basics and how to deal with the issues, or we fight to ensure that the FSC and other companies can't claim "competant person" status within a week. The FRA's I complete are far more complex and in depth than a one week trained competant person would be.
So tell me. Am i making work for myself by doing in depth assessments? Looking at it, the government only expect me to complete the FRA as a layman
If we feel that the RR(FS)O is flawed as i do. Lets improve it. Not bin it and slag it off all day
-
As far as the complexity of a FRA is concerned there is the view that a FRA does not need to be that complex this is being pushed from the government, this is fine until something goes wrong then the lawyers get involved, at that time the FRA needs to have everything covered i's dotted t's crossed etc.
In a way the Newquay fire may show this up. Let us assume that the hotel did have a FRA and it was done by one of our colleagues. Was the FRA adequate? Three people died, a fire escape couldn't be used because flame were spreading over it and the fire spread through the building very rapidly. Even if the Fire Authority etc. do not pursue a criminal prosecution what will happen if the families sue?
If we look at the Health and Safety side the HSE is saying that the Risk Assessments do not need to be that complex or detailed, however if an employee gets hurt and sues the lawyers are looking for any loophole to get money.
So my view is a simple FRA is fine until something goes wrong then it becomes a lead life belt.
I think the RR(FSO)O is flawed but the major flaw is in the assumptions made as to how it could work. It was modeled on the H&S legislation but to a great extent H&S can split down into smaller units. A machine can be risk assessed, a process can be risk assessed and the two combined to give an overall view of the job. However with fire it is necessary to take a more holistic view. An accident involving a machine is likely to be localised and once it has happened it is over. Fire on the other hand starts small and then accelerates, creating other failures and exposing flaws that would not be apparant on a smaller scale.
As far as the RRO goes. Create a relevant person who is responsible for fire in a company, yes great. Give guidance as to the arrangements that need to be put in place to allow everyone to escape in case of a fire, it's roughly the same as the old Fire Safety Act and Building Regs. Expect anybody without a background in fire or fire engineering to combine the two, major problem. Its rather like taking a person off the street giving them a copy of the building regs and asking if that building is ok.
I feel that the RRO was a reaction not to a failure in the Fire Safety Act but in the failure to invest in enough resources to make that Act work.
In short the RRO is rather like the early days of the lazer: a good solution looking for a problem.
-
Mike the RRO followed on from the Workplace Regs which was forced on us by Europe. It had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the FP Act which I believe played a major part in reducing non domestic fire fatalities down from 500+ in the seventies to less than a hundred by the end on the century. How is debateable.
-
Would be intresting to know how many additional premises are now subject to FS legislation that were previously never covered under the FPA? Places of worship, Community centres (those which weren`t covered by a PEL / Alc. Licence), Scout huts, temporary structures etc How many serious fires have occured on these premises and how many serious injuries / lives lost.
Whilst many buisneses may be claiming to be unaware / unsure / unqualified / unenthusiastic about the RRO, I am aware of many community groups which are now taking their responsibilities very seriously. They may not have the full competence required to complete their own adequate RA unassisted, but they know they now need to be doing far more than they ever have.
In my own experience, brigade inspecting officers themselves are uncomfortable (or indeed incompetent ?) with the idea of sensible fire risk assessment and until october, were trying to ridgidly impose the same type of fire safety stuff they were in 1971. The grade 2 listed building I work in is littered with 3 decades of "very important" fire precautions enforced through the issue of a fire cert. Metres upon metres of GWPP glass chopped into ancient oak doors, FA call points stuck in the most inappropriate locations - just because the regs said so, ply-faced fire door sets put into corridors, metres from existing hardwood door sets just because the compartment length exceeded that in the text book.
Whilst i`m sure their are exceptions to the rule, the bulk of IOs I encounter are not kept abreast of the technologies available, this confirmed again a couple of weeks ago when it was sugested that a monnex extinguisher be provided to cover frying / fat risks in one of our commercial kitchens.
Apologies if the post wanders a little from the thread title. It does frustrate me that some people seem intent on turning a tragic incident like the Newquay fire into an attempt to discredit what could be one of the most productive pieces of fire safety legislation ever brought into force, when the liklihood is, that if the fire had occured on 30th September last year, the result would have been the same.
Paul
-
Hi Goodsparks, but the fire didn't happen on the thirtieth of September last year and three people have tragically lost their lives. We have every right to question the adequacy of the new FRA regime and be fearful that further incidents will cost lives.
-
Yes - I expect whe the FPA was repealed these people all ran about removing all the fire protection that was "required" by their fire cert.
-
With no fire certificate and most risk assessments I see (& I see lots) being check boxes filled in without resort to any guidance, not even the entry level leaflet fire precautions are likley to fall & multi occupancies rise in risk as there is little coordination - just this week gone it was only the coincidence of my inspection/coordinating visit that one occupier was stopped from blocking up an adjoining exit from another office (despite their Y/N FRA) that was essential to allow access to the secondary stair that they required to have access to.
We are stuck with the RRO & have to work with it to try & get it to evolve & be effective, but thatdoesn't mean we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand as to it's potentially hazardous flaws
-
Please let us live in the real world. Whether a fire certificate exsisted or a FRA or nothing at all. People will still behave as they will as they have little or no idea about fire. The legislation does not matter, it is the advice that is given that counts. For all risk assessors and FSO's it is about life safety, the difficulty lies when all sorts want to talk property protection as an aside to the life safety issue. having sat on both sides of the fence some of the certificates I did were rubbish and my early FRA's probably the same. It is about experience and knowledge but also about understanding a differing view. The legislation is with us and now let us all use it to the right purpose, to ensure that people do not lose their lives in fire as in this tragic case. It is immaterial now what the cert or the FRA said, the fact are that people died perhaps unecessarily but the inquest will find that out.
-
Please let us live in the real world. Whether a fire certificate exsisted or a FRA or nothing at all. People will still behave as they will as they have little or no idea about fire. The legislation does not matter, it is the advice that is given that counts. For all risk assessors and FSO's it is about life safety, the difficulty lies when all sorts want to talk property protection as an aside to the life safety issue. having sat on both sides of the fence some of the certificates I did were rubbish and my early FRA's probably the same. It is about experience and knowledge but also about understanding a differing view. The legislation is with us and now let us all use it to the right purpose, to ensure that people do not lose their lives in fire as in this tragic case. It is immaterial now what the cert or the FRA said, the fact are that people died perhaps unecessarily but the inquest will find that out.
Hi Jokar, forgive my ignorance but how long will the inquest take?
-
I for one have no idea, but for sure an offence under Article 32 may have been committed. "a failure that results in death or serious injury" paraphrased of course. many people will be called to account for he actions taken includining both sides of the FRS, ops and fire safety.
-
Cheers, I sincerely hope it's sooner rather than later and is dealt with appropriately.
-
One area of concern with risk assessments is that there could be a tendancy to stray, considerably by some, from accepted and authoritive codes of practice. Currently, in my fire fighting role and with fire safety experience, if in a fire situation, I enter a stairway enclosure or dead end corridor I will make a reasoned judgement that I am likely to in a protected route and reasonably safe from a fire in other parts of the building.
The introduction of risk assessments removes this, particularily where a culture of cost cutting has started to creep into the equation.
-
One area of concern with risk assessments is that there could be a tendancy to stray, considerably by some, from accepted and authoritive codes of practice. Currently, in my fire fighting role and with fire safety experience, if in a fire situation, I enter a stairway enclosure or dead end corridor I will make a reasoned judgement that I am likely to in a protected route and reasonably safe from a fire in other parts of the building.
The introduction of risk assessments removes this, particularily where a culture of cost cutting has started to creep into the equation.
I agree, but with that in mind doesn't your Dynamic Operation Risk Assessment therefore change?
-
It is more difficult to assess the elements of contruction of a corridor in poor visibility and whether partitions are 1/2 hr to structure ceilings.
There exists a greater risk in that one cannot use professional knowledge as one used to be able, particular in building where Brigades would have been involved in the design or ungrading as one would have been aware of the standards usually applied.
Yes Big T you are quite correct but this is just my 2 penny bit.
Reminds me a little of how we are now to treat sandwich panel buildings on fire. If there is no life risk do not enter.
-
Nearlythere, from experience, until I went into FS I had no idea what a protected route was and learnt to fight fire using the protection around me. We will never get it all right as fires of the past such as Kings Cross and the Avon fire where colleagues lost their lives have demonstrated.
-
Nearlythere, from experience, until I went into FS I had no idea what a protected route was and learnt to fight fire using the protection around me. We will never get it all right as fires of the past such as Kings Cross and the Avon fire where colleagues lost their lives have demonstrated.
My point completely Jokar. All the time you did not know it but you probably were within protected routes. Thats the protection your Fire Safety colleagues made sure was provided for the occupants and you.
-
I agree although it wassuch a long time ago that wheeled escape were new then.
-
It was not that long ago Jokar. Certainly not before RAs came in.
The vast majority of existing buildings are still to the traditional design and construction. Its when you go out of town to "modernised" construction and design methods that the problems can arise and we all know what "Modernisation" means.
-
It matters not a jot if you have all the right ticks in the boxes, have carried out the FRA with due diligence, employed a FS manager as your competent person if, ultimately, as the operators of the premises you compromise all the foregoing by wedging doors open in central staircases for the 'convenience' of the occupants. The British Standard wedge has caused more fire spread than will ever be acknowledged or counted. And it was ever thus under the old FPA! I saw it countless times during inspections; all the doors were closed but the marks from the wedges were deeply imprinted in the carpets.
It was bad enough then. Now, with the RRO it will be impossible to regulate (ha ha, isn't that the point - DE regulating?) and with precious resources targetted elsewhere we now have the recipe for a number of such incidents and their terrible consequences. Throw reduced manning levels, mis-management, economies in maintaining firefighting appliances, regional control centres, etc, into the mix and what, just a few years ago was a service envied the world over has become overstretched, underfunded and utterly demoralised.
The bells will still go down, the response will always be a minimum 100% from operational firefighters, but the personal cost is making many ask, "Is it worth it?"
-
Yet another fatal hotel fire, this time in Blackpool with over 60 firefighters attending. As has already been highlighted on this thread, we can expect more of the same!
-
I think that things will unfortunately get worse before they get better, it is sad that as we know it takes people to suffer and those responsible to realise the implications of not taking ownership of their own risk by being held accountable for these contraventions. It is hard to keep the faith, and think back to fire certificates, but as we know they were by no means perfect. It also begs the question of how we approach these fires in relation to the increased risk to our firefighters.
-
So what about all the people that died in hotels under the FPA - do they not count?
You guys do come out with some stuff!
-
How on earth can this happen? The Rt Honorable John (2 steak and kidney pies with chips) Prescott, bless im, famously said that fires do not happen at night. Some people are not playing by John's rules and it has to stop. Would risk assessments solve the problem?
-
wee brian,
I think you have misread my post, I am trying to say that we shouldnt blame the new legislation because it still happened with the FP Act and FPWPregs, and that those who do tend to feel fire certificates were the best way should try to remember that, also how restricting they were to the FPO who knew the standards werent right but could only offer goodwill advice because there had been no change of use or material alterations.
-
Lets get something correct here, a peice of paper or 2 never saved a life. An FRA is a premises. The recommendations/suggestions from an assessor are for the RP to put into place if they want to. The RP has the accountability and responsibility for the Fire Safety Duties. The WPFL and FPA were about protecting buildings and employees and hotel guests were part of that. The difference now is that all people are relevant and protection has to be provided.
-
Words were missing in the above post, my computer seems to have a life if its own. The second sentence should read " An FRA is an audit of the premises with an assessment of the fire risks with solutions of how that risk should or could be lowered"
-
Sorry finsp we agree - how did that happen
Jokar - you must let the valves warm up before you use your computer and dont let the paper tape get damp.
-
Why is it that people are trying to blame the change in Legislation? (or is that just the impression I'm getting from the posts here?)
The old dead and buried FPA was restrictive to the fire authority by virtue of the certificate BUT the fire precautions required in premises should have been identified under the workplace regs (RIP) by the fire risk assessment ......... if they had one, and they should have had one for the past 10 years.
Lets also not forget that the Regs could over-ride the Act when it came to enforcement.
All fire deaths count, irrespective of the premises they occur in. This incident has hit the headlines due to the severity and speed it took hold more than anything.
Where are the posts about the fatal incident in Blackpool this week? Just a mention briefly in this topic.
Until there is a full test case (and Penhallow may be just that) and individuals are prosecuted and/or imprisoned for the offences, owners, employers and occupiers will continue to carry on thinking fire will never happen to them and give no thought to the consequences or the safety of the relevant person. It will take a full prosecution to embed in the minds of the responsible or competent person that this is real law, fully enforceable and carrying serious consequences for non compliance.
Finsp ..... reference your comment regarding "how we approach these fires in relation to the increased risk to fire fighters" ....... you adopt defensive firefighting tactics. If you are prepared to commit crews into a fire that intense then you need a talking to or are you prepared to actually compromise the safety of personnel on the chance that you can rescue someone? Remember that firefighters will take some risk to save saveable life or property, they will take little or no risk to save life or property that is already lost.
-
Would a RA take into account Prescott saying that fires do not happen at night? A means of escape certificate would not.
-
Yep agree with you all, I must try to get my opion across better on here, we are all talking the same talk!
Baldyman, again I agree with your comments regarding tactics wholeheartedly, its just a bit worrying that if we do have to commit a crew to save a saveable life, can we be confident that the structural FP is sufficient to give the protection we need, yeah I kno, Dynamic Risk Assess. lets wait and see what comes from the cases in question.
Cheers Guys
-
On a slightly different tack, it was most enlightening to hear the FBU at TUC conference last week make reference to the acute lack of social housing, rich cats buying second homes in rural towns & villages, minimum wage remaining static.....my point? - the same as the FBU's, price-out the work force from these areas and FRS has no pool of volunteers to man retained stations...one of the factors that Cornwall is currently facing and not alone I'm sure!
Its just my thoughts.....
-
The WPFL and FPA were about protecting buildings and employees and hotel guests were part of that. The difference now is that all people are relevant and protection has to be provided.
The FPA was not about saving property it was all about means of escape and saving people including those resorting to, building control concerned themselves about saving buildings. However this is irrelevant the FPA is gone we now have to use the current legislation. The big difference between then and now is the concept of MOE, we believed in passive fire safety measures and used active measures only as a last resort now it seems active fire protection is the first consideration.
My concerns with both the Newquay and Blackpool fires was the speed the fire spread if the newspapers are to be believed less than ten minutes from start to total involvement.
-
On a slightly different tack, it was most enlightening to hear the FBU at TUC conference last week make reference to the acute lack of social housing, rich cats buying second homes in rural towns & villages, minimum wage remaining static.....my point? - the same as the FBU's, price-out the work force from these areas and FRS has no pool of volunteers to man retained stations...one of the factors that Cornwall is currently facing and not alone I'm sure!
Its just my thoughts.....
We have a very similar problem not a million miles up the road from yourself!!
-
Hotels are coming in for some stick, but the law change is actually making this more apparent - I was watching a regional BBC news programme whilst away this week and a main story was a hotel that had been visited an undercover fire safety guy sent in to investigate (either for the BBC or a consumer group I missed the start of the clip) and he found all sorts of things like non smoke sealed doors, sliding doors (non FR) to stairs, alternative escape route access for whole floors through rooms locked with the Summerland/Woolworths killer 'key in glass fronted box' and lots, lots more. After the whistle was well and truly blown the FRS had to send in an inspector and slapped an agreed action plan for every contravention. From the size of the hotel it loked like it probably will have been certified in the past.
Lesson - the FPA wasn't perfect, the RRO can bring improvements - but only with enforcement. If the press hadn't done their own thing and pushed the FRS into visiting & doing something do you think anything would have changed?
-
fact of the matter is that NOTHING is being learn't from this.
We still treat AFAs as a waste of time, we still have this daft situation of self inspection and we still have no aswers from senior managers as to why they want to get rid of or downgrade aerial appliances. Thae fact that Cornwall had None avalible and the nearest came from Devon.
Retained recruitment and retention isn't being addressed properly. If you treat people like second class employees then the will leave, I know I did. Brigades all around the country are moaning that they can't get anyone; the fact is they can but they cant be bothered. Think of the money they are saving by not employing all of these retained firefighters. Its also happening with Wholetime. When I was retained i could have found enough men & women to man the station 24/7 but managers always found an excuse to no take somebody on, usualy they don't provide full cover or the right sort of day cover. Thats a fact.
Try ringing a selection of brigades around the counrty to see if they are recruiting retained. While they tell you no, their retained stations are suffering from shortages.
I recently spoke to a 'Station Manager' with just five years experience in the job. Didn't have any managerial qualities whatsoever and had very little experience of the job operationaly. He spoke some good PQAs though! And he was being 'developed in his role' via an ADC. The Ffs he 'managed' couldn't stand him and he had no time for them, he was looking forward to getting his next 'role'.
This for me summed up the state of the fire service and how we have got to this point (mainly thanks to a labour government not the FBU)
I can no longer stand to be involved with this shambles anymore. I leave the job next month after 8 years. It was the only job I have ever wanted to do since leaving school and i've watched it being torn appart by PC idiots and yes men.
I say good luck to anyone joining now, your welcome to a career of putting up smoke alarms and delivering leaflets. Watching properties burn to the ground and not being able to think on your own two feet anymore. As long as we continue to go down this road the fire service as we know it is doomed.
It is good to see a site like this letting people out there know what the fire service has become and long may it continue but for me its - Closing down home station - for good.
Cheers All
-
Sad reading that Pete as I know there are many who will share your views. Where do we go from here?
I wish I could change your mind.
Best of luck in the future.
-
Well said Pete. The job and your community will be all the poorer for losing your services.
The wheel will turn a full circle eventually though- you can be sure of that.
-
Is it just me or has this gone way off topic?
I thought this thread was about the hotel fire in Newquay but it appears to have spiralled into a blame apportioning lets make someone a scapegoat and look at the state if the modern Fire and Rescue Service topic.
Pete_P, it is obvious your are dispondant with the service and how things are and the decision to leave is not an easy one to make, but, even after 22 years of service, both Retained and Wholetime, I consider it to still be the best job. Unfortunately, things hapen which we don't like or agree with but you have to move and change with the times, but that's my opinion, not yours.
I wish you all the very best for the future.
-
Fact - There was a fire
Fact - We do not know the cause
fact - Unfortunately lives were lost
Fact - There were some operational issues
Fact - A Fire Cetificate or a FRA may not have stopped or caused the fire
Fact - Fire Safety in all streams relies on the management
Fact - The modernisation agenda of the Government has and will continue to affect morale in the Fire Service for longer serving members.
-
Number of items in various places about the announcement by the police today that they are now investing a murder case, as the fire was started by an arsonist.
See, for example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7202053.stm
-
Inquest in progress at the moment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8089921.stm
-
I can no longer stand to be involved with this shambles anymore. I leave the job next month after 8 years. It was the only job I have ever wanted to do since leaving school and i've watched it being torn appart by PC idiots and yes men.
Cheers All
Did you leave the job CFSP?
-
I can no longer stand to be involved with this shambles anymore. I leave the job next month after 8 years. It was the only job I have ever wanted to do since leaving school and i've watched it being torn appart by PC idiots and yes men.
Cheers All
Did you leave the job CFSP?
Probably nearly there, hence the name change? Of course he could just be altruistic & willing to work for less cash. I think your question deserves an answer.