FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Nearlybaldandgrey on November 04, 2007, 08:15:21 PM
-
A question that need asking I think.
There have been two serious fires in the past few months that have cost lives.
Why is the reaction to blame the Fire safety Order?
Is it this legislation which makes serious fires that could well have occurred anyway suddenly break out or is it just about apportioning blame?
-
An impossible question to answer but nevertheless a lot of questions will rightly be asked when the time is appropriate and all the facts are known about the incidents involved.
-
I think it is about trust. Business trusted the FRS to get it right but a number of people now do not trust the RP to do the same. Therefore, to follow the logic, the fires and unfortunate deaths have occurred because the FRS are not in control. This is completely false of course as many RP's do a very good job as do many Assessors. My experience is that the FRS in a number of circumstances still want to revert to black lines on paper and to inspect as this seems to fill a need within them The truth of this is that many fire certs were poor and much happened in buildings before and after visits by FRS staff.
GIven time the RR(FS)O will be the most influential piece of fire legislation thta we have ever had as the findings from an FRA are live and dynamic and therefore RP's have to respond to this perhaps daily. All sides need to embrace this and work with it to get the best outcomes for the life safety of us all.
The 3 tragic fires will possibly still have occurred with previous legislation in place that is the unknown price of change.
-
Quite right, and to put it in to perspective. More people die or seriously injured driving at work every week than die in fires at work in the last 5 years.
-
To be able to draw any statistically significant conclusions from any situation you must have a reasonably large sample size. We are in the very early days of the new legislation and it is much too early to start to analyse the correlation between occurrences of fire and the procedures that are now in place.
There are always natural fluctuations and it is not possible yet to tell if the fires you refer to are such fluctuations or if they are indeed consequences of the new regime.
It is, however, human nature to look at these incidents and attribute them to what we perceive to be significant changes.
Time will tell.
Stu
-
The reason I asked the question is because following the Penhallow incident, the trend seemed to be "we told you so" and the numbers of fatalities would increase following the introduction of the Fire Safety Order.
Then there was another fatal in Blackpool.
Now the Fire and Rescue Service mourns the loss of another colleague with three still unaccounted for and on another thread, the steer is towards the Fire Safety Order.
I just get the impression that people are trying to pin everything on it as a means of venting frustration and anger.
Maybe, just maybe, the new legislation will highlight the poorly managed and unsafe premises in order to ultimately protect life. At least those responsible cannot hide behind a fire certificate and now have no excuses.
-
I think a case may be made if the introduction of the RRO leads to a substantial reduction of FRS visits and enforcement action through insufficient resources. Just as paper fire certs didn't actually prevent fires, paper risk assessments (good or otherwise) wont prevent them without the required associated action - which tends to be more likely if there is a reasonable expectation of inspection and being held to account.
-
Now the Fire and Rescue Service mourns the loss of another colleague with three still unaccounted for and on another thread, the steer is towards the Fire Safety Order.
Why should they steer is towards the Fire Safety Order? Firefighters are not considered relevant persons by the FSO except when conducting certain inspections.
-
Now the Fire and Rescue Service mourns the loss of another colleague with three still unaccounted for and on another thread, the steer is towards the Fire Safety Order.
Why should they steer is towards the Fire Safety Order? Firefighters are not considered relevant persons by the FSO except when conducting certain inspections.
YOu are correct TW but i I think the point being made was that perhaps if the RRO was being actively followed in the premises the fire wouldnt have occured in the first place.
I must point out that there is nothing to suggest that there was any fire safety failing at the premises and I was just making a general point.
-
I am of the opinion that this would have happened under any legislation. In some respects the RRO (If complied with) makes occurences like this tragedy more unlikely than before due to it's focus on prevention.
One thing that clearly 'could' have prevented this happening is sprinklers. So should the people who need something to blame be looking at building regs instead?
-
Now the Fire and Rescue Service mourns the loss of another colleague with three still unaccounted for and on another thread, the steer is towards the Fire Safety Order.
Why should they steer is towards the Fire Safety Order? Firefighters are not considered relevant persons by the FSO except when conducting certain inspections.
Perhaps I didn't word that particularly well.
It should have read that as we mourn the loss of more colleagues, there was an individual who mentioned the Fire Safety Order. There was no comment as to whether this was in relation to compliance or just merely blaming it's introduction.
Hope that's a bit clearer!
-
I don't understand the comment that "if the RRO was being actively followed in the premises the fire wouldnt have occured in the first place?"
That's nonsense as even the best protected/managed buildings can fall foul of electrical problems or arson et al.
The RR(FS)O will never eliminate fire, but if followed correctly, should reduce the likeyhood
-
Point taken Midland Retty I just got the wrong end of the stick.
-
Civvy FSO
You are right but it is not just a case of looking for someone to blame. The only thing we can say with any degree of certainty is that if this enourmous warehouse had been fitted with functioning sprinklers then four firefighters would be alive today.
The fact that BRAC decided that the statistical evidence did not support the mandatory fitting of suppresssion systems in such large buildings when they revised ADB is regrettable. I am no statistician but I wonder how the calculations would have looked today?
-
It's an interesting point, Val. I would have thought that, in terms of life safety, a larger building would present a greater need for suppression due to travel distances for both escape and firefighter access and also potential increased loss of larger premises and extra content. Should history carry a greater weighting in risk assessment than loss potential?!
-
Its basic economics chaps- four lives out of thousands of buildings isnt enough - its a horrible sum but thats the way it is. £1.5m * 4 doesn't pay for sprinklers in every warehouse in the UK.
If this had happend at the primark fire or the ironmountian fire then what would the sprinkler lobby have said then?
(two major fires in storage buildings, in the last year or so, where the sprinklers failed)
Statistically smaller fires are more dangerous
-
What could the insurance 'remission' be on the other side of this equation?
One thing about the Building Regs approach to safety improvement is that it's almost always progressive as new build and major amendments take place - thereby spreading the overall cost over time.
-
One thing about the Building Regs approach to safety improvement is that it's almost always progressive as new build and major amendments take place - thereby spreading the overall cost over time.
I'm inclined to agree with you that this progressive approach, though sometimes appearing to be painfully slow, does seem to be an effective (or at least cost effective!) method for continual improvement.
How would you describe fire safety legislation? More of a pendulum approach?
Stu
-
Does anyone know why the firemen were sent in to the building? As there doesn't appear to have been any other person inside
Mark
-
Its much too early to speculate but a full enquiry will be carried out by a number of different organisations most importantly Hereford and Worcester Brigade, who are able to stand back and take a completely independent overview as well as having the expertise and experience to judge it from a firefighters viewpoint. Only those who have had to make these decisions at the sharp end will understand the issues involved.
Even so no review or investigation can ever replicate exactly what the first fire commander found on arrival, the state of the fire, internal and external signs, and how the full range of information available at the scene at the time came together in the more or less instant decision on the tactics to be adopted.
There is only one way to effectively fight a fire. Ex CFO braidwood of the London Brigade expressed it very well a few hundred years ago. A summary of what he said was that to be effective you have get inside a building and tackle it from within. There is little to be gained by spraying water onto the waterproof walls and roof of a building on fire.
-
I agree with wee brian, unfortunately the economic value of human life does not come into the picture. However economics can be a major driver B&Q for example did start to retrofit sprinklers after they lost a store in Leicester. The accountants suddenly found out that it was cheaper to fit sprinklers than it was to lose a store.
As far as the Fire Safety Order goes I don't think the fault is in the technical aspect of the order or in the guides (with the notable exception of the animal establishments) but in the manner it was introduced. It seemed more like an exercise in reducing costs to government by shifting the responsibility onto the employer rather than an effort to increase fire safety. Bear in mind that the original FPA covered all non domestic establishments but was only activated for workplaces. The original aim was to extend the coverage of the FPA but the Fire Brigades never had the resources to cope with the work involved with workplaces let alone take on more.
As it was the RRO was dumped onto the employers rather properly introduced and this is where the porblems will and have arisen.
-
Bear in mind that the original FPA covered all non domestic establishments but was only activated for workplaces. The original aim was to extend the coverage of the FPA but the Fire Brigades never had the resources to cope with the work involved with workplaces let alone take on more.
The FPA did cover domestic premises Mike if they were in a certificated building and it covered hotels whether persons were employed or not.
It only covered certain workplaces, not all of them.
I believe that domestic premises should have been included in the Order in certain cases e.g. flats within certain buildings but we can get round that one.
The Fire Safety Order covers far more premises than the 71 Act and should lead to improved safety but this will only happen if it is effectively enforced and not many FRS are yet doing that.
-
Does anyone know why the firemen were sent in to the building? As there doesn't appear to have been any other person inside
Mark
The first question you ask is if there is anyone in the building. They only finally said on Sunday that no workers were missing. If someone answers "I don't think so" you have to make a judgement call that there could be lives involved and a search would be your priority bearing in mind that "we risk our lives a lot, in a highly calculated manner, to save a life" etc etc.
The OIC at that incident reacted to the information he had and was given.
Sadly it doesn't always have a happy ending. There but for the grace of god......
-
Statistically smaller fires are more dangerous
All fires start as small fires.
-
Does anyone know why the firemen were sent in to the building? As there doesn't appear to have been any other person inside
Mark
Do FRS only send fire fighters inside burning buildings when there are people trapped?
-
'Does anyone know why the firemen were sent in to the building? As there doesn't appear to have been any other person inside'
Mark
Mark, it appears they were searching for the location of the fire. I've just spoken to one of the crews who entered on the initial search, say's the place is vast, like a rabbit warren inside, his crew searched for the location of the fire.
The crew that perished entered the mezzanine (on guide line)after the crew above had searched and exited, when it appears a flash over occurred.
I'm guessing that the fire may have been going for 40 - 60 minutes minimum, appliance travel time to the incident in the sticks and the duration of the BA set(s).
The Press keep appearing at both Stratford and Alcester asking why crews entered the building... I know I'm out of touch procedurally, but it appears the O/ic did exactly what would have happened when I was in the job, as Kurnal say's, you cannot fight a fire till you locate it.
H&W are doing a sterling job on site; the Urban Rescue crews are beyond praise, the Warwickshire fire crews truly appreciate the risks you are taking in those extremely perilous conditions.
Well done lads, be safe, I pray no harm comes to you.
-
Chris, to answer your question the DRA now is about saveable life and saveable property. A judgement made by info gathered at the scene and the SOP's of the Brigade in question and the skills and mangement of the Fireground managers.
-
Chris, to answer your question the DRA now is about saveable life and saveable property. A judgement made by info gathered at the scene and the SOP's of the Brigade in question and the skills and mangement of the Fireground managers.
I would be interested to see the criteria that is used. Are environmental issues not also part of the decision? As an insurance person, I always wonder what circumstances the fire service would enter an unoccupied building to try and undertake essential property protection fire fighting.
-
Chris,
DRA is a contentious issue amongst fire folk and many see it too the disadvantage of people and property. However, H&S law applies to all employees and FRS have to take steps to ensure their personnel are not injured at an incident and therefore PPE and SOP's and other consideartions apply. If for example an FRS attends a fire within a factory and the security staff have no information as to what is inside and there is no EAC signage then a DRA would probably initiate defensive actions outside rather than attcking actions eitherb within or outside dependent on the circumstances.
-
Not being funny or anything, but the Dynamic risk assessment really has nothing to do with my original question!!
Anyway, why is it a contentious issue amongst us "fire folk"?
I don't see it as contentious, it's a requirement under health and safety legislation and part of the decisionmaking process in relation to formulating a tactical plan.
Or is the Order to blame for that too? :-)
-
Baldy,
Perhaps we are going off topic, perhaps the discussion has moved on.
I find Jokar's comments very interesting due to my interest in risk management and insurance. I'd like to know more about where the line is drawn, as while health and safety of fire fighters is obviously a legal and moral requirement (and I can't think of a time when this is more accute in our minds than now) there much be a balance struck between protecting their safety and doing the job of protecting public life safety and property.
Given your objection to me going off topic, I'll start up another thread on this issue, but I'll wait a little while as it might seem like an insensitive time to debate this matter just now when so many are mourning, upset and angry.
-
Chris,
I wasn't objecting at all ..... there are exclamation marks at the end of the first phrase of the post which I thought would be a sign of not being too serious about it ..... obviously wrong and it doesn't read as I intended having read it back, so apologies for that.
I too am extremely interested in the risk assessment process .... both for fire fighter safety and under the Order.
I have actively posted in the thread regarding dynamic risk assessment which was running in one of the areas and made some reasonable and valid points.
The DRA process will be an interesting debate as there are many views and opinions, as well as a lack of understanding in some areas and I look forward to it.
-
Think of the possible scenario:
The OIC is faced with an immense building with smoke issuing from somewhere far away.
There is a realisation that if nothing is done the fire is only going to grow and consume the whole building.
There is no apparent immediate threat from fire - though it is obvious that there is a large fire inside somewhere.
There might be people in there and you are now responsible for their safety - you are OIC of the incident after all.
Huge pressure to do something.
Logical conclusion, send in some teams to try to locate fire.
It's either that or wait outside and watch it burn!
And we're not trained or personally inclined to do that.
What would you do?
Meanwhile the fire is growing exponentially.....
-
Think of the possible scenario:
The OIC is faced with an immense building with smoke issuing from somewhere far away.
There is a realisation that if nothing is done the fire is only going to grow and consume the whole building.
There is no apparent immediate threat from fire - though it is obvious that there is a large fire inside somewhere.
There might be people in there and you are now responsible for their safety - you are OIC of the incident after all.
Huge pressure to do something.
Logical conclusion, send in some teams to try to locate fire.
It's either that or wait outside and watch it burn!
And we're not trained or personally inclined to do that.
What would you do?
Meanwhile the fire is growing exponentially.....
I'm very glad that I don't have to make that call. The public owe an immense gratitude to those who have to make those calls or act upon them.
-
I just hope there is a fair enquiry.
All to often officers in charge come under the spotlight and are unfairly criticised for making decisions which can only be made by somene seeing what the prevailing conditions were at the time.
Whatever happened, be it a management failure, or a freak accident owing to something beyond anyone's control I feel we should not comment any further and respect the privacy of the firefighters families and indeed the commanders who sent the firefighters into the building.
They need time to get over what has happened.
-
Whatever happened, be it a management failure, or a freak accident owing to something beyond anyone's control I feel we should not comment any further and respect the privacy of the firefighters families and indeed the commanders who sent the firefighters into the building.
A good point, well made.
I think we should all be very careful what we say given that there is an ongoing investigation.
-
There's always the flip-side of the coin to consider: If the fire service had not entered the building, squirted a bit of water through the roof, and basically let it burn down without trying, then I am sure some people would be commenting on the lack of fire service intervention.