FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: johno67 on May 28, 2008, 07:37:13 AM
-
Could anyone recommend a good book on the subject of fire behaviour. I have the Fire Service Manual on Compartment Fires and Tactical Ventilation, but I was after something that goes into more detail, preferably with examples of fires that have occured showing how they started and more importantly how they spread.
Many thanks.
-
I assume that you are looking at fire behaviour from a fire safety engineering point of view rather than an operational viewpoint? If so the following thread may be of interest:
http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=2393
-
A book I used a number of years ago during my studies was 'Buildings and Fire' by Prof Jim Shields and Gordon Silcock. I think its still in print.
-
Thanks both,
I am looking to produce a lesson which can be given to new inspecting officers, especially those from a non-operational background, on how fire behaves and spreads.
It forms an important part of what needs to be looked at when carrying out a fire risk assessment and I believe it is important for those carrying out audits to have a good appreciation. So any advice on something that may be suitable would be great.
If not I will have to trawl through all the old case histories and journals.
-
I would suggest a few video presentations- the BRE video "Your office fire", station nightclub, Bradford city football club would be on my list of essential viewing for these people.
-
Have you tried the case studies on Blaina and Sleigh Drive etc? They can be found at www.moosh.co.uk
-
Looks a good sight cb, many thanks.
-
Down the fire engineering route im afraid and not too many real fire examples but packed with fundamentals:
Enclosure fire dynamics Karlson & Quintierre
Fundamentals of fire phenomena Quintierre
An introduction to fire dynamics D Drysdale
Heavy reading at first but essntial redaing for "full" understanding of fire dynamics
-
Hi johnjo
Can I recommend you have a look at "Smoke Burns" written by John Taylor, a relatively newly published book, it may not be exactly what you are looking for, but its a great read, covering what John describes as the mechaniism of fire, hot and cold conditions,, free flaming stage, and the rule of 5.
See www.smokeburns.com for further details
-
There are some good recommendations here, but for the simplistic guide needed, I would recommend you consider starting with one word "unpredictably"!
We can model fire dynamics (usually poorly), we can predict the behaviour of buiding structure (if it is 'as-new'), we can make assumptions about the actions of people and the nature of risk, but at the end of the day, the reason fire continues to hurt people is that it is essentially unpredictable.
Let's be ruthlessly honest, predictable fires are under control, the fires that hurt people are out of control. If fire was predictable we could ring up the next potential fire death and tell them when the fire was due to occur so they could arrange to be elsewhere.
I don't mean to be flippant, but rather than introduce 'beginners' to the idea that we can predict, I would prefer to introduce them to the concept that it is always a gamble, a 'percentage game' if you prefer. then you can move on to whatever level of more technical advice you choose.
-
I don't mean to be flippant, but rather than introduce 'beginners' to the idea that we can predict, I would prefer to introduce them to the concept that it is always a gamble, a 'percentage game' if you prefer. then you can move on to whatever level of more technical advice you choose.
Interesting thoughts. I wasn't looking to predict fire growth. I was looking to show how fires start in the first place and how they can spread, with examples of fires that have occurred in the past.
Seeing as the principles of fire safety seem to be based on the way fires are likely to start and spread, and that fire investigation appears to be based on the way we expect particular materials to burn and fire to spread through a building, I'm slightly alarmed that I might be looking at it the wrong way!
-
Hi Ricky,
Thanks for the recommendation. Nice to hear from you.
-
Johno,
i don't think you're looking at it 'the wrong way', it's just that fire is complex.
try setting a sofa on fire with a fag-end. it is 'theoretically' impossible, that is to say only one attempt in 500 or 600 will even cause smouldering and of those only one or two will flame, even then prbably self-extiinguish. that leaves a 1:2000 chance of a developing fire. now one in two thousand are not odds you would want crossing the road are they?
I know of experiments attaching a cigarette to rubber tube and waving the glowing end around in petrol vapour, carefully monitored, can you set fire to petrol vapour by smoking, no. however, if you clicked a lighter, woof!
fires begin simply, although fewer children handle fire daily today than 50 years ago. the spread, as you suggest, should be predictable, but how many variables are there? Answer, too many!
Bob Fitzgerald, well known fire engineer from Worcester polytechnic Int. Mass. USA has a wonderfully practical take on this sort of thing.
Take a waste paper bin, put 'stuff' in it, but paper to act as 'item first ignited', ignite.
look at the growth; probably within a minute there will be a flame the size of the bin itself, it will then, probably, diminish. But, if there is some other, higher energy fuel, the flame height may increase, but for how long? The fuel is limited, will it touch surrounding material, will it 'spread'? He reasons, with evidence, that if the flame rising from the bin get to the size of a standing person, you have a fire that will spread.
The majority of potential fires self extinguish. The question that research has not yet answered to my knowledge is, "what makes the fire that will spread and do damge different from the fire that fails and self extinguishes; what is the defining characteristic?"
-
try setting a sofa on fire with a fag-end. it is 'theoretically' impossible, that is to say only one attempt in 500 or 600 will even cause smouldering and of those only one or two will flame, even then prbably self-extiinguish. that leaves a 1:2000 chance of a developing fire.
Hello Phlogisten,
similar tests were carried out at the Dalmarnock experiment and they all needed a reasonably "hot fire" to get sustained growth.
Yet careless disposal of smoking materials is still the second highest cause of fire in the UK.
Some use these tests to argue the case for sprinklers in domestic dwellings but as you say it is a 1:2000 chance of a fire developing to an extent where sprinklers would actuate.
With these odds, is it reasonable to ask for the installation of sprinklers in dwellings (or schools for that matter).
A certain F&RS in Scotland are demanding sprinklers throughout a flat because the owner wanted to have a wee den (wife escape) in the roof space. All the doors were FDs30 fitted with self closers.
Reasonable in the circumstance?
-
Look at the stats in a different way. How many smokers are there? How often could they leave a fag on a sofa?
(The following figures are made up) 1,000,000 smokers, on average they leave 1 fag a month on the sofa, 12,000,000 fags per year, 1:2000 chance of a fire = 6,000 fires!
Yes the chances are small but the number of attempts is huge someone is going to get unlucky!
-
Hello Mike.
you know what they say about stastistics.
The point I was making was that the phrase "reasonable in the circumstace" is being forgotten about by FSO's. It is all about what is in the Guidance Documents. They are not assessing the assessment which I thought the audit was meant to do.
-
Yes I agree about stats I just put the example forward to show how risk is affected by numbers.
As far as 'reasonable in the circumstance' it joins the 'as low as reasonably practicable' stable. It all calls for a judgement to be made and a gamble to be taken. There is also the problem of public perception, at the moment there is a big campaign about knife crime with tales of 17 people being killed with a knife in London this year. However on the same scale in Leicestershire there were 10 people killed in road accidents last week.
It makes the audit job difficult as a decision in a 'sexy' area can be condemned as overbearing in a different area and the goal posts may rapidly change depending on the whim of the politicians, the press and the public. No wonder there is pressure towards the 'code huggers'.
-
Understood but back to grass roots and FSOs and the failure of many of them to recognize when the risk is as low as REASONABLY practical. EG:
A res care home with a two seat sofa in an alcove of a corridor complying with the F & F Regs. Ideal for the old folks to rest as they get around "their" home.
FSO asked for it to be removed. When asked why, he quoted the Guidance Doc. Where was the assessment.
-
The point I was making was that the phrase "reasonable in the circumstace" is being forgotten about by FSO's. It is all about what is in the Guidance Documents. They are not assessing the assessment which I thought the audit was meant to do.
A res care home with a two seat sofa in an alcove of a corridor complying with the F & F Regs. Ideal for the old folks to rest as they get around "their" home.
FSO asked for it to be removed. When asked why, he quoted the Guidance Doc. Where was the assessment.
I totally agree with you novascot, I work with such people, cant seem to get past the guides, its their comfort zone, yet they've all done their FRA course and training, but out there, it all seems to go out the window, they've got it in their heads that everyone must have a certain standard or else.
-
Yes Ricardo, it is very worrying. How do we combat this? I beleive there is a lack of good quality training of our FSO's at Brigade level (not pointed at anyone in particular) or they are told to "forget all that mumbo jumbo, here are your Guides. It used to be "Here are the Building Regs."
I have seen letters from F&RS saying that the premises did not meet the benchmark standards and there were no compensatory features. The inference being that if you don't meet the Guide Benchmarks you need to do something else to compensate.
The answer is, maybe. Doesn't it depend on the FRA?
On another thread there are concerns re the standadrd of FRA's from "Consultants". Could it be that these "Consultants" are newly retired FSO's and if they didn't know how to carry out an Audit by using Risk Reduction principles based among other things on probability, as FSO's there is not much chance of them doing it as "Consultants".
Worrying. We are all doomed!
-
My experience is that very many fire officers are enforcing the guide and there is all too often little heed taken of the RRFSO's emphasis on proportionality.
To many fire safety officers porportionality goes something like this- the London Hilton has 1000 fire doors and 2000 smoke detectors. I am telling Farmer Postlethwaite in his farmhouse B&B just to install 10 fire doors and 10 detectors. So thats proportional.
-
Kurnel,
LOL that about sums it up.
A couple of quotes from The Strategic Enforcement Guidance: (I don't know if Englands' is the same)
" Authorities should work with all dutyholders so that they can meet their legal obligations without unnecessary expense and clearly distinguish between statutory requirements and guidance about what may be desirable as good practice but not compulsory to meet the legal requirements"
and again
It is not appropriate for an enforcement officer to provide a prescriptive solution as the sole means of addressing deficiencies.
Ooops they have forgotten that bit. Or were they aware of it in the first place?
-
It is not appropriate for an enforcement officer to provide a prescriptive solution as the sole means of addressing deficiencies.
Ooops they have forgotten that bit. Or were they aware of it in the first place?
So what do you want? 4 options? 5?
Something is going wrong if you think we can enforce the guides. The legal part of the enforcement notice should just tell you which articles you are not complying with (i.e. Article 13, No means of giving warning), and basically tell you to comply with them. (i.e. Provide a suitable means of giving warning) How you comply is up to you and this should be made clear. (N.B Scotlands notices may be different to ours)
The 'advice' given should not be part of the enforcement notice. If advice is required then why not give the same advice that CLG sees fit to give out? Don't get me wrong, I am an advocate of risk based solutions, I am really defending my right to stick to the guides if I so wish and leave any other options up to you.
Anyway, if we didn't have the guides people would be wittering on about inconsistency.
-
Civvy FSO
The point I am trying to convey, is that Brigades here ARE using the Technical Annexes as minimum standards and that is not correct. It isn't about options it should be whether you can recognize a "safe" building and what can be done to make it a safe or safer building. Ways of doing that may not be found in Guidance Documents.
In conversations with FSOs, it is apparent that the concept of Life Safety and the tenebility levels allowing safe evacuation are lost on them. Or lots of them.
I asked an FSO how long he thought the compartmentation of a zone in a building would protect the tenebility levels and he asked "What has time to do with anything?"
I rest my case.
-
The way I see it both sides are to blame, if FSO's are auditing as described on this forum then there is a training need to be addressed by the FRS. If risk assessors are so certain about their solutions then they should convince the RP to take the FRS on in court and let the court decide. There is nothing more sobering than knowing you have to prosecute or defend yourself in court and it could be beneficial to all parties.
-
You can't even spell it.......
TenAbility. I rest my case.
(Just teasing! ;))
It just seemed to be turning into a good old FSO bashing thread so I thought I would speak up.
I agree the guides should not be taken as minimum standards, but using them as a benchmark standard is different. If you run some death trap of a building and I come and find you working away on the 4th floor with no protected stair, no AFD etc, then I will quite possibly give a solution straight from the guides. Protect the stair, get detection. I won't ask you for detection that is not required, and I won't ask for a fire door that is not required. I may ask for an extra detector to compensate for a 25m dead end. But, why should I spend hours looking at other solutions at the tax payers expense when it is your responsiblity to comply in the first place?
If you want to submit an solution looking at ASET and RSET and backed up with a strategy/risk assessment etc then you submit it, and you should be so confident in your solution that you are prepared to defend it. If an FSO/FRS is being unreasonable then challenge them, appeal the notice. The appeal will at some point end up on the desk of someone who knows more about the subject, and if you are on the right lines then I am sure it will go no further.
I guess the main point I am trying to convey is; You cannot expect us to sit around doing smoke mass calcs, plume calcs, running CFD programs etc, just to save the RP a bit of money, we will go for the simple solution.
-
I posted some time ago that in my experience the risk assessment was required to be produced at audit but it was not necessary to read it.This still seems to be the case and the guides still remain the prescripive norm. The very term GUIDE should give the game away. The best premises,the most comprehensive risk assessment, the tests recorded and training given, still the footprint of the building can have a detrimental affect on your score and the risk assessment is a token gesture. Novascot you have summed up the frustrations a number of us have felt.
-
Civvy FSO
sorry for the spelling mistake. The fingers were working faster than the brain.
If I were still an FSO I would do exactly as you have suggested in your scenario. You are not meant to risk assess the building, only give advice. Should it not be a case that you tell the RP that he needs a suitable and sufficient FRA to be carried out? Then your job, as I understand it is to read through the FRA and agree or disagree with the findings.
That is where the problems occur. Too many FSO's cannot read the FRA and make a judgement without reference to or quoting the Guides.
Surely the questions to be asked are:
1. Can persons leave the building or go to an area of comparative safety before the products of fire affect their escape?
2. If a fire occurs can it be contained in the room/area of origin until safe and effective evacuation can take place.
The methods of ensuring the answers to these questions are yes, can be wide and varied but each solution, in their own right can give a positive outcome.
It does not have to come from any Guidance document. Many Brigades are missing that point when you read letters sent to RP's.
Back to the Local training or the lack of it. The FSC MiM was many things but at least their was a common thread throughout the UK and the principles of Fire Safety were not taught as whimsical notions of individuals.
-
As I said before, any solution offered should be explained as an 'option' and it should be made clear that there may be other ways to comply. If the FRS/FSO involved is blindly not entertaining alternative solutions offered because they are not comfortable with it, or worse "don't understand it", then that is indeed wrong. Even if the FSO is out of his/her depth, there should be someone within the FRS who has the capability to assess it properly.
Lambie, there are 2 different scores you get. One is the compliance level, and the other is the relative risk level. A large footprint with a good compliance level should prompt the crews visiting for local operational knowledge of the building and not necessarily pointing towards regular inspections by FSOs. (Especially with the new regulators compliance code being out which should ease the burden on compliant businesses.) This was different when the whole audit/scoring thing first came out. I had a few compliant businesses that were getting yearly inspection. This should stop now, or soon at least.
-
CivvyFSO
Thanks for the explanation, it almost looked like you were damned if you did and worse if you didn't. I have to say that there are those that give credence to those assessments that are honest and have reasonable action plans agreed. Just sometimes you crave for conformity, but hats off to those IO's who understand the the meaning of guidance.
-
I have read this thread with intrest and admitedly have had to bite my lip on occassion.
Let me first of all explain a few things to you.
Firstly Im happy to accept their are still code hugging dinosaurs out there. No argument whatsoever.
Its rather like what I always say - there are good and bad FSOs just as much as there are good and bad Fire Risk Assessors and consultants.
To suggest however Novascot the lack of training an FSO receives is poor is a bit of a sweeping statement. How many FSOs have you dealt with ? and from how many brigades?
We have to be careful here and recognise a few things:-
a) At the nicey nicey stage of enforcement the FSO will offer a proposed or preferrred solution to any deficiences found during an audit- we do work to the guides and British standards a lot because its a benchmark ( a line in the sand), however offer a suitable alternative and we will look at it. If it achieves the same goal then great. But it is not for us as FSOs to offer you page after page of possible solutions
b) A FSO can become prescriptive at the enforcment notice stage if the RP has failed to agree a suitable action plan or suggested a suitable alternative. Again if the RP doesnt want to talk to us or contest it we have to draw the line somewhere - we cant just leave a deficiency as it is. SO there is a mechanism whereby a FSO can "call time and "say either take us on for an interpretation or address your failings"
c) RPs, FR Assessors and consultants are all entitled to contest anything at anytime and even go above the FSO's head to the FSO's line manager should they be concerned about the competence or proffesionalism of that officer.
d) Just out of intrest and I mean this with no mallice and promise it is not a barbed question - could I ask Novascot and Kurnal to tell me what they would recommend in terms of a new fire alarm installation for a client who owns a three storey hotel with 50 bedrooms ? Could CivvyFSO please do the same as well.
Novascot and co it appears you have had bad experiences with certain FSOs and thats fair enough. What I would ask you to do is keep an open mind about we inspectors, just as you want inspectors to keep an open mind about accepting different standards.
Standards and benchmarks are there for a reason - Im always happy to deviate, or come well away from those standards so long as you can justify the reasoning for doing so.
As Kurnal points out its you who will be standing in front of a jUdge having to explain yourselves - that is not a pleasant experience and evokes the most sobering thoughts!
-
Hi Midland
The benchmark for your hotel ( is it one I look after perchance) would be BS5839 part 1 2002 system category L2. This may go up to L1 or down a little depending on other factors- character, nature, methods of construction, undesirable/ desirable structural features, nature of clients, travel distances, sprinklers, engineered solutions etc. Standards of management may influence an upgrade but never a downgrade. The key advice is to employ a competent designer and installer. One who is familar with the BS. They are few and far between in some areas.
-
Midland Retty
Why do you feel you had to bite your lip? This is a discussion forum. No lips need be bitten.
I agree with most of what you say but you are not grasping the thorn in the arguement. It isn't so much about people like you. It is about FSO's who are not like you. You ask how many I have dealt with? Too many and each discussion (not all) becomes a training session. I shouldn't be having to give insights into The Principles of Fire Safety, you would expect FSO's to be well grounded in that.
Regards the Hotel. Without seeing it or plans I would suggest L1/M although the Guide says L2. So you see Retty it isn't all about "lowering" standards. I would be expected to justify the upgrade no doubt.
It won't just be the Fire Safety Consultant in Court explaining his thought process it will be you and people like you who will be asked to justify your requirements.
-
It won't just be the Fire Safety Consultant in Court explaining his thought process it will be you and people like you who will be asked to justify your requirements.
I dont think so. Ownership and responsibility of fire safety is down to the RP not the fire authority. The fire officer will answer questions in a courtroom but it wont be him or her on trial. It will be more about his or her professional judgement.He or she isnt going to be justifying your fire precautions unless they came across a sunstandard property and did nothing about it. Even then its still down to the RP to have ensured suitable and sufficient fire precautions were installed. If youre the person who did the risk assessment for the RP you too will be in the dock answering some very frank questions.And make no mistake you will be picked to bits.It will be looked at in infiticimal detail. Not to say you were wrong you may have a good defence and done everything right, in which case fine. But it won't be the fire officer up infront of the judge other than to give evidence against the defence and possibly to talk about any requirements they made which according to you would be over the top anyway. So the fire officer could not be seen in any bad light according to your argument because s/he has actually gone over the above the accepted standard. Have you ever been in a court room situation? To me you are trying to have your cake and eat it you say fire officers are all bad then say its down to them if it all goes wrong. Arent you taking this a bit too personal novascott. As you say its a discussion forum and everyone can contribute
Retty you didnt ask me but I would require probably an L2 but without seeing it obviously may change my mind a little though unless sprinklers are involved i dont see how anything less than L2 would do.
-
Cleveland,
I suggest you re-read my previous comments. I at no time said all FSOs were bad. Why do you think I am taking this personally?
What could have prompted that statement? I think you are taking the general critisism to heart. Possibly your professional pride and feel aggrieved for your fellow FSOs? I am stating facts as I have expereinced these situations. I can give loads of examples but won't bore you with them.
Yes, I have been in Court. If you think you will not be asked searching questions by the RP's solicitor you are mistaken. Fire Safety is not an exact science and it will come down to the Courts interpretation of the Law. Professional judgement and experience will of course be taken into consideration.
Remember this. Many Fire Safety Consultants will have more experience and background knowledge than a good few FSO's. Remember that the wearing of a uniform does not automatically make you right.
The definition of suitable and sufficient is different in each case and the Court will decide what is or is not suitable and sufficient after hearing the evidence and opinions of all concerned. I suggest you read the Strategic Enforcement Guidance document.
In any case shouldn't disagreements go to arbitration long before going to Court? They do in Scotland with The HMI the third party. Good luck and best wishes to all FSOs.
-
I have read this thread with intrest and admitedly have had to bite my lip on occassion.
As Novascot said, don't bite your tongue Mr Retty. I often feel we are outnumbered here, but "lively discussion" is what makes this forum interesting. It also raises issues that are important, and often overlooked. I am sure that even though some of the consultants here do not agree with our take on things, and our principles, they still like to know them. After all, they are often classed as the mediator between us and the RP. They want to keep us off the RP's back, and to do that efficiently they need to know how we work.
d) Just out of intrest and I mean this with no mallice and promise it is not a barbed question - could I ask Novascot and Kurnal to tell me what they would recommend in terms of a new fire alarm installation for a client who owns a three storey hotel with 50 bedrooms ? Could CivvyFSO please do the same as well.
A fairly simple one, with staircases and rooms/floors protected as they should be, an L2 as available guidance would suggest. Anything less than the standards suggested in ADB/CLG guides would have to be assessed on its own merit. If it takes sprinklers or smoke control to make the premises safe, then sprinklers/smoke control it is. I am here to ensure it is safe for your granny/parents/kids/anyone to stay in. I am NOT paid to make excuses and to save the client money. I would also consider any solutions offerred, and try to assess if it meets the requirements of the legislation.
It won't just be the Fire Safety Consultant in Court explaining his thought process it will be you and people like you who will be asked to justify your requirements.
Are we talking about court here as in an appeal, or court as in coroners court? I will happily go to court to defend a decision I have made that was appealed. If I ever have to justify my requirements to the coroner I hope I have a better excuse than "I thought it would be ok".
-
Remember this. Many Fire Safety Consultants will have more experience and background knowledge than a good few FSO's. Remember that the wearing of a uniform does not automatically make you right.
You sound like Colin Todd in the seventies of course there will be some Fire Safety Consultants better then some FSO's, likewise there will be some FSO's better than Fire Safety Consultants. In fact there is a large number of Fire Safety Consultants who were FSO's in a former life.
-
Remember this. Many Fire Safety Consultants will have more experience and background knowledge than a good few FSO's. Remember that the wearing of a uniform does not automatically make you right.
You sound like Colin Todd in the seventies of course there will be some Fire Safety Consultants better then some FSO's, likewise there will be some FSO's better than Fire Safety Consultants. In fact there is a large number of Fire Safety Consultants who were FSO's in a former life.
Only a similarity in accent would make me sound like Colin.
All your points are correct and everything is subjective. As you say there are good and bad Cosultants and FSO's. Yes I did wear the uniform for many years so I know all about bluff and persuasion.
The original point made was that there are too many FSO's and F&RS who cling to the Guides as a pancea for their lack of judgement. After all, Fire Risk Assessment is all about judgement. We have all sat in a room full of FSO's and given the same premises to discuss and you will have innumerable ideas as to, how to make this a safe/safer building. It does not mean that some are right and some are wrong. Only different ways of going aboput it.
The respondents to this are from FSO's who assure us that this does not happen when in reality it happens too often. Consultants meet more FSO's in a month than FSO's do so I think we are in a position to know what is generally happening.
For those FSO's who are not like that, power to you and I hope you all get promoted to greater things within the Fire Safety Department and make sure this prescriptive attitude changes.
-
Sorry it just seems like open season on FSO's. But if as you say this does happens far too often, then do you progress it to their line managers and do they have the same attitude, also is this common thorough the UK. If this is the situation then some FRS's need to address how they run and train their fire safety departments.
-
Cleveland,
I suggest you re-read my previous comments. I at no time said all FSOs were bad. Why do you think I am taking this personally?
What could have prompted that statement? I think you are taking the general critisism to heart. Possibly your professional pride and feel aggrieved for your fellow FSOs? I am stating facts as I have expereinced these situations. I can give loads of examples but won't bore you with them.
Yes, I have been in Court. If you think you will not be asked searching questions by the RP's solicitor you are mistaken. Fire Safety is not an exact science and it will come down to the Courts interpretation of the Law. Professional judgement and experience will of course be taken into consideration.
Remember this. Many Fire Safety Consultants will have more experience and background knowledge than a good few FSO's. Remember that the wearing of a uniform does not automatically make you right.
The definition of suitable and sufficient is different in each case and the Court will decide what is or is not suitable and sufficient after hearing the evidence and opinions of all concerned. I suggest you read the Strategic Enforcement Guidance document.
In any case shouldn't disagreements go to arbitration long before going to Court? They do in Scotland with The HMI the third party. Good luck and best wishes to all FSOs.
Firstly as Tw Sutton said it just seem like open season of FSOs and I just felt you seemed to be very irritated when anyone challenged you about your comments. Then again I suppose it is hard to determine the tone that things are meant in when you arent speaking to them face to face. I have to disagree with you on the court issue. Who do you think is going to be under the spotlight following a fire where fatalities occured? It wont be the fire officer, and I say again (and admitedly im not familiar with scottish law) but in england and wales the RP would have to make sure he or she had his answers ready. Even if a fire officer had recently inspected those premises a week prior to the fire and said all was satisfactory makes no difference because the fire service normally tells the RP theyre coming to do an inspection. They normally give fair warning, so our friend the RP could go round making sure everything was fine, could write in all of his testing documents to say they were testing the alarm, could unprop all their fire doors, jump online download a fire risk assessment template with lots of lovely tick boxes and fill them out without any real understanding what they were doing. The fire officer might not be able to find evidence of the fire alarm being tested annually. How do we know that alarm wont fail? thats all the wiring is in good nick? what if the fact it hasnt been maintained causes a failure which contributed to a fatal fire. The fire officer wouldnt close the place down for that because its unreasonable . So an audit is just a snap shot of those premises on the day. Magistrates know that, crown court judges dont necessarily know that but dont you worry the prosecution will make that crystal clear.Suprise suprise our brigade are picking up on a lot more now unannounced inspections take place. So yes ive been to court, ive been asked questions by defence solicitors, who normally know little about fire safety and get made to look a bit silly. The fire officer is not the responsible person. So i have to take issue with your point because you are talking more about determinations. If the guides can be strayed from whats the point of having them? You either provide something which is of a similar standard or you dont. Its that black and white. One last point is that now brigades are taking more prosecutions they are all undertaking alot of further professional training, both legal and fire safety. So i think you will see a big transformation eventually in your part of the world. Thing is will you have the training to match i wonder? Will you be able to keep as up to date? Must be hard being a consultant particularly self employed ones, time is money, courses cost money? do they take investigative training? do they do evidence gathering? do they have as much experience in court?. Dont ever be mistaken if you think the fire officers might have to answer some frank questions then you just watch an RP being questioned! Judges are throwing books at unsafe so and
-
If the guides can be strayed from whats the point of having them? You either provide something which is of a similar standard or you dont. Its that black and white.
No I disagree. The guides are a benchmark to work from and point us towards the standard to aim for. ALARP may be something way outside that standard, especially in historic buildings.
-
Cleveland,
so many questions. This is getting a bit tedious now. All I have done in these posts is to highlight problems faced on a daily basis when talking to FSO's. Your comment highlighted by kurnel is an example. Regarding Court appearances. I was not talking about fatal enquiries I was talking about the disputes procedure where you will be asked to give reasons for your requirements if they are challenged on the grounds of not being "reasonably practical. For a definition of that phrase, see Edwards V NCB (1949) 1 ALL ER 743.
Here are some passages from The Strategic Enforcement Guidance. This will maybe explain better than I what is expected of FSO's:
21. Fire and Rescue Authorities should minimise the cost of compliance for business and other dutyholders by ensuring that any action taken, or advice offered, is proportionate to the risk. As far as the law allows, account should be taken of the circumstances of the case and attitude of the people involved when considering action. Authorities should work with all dutyholders so that they can meet their legal obligations without unnecessary expense and clearly distinguish between statutory requirements and guidance about what may be desirable as good practice but not compulsory to meet the legal requirements.
26. The guides include benchmarks and enforcement officers should take these into account when making decisions about compliance issues, but these benchmarks are neither minimum nor recommended standards and should not be considered as such.
27. It is not appropriate for an enforcement officer to provide a prescriptive solution as the sole means of addressing deficiencies.
I hope this has helped your understanding of your requirements.
I know you were being generic when asking what training Consultants take and any good consultant will keep up to speed by attending courses and showing professional integrity regarding all things FS.
If they are registered by a third party, they have to show progress of Professional Developement.
I suggest the comments made have been taken as critisism of every FSO in the land. This was never intended. They were actual experiences and I wanted to highlight the lack of knowledge in some FSO's. A lack of knowledge sometimes means a lack of training. I didn't mean to stir the hornets nest.
If critisism is deserved it will continue to be made.
-
Novascot I am most familiar about the S/E/G and I did mention that fire officers would be under the spotlight when going for a determination. I was talking about serious case risk to persons where judge and jury need to hear that any deviances could be justified, thats when the mess hits the fan and things are looked at in infiticimal detail. I accept you werent talking about all FSOs but it did seem that way and you need to be aware that public see these forums, and youre painting all FSOs in bad light in the way you spoke. That makes our job harder and simply isn't true. As for the FSO's you have had problems with then I would stongly suggest speaking to their supervisory officers or higher level still and voicing you concerns to get something done about it.
Kurnal to challenge you there I still take issue that standards are black and white - else why have them?. Why for instance did you suggest an L2 to BS 5839 in the hotel ? Of course straying from the guides and standards is acceptable but you still have to prove they do not make the scenario any worse than if you employed an accepted standard. And this is the point Im making. If you installed an non BS 5839 compliant system what would it be?
-
Kurnal to challenge you there I still take issue that standards are black and white - else why have them?. Why for instance did you suggest an L2 to BS 5839 in the hotel ? Of course straying from the guides and standards is acceptable but you still have to prove they do not make the scenario any worse than if you employed an accepted standard. And this is the point Im making. If you installed an non BS 5839 compliant system what would it be?
No Cleveland of course I would recommend an L2 for the hotel as the benchmark and I was then clear in my response to that posting to qualify that by indicating when I may increase the standard to L1 or maybe back it down to L3 in some cases. That is the risk assessment bit.
Hey i thought you were retired from the brigade? You are starting to sound a bit like one of those code huggers that Novascot is talking about. Sometimes black and white just cannot be achieved - take a 50 year old towerblock if 17 floors as an example with a single staircase and no ventilation. Theres no way you can install ventilation shafts or ducts or another staircase. So you have to do other things that make it as safe as you can.
-
Cleveland,
after all that has been said on this thread I cannot beleive you are still saying "Standards are black and white". I take it you mean BENCHMARK standards?
Enough said.
Unsubscribing. Bye.
-
No need to unsubscribe surely . Just having healthy debate arent we?
-
Kurnal to challenge you there I still take issue that standards are black and white - else why have them?. Why for instance did you suggest an L2 to BS 5839 in the hotel ? Of course straying from the guides and standards is acceptable but you still have to prove they do not make the scenario any worse than if you employed an accepted standard. And this is the point Im making. If you installed an non BS 5839 compliant system what would it be?
No Cleveland of course I would recommend an L2 for the hotel as the benchmark and I was then clear in my response to that posting to qualify that by indicating when I may increase the standard to L1 or maybe back it down to L3 in some cases. That is the risk assessment bit.
Hey i thought you were retired from the brigade? You are starting to sound a bit like one of those code huggers that Novascot is talking about. Sometimes black and white just cannot be achieved - take a 50 year old towerblock if 17 floors as an example with a single staircase and no ventilation. Theres no way you can install ventilation shafts or ducts or another staircase. So you have to do other things that make it as safe as you can.
No fair enough I see what you are saying. I am retired, but came back on temp contract.
-
Well it looks like i missed all the fun over the weekend !
Doesn't seem any point defending my comments as it would appear some people have unsubscribed???.
As Novascot said, don't bite your tongue Mr Retty
CivvyFSO I said "bite my lip" not my" tongue".... do pay attention young man!
But I agree with you, healthy debate is a very good thing and is what makes Firenet brilliant. Where criticism is deserved then by all means lets discuss it and try to remedy it, but I felt Novascot's concerns were directed at the greater FSO population rather than those local to him. ..As im sure if I started moaning about every fire safety consultant Id met being naughty bad terrible fire safety consultants others would have taken exception (Hence my " biting my lip" comment) As Cleveland points out this can be detremental. But since Nova has pointed out that was not the case I shall move on...
I agree with most of what you say but you are not grasping the thorn in the arguement.
Novascot please see point (c) in my previous post where i describe what you should do if you encounter an unprofessional FSO - Im not failing to grasp the thorn of the argument at all ( mind you I cant see any thorns here - apparently its a forum and any physical actions such as biting lips dont exist etc. :-) Theres not a lot else i can suggest - unless senior officers in the brigade are aware of the public / proffesionals view of them how do you expect them to go about doing something about it? What do you suggest Novascot? (and I ask without any sarcastically)
And tut tut I was trying to be friendly yet you had a quip about having to justify specifying a fire alarm from L2 standard to L1 ! Not to an FSO you won't - to the RP / client you might.
Also the point I was making about being in court referred to serious case offences as Clevelandfire has now sort of answered for me. I was pointing out that it can be a really hairy experience having your work and assessment picked over by clever barrosters and that it is incredibly important to have your facts ready. It will not be Fire Safety Officer in the dock, as Im sure you realise.
Hi Midland
The benchmark for your hotel ( is it one I look after perchance)
Hi Prof.... shame on you, hopefully you know me better than that - I would never ever bring up here any 'live cases' - especially ones youre involved with, it would be unprofessional of me to do so let alone anything else. Purely ficticious hotel I promise you.
The reaon I asked was a demonstration that we all use guides. You all pretty much said we wanted an L2 system in my FICTICIOUS hotel or something near depending on several factors to BS 5839.
What id like to know next is why you chose BS 5839 in particular. Was it because the sleeping accomodation guide says so? Building Regs say so? Was it through experience / judgement / knowledge of that particular standard that you specidifed that?
I await your answers with interest.
-
Gents
Yes you do get the odd p***t FSO but most I have dealt with are reasonable chaps.
Same goes for FSCs. One I know hadn't a clue and wanted £500 a day to demonstrate it (nobody on here lets make it clear)
As far as I am concerned I choose Doc B and a sprinkling of BS and the guides only when I have to.
And yes, I confess, you people out there for common sense/realism!
I remember attending a Home Office presentation in Nottingham where I was told ( I think) 29 people were on the committee that wrote the guides, this didn't inspire me with confidence, nor possibly my fellow delegates most of whom disappeared after an agreeable lunch.
Novascot, nobody gets personal on here, Chris quite rightly wouldn't allow it!
davo
-
My choice of L2 was because it would be the category suggested by the BS5839 standard. Really, I should have left it stated simply as a BS5839 system, and leave the choice to the designer, who should use the standard AND their own judgement/knowledge as to what is required.
-
Yes agreed. Would not have a problem with other fire alarm systems designed installed and maintained in accordance with standards from other countries, provided they were equivalent and did the job. But I would have to do a lot of homework on them first. (At the clients expense of course). :)
-
Aha !
Exactly the point I was trying to make!.
Without benchmark standards we have nothing to compare alternatives standards to. Half the time such alternatives are, as near as damn it, the same as the benchmark standards.....perhaps with a different name, perhaps with a slightly different specification but otherwise generally the same.
Which makes me wonder why the benchmark wasn't chosen in the first place. Factors such as cost may come into play I suppose, but on the whole none of us would wish to lessen any standards set in benchmark guidance would we?.
I also accept that away from guides and standards common sense must come into play too - such as Novascot's furniture in escape routes in his res care home - which i'd have no real problems / concerns about.
So code huggers do have a bad name, but when you break it down many alternatives or compensatory features are actually discussed and proposed in the benchmark guides and codes - such as what compensations can be allowed if sprinklers or other engineered solutions are installed for example. Thus if you do encounter a code hugger you may still find an element of flexibility - because if alternatives are mentioned in the guide then they will generally accept it!
In conclusion then I will still argue that benchmark standards are essential in the fire safety field. To vere away from them is perfectly acceptable if you can prove the alternative will achieve the same level of protection.
Where they don't or where such alternatives cant easily be measured or tested I think an assessor maybe on dodgy ground, and would need to brace themselves if anything went wrong seriously wrong, putting people at serious risk.
I'll leave you with this then....based on my "ficticious hotel fire alarm question" aren't we all to a greater or lesser extent guide huggers in some way shape or form?
-
Thankyou. Whole heartedly agree Retty. Well put.
-
But I agree with you, healthy debate is a very good thing and is what makes Firenet brilliant.
:) Hurrah!
-
Novascot, nobody gets personal on here, Chris quite rightly wouldn't allow it!
;) Correct