FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Guest on December 13, 2004, 01:19:13 PM
-
I am the manager of a building which has staircase enclosures with spaces for a 'disabled refuge'. I have been told by the fire authority (scotland) that I need to have an evacuation strategy to deal with the evacuation of disabled persons whom may be in these areas.
I though the Fire Brigades deal with this matter as once the fire alarm goes i get everyone out and then dont let anyone back in till told to do so.
Someone suggested the Fire Brigade are req under law to search/find and rescue people so why do I have to do this bit?
If there is legislation that says I must then I will but I cant find references to help me. Can anyone advise? :?:
-
Dear Santas Little Helper
The problem is yours.
You have to develop a way of helping these poeple out. First thing to do is talk to the people involved and ask what help they would like - they do know best.
The make a plan train your staff and the job is done. Then don't forget to proctice it.
-
as once the fire alarm goes i get everyone out and then dont let anyone back in till told to do so.
There is your answer, you need to get EVERYONE out, not just the ones without wheelchairs.
-
I have discussed this aspect in another forum with fellow professionals responsible for heritage buildings. Points made include:
(a) Evacuation by an evac chair kept for the purpose:
(i) People are less willing to volunteer to do this because of perceived risk of back injury, etc.;
(ii) in any case, once the disabled person is outside, they do not have their wheelchair, and further movement is likely to be extremely difficult.
(b) hence the trend to refuges which allow the persons to stay with their wheelchairs and be removed, hopefully with them. For example by a protected lift - see Approved Document B, Chapter 6 and the Guidance at the start of Section B1.
(c) It is important that people in refuges are able to communicate with building management/fire service so that it is known that they are there.
AD B refers several times to BS5588 Part 8, Code of Practicefor measns of escape for disabled people. I do not have a copy of this, so cannot comment any further.
-
It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise sane and rational people still come out with this twaddle about leaving disabled people to die pending arrival of the fire brigade, assuming that they do actually come under their RIP (sorry freudian slip IRMP) policies. No wonder disabled people get bolshie. Contrary to the reported views of Glen Hoddle, disabled people are just ordinary people, the safety of whom must be ensured by those responsible for the safety of their able bodied colleagues. It is not the role of the fire brigade to get them out. If you really do need evidence of some kind, try basic morality, but if this fails to convince try the fundamental definiton of means of escape, or as a last resort look at BS 5588-8, imperfect though it may be.
-
You asked about the legislation; this is mainly the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 - of which Regulation 8 of the latter says that 'every employer shall (a) establish and where necessary give effect to appropriate procedures to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to persons at work in his undertaking; (b) nominate a sufficient number of competent persons to implement those procedures in so far as they relate to the evacuation from premises of persons at work in his undertaking'.
The 'division of labour' is basically that management have to assist those that need assistance to evacuate premises and the fire brigade seek to rescue people trapped in fires. These are not the same! The two things that seem to have changed in this respect over past years are that visiting fire officers tend not to say 'just leave it to us' any more and the Disability Discrimination Act is making buildings more accessible to disabled people - although it is notable that the offence is to unreasonably discriminate.
BS 5588-8 gives information on refuges, stairways, ramps and lifts (including evacuation lifts) and provides some advice to management on fire procedures, evacuation techniques and strategies.
-
i wrote a really long 'comment' but in reality i cant be axxed in sending it!
i refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier reply (which i deleted so you cant read it!)
stop trying to find ways not to do something!
dave bev
-
The above posts are all right, although somewhat lacking in decorum(?)
If you actually ask a FSO what to do they will also struggle at times and may shelter behind the same sort of comments as above. More forward thinking FSO's (yes there are a few), will suggest solutions which seem to go against the published guidance. E.g. Movement into a different fire compartment, use of ordinary lifts if in a protected shaft, use of firefighting lifts and heaven forbid, a proper evac lift.
Don't go down the neoprene chute route! Many mobility restricted people will be happier to bump down a few storeys on their backside. At least this returns their destiny to their own hands. Remember the DDA stresses reasonableness and if you occupy an old building that is many storeys high I would be happy to argue that restrictions on some disabled people is reasonable. Don't use this as the easy way out though.
-
Oh go on Davey, tell us the views of the commie revolutionary on top of the Moscow omnibus! I find myself often in agreement with your views. (Should this worry me, as other than a minor penchant for red lingerie, I had never considered myself to the left of Stalin.)
-
comrade todd, i need to remind you of the quote
We shall support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.
Mao Tse-Tung
Chinese Communist politician (1893 - 1976)
however your liking for most things red will indeed endear you to the chairmans book, page 9 refers to a most charming set of undergarments available from a well know internet auction site simply by entering the words red or fishnet (apparently)
-
I will order a set as a xmas present for your President.
-
'tis indeed touching to know that the ghost of christmas past, present and future will not be required in todd hall this year, as the presents of gifts and garments have already appeared to be arranged
ps - please refrain from trying on any garments that may have been purchased for the benfit of others
-
It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise sane and rational people still come out with this twaddle about leaving disabled people to die pending arrival of the fire brigade, assuming that they do actually come under their RIP (sorry freudian slip IRMP) policies. No wonder disabled people get bolshie. Contrary to the reported views of Glen Hoddle, disabled people are just ordinary people, the safety of whom must be ensured by those responsible for the safety of their able bodied colleagues. It is not the role of the fire brigade to get them out. If you really do need evidence of some kind, try basic morality, but if this fails to convince try the fundamental definiton of means of escape, or as a last resort look at BS 5588-8, imperfect though it may be.
Colin,
This is what annoys me about you
Yes ok you are right people do not think about disabled (sorry "less abled" )enough but "Santas Little Helper" is looking for advice not some silly critiscism or belittling from you. Do you talk to your clients in such a tone I wonder?
For all we know he may be new to the fire safety field and looking for sensible advice NOT wise cracks about how silly he is and how "tut tut heaven forbid thats not how we fire safety professionals deal with it".
Colin you contribute greatly to these forums but at times you make some very snobbish, pompous, ill thought remarks.
This forum is to help people not belittle them Colin and co.
In answer to your question Santa's Little Helper....
The Fire Service are not responsible for the evacuation of anyone abled or less abled - tit is the employer's duty to do that.
The Fire Service has a duty to rescue people, however this is a completely different subject matter. The term "Rescue" infers that someone must be in a life threatening situation requiring the immediate intervention by the fire brigade.
A less abled / mobility impaired person sat in a refuge isn't someone whom requires rescue, they are certainly not in a life threatening situation unless of course somehow the fire has spread into the refuge area which would be extremely rare.
My advice is contact your local Fire Authority again, and ask for some input from them. They should send out an officer to look at your premises and come up with some options or suggestions on how to resolve the issue of evacuating the less abled. They won't do all the leg work for you but they should explain enough for you to formulate a plan.
If you still feel the situation is bewildering it may be worth considering employing the services of someone like Colin Todd an experienced and competent fire safety consultant whom has alot of experience in this field.
We use evac chairs at our establishment for self transfering mobility impaired persons.
For non self transfering persons we use lifts to bring them down to ground floor, even though the lifts aren't proper evacuation lifts. Because they are not proper evacuation lifts we undertake an "on the spot" risk assessment during an incident to ascertain if the fire or emergency threatens the use of the lift. If it doesnt then we use the lift.
The practice of using lifts would be snubbed by some of my colleagues in the fire safety profession however before they barrage me with negative comments telling me how silly and dangerous and deplorable that is I can confirm that the fire Authority are more than happy for us to operate this procedure.Its commmon sense at the end of the day.
But "Oh " I hear some of my colleagues cry "Bloomin fire officers haven't a clue they aren't proper risk assessed motivated people with leters from the IFE after their name. They are too used to prescriptive law"
Well our fire authorty employs civilian inspecting officers whom do have experience in not only advanced fire safety but also general health and safety and so the risk based approach is something they have evolved with.
Hope this helps
-
It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise sane and rational people still come out with this twaddle about leaving disabled people to die pending arrival of the fire brigade....etc etc.
Colin,
What a silly unhelpful remark!
I agree with the poster above, we are here to help not hinder.
No wonder people aren't getting the message about important safety issues such as this. People won't bother finding out if they think this is the reaction they are going to get all the while !
Lighten up a little please.
D Rollins
Eastoak Emergency Planning Services
-
Well Colin, you've upset people this time!! ;)
Seriously though, even though it is christmas. (Public sector...knock off three days early and have a week's sick after new year).
Everytime the issue of disabled escape is raised on this forum it provokes a lively discussion. Clearly there is a problem...and it ain't the disabled. Too hard to do drawer springs to mind. Until the Government, (or a brave fire authority) faces down the UK plc lobby and acknowledges that it is going to cost money, (there, I've said it) we are going to continue going round in circles.
We already have the best regulated country in Europe, (Treasury survey) and yet all we ever hear is how much it is going to cost...not what is right. I could go on about fire doors without closers in nursing homes but eventually the Rose Park inquiry will probably reach a reasonable conclusion.
-
If I were disabled, I would be upset at the idea of being abandonded in a building by my disabled colleagues. You dont have to be a fire safety professional to work that out. And , yes I asked a client last Firday whose crackpot idea (exact words) it was to leave disabled in a room within the clients building. finally a refuge is NOT a prefectly safe area for people to wait if the fire develops in the building. One day a disabled person is going to be killed by people's lack of plain morality and common sense. If people remember that all the better by being a little offended at being told some basic common sense, then it does no harm for disabled fire safety. Its neither pompous or belittling to ask people to treat disabled people as they would want treated themselves. A number of people I talk to often refer accidentally to a refuge as a ''refuse''. Sometimes I think thats a Freudian slip that almost reveals their attitude to the less fortunate members of what should be a single society.
-
Colin; is there any news about your British Standard publication on fire risk assessments (expected December) - and will it have anything to say on this subject?
-
If I were disabled, I would be upset at the idea of being abandonded in a building by my disabled colleagues. You dont have to be a fire safety professional to work that out. And , yes I asked a client last Firday whose crackpot idea (exact words) it was to leave disabled in a room within the clients building. finally a refuge is NOT a prefectly safe area for people to wait if the fire develops in the building. One day a disabled person is going to be killed by people's lack of plain morality and common sense. If people remember that all the better by being a little offended at being told some basic common sense, then it does no harm for disabled fire safety. Its neither pompous or belittling to ask people to treat disabled people as they would want treated themselves. A number of people I talk to often refer accidentally to a refuge as a ''refuse''. Sometimes I think thats a Freudian slip that almost reveals their attitude to the less fortunate members of what should be a single society.
We don't disagree Colin, like I said you are right but can we be more tactful toward new posters else we are just going to frighten them off.
At least "Santas little helper" bothered to try and find out more - he/she obviously realises that they are doing something wrong
So lets not get chastise people for asking.
D Rolins
EEPS
-
Ken,
As a result of a cock up by BSi it is now delayed until about March. However, in response to your question the draft submitted to BSi calls for all FRAs to record the presence of diabled people. The section on fire warning then calls for the FRa to consider the arrnagements for deaf people. The section on MoE calls for the FRA to consider the arrnagements in place to assist in the evacuation of mobility or sight impaired people.
Mr Rollins, read the initial comment again, It did not contain chastisement. The judge will do that when somebody manages to kill a disabled person by their thoughtlessness. It contained despair at the society in which we live, borne out of extensive experience of disabled evacuation policies and quite frankly attitudes to disabled people ( including one lady on a course -and I quote- ''my husband is a fireman and he says not to risk hurting myself helping any disabled people, just leave them in the building and let the fire brigade get them out'-). And that isnt even the worst.. Many years ago, long before the DDA, I organized a seminar on fire safety for disabled people. I invited a disabled access offer to speak and he was himself disabled. I was thoughtless enough to provisionally call the seminar fire safety for the disabled, which led him to lecture me about how disabled people are PEOPLE and not THE disabled, which was a term he said caused offence. he then proceeded to lecture me at length about the attitudes of society including the then fire community to disabled people. I learned a lot from that talking to, including an appreciation of the very rough deal disabled people have had over the years, and how little the fire world had done at that time to help them. It is sad many years on from then that so many employers still have not the faintest clue about the basics. It is also frustrating that many of our clients voluntarily do a really good job on disabled evac, but that others are still putting disabled people at risk.
-
Thanks, Colin. I somehow suspected that it would be too late for Christmas. I was wondering whether it would go into listing possible assisted MoE methods including conversion of existing lifts for evacuation and the controversial suggestion (mentioned above by another respondent) of using ordinary lifts on a risk assessment basis - which seems to be voiced more often these days.
-
"record the presence of disabled people". In some cases peoples disbilities, like mine, are not readily obvious to the naked eye.
How do you get round that one? :?
-
Ask people
-
Thats the one wee B. Ken, we can't stray into the area of other standards. Disabled evacuation is a matter for BS 5588-8, so all we can do is ensure in PAS 999 that the matter receives attention in a FRA. PAS 999 is not the right the place to tell people how to do it.
-
I take the point about not using the publication to tell people how to do it - but as solutions can be risk assessment-based (or even risky) I wondered whether this aspect of risk assessment (ie not just the risk of fire but the risks associated with disabled person access and egress) would be addressed.
BS5588-8 seems in need of some updating these days and not widely known or used by persons in control of buildings to say the least!
-
Sadly, Ken as usual you are right. (Its not sad you are right, but its sad people dont even read BS 5588-8, which is in itself a bit wishy washy). By the way, just to keep you updated, the number of PAS 999 is to be changed for publication. For reasons as to why, see spearate posting.
-
Maybe, Santa's Little Helper, it would be beneficial to explain that the fire brigade cannot guarantee attendance of fire appliances within a specified time period. Whilst we are all used to a number of fire appliances turning up very quickly to our various premises, there could be occasions where such an arrival is seriously compromised.
The Fire Brigades, recognising that they may not get there quickly enough every time, nor with the number of firefighters needed for evacuation of diabled persons, correctly advise that is a management responsibility to create a fire evacuation routine which ensures the safe evacuation of everone. Everyone, every time.
Perhaps if you think of your fire evacuation routine as needing to be independant of fire service assistance you will get to their intended objective.
As far as I am aware, all Scottish Fire Authorities now require this level of managerial fire safety provision.
-
.... and if its good in L&B its good anywhere!!!!! (Not that I am biased, its merely that Edinburgh is the centre of the known Universe).
-
Who do you guys think is reponsible for assessing the evacuation of disabled occupants; the fire risk assessor or the the dda assessor?
The reason I'm asking is that I conducted fra's for a city council and their concert hall (and all others) were assessed by the county council for 'access to facilities' and no mention was made on the evacuation of disabled service users.
Funny enough the councils disabled access officer was asked where his PEP was and he answered ''in my head'' :)
-
Our DDA assessors deliberately do not cover emergency MoE in their reports as they are not competent in this field - if the client is a service provider or employer in the building and commissions us for FRA work as well then it will be covered by the report by the fire specialist.
Our DDA staff have the required qualification and registration for access assessments, but it appears that this does not require knowledge to be competent for emergency MoE assessment & thus not within their remit