FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: graham47 on June 11, 2008, 12:57:13 PM
-
I have just come off the phone to a customer who runs a hotel. He has informed me that he has heard that some business have been advised to remove their fire extinguishers by the FD, as they should only be interested in evacuation as opposed to fighting any potential fire. Has anyone else heard of this?
I would also be interested to know if anyone can tell me if intumescent seals would be effective once painted over?
Look forward to receiving any info/advice.
-
I have just come off the phone to a customer who runs a hotel. He has informed me that he has heard that some business have been advised to remove their fire extinguishers by the FD, as they should only be interested in evacuation as opposed to fighting any potential fire. Has anyone else heard of this?
I would also be interested to know if anyone can tell me if intumescent seals would be effective once painted over?
Look forward to receiving any info/advice.
Yes. If the emergency action plan states that no one is to tackle a fire but to evacuate then there is no need for extinguishers really. Extinguishers are not there for the means of escape.
Yes, I remember attending a presentation by a manufacturer who stated that intumescent strips are still effective if painted over.
-
Intumescent seals can be over painted without interfering with their properties though any smoke seal blades or brushes should be unpainted. There will come a point, however, where sufficient coats of paint could inhibit the activation of the intumescent material. This is currently thought to be in the region of 2-3mm thickness of paint. Please refer to fixing and installation instructions.
-
Should this really be in the USAR Training section? If it is put in the correct section you may get more replies.
-
Should this really be in the USAR Training section? If it is put in the correct section you may get more replies.
Correct. Done.
-
graham 47/TW
I raised this with IFSA (Intumescent Fire Seals Association) some years ago and they told me up to five coats of paint is OK.
My post is still on their website IFSA.org.uk
As TW says brushes etc must never be painted if they are to function 100%
davo
-
Source BS 8214:1990 Code of practice for Fire door assemblies with non-metallic leaves
Clause26. Decoration
Unglazed areas of any fire door leaves are generally not required to provide a specific surface spread of flame requirement and may therefore be decorated as desired. There is no evidence to suggest that over painting of heat activated seals has any detrimental effect on the ability of the seals to perform efficiently. There are some benefits in over painting the seals as they are less likely to absorb atmospheric moisture. However, there are limits on how much paint can be applied without there being a risk of the seal being rendered inoperative. It is recommended that over painting be limited to a maximum of five coats of conventional oil bound paint or varnish. When preparing a frame for redecoration, the use of heat or chemical strippers should be avoided if intumescent seals are incorporated. If seals are damaged by either of these processes, they should be replaced in accordance with clause 21. If glazing beads have been painted with intumescent paint, it is essential that they should be repainted with a similar paint.
5 coats of oil paint or varnish times average thickness of a coat of paint 0.5mm with a tolerance of 0.1mm for each coat equals 2mm to 3mm. :)
-
If the emergency action plan states that no one is to tackle a fire but to evacuate then there is no need for extinguishers really. Extinguishers are not there for the means of escape.
Yes, I remember attending a presentation by a manufacturer who stated that intumescent strips are still effective if painted over.
Really Nearlythere? How does the RP comply with his duty to take reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire if he has no extinguishers. Or to look at it another way, how would he demonstrate to a Court that he had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due dilligence?
I agree that this used to be the case in the bad old days of the WP Regs when all that was required was to evacuate, but don't the general fire precautions go further these days?
-
My tag on this is that extinguishers are for 2 things; put the fire out (if trained etc.etc.) but, most importantly to get you out of a trapped position.
-
My tag on this is that extinguishers are for 2 things; put the fire out (if trained etc.etc.) but, most importantly to get you out of a trapped position.
I would suggest that if the risk assessment concludes that the safety of relevant persons depends on the presence of an extinguisher to enable them to fight their way out, a reveiw of the means of escape and emergency plan may be in order.
-
My tag on this is that extinguishers are for 2 things; put the fire out (if trained etc.etc.) but, most importantly to get you out of a trapped position.
I would suggest that if the risk assessment concludes that the safety of relevant persons depends on the presence of an extinguisher to enable them to fight their way out, a reveiw of the means of escape and emergency plan may be in order.
Yes!
If youre reliant on extinguishers to escape then im afraid something is seriously wrong.
No you cant not have fire extinguishers the RR(FS)O is categoric in saying they must be provided. Ther are no fire services im aware of saying you can remove extinguishers.
-
My tag on this is that extinguishers are for 2 things; put the fire out (if trained etc.etc.) but, most importantly to get you out of a trapped position.
Sounds like you have been on a large extinguisher manufacturers training course.
Many people have this misguided view.
If this is the case, why are extinguishers generally by exits? (not saying that is correct though)
-
I suppose thats one way of not providing staff with training, just remove all of the extinguishers in building.
Sounds farsical to be honest. Why would the FD encourage the removal of extinguishers? Is S/he moonlighting as a fire extinguisher removal company?
If I have to install extinguishers in shelterd blocks of flats when nobody in the building works for me (BS5588 pt 1) then the owners of a hotel definately need them.
-
My tag on this is that extinguishers are for 2 things; put the fire out (if trained etc.etc.) but, most importantly to get you out of a trapped position.
Sounds like you have been on a large extinguisher manufacturers training course.
Many people have this misguided view.
If this is the case, why are extinguishers generally by exits? (not saying that is correct though)
OK FSO, you've got my interest with that quote !
If (as stated by Mr. P and refuted by your good self) a HPE is not for putting a fire out or to assist in the safe evacuation of persons from a building then "re-guide" me as to what its' purpose is please. I am intrigued as I am also one of the "Misguided Many".
The "extinguishers at exits" comes from the days of the fire certificate when those interested (and so obviously qualified) parties drew up the building plan and placed their little triangles there. You will recall that this plan was then judged akin to a sacred tablet and placed within the arc of the covenant (or fire certificate folder) never to be questioned, judged or altered unless a change of use should rear its head. you could add to it (with permission) should extra "specific risk" be noted. But you could never subtract from it should "blatant stupidity" be noted.
-
Hi Reiver
Fire Extinguishers should be provided to mitigate the effects of fire (This is a requirement of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005)
They should not however be used to secure a means of escape - if you are reliant on using a fire extinguisher to aid your escape then I would be extremely concerned.
-
The reason for providing portable fire fighting equipment prior to the introduction of the RRO was to assist persons evacuate the building. One must remember that the FP Act and WKplace Regs was not looking to 'mitigate the effects of fire' but to get people out. There is case law on this interpretation in respect of the FP Act.
Under the RRO the responsible person must take such measures to 'mitigate the effects of fire' which includes:
a) assessing the type and level of such equipment required and
b) training selected staff in the use of such equipment
A situation many employers and employees find difficult to accept.
-
stevew
Surely the mitigating bit is only where there are dangerous substances? 16(3)a(i)
In regard to training of selected staff, 13(3) says 'where necessary' etc . Measures for fire fighting can be anything from dial 999 up to own firefighters dependent on the premise.
Davo
-
stevew
Surely the mitigating bit is only where there are dangerous substances? 16(3)a(i)
In regard to training of selected staff, 13(3) says 'where necessary' etc . Measures for fire fighting can be anything from dial 999 up to own firefighters dependent on the premise.
Davo
No Davo, why do you think that? The RP must take such general fire precautions (Article 4) as are appropriate, and general fire precautions requires measures to mitigate the effects of fire, which includes providing extinguishers and training employees to use them, SFARP.
-
The "extinguishers at exits" comes from the days of the fire certificate when those interested (and so obviously qualified) parties drew up the building plan and placed their little triangles there. You will recall that this plan was then judged akin to a sacred tablet and placed within the arc of the covenant (or fire certificate folder) never to be questioned, judged or altered unless a change of use should rear its head you could add to it (with permission) should extra "specific risk" be noted. But you could never subtract from it should "blatant stupidity" be noted.
The fire certificates were produced stipulating minimum requirements in accordance with the current legislation (FPA), codes of practice, guidance and British standards and in the case of portable FFE you didn’t ask why, that was the requirement. This was prescriptive fire safety and you only got one bite of the cherry.
As you say if there was an alteration you got a second bite of the cherry and applied the current code or BS to that area which may improve the standard however as you were at minimum you could not reduce it. In the case of mistakes they could be put right in that area.
-
PhilB
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I'm only talking just about once a fire is discovered
Closing the door is a measure
Dialling the brigade is a measure
Sounding the alarm is a measure
Yes, prior planning will include
Having extinguishers as a measure; also
Having trained persons where dangerous substances are present and/or life could be lost would be expected
Not sure in your basic office type situation I would expect a small fire to be tackled
davo
-
Yes, once a fire is discovered would be included. The RP must have measures in place to mitigate the effects.
Also have a look at article 34. The accused would need to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do more than he had done. I would like to see a RP argue that is was not reasonably practicable to provide any extinguishers or to train anyone to use them.
Also consider the only available defence, that of due dilligence..in other words "what more could I have done?"
Someone who provides nothing would struggle to demonstate that they have shown due dilligence.
Stevew has got it spot on. In the past fire safety law only required measures to be taken to get people out, the building could burn down. Now measures must be taken to reduce the risk of fire and mitigate the effect of fire. How can that be effectively done with no extinguishers?
-
PhilB
No one surely is suggesting removing/not providing extinguishers, Doc B says you have to provide and its the law.
Reducing the risk? We spent about one million a year on fire safety over the last seven years.
We have 136 buildings. I can only guarantee someone wil be in less than 20 of them.
I have 10,000 staff.
Do I train them all on the off chance? I would require eight permanent staff just doing this, not counting the extraction time.
Our one H & S trainer bless her currently trains about 200 or so per year for the larger premises which are business critical.
I could ban toasters as they are the major cause but a 10,000 lynch mob is not an attractive prospect.!
davo
-
No one surely is suggesting removing/not providing extinguishers, Doc B says you have to provide and its the law.
Reducing the risk? We spent about one million a year on fire safety over the last seven years.
We have 136 buildings. I can only guarantee someone wil be in less than 20 of them.
I have 10,000 staff.
Do I train them all on the off chance? I would require eight permanent staff just doing this, not counting the extraction time.
Our one H & S trainer bless her currently trains about 200 or so per year for the larger premises which are business critical.
I could ban toasters as they are the major cause but a 10,000 lynch mob is not an attractive prospect.!
davo
Yes they are Davo!
I have just come off the phone to a customer who runs a hotel. He has informed me that he has heard that some business have been advised to remove their fire extinguishers by the FD, as they should only be interested in evacuation as opposed to fighting any potential fire. Has anyone else heard of this?
I would also be interested to know if anyone can tell me if intumescent seals would be effective once painted over?
Look forward to receiving any info/advice.
This is where reasonably practicable comes in or reasonable in the circumstances if for the safety of non-employees.
It is not reasonably practicable to train all staff to be expert fire-fighters, but you are not demonstrating due dilligence if you train no-one.
Where does ADB refer to extinguishers?
-
stevew
Surely the mitigating bit is only where there are dangerous substances? 16(3)a(i)
In regard to training of selected staff, 13(3) says 'where necessary' etc . Measures for fire fighting can be anything from dial 999 up to own firefighters dependent on the premise.
Davo
Training
21. —(1) The responsible person must ensure that his employees are provided with adequate safety training—
(a) at the time when they are first employed; and
(b) on their being exposed to new or increased risks...
(2) The training referred to in paragraph (1) must—
(a) include suitable and sufficient instruction and training on the appropriate precautions and actions to be taken by the employee in order to safeguard himself and other relevant persons on the premises;
I see no 'where necessary' in there.
My point of view is; (in general) All employees should be given basic familiarisation in FFE. Further training for marshalls etc, but everyone should be aware of how to use an extinguisher and the correct extinguisher for particular fires. This is backed up by the CLG guidance which we have to take into account.
-
Hi Reiver
Fire Extinguishers should be provided to mitigate the effects of fire (This is a requirement of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005)
They should not however be used to secure a means of escape - if you are reliant on using a fire extinguisher to aid your escape then I would be extremely concerned.
Hello There Mr. Retty.
I have read the thing and its' annex things ad nauseum.
And I too would be extremely concerned if I was stood there with a fire between me and my exit and a HPE in my hands.
I'm a simple lad at heart but hopefully these comments / questions don't sound too flippant or immature.
Taking "mitigate the effects of fire" literally. And seeing as the statement comes from a government department then "literally" it has to be.
This would then mean - "To moderate or make less severe the effects of an event once it has commenced".
Why would I want to do that with a fire then ? For what earthly reason would I want to stand there and moderate the effects, if not to aid in the evacuation process, either of myself or somone else ?
What I mean is a HPE is a first aid piece of kit .....FIRE STARTS > SMACK > FIRE OUT.
In using the kit successfully (If the fire is caught quickly and at source) I have not moderated the effect but have terminated it.
So (being trained) with my HPE in hand I have the possibility of doing two things and still being able to comply with all the literal terms of the RRO
1. Put the fire out.
2. Lessen (mitigate) the effects of the fire (and thus aid safe evacuation of me and others).
What cannot be forgotten here is that as soon as you pick up a HPE and use it in earnest, you are in fact aiding (or attempting to aid) in the safe evacuation of the building / area. This may be a voluntary or involuntary act but it is still taking place.
And in a worse case scenario it could very easily be a vital part of the means of escape. Don't think for one minute that I'm just backing up HPE usage. In my opinion the usage itself is no different than an automatic fire system activating upon detection. It too is attempting to mitigate the fire and aid safe evacuation.
Or do we now not have WCS's. Do we now just have pink and fluffy perfect world fire scenarios that come direct from a risk assessors fantasy clipboard, where everyone has a safe and fully protected exit route that is of course nowhere near the actual reason the alarm was raised in the first place?
Manufacturers training course ??.........Nah, just common sense !!
-
If the emergency action plan states that no one is to tackle a fire but to evacuate then there is no need for extinguishers really. Extinguishers are not there for the means of escape.
Yes, I remember attending a presentation by a manufacturer who stated that intumescent strips are still effective if painted over.
Really Nearlythere? How does the RP comply with his duty to take reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire if he has no extinguishers. Or to look at it another way, how would he demonstrate to a Court that he had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due dilligence?
I agree that this used to be the case in the bad old days of the WP Regs when all that was required was to evacuate, but don't the general fire precautions go further these days?
If the RP provides extinguishers then it would be a reasonable duty to train staff on how to use them as it is for any item of equipment. Does it say anywhere that there is a requirement for staff to fight a fire with any extinguishers provided?
To me reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire can be by isolation and containment, an effective evacuation strategy and a means of calling the Fire & Rescue Service which has the neccessary equipment, training, experience and knowledge and other qualities to enable it to deal with a fire safely.
-
Nearlythere, the RRO guidance note covers the whole 'where necessary' aspect, it was intended that almost every place will require extinguishers, and the authority I work for will enforce as such.
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Guidance Note No. 1: Enforcement
Fire-fighting equipment should be considered as a means of both prevention and
protection. For example, preventing a small fi re growing out of control and spreading
beyond the area of origin, affecting the means of escape and posing a risk to relevant
persons. It is likely therefore that some form of fi re fi ghting equipment will be necessary
in almost all cases.
-
If the RP provides extinguishers then it would be a reasonable duty to train staff on how to use them as it is for any item of equipment. Does it say anywhere that there is a requirement for staff to fight a fire with any extinguishers provided?
To me reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire can be by isolation and containment, an effective evacuation strategy and a means of calling the Fire & Rescue Service which has the neccessary equipment, training, experience and knowledge and other qualities to enable it to deal with a fire safely.
Article 13 places the duty on the Responsible person to provide fire fighting equipment and to train employees in its use. It doesnt directly say that employees must use the equipment. But under article 23 1 b employees have a duty to co-operate with the responsible person to assist them to meet their duties.
So the duty is implicit in there. Impossible to enforce though.
-
If the RP provides extinguishers then it would be a reasonable duty to train staff on how to use them as it is for any item of equipment. Does it say anywhere that there is a requirement for staff to fight a fire with any extinguishers provided?
To me reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire can be by isolation and containment, an effective evacuation strategy and a means of calling the Fire & Rescue Service which has the neccessary equipment, training, experience and knowledge and other qualities to enable it to deal with a fire safely.
Article 13 places the duty on the Responsible person to provide fire fighting equipment and to train employees in its use. It doesnt directly say that employees must use the equipment. But under article 23 1 b employees have a duty to co-operate with the responsible person to assist them to meet their duties.
So the duty is implicit in there. Impossible to enforce though.
Sorry K but must disagree. Art. 13 states that "Where neccessary....... and any other relevant circumstances etc..............(1) the premises are , to the extent that it is appropriate, equiped with appropriate firefighting equipment.................
When, in a building, would it not be neccessary to provide extinguishers? That to me includes if the RP has a policy of no firefighting to take place due to the risk involved.
We may probably never know what "where neccessary" and "appriopriate" really means until maybe the next tragedy. It really is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.
-
It comes down, as I said earlier, to due diligence.
How can someone prove that they have taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence without providing at least a few extinguishers and training just a few people to use them?
Yes possibly if they have auto-suppression but even then would a reasonable person not provide the odd extinguisher to tackle a very small fire?
To me reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire can be by isolation and containment, an effective evacuation strategy and a means of calling the Fire & Rescue Service which has the neccessary equipment, training, experience and knowledge and other qualities to enable it to deal with a fire safely.
Nearlythere if someone did just that, and someone was injured in a fire that could have been extinguished by a suitably trained and equipped employee the prosecution would simply have to ask
“could you not have provided just one extinguisher and trained just one member of staff?.” If the answer is “well yes we could have” the defence of due diligence is gone.
I personally cannot see how a policy of no fire-fighting and just evacuate could possibly fulfil the duty to take general fire precautions,
It is the RPs responsibility to mitigate the effects of a fire on his premises not the FRS.
-
Hi Reiver
Fire Extinguishers should be provided to mitigate the effects of fire (This is a requirement of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005)
They should not however be used to secure a means of escape - if you are reliant on using a fire extinguisher to aid your escape then I would be extremely concerned.
Hello There Mr. Retty.
I have read the thing and its' annex things ad nauseum.
And I too would be extremely concerned if I was stood there with a fire between me and my exit and a HPE in my hands.
The law states extinguishers should be provided to mitigate (i.e. lessen) the effects of fire I believe this was "added "into the legislation for several reasons:-
1) Human Behaviour dictates that some people will attempt to fight fire if confronted with it, so it is better to equip said people with the right training and equipment to do that without putting themselves at risk
2) To prevent neighbouring areas or buildings being affected from a fire which could have easily been dealt with but has now grown and spread to other buildings causing expense / damage / loss of local resources / or source of employment.
3) For fire service use (special risk extinguishers situated in certain areas for conmvenience of fire service personnel to use - such as incidents with metal fires) - I'll await the flack on that one just my opinion.
-
Retty,
Point 1 is very valid. I visited a premises that had a serious fire. They had a 'policy' set by the manager/owner that people were to get out and that was his reason for not training any of his staff or himself on FFE. During the fire, the manager himself tried to extinguish an extremely large fire with a CO2 extinguisher (To no avail) putting himself at quite a serious risk.
Another point is to minimise the potential disruption to your own business. When you are looking at a room/premises that has been gutted, knowing that a trained member of staff could have dealt with it, I am sure it is not a mistake you will make twice.
-
“could you not have provided just one extinguisher and trained just one member of staff?.” If the answer is “well yes we could have” the defence of due diligence is gone.
But the answer could just as well be "no, because I do not want my staff to expose themselves to any unnecessary risk of injury from fire, and my company's policy in the event of a fire is for staff to "Get out - get the Fire Service out - and stay out"" the defence of due diligence is maintained.
-
The whole point of supplying the training is so that people do not put themselves at risk.
-
“could you not have provided just one extinguisher and trained just one member of staff?.” If the answer is “well yes we could have” the defence of due diligence is gone.
But the answer could just as well be "no, because I do not want my staff to expose themselves to any unnecessary risk of injury from fire, and my company's policy in the event of a fire is for staff to "Get out - get the Fire Service out - and stay out"" the defence of due diligence is maintained.
Then we must agree to differ because I do not believe your option to only evacuate would satisfy the requirement to do all that is reasonably practicable to do.
No one has said employees should be placed at risk but The Order clearly places two new duties on RPs that were not there under previous fire safety law:
1) to reduce the risk from fire and 2) to mitigate the effects of fire.
Those duies have to be complied with SFARP and the onus is on the RP to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do any more than was done. I think the RP would be on a very sticky wicket if he took your option.
What about people in the vicinity, your employees may be safe but if you just allow your building to burn and spread to others can you argue that you are doing everything reasonably practicable to ensure the safety of your neighbours?, and they are relevant persons.
-
“could you not have provided just one extinguisher and trained just one member of staff?.” If the answer is “well yes we could have” the defence of due diligence is gone.
But the answer could just as well be "no, because I do not want my staff to expose themselves to any unnecessary risk of injury from fire, and my company's policy in the event of a fire is for staff to "Get out - get the Fire Service out - and stay out"" the defence of due diligence is maintained.
Then we must agree to differ because I do not believe your option to only evacuate would satisfy the requirement to do all that is reasonably practicable to do.
No one has said employees should be placed at risk but The Order clearly places two new duties on RPs that were not there under previous fire safety law:
1) to reduce the risk from fire and 2) to mitigate the effects of fire.
Those duies have to be complied with SFARP and the onus is on the RP to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do any more than was done. I think the RP would be on a very sticky wicket if he took your option.
What about people in the vicinity, your employees may be safe but if you just allow your building to burn and spread to others can you argue that you are doing everything reasonably practicable to ensure the safety of your neighbours?, and they are relevant persons.
My point is that if fire extinguishers must be provided to reduce the risk from fire and to mitigate the effects of fire then the legislation would specifically say so. But it doesn't so really it is about interpretation and providing that which is deemed neccessary in the circumstances.
-
My point is that if fire extinguishers must be provided to reduce the risk from fire and to mitigate the effects of fire then the legislation would specifically say so. But it doesn't so really it is about interpretation and providing that which is deemed neccessary in the circumstances.
I'm not saying fire extinguishers MUST be provided. The Order doesn't say that, neither does it say that fire exits or protected stairways must be provided because that would be too prescriptive....
....but try and comply without providing exits or extinguishers.
What you must be able to do is evacuate the building as quickly and as safely as possible and you MUST take reasonable measures to mitigate the efffects of fire. If you can take reasonable methods without extinguishers, you're sorted. I have not yet seen a suitable and sufficent fire risk assessment that justifies that approach however.
-
I wonder what the take from fire insurance companies are re the provision or not of fire extinguishers in non domestic buildings? they surely play a part in limiting property damage.
Did FETA not conduct a survey some years ago which concluded that a large % of fires in buildings were extinguished by the occupants, and not even reported to the fire brigades?
Is it not outdated that a building will just be evacuated, no matter what, as opposed to someone who is trained tackling a small fire which can be easily extinguished by a fire extinguisher?
Great debate, PhilB on the mark as always.
-
If youre reliant on extinguishers to escape then im afraid something is seriously wrong.
if you are reliant on using a fire extinguisher to aid your escape then I would be extremely concerned.
Agreed. If you can raise the alarm, evacuate the building and call the Fire Brigade that is what you should always do.
But.
How many premises only have a single exit/entry? Millions.
The majority of fires start small and can be tackled in the early stages with a fire extinguisher if that is the occupants only means of escape.
I would like to see your signature at the bottom of the page when it says remove the fire extinguishers and hope you have sufficient liabilty insurance.
-
If youre reliant on extinguishers to escape then im afraid something is seriously wrong.
if you are reliant on using a fire extinguisher to aid your escape then I would be extremely concerned.
Agreed. If you can raise the alarm, evacuate the building and call the Fire Brigade that is what you should always do.
But.
How many premises only have a single exit/entry? Millions.
The majority of fires start small and can be tackled in the early stages with a fire extinguisher if that is the occupants only means of escape.
I would like to see your signature at the bottom of the page when it says remove the fire extinguishers and hope you have sufficient liabilty insurance.
The discussion is not about removing extinguishers Nim. It is about the interpretation and application of the legislation particularily that relating to the subject matter. This is a discussion forum afterall.
On your second matter because of the location of extinguishers in a building if you can get to one you are nearly out. If they are there to assist your escape then they would not be at storey and final exits.
-
The RRO is really unhelpful on this one (IMHO)
Article 4 requires measures in relation to means for fighting fires in premises
Art 4 1 (d) "Means of fighting fire" = extinguishers sand buckets sprinklers
However it is dead silent on the phrase "fighting fire"
Art 4 1 (f) "measures to mitigate effects of fire" Shut door and windows as you evacuate? Inspect your fire doors and put the big red door stops back on their properly labelled racks with manual handling instuctions?
Again IMHO no legal requirement to fight fire unless it is reasonably foreseeable that evacaution is not likely to be safe without some first aid fire fighting. Eg C02 flood on steel industry oil quench tanks. (possible rapid large fire with plenty of smoke fume near workers who will need some time to get away.)
-
The RRO is really unhelpful on this one (IMHO)
Article 4 requires measures in relation to means for fighting fires in premises
Art 4 1 (d) "Means of fighting fire" = extinguishers sand buckets sprinklers
However it is dead silent on the phrase "fighting fire"
Art 4 1 (f) "measures to mitigate effects of fire" Shut door and windows as you evacuate? Inspect your fire doors and put the big red door stops back on their properly labelled racks with manual handling instuctions?
Again IMHO no legal requirement to fight fire unless it is reasonably foreseeable that evacaution is not likely to be safe without some first aid fire fighting. Eg C02 flood on steel industry oil quench tanks. (possible rapid large fire with plenty of smoke fume near workers who will need some time to get away.)
Article 13(1) requires the premises to be equiped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment and Article 13(2) requires there to be mesaures in place for fighting and persons nominated to implement those measures.
Now if you can do all that without extinguishers and suitably trained employees you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
The Fire Safety Order is not confined to looking after the safety of persons in your building. Dont forget relevant persons includes anyone in the vicinityy who may be affected by your burning building that could have been extinguished with the bucket of sand that you chose not to provide.
-
The RRO is really unhelpful on this one (IMHO)
Article 4 requires measures in relation to means for fighting fires in premises
Art 4 1 (d) "Means of fighting fire" = extinguishers sand buckets sprinklers
However it is dead silent on the phrase "fighting fire"
Art 4 1 (f) "measures to mitigate effects of fire" Shut door and windows as you evacuate? Inspect your fire doors and put the big red door stops back on their properly labelled racks with manual handling instuctions?
Again IMHO no legal requirement to fight fire unless it is reasonably foreseeable that evacaution is not likely to be safe without some first aid fire fighting. Eg C02 flood on steel industry oil quench tanks. (possible rapid large fire with plenty of smoke fume near workers who will need some time to get away.)
Article 13(1) requires the premises to be equiped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment and Article 13(2) requires there to be mesaures in place for fighting and persons nominated to implement those measures.
Now if you can do all that without extinguishers and suitably trained employees you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
The Fire Safety Order is not confined to looking after the safety of persons in your building. Dont forget relevant persons includes anyone in the vicinityy who may be affected by your burning building that could have been extinguished with the bucket of sand that you chose not to provide.
I think you are losing it Phil. Not only do you want fire fighting equipment and training but you now want people to start smacking each other about and heavies nominated to ensure it happens.
".......and Article 13(2) requires there to be mesaures in place for fighting and persons nominated to implement those measures."
Have a chillout weekend on me.
-
I need a holday mate!
-
Thank you to everyone who has replied. I found this site by accident (!) and have already found it very helpful.
If anyone is interested, my original question asked if anyone had heard that the FD seemed to be advocating the removal of extinguishers. I have recently attended a manufacturing plant that had a fire in an industrial oven. Trained staff attacked the fire in its early stages and managed to put it out. The factory manager told me that if they had not acted so quickly the factory (and the business) would have been lost.