FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: terry martin on July 02, 2008, 08:42:33 AM
-
i dimly remember reading an email sent to me recently regarding CFOA guidance on extinguishers
the guidance was in relation to the recent culture of employers and landlords not providing extinguishers and training of them, because they had deemed in their risk assessment that it was an unnecessary risk to their staff/occupants
some Auditors where accepting this, some were'nt
CFOA have now said this should not be accepted, and that Fire extinguishers should be made available and staff trained on them.
their reasons in a nutshell, if i remember, where that having extinguishers would prevent a small fire developing into a larger fire thus reducing the risk to life and property. not having them would put life and property at unnecessary risk
the thing is, i can't find this guidance anywhere now, and am starting to wonder if i dreamed it all. can anyone point me in the right direction
-
It is from GMC, you can contact there FS dept and they will send you the details. What it has to do with an FRA is beyond me though. Thje case was a Sheltered Housing project where no staff were available and it is now expected that the residents some of whom are quite old have to use extinguishers. The owners only wanted tp provide the extinguisher in the wradens office and have that person trained. Now they have loads of extinguishers that are to be maintained and no one will ever use them.
-
Sounds like a legal minefield if the presence of fire extinguishers is linked to the occupants age. Might be quite difficult if you look at it from the angle "So you didn't put in fire extinguishers because the occupants were a certain age?"
-
There is a similar story in the latest FIA Focus newsletter Issue 7, where a decision by a risk assessment company was made to remove the fire extinguishers from 2 blocks of flats.
The decision was revoked following a strong response from the fire protection community and the flats residents.
Quote:
The FRA identified them as a "health & safety hazard, the RA company employed by the buildings managers concluded that the extinguishers located in the hallways and landings posed more of a risk than a safety feature, unless occupants were properly trained to use them. The risk assessment was endoresd by the fire & rescue service.
It was recognised the importance of training is to be applauded, but the lack of it should not be used as a reason to take out the means to tackle a fire, and the decision elicited strong comments from many working in fire protection. From FIA's CEO, CFOA's chair of the National Fire Safety Committee, and MD of FPA.
-
Terry this is from Regulatory Reform Order Guidance Note No. 1:
---
Article 13 – Fire-fighting and fire detection
73. 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 fire fi ghting equipment will be necessary
in almost all cases.
---
-
Do you think it is more about litigation than fire safety are assessors more concerned if a non trained person was to use an extinguisher and was injured they could sue the assessor, auditor or the RP.
If they do not provide extinguishers and a fire was to develop and people were injured by the fire. Then they could sue because extinguishers were not provided.
It looks like that rock and a hard place. Also a cynic my think it’s all about cost.
-
I find the argument a bit weird. You don't hear of people not providing seatbelts in case they are wrongly used, or not providing fall-arrest systems, or not providing sprinklers in case someone injures themselves using them. Why is it only with fire extinguishers that we ever discuss this?
-
There is a similar story in the latest FIA Focus newsletter Issue 7, where a decision by a risk assessment company was made to remove the fire extinguishers from 2 blocks of flats.
could you point me in the right direction to find this newsletter please
-
I find the argument a bit weird. You don't hear of people not providing seatbelts in case they are wrongly used, or not providing fall-arrest systems, or not providing sprinklers in case someone injures themselves using them. Why is it only with fire extinguishers that we ever discuss this?
You may recall we discussed this issue recently on another thread regarding extinguishers in common areas of blocks of flats.
My personal view is that in sheltered housing schemes for example extinguishers should only be provided in staff areas such as the wardens office plus in risk areas such as plant rooms, boiler rooms and perhaps the day room.
I wouldnt want the residents to tackle a fire, and whilst it may not be the most politically correct thing to say residents in some cases may be too old and frail to carry, lift or operate an extinguisher, and may thus endanger themselves if they tried to do so.
-
I find the argument a bit weird. You don't hear of people not providing seatbelts in case they are wrongly used, or not providing fall-arrest systems, or not providing sprinklers in case someone injures themselves using them. Why is it only with fire extinguishers that we ever discuss this?
You may recall we discussed this issue recently on another thread regarding extinguishers in common areas of blocks of flats.
My personal view is that in sheltered housing schemes for example extinguishers should only be provided in staff areas such as the wardens office plus in risk areas such as plant rooms, boiler rooms and perhaps the day room.
I wouldnt want the residents to tackle a fire, and whilst it may not be the most politically correct thing to say residents in some cases may be too old and frail to carry, lift or operate an extinguisher, and may thus endanger themselves if they tried to do so.
Rather soon it might be illegal to say (age discrimination legislation). Before you assume I'm going a bit crazy, have a read through:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7473568.stm
-
I find the argument a bit weird. You don't hear of people not providing seatbelts in case they are wrongly used, or not providing fall-arrest systems, or not providing sprinklers in case someone injures themselves using them. Why is it only with fire extinguishers that we ever discuss this?
You may recall we discussed this issue recently on another thread regarding extinguishers in common areas of blocks of flats.
My personal view is that in sheltered housing schemes for example extinguishers should only be provided in staff areas such as the wardens office plus in risk areas such as plant rooms, boiler rooms and perhaps the day room.
I wouldnt want the residents to tackle a fire, and whilst it may not be the most politically correct thing to say residents in some cases may be too old and frail to carry, lift or operate an extinguisher, and may thus endanger themselves if they tried to do so.
Rather soon it might be illegal to say (age discrimination legislation). Before you assume I'm going a bit crazy, have a read through:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7473568.stm
Would never accuse you of being crazy Mr Houston!
You're of course correct - we shouldnt discriminate due to age, but I think we should consider someone's physical condition to perform certain tasks and this would apply to people of all ages.
As with the vast majority of discrimination law such as Age discrimination, the DDA etc safety always overrides them. I personally would be happy to argue the case for not wanting residents to fight fires in sheltered homes, I would much prefer to see them evacuate to place of safety.
So to me that isn't discrimination it is simply considering someone's wellbeing and safety.
I will always maintain that training to use fire extinguishers is required. Fire can be such a dynamic thing, and even small fires can catch people out.
Furthermore a fire in a sheltered flat shouldn't break out and effect the other flats or the common parts in the scheme if all the right fire precautions are in place. Containment / FR factors built into the scheme should allow the resident enough time be able to evacuate , call the fire service and let them deal with the blaze it before it spreads.
-
For anyone who was not aware of the original news story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7290003.stm
If 61 year old resident Mike Edwards' flat was on fire I am sure his time would be better spent walking down the staircase while on the phone to the fire service, rather than walking back into his burning flat. This would be the same regardless of anyones age.
-
If 61 year old resident Mike Edwards' flat was on fire I am sure his time would be better spent walking down the staircase while on the phone to the fire service, rather than walking back into his burning flat. This would be the same regardless of anyones age.
So I'm sitting in my living room. If my toaster/bin/hifi ignites I'll be putting it out with the dry powder in the kitchen, rather than let is grow to engulf my house and risk my neighbours lives. But you think I should just let it grow and spread?
Where would such logic end? Do you think we should just do away with all fire extinguishers, let all fires grow rather than put 90% of them out without fire service intervention as happens currently?
-
If 61 year old resident Mike Edwards' flat was on fire I am sure his time would be better spent walking down the staircase while on the phone to the fire service, rather than walking back into his burning flat. This would be the same regardless of anyones age.
So I'm sitting in my living room. If my toaster/bin/hifi ignites I'll be putting it out with the dry powder in the kitchen, rather than let is grow to engulf my house and risk my neighbours lives. But you think I should just let it grow and spread?
Where would such logic end? Do you think we should just do away with all fire extinguishers, let all fires grow rather than put 90% of them out without fire service intervention as happens currently?
Few points there Chris if I may - firstly if you were aware of a fire in your home, but didnt have an extinguisher to hand you would have hopefully called the fire service who would have intervened before it began to threaten your neighbours.
I don't disagree with the figures you quote about fires being dealt with without the brigade being called, but i would be intrested to find out in what premises those fires occured and indeed the type of person who extinguished the fire.
You as a young , fit, healthy guy would be more than capable of using an extinguisher. Plus let's assume its your our own flat, all bought and paid for, and in which case you are more than entitled to provide your own fire extinguisher to use at your own risk!
On the other hand Mrs Bloggs the retired post mistress living in her sheltered flat with parkinsons disease would struggle I would suggest to use an extinguisher.
Now would you prefer her to try and use the extinguisher and struggle; putting herself in more danger, or would you prefer her to be able to evacuate safely away unharmed.
Fires can develop quickly and compromise a room, but to compromise neighbours property or even other rooms in the same building would take some time unless you have something really nasty in there or poor building construction.
This is clearly why we have building regs to ensure that fire can be contained for a certain time to allow the intervention of the fire service.
Yes you may loose valuable possessions if you dont tackle a fire and it then spreads and grows - but is it not better to loose those possessions rather than your life?
-
Actually I rent my little house and my contents are all insured, but would still find it perverse to allow it to burn when it would be so easy to put a fire out (in the early stages).
The "walk away and call the brigade" idea is a great theory, but it just isn't the reality of what happens. People will try and put it out. I say give them the tools to try and put it out properly if they want to try.
While I don't work for the fire service, I do visit the victims of domestic fires on behalf of the Red Cross and I consistently see that garden hoses or dishes of water that have been used by occupants trying to put out fires. A lack of an extinguisher doesn't stop them trying.
-
You give examples of domestic scenarios. Sheltered homes are different, non domestic dwellings are different. I see where you are coming from and dont disagree with anything you say but I would ask you to answers Retty's question about whether you want Mrs Bloggs to fight the fire or evacuate. What is more important life or posessions? You're saying that people will try to put out fire regardless of whether fire extinguishers are at hand or not. And you are right. But if that sheltered housing scheme provides them it has a legal duty to provide training on how to use them and is basically endorsing that the elderly should try and fight fire. Firee Brigades are tryiong to do a lot to educate people about the dangers of tackling fire through home fire safety checks and other campaigns and strategies but human behaviour states people will always have a go at fighting it to protect whats theirs. Cant comment on domestic scenarios because an english mans home is his castle but sheltered schemes shouldnt provide extinguishers.
-
There is a similar story in the latest FIA Focus newsletter Issue 7, where a decision by a risk assessment company was made to remove the fire extinguishers from 2 blocks of flats.
could you point me in the right direction to find this newsletter please
terry
try looking at www.fia.uk.com although it may not be on their site as yet, if you want let me have your address privately and I can send you the article
-
I was under the impression that this thread was about domestic situations. The thread started with a discussion about "landlords" it didn't mention sheltered housing. Nor did the BBC article.
I don't know Mrs Bloggs or much about the medical condition that she suffers from. I would suggest that she probably isn't going to be using the extinguisher, but perhaps the plumber who caused the fire would, perhaps the visiting relative would, perhaps her carer would, I don't know much about sheltered housing, but I can't see why giving people the ability to fight the fire properly if they are going to do so anyway is a bad thing. I think not providing it on the basis of peoples age is wrong.
-
The particular sheltered housing scheme that was the catalyst for the CFOA circular (the Dorset flats was a late add-on), had a fully fitted kitchen in the lounge area complete with cooker.
I agree with Chris here, in a couple of years I can step off my fire engine and buy a flat (sorry appartment) in a sheltered housing scheme. Should I be denied the chance of putting out a small fire?
The training is a red herring...thousands of people without training pull out the pin of their private extinguishers and squirt away with varying degrees of success. The FSO only requires the training of employees.
I think it is a person's human right to get stuck in...within reason. Death to the H & S police! Residents and others should be told that there is no expectation that they should use the extinguishers and if the fire is THIS big they shouldn't even try. If, on the other hand they are confident and don't suffer from any deadly wasting disease...have a go. Remember enforced moving of elderly people (following a fire) is a big killer.
-
Network Rail supply defibs on walls at my local main line terminal. They are a mediacl first aid measure to be used by trained staff. It says so on a sign nearby, presumably to prevent litigation if some 'stupid' member of the public tried to use it (in the absence of any NR staff) when attempting to save a loved one's life.
My point? Consider a water extinguisher is fitted to a wall in a common part of a residental block. It's a first aid measure similar to that of the Defib machine.
Could a similar sign next to an extingusher- indicating: "Only to be used by trained persons"- go some way to mitigating the fear of litigation without the need to remove this potentially vital bit of kit?
This places the responsibilty back to the person who wishes to use it and in any case, the RP only has responsibilty for training his employees - not residents
-
I was under the impression that this thread was about domestic situations. The thread started with a discussion about "landlords" it didn't mention sheltered housing. Nor did the BBC article.
I don't know Mrs Bloggs or much about the medical condition that she suffers from. I would suggest that she probably isn't going to be using the extinguisher, but perhaps the plumber who caused the fire would, perhaps the visiting relative would, perhaps her carer would, I don't know much about sheltered housing, but I can't see why giving people the ability to fight the fire properly if they are going to do so anyway is a bad thing. I think not providing it on the basis of peoples age is wrong.
You have failed to read my post correctly. Please read it again Chris and comment on the questions Ive asked.
Val talks about the right to fight fire - fine then the residents will have to supply their own fire extinguishers, but the landlord shouldnt have to provide them in respect of HMOs, blocks of flats or sheltered housing schemes.
What you fail to realise is that yes a plumber or visitor at Mrs Bloggs flat could attempt to put oyt a fire - but are they trained to do so? if they go and use a fire extinguisher supplied by a landlord in a common area then the mess will definately hit the fan if things go wrong.
If you own your own house then fine buy an extinguisher and use it at your own risk I have no problem with that as ive said all along. Messy sums it all up for me in what he says. We're not trying to be the Health and Safety Police. If you want to purchase your own fire extinguisher then go ahead. But dont start sueing landlords when youve used one of their extinguishers and its all gone wrong. Ill say for the last time as I tried to point out before where a landlord or other RP provides extinguishers he or she or they have to provide training on how to use them. Now will you please read properly what Ive said and make comment based on that. I will ask again Chris will you please answer Midland Retty's question would you want a frail woman to fight fire or instaed prefer she evacuates and is safe. please just give a simple yes or no answer the description of the ficticious person should give you enough information to base your answer. The last thing Id askl is directed at Val. Why do operational firefighters have to retire at the age of 55 from front line service (or serve in another role)?
-
I didn't fail to read your post correctly. It's just that you don't like my answers.
Your post at 18:11 contains one question. (What is more important, life or property?) My answer is "Life" but the two are not mutualy exclusive. It is possible to extingish a little fire without putting your life in danger. It happens all the time, all over the country.
I don't agree that if the plumber uses an extingiusher wrongly it is a the worst case scenario. My view is that if he was without one, it could be worse. There is no difference between him using one in the care home and using one in the supermarket.
Your comment, apparently directed at me "don't start sueing landlords" confuse me a bit. I wasn't planning to sue anyone, but thanks for the tip. My landlord hasn't supplied an extinguisher, but I have my own anyway. Let's get away from the discussion about me, I think it confuses the topic.
With regards to our hypothetical Mrs Bloggs, I think I already said I don't know enough about her circumstances to know what she should do, but I wouldn't deny her the right to a fire extingisher based on any assumptions about her condition or age. People don't have to use them, I'm just saying my perference would be for her to have the option. Sorry my answer isn't the "yes or no" you want, life isn't that simple.
(I think you need to chill out a bit!) :cool:
-
If 61 year old resident Mike Edwards' flat was on fire I am sure his time would be better spent walking down the staircase while on the phone to the fire service, rather than walking back into his burning flat. This would be the same regardless of anyones age.
So I'm sitting in my living room. If my toaster/bin/hifi ignites I'll be putting it out with the dry powder in the kitchen, rather than let is grow to engulf my house and risk my neighbours lives. But you think I should just let it grow and spread?
Where would such logic end? Do you think we should just do away with all fire extinguishers, let all fires grow rather than put 90% of them out without fire service intervention as happens currently?
The whole fact you have supplied your own dry powder in the kitchen (And possibly familiarised yourself with its instructions) is a different story entirely. If you want to take that risk that is your option, and personally I (And I am sure most of the people here) would do the same. However, a landlord supplying extinguishers in the common parts of flats is a different matter, as is the difference between equipment supplied in a workplace/office/factory/warehouse and all of the above.
Imagine you have elderly parents and they live in some nice retirement flats. Would you suggest to them that if they have a fire theres an extinguisher in the hall they can put it out with? No training of any sort? Knowing your parents are a bit old fashioned and like to use the old chip pan... Knowing the extinguisher supplied is a 9l water?
Do you have a source for that 90% figure?
-
Fire extinguishers in certain situations can be a real pain, and unfortunately life is never that simple. A block of flats used to house people who have had disruption in their lives, young fit people not older or less able people. Turned fire extinguishers into weapons to settle scores and when extinguishers were replaced did it again. As always nothing is so simple as to find common ground for a solution that suits everyone and I can see an argument for the position of many of the posters here maybe the risk assessment is the answer.
-
http://www.apea.org.uk/index.cfm?objectid=F9050693-11D8-A53C-B864996E88E4FAB2&downloadfile=yes
-
Do you have a source for that 90% figure?
Essex FRS told it to me over the phone, sadly I didn't write down the name of the person who told me.
But I would have estimated it to be higher. Nobody is seriously suggesting that the FRS are called to every little kitchen/bin/garden/candle/cigarette fire.
-
I quote from the document above:
"Of the 2,173 incidents recorded in the survey, in 80% of cases (1,737) the portable
equipment successfully extinguished the fire and in 75% (1,637) of those cases, the
fire brigade was not required to attend."
Naturally the figures will be higher, as many small incidents will be unreported upon.
-
thanks for the pointers, i have found the document i was looking for it was a CFOA circular unfortunatly i can't provide a link to it, but it has a Reference number: 2008/1007 circular.
it is the one making reference to sheltered housing, thanks guy's
-
http://www.apea.org.uk/index.cfm?objectid=F9050693-11D8-A53C-B864996E88E4FAB2&downloadfile=yes
thanks wee brian, that makes interesting reading
-
If 61 year old resident Mike Edwards' flat was on fire I am sure his time would be better spent walking down the staircase while on the phone to the fire service, rather than walking back into his burning flat. This would be the same regardless of anyones age.
So I'm sitting in my living room. If my toaster/bin/hifi ignites I'll be putting it out with the dry powder in the kitchen, rather than let is grow to engulf my house and risk my neighbours lives. But you think I should just let it grow and spread?
Where would such logic end? Do you think we should just do away with all fire extinguishers, let all fires grow rather than put 90% of them out without fire service intervention as happens currently?
The whole fact you have supplied your own dry powder in the kitchen (And possibly familiarised yourself with its instructions) is a different story entirely. If you want to take that risk that is your option, and personally I (And I am sure most of the people here) would do the same. However, a landlord supplying extinguishers in the common parts of flats is a different matter, as is the difference between equipment supplied in a workplace/office/factory/warehouse and all of the above.
Imagine you have elderly parents and they live in some nice retirement flats. Would you suggest to them that if they have a fire theres an extinguisher in the hall they can put it out with? No training of any sort? Knowing your parents are a bit old fashioned and like to use the old chip pan... Knowing the extinguisher supplied is a 9l water?
Do you have a source for that 90% figure?
I have to say Chris you havent answered CivvyFSO's question - you criticised Clevelandfire of not liking your answers, but it would seem you dont like some of the questions being posed.
My final word on this is that if you want to provide a fire extinguisher for your own home then that is your business, your right and at your own risk.
As far as Im concerned however landlords do not (and should not) have to provide fire extinguishers in common areas for residents, if they do they must provide training on how to use them which realistically will never happen.
Are you advocating that potentially elderley resident base who might be frail or suffering from mobility impairment should be encouraged to tackle fire and be supplied with fire extinguishers courtesy of a landlord?
I think reading Clevelandfire's post again (it did sound a little angry) is that it would be the landlord who was blamed if anything did go horribly wrong and a resident tried to fight a fire using a fire extinguisher that they had provided.
By providing extinguishers are you not advocating they should be used? Could there be the potential for a resident to look for a fire extinguisher from the common areas if their flat was on fire only to then totter back and find their lounge has reached flashover conditions?
-
Chris, i totally support your view.
The benefits of having an extinguisher to hand should it be needed, far outweighs the risks posed by a few old, disabled or possibly just plain inept people using them in the wrong way.
If a fire extinguisher is available, everybody has the choice in a small fire situation to either attempt to fight the fire or walk away, 999 times out of a 1,000 those people will make the right decision for them, by making a judgement of their own physical strength and/or confidence.
Removing extinguishers is removing that choice. that is wrong
-
I was worried that we were going round in circles.......
I've already said my knowledge of care homes is limited. Shops that provide fire extinguishers don't insist upon training before letting customers in, in fact most only train about 10% of staff. But everyone is arguing (and I don't know who is right) that residents must be trained? Should we halt the sale of fire extinguishers to the public, most of them are untrained?
Providing extinguishers is giving people the choice and that is what I belive in. My own experience of domestic fires (I've been to a few dozen) is that people always got out when it looked nasty, but always had a go in the early stages.
I find it sad that the fear of being sued is a factor here. Has anyone known it to happen? I don't, but there seem to be plenty example where extingiushers save lives and money. Risk assess that.
I thought someone had already said that only staff need to be trained?
Sorry I missed CivyFSO's question (I do have a job other than FireNet :) ). I can't image my answer, my parents are neither that old or users of chip pans. I would hope they have fire extinguishers in their homes, I would hope they would use them if their home went on fire. I don't consider that either of them needs to be trained to pull out a pin and spray powder.
-
Its good to debate and I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
One question though...why aren't extinguishers provided in blocks of flats, or HMOs or the vast majority of sheltered housing schemes?
Mr Houston we are all busy with other jobs, although that said I do tend to be a little lapzidazical on a friday afternoon!!
-
Its good to debate and I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
One question though...why aren't extinguishers provided in blocks of flats, or HMOs or the vast majority of sheltered housing schemes?
Mr Houston we are all busy with other jobs, although that said I do tend to be a little lapzidazical on a friday afternoon!!
generally i find that a majority of privately owned flats do have them
but i do agree that most generally don't. this i think is because of misuse and vandalism. let's face it if you put extinguishers in some blocks of flats they wouldn't last 5 seconds. they'd be found for sale in car boot sales, thrown off balconies or let off through peoples letter boxes.
-
let's face it if you put extinguishers in some blocks of flats they wouldn't last 5 seconds. they'd be found for sale in car boot sales, thrown off balconies or let off through peoples letter boxes.
And thats just the firemen - lets not even talk about the residents!
-
LOL.
theres a man talking from experience
-
One question though...why aren't extinguishers provided in blocks of flats, or HMOs or the vast majority of sheltered housing schemes?
Would it be, up to the commencement of the RR(FS)O no legislation covered the common areas of some of the above. It was the landlord’s choice and most choose not to provide extinguishers and it’s only now coming to light.
-
Boys,boys!
The CFOA circular, like the governement publications before it was an attempt to provide some guidance on this emotive issue of fire fighting equipment.
The National Fire Safety Committee at CFOA did not publish the circular without being aware of the strength of feeling around the country. The argument was had and a decision was made.
It appears, short of the angel Gabriel himself publishing definitive guidance, that some will never accept it.
-
The CFOA circular, like the governement publications before it was an attempt to provide some guidance on this emotive issue of fire fighting equipment.
Do you have a link to the circular, or can someone send me a copy?
-
Lets make this about choice and not about prescription. Through choice I have no Ffe in my home, I do have detection. I have seen many wrong choices with people trying to fight fire and losing their lives or being injured. I have seen the aftermath of someone putting water on a chip pan and of many litres of dry powder and the mess it makes and then reignition because of the lack of cooling.
FRS have for years said get out get the fire brigade out and that is the correct thing to do. If someone makes a choice about having an extinguisher in their home so be it but to place them in common areas partucularly in sheltered housing projects is not a good choice. Ok so forget the training but if someone uses one they put their life at risk, perhaps with no working knowledge or no knowledge of the dynamics of fire, worst still the effects of smoke and toxic fumes which could be minimal in the incipient stages of a fire but still deadly. How many of us have had to call ambulance crews for smoke inhalation? The point about sheltered housing is that peopel are normally aged and therefore move and think slower than the average 20 to 30 year old, use the extinguisher, it doesn't contain the fire and then they have to get out. I am sorry but for me I would rather they went first and got the professional firefighters there. Ater all, there is a bit of a side issue here and it is about whether this or any government wants a reactive firefighting service or whether like the HSE they go 60-40 in the proactive reactive arena.
-
If we can overlook the ability of the residents to fight a fire, can we consider then the people who work there, it is a work place for the carers, the contractors, the inspectors who go there, the management. Do they not have a legal right to fire fighting aparatus?
-
Going slightly off topic, last Christmas Day, I visited a residential hospital where a relative is a long term patient. I had noticed as I had entered that there were lit candles on the decorated table which was awaiting the turkey and trimmings. While I was in my relatives room, the firm alarm sounded and people started to shout. I ran out to discover that the table was ablaze and the flames were close to setting the curtains on fire. I ran to the nearest fire point, grabbed a 6 litre AFFF and luckily was able to extinguish the fire despite having problems getting the bent pin out! The point I am making is that most of the residents were old and wheelchair bound. It would have been difficult to evacuate them safely if the fire had spread. I would argue that first aid FFE should be provided at residental locations.
-
Had you been trained? How ever did you know what to do you reckless crazy guy! :lol:
-
Would have been embarrassing if the pin hadn't come out...!
-
If we can overlook the ability of the residents to fight a fire, can we consider then the people who work there, it is a work place for the carers, the contractors, the inspectors who go there, the management. Do they not have a legal right to fire fighting aparatus?
If youre an employee you should be generally trained on how to use extinguishers. if youre in a workforce of 300 who are on duty at any one time not all 300 need to be trained. But if there is on 1 to 3 of you id suggest all should be trained. Please please dont use the "is there a legal right" argument. There is a legal requirement to be trained but if youre not trained then dont use them.
That is the point me and quite a few others have been trying to make on this thread. If youre not trained and you do them at your own risk then you are extremely foolish.
How do you know when the fire is getting to big to deal with? how do you know whatever is on fire isnt giving off nasty toxic fumes which you cant see but can still get into your lungs.
But no its ok lets let little old Ida fight fire. Im sure she will be ok. Lets let untrained staff use extinguishers because surely they have a legal right... a human right...its ok if they die trying atleast tits their human right.
Jokar sums the argument up for me totally. If you are too shortsighted to realise getting out is the best option then i sincerely hope you never come across someone half dead through the effects of smoke inhalation and how it can ruin lives. Thats just if they live of course and before you ask me how many ive seen die through trying to fight fire and got overcome the answer is 4 people in 17 years operational firefighting - not many i hear chris houston cry compared with those who are lucky and arent hurt as his statistics tell him - well sorry thats 4 too many if you ask me unless you are saying thats an acceptable statistic of coure?. Even a seemingly harmless plastic refuse bin seems easy to deal with until you realise theres an empty aerosol can in there that the cleaner has chucked in when her spray has run out.
To suggest you would let the elderly fight fire i sperverse why on eath do you think front line firefighters are retired off at the age of 55?"oh lets give residents the option to fight fire if they want to" Well you train them first then - and you see how many will be willing or intrested in turning up for it.I am absolutely disgusted and in disbelief of anyone who would want elderly residents regardless of how fit and able you think they are to fight fire. Get out of it. Evacuate dont put your life at risk. Is it really worth it? No of course it isnt. So what you loose a building I ask for the final time is it better to loose property than life?
When someone has a car crash what do friends and relatives always say " you can replace metal you cant replace life - thank goodness you are ok"
-
Going slightly off topic, last Christmas Day, I visited a residential hospital where a relative is a long term patient. I had noticed as I had entered that there were lit candles on the decorated table which was awaiting the turkey and trimmings. While I was in my relatives room, the firm alarm sounded and people started to shout. I ran out to discover that the table was ablaze and the flames were close to setting the curtains on fire. I ran to the nearest fire point, grabbed a 6 litre AFFF and luckily was able to extinguish the fire despite having problems getting the bent pin out! The point I am making is that most of the residents were old and wheelchair bound. It would have been difficult to evacuate them safely if the fire had spread. I would argue that first aid FFE should be provided at residental locations.
No i would say the other fire precautions were not up to scratch. In the example you give it sounds that fire safety management and staff training were all over the place. As practically everyone agreed on these forums if you need to rely on fire extinguishers for escape something has gone badly wrong.
-
.......If you are too shortsighted to realise......
I realise that this is an emotive issue that we all have strong feelings about, nonetheless, I will not tollerate personal abuse in the form of name calling. Call me or anyone else on the forum names again and your next ban from FireNet won't be temporary.
not many i hear chris houston cry
Don't put words in my mouth. I find your suggestion grossly offensive.
If you can't debate this issue with respect for myself or the other posters on this forum, then FireNet isn't the place for you.
-
The refernece to "if your too shortsited to realise" was not aimed at you Chris
I did direct the issue of statistics at you however as I believe you contested the ammount of people who actually put fires out without intervention of the fire service. I think it was a legitimate question though I realise it was not worded in the most friendly of terms and I apologise. I hacve to say you hear worse on BBC Question time. Name callingwas never my intention and neither was it in that tone, but i still feel the untrained are being shortsighted and putting themselves at more risk than they realise trying to fight fire and that whilst as you point out corrdectly with the statistics you quoted just because people will try and hava a go doesnt make it right. This is why fire brigades are doing HFSC to educate peoples of danger, and general fire safety in the home. This is why fire officers enforce the law by saying that if any employees are expected to use them then they should be trained. To suggest its someones legal right to fight fire is something i find absolutely innappropriate.
-
To suggest its someones legal right to fight fire is something i find absolutely innappropriate.
What I said, in the context of employees was:
Do they not have a legal right to fire fighting aparatus?
Noting:
13. —(1) Where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that—
(a) the premises are, to the extent that it is appropriate, equipped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment .....
I fail to see why you think I've said something "inappropriate".
-
My little input on this never ending story is once again as follows: Why are high street companies, the internet etc allowed to sell fire fighting equipment to Joe Bloggs with no training, experience or any idea of what he is buying?
When was the last time anyone on this board sold/advised DP for domestic purposes? Why on Earth would you? Are they not a hazard in themselves? Are there not better/safer alternatives?
Just pop into your local B & X and ask the sales guy on the safe use of the extinguisher they would like to sell you.
The "H & S Police" should be working from grass roots up. One day some hero will have a bash with his 1KG powder bought in good faith from B & X on his chip pan at 2 feet away and wake up wondering why he is looking up at a hostpital ceiling with his house in ashes.
-
I quote from the document above:
"Of the 2,173 incidents recorded in the survey, in 80% of cases (1,737) the portable
equipment successfully extinguished the fire and in 75% (1,637) of those cases, the
fire brigade was not required to attend."
Naturally the figures will be higher, as many small incidents will be unreported upon.
Chris, I'm sure these figures originated from a FETA publication a couple of years ago. I do have a copy somewhere and will fill you in when I can dig it out. Nim or The Reiver may have it to hand though.
-
I quoted from the link above my actual post.
-
Are there not better/safer alternatives?
None spring to mind. What would you suggest?
-
To suggest its someones legal right to fight fire is something i find absolutely innappropriate.
What I said, in the context of employees was:
Do they not have a legal right to fire fighting aparatus?
Noting:
13. —(1) Where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that—
(a) the premises are, to the extent that it is appropriate, equipped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment .....
I fail to see why you think I've said something "inappropriate".
Yes the RRO does say that Chris but it also goes on to say where provided staff should be trained on their use
So not sure where you are coming from
-
So could the solution be to provide the extinguishers and train the staff?
-
But yes Chris Id have absoultely no problem with that at all. Thats how it should be. That what the law states.
The argument all along has been untrained people such as residents of say a sheltered home fighting fire.
Trained staff would not be an issue (should the training be proper - but thats a totally separate argument)
-
But no its ok lets let little old Ida fight fire. Im sure she will be ok. Lets let untrained staff use extinguishers because surely they have a legal right... a human right...its ok if they die trying at least tits their human right.
Clevelandfire
Were you watching a film when you wrote the post?
It obviously made an impression!
davo
-
If you are pointing out what I think you are pointing out Davo then I would defend Clevelandfire by saying he is simply staying "ABREAST" of the debate.
He is delving headlong into the BUSSOM of fire safety in search of the correct answer to the original question posed.
He is hammering his point home, he realises its boom or BUST time for his argument to be taken seriously by the firenet masses.
His chest, erm sorry quest, for superior fire safety knowledge knows no bounds and he should be applauded for that.
....You're going to tell me you dont know what Im talking about now aren't you Davo!
-
Retty
Nah, I'm just worried for clevelandfire, I think he's in the Last Chance saloon with Chris!
davo
-
OK, I think all parties have made their points clear, I think this debate has reached it's natural end.
I'm closing the topic before Cleaveland does another one of his 3am posts and falls through the thin ice he's on ;) (just joking mate).