FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: jokar on October 06, 2008, 06:00:19 PM
-
Without wishing to be rude to anyone or any organisation, I am becoming increasingly concerned with enforcers attitude to the RR(FS)O. It would appear that a prescriptive approach is being utilised and that this is backed wholeheartedly by CFOA. The concept of hazard and risk seems to have gone and prescriptive fire safety is back. The guset house scenario in a recent thread is an example of this and so is this.
An FRS has nailed a RP with a Formal Caution and a 4K fine. This for not having a secondary moe, a fire alarm system and other passive fire safety measures. Why not, well the FRA decided that as this was a high street shop of 3 floors where the top 2 floors were pine furniture showrooms, they were not necessary. No one was allowed up without the shop owner to show them around and the small shop was just that, again with furniture on show. Now if someone can explain to me the ignition source for solid wood that would require urgent escape or that a fire would grow to such unbelieveable proportions ina short time scale, arson aside, then I will be pleased to read about it. To get a solid piece of furniture alight you need some real heat, perhaps a customer carries a oxy acetylene torch around with them. Fire hazard is low, fire risk is low, yet the control measures are high, why? I believe that the owner is now going to close down.
-
Without wishing to be rude to anyone or any organisation, I am becoming increasingly concerned with enforcers attitude to the RR(FS)O. It would appear that a prescriptive approach is being utilised and that this is backed wholeheartedly by CFOA. The concept of hazard and risk seems to have gone and prescriptive fire safety is back. The guset house scenario in a recent thread is an example of this and so is this.
An FRS has nailed a RP with a Formal Caution and a 4K fine. This for not having a secondary moe, a fire alarm system and other passive fire safety measures. Why not, well the FRA decided that as this was a high street shop of 3 floors where the top 2 floors were pine furniture showrooms, they were not necessary. No one was allowed up without the shop owner to show them around and the small shop was just that, again with furniture on show. Now if someone can explain to me the ignition source for solid wood that would require urgent escape or that a fire would grow to such unbelieveable proportions ina short time scale, arson aside, then I will be pleased to read about it. To get a solid piece of furniture alight you need some real heat, perhaps a customer carries a oxy acetylene torch around with them. Fire hazard is low, fire risk is low, yet the control measures are high, why? I believe that the owner is now going to close down.
A good example of a flawed system at work.
-
You are correct in that many seem to have lost the ability too risk assess. However, I increasingly think that for many doing the job that ability has not yet been developed. By this I mean that the ability to risk asses comes from many years of fire safety experience. Unfortunately the FRS appears to have lost a vast wealth of experience and there does not seem to be anywhere near the same level of expertise that there once was and its not being replaced. Of course there are many excellent fire safety officers that can risk asses the only problem is most of them only have a couple of years before they retire. So the prescription of the book is here to stay. Without knowledge, depth of experience and years of training where else can we expect the FRS to obtain their answers?
-
Joker, I agree entirely with your comments in that many enforcing officers are using prescriptive methods instead of assessing risk, essentially in many cases the guides are being enforced with a “says so in the guides” approach.
On the specific case you mention why has this caution not been challenged? Is someone not acting for the RP to ensure the correct fire safety enforcement procedures have been followed? I have come across increasing evidence were the attitude by the fire safety officer could only be construed as bullying of the RP were sometimes the formal caution along with the Bluff and Persuasion Act 1932 is used as a threat so that the fire officer get his way.
I should mention I am ex fire service so I have experience of both sides.
-
So we have a 3 storey, single staircase, (probably unprotected) no alarm, public on the premises, premises filled with wood.
For some reason to top this all off I can just envisage the owner locking the front door as he takes the customers up to the second floor.
And a FRA decided that not even detection was needed?
Had the FRA actually considered fire growth and tenability etc to warrant the apparent lack of any fire protection whatsoever? (And by 'considered' I mean "put something reasonable forward in an argument") Is the only fire loading in that place solid pine? No wastepaper? No computers? No till equipment? No cardboard signs all over stating the prices? Does he always have a member of staff downstairs when he is upstairs? If yes, does that member of staff ever have a holiday/dinner hour? Is the only ignition source really arson? (And when you say "solid" pine, you mean the pine I am thinking of that is actually a lightweight wood, and one of the relatively easily ignited woods)
I might suggest that a flip-side to this coin is that it seem possible to me that a bad fire risk assessment may be the reason he got hit with a fine.
-
Could this be clarified:- "An FRS has nailed a RP with a Formal Caution and a 4K fine",
( I am not picking flaws here but living and working in Scotland where all fines for failures in fire safety are a result of a prosecution by the Procurator Fiscal, this statement is puzzling. Does the fine automatically follow a 'formal caution' or is there actually a 'charge' which is brought to court? I am assuming that the Fire Authority would be the 'prosecutors' in this case, or would someone else actually prosecute?).
-
Without wishing to be rude to anyone or any organisation, I am becoming increasingly concerned with enforcers attitude to the RR(FS)O. It would appear that a prescriptive approach is being utilised and that this is backed wholeheartedly by CFOA. The concept of hazard and risk seems to have gone and prescriptive fire safety is back.
And it is going to get even worse. The level of fire safety knowledge is diminishing daily as experienced inspecting officers, those who actually inspected, leave. Their replacements will have little or no coalface experience of fire safety. Slowly but surely risk assessment audits using well grounded practical experience and sound judgement will disappear to be replaced by box tickers with the only fire safety knowledge being that as contained in the guides.
-
The Guidance gives you a 'benchmark' level of risk - society views that as the 'acceptable' level of risk in that type of premises. The aim of the risk assessment should be to either show compliance OR equivalence (which would be the likely tests in Court). So... if you can argue that the hazard in a particular premises is less than the typical premises around which the guidance is constructed then you might conclude that it's acceptable to do less than the guidance suggests.
Hard to see how that could be done in this situation (saying that hazard and risk are "low" might be rather subjective - and is a three-storey premises full of timber of varying sizes, with public access and with a single means of escape really "low" risk, in relative terms)?
Always hard (impossible?) to make a judgement without seeing the place, of course, but a simple, low-cost fire alarm sounds like a reasonable risk reduction measure to me.
-
The Guidance gives you a 'benchmark' level of risk - society views that as the 'acceptable' level of risk in that type of premises. The aim of the risk assessment should be to either show compliance OR equivalence (which would be the likely tests in Court). So... if you can argue that the hazard in a particular premises is less than the typical premises around which the guidance is constructed then you might conclude that it's acceptable to do less than the guidance suggests.
Hard to see how that could be done in this situation (saying that hazard and risk are "low" might be rather subjective - and is a three-storey premises full of timber of varying sizes, with public access and with a single means of escape really "low" risk, in relative terms)?
Always hard (impossible?) to make a judgement without seeing the place, of course, but a simple, low-cost fire alarm sounds like a reasonable risk reduction measure to me.
Therein lies a problem Fishy. The auditor is reading out of the codes of practice which, to my knowledge, doesn't say anywhere that there is provision to dispense with structural protection of stairways if a detection system is installed. If that was the case there would be many happier employers around.
I can't see New FSO accepting a three storey unprotected single stairway situation. Single door protection to all escape stairways, other than small premises, would be the bench mark to increase with the level of risk.
-
Another thought:
To see if it just the FRS who are unreasonable; Try get that building through a Building Control submission.
-
Another thought:
To see if it just the FRS who are unreasonable; Try get that building through a Building Control submission.
Much easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than to get a 3 storey unprotected single stairway through Building Control.
-
William, at fist it was a prohibition and the FRA closed the premises and then went ahead with the prosecution. The prosecutors then got into a problem with the description of fire, fire hazard and fire risk. The clients barrister was taking on the FRS and was winning. The Rp was put under tremendous pressure and then invited to HQ on his own and subjected to "our costs are already 20K" if you accept, this will all go away and he caved in. Bullying perhaps, the rights and wrongs who knows but my question still stands,
are both IO's and RAers dealing with hazard and risk or are they being code huggers?
Civvy, it would not go through a BCO now, but it did when it was built and that is part of the point. The RR(FS)O was part of the Government plan to minimise burden on business, it seems that putting people out of busness is part of that option.
-
I might suggest that a flip-side to this coin is that it seem possible to me that a bad fire risk assessment may be the reason he got hit with a fine.
I had assumed that the FRA done was completed by a competent person and had put reasoned statements forward for the justification in relaxing current fire safety guidance?? If not then the FRA is open to challenge... but why the caution perhaps we need to know the full details.
-
And it is going to get even worse. The level of fire safety knowledge is diminishing daily as experienced inspecting officers, those who actually inspected, leave. Their replacements will have little or no coalface experience of fire safety. Slowly but surely risk assessment audits using well grounded practical experience and sound judgement will disappear to be replaced by box tickers with the only fire safety knowledge being that as contained in the guides.
I think that sums up the current situation quite well in my view.
We used to say “it’s the responsible person’s risk, they now manage it” So why do we need FSO’s with all that experience anymore when they are now essentially auditors. A lot of FSO’s out there now have been fire safety for 2 years or less, having only really worked with the RRFSO with limited experience of the FP Act and WP Regs principles, where in my opinion is when you learnt your trade as an FSO.
The new FSO has a surface knowledge based on the new guides and lets not forget most of the principles in the new guides are based on the principles mentioned in the old FP Act, Blue, Purple, Lilac, Yellow etc guides (with some changes)
We are also now seeing a reduction in fire safety establishments in F and RS which just tells the story really that the whole emphasis has now changed the RP must manage their own risk.
-
I disagree that the RR(FS)O was introduced with the sole intention of reducing the burden on small businesses. In some circumstances it may do just that, however the idea was to ensure self regulation and fire protection measures are in place to match the risk presented.
I do get continually fed up with articles that refer to all FRA IOs as pesrcriptive guide huggers as I feel that I am certinally not that. ( i appreciate that some people have noted the fact that we are not all like that)
I agree with Civvy on alot of what he says, however to make a formal opinion I would need further information on the building, including any other risks and any control measures in place.
On face value, I would see difficulty in risk assessing away a need for a AFA system unless there were other similar control measures in place.
I do not know the size of the building, but maybe a simple part 6 system would be sufficient. It would not break the bank either.
I think the point is, people need to employ decent risk assessors who actually know what they are doing. I would say that I send more FRAs back as not suitable and sufficent than ones that are acceptable.
As an enforcing officer it would never be my intention to put somebody out of business because they pose a little risk to life.
There are always more than one way to skin a cat.
-
I do get continually fed up with articles that refer to all FRA IOs as pesrcriptive guide huggers as I feel that I am certinally not that. ( i appreciate that some people have noted the fact that we are not all like that)
Point taken, there are some excellent FSO's out there I am just saying that they are a dying breed.
-
FSO, why would you need a AFD system? That is not even considered in ADB for premises where people resort on a daily basis. AFD is considered for sleeping risk only apart from specific areas about lone working, operation of other equipment and I can not remeber the other bit.
-
The Guidance gives you a 'benchmark' level of risk - society views that as the 'acceptable' level of risk in that type of premises. The aim of the risk assessment should be to either show compliance OR equivalence (which would be the likely tests in Court). So... if you can argue that the hazard in a particular premises is less than the typical premises around which the guidance is constructed then you might conclude that it's acceptable to do less than the guidance suggests.
Hard to see how that could be done in this situation (saying that hazard and risk are "low" might be rather subjective - and is a three-storey premises full of timber of varying sizes, with public access and with a single means of escape really "low" risk, in relative terms)?
Always hard (impossible?) to make a judgement without seeing the place, of course, but a simple, low-cost fire alarm sounds like a reasonable risk reduction measure to me.
Therein lies a problem Fishy. The auditor is reading out of the codes of practice which, to my knowledge, doesn't say anywhere that there is provision to dispense with structural protection of stairways if a detection system is installed. If that was the case there would be many happier employers around.
I can't see New FSO accepting a three storey unprotected single stairway situation. Single door protection to all escape stairways, other than small premises, would be the bench mark to increase with the level of risk.
Agreed - I wasn't suggesting that the fire detection and alarm system was the only appropriate risk reduction measure.
-
FSO, why would you need a AFD system? That is not even considered in ADB for premises where people resort on a daily basis. AFD is considered for sleeping risk only apart from specific areas about lone working, operation of other equipment and I can not remeber the other bit.
Because the way I read this, there is one member of staff who takes people up to the 3rd floor to show them furniture. We all know how long the mrs takes to decide what she likes!!!!
As I said earlier, I could not comment properly without more detail, however if there are extended travel distances from the 3rd floor ther is potential (albeit small) for conditions to become quite uncomfortable down below and possibly expecting people to take a lung full of smoke.
There may be other control measures in place such as staff on all floors or a protected route , which would obviously lead to a review of what I have said.
I think it is difficult to make assumptions, but that is the reasoning why I would like AFD.
-
FSO, why would you need a AFD system? That is not even considered in ADB for premises where people resort on a daily basis. AFD is considered for sleeping risk only apart from specific areas about lone working, operation of other equipment and I can not remeber the other bit.
Now whos guide hugging....lol
-
Ok got me, but that is the point. I may know something that is in a code but it doesn't mean I can or can not utilise it dependent on the hazard and risk. As for part 6 systems, that nice Mr Todd may go apoletic if he finds that someone has recommende or suggested a part 6 system in a commercial premises. Afetr all when he prepared it, all his definitions were for dwellings and that is the specificality of the part.
-
I agree with Mr Todd to a point.
If you have a small premises (under 200m2), would it really be an issue if the risk is really low??? After all cost v proportionality, a part 6 system may be a good enhancement to somebody has nothing currently.
For a small business, a part one system may tip them over the edge.
Lets be fair, the RP has to demonstrate that the system fitted is suitable and sufficient. I agree in principle that it would be difficult to argue away from the BS, but potentially it could actually be a system which the RP has designed and built himself.
I really dont see a problem with a part 6 system in a small, well managed unit.
-
No, I do not either and dependent on the Grade of system it will work well. However, I wonder how you get around the whole defintions bit, perhaps other have had experience in court of this. I can hear the barristers questions, "what type of dwelling did you recommend this system for"? No it is a commercial premises. Can you point out to me any paragraph in the document where it suggests that this system is usable in a commercial premises? No.
-
Totally agree jokar....it is still yet to be tried.
Surely thats what most people want though....lack of prescription?
Would it do its job? More than likely.
It would be an interesting one.
-
No, I do not either and dependent on the Grade of system it will work well. However, I wonder how you get around the whole defintions bit, perhaps other have had experience in court of this. I can hear the barristers questions, "what type of dwelling did you recommend this system for"? No it is a commercial premises. Can you point out to me any paragraph in the document where it suggests that this system is usable in a commercial premises? No.
Hey Joker, surely this is your point about code hugging? What does it matter that the BS which we all know is recommendations anyway states that a part 6 system is only used for domestic premises.
If a part 6 detector or complete system is fitted in a commercial property that does the job intended based on a professional risk analysis then what’s the problem?
What about a commercial building with a part 1 system say to L3 coverage where an inner room is created and a single part 6 detector is fitted in the access room. The BS would state that you should not combine the 2 systems or as we have said install a part 6 detector in the commercial building. The point is the sole purpose of that detector is to warn the occupants of the inner room not the whole building. So using a FRA approach it would be acceptable, however if we consult the guidance and apply the rigidly it would not.
-
No, I do not either and dependent on the Grade of system it will work well. However, I wonder how you get around the whole defintions bit, perhaps other have had experience in court of this. I can hear the barristers questions, "what type of dwelling did you recommend this system for"? No it is a commercial premises. Can you point out to me any paragraph in the document where it suggests that this system is usable in a commercial premises? No.
Hey Joker, surely this is your point about code hugging? What does it matter that the BS which we all know is recommendations anyway states that a part 6 system is only used for domestic premises.
If a part 6 detector or complete system is fitted in a commercial property that does the job intended based on a professional risk analysis then what’s the problem?
What about a commercial building with a part 1 system say to L3 coverage where an inner room is created and a single part 6 detector is fitted in the access room. The BS would state that you should not combine the 2 systems or as we have said install a part 6 detector in the commercial building. The point is the sole purpose of that detector is to warn the occupants of the inner room not the whole building. So using a FRA approach it would be acceptable, however if we consult the guidance and apply the rigidly it would not.
I wonder how one could rationally justify the reason for not considering a part 6 detection system suitable for a commercial premises, particularily small to medium sized premises, when it is considered quite sufficient for a dwelling, a catagory of premises in which there is a prolonged sleeping risk, a high risk kitchen, lone occupation, no emergency plan or evacuation strategy, no fire fighting equipment, no fire awareness training, no Fire Risk Assessment, no...........
Are we looking at commercial protectionism?
-
I wonder how one could rationally justify the reason for not considering a part 6 detection system suitable for a commercial premises, particularily small to medium sized premises, when it is considered quite sufficient for a dwelling, a catagory of premises in which there is a prolonged sleeping risk, a high risk kitchen, lone occupation, no emergency plan or evacuation strategy, no fire fighting equipment, no fire awareness training, no Fire Risk Assessment, no...........
Are we looking at commercial protectionism?
An answer to your quetsion may lie in Master T's own words, "the problem with formal recognition of a BS5839-6 system for use in workplaces is that it becomes something of a "thin end of the wedge".
There is serious potential for employers to then install smoke alarms or other forms of Part 6 systems as a cheap, sub standard alternative in premises that unequivecally require a proper fire alarm system complying with Part 1.
Thats why to avoid this sutuation Part 6 excludes from its scope any premises used for the purposes other than as a dwelling.
It is worth remembering that the recommendations contained in Part 6 deal with quite complex and engineering related matters, and are not intended for the householder,. Clause 1 makes this clear that the BS is intended for Architects and other building professionals, enforcing authorities, contractors and others responsible for implementing fire precautions in dwellings.
-
William, at fist it was a prohibition and the FRA closed the premises and then went ahead with the prosecution. The prosecutors then got into a problem with the description of fire, fire hazard and fire risk. The clients barrister was taking on the FRS and was winning. The Rp was put under tremendous pressure and then invited to HQ on his own and subjected to "our costs are already 20K" if you accept, this will all go away and he caved in. Bullying perhaps, the rights and wrongs who knows but my question still stands,
Something doesn't stack up for me here. I don't know how fire brigades work, as I have only had problems with a local housing authority, but surely it is only for the courts to issue fines? Local housing authorities can't fine landlords and I would be astonished if fire brigades could issue fines. Surely, that's being judge, jury and executioner, and probably not legal.
-
I wonder how one could rationally justify the reason for not considering a part 6 detection system suitable for a commercial premises, particularily small to medium sized premises, when it is considered quite sufficient for a dwelling, a catagory of premises in which there is a prolonged sleeping risk, a high risk kitchen, lone occupation, no emergency plan or evacuation strategy, no fire fighting equipment, no fire awareness training, no Fire Risk Assessment, no...........
Are we looking at commercial protectionism?
An answer to your quetsion may lie in Master T's own words, "the problem with formal recognition of a BS5839-6 system for use in workplaces is that it becomes something of a "thin end of the wedge".
There is serious potential for employers to then install smoke alarms or other forms of Part 6 systems as a cheap, sub standard alternative in premises that unequivecally require a proper fire alarm system complying with Part 1.
Thats why to avoid this sutuation Part 6 excludes from its scope any premises used for the purposes other than as a dwelling.
It is worth remembering that the recommendations contained in Part 6 deal with quite complex and engineering related matters, and are not intended for the householder,. Clause 1 makes this clear that the BS is intended for Architects and other building professionals, enforcing authorities, contractors and others responsible for implementing fire precautions in dwellings.
So "cheap substandard alternatives" are OK for premises where people are at greatest risk, their own homes, and "proper fire alarms systems" are OK for premises where they are not? A £4 single point detector is cheap. Does that make it substandard?
Is the potential for employers to install lesser standards, a thin end of a wedge, as you seem to fear not a policing issue for the various F&R Services to deal with as appropriate? That's what they are there for.
-
The high end Pt 6 systems are not that cheap and other than a more basic control & indicator panel and the use of non FR cable aren't too far removed from a twinwire conventional system like the Rafiki stuff. Although you could argue that's the point - cabling standards and panel's fault monitoring capabilities.
There are many pt 6 systems in commercial use, including some used by Local Authorities in small office buildings - has anyone heard of them being required to be removed by authorities?
I'll be brave enough to accept a Pt 6 device in commercial situations on a case by case basis - just advised a pt 6 smoke for an L5 situation (access room) in a premises as it's a temporary situation (documented as being on that basis) as the cost of extending the main system far outweighs the risk or it's duration
-
............... However, I wonder how you get around the whole defintions bit, perhaps other have had experience in court of this. I can hear the barristers questions, "what type of dwelling did you recommend this system for"? No it is a commercial premises. Can you point out to me any paragraph in the document where it suggests that this system is usable in a commercial premises? No.
Isn't this the real reason why some consultants and some IOs code hug?
There is no case law, just a set of guidance notes and thousands of different/contrary points of view from various quarters, including perhaps (we are yet to find out) the legal community.
Hands up who wants to be first to test any part of the FSO via the courts and potentially end up with several chicken loads of egg on their face. A consultant may lose a customer (or two). A fire authority loses - well- some authority. Everyone takes a chance of losing bucket loads of ca$h.
Is it any wonder then that many in the industry are using the codes as PPE to protect themselves from legal flak?
I audited a building in the summer, which on the strength of my impending audit, the RP revised the FRA. The building was due to be demolished by this Xmas. The assessor did a great/thorough job, but took no notice that the building had weeks before being turned into dust. He recommended the replacement of a basement ceiling which had partially collapsed, to return the fire separation to 60 mins. I looked at the job and said I'd be happy if they extened their SD (1 head) into that part of the unused G floor to provide early warning to those in the three floors above.
My point is that the assessor should have proposed and justified this action - not me, the auditor. The new ceiling (which would be needed to be fixed onto soaking joists) would have cost thousands - my solution, a couple of hundred??. That was in June. I noticed on Monday that the building is now clad in scaffolding and will be down by November. I don't think the expense of a new ceiling for a few months was justifiable
It seems that many assessors and IOs are looking after their own backs rather really considering the whole picture and where necesary, justifying 'variations' from the code. It's not a competence or confidence issue, but merely one of survival!!
-
............... However, I wonder how you get around the whole defintions bit, perhaps other have had experience in court of this. I can hear the barristers questions, "what type of dwelling did you recommend this system for"? No it is a commercial premises. Can you point out to me any paragraph in the document where it suggests that this system is usable in a commercial premises? No.
Isn't this the real reason why some consultants and some IOs code hug?
There is no case law, just a set of guidance notes and thousands of different/contrary points of view from various quarters, including perhaps (we are yet to find out) the legal community.
Hands up who wants to be first to test any part of the FSO via the courts and potentially end up with several chicken loads of egg on their face. A consultant may lose a customer (or two). A fire authority loses - well- some authority. Everyone takes a chance of losing bucket loads of ca$h.
Is it any wonder then that many in the industry are using the codes as PPE to protect themselves from legal flak?
I audited a building in the summer, which on the strength of my impending audit, the RP revised the FRA. The building was due to be demolished by this Xmas. The assessor did a great/thorough job, but took no notice that the building had weeks before being turned into dust. He recommended the replacement of a basement ceiling which had partially collapsed, to return the fire separation to 60 mins. I looked at the job and said I'd be happy if they extened their SD (1 head) into that part of the unused G floor to provide early warning to those in the three floors above.
My point is that the assessor should have proposed and justified this action - not me, the auditor. The new ceiling (which would be needed to be fixed onto soaking joists) would have cost thousands - my solution, a couple of hundred??. That was in June. I noticed on Monday that the building is now clad in scaffolding and will be down by November. I don't think the expense of a new ceiling for a few months was justifiable
It seems that many assessors and IOs are looking after their own backs rather really considering the whole picture and where necesary, justifying 'variations' from the code. It's not a competence or confidence issue, but merely one of survival!!
Good approach Messy. Could a resolution even have been to empty the basement area to make it sterile?
-
So "cheap substandard alternatives" are OK for premises where people are at greatest risk, their own homes
I would very much think not, I would say that is where Part 6 comes to offer sound advice.
and "proper fire alarms systems" are OK for premises where they are not?
I would have to say yes to that one, wouldn’t you?
A £4 single point detector is cheap. Does that make it substandard?
Compared to what? Part 1 yes I would say so, some Grades of Part 6, I would say yes to that as well, does the £4 single point “alarm” not have its limitations? Part 6 advises it does.
Is the potential for employers to install lesser standards, a thin end of a wedge
I fear it may very well be so for some unfortunately
-
So "cheap substandard alternatives" are OK for premises where people are at greatest risk, their own homes
I would very much think not, I would say that is where Part 6 comes to offer sound advice.
and "proper fire alarms systems" are OK for premises where they are not?
I would have to say yes to that one, wouldn’t you?
A £4 single point detector is cheap. Does that make it substandard?
Compared to what? Part 1 yes I would say so, some Grades of Part 6, I would say yes to that as well, does the £4 single point “alarm” not have its limitations? Part 6 advises it does.
Is the potential for employers to install lesser standards, a thin end of a wedge
I fear it may very well be so for some unfortunately
Is there not the potential for employers/occupiers to install lesser standards of everything and anything? Even fire doors or rather, not fire doors. We are suppose to have a F&RS police force to prevent this.
With the new draft safety leaflet for B&Bs advising that solid wood doors in some premises may be acceptable, is this the thin end of the wedge to owners installing eggbox doors instead?
Is the provision of a hand lamp instead of a BS safety lighting system the thin end of a wedge to owners supplying guests candles and matches?
Is the thin edge of the wedge a valid arguement if adequate policing is undertaken?
-
Good approach Messy. Could a resolution even have been to empty the basement area to make it sterile?'
That's what was so mad - The basement & Ground floor were empty and would never be occupied again.
-
Had my input on 9999 over the last 2 days. Supposedly the BS but it will not be published until 15 October so can not teach it until published. Put up with the DD instead which is similar but not the real thing and there are numbers of changes from the DD to the BS. The risk profiling methodology works very well and put risk assessment into the equation for travel and widths of stairs and doors. It likes sprinklers and AFD and will give % increases in travel and decreases in widths and stairs for these additional measures where a benefit is accrued. The amazing thing is it can be applied retospectively as it is a design guide and can be used for existing buildings, imagine being able to design out exits from a building by using the additional measures. Comparisons on some exercises we did with ADB gave 2 exits in 9999 to 5 from ADB. More shocks to come when this is published as the travel can be extended to 90 metres in 2 way travel which will give a floor lenght of double that.
-
Had my input on 9999 over the last 2 days. Supposedly the BS but it will not be published until 15 October so can not teach it until published. Put up with the DD instead which is similar but not the real thing and there are numbers of changes from the DD to the BS. The risk profiling methodology works very well and put risk assessment into the equation for travel and widths of stairs and doors. It likes sprinklers and AFD and will give % increases in travel and decreases in widths and stairs for these additional measures where a benefit is accrued. The amazing thing is it can be applied retospectively as it is a design guide and can be used for existing buildings, imagine being able to design out exits from a building by using the additional measures. Comparisons on some exercises we did with ADB gave 2 exits in 9999 to 5 from ADB. More shocks to come when this is published as the travel can be extended to 90 metres in 2 way travel which will give a floor lenght of double that.
Sounds like more frustrations brewing on the horizon between Building Regs and FRAs.
Is it reckoned that this BS of this will superceed John Prescott's guides? What about the horse hotel? Its not in the draft.
-
No mention of fire hazard in it and therefore can not be used instead of the guides, but then many people are not using the guides anyway. The risk profiling is good and backed up by engineered bits from other BS, I think that once it is out and people are comfortable with it, ADB b1 will be dead in the water. The other thing is the profiling tables are easy to follow and use once you understand then all.