FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: kurnal on October 21, 2010, 07:55:55 AM
-
The following news item was copied from the FIA website with permission
Fire plans raise concerns of 'a third-rate service'
20 Oct 2010
False fire alarms continue to exert financial pressure on fire and rescue services, which are regularly forced to send fire engines to incidents that turn out to be nothing.
These cases not only waste money, but tie up firefighters when their presence may be required elsewhere to deal with an actual incident and fire chiefs are coming up with different ways to deal with the problem.
In a bid to save £16.8 million by 2015, Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service has proposed sending a manager in a vehicle whenever an automatic fire alarm is triggered, reports portsmouth.co.uk.
Officials argue that the move would not only save time, but make better use of resources and keep more fire engines free to deal with real emergencies.
However, Hampshire Fire Brigades Union has raised concerns over the quality of service that will be delivered should the plans be approved, saying they could turn it into "a third-rate service".
The Guide for Responsible Persons on False Alarm Management of Fire Detection and Alarm Systems, a collaborative effort between the Fire Industry Association and the Chief Fire Officer's Association, can help companies deal with the issue of unwanted signals.
-
Seems to make some sense with budgets in mind. I am sure the officers will hate it and the crews will love it.
-
They need an Unwanted Fire Signal policy and call challenge .... where AFA's are challenged by control to ascertain if an investigation has been done by the premises occupiers. Life risk premises are not challenged but should investigate.
Having this in place will drive down the number of calls and can be linked to enforcement activity for poor maintenance etc.
It amazes me how many occupiers don't realise that they can make the decision to reset the system following a thorough investigationa nd not even call the F & RS.
-
London have a similar policy with officers responding initially to commercial flooding calls to assess the situation and inform the occupier of the cost - I have to say it was one of the least appealing aspects of the job! I was very close to being sacked on a few occasions as my professionalism slipped with one of my favourite lines being - "we are an emergency service, I suggest you put a cup under it and call a plumber in the morning".
The most amusing was a restaurant in Hampstead in heavy rain about this time of year with the manager stood next to me looking at about eighteen inches of water in the car park that was just about to lap over the door cill and flood the place. I said to him that I bet there's a drain in the middle of the car park that's been blocked by leaves and the simplest solution was for someone to get their shoes and socks off, roll up their trousers and take a broom or similar to clear the leaves. At which point the manager looked at me forlornly and I smiled at him and just shook my head .....
-
It amazes me how many occupiers don't realise that they can make the decision to reset the system following a thorough investigationa nd not even call the F & RS.
Because most occupiers we talk to are scared of being prosecuted if they miss something.
Far easier to call in the professionals and blame them if the place goes up an hour later.
-
Unfortunately Baldyman some ARC's will not go down that line, & many UWFS are not down to poor maintenance but very poor management. i wish there was an easy answer to that but there doesn't seem to be one.
-
How can an ARC call challenge?
-
The ARC doesn't call challenge, the F&RS control does.
I agree with the comment about poor management, although poor management does link to poor maintenance of the system .... lack of checks and tests, poor procedues when alarms do go off.
I do take the time following attendance at AFA's to advise occupiers regarding investigation of alarms, including an agreement with the ARC for this to happen before a call is made. This does not apply to sleeping risk preises such as hotels, care homes etc.
-
Up to about 25 years ago the normal procedure in the area of the country where I serviced fire alarm systems, was for the premises to silence the fire alarm on receipt of an initiation, then investigate the cause, then resound and call the Fire Service if a fire was found, or reset if it was found to be an unwanted alarm.
This was all changed on the Fire Service's request so that all alarm conditions were reported to the Fire Service immediately based on their advice 'that wasted seconds in establishing if the alarm was 'real' or 'false' could have serious ramifications in saving lives.
As a non-expert I thought the new regime would waste much Fire Service time and resources dealing with many more unwanted alarms.
Off the record, a fire officer told me that the new policy was promoted only because the need for a certain level of firemen/appliances at a fire station was all based on how many calls their station received. It didn't matter whether they were 'real' or 'false'. So the more calls the better.
I then asked him if the firemen didn't get fed up attending unwanted alarms and was told that full-time crews were always disappointed when there wasn't a proper incident to deal with, but they would put up with them on the basis that it protected their jobs. He did say that retained fire crews didn't like attending unwanted alarms because it was more of a waste of their time.
Obviously the need for proper system maintenance is important, but I don't believe a lack of it is the major cause of unwanted alarms. I believe the current methods of smoke detection are too susceptible to operation by other causes.
-
Wiz - I fully agree that the fire services have been the architects of their own downfall in this respect. When I first started it was only a few high life risk premises that were linked direct or had autodiallers; suddenly it became the norm. This is another example of where risk assessment should prevail and part of that assessment should be the type and age of the alarm system.
You are quite right about the call counting although today's management information systems easily sort out the types of calls to make analysis easier so the job protection argument doesn't really count any longer.
Call challenge is one system but I thought that was more to deal with deliberate false alarms, e.g. kids a school chucking out time, than to deal with AFAs as many calls are put through by remote call centres who haven't a clue what they're dealing with. Recently I've been using FS officers to visit premises high on the AFA list to find out exactly what the problem is - often crews will deal with calls arising from the same zone or head without raising this as an issue - and try to educate the occupiers into reducing the calls. This method has had some great success and due to a very diligent FSO calls in the borough reduced by nearly 30%.
Its also necessary to keep an eye on the bigger picture, I've sat in the back of a fire engine attending an AFA when a 'persons reported' call has come in nearby that was obviously serious but we're committed. Fortunately it was a premises with a good security guard (now that's another topic) who knew the premises and the system and confirmed to us immediately that it was a false alarm only delaying us by a few minutes. On arriving at the fire our pump operator was physically attacked by a member of the public who was irate at the delay knowing that the station was only a few minutes down the road.
-
A robust policy including call challenging is very effective in reducing Unwanted Fire signals as the growing number of services taking up this methodology would suggest (many of whom will now be able to provide statistical evidence to support it).
The problem for many services is that they have committed themselves to the CFOA policy which is effectively is a bureaucratic exercise and does not provide for call challenge.
-
Yes Wiz I know the numbers game, I was in a Brigade where the CFO declared that where there is smoke there is fire therefore all calls to an alarm caused by burnt toast were recorded as a fire. This had an amazing effect on the brigade's totals.
As far as the problem with particular head goes, it is difficult for the crews to establish this, as with four watches the number of times they attend because the head went off is very much reduced and unless it is obvious ie a smoke detector in a kitchen the crews probably wouldn't notice. It goes back to the management of the system.
-
I have no issues with attending AFA calls, as it could be that it is a fire, but the policy is all about making premises occupiers implement proper management.
I work for a Service with a robust policy in place to reduce the number of unwanted fire signals, which is having the desired effect through both education and enforcement, although we do still mobilise to them.
Not attending AFA's isn't always a negative step ..... crews and appliances are free to carry out other work, other vehicle movements, such as covering pumps are reduced, as is the fuel bill and corporate risk is reduced, by which I mean the potentail of accidents while responding.
Not all bad after all!
-
I'm sorry not read this for a while, the only way that the number of unwanted AFA's will be decreased is by taking radical action, still see so may caused by avoidable errors, which is so frustrating. Having banged my head against the brick wall of UWFS for some time I can only see the numbers being really reduced by encouraging premises to take responsibility for there systems and all that stems from it. ???
-
Means of Escape Newsletter for last month carries a report that Essex FRS are proposing non-attendance at AFAs in commercial premises altogether.
-
Which sounds ridiculous to me. What if a user has incorporated sequential verification and has no history of false alarms? Why tar everyone with the same brush.
-
When you think that in a number of cases FRS IO's and RA's have specifically asked to upgrade fire alarms to L systems without real cause which has significantly changed the scenarios for many non sleeping risk premises. The outcome of this is that FRS are now saying we will not attend, weird.
-
Means of Escape Newsletter for last month carries a report that Essex FRS are proposing non-attendance at AFAs in commercial premises altogether.
They aren`t the only ones, there are more to follow. But to reassure everyone it isn`t about saving money :P
-
Sort of defeats the point in going to the expense of an Alarm Receiving Centre link if it relies on key-holder or mobile patrol attendance to confirm an out of hours alarm.
Sounds as if you want property protection time to install sprinklers regardless of building size (at least the fire is being contained until the key holder arrives or heaven forbid someone passing actually dials 999 in response to the sprinkler gong!)
Cost cutting disguised as road safety.
Wonder how long before we have private insurance brigades again for property protection/out of hours response!
I will however say a lot of Buildings have ARC links now with absolutely no life safety risk requiring it
-
!
I will however say a lot of Buildings have ARC links now with absolutely no life safety risk requiring it
Protection of property is also a legitimate objective and reason to summon the fire service.
-
Legitimate, but not a legal obligation in most cases.
Too many normal risk premises are paying equipment installation & monthly monitoring fees for ARC links that don't need them as the client has been mislead into thinking they are a life safety requirement and if they knew they were for property protection only wouldn't bother (nor would their insurers require it).
It's these premises that don't really need them that have caused the rocketing in AFA calls which previously would probably have been at a constant from the premises where they were needed.
-
Agreed. Although if installers actually put in systems fit for purpose and trained the users on how to use them, that wouldn't be a so much of a problem.
-
A cracking debate, it does keep coming back though to what do we do with premises that either cant or wont run there system properly and summon the fire service when they are carrying out there weekly test, an engineer is working on the system or minor construction works or taking place on the site?
-
In my FRS we have sequential graded call challenging by Control and response to AFA’s depending on the type of risk, time of day and occupancy. If we respond at all it may be just an officer, one pump or the full attendance depending on circumstances; seems to work well.
-
I have to agree with Anthony B
Manage your systems properly, and you don't need to call the fire service.
I am amazed that a local hospital in the West Midlands calls the fire brigade everytime there is a fire alarm activation, stating that they would never contemplate investigating an alarm "because of patient safety", and yet a neighbouring city a similar sized hospital is able to investigate the cause of activations, and only calls the fire brigade when there is genuine problem.
In a former life I managed fire safety at a large site, with varied risks. Getting staff to attend fire safety training or to volunteer as fire wardens was a big problem - a problem common to alot of organisations.
But we overcame it, and put systems in place to ensure that we only ever called the people in those big red trucks when necessary.
It really isn't rocket science, and I simply can't see why certain sectors of the corporate and public sectors are moaning that the fire service won't respond to AFAs. They use dramatic language, claiming that "lives will be lost" and the like. Poppy cock.
My response to them is that they should be managing their systems so that if the there is a genuine problem the fire service are called and in the meantime you have the precautions in place to ensure everyone is evacuated safely.
-
Big A on a point of accuracy I think that the essex position is that other than high life risk premises they do respond to ARC calls at any time 24 hours-only if a fire is confirmed by someone at the premises.
-
In my FRS we have sequential graded call challenging by Control and response to AFA’s depending on the type of risk, time of day and occupancy. If we respond at all it may be just an officer, one pump or the full attendance depending on circumstances; seems to work well.
This seems reasonable. but i do know of one brigade that has taken it to one extreme in my view.
They challenge all calls raised by an AFA. thats ALL premises regardless of its type or occupancy. they will not dispatch a single appliance or vehicle until its a confirmed incident. They say 'please go and investigate and call us back when you know its a fire!!!'
In an office fine! but in a homeless hostel? That worries me.
As for sending an officer. why? thats not an operational response. What can he do? Either you deem it an emergency and treat it as such or don't send anyone.
Am i missing something? can someone explain why a brigade would send an officer?
-
Additionaly.
Another Brigade i know is currently 'in discusions' about charging repeat offenders a call out charge!
Now this brigade says anymore than x a year and your a repeat offender. regardless if you have 10 or 10,000 heads.
Can anyone else see the potential risks here? most 'offenders' are either high risk premises or poorly managed buildings.
i see this leading to swing in the publics view of the fire service from a reliable service to a threat of a fine. and as a result a culture of 'call the brigade as a last resort' ' i'll put it out myself' 'A charge! i'd rather turn the alarm off'
-
Well, for example, should someone call 999 and say their AFA system is making a beeping noise from the control panel and not in full alarm and they are in an agitated state cannot be pacified to call an engineer, or if we have received a full alarm twice in quick succession and then receive a third from the same premises; we may send an Officer, probably a FS Officer to, audit the premises. It is a Control Officer’s judgement call. That is what they are paid for. To receive the request for assistance and send appropriate responses thereby not tying up a lifesaving vehicle without justifiable cause.
-
Thanks sam.
But how does the Control officer know 'its just a beep' other than by the interpretation of the caller?
I sincerely do not wish to appear confrontational or difficult. merely wish to understand.
how can a control officer truely know what is happening at the other end of a line? a 999 call is just that. it should not be down to the control officer to make that judgement.
Don't get me wrong, i have no problem with call challenge per say. here the caller makes the decision under the control officers guidance. But its either an emergency or not. isn't it?
they recieve an afa. they are challenged and investigate. if its nothing then call ends. if in any doubt then you attend.
In short. why an officer? if its nothing then sending them is a waste of resources. if its something then you would send an appliance.
-
I still have to agree with Midland. Where does that leave the FRS with poorly managed sites that regularly call the FRS out to alarms? In this time of greater financial restraint are you happy with the FRS attending umpteen UWFS at the same old sites over and over again?
-
I've just been thinking - If an unscrupulous place is fed up of being charged for AFA calls, one would have though that they are more likely to either terminate the ARC contract or cut the Redcare cable instead of pull the main panel fuse.
Plus surely the dodgy places that would switch off fire alarms are not the ones that would be paying for an ARC anyway.
Perhaps the charging will cause several places to look at if they really NEED to rely on ARC in the first place and if so to buckle their ideas up regarding maintenance, staff training and management levels.