FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: lingmoor on November 20, 2012, 02:13:07 PM
-
I suppose this should go in 'operational' but there is tumbleweed blowing through there
A car fire starts in a hospital car park close to the building...porters come out and use fire extinguishers at the early stages to stop it developing before the arrival of the fire service...the fire service thank the said porters for doing this.
Questions are asked, should the policy be to leave well alone as there could be a danger of the petrol tank exploding and petrol tanks are in different areas of cars (Ive attended loads of fully developed car fires and the tank has never gone...however it could happen obviously)
What would you say to the questioner?
I think like anything else it has to be assessed
Don't put yourself at risk
Only if it is at the very early stages should there be an attempt to tackle it
If it is a developed fire then leave it and evacuate any parts of the building it may affect
or is that crap and it should be 'leave it at all times for the fire service?
ps if there was still people inside then that would obviously change the mindset
-
As with any fire, first aid fire extinguishers should only be used by the staff on fires that are very small. If no one's ever going to use the extinguishers then what's the point of having them?
Stu
-
As with any fire, first aid fire extinguishers should only be used by the staff on fires that are very small. If no one's ever going to use the extinguishers then what's the point of having them?
Stu
The reason they are there is that the law says they have to be. (????). You would therefore think there would be a legal requirement to fight fire.
-
A car fire starts in a hospital car park close to the building...
That makes things different, because it may be very difficult to evacuate the hospital and there are risks in doing so to patients (and to staff, who may have to manually handle non-ambulant patients down stairs).
-
Always a dilemma.
One of my clients (hotel) had an arson attack in one of their function rooms. The duty manager extinguished the fire but had to use 8 extinguishers to put it out- damage was put at £20K.
Certainly way beyond the scope of first aid fire fighting and certainly he did put himself at some risk. But the fire was out by the time the brigade arrived. OIC gave him and the owner a right good rollicking and investigated my level of training. Served a notice on the hotel to train staff in first aid fire fighting as they had placed an employee at risk. Indirectly I suppose they had through vicarious liability.
I know the theory of course....but personally l was all for giving him a medal not a rollicking.......
-
Always a dilemma.
One of my clients (hotel) had an arson attack in one of their function rooms. The duty manager extinguished the fire but had to use 8 extinguishers to put it out- damage was put at £20K.
Certainly way beyond the scope of first aid fire fighting and certainly he did put himself at some risk. But the fire was out by the time the brigade arrived. OIC gave him and the owner a right good rollicking and investigated my level of training. Served a notice on the hotel to train staff in first aid fire fighting as they had placed an employee at risk. Indirectly I suppose they had through vicarious liability.
I know the theory of course....but personally l was all for giving him a medal not a rollicking.......
Trying to do the fire officer out of a job K. Very serious. I would send a letter to the Brigade suggesting they get there quicker.
-
I would say it's a training issue primarily - extinguishers are used in most levels of motorsport quite effectively (& also not so!). If used early on enough, the risk is tolerable, I've used them effectively a couple of times on vehicles
-
The fire service gives out mixed messages. :-\
They say if a fire occurs; Get out ....Get us out ...and stay out. Then....when someone does not follow this advice they pin a medal on the person risking their life to fight the fire. Or give them a rollocking for putting themselves at risk. With no rhyme or reason to which will happen and why.
I say the fire service (and others) should be teaching people about fire and what they can realistically do to mitigate it. Moreover they should explain the toxicity of the products of fire. Gone are the days when the general populace doffed their caps and said yes sir to uniformed public sector workers. You are quite right sir....I should not try and protect my family... my property ...or society in general, I should leave it to you people. Of course I should. Because you tell me to. You must be right. You have a uniform. Oh... thanks for the medal.
Questions to be asked are; how much training had said porters had in fire fighting, what risks had they been exposed to during their lives? As we are all the sum total of our life experiences.
Say to a pensioner who has live through V1 and V2 attacks that a microwave is dangerous. Say to a returning veteran that a car fire is dangerous. So it may be but compared to an IED?
Ask yourselves... those of you serving...or retired... fire-fighters....what would you do? Risk is subjective. We all take risks every day of our lives.
End of rant ..... Sorry! >:(
-
The reason they are there is that the law says they have to be.
What law is that then?
-
The reason they are there is that the law says they have to be.
What law is that then?
Ok you caught me out there as it doesn't actually say "thou shalt provide extinguishers....." Did you not see what i was saying without quoting legislation verbatum?
-
Sam
That wasn't a rant...it was interesting.
The Porters get annual Fire Safety training including non-live fire training using the firefighting equipment in the hospital
-
We have missed one important issue here.
I'd put a week's wages on the fact that even if the porters received pukka first aid firefighting training the syllabus would not have included how to deal with car fires. We know car fires can be nasty and present their own risks.
So I think you have to be very careful here. Its a difficult one, my advice is people should stick to what they have been trained to tackle, anything outside of that then they should be encouraged to call the fire service and ensure the affected area is evacuated and secured in the meantime.
Onto Kurnals heroic hotellier. Don't get me wrong I can understand why people wish to protect their assets as SAMFrit points out.
The 'get out, stay out' message, to me, is aimed squarely at home owners, not commercial premises as such.
But Kurnal.... your fellow used 8 extinguishers? Come on! His training should have told him that if one extinguisher isn't enough, its time to evacuate. So I'm afraid I don't buy into this argument that somehow he should have had a pat on the back, what if he had been overcome by smoke, others would have had to put themselves at risk to rescue him?
Fair play to him for attempting to prevent the fire from getting biggger, but he should have known his limitations through his training.
-
Thats exactly what the training told him -if it needs more than one extinguisher then its not first aid fire fighting and you should leave, close the door and leave it to the fire fighters.
But he didnt and he put the fire out. And didnt need rescuing. So I dont buy into this argument that he put others at risk.
Initiative, bravery, valour are the words that come to my mind. Qualities that used to be admired not treated with disdain.
He did it and obviously had the skills to pull it off.
Come to that following your point why is it ok for amateur sailors or rock climbers or pot holers who by their actions , if they get into trouble, to place others at risk by having to rescue them? And surely they are making a selfish choice to put others at risk for their own pleasure? (if you take your point to its limits). No offence to sailors or pot holers or climbers. Use to enjoy these myself. Cant find a climbing rope strong enough now though.
-
Hang on to turn that argument on its head why did you teach that fella to use 1 extinguisher and not 8 then. For my money you need to replace the word skills with the word luck in the fourth sentence. You were a brigade commander kurnal. Would you let your blokes go outside their level of competency or training. Very much doubt you would. So how is this geezer any different. Fine line between hero and zero. This guy was lucky.This notion that amateur sailors rock climbers and the like are no different is a complete non starter. They are amateurs with little or no training or understanding about what could go wrong and what is required to rescue their silly backsides.Whereas your guy received training and should have known better. So whats your argument. Theres a difference between silly amateurs and trained staff. Kurnal sorry but to follow your argument to its limits if you think this guy was great then you need to teach all your clients that its safe to use up to 8 extinguishers dont you.
-
No Cleveland I will continue to teach them to use a maximum of one extinguisher and only if its safe to do so. First aid fire fighting is what its all about.
But if someones valour, bravery and initiative takes them beyond the call of duty and if they get away with it then personally I celebrate their spirit. Its not expected of them but they go the extra mile to achieve a good outcome. Thats the best side of human spirit. Yes it is a fine line I agree. Luck? Probably. But you make your own luck.
-
"If they get away with it".
I have to say you have a very romantic view of valour, bravery etc. There is a huge difference between rock climbers and mariners and what we are talking about, its a totally seperate argument for what I think are obvious reasons.
Anyway we digress, back to car fires. They're best left alone and not tackled unless first aid firefigther has been trained specifically to do so (which they won't have been)
-
Damn. I thought you would bite on the reference to amateur sailors Midland. Next time maybe. As you say back to car fires. Buses taxis and ADR vehicles have to carry powder extinguishers under th elicensing regimes. Wonder how many drivers have been trained to use them?
-
Ah but Im a trained amateur sailor now Kurnal old friend, I went and did a pukka RYA course and everything, rather than just jump into a boat and go out to sea, hoping for the best! Im quite a responsible chap like that ;D
I can speak with a little knowledge about ADR drivers - quite a few of my chums / friends of the family are lorry drivers who hold their ADR ticket.
From what they have explained to me they all had to what is quite an indepth practical and theoretical section on first aid firefighting and incident safety. Not sure that one extinguisher would have much of an effect, the scene management aspect is perhaps more important.
Not sure about the input, if any, bus drivers and taxi drivers receive, but then again buses and taxis are outside the scope of RR(FS) of course (as is ADR)
-
From my knowledge there is a vast difference between ADR and PSV. ADR get practical training and have 3, 6 & 12 kilo Powder extinguishers which pack quite a punch in trained hands against 2 & even 1 litre AFFF extinguishers on buses where there is minimal training (even in trained hands you can't do much with these sizes).
Extinguishers on PSV's are historical and I wonder when there was last a study into how useful they actually are, particularly since the demise of Halon
-
While we're on the subject... 1 litre foam extinguishers should not be on PSVs as EN3 makes no provision for 1 litre foam extinguishers. It's also worth noting that although you sometimes find 3kg powders on vehicles carrying dangerous goods, there is a requirement that they carry a verification mark/seal (kitemark/lpcb etc) to state compliance with EN3. However, most manufacturers don't have their 3kg powders kitemarked/lpcb approved because it's an expensive task and they're not a big seller.
-
Yes EN3 doesn't allow liquid extinguishers under 2 litre, but 1 litre foams are still manufactured sold and fitted.
Like unpainted polished finish extinguishers they are legal to sell as they have CE marking to meet the Pressure Equipment Directive and are marked as complying with EN3 (generally with the caveat 'except in relation to colour' or 'capacity')
The actual current legislation for PCV's and Minibuses still refers to BS5423 and permits water, foam & halon, based on fire rating, not size. VOSA accepts EN3 in lieu of BS5423 and as long as it is water or foam, 8A &/or 21B, is full & in good condition and says EN3 on it they are happy.
Whilst not kite marked the 1 litre foams (& indeed some of the 3 kilo powders) are, depending on manufacturer, Lloyds Register, TUV or similar 3rd party certified.
So unless VOSA start to get really picky, the 1 litre foams & 3 kilo powders will continue - in fact more manufacturers than ever offer the 1 litre foam and 3 kilo Powder.
My main gripe with the 3 kilo Powders is the lack of a hose on the slimline 'transport' models
-
Yes EN3 doesn't allow liquid extinguishers under 2 litre, but 1 litre foams are still manufactured sold and fitted.
Fitted only by cowboys, that don't know better. 1 litre foams are not to EN3 for a reason, they are neither use nor ornament. BS5423 has been superseded.
Like unpainted polished finish extinguishers they are legal to sell as they have CE marking to meet the Pressure Equipment Directive and are marked as complying with EN3 (generally with the caveat 'except in relation to colour' or 'capacity')
You cannot mark an extinguisher as complying with EN3 when it does not comply to EN3. You may get a manufacturer writing it on the side but it cannot be verified and is worthless. What you are confusing is that the fire rating specified in EN3 may have been verified by an independent body. I sell the odd stainless/polished extinguisher and am aware of who says what in that regard.
The actual current legislation for PCV's and Minibuses still refers to BS5423 and permits water, foam & halon, based on fire rating, not size. VOSA accepts EN3 in lieu of BS5423 and as long as it is water or foam, 8A &/or 21B, is full & in good condition and says EN3 on it they are happy.
There was no reason to amend the legislation to state EN3 because the 1995 amendment just prior to EN3 (1996) adequately covered this in part c:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/305/made
3. In regulation 35, after paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
“(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a vehicle if it carries apparatus for extinguishing fire which would meet the requirements of that paragraph were there substituted—
(a)for a reference in Schedule 4 to any British Standard, a reference to a corresponding standard;
(b)for the reference in Schedule 4 to a test fire rating of 8A or the reference in that Schedule to a test fire rating of 21B, a reference to an equivalent level of performance specified in the corresponding standard; and
(c)for the reference in paragraph (2)(b) to the appropriate British Standards Institution specification number, a reference to a marking indicating compliance with the corresponding standard.
for clarity, paragraph (2)(b) in the 1981 document is highlighted below:
(2) The apparatus referred to in paragraph (1) shall be—
(a)readily available for use,
(b)clearly marked with the appropriate British Standards Institution specification number, and
(c)maintained in good and efficient working order.
If you want to harp back to the 1981 version you will see that the 8A or 21B was 8A and 21B, for foams at least. Funny how things get lost over time.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/257/made
A fire extinguisher which complies in all respects with the specification for portable fire extinguishers issued by the British Standards Institution, published on 31st December 1976 and numbered B.S. 5423: 77 and which either—
(a)contains water with a minimum test fire rating of 8A, or
(b)contains foam with a minimum test fire rating of 8A and 21B, or
(c)contains and is marked to indicate that it contains halon 1211 or halon 1301 with, in either case, a minimum test fire rating of 21B.
Whilst not kite marked the 1 litre foams (& indeed some of the 3 kilo powders) are, depending on manufacturer, Lloyds Register, TUV or similar 3rd party certified.
See note above regarding fire tests only.
So unless VOSA start to get really picky, the 1 litre foams & 3 kilo powders will continue - in fact more manufacturers than ever offer the 1 litre foam and 3 kilo Powder.
Totally agree. Although the arse of it is that the reason that 3kg powders don't get kitemarked is because of the cost; 1 litre foams don't get kitemarked is because they can't.
My main gripe with the 3 kilo Powders is the lack of a hose on the slimline 'transport' models
EN3-7 2004 section 4.4 states "Extinguishers having a mass of extinguishing medium greater than 3kg, or a volume of extinguishing medium greater than 3 l shall be provided with a discharge hose." There's an option that will permit you to fit a hose if you wish... if you do it needs to be at least 250mm in length but there's no requirement to fit a hose if you do not wish to on a 3kg powder.