FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: jayjay on February 11, 2013, 09:04:58 PM
-
For those who are following the coroners inquest there are transcripts of each days proceedings published on this web site.
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/CouncilDemocracy/LakanalHouseCoronerInquest.htm?sl=lakanal
The witnesses include fire fighters and residents and it is interesting reading.
-
The Corner has finished the inquiry and the Jury have now retired to consider their verdict.
Day 44 and 45 at the above link give a transcript of the coroners summery to the jury.
The inquest transcripts have been quite revealing with some interesting discussions on the whole incident one issue which had prolonged discussion was on the "Stay Put" advice which is well worth reading.
-
Jury's verdict in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21964325
It is not yet up on the inquest website but it should be interesting reading.
-
The verdicts and recommendations are now on the web site
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/CouncilDemocracy/LakanalHouseVerdicts.htm
Some of the daily transcripts are well worth reading even though they are quite long. There is a list of each days witnesses so if there is a particular area of the interest such as fire fighting, fire separation, fire control the day can be identified from the witness list.
-
The transcripts are very good CPD and certainly worthy of a read, though incredibly sad to read of the victims plight and the genuine and selfless attempts by many to save their lives. I hope that seminars and conferences will soon allow every fire safety practitioner to learn from this tragic fire.
Nice to see a calm, objective, impartial and balanced view on the findings on the part of the bruvvers: http://www.fbu.org.uk/?p=6513. (I thought they were a little hard on LFB in terms of their fire risk assessment training though. When LFB delivered a one day training course in fire risk assessment, I would imagine that they were endeavouring to impart everything they knew about the subject.)
-
Interestingly, a 1 day "introduction to risk" course has turned into a 1 day fire risk assessment course in some peoples eyes. Need to do more and better research.
-
To under stand the layout of Lakanal House check out, http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/sceaux-gardens-camberwell-the-original-1960-aj-building-study/5204667.article
http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoXzH4GJRXHsALD9WBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBpaWt1dXN1BHNlYwNmcC1leHAEc2xrA2V4cA--?back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dlakanal%2Bhouse%2Bimages%26fr%3Dyfp-t-702&w=468&h=692&imgurl=highrisefirefighting.co.uk%2Fcase%2Flacanal2009%2Farticle-1201475-05CE3730000005DC-608_468x692.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhighrisefirefighting.co.uk%2Fcslakanal.html&size=135.9+KB&name=%3Cb%3ELakanal+House+%3C%2Fb%3E2009.&p=lakanal+house&oid=ae6accdf4e6a01507c9475215fabfad9&fr2=&fr=&tt=%253Cb%253ELakanal%2BHouse%2B%253C%252Fb%253E2009.&b=30&ni=140&no=35&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11g0scufc&sigb=12ecg5uet&sigi=12sabici4&.crumb=4tVtTo22D2t&
-
Do you think the terminology “Stay Put” is the right one, other than those who practice the black art, it may be assumed everybody should remain in their flat until the fire is extinguished and not to evacuate, when they are threaten by the fire. It could easily be confused with “Defend in Place” which I would see as a procedure for places like hospital ICU’s were it is likely the patients cannot be moved and have to remain until the fire is extinguished.
Maybe a term like “Delayed Emergency Evacuation” should be used which would indicate evacuation may be required when anybody is threatened by the fire or smoke?
-
Tom, I'm reposting a response I made last week to a similar question on the 'Stay put brought into question' thread.
No the correct term is 'stay put' or the US version being 'defend in place' - if this is successful other residents in the block may be blissfully unaware of there ever being a fire and certainly not evacuate because of it.
I quote from the Local Government Group fire safety in purpose built flats guide "This principle is undoubtedly successful in an overwhelming number of fires in blocks of flats. In 2009-2010, of over 8,000 fires in these blocks, only 22 fires necessitated evacuation of more than five people with the assistance of the fire and rescue service."
Lets not confuse things even further by trying to adopt new terminology for quite a simple concept.
-
I think the key issue here is that Stay Put could well be a successful strategy provided the building is purpose built in accordance with Building Regs.
Many, I believe, are not due to poor construction.
-
NT it should only ever be used as in purpose built accommodation or those converted post 1991 in England and Wales - and in both cases where the separation between flats can be assured. I'm currently writing up reports for many 6 storey purpose built blocks constructed in approximately 1880 but unfortunately these cannot be stay put due to doubts about the separation between flats; most post war blocks I've surveyed have been fine with a few adjustments. There can be no hard and fast rules in my opinion and it all depends on what you come across.
With respect to modern buildings its sometimes scary where short cuts have been taken and fire separation disregarded - and that's only where I've been able to find it on Type 1 inspections plus a bit of experience and curiosity.
-
I have come across some poor building which went up within the last 15 yrs during the free for all.
One in particular where the rubbish chutes had been installed after the refuse enclosures had been completed. Feckin great holes were hacked out for the chutes and not sealed around after and I'm not talking about a couple of centimetres space. This defect was as obvious as an elephant in a fridge and I can't help but wonder what is lurking elsewhere behind the gloss.
I had reported the matter to BC which did not seem the least bit interested.
-
Surely the point must be the degree of seperation, not necessarily the date it was built.
If a block was purposebuilt post 1991 then it should be ok for a stay put policy, except if you go in and find that someone has destroyed the fire seperation, in which case stay put is out, unless the fire seperation is restored.
On the other hand if the building is pre 1991, then you need to look to see if the fire seperation is sufficient to introduce a stay put policy.
The other side of the stay put policy must be that it is an option not a directive. So that if a fire occurs then for the average fire it will not be necessary to evacuate the whole block, this should not stop the residents getting out if they so wish or the Fire Brigade deciding that the whole block or part of it needs to be evacuated as the circumstances demands.
-
Mike, you're right the date is merely a clue to the separation likely to be found and is not the absolute answer. One of the points I was trying to make is that some pre-1991 blocks have better separation in my opinion than their modern counterparts.
With respect to "residents getting out if they so wish" this is one of the problems I've encountered with tackling high rise fires. If you are confronted with hundreds of residents on a single staircase its impossible to start fire fighting actions promptly and can result in a small fire growing. if the staircases then fill with smoke when you make an entry it can cause even more problems. Add to this the danger of people milling around outside the entrance and it becomes problematic and dangerous. The best for high rise if the other tenants are blissfully unaware of any FB intervention, of course its not possible to order people to stay in their flat.
-
I would agree that in high rise blocks you don't want floods of residents leaving the building whilst you are starting fire fighting, but the essence of the stay put policy is that most of the residents will not know about the fire, particularly whilst it is still small.
One of the issues that came from Lakanal House was the instructions given to some of the people in the flats which was to stay where they were when they might have been able to get thmselves out.
Again it comes down to fire separation, if the compartmentation has been compromised to the extent that the means of escape will become impassable then a stay put policy would not be suitable and a full or phased evacuation policy will be required.
The crucial factor in my view is the compartmentation, if it is good and the means of escape will remain available then stay put is a good answer, if however the compartmentation is not up to scratch and the means of escape will become smokelogged or made impaasible by fire, then the only answer is to evacuate, communal alarm systems the lot.
-
I agree with Mike in that residents have got the choice to evacuate if, for example, they find out their neighbours flat is on fire. If you have three flats per landing even if the whole floor decided to evacuate that isn't a great number of people, and unless they all start knocking every flat door on the way down alerting every last resident of the fire there won't be mass panic or evacuation.
But its fairly rare that a neighbour realises something is going on inside an adjacent flat.
This is the compartmentation is as it should be of course.
If you doubt the level of compartmentation can support a stay put policy and decide to install alarms and have a full evac policy you need to ensure your staircases will take the capacity in one hit, or look at phased evac.
-
Phased evac in a block of flats????????? Retters, have I taught you nothing over all these years.
-
its fine, so long as you have proper training, a weekly practise drill and volunteers to act as fire wardens and marshals. :P
-
Thanks Sir Col, and thanks Wee B, not sure all phased evacs require the weekly drill / fire wardens you speak of....but anyway Mr T you have trained me very well.
Infact I will quote paragraph A6.21 page 158 of your flats of your guide. "...it will normally be wholly inappropriate to to adopt simultaneous evacuation of all floors in a high rise block
I totally agree.Accepted.
The same paragraph says that "....there may be unsual circumstances , in which it might be necessary to consider the installation of a communal fire alarm system..." it continues and I paraphrase "...nevertheless...this does not imply an evacuation signal need be sounded"
I take that to mean you don't need to alert the whole block but perhaps we need to alert the affected floor and the one above it!
Lets say I have a high rise tower block, compartmentation has been compromised for whatever reason, perhaps the correct level of compartmentation was never properly incorporated into the original construction, yet because it was previously council owned a blind eye was turned.
Lets say I decide we can't have a stay put policy in the block, atleast not on the floor the fire has occurred. Lets imagine other engineered solutions are impractical.
I will accept that a fire will take time to affect other floors, but I'm not happy the fire will be contained to the flat of origin, and that fire might be able to spread upwards or sidewards between flats or into communal areas fairly quickly as I do not have my 60 mins fire separation.
So Wee B, Sir Col over to you. What are your thoughts? how would you deal with this scenario?
-
Family of victims to sue in high court
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/legal/fire-victims-family-to-sue-landlord/6526444.article?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Ocean+Media+&utm_campaign=2355340_IH+Legal+10.4.13&dm_i=1HH2,1EHE4,9LXE0V,4RF87,1
Not sure how the Council has spent £48m on fire risk assessments since the fire??
-
Not sure how the Council has spent £48m on fire risk assessments since the fire??
You put your prices up Colin?
-
Retters, I risked life, limb and the wheels on my car by travelling to the west midlands to train you, but all to no avail! You didnt mean phased evacuation, you meant a two stage alarm with restricted evacuation (one stage being no sounders). Our excellent, never to be beaten guide of which Silver speaks so highly (and rightly so) does not say to evacuate the whole ruddy lot in phases (which is what phased evacuation means and comes with all the stuff my good mate Wee B mentions). I know that you midlanders speak all funny, but I had always thought that if I could decipher the accent you were actually using the same words as we from the posh home counties.
-
Gazza, the Coal, Lahndan is not like wot it is oop north, where you can buy a row of back to backs for a few hundered quid.
-
You didnt mean phased evacuation, you meant a two stage alarm with restricted evacuation (one stage being no sounders).
Ok Sir Col - you got me on my terminology - I was getting my phased evac and my restricted evac mixed up, but in my defence I never said you would evacuate all floors in a phased manner Sir Col.
One stage being no sounders are you referring there to the fact that no sounders activate in communal areas but inside the flat or flats on the affected floor?
-
Gazza, the Coal, Lahndan is not like wot it is oop north, where you can buy a row of back to backs for a few hundered quid.
I never could decipher these Scots dialects.
-
I never could decipher these Scots dialects.
Aren't they the ones that fought with Dr Who ;D
-
One stage being no sounders are you referring there to the fact that no sounders activate in communal areas but inside the flat or flats on the affected floor?
The way I always look at it is, if you take a block of flats and the fire is on the 4th floor, the aim is to evacuate the 4th floor and possibly the two floors above and the floor below depending on the strategy. The communal alarms will sound on the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th floors to get those people to evacuate. The alarms on the other floors will remain silent. If the rest of the block needs to be evacuated, this can be controlled from the panel setting off the alarms on the rest of the floors either simultaneously or floor by floor.
This is probably a great theory but it will depend on people knowing how to operate the fire panel.
Whether the sounders are inside or outside the indivdual flats is irrelevant as long as there is an adequate sound level inside the flat.
-
Gazza, the Coal, Lahndan is not like wot it is oop north, where you can buy a row of back to backs for a few hundered quid.
We don't use Sterling ooop here; we trade using pies and whippets. ;)
-
One stage being no sounders are you referring there to the fact that no sounders activate in communal areas but inside the flat or flats on the affected floor?
The way I always look at it is, if you take a block of flats and the fire is on the 4th floor, the aim is to evacuate the 4th floor and possibly the two floors above and the floor below depending on the strategy. The communal alarms will sound on the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th floors to get those people to evacuate. The alarms on the other floors will remain silent. If the rest of the block needs to be evacuated, this can be controlled from the panel setting off the alarms on the rest of the floors either simultaneously or floor by floor.
This is probably a great theory but it will depend on people knowing how to operate the fire panel.
Whether the sounders are inside or outside the individual flats is irrelevant as long as there is an adequate sound level inside the flat.
And therein lies the problem - to wake sleeping occupiers you are almost certainly going to need to extend the sounder circuit/loops into each flat with the consequential difficulties with maintenance & vandalism. And people will ignore it.
In my experience of some poorly thought out newer builds with both communal only sounders and one that did have sounders to each flat , in both cases no one took any notice of the sounders when drills were carried out (another issue in itself, not our idea but they insisted) and with the latter most flat sounders were either regularly covered over or ripped off (& it wasn't social/council housing either, quite expensive apartments).
Hence why site fire alarms are a last resort - because whilst they might operate promptly you will still often have to have a fire fighter hammer on each door to get anyone to actually leave
-
AnthonyB telling it like it is!
I can't understand all this talk of sounders in communal areas and flats - we're discussing purpose built blocks here most of which (thankfully as most are properly compartmented and partially for the reasons Anthony has outlined) don't have detection or sounders so how else is the full/partial/restricted evacuation going to be implemented?
-
The problem is not in the purpose built flats where there is proper compartmentation etc. the stay put policy should be fine there.
The problems come in the big houses that have now been converted into flats where the owners want a stay put policy because they don't want the problems with communal fire alarms and the purpose built blocks of flats that probably were ok when they were built, but have now been knocked about by electricians, plumbers, occupiers and the owners so that they have the compartmentation of a swiss cheese.
My view is if the compartmentation and MOE are not adequate, you cannot have a stay put policy. The owner has two choices either have work done to improve the compartmentation and/or MOE, or fit a fire alarm system and have a full, phased etc. evacuation policy. Either way the occupiers have to be informed of what is going on and what they should do. If the occupiers decide to stuff the sounders full of socks etc. then that is their choice and the outcome will be on their heads, provided the owners have maintained the system and can prove it.
What is wrong is putting a stay put policy into a building that cannot support it because of the problems with a communal alarm system.
-
"Either way the occupiers have to be informed of what is going on and what they should do. If the occupiers decide to stuff the sounders full of socks etc. then that is their choice and the outcome will be on their heads, provided the owners have maintained the system and can prove it."
So, it don't matter to you that they die, as a result of an unworkable fire strategy.
If there's a problem with the building, fix it.
-
"Either way the occupiers have to be informed of what is going on and what they should do. If the occupiers decide to stuff the sounders full of socks etc. then that is their choice and the outcome will be on their heads, provided the owners have maintained the system and can prove it."
So, it don't matter to you that they die, as a result of an unworkable fire strategy.
If there's a problem with the building, fix it.
Easier said than done sometimes Wee Brian
-
The pre 1991 conversions (and any others that have insufficient compartmentation) require a communal fire detection and alarm system (LACORS guide) to comply with current guidance and should have a simultaneous evacuation policy. If they don't want a communal alarm and/or disable the system then they should get the builders in to fix the separation issues and pay the price. Modern alarm systems, when properly specified, fitted and maintained do not cause the problems that led to numerous false alarms - and for the average converted house or Victorian purpose built without compartmentation are reasonably inexpensive.
As Wee Brian has pointed out the fire strategy has to be workable and its not reasonable to bury your head in the sand just because its 'too difficult' to make it work. What is reasonable is to use an ALARP principle where all of the issues cannot be fixed according to the best advice/guidance available.
-
The 1991 cut off is way too prescriptive and is not supported in the LGA guidance. Its relevance (to the extent there is any) is that MoE was not universally required under building regs in E&W in conversions until 1992. However, stay put is primarily predicated on compartmentation, which unlike means of escape is a principle as old as the hills. Many 1960s conversions in London were very strictly required to have one hour enclosure of flats.
-
However, stay put is primarily predicated on compartmentation, which unlike means of escape is a principle as old as the hills.
Or at least as old as the London Building Act of 1667
-
Kurnal must remember that- he was about to join the fire service in that year.
-
CLG repsonse to coroner:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lakanal-house-response-to-coroners-recommendations (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lakanal-house-response-to-coroners-recommendations)