FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: wee brian on August 31, 2005, 07:33:05 AM
-
Have any of you guys had any experience, nasty or otherwise, with fires in self storage buildings?
-
No, but I have an interest as I have left a pile of stuff in my garage since I moved in hoping it would self store, but to no avail.
Actually , now I come to think about it, maybe these place are actually buildings that fold themselves up and put themselves away?
-
In case anybody is unsure what "self storage" is, i will attempt to explain:
A wharehouse type building subdivided into various sized lockups. Customers can rent a lockup in the building and are given 24hr access to it.
There are no effective controls on what is stored because you so it yourself. Hence self storage.
There are concerns that these buildings will have a fire load similar to a conventional warehouse but with a complex layout of corridors serving the lockups. There is no fire resisting seperation.
ODPM are proposing to introduce some provisions in ADB and I wondered if anybody had actually had a problem in one.
If anybody has worked out how to get a garage to tidy itself up, this would also be of intrest!
-
Sorry Wee B I knew what they were I was just making light of the title, whcih I always think literally of when I see it!
Similar examples are
'Self-drive car/van/lorry hire' where there is always a driver operating the vehicle, so it doesn't drive itself at all!
'I taught myself' - how can you teach yourself as, I assume, in ordert to require teaching you are in a 'don't yet know it' position. It should be I learned it myself.
-
Just to wander off the topic a bit longer, why do some divorced women describe themselves as 'single mothers'. Surely every mother is a single mum- It would be interesting to meet a double or triple mother.
-
I attended one in the East end of Glasgow quite a while back and it was a nightmare!
Loads of storage areas approx 5m x 4m within the ground floor of a 4 storey brick building of approx 200m by 40m.
The ceiling was about 4metres high and the separation of each unit was corrugated steel sheeting to about 3metres, so the fire spread over the tops of all the storage areas and ignited them!
We had to take in a jet and bolt cutters to gain entry to each unit and it was so hot, i got my helmet burnt! ( the last thing i wanted was a burnt helmet!)
Took about a day and a half to put out, so to answer your question, yes, I had a problem in one.......
-
I trust that Mr Sweeney made you pay for the helmet. Please try to be more careful with the ratepayers property.
-
Single parent is even better, the only (maybe) exapmle was Mary - a virgin birth. All other known examples of childbirth have involved two parents!
-
As well as the layout is the risk (I would have thought) that if it is indeed not controlled is the potential for a myriad of hazardous substances to be stored without warning notices with the risk of something unexpectedly going BOOM!
-
Billy, did you use a BA guide line?
-
Don't get him started on guidleines please! I, and others, will only have to disagree with him again.
-
Oh no not again Billy
-
Didn't use Guidelines because we couldn't feel the tabs with our gloves on and had nowhere to tie them off!
I wonder what we could do to sort that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But seriously, we had to try and follow submerged 45mm hose and came out eventually after going the wrong way and finding another BA team on a jet instead of the exit we were looking for.
We then came out of the nearest exit which was round the other side of the building.
This incident was over 15 years ago, just before Gillender Street, and the phrase "there but the grace of God" springs to mind.
-
So you got lost in there?
-
Yes we did !
Too much hose going along too many corridors and all were under about 6 inches of water.
We thought we knew where we went wrong though, and got back to that point, but ended up the wrong away again!
We did have loads of air left though, and I personally felt that I wasn't in any danger - in hindsight, we probably could have been in trouble as there was a charged line of hose going right down the full length of the main corridor inside!
-
Any idea on the size of the building Billy? And I presume it was single storey?
-
Building was approx 200m by 40 m and was 4 storey brick built with either brick or concrete floors.
Why?
-
I wanted to get an idea of the risk. Quite a decent sized building - especially being of 4 floors. However, at 8,000 sqms, not so larg as some being built now.
Another question: was the fire on the ground floor?
In any event, in my opinon there was significant danger of entering this building - without guide lines! I wonder what the other readers would suggest here as an alternative.
Finally, I wonder what you think about my post re 'fire appliance access'? Your building here Billy could be twice the size, but you could still only have fire appliance access to just 50% of the perimeter under current rules.
-
As an "alternative" x@!z/.....
1. Don't go in - defensive firefighting is definitley called for
2. Ventilate
3. If you really feel you must enter then use TIC
4. Only need a couple of aerials to pour water through the roof so we look to be doing something.
and never, never use guidelines
-
Agree 100%!!!
Far more options available other than guide lines.
Think we have covered this before!!
-
Fireftrm
I think I have covered this before!
1.("Don't go in - defensive firefighting is definitley called for") - The fire started about 10am and the first BA teams went in about 11 hours later so defensive firefighting was the reason that there was at least 6 inches of water throughout the ground floor!
2.("Ventilate") - I think this had already been carried out and didn't make much difference.
3.("If you really feel you must enter then use TIC") - Why?- We never had them then, but they wouldn't help us find our way out, in my opinion.
4.("Only need a couple of aerials to pour water through the roof so we look to be doing something")- If I was the building owner and my goods in the 4th floor were water damaged I would be taking a claim out against the fire authority responsible, and would also be 99% sure of being successful !
Sorry Firefrtm- I don't mean to be obstructive, but this was the facts of the incident and I admit that you were not fully aware of them, but here are some points where we will probably agree on!
I never wanted this to be a rant about whether to use guidelines or not, but whilst other people(including yourself) have mentioned them, here is some points I think we all agree on.
1. Don't have them on an appliance unless there are premises you know you can use them safely.
2. If you cannot use them safely- take them off all appliances.
3. If your FRS carries out professional operational fire risk assessments on premises- you will know if we can attach guidelines safely or not in specific premises- and if we can't, you won't even consider using them.
4. As professionals, you will do the courtesy of informing the owners of the risk to fire crews of not using guidelines, and if they do not wish to fit securing points- we will not use them.
I am sorry if it sounds as if I am trying to advocate the use of guidelines, but it is quite the opposite!
IF WE CAN- WE WILL.
IF WE CAN'T WE WON'T
-
So what would have happened guys if there was a 'persons reported' message upon arrival? Stand outside and wait for the fire to come to you?
Also:
1) how do you ventilate a self storage multi-storey warehouse with few windows?
2) do you seriously believe the fire service should use TL/HP monitors for show?? (Dave Bev, isn't that what the army do??)
-
Ian
I totally agree with your points and all I ask is that we act like the professionals we all profess to be and do proper risk assessments and make people aware of them.
Or we could carry on like we are just now and hope that all the problems we know we have and have done nothing about, never happen, or at least happen to someone else!
-
so we look to be doing something.
I hope you are joking.
-
Getting back to the original post, wasn't there a fairly serious fire in a 'Big Yellow' s/s warehouse in Wandsworth, SW London? Several years back, but somebody from LFB must remember it. External arson, and everyone seemed to get a bit obsessed with the composite panel buidling shell construction, rather than all the issues of uncontrolled contents, lack of info re the customers inside etc.
I'm aware of HFL/LPG being stored in such places, and firearms/ammo have also been found.
-
Chris - no. If the building is unsaveable, and it is too great a risk to enter, then the water being poured through the roof is only really for show. The fire will normally go out because it has burnt the majority of the fuel, before the aerial attack becomes in any way effective.
Ian - if there was a persons reported then we would commit for rescue, but I would do absolutley everything in my powers to keep guidelines where they should be kept - in a bag on an appliance (I do think that they should be removed altogether).
Ventilation can be done by removing roof/wall panels, or even with those few windows.
No, I do not believe that we should use aerials only for show, but as I state above..........also the public expect to see water being applied in such circumstances, we know that it is (generally) useless at the early stages of a fuly involved warehouse, but we do it because we need to show we are doing something. Be honest. Aerails are really best at high level resuces and water tower use when the fire is of a size that an attack will make some difference. Defensive firefighting actions will not (again - generally) be intended to put the fire out, they may be to stop spread, here the boundary cooling from the aerial may be its main point - but the public will still expect to see water going into the burning building. Are you advocating that we stop this practice? I would agree, but the customers don't understand and will be up in arms.
-
Mark: these buildings scare me!
Fireftrm: I wouldn't therefore like to be in your shoes if you lose anyone in such a building and they entered without a guide line. Whether you like them or not, that is the recognised method of searching in darkness/smoke etc. The FBU & Robin Thompsons would have your guts for garters (or at least, the Fire Authority's)!
And you really cannot ventilate, as you suggest (4 storey..??), in many of these buildings - go and look at some.
Also, don't think the answer is: "a non-entry policy" to any building considered difficult to deal with. Again, this wont protect you - because you always, at some time, HAVE to go in.
-
Ian - I agree that you may have to go in, but stand by my no-guidelines policy. I will stand up and defend my risk assessment that the guideline was not a safe option.
Not able to ventilate a 4 storey building? Why?
I have seen some of these, they are usually not custom designed just buildings like others. The majority are warehouses of modern steel framed/panels construction and easy to ventilate. Some are in older buildings and multi-storey, of those I haven't yet come across one without a standard roof that can be holed. I am sure there are examples of other construction but the majority?
-
ian, if buildings are built in such a way that entry would present an unacceptable risk then firefighters cannot be expected to go in. strange thing isnt it that not going into buildings was an acceptable method of firefighting during any dispute. ah, you say but they were not professionals, ah, i say, its because we are professionals we can and should make decisions not to commit internally. as regards having to go in some time, ok, when the fire is out seems to be the appropriate answer in some circumstances
bits of string, bah humbug. im pretty sure my risk assessment would consider firefighter safety pretty highly.
ok, on to the emotive 'persons reported' - the time spent in laying guidelines in such circumstances would make that particular method a non starter, but there are other things we can do - which depends on a full and proper risk assessment based on the circumstances of the incident - which are a constant dynamic, but im sorry , laying guidelines are not something i would be making a priority.
dave bev
-
Fireftrm: but is that the policy of your brigade i.e. no guide lines? Or is it, as I suspect, just your opinion?
Dave Bev: what on earth are you on about?
-
Dave
I also agree that the laying of Guidelines may not be a priority, but i would like to know all your views on the following:-
1.People dislike guidelines greatly because of their experiences with them.
I am currently involved in training and I encourage people to make decisions based on their experiences- call it recognition- primed decision making or experiential learning as I prefer to describe it, This is what makes most of us good at making decisions.
This means that most of you who have bad experiences, or have heard of bad experiences with guidelines will be extremely reluctant to use them.
I train and encourage personnel to act upon their experiences so I would be hypocritical if I said to Fireftrm, Dave, PSmith and the likes to use Guidelines against their better judgement and experiences with them!
I believe that the only way we will change peoples opinions or experiences on Guidelines is to physically show them how they could work.
This is the only way people like the ones mentioned above will accept their possible merits and this is in no way meant to be a criticism of them.
My perspective is that I have done presentations to Fire Services throughout Scotland on the Guideline and the views of some of the crews who use them has changed as a result of my presentation.
This either means that I am a brilliant salesman and crews can be convinced of anything (No chance) or that crews will listen to balanced reasoning and make up their own minds.
I prefer to believe the latter and have found that the most honest, forthright and accurate opinions have came from crews who may have to use Guidelines.
I think that given the chance, I could convince personnel that Guidelines, laid properly and quickly could be a benefit to fire crews.
Will this ever happen nationally- I doubt it!
Rant over- back to reality- Scotland 2- Norway 1, Just wait to see us snatching World cup Qualifying defeat from the jaws of Victory!!!!!
-
Billy,
I guess that the five guys who died at Smithfield Market in 1955 might have been grateful for a guide line.
What I would also add: is that you must surely train in accordance with both brigade and national guidance and policies. If you don't like these policies make representations to management and the relevant committees (FBU aswell as CFOA). Sadly, good quality practical information is increasingly not getting into these places where proper change can be achieved. I blame both the above mentioned organisations for this, who seem far more concerned with other matters.
And well done Scotland!
-
Guys,
Firstly well done Scotland!!
I guess it is a persons own perspective of risk. I too stand by my own opinion and that of most people in the profession.
I don't really want to rant on about this as we are clearly at opposite ends of the stick with this. As I have said before, to use such kit safely then it must be used in training sessions more. The simple fact is, that it isn't. No one likes it, everyone has a bad tale to tell regarding them and for this reason no one wants to get the bag out at an incident.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is that it has been a number of years now that fire fighters have been expected to use this in anger. Since its arrival it has never been improved on, yet it is the one bit of kit that fire fighters totally rely on if it ever used. If we look at almost every other item carried on a first line appliance, improvements have been made, whether it be RTC kit, BA kit, PPE, it has all come along way, even the techniques that are used in fire fighting have been developed with appropriate procedures and new fangled high pressure systems etc. So if this is the case, why can we not look at how we manage an incident such as a large multi storey warehouse.
Well I think it can be done. Its really down to better planning and risk assessment. LFRS must be getting into such buildings and looking how to deal with such incidents. For instance, if a drawing can be available at the scene of an incident then do we really need guide lines?? We can now predict the route FF's will take. Simply relying on fire fighters skill levels to deal with such incidents is no longer acceptable, as buildings get more complexed we must be looking at such premises with a keen eye as it is the very people who walk round on 11d risk visits, who will be expected to enter such premises attached to a bit of string.
To expect someone to enter into a large building of this nature is a risky business for which I believe must be under extra-ordinary circumstances. One of which is persons reported.
Persons reported missing in such a building generally have a low likelihood of survival, so why put more people at risk by deploying them on guide lines. As has already been said, by the time they have been deployed my children would have grown up and left home, let alone had chance to rescue a poor sole.
Lets get the planning right from day one. Risk Assess, Sector management, Risk visits, detailed information of such high risk premises to be made available at incident, possible ventilation, increased level of enforcement!!
All of this would take away the need to deploy guide lines. Lets keep them where they belong.........on station!!
Paul
-
Paul,
But you still do not have a solution. Billy got lost in his self storage warehouse - after a considerable amount of time!
Again, I'll ask you: what is your brigade policy on this? I bet it differs from the view you've expressed here. If so, you are on very dangerous ground.
I don't really want to get bogged down on the guideline topic, as it seems to have been previously covered. However, with the exception of a couple of posts, there does appear to be a sparsity of ideas from 'operational' readers as to how to deal with such buildings when involved in fire. Wee Brian: I trust you are taking note?
-
Ian,
If you think there is a quick fix solution we can implement tomorrow then you are sadly misguided. My point is that other systems and equipment have improved over the last 10 -15 years, but guide lines have stayed the same. No improvement on the use or the procedures we use. As you state the Smithfield Market was back in 55, well I’m sure they would have been grateful for more than guide lines back then.
My second point is how we can deal with such incidents is with better planning, improved enforcement and information available at incidents. This will obviously take some time to influence and implement but I still stand by my ‘personal opinion’. This in general has been a shortfall over the last decade in allowing such buildings to be constructed in this manner without any consideration for FF’s who will potentially deploy into such buildings. The modern fire service can not stand still on they way in which incidents are dealt with. I can not believe anyone would defend this to such an extent. There appears to be no middle ground in your opinion. I agree at present this is all that is available but I do not agree that it is the best we can do, far from it!!! We can look at using PPV more effectively, we can influence the way in which we deal with incidents and its resultive outcome by planning and assessing in such premises. Surly there is sufficient knowledge out there in the LFRS’s across the UK to influence this!! Yes not straight away, but there are some factors that I have discussed that would, in parallel with GL’s, benefit those entering into such a building for some operational tasks. I do not believe that this is an effective method of rescue as I have said in previous threads.
So the fact that Billy got lost in such a building lays down the fact that the building had little or no attention form the LFRS in the way of planning before the incident. This would of prevented this to a large extent. Familiarity of high risk premises on your patch is essential. I know this goes on in some LFRS but not all. But believe me it works.
Surly you can not argue that there must be a better alternative to deploying GL’s, this can not be an opinion popular with the troupes. It may be the case that in the training establishment you represent you firmly believe that they are best practice, and without knowing your new philosophy I can not comment, but as always I am more than willing to listen and learn, as we all must to progress. Perhaps you could suggest that it is considered in the review of AD B, perhaps fixed tie off points (tongue in cheek).
I do not represent any LFRS in this discussion, I simply give my own professional opinion, and one I have had opportunity to speak at length with at senior level around the UK and I have to say the general consensus is one of bad feeling, one that has been taken from years of experience.
SORRY JUST NOTICED IT WAS BILLY WHO IS WITH THE TRAINING DEPT. APOLOGIES IAN.
Paul
-
Ian
The points that are being missed are:
A guideline takes an inordinatley long time to lay. As Dave (correctly) says, and I fail to see how anyone could not understand his post, there will be no people left alive by the time the guideline is laid, so it can't be of any use to search for them.
There were firefighter deaths at Smithfield, but so were there at Gillender St and guidelines were the main contributory factor.
My FRS policy - we have guidelines, we train with them. I know of no ICs who would actually consider using them though.
I actually have to disagree with Paul when he says " Lets keep them where they belong.........on station!!" - I don't think they should be allowed anywhere near operational fire and rescue service premises.
-
...water being poured through the roof is only really for show....
......the public will still expect to see water going into the burning building. Are you advocating that we stop this practice? I would agree, but the customers don't understand and will be up in arms.
Personaly speaking, I would rather the taxes I paid were not spent on pretending to fight fires.
I would rather the public knew the problems FRS faced with such fires and FRS just said, sorry, we can't do anything for buildings like that. Perhaps we would see less of them if that was the case.
I am genuinly stunned by what I have learned from your posts. I had no idea it was part of the role of the FRS pretend to be doing something.
-
Psmith Said
Quote:" My point is that other systems and equipment have improved over the last 10 -15 years, but guide lines have stayed the same. No improvement on the use or the procedures we use."
I disagree with this, as I believe that we have an improved Guideline and have the opportunity to improve the procedures to make it work!
I wonder if any of the doubters would use the new guideline and new procedures if it was proved to be of benefit to fire crews in allowing them to find their way back to safety, and could be deployed quickly and easily!
I await your replies!!!!
-
I'm stunned too Chris.
But just to clarify a little: I'm not saying BA guidelines are the best thing since sliced bread - but we have them - and it is the policy of most, if not all fire authorities (and I bet FBU H&S Committee!) to use them - as necessary. I accept there are limitations and problems - but no fire officer can adopt a policy of leaving them in their bags. Mind you, if they are put into their bags upside down - then they should be left on the station! And my point that anyone lost and injured in the fire Billy attended would have a good case against the FA - because the OIC didn't deploy guidelines, is surely a valid one?
I've personally used them (in my youth....) as West Mids did train with them. And, of course, deployed the resources needed for large industrial complexes. In the 'shires', however, I did notice a lack of appreciation. Mind you, not as much as I've found here.
And I'm not saying there is a simple solution to the problems of firefighting in these buildings - quite the opposite. I'm concerned though, that too many readers have an apparant simple solution ie DON'T ENTER! This, I believe, is naive and ultimately more dangerous, because you always go in at sometime.
I've already alluded to my concerns about current compartment size re: fire appliance access. Nobody seems bothered about that however. And I do believe some fixed systems eg sprinklers are required - but exactly what - I'm not sure. Wee Brian's question is a good one, unfortunately he has not extracted many useful suggestions yet.
-
Chris
It is not our role to pretend to do something and as an informed member of the public you may well be in aposition to prefer that we did nothing. The remainder would not be so happy.
Here are some scenarios - please take a moment to say what you would expect the FRS to do and then what they should:
1. Flooding, many houses affected
2. Single storey sandwich panel clad warehouse, no one in, on fire
3. Car off road submersed in flowing water
4. Bale stack alight at farm, in stand alone barn
5. Outdoor bale stack alight 10 m from nearest building
I am stunned that you, as (I understand) an insurance expert, are not aware that such buildings would not be extinguishable by the fire service and that we would not countenance entry without very good reason. Such fires have had just this response from the FRS with demands to install sprinklers for firefighter safety before we would consider entry. Indeed the insurance industry has placed special risk premiums on such premises because they understand that they will almost certainly present a total loss. Should they be built with LISPs then they definitley will be. Allowing that you must have understood that the building was already a lost cause what did you expect the FRS attendance to be there for? We will try and put out the fire, but without being able to attack it directly any such attmpt is really not going to be effective and is more for show, or do you really think we should say that we will pop back in a few hours when it has died down a bit and we can be more effective? What do you really think the public would make of that and could we educate them to believe it, after all many FRS personnel wouldn't be too convinced, only those who really understand it. Look at the number who still believe we should enter every fire as a guide...............
I look forward to your ideas about the fires above, I will respond with what I would be doing and what I think we should be doing (not necessarily the same and I will give my reasosn)
-
Billy,
As I said, 'and without knowing your new philosophy I can not comment, but as always I am more than willing to listen and learn, as we all must to progress'.
Please tell me more. I am not aware of these new guide lines and procedures, so I can not agree or disagree until you tell me more, as I said.
I awiat your reply with great interest.
Paul
-
Paul
The new Guidelines have indicator tabs you can feel with your gloves on (unlike the ones used at Gillender street) and are rough in one direction and smooth in the opposite way so there is only one aide memoir- SMOOTH WAY OUT.
These have been extensively tested by fire crews ( the people who matter most in all of this) and almost all have said that they are better, safer and easier to understand than the ones currently in use.
for more info visit www.simline.co.uk
The suggested procedure involves crews doing something you suggested earlier in relation to:
QUOTE "better planning, improved enforcement and information available at incidents".
The crews carry out a thourough risk assessment and decide if we may have to use Guidelines.
If the answer is yes, they will then see if they can be deployed safely, IE are there tie off points so we can attach them as stated in our procedures.
I have seen hooks that you just clip the guideline into without tying them so they can be deployed far easier.
Now here's the really simple bit :- We then inform the owners of the premises that we cannot use our equipment safely and the owners then decide if they want to fit the tie-off hooks for us, or not!
If they fit them- we will use Guidelines, but we now know we can do it safely and as per our procedures.
If they don't- we won't use them, but we have acted professionally and carried out a risk assessment and logged the decision of the owners.
Why should owners fit them- Duty of care to all who may have to enter the premises- this now includes fire crews under the new Fire bill. Also insurance companies might have something to say if owners go against the recommendations of a FRS
Why should we ask for them- We know they don't work the way we use them just now and being proactive and trying to improve things is better than the "ostrich mentality" we have at present.
it also takes the "damned if you use them-damned if you don't" pressure off the OIC.
Finally, any equipment that when used properly, can reduce the risk to crews in a potentially life-threatening situation, must be considered beneficial by all on this site!
-
Billy,
Thankyou for the info provided. I have not seen this before.
I think you have a tough battle on your hands. Firstly, coming from a fire safety background, I am always going to promote the preventative methods of fire safety in trying to ensure that fire does not occur in the first instance and if it does have passive and active systems in place to, as far as is reasonably practicable, ensure that occupants have every chance of leaving the building in the first instance and I'm sure you'll have to convince tougher cookies than me to use this kit. LFRS may well prefer this to what is available, but that doesn't make it the correct choice.
It is only my opinion so please do not shoot me. I feel that efforts would be far better placed in concentrating on a greater level of enforcement to control such premises in order to ensure the above. To simply sit back and rely on a system that effectively says - ' don't worry about fire safety management as the boys will get us out if it goes titis up' is in my mind not something you could class as a duty of care upon the landlords. The duty of care is placed upon landlords to ensure that their fire safety management systems are in place to consider all occupants. This is where the enforcement is required, not with making Landlords of high risk premises install loops or some kind of snap on hook system. I don't think Building Control would ever see this as an acceptable alternative to prescriptive standards.
I have to say, I also feel that this system may be confusing for FF's also, and this is no disrespect, actually its quite the opposite. If you consider the extreme pressures placed upon FF's when working under such conditions, we all know how the mind reacts. Adding 2 +2 can seem like astro physics.
I genuinely don't like being negative to new ideas and wish anyone well in new ventures. The opinions I have given are my own and I accept that the perception of risk with each and every one of us is different, therefore I do not wish to continue this discussion out of respect, so please don't try and dangle a hook to involve me on this subject any further. My opinion remains unchanged after reading the info on the web etc, although its only my opinion, doesn't mean its the right one, just what I believe.
Good Luck
Paul
-
Clips so that guidelines can be used quickly? No chance. What is the point in having them unless all the walls are completely clear and the clips very easy to spot - maybe with large flashing arrows and bunting lit by emergency lighting? No. They would be no easier to find than any other 'tie-off' point and so only easier by virtue of saving a knot. Quicker? Maybe, just maybe, a tad. But not so as to save any lives. Yes I know the argument about Ffs getting back to the entry but then guidelines have always managed this haven't they? Or have they killed people?.
Get away from them altogether and, as Paul quite rightly and logically suggests aim to have such buildings meeting better standards.
Smoke extraction systems would mean there would never be a reason/need to get the ball of string out, sprinkler systems would mean that the fire was contained and we could walk to it, water mist systems would mean that the fire would probably have been extinguished.
Guideline clips would mean areas of wall that the occupiers could not use and, or, that they keep getting hurt by. Unlike the other active/passive systems that could be installed they would not save a life, or save any property.
We should be making quite clear to the occupiers that their premises present a significant risk to Ffs int he event of a fire and that we would therefore be adopting defensive actions, which will not save their property. Their only recourse is to fit active/passive measures to reduce that risk.
Ian - are you really stunned by the fact that water application on a fully involved warehouse building is not actually achieving much? Do you really think that the aerials pouring 4000+lpm into the mouth of an inferno are really effective? Have you never considered just how long these actions take to put the fire out? Had you ever considered how long the fire would have burned without that intervention and then noted that maybe it would not have been much longer? You being stunned does rather strengthen my argument that there are many Ffs who think that we are doing some good, becuase ven they do not fully understand how little we can really do faced with the seriousness of the fire!
-
Fireftrm
You stated- QUOTE
"Yes I know the argument about Ffs getting back to the entry but then guidelines have always managed this haven't they? Or have they killed people?."
No- Guidelines haven't always managed to get Ffs back to the entry point, but your response seems to be "don't use them"!!!
My suggestion is to see where the problem is and fix it!
The crews at Gillender St couldn't read the tabs so we fix that by making them so simple and easy to read-even with gloves on!
Even you must agree that if the guidelines were laid properly and the crews could read the indicator tabs, the 2 Ffs wouldn't have died?
You seem to be saying that if guidelines are not used properly, they are dangerous- so we shouldn't use them?
Or do you think that a piece of equipment that can get you back to your point of entry should not be used in any circumstances?
If you think Guidelines kill people- how much fire crews are killed at fires wearing BA?
So do you advocate not wearing BA at incidents or do you see where things went wrong and bring out systems and procedures to ensure it does not happen again?
The fact that you would not even consider Guidelines, even if was proved to be of benefit to crews just about sums it up!
Meanwhile, they are still on every front line appliance in the UK, they still don't work for the reasons that everyone knows and the best some people can come up with is "don't use them"!
It is good to see the ostrich mentality is alive and well, but a word of warning- WHILE YOUR HEAD IS IN THE SAND- THE REST OF YOU(INCLUDING YOUR A*SE) IS REALLY EXPOSED!!!!!!
-
My head is nowhere near rthe sand. I am not ignoringt he problems that guidelines present, I am doing something about it by advocating their disposal!
Gillender St was a disaster because of confusion over the tabs, yes. But look at the real problem - the use of the guideline at all. They were unecessary and should not have been adopted, the tab issue would not have surfaced had they not been there.
If i think guidelines kill people- how muh fire crews are killed at fires wearing BA? - Well I can't think of any where the BA itself was the cause. I can where the guideline was.
If the use of a guideline could be demonstrated as of benefit to the ffs then I would consider it, I cannot imagine such a situation. Simple as that! I can actually imagine the landing of an alien spacecraft, or an American Prsident with knowledge of the world, but try as I might I cannot imagine a situation where a guideline would afford more Ff safety than any other option.
I am sorry that you are so hell-bent on maintaining the guideline and again sorry that I have to say this - but it is you who have your head firmly stuck in the Silicon Dioxide.
-
Billy
Could effective sectorisation have made a difference at this job?
-
Fireftrm
If you cannot imagine a guideline Which can help fire crews retrace their steps back to their point of entry being of benefit then I despair, as that is what it will do when used properly!
Maybe my viewpoint is different as i don't have to rely on imagination, but experience, and the experiences of others who have tried and endorsed the new system!
-
Lee 999
Yes internal sectorisation/ compartmentation would have made a great difference at this job, but none of this was in place so we had to do what we always do, and deal with it regardless!
-
There are alternative ways to search buildings without using a guideline, fact.
Mr Houston, i would like to take this oportunity to distance myself, my watch, my station and the Brigade from the water tower/looking like we are doing something comment.
I cant imagine it happening in reality. It was probably just a figure of speech.
-
Lee 999
I totally agree with both your comments!
-
At last Billy agrres that GLS are not needed and we can do away with them.
Lee - you are right it was a figure of speech. I am not suggesting that the aerial is purely for the sake of being seen to be doing something, but I do know how little real use they are at the early stages, they are of increasing use as the fire loses strength.
What they do particularly well is to form a safe method of delivering large quantities of water, with the Ffs being able to operate at a safe distance. They also provide operational commanders with a good view of the fire (remote cameras) and a safe platform for secondary access/egress where applicable.
That they may only be dealing a slight blow to the fire is likley, so to an extent I feel we utilise them in the early stages as a publicity machine with increasing operational benefit as the incident progresses, though maybe we have never really thought about it that way?
-
Fireftrm
how does admitting there are alternative ways of searching buildings equate to you thinking that i agree we don't need them and can do away with them?
We will no doubt agree to disagree on this one, but the fact remains that we still have them on all UK front line appliances, we still all know the current problems with them, and if your only solution is not to use them ever- you are leaving your FRS open to a huge claim should the right ( or should I say wrong) situation arise.
Surely you agree with this?
-
You said you agree with there being ways of searching without a guideline, I am convinced (from all the other posts) that Lee meant - to avoid using one.
As I have already said, and yes we will agree to disagree, that I can think of no situations where a guideline would be the best way to ensure firefighter safety. As Ff safety and the DRA by the IC would be the crux of any claim against my employer I am happy that my solution of avoiding their use like the plague would prevent such a claim being successful. I am also happy that avoiding their use will restrict the likelyhood of any claim arising in the first place. Indeed it is for firefighter safety and the speed of rescuing any saveable casualties that I am so wholeheartedly against guidelines.
-
Fireftrm....well it's nice to know that all is not lost with you. But I think you misunderstand a lot of what I've said.
-
Ian - probably. Perhaps you could explain what you are getting at then?
-
Not sure where to start.
Where's Colin when you need him?!
Firstly: see my latest comment in support of Billy re searching off hose reels.
Secondly: just stop and think for a moment regarding the original posting by Wee Brian. And the only example of a real fire (to date) described in this forum. The fire did not burn in the way you suggest in your earlier post and question to me. In other words it didn't burn quickly.
In this case:
a) TL/HP would have done nothing (and simply angered Chris and his colleagues - quite rightly) because the fire had not burned through the 4 floors.
b) I got the feeling that it was extremely difficult to ventilate - which in general, they are.
c) Billy admits to getting lost in a large building during firefighting operations!
If you want more information i'll be happy to assist.
-
How can you get lost ina building whilst Firefighting? If you are firefighting then surely you have a HR with you this MUST ultimatley lead back to a Fire engine I just can't think why you would need a guideline to follow when you can follow your HR!
-
Here are some scenarios - please take a moment to say what you would expect the FRS to do and then what they should:
1. Flooding, many houses affected
2. Single storey sandwich panel clad warehouse, no one in, on fire
3. Car off road submersed in flowing water
4. Bale stack alight at farm, in stand alone barn
5. Outdoor bale stack alight 10 m from nearest building
I am stunned that you, as (I understand) an insurance expert....
Firey, I would consider myself unqualified to comment on any of the above. I am very much learning from what is being said here.
I would not claim to be an expert in anything, more of a generalist in surveying certain types of property (none of the above though.)
-
Andy Cole
Your statement about how you can get lost in a building whilst firefighting sounds as if you haven't read all the posts so I will give you the basic details.
We got lost as we were relieved by a crew when we were on the branch and tried to retrace a length of 45 mm hose which was under about 6 inches of water.
As there were around 4 or 5 hoses to choose from- we ended up back at another branch instead of out to open air.
We then went back to the point where the confusion was and found our way out eventually!
Hopefully you now understand how we got lost- even if it was only for a couple of minutes.
Do you have any other suggestions how we could have done it differently?
As to not thinking of a reason why we need guidelines- firstly think what our procedures say we should consider them for, and come up with solutions to not using them that are cost effective for all concerned!
-
Billy,
I have made no secret of the fact that I am a new FF (1yr), perhaps you have interpreted my last post as acritism I can assure that it was not intended in this way atall, I am in no position to critise anyone on this site, especially those who benefit from extensive knowledge and valuable experience as you clearly do! My sole reason for visiting this site and on occasion entering into debate is to broaden my own knowledge and hopefully gain some from the likes of yourself, hopefully the experience will follow and I will be better prepared for it's eventualities as a result of you sharing yours with me and others like me!, I concede that I had not read through all the posts thouroghly and was therefore unaware of the example you gave, I'm sorry.
I was of the understanding that you shouldn't leave your firefighting medium anywhere, that was the basis for my confusion. Is it not dangerous to move through a building involved in fire without a branch? if you are being relieved at a branch shouldn't the team relieving you bring their own branch which they then hand to you to make your way out with?, if this is the case I still see how it would be possible for you to meet a tangle of hoses but wouldn't it be easier to work out which was yours if you had the branch?
As I said I am by no means being critical just asking the question.
Thanks,
Andy.
-
Andy
I should apologise as the last thing I want to do is deter people like yourself who are eager to learn.
My opinion in relation to the crews relieving me bringing in a branch is that they would get tangled, run out another branch for nothing, and only one crew could use the branch anyway.
If they are following the hose and we have done our job right- they will not come across fire as we would never pass fire anyway.
Hope this makes sense but the main point is that you are thinking about the situation and the solutions.
Keep questioning what you see on this site and make up your own opinions- I for one will encourage the likes of yourself whenever I can.
Hope this makes things clearer, but if it doesn't, post again.
Regards
Billy
-
Thankyou I understand your point, do you have any ideas for what would be a good substitute/replacement for the the guidelines which we currently carry?
-
Guidelines that we can use safely and properly and feel with your gloves on would be good for a start (see www.simline.co.uk and make up your own mind).
I agree with all who feel that Guidelines should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and in some situations, TIC's could be used in conjunction with them.
I don't know of a replacement for a guideline, but if one comes up and it makes it safer for fire crews in these conditions, I will be as happy as the next person!
-
Billy
Have any UK Brigades taken an interest in your idea?
Do your own Brigade use them?
During your research and develpopment phase, did you enquire to any non-uk Brigades, to see how they search large structures safely and effectivly?
-
I do not have the mindset to say I would never use them. What I am trying to get across is that there are more options available than guide lines.
I do not believe that guide lines in any form are a viable option for recovering people alive from a burning building. You must consider the time line. On average and speaking very broadly, it will take a fire appliance approx, 3-7 minutes to book in attendance at an incident. If we now consider it will take a further 3-5 mins to commit ff's into a job. As you can see this kind of time line is already sufficiently long enough for occupants to die.
If we start deploying GL's then its a lost cause. Although I admit in scenarios as you describe the options are limited. For this very reason I say again, the only way to improve FF safety for this type of scenario is to improve the level of enforcement. As I have said, this is NOT a quick fix and is not an immediate answer to what we are discussing. The point I am trying to make, although it would appear badly, is that efforts are in my opinion best placed in fire safety management in order to provide a safer more controlled response to such incidents.
What is clear is that the type of incident we are discussing is one that is dreaded by most crews (entering on GL's). We have more options available, lets develop them, lets put the duty on Landlords to ensure their fire safety management is such that systems are in place to ensure better controls and ultimatley consider how a building and its contents react under fire conditions.
OR DO WE JUST SIT BACK AND LET LANDLORDS DO WHAT THEY WANT AND ALLOW FF'S TO CONTINUE TO PUT THEIR LIFES AT RISK USING OUT OF DATE AND DANGEROUS EQUIPMENT.
-
Psmith
I think that most will agree that Fire Safety management would be a far better way to reduce or remove the scenarios where we may have to use guidelines.
Your timescale however, may not add up as the buildings we are talking about are large and it may take some time for the fire to trap anyone.
Therefore you cannot say that after 15 minutes everyone in the building would be dead as the fire may not be fully developed.
Any way, I am sure that the main use of guidelines is to retrace your way back to your point of entry so firefighter safety should be a major factor in whether to use them or not.
The point i constantly try and impress is the fact that we all know the problems with the current guideline, but no-one seems to care!
-
Billy we do care about the problems - that is why we advocate not using them and getting rid of them altogether, not replacing them with one with easier to distinguish directions, but still needing laying. Paul puts it quite succinctly - utilise all other options available to us and his last paragarph is by far the best.
I note that you haven't yet answered Lee's questions, or mine about the 'new procedures'.
As to the building you got lost in - how many persons were reported missing and how much of the premises was saveable on arrival? From the description of many hose lines, the heat (that burnt your helmet) and that much water there must have been a very serious fire burning and lots of Ffs committed? Please tell us about the amount of contents saved, the spread tot he floors above, the external layout (fenestration) etc of this building so we might assess which way we would have dealt with the incident.
-
What do you do guys - seal the doors with concrete and all go home?
-
Lee 999
With regards to your points above:
All Scottish Brigades have tried them and 95% out of over 200 firefighters prefer them-Their words not mine.
I was told that no individual Service would take them on themselves and they would need to be all or nothing!
In relation to other Services world-wide, most Commonwealth countries use our specifications and i have sent them samples with good feedback on the design.
Others such as the US have shown an interest and have purchased quite a large number!
Other Countries look to us in relation to crew safety and at present in the U.S, the majority of the time they don't use anything to search large buildings- not even hosereels!
-
Billy, thanks for answering my questions
I would be interested to hear how Brigades in Australia, Canada, Japan, and Major European countries deal with the task of searching large structures.
-
Lee 999
Australia use guidelines the same as ours and Canada is similar to the USA. Don't know about the others but if they have something better, we should be having a serious look at it!
-
OK: but in self-storage buildings are you all content to see single compartments up to 40,000m2 and 11m high - with simply 30min FR to corridors? Because that's what's on offer from ODPM at the present time.
-
i believe there is a fire incident recorded by NFPA where an incendairy by some thieves to cover their track resulted in a fire. but that was put off by the in rack sprinklers.
--
apart from this, the americans also have a requirement for cardboard carton to be made of certain fire resistive material so that they will not ignite easily. Swedish IKEA for example does not have plastic wrap over the carton to protect against moisture but the carton may be coated by wax or bromine/ other salts.
--
in shanghai, we have done a job where the Fire authorities requires a pair of steel ladders up the external facade and this comes with a dry rising mains where fire-fighters may be able to adapt their hoses for streaming.
-
If I may get back to the original point (self storage buildings), I have recently been training staff who work in these places and in my opinion they are a disaster waiting to happen.
I have visited many in England and Scotland and before I train the staff I always have a good look round the places. From a fire safety viewpoint some of them are frightening.
They all vary in size but most seem to be between 4 and 6 floors, most have very few windows and some are windowless. The individual lockups vary in size and are accessed by a myriad of internal (windowless) corridors. At most locations the walls do not extend to the roof so expect a rapid fire spread. Fire doors protecting escape routs are invariably wedged open and routes get blocked by discarded trolleys and barrows.
Many convert some of the space to offices so you have multi occupancy. In one there was an area of about 2,000m² which was being rented out to a chain of shops, this area was packed to the ceiling with combustibles; they even had a forklift in there; looked very much like a warehouse to me. I haven’t seen any with sprinklers.
As for the staff, on average there are only 2 or 3 on duty and they have no real control over who is on the premises. There is a signing in system but it is not supervised and many customers don't bother to use it. With only a couple of staff there, it would be impossible for them to carry out a sweep of the premises.
When customers first rent they are shown to their lockup, but are not shown exit routes, stairways or fire alarm points. Although certain items are prohibited, the staff have no way in knowing what is being stored. Many staff have also told me that they have experienced breeches in the ‘no smoking’ policy.
If you have one of these premises on your patch, I strongly recommend you go and familiarize yourself with it.
-
Billy
Sorry, I've been OTR for a while. Thanks for the reply.
I'm surprised to hear they are using G/L 's in oz.
I had always regarded them as forward thinkers with regards to H&S and the FRS.
-
Have a lot of you guys had nasty experiences with guidelines or something?
Not the most ideal peices of kit granted, but honestly do you really want to go in to a maze and rely on your own sense of spacial awareness to get out?
Fireftrm: What's your suggestion for an alternative?
-
Anyhting else, PPV, TICs anyhting and everything except using a guideline
-
There is always an alternative to using such out of date and dangerous equipment!!
-
Exactly
-
I think that if you were competent in using Guidelines, PPV, TICs and had good operational intelligence on all your risks then you could deal with most incidents, but we all don't have PPV, TICs and we all don't have good operational intelligence so let's be competent with what we have first on ALL UK APPLIANCES for starters and move on from there!
Merry Christmas to all when it comes......................
-
Fireftrm, can you find your way out with a TIC? I'm almost certain if I sent you in to a smoke logged building that had little ventilation that you could not find your way out with a TIC and a PPV fan that many of us do not use in a tactical way.
And as for anything and everything? that sounds like a cop out for the fact that you don't have a better idea.