FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: steve walker on September 24, 2005, 03:08:23 PM
-
Would anyone like to have a go at listing the fundamental principles of fire safety? By a principle I mean, "a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct".
I still fondly remember several I was taught when I joined the army 26 years ago: Maintenance of the aim. Surprise. Concentration of force. All round defence. Defence in depth. - Sorry waffling.
Associated with this are the assumptions that come with those principles. For example; that the fire will only start in one place; that people will act sensibly and lawfully.
I suppose the first thing is to define the aim of fire safety.
Anyway, anyone fancy having a go?
Steve
-
Nope.
-
Oh go on.
-
Nah. Take too long.
-
Ok, how about:
Fire safety - The measures designed to protect people and property from fire.
Principles:
Logical - based on reason.
Consistent - free from self-contradiction.
Understandable - the meaning is clear.
Verifiable - based on evidence.
Proportionate - measures proportional to risk
-
which people?
-
All people (including firefighters)
-
Or are they included (as much as Dvaey would like).
-
The 2 doors are not there to double the FR. They are there to mininize the passage of smoke. its one of the principles you wanted to learn.
Colin,
I am always willing to learn. Please direct me to a publication that clearly states the principles. I am really after fundamental principles rather than good practice or general advice. Maybe they arent listed anywhere - I havent located them. It would help our industry if we agreed what the "Principles of Fire Safety" were.
-
Steve, at what level are you seeking this. Fire engineering or very basic stuff. I mught be able to make some suggestions if you could elaborate.
-
I was hoping that the fundamental principles would be the same for both. I am happy looking at any document. I think that there is a hierarchy of principles. If "Fire Safety" is broken down into parts - fire prevention, fire fighting, occupant escape, property protection etc then each part will have a different definition and different principles. However these principles should not conflict with ones higher up the hierarchy.
Actually I think my original definition would be improved if it read:
Fire Safety - The measures designed to protect people, property and the environment from fire.
-
Hmmmmm. too much to discuss in a BB. Its a bit like saying tell me the principles of health and safety or tell me the principles of electrical engineering. You need a basic textbook from the sound of it. You could try my publication called Fire safety. A guide for management, about which I provided info to someone else in the BB in another thread, and I think we got him one at a discount.
-
I am that man!
I am currently using Colin's book to teach a new employee the dark arts, sorry first principles.
An excellent publication for the purpose it is too.
My collegue is not from a fire service background so I have found the book takes everything in a logical order at just the right depth to be effective.
I understand Colin wrote the book for Managers in Industry, but I think it is a great primer for anyone entering the profession in a workpace setting, on a non degree training route.
Probably cheaper and better than an Iddly piddly diddly squat course at Hogwarts...Book review over!
-
Colin, I have looked at your book and I found it full of good advice and information. However I did not find a clear, concise list of the principles that I seek. The reason that I am going on about this is that I think that they would be a benefit for us. If we were able to clearly identify these principles we could, for example, apply them to the guidance coming from ODPM. The guidance could be judged in a more objective way and hopefully a better product would be produced.
But we need to start on solid uncontroversial ground. In spite of the fact that most of this site is full of argument I think that there are core principles that we can all agree with.
The principles that I have listed above (Logical, etc) do not give direct fire safety advice. But their application will assist the production of effective fire safety measures. I think that they are applicable to the fire engineer or the "competent person."
-
Steve,
You obviusly did not seek a spiritual interpretation whilst reading the book...you maybe need to spend some time actuallty sat at the feet of one of Guru's.
I am sure the famous Mr. Todd could oblige, or maybe Ian Gough who contributes regularly to this forum.
The first principles are more a state of mind than a set of rules.
No ground is completely solid or uncontroversial...if it were we would all be out of jobs...Local Authority & Private Sector!
Seek enlightenment in the Craft Grasshopper
-
MOCTET is a good starting point i.e Management, occupants, construction, travel distance, exits & time to evacuate.
A bit dated I know but as a said a good starting point. Most people agree management is most important element yet for years we have been too concerned with travel distance and exit widths.
The most important consideration has got to be time versus tenability. Not a load of tables based on how long it took a lot of Scottish persons to leave a theatre!
I see Brian is now throwing insults at the fire service college. Many F&RS are reducing the training given to FSOs and reducing the number of FSOs.
The future is very scarey...poor guidance documents and fire safety offices full of incompetent inspectors.
-
Steve - you threw me down a gauntlet on another thread - but Phil has beaten me to it! You asked about first principles of fire safety. Phil has highlighted MOCTET as a starting point for the common thread I mentioned. This acronym is used to highlight the principal factors affecting means of escape.
I dare say we could add other dimensions like analysis & assessment of fire risk, tenability levels, etc. The above-mentioned principles have been around for several years, so I'm surprised if you haven't heard of them before.
-
OOh..I have not mentioned the FSC!!...I'm not throwing insults at anyone...I learn't a lot on my SFP Course, and on the odd seminar since. I have not been near the place for about 12 years!
I recently asked colleagues who have been down the old Cotswold Hilton for copies of their most recent notes, as the basis of training a new member of staff.
The notes asked more questions than they gave answers and didn't seem to cover first principles...oh no not the first principles again...
I decided to use Mr. Todd's book instead.
My problem is I am a simple soul and a meteorite crashed into the earth and destroyed all my pals a few million years ago.
I'm just being gently and playfully cynical of the enlightened times in which we live where many seem to want to mend things that are not broken.
I thought the traditional fire service way to challenge the establishment was a bit of cynical banter?
At the end of the day, whatever the movers and shakers come up with it will be the minions like me who have to make it work.
MOCTET as first principles?...now that is a proposition for you...I am sure those far more worthy than a pilgrim such as I will pick that one up and run with it...I'm going to keep my head down
-
Steve,
You obviusly did not seek a spiritual interpretation whilst reading the book...you maybe need to spend some time actuallty sat at the feet of one of Guru's.
I am sure the famous Mr. Todd could oblige, or maybe Ian Gough who contributes regularly to this forum.
The first principles are more a state of mind than a set of rules.
No ground is completely solid or uncontroversial...if it were we would all be out of jobs...Local Authority & Private Sector!
Seek enlightenment in the Craft Grasshopper
Brian,
Believe me I have sought divine intervention while interpreting fire safety law and guidance.
"First principles more a state of mind", hmmm, I think that I am after a less spiritual answer, you may be right; but this does make them hard to pin down. Unless we can make our subject a bit more objective then we are at the mercy of high ranking (rolling?) "movers and shakers" who have little grasp of the subject and for whom appearance is more important than substance.
-
MOCTET is a good starting point i.e Management, occupants, construction, travel distance, exits & time to evacuate.
A bit dated I know but as a said a good starting point. Most people agree management is most important element yet for years we have been too concerned with travel distance and exit widths.
The most important consideration has got to be time versus tenability. Not a load of tables based on how long it took a lot of Scottish persons to leave a theatre!
I see Brian is now throwing insults at the fire service college. Many F&RS are reducing the training given to FSOs and reducing the number of FSOs.
The future is very scarey...poor guidance documents and fire safety offices full of incompetent inspectors.
Phil,
I agree that time versus tenability is the key factor in escape but is it a principle? MOCTET is a convenient reminder of factors to consider but they are not principles. I think that the important job of principles is that they can be used to judge between two or more proposed safety measures. Is one more logical, consistent, understandable, verifiable or proportionate than the other?
I can see that perhaps something is either logical or not. Are there degrees of logic? Still, it is an important test and when discussing the merits of something (lobbies?) the discussion could relate to these principles.
-
Steve,
Oh all right, if I have got to be serious for a minute...I think Colin Todd's book is jammed full of the First Principles, being the concepts of fire safety, historical or scientific that most professionals accept as a basis of best practice.
I don't think you can draw up a table of first principles, they evolve with science and technolgy, and develop as professionals reflect on their practice, maybe that is the spiritual element!
I would suggest that the movers and shakers who want to depart away from accepted best practice need to postulate why the changes are justified.
-
Steve
Why are you bothering you are an enforcer and therefore a compliance checker. if they comply or at least try leave them if they dont enforce
simple even for a large metro brigade
-
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple"
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, Act I
-
Brian, I am glad you found the book helpful. You are right about its original intention, but, funnily enough IFPO made almost exactly the same comments as you when they reviewed it soon after publication. ( Sorry, I could not remember for whom we obtained a copy!)
Steve, Try the timelines in BS 7974.
-
Thanks Colin, I will check it out on Monday
-
The BS 7974 series is certainly a challenge to get through; I don’t pretend that I have really got a handle on it. But interestingly, I couldn’t find a simple set of principles. It starts off with a nice definition of Fire Engineering “application of scientific and engineering principles to the protection of people, property and the environment from fire” and never says what these principles are.
A search in the BSs of the word “principle” brings up many hits but usually the word adds nothing to the meaning of the sentence that it is in; maybe it is chucked in to add a bit of authority or weight.
As a subject, there is a danger of it seeming too hypothetical, of no practical use and getting bogged down in what words mean. Since I don’t appear to have stimulated much debate I will bow out gracefully.
Thanks to those who have contributed.
-
Maybe the PDs under 7974 would help you?
-
Before. you go try this as a principle.
All persons within a building should have a means by which they can leave the building safely and unaided in the event of fire.
-
what if they need assistance???
-
Take out the unaided part.
-
For unaided, read ''without external assistance''.
-
OK if you are looking for FIRST principles then how about
Prevention
Protection
Intervention