FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Firewolf on November 02, 2005, 11:03:50 AM
-
Calling all fire safety officers, consultants and fire safety proffesionals!
Your help please...
If necessary where can travel distances be discounted in a building? Is it at a protected staircase (ie one line of FR, storey exit) or a protected route (double door protection, corridor approach or lobbied approach)?
It may seem like an extremely silly question to ask but you would be amazed at how many people disagree on this issue!
So is it a protected staircase or a protected route - your interpretations please!
-
Using blue guide/lilac guide travel distance is measured to nearest staircase that can be considered to be aprotected route.
Nothing to do with double door protection. Lobby or corridor approach and hopefully a final exit.
-
Hi Phil
Thanks for the reply. Playing devils advocate...
Please define how lobby protection and corridor approach aren't "double door" protection.
The Blue guide does not mention that a protected route has to have lobby or corridor approach.It mentions that a protected route should have "appropriate FR"
-
By two door I mean two fire doors, two fire doors are not required for a staircase to be considered a protected route. Non fire resisting corridor and one fire door enclosing stair = a staircase that can be considered a protected route and TD can be discounted.
Blue guide is quite clear, read page 74 14.48(b) a stairway can be considered a protected route if corridor or lobby approach.
Then read 14.46 when a stairway can be considered a protected route you can discount TD.
You cannot discount travel distance in protected corridors or stairs enclosed with a single line of FR.
-
Hi Phil
I promise Im not trying to be awkward! But just clear up the discussion
If a protected route can not be protected by just one line of FR how does your interpretation of one standard corridor door + 1 x 30 mins FR door stand true?
-
A protected route can be protected by one line of FR. a fire resisting corridor i.e single line of FR is a protected route.
However guidance document says you can only discount TD in STAIRCASES that can be considered to be protected routes. For a staircase to be considered a protected route lobby or corridor approach is required.
-
Thanks for your feedback it is greatly appreciated.
My colleagues here agree that the Blue Guide is very unclear in places and seems to contradict itself.
One last definition or anomolie to clear up is this. All protected routes in an office block MUST be lobbied if above 24 metres high.
We were wondering why you couldnt have corridor approach in this instance
Lets imagine that all floors in this office block has got corridors leading to staircases. The guide seems to suggest you need to form a lobby from the corridor into the staircase because of the 24 metre heigh rule. Is this the case in your opinion?
-
I believe the theory is that you can rely more on lobby being maintained. Where as protected corridor approach may be compromised by any door along the corridor being wedged open.
Tall buildings may contain occupants for a long time so they have to be extra safe..hence lobby approach even when corridors are provided.
-
We totally agree with you on that.
If you couldnt form a lobby in these circumstances (trying to think of an example where this would happen) would making up the corridor be a suitable alternative - in other words true double door protection?
Thats our last question promise! :-)
-
Approved document B would allow protected corridor or protected lobby, Scottish Tec Standards requires lobbies...risk appropriately.....protected corridors do the job if building is well managed.
So the answer is yes, no, maybe!!
-
The Blue Guide may appear unclear in places, but the bottom line with protected route stairways is the restriction on the type of openings allowed into the stair. It states that the only doors allowed to open into them are from toilets (low risk), lifts, corridors or lobbies, and exceptionally, low risk rooms. Note that (other than low risk) rooms are not permitted. This means that spaces containing combustible materials and ignition sources are less likely to affect the integrity of the stair enclosure in a fire situation, which is why we can disregard travel distances within the stair (a place of comparative safety). As far as height goes, the higher the building, the longer period of time will be spent in the stair, thus requiring the additional protection of lobbies or protected corridors, as PhilB has stated. Whatever the level of fire protection, travel distance tends to be included in all horizontal components of escape routes, but not in the vertical if suitably protected.
Don't forget that the Blue Guide was written by a deranged civil servant...will the new guides for the RRO echo the current guidance, and provide for a similar or even higher degree of protection than existing benchmarks? Answers on a postage stamp please.
-
It would be nice to see one, wouldn't it?
:D=D
-
If you have open plan, and no double door protection to the staircase, you still stop measuring travel distance at the door to the protected staircase.
-
What?????????? Who are we protecting Collllin, those in the open plan office or the other people using the stairs...basics Colllin....may I recommend a good foundation training course?
ADB and Blue guide differ for good reasons...if you're talking Blue Guide you can only stop TD in staircases that are protected routes...not those enclosed with single line FR.
-
Whic word did you not understand,
-
mmmmmmmmm..good point Collin
-
The ususal drill is to measure to the storey exit.
Of course what that means is open to interpretation.
Have I left the storey when
a) My foot is on the first step of the stair
B) Ive walked through the door to the stair
c) I've walked throught the lobby door (assuming there is one)
Sometimes you can stretch your TD by a few metres by adopting C) and having a long lobby.
In reality these distances are all a bit arbitrary (if that's how you spell it) so, don't worry about it too much.
-
No Brian ok...that's nicely cleared up then! How do you define storey exit??? The original poster had a good point that Blue Guide can be confusing..well demonstrated by your post!
-
Brian, Phillip has missed the point I think that, if there is no lobby because you have open plan accommodation, you stop measuring at the single door to the proteced staircase, as is the case in just about all office buildings ,below the height for lobbying, built for donkeys years. I do hope that this foundation course covers BS 5588, Phillip and also AD B, both of which clearly show the situation I described.Very worrying if someone supposed to teach such a course would not understand these basic codes, bearing in mind that it is these against which buildings have been designed for an awful long time.
-
Colin
The post was originally about the Blue Guide...I know ADB differs and 5588..you really do need to attend a good course Collin...but carry on you're demonstrating something to a lot of people what I have been trying to do for a long time xx
-
Ah the dear old Blue Guide and its out-dated thinking. Carry on clinging to it in its dying days. By doing so, you are demonstrating something extremely well, as did the blue book. I recall at the time it was written, it being admitted by some of those close to the writing of it when the anomly was pointed out to them, that they had not really taken open plan accommodation into account.
-
does TD still count in an building where a fire is impossible to start?
Surely we should be looking at risk at not old guides that have long since served there purpose. that sounds like some FSO I know.
-
Yes some of it is outdated but based on Post War Building Studies...some good benchmarks some silly points..all discussed on good training course because, like it or not, many buildings have been certificated using this old guidance. Modern day IOs need to understand the philosophy as do you and WEE Brian so they can assess the safety of premises.
-
do you still discuss about horse drawn pumps or steam pumps because they were good at the time?
-
Johndoe.....Collin thinks you take likelihood of fire into account...I think you have to start at the premis that a fire will occur...even in your stone masons....development is the issue, not likelihood.
Because we are dealing usually with life safety...you are at minimum levels...you cannot reduce fire safety provisions because fire is only likely every 20 years!!!..it may happen tommorow. But thanks for pointing out the major flaw with PAS 79.
Horse drawn pumps no....basic principles of fire safety yes.
-
I agree about a fire occuring but what about how big will it be, hoquick will it grow how much smoke hot smoke cold smoke, smoke movement actuation of alarm ,movement of people all this was ignored in some of the old guides.
-
Yes but not on good training courses...fire development not likelihood is the point.
-
where are these good training courses?
-
Oh dear, if these good training courses do not discuss liklihood, they will not enable risk assessments to comply with the management regs, nor will they prepare people for the RRO. But hey, lets keep reading the blue book to people because that will be REALLY useful in case they ever bring back fire certification. A bit like the old gas mask my mother kept through the 1950s just in case. Mr Doe, The draft RRO guide on cinemas and theatres has a bit on gas lighting, so why should our good friend Phil not teach steam pumps? Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think all good comms officers courses should teach how to put the 4 pennies in the box and press button B to send back the stop message.
-
Collin, Collin wrong again the training courses discuss liklihood but frequency X severity is not in my opinion appropriate for fire risk assessment. Incidently Mr Todd at present FRS enforce Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation not The Management Regs...so your comment regarding RAs not complying...wrong again. You're interpretation of RRO...again wrong....but not relevant to this post...I will explain in another if you're really struggling.
The blue book should still be discussed as I have said before...IOs will be auditing premises that were designed using it, but I wouldn't expect you to grasp that concept Collin.
-
Phil
If your trying to look clever it's not working. Try to grow up a little.
Getting back to the subject - yes there are lots of ways of measuring TD and it really doesn't matter too much which one you use.
However if you build a new building using one method and then some bright spark turns up and insists on another method then there are all sorts of problems.
The key issue is to understand that its not an accurate science and not to get over excited about these things.
-
It was you and your chum that confused the issue Wee Brian. I'm not trying to look clever just give advice that was requested. "Try to grow up a little"...not sure where you're coming from there but please contact me personally to discuss.
-
This is getting very silly.
PhilB isnt trying to be "clever" Wee Brian. He has argued his point sensibly.
Mr Todd appears to have misread the original question on the thread and has resorted to sarcasm to try and get his point across.
I dont find that particularly "clever" or useful, and considering Im going to be attending one of his courses shortly I cant say I've got a very good impression of him so far!
Its a little bit annoying that I've paid membership fees to listen to grown men act like children. Lets stop the personal jibes and lets keep things light humoured !
Phil B is absolutely right - infact my colleagues and I sat for three hours looking into this issue. USING THE BLUE GUIDE (Please note this Colin) PhilB is unquestionably correct to state you need corridor approach, or lobby to make a staircase a protected route and therefore stop your travel distances.In buildings of a certain height additional protection is required.
In the real world IO's dont go round hugging their blue guides we instead try and apply common sense using the risked based approach to enable us to provide a simple and practical solution to the public.
Colin you are right in stating that different guides say different things, but that was not the question, I asked specifically about the blue guide.
Wee Brian you are right that stating that this is not an exact science, PhilB has also pointed this out on this thread. He isnt defenduing the guide he simply answered my original questions.
So back onto the original question please gents, and sorry PhilB meant to thank you for all your help yesterday.Indeed thanks to everyone who have posted sensible discussion to this thread.
-
FW/PB
Sorry if you don't think I'm helping but I was trying to.
The original post didn't mention the Blue Guide.
I think you are wrong but I don't think you wan't to hear what I am saying.
wb
-
Wee Brian
You are helping and your contributions are much appreciated.
The more sensible discussion on this subject the better.
I just objected to certain persons becoming silly and sarcastic.
I will always listen to sensible points of view.
-
Ok I'll try and be good.
The Blue Guide is out of date and, on this issue, inherantly floored.
It is quite normal and acceptable to have an open plan office building with single check protection to the stairs.
Using the blue guide you would have to measure your travel distance all the way down the stairs to the final exit. This is daft and would mean that half the office buildings in the country won't comply.
Please stop using the Blue Guide.
wb
-
Brian
Blue guide has some good benchmarks. We use it as an aid to teach basic principles risk appropriately. Until new guidance is produced there is nothing much else to go on, and the new guidance is worrying from what I have seen, albeit only in draft.
-
I've promised to be good so I'll say no more.
-
I agree with you both!
The Blue Guide does have floors, but conversely it also conatins good bench marks.
I think it is extremely important to use it as an aid to teach basic principles, but I also accept that some IOs will have difficulty with a risk based approach.
On most courses Ive attended IO's readily admit they aren't used to the new risk based approach. We arent all quite the nasty stick weilding dinosaurs some people make us out to be.
We are still taught the blue guide not only to highlight out where it fell down but also where it gave some good sound guidance which can be carried forward.
IO's (i am one myself) can longer bang people over the heads with the blue book, but instead be flexible,listen to proposals and where necessary explain why we feel those proposals are insufficient.
This is why Ive generated this thread. I wanted to know why the blue guide asked for corridor or lobbied approach, what was the reasoning behind it?, why do we need it?, is it applicable these days etc etc
Its important to understand the content of the blue guide because despite legislation changing we will be inspecting existing premises which will probably have fire safety measures within them which were installed to the guide.
So if someone asks me "excuse me mr fire officer can I take that fire door off that staircase" i can think about why it was put there in the first place, assess whether it is or isnt required or ortherwise.
-
If it was the background to the requirement you wanted all you had to do was ask. It was because the authors had not realised that it was common to have open plan accommodation opening directly into a staircase. This was admitted off the record at the time it was written. Its what happens when you have codes drafted by people who are not practitioners.
-
On a point of detail, Philip, the WFPL includes certian clauses of the Man Regs, but then you already know that.
-
I agree with you both!
The Blue Guide does have floors, but conversely it also conatins good bench marks.
I think it is extremely important to use it as an aid to teach basic principles,
...
So if someone asks me "excuse me mr fire officer can I take that fire door off that staircase" i can think about why it was put there in the first place, assess whether it is or isnt required or ortherwise.
One problem is that we professionals have not agreed what the basic principles are. I would love to have a concise description of the principles of fire safety, unfortunately my thread didnt get very far, but I enjoy the search.
The guides are useful tools but in a few circumstances are confusing or contradictory. They are a typical British mix of pragmatism and common sense. This has served us pretty well but has its flaws.
I would like to see a more scientific approach with a real commitment to plain english. They should be available free on the web and should be easily and regularly amended and improved. The web is a great way to do this.
-
Steve, Was BS 7974 and its associated PDs no good to you?
-
Colin,
It was very interesting but fell down a bit in the plain english department. It didn’t define clearly what principles it was based on or what the principles of fire safety are.
For the fire engineer a great tool and interesting for a lesser mortal to dip into. I particularly liked the section that you referred me to, the time line, it shows a lot of basic information nice and clearly. I think this really does sum up "escape from fire" very neatly and yet a student of fire safety could spend many a happy hour exploring its intricacies
This time line is shown in the "Principles" section of PD7974 - 6 (Figure 1). This section does ramble on a bit (like me) and although it may contain a few principles it doesn’t clearly state what they are.
-
Steve, I think it makes clear that the fundamental principle ( one might even say truism) is that you need the escape time to be less than the ASET.
-
On a point of detail, Philip, the WFPL includes certian clauses of the Man Regs, but then you already know that.
Oh dear, if these good training courses do not discuss liklihood, they will not enable risk assessments to comply with the management regs, nor will they prepare people for the RRO. .
Correct Colin...but nothing in the included clauses requires risk assessment to consider likelihood of fire...if all my employees can escape and I am a chain smoking petrol juggling lunatic...I commit no offence...allthough likelihood of fire is considerable......RRO improves situation a tad......I now have to prevent fires happening, so likelihood is relevant but only if relevant persons are placed at risk.
I will conduct my petrol juggling business and all year firework display on my desert island.....no-one in the vicinity and all inhabitants of my island have personal escape canoes........I do not consider the liklihood of fire relevant....please explain how I contravene the FSRRO.
You really do need to attend a good course...bring Wee Brian with you, as long as he doesn't tell me to grow up....nasty man!
-
Phil,
I don't know enough about the RRO to comment, but of course various other pieces of legislation apply to a workplace, not just fire safety.
In addition to the legislation applicable to the use of petrolium, the health and safety at work act and various other pieces of legislation may have an impact.
-
Since there are no desert islands within the curtilage of the United Kingdom the WFPL do not apply. The need to look at liklihood is inherent in the definition of risk, which is the liklihood of fire occurring in combination with the consequences of fire if it does occur. So, by definition, you cannot carry out a fire risk assessment unless you consider measures to prevent fire. Moreover, in assessing what is necessary under Part ll of the FPW regs, you have, according to the regs, consider the HAZARDS of the workplace. Since a fire hazard is something with the potential to cause a fire, it would be a bit difficult to do this, without thinking about your juggling act, albiet your juggling ability never seems lacking to me. PS Brian is not nasty, merely straight to the point. But as my good friend you can have these points above to enhance your courses free of charge.
-
Steve, I think it makes clear that the fundamental principle ( one might even say truism) is that you need the escape time to be less than the ASET.
Colin,
Yes, it does make it clear. This part of 7974 is concerned with "occupant evacuation" and in the introduction it states:
"A basic principle of a performance-based (fire safety engineering) building design is that the available safe escape time (ASET) is greater than the required safe escape time (RSET) by an appropriate margin of safety."
It goes on to say:
"4 Principles
4.1 General
The main aim is to provide a safe environment for building occupants for as long as they need to remain in the building and to provide for safe means of escape with sufficient capacity of all occupants to be able to evacuate in safety."
My criticism is that these islands of clarity are hard to find.
-
colin, i dont think you are giving ALL the information - im pretty sure you must have spent quite some time on a dessert island within the UK?
dave bev
-
No, I have never lived in Essex, Davey.
-
I'm fascinated by the 'likelihood' aspect of risk assessment, touched upon by this thread, and its potential impact upon fire engineering.
One consequence is if you pour enough resources into prevention - either preventing ignition or slowing growth (e.g. by tight control of fire load), you could throw away any guidance on travel distances - have them as long as you like; dead-ends cease to be a problem; dispense with alarms! In effect, we go from the 'traditional' approach of assuming that a fire of significant size occurs, and designing/managing to deal with it to an assumption that it is improbable that a fire of significant size will occur. If you assume the latter, then established risk assessment techniques could show that spending ANY significant amount of money on additional precautions (fire doors, extinguishers, alarms etc) isn't justified, in pure life safety terms. The stonemasons could be an excellent example!
If we take this further, and look at the national statistics, the likelihood of any of us dying or suffering serious injury from fire in our place of work is infinitesimal - yet each year UK employers must spend millions on fire protection kit. In true risk assessment terms, how can this be money well spent? There must be a case to be made for reducing the current levels of fire protection, in these premises, especially if legislative changes improve prevention. Protection of property and assets argues against this, of course, but I know of no policy that encourages employers to consider this - even if you factor in the likelihood that a serious fire would cripple your business, the risk is still small (better to pour resource into contingeny planning, in many cases).
Totally 'off thread', of course, but I'm convinced that, come RRFSO, large organisations at least will see an opportunity to reduce safety spending in this way.
-
I don't think it will be a problem. In all but your fish-gutting factory and stonemasons without lights etc.most buidings will have ignition sources i.e. electricity and people to name but two. That is why I believe you have to start on the premis that a fire will occur and liklihood is irrelevant.
Development is more relevant. Most buidings would be unworkable if the fire load was reduced to an extent that no development is likely.
But if development is unlikely e.g stonemasons with no office yes protective measures could be minimal.
It is the consequence that is more important, yes there are not many fires in workplaces, but you have to assume that a fire could occur tommorow and the consequence could be death, so minimum levels cannot be reduced because likelihood is once every 50 years rather than once every 25 years.
-
I am not totally happy with your "I believe you have to start on the premis that a fire will occur " but if you take that approavh you must still look at what will burn, how fast ,production of heat smoke the raising of alarm movement and reaction of people and base your judgements on that . not a fire will occur and that room or compartment will be lost etc
-
Fishy Take a look at the national statistics for the early 1960's before any meaningful fire safety was imposed on non-domestic premises would this change your views.
-
Yes John that is what I said..development not likelihood is relevant. I never suggested that you will always get full room involvement.
Please tell me the type of building with no chance of fire occuring, i.e no electricity, no persons and I will agree a fire will not occur, but there's not too many of them that I know of.
-
...aahh, but if probability is low enough, in risk assessment terms consequence becomes largely irrelevant! No law demands that you eliminate the risk from fire, only that you reduce it so that it is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).
The fact is that the probability of having a life-threatening fire in most non-domestic premises is small, and if you do have a fire the probability of death or serious injury is even smaller (0.7 deaths per 1000 fires in 'other buildings', according to the 2003 stats; the peak in casualties was not actually in the 60s but in the late 70s - when the FP Act had been around for nearly a decade). Spread this over the entire UK building stock (non-dwellings) and the probability of death or serious injury in any one building starts to look tiny - and according to established risk assessment techniques you don't have to take ANY significant risk reduction measures against highly improbable events, no matter what the consequences.
Objectively, I believe that a case COULD be made that, in buildings where the occupants are likely to be awake and alert, with a reasonable number of exits, you need do little to mitigate fire risk. Automatic smoke detection could be unnecessary - at most a type 'M' system would suffice. Sprinklers would be complete over-kill. Fire resisting compartmentation would be largely unnecessary.
The vast majority of money spent on fire protection is currently aimed at those premises where risk to life is lowest - this cannot make sense! Risk assessment allows protection to be reduced where risk is low. I believe that many medium-large organisations, at least, will use this as an opportunity to reduce spend on fire protection, as most will be able to demonstrate that, with fairly decent management, they can reduce fire risk to a level ALARP.
I'm being deliberately provocative here (I don't personally believe that it is necessarily valid to reduce protection already bought and paid for, and this approach ignores the economic and social consequences of fire loss), but my view is that the new law encourages this approach, that some organisations will use this as an opportunity to reduce their fire protection measures and it's something that the fire industry needs to deal with!
-
Yes probability may be low but it could reasonably happen tommorow. If it did happen tommorow and the responsible person has not taken reasonable steps to protect relevant persons he will be guilty of an offence. The defence that it was so unlikely to happen so I did nothing is unlikely to stand up.
You have to remember that usually we are at minimum standards for life safety as property protection may not be considered. You cannot lower those minimum standards because fire is unlikely,.... my opinion of course. However you could lower those standards if development was considered to be minimal.
-
I would accept, because I am unable to get hold of the fire stats before 1997, the peak in casualties was not actually in the 60s but in the late 70s and if my memory serves me well it was 800+ per year, since then they have reduced considerably Why? Also most of the reduction was in the non-domestic property.
Any legislation takes many years before it is any effect, the 70,s was still suffering the effects of previous legislation and the effects of the FPact will be felt for years to come. Positive I think.
I agree absolutely with Fishy`s view in the last half of the final paragraph.
-
Phil
A hot air balloon may crash land on the roof of my house tonight. Do you think I should wear a hard hat, just in case?
When considering an exisitng building where the rules that would apply to a new building are not met we need to assess the risk that this presents.
Sticking extra stairways into buildings is a bit OTT in most cases and taking steps to reduce the risk of a fire starting would be a more realistic approach.
-
. the peak in casualties was not actually in the 60s but in the late 70s - when the FP Act had been around for nearly a decade).
......that some organisations will use this as an opportunity to reduce their fire protection measures and it's something that the fire industry needs to deal with!
The Act might have been around for a decade, but it only really affected Hotels & Boarding Houses for most of that (remember Designating Orders) as the inferior FA and OSRP certificates were still valid and in use. I would have said that it was not until into the 80's before it began to have a wide effect.
And as I've said before the flexibility of the new regs (& lesser enforcement) will be a great unburdening of responsible companies, but for the large number of irresponsible ones they will use it to be even worse!
You are far more likely to die at home than work (hence why I thoght the tabloids were showing their ignorance during the fire strike by saying it was safer to stay off work at home), but perhaps that is because domestic premises are exempt from most fire legisation!
The diverting of fire service resources to domestic fire safety is in itself wise because of fatalities, but by letting other areas go, is there not a risk of Full Circle - they get on top of anf significantly lower domestic deaths only to find in the intervening years occupational deaths/injuries have risen - here cometh the FP act 2011????
-
[A hot air balloon may crash land on the roof of my house tonight. Do you think I should wear a hard hat, just in case?]
Now Wee Brian don't be silly. Firstly I don't think that is reasonably likely to happen...but a fire could occur. If the balloon does land your roof will probably protect you so you have already taken reasonable precautions.
Consider this....I work in a single stair building on the top floor, below me are normal risk offices..chance of fire occuring minimal....can I remove all fire doors and AFD because chance of fire happening is low?????...or do I have to maintain a protected staircase just in case?????
My friend Tollin Coddd works in a fish gutting factory again on the top floor of a single stair building. Lots of people and ignition sources...in fact most employees are pyromaniacs. However only fuel is wet fish, building is non-combustible and ceilings are 5m high....can I remove all fire doors???
What did you consider..likelihood of fire occuring or likely development?
P.S. If Wee Brian is killed in a mysterious hot air balloon accident tonight I may edit this post!
-
The point that Bill Farry is missing is this. Lets take something less silly than taking all the doors off a staircase. Lets take emergency escape lighting. We accept borrowed light from street lighting as sufficient in small premises and in lieu of external EL otherwise. This is because the liklihood of fire and simultaneous failure of the street lighting is an event of very small probability. Why? Because the liklihood of fire is actually quite small. The liklihood of street lighting failure is small. Ergo, the liklihood of the two occurring simultaneously is small. (This is also why you dont duplicate fire alarm sounder circuits throughout buildings. Liklihood of circuit failure is small, liklihood of fire is small.) Now imagine that we have a fire every day in the building. Then, whenever the street lighting fails, there is likely to also be a fire around the same time. Is it then still ok to count the street lighting????, Also poor Bill forgot to take the use of Wee B's premises into account. He needs to go on a good fire risk assessment course somewhere as far away from his home county as possible. Then he would know that it is the first thing you need to do in a FRA. I am sure I read that somewhere, maybe it was PAS 79. Wee B spends most of his evenings sitting on his roof gazing at the stars and contemplating the meaning of life, why the Universe is expanding, and why you still, albeit rarely, find people in the fire service whose home would be more logically be the Natural History Museum. What about his hard hat now.
-
OK Colin, as usual we will not agree on this but please confirm this for all your followers:
Are you suggesting that if my building is very unlikely to catch fire I can reduce protective measures below minimum standards for life safety?
I believe you can only reduce standards having regard to fire development not likelihood, and that of course takes into account use of premises.
-
Phil.
Its called risk assessment mate - get with the programe.
P.S. I survived without the hardhat, but I didi put the pillow over my head.
-
Brian, I am very much with the programme, do you really believe you can reduce measures below minimum standards for life safety if there is a very low risk of fire occuring?
If you do and there are many like you out there, the future is scarey.
-
Are you suggesting that if my building is very unlikely to catch fire I can reduce protective measures below minimum standards for life safety?
I believe you can only reduce standards having regard to fire development not likelihood, and that of course takes into account use of premises.
I'm not entirely sure what "minimum standards" are; I will make the assumption that this refers to British Standards or regulatory guidance (e.g. the ADB)...
My view: the answer to your question is "Yes, if justified by a risk assessment".
It all boils down to the following:
'Traditional' approach to fire safety: assume that a life-threatening fire may occur, and provide management or engineering mitigations to deal with it;
'Risk assessment' approach: reduce fire risk ALARP, by prevention if possible, and if it is highly improbable that you will have a life-threatening fire, you need to little to mitigate that small risk - you 'assume' that you won't have a life-threatening fire.
Yes, the fire may happen tomorrow; but it probably won't! There is a small (but real) likelihood that I will get shot on the way to work tomorrow, but I've chosen not to wear a ballistic vest - because I probably won't!
Of course, we will have one day have a fatal fire in a premises assessed along these lines, maybe where standards significantly less than those in the relevant BS / ENs were followed. This does not necessarily make that risk assessment invalid and may not (in my view) constitute an offence.
This issue is one that the enforcers will need to get their heads around. Simply saying you don't comply with guidance is no longer a valid position to take.
-
I have never said compliance with any guidance is always necessary, and any guidance I believe should be applied risk appropriately.
What I cannot accept is the idea that I will be able to use risk assessment to decide that there is such a low probability of fire occuring that I will drop below minimum life safety requirements.
Of course only the courts can decide, but I think they will find a person guilty if persons die in a building with no protective measures provided because the chance of fire occuring was considered negligible.
As long as you have people, or electricity in buildings you have a risk of fire occuring and therefore you should provide reasonable measures to mitigate the effects.
If you control likely development by for example restricting fuel and limiting compartment size then I can see the arguement for reducing protective measures, but that has nothing to do with likelihood of occurence.
I am a very careful driver, in fact I haven't had an accident for over 25 years, using your theory perhaps the police will allow me to drive uninsured! Or will they work on the premis that an accident may occur so I must mitigate for one. At the very least I should be allowed to remove my front brakes, they're very expensive to maintain and the cost surely outweighs any benefit because I drive so slowly.
-
Bill, Your arguements are full of tautology. The minimum standard has no meaning; the standard is determined by a risk assessment. So, by definition, a risk assessment cannot drop the standard to below the minimum. I see you have ignored my emergency lighting and duplicate fire alarm sounder circuits example. Could you tell your follower ( not the use of the singular noun) whether you agree with it or not. The answer should be digital, in the form of a Yes or No.
-
Tautology Colin!!!! Haven't heard that since my schooldays but good word!! Of course minimum standard has a meaning.....like my previous example....I hope you would agree single stair buildings may cause problems...benchmark standards....AFD or good passive protection I would suggest are minimum standards to ensure that if a fire did occur all persons could escape...........answer my question....yes or no Mr Cod!................Do you advocate reducing protective measures if likelihood is reduced..If I may presume to answer for you PAS79 suggests you would.
Sorry for failing to respond to your point re. escape lighting etc. I did not ignore it. But I really do believe likelihood is irrelevant when determining protective measures...unless.......your buildings are totally free from ignition sources....perhaps you could give us all an example of such a building.........if not it is development not likelihood which determines protective measures.
Back to Tautology....first accused of it by my chemistry teacher in 1972!!
-
Your chemistry teacher was right, Bill. Pity you didnt pay more attention in class. you have answered my question with a question. Was I right about the EL and fire alarm assertion. I will ask again for one last time. Was the assertion correct or not, because if it is correct then you answer your own question.
-
No Colin I don't believe you were correct..my opinion of course. If EL was required so that minimum life safety standards were afforded....it had to be there regardless of likelihood of fire.
I hope these consultants who advocate reducing levels have good insurance policies....not directed at you of course Collin my dear friend!
I must point out that I am all for taking likelihood into account for other reasons....e.g. driving down risk, risk based inspection programmes, IRMP etc. That is why Mr Toddd probably included it it in PAS79 he's not as silly as some people would have you believe!!!!
Good debate ...please lets have some other opinions.
-
Good debate indeed, and I must say I'm with Bill erm sorry Phil on this one (Incidently is Mr Todd referring to "The Bill" Mr Stamp?)
Great debate is something I relish however the fact that Mr Todd and PhilB are loitering on these forums during the small hours of the night concerns me a little.
Seriously I want to just pick up on a point one member made earlier in the thread about minimising fire safety standards due to the fact that not many people die in workplace fires these days.
I think its fair to state that since the 1970's fire safety has generally improved within the workplace and this has lead to a significant reduction in workplace related fire fatalities. Why is that? I can only think that its down to fire safety legislation, some of which was overbearing and perhaps too onerous in certain areas.
But then again one fire death a year to me is an unacceptable figure. Whilst we need to risk assess buildings and ensure we don't go over the top by putting in uneccessary provision,we also need to ask that fundemental question that keeps cropping up "If it came to it could I convince a judge that I did everything possible to prevent injury or death from fire in my workplace"
In conclusion what im trying to say in the most un-tautological way i can think of is that PhilB has a very good point, but some of Colins comments are also prudent.
This goes back to the original question I asked - We are again highlighting that different people interpret guidance and fire safety provision in different ways. Who is right? Who decides? Answer: Probably a Judge, someone who doesn't know much about fire safety. To whom or what therefore does the Judge refer to in order to make his decision? An expert and probably written guidance I suggest.
So what is the answer here? We all agree we need guidance to ensure we are all singing from the same hymm sheet and all attain some minimum standards in fire safety, but how we reach those minimum standards is largely now up to us, through risk assessment.I dont think risk assessment is a bad thing so lonmgs its done properly
Is this the right way of doing things or should the FPA 1971 have been modified and modernised to give prescriptive ways of doing things so that there are no ifs buts or maybes. I have a funny feeling we may be going back to that kind of format in a few years times. Lets watch this space.
Incidently we never learnt about tautology at school, is this another failure in the modern education system ?
-
I guess the big problem here is the age old issue of an individuals perception of risk. If you ask 10 different people to look at the same problem. Then I would suggest that the outcome from some of them would be somewhat different. For this reason alone minimum life safety standards can not be reduced.
If we step outside the fire safety area for a second and consider the implications of emergency preparedness for COMAH sites. These companies have to list their major accident scenarios and major accidents to the environment. Some of these are less likely to occur than winning the lottery if you only do it once a year and only buy one ticket, however, all the same the HSE and EA still insist that they are listed as Major accidents scenarios and Major accidents to the environment.
Companies must, at great expense in some cases, implement controls and systems that attempt to deal with some of these star trek like scenarios, for which in the main are just paper exercise that do nothing more than produce lovely emergency files that sit in someone’s office gathering dust.
My point here is this, everyone’s perception of risk is different and even it would seem some of the enforcing bodies have trouble with reality. I feel reducing minimum life safety standards due to the likelihood of occurrence is a dangerous game and any consultants doing this had better be well insured as Im sure any civil claim would be quick to point out those very same perscriptive standards.
Paul
-
Almost forgot to mention...
The likelyhood of a hot air balloon falling on your roof is low, unless you live under the flight path used by Richard Branson of course, then you may have problems.
In such circumstances my risk assessment would look at how many times Virgin balloons have crashed and I would make adequate provision from there.
Going back to Mr Todd's emergency lighting debate I would suggest his street lighting scenario is acceptable, if of course it can be proved it provides sufficient borrowed light into our make believe staircase, because a fire in our building would not take out the street lighting!
-
I think its fair to state that since the 1970's fire safety has generally improved within the workplace and this has lead to a significant reduction in workplace related fire fatalities. Why is that? I can only think that its down to fire safety legislation, some of which was overbearing and perhaps too onerous in certain areas...
But then again one fire death a year to me is an unacceptable figure. Whilst we need to risk assess buildings and ensure we don't go over the top by putting in uneccessary provision,we also need to ask that fundemental question that keeps cropping up "If it came to it could I convince a judge that I did everything possible to prevent injury or death from fire in my workplace"...This goes back to the original question I asked - We are again highlighting that different people interpret guidance and fire safety provision in different ways. Who is right? Who decides? Answer: Probably a Judge, someone who doesn't know much about fire safety. To whom or what therefore does the Judge refer to in order to make his decision? An expert and probably written guidance I suggest.
'Safety at all costs' is not really a supportable position. Society doesn't wish to (and shouldn't) pay for fire casualties to be reduced to zero - so this cannot be the aim for industry, designers or the enforcement authorities. "one fire death a year to me is an unacceptable figure" are fine words, but is practically insupportable; as with all risks, there is a balance that must be struck.
-
Exactly so. We'd need to have a fire engine parked in every street in the country otherwise.
-
Are now there is the rub.
To adequately protect myself from Mr Branson's balloon I would need quite a significant structure over my head (his high altitude balloon has a large and heavy capsule hanging from it).
But given that he only crashes about once every couple of years and is unlikely to hit my house I have decided not to worry about it.
-
I think its fair to state that since the 1970's fire safety has generally improved within the workplace and this has lead to a significant reduction in workplace related fire fatalities. Why is that? I can only think that its down to fire safety legislation, some of which was overbearing and perhaps too onerous in certain areas...
But then again one fire death a year to me is an unacceptable figure. Whilst we need to risk assess buildings and ensure we don't go over the top by putting in uneccessary provision,we also need to ask that fundemental question that keeps cropping up "If it came to it could I convince a judge that I did everything possible to prevent injury or death from fire in my workplace"...This goes back to the original question I asked - We are again highlighting that different people interpret guidance and fire safety provision in different ways. Who is right? Who decides? Answer: Probably a Judge, someone who doesn't know much about fire safety. To whom or what therefore does the Judge refer to in order to make his decision? An expert and probably written guidance I suggest.
'Safety at all costs' is not really a supportable position. Society doesn't wish to (and shouldn't) pay for fire casualties to be reduced to zero - so this cannot be the aim for industry, designers or the enforcement authorities. "one fire death a year to me is an unacceptable figure" are fine words, but is practically insupportable; as with all risks, there is a balance that must be struck.
Yep fair point - you are right it would be impossible to achieve zero fire deaths, but i was really trying to get across that maybe the old prescriptive law helped to significantly drive down fire related deaths in the workplace.
Time will tell I guess as to whether Risk assessment will sustain the trend, make it better or make it worse. I remain open minded.
-
so we aspire to a position that allows people to die in fires?
which people dont we care enough about then? any type in particular!
people die in fires. people will always die in fires. therefore we accept that and do away with all fire safety measures, after all if we are prepared to allow 500 per year why not 501, or even 5001 ?
where do we draw the line then? how about we also do away with all h&s measures introduced to protect the community starting with seat belts?
the govt has clearly implemented a policy to reduce deaths by smoking but recognise that it cant be achieved overnight and might take fifty years of increased taxes and 'banning orders' - it could do the same with fire deaths if it really wanted, so a fire death became so socially unacceptable that a fire death would be such a rare occurence it would be met with shock horror john prescott ate my hamster type headlines (apologies to mr p) - has the govt ever stated an acceptable number of deaths caused by smoking or drink driving or do they keep trying to drive them both down!
oi, who keeps moving my soapbox, i havent finished yet!! (but i think you get the message)
dave bev
-
Colin wrote – “Ouch well Jas, not a lot of harm in protecting the nice operational chappies. Wee B and I like them. It’s the old guard fire prevention officers we don't like.”
Well I am one of that old guard and proud of it, we reduced fire deaths in non-domestic premises to very low levels and made a start in reducing them in domestic properties. It was expensive but we achieved our aims, will you, assuming they are also to save lives.
The new legislation will reduce costs for the public sector but the costs in the private sector will increase or will the fire protection they provide be reduced to limit their costs and as the military would say accept collateral damage (increased fire fatalities) which some seem to be advocating.
Colin I accept your scenario about the emergency lighting but I applied those principals under the FP act the problem was we were accused by industry of being inconsistent what are they going to say when the new legislation comes into force?
As for enforcement we are going to follow the HSE line, reduce inspectors to the lowest levels and move from proactive to reactive policies with an increase in fire fatalities.
-
If you want total consistency (and many do) its no problem. You just go back to telling people that all the guides are hard and fast rules. Unfortunately, or fortunately, HMG is to move towards flexibility. If you want flexibility, you will not have consistency. That is a fact of life in a risk assessment regime. It is what we will have to live with, and the important thing is to accept it and deal with it. Unfortunately, it was some of the old guard fire prevention officers that got us into this mess, by reading the words instead of using common sense (probably beacuse of the way they were taught somewhere or other, wonder where). It led to the backlash we now see against prescription, which, actually, has its merits, but has now gone for good.
-
Colin I accept your comments fully, except the snide remark about Moreton.
But it was industry who was shouting about inconsistence not the old guard they were on a balancing act between applying the guides, word for word and flexibility if they were dogmatic they were accused of being inflexible, if they were flexible they were accused of being inconsistent, no win situation. Also fire prevention departments were in their infancy and were on a steep learning curve; prior to 1960,s they had only paid lip service to fire prevention.
On a personal matter were you around in the 1970,s as there was someone very similar to you, hogging the fire journals at that time.
-
Snide remark? Moi? Mistaken identity I assure you, guv. I began in fire safety in 1975. I will have done 30 years later this month. Philllllip will be organizing a party to present me with a clock in the mess at Moreton. i do not recall anyone as good looking and full of sex appeal as me hogging the journals. You are right as to where the complaints about inconsistence and inflexibility came from. What the complainants did not appreciate was that the concepts of flexibility and consistency are mutually exclusive to a degree. Alas, there were just too many reading and reiterating the words without a good understanding of the philosophy behind them. And though we clearly will not, and need not, agree on this point, even though we seem to be largely in agreement, a lot was due to the fact that they were trained not educated, in much the same way as graduates from fire engineering degrees are educated but not trained. The two things are different. The sad thing is that flexibility was growing in any case, and so prescription could possibly have remained with a new generation of more flexible guys applying it intelligently. But one still meets the people, and as I have said many times on these boards, now much more rarely, who can only read words. I gave an example on the boards just recently of a F&RS requiring emergency escape lighting in hotel bathrooms. Why? Because sure enough the BS and the AD call for EL in windowless toilets. So, the BS is about to be amended now to say that it does not mean en suite bathrooms in hotel bedrooms. But would such an amendment have been necessary if inflexible reading of words was not still alive and kicking and simply giving ammunition to those who want definitve guidance killed off.
-
If you want total consistency (and many do) its no problem. You just go back to telling people that all the guides are hard and fast rules. Unfortunately, or fortunately, HMG is to move towards flexibility. If you want flexibility, you will not have consistency. That is a fact of life in a risk assessment regime. It is what we will have to live with, and the important thing is to accept it and deal with it. Unfortunately, it was some of the old guard fire prevention officers that got us into this mess, by reading the words instead of using common sense (probably beacuse of the way they were taught somewhere or other, wonder where). It led to the backlash we now see against prescription, which, actually, has its merits, but has now gone for good.
Colin,
You do have a point here but I think that you can have consistency of approach. No two premises are exactly the same and there is usually more than one way to achieve a satisfactory result. But consistency is an important principle (especially with an enforcing authority) because it is fair and so that people (including IOs) know what to expect.
I know that there will be minor disagreements when splitting hairs about premises but I think there is a broad consensus.