FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Richard Maze on November 08, 2005, 10:25:08 AM
-
Is anyone aware if the proposed guidance documents to the RRO are to give guidance to employers on protecting means of escape for firefighters? In particular, where will employers stand in respect of illuminated exit signs over doors which are locked and secured after hours?
-
Firefighters are not relevant persons when attending incidents.
-
Fire fighters are not relevant persons with regards to general fire precautions. However article 38 provides for the maintenance of measures provided for the protection of fire fighters. This may include fire fighting shafts, dry risers, smoke venting systems, sprinklers etc where these are provided for fire fighter protection via other legislation.
Paul
-
Thanks Paul, that was my initial thought. Appreciate your comments.
-
Just to make things a little more complicated.
Firefighting shafts, etc, normally provided under B5 are not provided for the safety of fire fighters...they are provided to assist firefighters in saving others from fire. This makes Article 38 slightly wrong as most provision isn't strictly for the protection of fire fighters. It is also prefaced by the term 'where necessary' and would be subject to the same test of reasonableness as everything else. E.g. I rent the ground floor of an empty mill with a totally shot dry riser. Is it reasonable to make the tenant or owner re-instate the entire dry riser?
Funny old world.
-
Reading the review of part B it would appear that due consideration has been given to FF safety. Although I guess this is not retrospective it is at least an improvement.
Surely ODPM will consider this??
-
The current Part B already deals with firefighter safety. But as Val points out the firefighting provisions are there to facilitate fire fighters protecting others.
The Order is unnecesarily complicated on this issue. There could easily have been ageneral requirement to maintain all fire safety measures.
-
Ah Wee B, if only! ODPM scared of nasty fire fighters demanding sprinklers for protection of fire fighters. Accordingly came up with this fudge. Such is life.
-
And to further complicate things, failure to maintain those facilities provided by virtue of article 38 is only an offence if relevant persons are placed at risk.
Therefore if firefighters are killed in a buidling due to a lack of maintenance of a fire-fighting shaft, no offence has been comitted unless other relevant persons have been placed at risk.
-
This daft measure in the order was put there to keep firefighters happy. They had been promised a measure to ensure that firefighting facilities were maintained.
Rather than just bundling all safety measures together they decided to make a special article just for this purpose and then got themselves all tied up.
-
How odd is this, I seem to do my fra's wrong as I assess ALL people including firefighters entering the building
-
Jas
We are talking about the Fire Safety Order which isn't in force yet. The FRAs you are doing now are a different beast altogether.
Of course need to consider fire fighter safety isn't covered by the WP regs iether.
Perhaps you should change your approach.
-
Oh no I've been doing my fra's wrong for the past 6 years! (being considerate to the firefighters)
:)
-
Och well Jas, not a lot of harm in protecting the nice operational chappies. Wee B and I like them. Its the old guard fire prevention officers we don't like.
-
Exactly
If we had just a simple - fire safety measures must be adequately maintained clause then this would all have been covered.
But many folk claiming to represent the operational guys insisted on more specific requirements - this, in my view, has led to less protection for firefighters.
-
off the record, it is interesting to note in some countries like Indoneasia, they actually still have a fire axe in a locked cabinet next to the fire exit.
ok ok, it's unacceptable...
-
I always wondered about the axes in bulidings that you see in American films - the axe was almost always in a glass cabinet - but the only safe way to break the glass is with an axe - but the axe is behind the glass.......a catch 22 where to get the axe you seem to need to lacerate your arm to get it
-
Thats why Bruce Willis is always covered in blood in all of his films, I hope no one from the ODPM is reading this.
-
why would u wanna break the glass with the axe? the safest way is just to remove one of your shoe and hit with it.... elementary watson.
-
If you remember, the nasty foreign chap shot all the windows and poor Brucie had to run across the broken glass in his bare feet.
No shoes, hence no axe or he could have done for the baddie with it.
-
In the films they always put their arm through it (probably as they knows it's caramel 'glass').
Plus people don't always use the sensible option in reality. Although the older types of MCP and also the Redlam bolt are supposed to have hammer & chains for safe breaking, many do not. sensible option is to use your shoe or elbow wrapped with a coat or similar, but I've seen casualties result from fists through the old gent MCP's and karate chopping Redlam Bolts (especially the cheap glass ones hence why I specify the Ceramtube) which even happens if the hammer is there!
-
Think your confusing the leg end that is Bruce Willis with James Heriot vitnery of the dales.
I dont recall a camel in any of the Die Hard films.
-
why would u wanna break the glass with the axe? the safest way is just to remove one of your shoe and hit with it.... elementary watson.
And then escape with your feet in shreds - Ouch!