lobbies to 4 storey hotels

[wee brian]

Straight for the jugular

[Bill G]

From a FA point of view the "policy" that has been adopted is that the standard applied in order to issue a fire certificate is not relevant . On 1st October  new guidance document's were issued and the standards suggested in the guides are the ones we are to enforce. In the majority of cases this does not pose a problem as the standards are very similar if not the same as before . Unfortunatley there are a cupple of minor changes . But these minor changes have profound implications upon the occupier concerned.

Regarding the type of building talked about there is a subtile change - an upgrading of the standard ie L2 protection + lobbies. The previous standard gave an element of disgression on the lobbies - this has been removed. In the past the FSO made the proffesional judgement regarding the interpretation into the standard actually applied. Today the onus is upon the RP (either with or without their advisor) to come up with the proffesional judgment / justifiacation as to why they have deviated from the suggested standard , it is not the job of the FA to do it for them. So we end up with the situation of the FA of being (or appearing ) to be over the top.
As a FSO all we are seeking from the RP is a rational justification of why lobbies are not relevant in this type of building or an equilivant if required. This is where I asked the first question - call me old fashioned but although I am a FSO I am uncomfortable of appliying a particular standard to which I am unclear as to what would constitue a reasonable package as a alternative (or combinations of packages) .
In order to summerise so far would it be reasonable to assume that the majority would see that an upgrade to an L1 together with "proper" FD30(s) doors and frames , this together with the statement made by kurnal back at item 18.

[nearlythere]

Double door protection in a single staiway building has always been the subject of healthy debate. If a single set of doors provides 1/2 hr protection then double doors will provide 1 hr and, theoretically, a smoke lock.
What this effectively meant that in a multi occupancy building you could have people working on the 4th floor totally unaware that on the unoccupied first floor a fire is burning merrily away and the first time those on the  know about it is when, after an hour, it breaks through into the stairway up the stairs and after another hour into the 4th floor, in theory anyway. That of course if it does not show itself through the floors between the accommodation first.
To think that people could still be in a building in the dead of night totaly unaware that the building has been on fire for over an hour is totally unacceptable.

This is all very theoretical of course but I can tell you that in the Fire Service theories can become an event.

Any Firefighter will tell you that early detection is the key to safety.

Someone made the point on this site that the FRS do not understand risk. We do but people do not believe us.
Remember that Fire & Rescue Services do not write the guides.

[wee brian]

Yes they started out with firefighters writing the guides but it was such a cock up that they got somebody else to do it.

[nearlythere]

Don't get nasty Brian. Doesn't fit the character of a professional, if you are one.
Can't ever remember firefighters writing guides though.

[wee brian]

Sorry mate but you started going down the "firefighters know best cos we fight fires etc. etc" line. I was just heading you off at the pass.  

The ODPM did set up a team to draft the guides made up of seconded fire service people. It all took too long and in the ned the job was taken away from them. To be fair, it wasnt all their fault.

[val]

I understand your dilema as an enforcement officer,and the lack of guidance from either HQ or the government .What has your line manager said? :-(

The government has given guidance, eleven volumes of it. That is the government position, carefully written, endlessly re-written, checked word for word by a team of professional stakeholders including the CBI, HSE, CFOA, HMI, FSB, someone representing Sainsburys (can't remember that abbreviation), FBU, and ultimately, as WB says, a team of fire consultants, (most of whom have sensibly buggared off to Australia now) and of course, the BRE who actually did write the sleeping guide. After all that they were finally signed off by the ODPM and the last standing HMI, Geoff Bowles who dedicated his last two years to trying to get them right.

They were painfully aware that old buildings could never achieve modern standard compliance and consequently gave advice on other ways of improving the fire safety in premises such as this one, which seem pretty unsafe to me!

Upgrade the doors and retro fit sprinklers. (Or water mist, or as I saw in a garage once, copper piping with nail holes punched at suitable intervals).

Alternately we could wash our hands, adopt the 'crash dummy' test and put an appropriate number of little fire engine signs in the entrance porch and let the public decide if they really want to pay money to sleep in a one-fire engine hotel rather than a five-fire engine hotel.

Lots of states in the good 'ol USA prompted sprinkler fitting in hotels by refusing to let federal employees sleep anywhere else.

[Tom Sutton]

Sorry mate but you started going down the "firefighters know best cos we fight fires etc. etc" line. I was just heading you off at the pass.

Sorry brian not this old chestnut it harks back to the seventies with Colin Todd using the same old line unfortunately using the same presentation as you and some others do. If you wish to put the FRS or anybody else down for that matter, then use reasoned argument, nor sarcastic comment and snide remarks.
Colin would have achieved a lot more if his presentation had been a lot more reasonable which would have improved the fire safety profession no end.

[Pip]

I understand your dilema as an enforcement officer,and the lack of guidance from either HQ or the government .What has your line manager said? :-(

The government has given guidance, eleven volumes of it. That is the government position, carefully written, endlessly re-written, checked word for word by a team of professional stakeholders including the CBI, HSE, CFOA, HMI, FSB, someone representing Sainsburys (can't remember that abbreviation), FBU, and ultimately, as WB says, a team of fire consultants, (most of whom have sensibly buggared off to Australia now) and of course, the BRE who actually did write the sleeping guide. After all that they were finally signed off by the ODPM and the last standing HMI, Geoff Bowles who dedicated his last two years to trying to get them right.

They were painfully aware that old buildings could never achieve modern standard compliance and consequently gave advice on other ways of improving the fire safety in premises such as this one, which seem pretty unsafe to me!

Upgrade the doors and retro fit sprinklers. (Or water mist, or as I saw in a garage once, copper piping with nail holes punched at suitable intervals).

Alternately we could wash our hands, adopt the 'crash dummy' test and put an appropriate number of little fire engine signs in the entrance porch and let the public decide if they really want to pay money to sleep in a one-fire engine hotel rather than a five-fire engine hotel.

Lots of states in the good 'ol USA prompted sprinkler fitting in hotels by refusing to let federal employees sleep anywhere else.

Yes the guides have been a good start, but it is those at the sharp end who have to deliver,and fill in the gaps.Otherwise my brigade would not need any policy/proceedures at all if the guides were that good.Unfortunately,when so called guidance is given without any supporting background e.g. suggesting the use of ordinary lifts for evacuation, we have to apply that.(As the authors obviously have a benchmark standard in mind to apply,perhaps they would like to share it with those involved in the year long study into this being carried out at the University of Shanghai.might save some time and money.) we will get the same old complaints of'inconsistency' from inspecting officers-but the nature of the business means that that is something Risk assessors and industry will have to live with.
'firefighters' have not written guides,I know some ex Fire Safety Officers wrote some of the guides.let the courts decide.