A fire engine may not be sent

[Paul2886]

No Steven that's not what's implied and of course people should take responsibilty for their fire alarm systems to ensure they perform in a reliable manner. If you read the original comments I made it was not implying that but asking about a typical nursing home scenario where detectors are in out of sight' places such as lofts and lift shafts. I am very pro-active during a FRA to reduce unwanted fire signals but am concerned about sleeping risks where people are vulnerable and receing end of life care with just 2 or 3 staff on duty during the night. Of course checks can be made in most case but it ruffles my feathers when I am told no engibe will be sent unless those 2 or 3 staff can confirm loft spaces etc. I ask a FSO if he wants me to tell staff to grab a step ladder at 3 in the morning to lift a loft hatch to check.....the reply: yes, if that what it takes.....so you see its not about going to check on sloopy badly services fire systems

[Mike Buckley]

I assumed this was a basic principle of the FSO as we were long told that premises know fully well what fire precautions etc they need.

You are correct this was a basic principle of the FSO, however in my view the basic principle was flawed in that it assumed a far greater knowledge of fire precautions in the general business world than actually exists.

With regard to the Fire Brigade attending, the earlier you can catch a fire the easier it is to put out and the less damage will be caused. Hence the presence of a fire detection system that will give the early warning. The problem is that there will always be unwanted fire signals from any system however a modern properly fitted and maintained system will minimise these.

The problem comes from systems which are not properly fitted or maintained. These are the premises that need to be brought into line.

Another problem is that the Fire Brigade operates a negative economy, the better it does its job the less the losses for the country in lost life, property, business etc.

[Steven N]

No Steven that's not what's implied and of course people should take responsibilty for their fire alarm systems to ensure they perform in a reliable manner. If you read the original comments I made it was not implying that but asking about a typical nursing home scenario where detectors are in out of sight' places such as lofts and lift shafts. I am very pro-active during a FRA to reduce unwanted fire signals but am concerned about sleeping risks where people are vulnerable and receing end of life care with just 2 or 3 staff on duty during the night. Of course checks can be made in most case but it ruffles my feathers when I am told no engibe will be sent unless those 2 or 3 staff can confirm loft spaces etc. I ask a FSO if he wants me to tell staff to grab a step ladder at 3 in the morning to lift a loft hatch to check.....the reply: yes, if that what it takes.....so you see its not about going to check on sloopy badly services fire systems

In all fairness I agree that the fire service should attend sleeping risk premises full stop.
Yes Mike you are correct, however this leads to the question of how are these premsies brought into line?

[Midland Retty]

Hi Paul 2886

My view is that it would be unreasonable, impractical and potentially unsafe for staff to try and investigate cause of alarm originating from a detector in a remote location, such as loft space, lift shaft etc.

I would recommend that if they can't see, hear, smell, or feel any signs of fire in progress to try for system reset. If the system won't reset, or goes off again in short succession from same detector / zone I would recommend they call the fire service.

Fire crews have the kit and caboodle to investigate further safely.

[Mike Buckley]

however this leads to the question of how are these premsies brought into line?

Officially letters of increasing unpleasantness and reducing attendance and visits by Enforcing Officers, logic if the Fire Alarm is not up to standard then what about the rest of the Fire Precautions?

Unofficially an axe through the front door at 3.00 am. 'Sorry guv the Fire Alarm was going and we thought we saw a flicker inside'

[Marek]

Hi I have only just come back to the forum, I specialise in RCP and my local fire authority (Lincolnshire) will call challenge Care Establishments between 0600hrs - 2100hrs.
They sent a circular letter to businesses in Feb 2011 stating that they would call challenge all premises, except dwellings and premises occupied by vulnerable persons.(VP's)
I rang for confirmation that VP's covered care homes and was surprised to find that they had decided to call challenge all premises except dwellings.
Coincidently they have not sent out another letter stating this, so some premises may be unaware of the policy.
I wrote raising my concerns, citing the Rosepark Care Home Fire findings re calling the Fire & Rescue service; my experiences with care homes.
I also had meetings with the Senior Officer concerned and wrote to all my care homes. I also attended local Care Association meetings to voice my concerns and to CACFOA and CQC.
I heard LF&R had an officer attending the Care Association meetings to discuss the Rosepark fire and to re-inforce their Call Challenge policy.
I also had an article printed in the IFSM journal on this matter.

Last year, following a serious fire in a Lincolnshire care home, LF&R decided not to Call Challenge Care Establishments between 2100hrs -0600hrs, and also increase their PDA to known or suspected fires to 4 appliances between these hours.

I always teach when staffing levels allow for the fire zones to be checked (by 3 persons. with 1 to report back, leaving to deal with any pending incident) before calling the F&R service.

When staffing levels are at 3 or less I recommend that they call 999 unless they know that there is not a fire. The type of fire alarm installed would need to be considered as part of the fire risk assessment, an addressable system would make it easier and quicker to check, this might influence the ability to check first.

Irrespective of the numbers of staff on duty, it is most probable that not all will be able to respond immediately to the fire alarm, e.g. hoisting, toileting or bathing a resident. This could result in only one or two reporting to the fire alarm in the first instance(especially at night). I think it unsafe practice for 1 member of staff to check, or be left alone in, a possible fire situation where residents may be at risk or need evacuating.

I would be more that willing to discuss my concerns regarding this - I realise it has been on the forum for a while.

[colin todd]

The words of the Sheriff Principal may one day resonate around a courtroom when it all goes wrong. He stated that in a care home with infirm residents there should be no delay in summoning the FRS when the fire alarm operates, pending an investigation. His emphatic opinion was that any such delay would be a matter for grave concern.

When it all goes wrong, those responsible for irresponsible policies can answer in cross examination why:

1. The words of the Sheriff Principal were ignored.

2. The advice in BS 5839-1, which is equally emphatic that, in res care, there should be no delay pending an investigation (list of organisations responsible for that standard available on simple requst to BSI, and the draft went out for full public consutlation).

3. Most other FRS would attend such a call without challenge.

[Mike Buckley]

 "The words of the Sheriff Principal were ignored."

Unfortunately in England the answer to this would be "who?" and judging by the response from Eric Pickles over Lakanal closely followed by "so what?" There would then be a long session of CFOs stating they were only following Government guidance and the response from the minister that a) they never gave that guidance, b) it wasn't them it was the previous government, c) if the Fire Authorities had managed their budgets better such draconian measures would never have had to be put in place and d) they would be setting up a full enquiry into the matter with a panel of their old mates, sorry persons with knowledge and experience in the field, who would drag it out so that when the report was finally pulblished everyone would have forgotten about it.

Sorry, is my cynicism showing?

[colin todd]

Michael, you are forgetting the Govenrment guidance that there should not be any non- responses to AFAs.  I think that many FRSs have also forgettn if they ever even knew.

[nearlythere]

Michael, you are forgetting the Govenrment guidance that there should not be any non- responses to AFAs.  I think that many FRSs have also forgettn if they ever even knew.

I suppose it depends what "response" means. Is taking the call a response? I remember that senior spark where I worked considered a reply to a request being an acknowledgement card. Another Citizens Charter box ticked.
 

[Mike Buckley]

Would this count as a response?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SAbJjktk7E

Soory I can't cut the first bit.

[colin todd]

No nearly, it wouldnt.  The DCLG report is unequivocal in its recommendations that an appliance should always be dispatched to AFAs and the lives would be lost and property more severely damaged if this was not followed.

[jayjay]

Colin

Can you please provide a link or more details of the DCLG report making the recommendation.

[colin todd]

Its the one that looked at FRS response to AFAs. written by Cath Reynolds.

[Dinnertime Dave]

False alarms !!

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/emergency-services/2013/10/17/firefighters-injured-as-engine-crashes-into-tree/