Guidelines

[fireftrm]

I am, fortunatley, unaffected by wine ans ocan argue the point.

Guidelines would actually not appear at all int he control measures, they would not be consdiered in any RA as the controls are on the basis of the risk assessment of the building OCCUPIER in case of fire. Therefore they would not be considering guidlines as they are a piece of equipment that the FRS use, not them.

They fit hooks for window cleaning as they exepct to regularly require this service.

Against fire they will have:

Passive protection first (eliminate) in the form of fire resistant materials in construction and furnishings - can't burn, won't burn
Change exisitng construction or furnishings (substitute)
Active protection (reduce) in the form of sprinklers, ventilation to remove fire gases etc
Alarm systems to warn people to get out (safe system of work)
PPE would generally not be applicable, though equipment (extinguishers) may be.

If We decide that guidelines are the required control, when there is a fire, so be it, however this could not be used as part of the risk reduction measures in the building. After all it is not a control for the risk (which is a fire) at all. It is a control for reducingt he risk to firefighters assuming that every control of the fire had failed! I still maintain that it would sit in the bottom in our DRA:

Eliminate - well the fire is here so the elimination of risk to ffs is defensive firefighting
Substitute - em, not really possible int his case
Reduce - ah, now we are talking - firefighting, ventilation, TIC
Safe system of work - SOPs, TB1/97 (yes the GL procedures are here, but.....)
PPE - BA, fire kit and guidelines (which I agree with Kurnal sit here)

this list is OUR hierarchy of control and NOT that of the occupier, so suggesting that THEY fit hooks is ridiculous. Instead we would be advocating their list of controls as these will, automatically, mean that we don't have the risks ourselves. If their active and passive systems and their safe syems of work mean there is no one in and the fire is reasonably controlled we have a simple task in extinguishing. If hte fire is bigger then we can carry out defensive operations. Simple and absolutley no reason, whatsoever, for us to consider the GL, or even worse that the occupier should be planning for us to do so!

[kurnal]

I would like to try and analyse why I disagree with Billy as to the status of guidlines in the hierarchy of control measures, and I think Fireftrm makes a good point about whose control measures hooks would be.

Taking this a bit further and taking fireftrm's point perhaps the argument does not hinge on the hierarchy of control measures at all.

Take the hierarchys stance on PPE, which is always a control measure of last resort. Yet every fire we attend poses similar generic hazards to firefighters so the safe system of work includes, in every case, fire kit, and BA as standard precautions, backed up by a specific site related plan and a dynamic risk assessment.

PPE at the top of the list- but as the control measure identified by the generic risk assessment. On the face of it we have turned the hierarchy on its head- but only so we can put  a whole set of hazards on one side and focus on the operational tactics and challenges unique to the incident in front of us. This is both the answer and the problem. Generic risk assessments lead to standard precautions and then we take the control measures for granted as it becomes the automatic way we do the job.

But we then tailor the generic risk assessment to plan for specific operational risks and produce the pre plan, and when the chips are down we use this in conjunction with the dynamic risk assessment.
And I think this is the crux of the matter. At which level of risk control (generic, specific or dynamic) does it become appropriate to introduce guidelines ( or CP suits for that matter) as a control measure?
It appears that the majority of posters to this thread look on guidelines as a very poor control measure of last resort. Equipment that has so many disadvantages that, given the opportunity to pre-plan, we should engineer out altogether. So with the luxury of forsight, whilst preparing a site specific operational plan thats what we should do. To introduce hooks would be an admission of defeat and give the building owner an excuse not to reorganise the layout, or improve the design or facilities to assist safe and effective firefighting.

The building reulations ADB5 document ( in England) sets out some basic facilities to support firefighting and from October we have the RRO  to ensure that these facilities are maintained.  In addition to that, I have found a letter to a building owner, advising them that as a result of the specific risk assessment that we will not commit firefighters into a building and advising them to inform their insurance company can be very effective.

So I maintain my opinion that guidelines are a control measure appropriate only for use under dynamic risk assessment, and then only when despite all their disadvantages they may offer an additional safety margin to enable crews to be committed for rescue purposes where otherwise the risks may not balance.

[Billy]

Fireftrm

You said :- (quote) 'Guidelines would actually not appear at all in the control measures, they would not be consdiered in any RA as the controls are on the basis of the risk assessment of the building OCCUPIER in case of fire. Therefore they would not be considering guidlines as they are a piece of equipment that the FRS use, not them'.

I beg to differ here but I think you will find that OUR ORA is for the protection of OUR fire crews and even the building owners risk assessment has to take into account ALL persons (including Fire crews) who may have to enter the building.
 This is why owners provide hooks for window cleaners who are not occupiers of the building in the same way that fire crews are not occupiers.

When you also say that fitting hooks is ridiculous, I think there could be an argument against some of your methods of active fire protection on the grounds of cost/benefit analysis.
If I have a building with a low fire loading but it may become severely smoke-logged due to its layout, we would all reasonably expect the fire alarm system to evacuate the premises, therefore the smoke hazard would only be to the oncoming fire crews and any unfortunate casualties within the building.

so if we accept that I am not planning for a fire in the first place and it is extremely unlikely that I will have one- why would I pay tens of thousands of pounds for a smoke extraction system to remove the smoke when I could provide hooks at one hundredth of the price so that crews could use their equipment safely and put the fire out for me, in the unlikely event that I ever have one that is!!

[fireftrm]

I give up. But not without a final comment.

Why would the occupier want to provide hooks for the Ff to use to search the building (smokleogged because my RA showed that it could become so and I chose to ignore all the control measures) to find a fire. No persons to rescue too.

Why would the FRS decide to send personnel in? The building occupier has made no attempt to reduce the risk of the fire causing smokelogging, despite having assessed that it could do so (otherwise why consider fitting hooks for guidelines), but has made sure all persons are out. FRS DRA - defensive firefighting and let the building burn as there is a clear risk to Ffs entering and no life to save.

[Billy]

Fireftrm

Operational Informantion gathering on the types of premises where you may consider using guidelines as a last resort, in my opinion is vital.

Why force the OIC to make a decision based on limited information gained from the DRA when they can make a more calculated and informed decision based on the vast amount of information that should be gathered from the ORA?

This decision on whether we can use guidelines or not could already be made and included in the operational plan to make the OIC's job easier.

By all means justify not using them for numerous reasons such as no securing points, layout of building would mean they would be of no benefit, or any other justifiable reason-  and then log the findings and include it in the ORA.

But to say that you would not use them because they are (Quote)
"Inherently dangerous" sounds like this is based on your own personal opinion and not backed up with any factual evidence relating to any specific incident.

[fireftrm]

Billy

The IC would have the information from the ORA - it would be "the premises occupiers have done nothing to prevent smoke logging of their building in the event of fire. The layout is extremenly complex and presents significant hazards to persons entering if smoke logged. There are no active measures in place to reduce these hazards. The fire alarm is satisfactory and the passive fire sfatey measures meet the requiremnts of the Regulations applicable to the building. The occupier has been made aware that we will not commit crews to protect the building if smoke logged. The ORA determines that a defensive tactical mode be taken"

The hooks for window cleaners are there because THERE IS A DEFINITE NEED FOR THEM, they are not "just in case" and the window cleaner will be contracted in/employed at the building on a regular basis. Not having them may mean having to pay for scaffolding, just to have the windows cleaned. The safer alternative is windows that can open inward to allow cleaning from within, but this may be more expensive, or not suitable due to the requiremnts to have no egress throug the opening. In Scotland they are a requirement, even in homes.

PS actual incidents where GLs have been part of the reason for loss of Ff lives do exist, no point in going over them though as you will never agree that a GL is "inherently dangerous", with which I stick.

[Billy]

Fireftrm

So now you think that identifying buildings that may be complex when smoke-logged, and putting that information on the ORA is a good idea and you also agree that we should tell the building owner of the outcome of our ORA.

I think that if you look back to the start of this thread- that was one of my initial points- only I was slated for it and you requested this thread to be blocked!

So we agree on that but where we differ is how we proceed from here.

You have stated (Quote) "The occupier has been made aware that we will not commit crews to protect the building if smoke logged."

If I was a building owner and you said to me that your crews were not going into a building because it was complex and they may become disorientated, i would ask you why you carry Guidelines  on all appliances in the UK?

You would probably reply " they are inherently dangerous and I would never use them"

I would then ask "why is a recognised control measure carried on all appliances inherently dangerous"?

you could respond by saying: -
 "crews have no confidence in using them"
"crews don't train enough with them"
"we cannot use them correctly because we have no means of securing them in your building" (this final point would show up on your ORA if you done it properly!)


I would then say that it is your responsibility to deal with the training and lack of confidence in them but I will fit securing means so you can use your equipment properly.

Obviously this will be done at the ORA information gathering stage where you would inform me that you would not use guidelines until means of securing them properly was fitted.
If you were professional and to protect your crews and make the OIC's job easier, you would inform all personnel of this outcome.

As a building owner- I would be liable if a fire occurred and you would not commit crews- after all, you have already carried out a thourough ORA and informed me of the risks.

But if I fitted means of securing your guidelines and you never used them if the building was smoke-logged, I would want to know your reasons for it- not just the cover all of "I have carried out a risk assessment and have decided it is too dangerous"!


On your other point of the window cleaners being contracted, I believe it is totally irrelevant whether a contract exists or not as the owners have a duty of care- regardless of contract.

[Mike Buckley]

No as a building owner I would ask what is a guideline and why do you need it? I would then ask how likely is it that my building would catch fire and become totally smokelogged given that I have carried out my Fire Risk Assessment and implemented the measures I have found in that? How much will it cost? How often are guidelines used?

From this I would guess that the chances of having a fire that needs guidelines are probably worse than me winning the lottery and I have a more urgent need for the money I would spend on fitting securing points for guidelines that will probably never get used.

Think about the number of firms that are retrofitting sprinklers or specifying them in new buildings.

As far as the window cleaners go, I know I need them in once or twice a year and if I don't fit the safety hooks I will not get my windows cleaned and my MD is complaining he can't see the view from his office.

[Billy]

Mike

Fair points you made there

Firstly- probably less than 0.5 % of buildings in the UK would ever require fire crews to use guidelines and even then, as you say what are the chances of that particular building going on fire?
 You would probably be right in saying that you have a better chance of winning the lottery than having one used in your building!

That apart- the risk is still there and the problems are known to all fire services so I believe we should make people aware of the risk.

How many instances have you heard of Petrol stations forecourts being accidently blown up by someone using their mobile phone? None I guess but it has a slight risk that it may happen and people are informed of it because of this.

So as you are a building owner, I would much rather tell you of the risk before hand and let you make the decision if you want to fit securing hooks or not.

You may well take the stance that you won't ever need them but it will be your decision and the Fire Authority may rightly decide not to enter the building as a result of not being to deploy their equipment properly.

And I really do agree with you that you probably will never need them in the same way that you will probably never need your smoke alarm, Sprinkler systems or smoke extraction systems.

The only difference is that if it was down to me, I would give you the choice of fitting them or not, so the owners take responsibility and Fire services know if we can use our equipment safely or not.

[Mike Buckley]

The point is not that we will never need them. The point is that it is a battle to justify precautions, such as sprinklers etc., that are not legal requirements but may well save the building and reduce the damage to its contents let alone the more refined idea of BA tie off points.

The arguement will come down to would tie off points help save the building in the same way a sprinkler system would. The FRS may well be faced with an owner saying "I fitted the tie off points, why is my building a wreck?"

Surely prevention is better than cure and the aim should be to prevent the building reaching the state where guidelines are needed. It is a big arguement to say to a building owner that if the building ever caught fire it would be too dangerous for the FRS to enter so sprinklers etc are needed. Rather than give them an excuse not to upgrade.