lecture theatres

[PhilB]

I must apologise to Phil after accusing him of being a closet prescriptionist. Clearly its worse than that.

This lecture theatre may not be the best example, with limited numbers and 4 exits but the approach that seems to be argued here is that is we can't quantify a significant risk then we don't need to worry about it 'cause it must be trivial.

That's not what I argue at all Val. What I am saying is as professionals we should justify what we are requiring or recommending with more than "because it says so in a guide"

 "....outward opening doors grew from a fire at a christening party in the USA. Only about 400 dead. "...

Val if you cannot appreciate the different measures that may be necessary for hundreds of drunk people at a party and the situation described here I would recommend you consider a career change.

It is me Wee Brian honest, I have never been a prescriptionist.

[PhilB]

If you follow your logic through you will have to set rules on how the lecture theatre is to be used to ensure that the risk remains at the level you saw at the time of your assessment. Yes it may be the OHP going up in smoke - or it could be the lab assistant dropping the winchester full of pentane.

You of course have to consider the worst case most likely scenario and if there was likely to be gallons of pentane present your calls to reverse the doors would be justified.

I am all for benchmark standards but it appeared to me that the arguements for sticking to the guide in this case were not justified.

[jasper]

Risk appropriate chaps come on!!!!! What are the ignition sources and fire load?? What is the ceiling height?? Is a fire likely to grow and develop sufficient smoke to compromise escape before the occupants can safely leave??

In the vast majority of lecture theatres I can think of there would be no problem with the doors opening inwards.

I agree with the above, typical lecture theatres generally have high ceilings, therefore the time to fill for the smoke to get to 3 metres would be sufficient to get all occupants out - but you would have to work this out

[CivvyFSO]

I know it is all now supposed to be non-prescriptive, but regardless of that the guides are there to work from. The guides mention letting a few more people through an inward opening door dependant on risk.

"The number of 60 can be varied in proportion to the risk; for a lower risk there can be a slight increase..."

150 is not a slight increase. Plus you have members of the public.. therefore you have vulnerable groups?

I guess at the end of the day it should be in the risk assessment, and someone has to take responsiblity for the decision. Should it go wrong then FA will look for reasons/shortcomings/bad decisions. If you know it cannot go wrong then there should be no problem.

Another way to look at it, if there was a problem could people get out quicker/safer through outward opening doors? If so RRO 14(2)(b) & 14(2)(d) surely help?

(2) The following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons—

(b) in the event of danger, it must be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and as safely as possible;

(d) emergency doors must open in the direction of escape;

Also with regards high ceilings, lecture theatres tend to be raised towards the rear of the room so ceiling height is not too good for the people sat at the back, or anyone having to evacuate up the steps.

[PhilB]

Yes Civvy...but read 'where necessary' before the requirement for doors to open in direction of escape. Yes most guides quote 50-60ish but ask yourself why.

It's a good bench mark more than that it is often a good idea for doors to open outwards but not always!!

The code huggers on here would be happy for 50 people to pass through one inward opening door. In this example there are 4 doors for 150. Take out one with a fire and you have three exits left.

Yes I know we don't know the layout etc etc but if we require all rooms with more than 50 to have outward opening doors regardless of the risk there will be a lot of building work going on all over the u.k.

Why bother to risk assess at all...just apply the guidance.....no need for consultants or professional enforcers.....just anyone who can read a guide!!!

I thought we had moved fire safety forward, apparently not.

[CivvyFSO]

I think I highlighted the "where necessary" for everyones benefit.

Something to bear in mind is that we will all have different opinions and it often shows in this forum.

Where is your cut-off? 200 people in the room? 250? 300?

If its 200, then what about another 10 people?

Then what about another 10?

What about removing one of the doors? Only need 3 standard doors for 200 people. The room is taking less than that. Lower fire risk too so maybe 120 persons per door, thats 240 people through the door widths now.

We will all have our different cut-off point, but unless we stick somewhere close to the guides apart from in the most extreme circumstances it is hard to argue against "just 10 more people".. "just 2 more metres on the dead-end"...

I can see the point about having the 3 exits available, but human behaviour will tend to have almost everyone escaping through the door they entered the room by.

(Just playing a bit of devils advocate really, I am all for relaxing stuff when the risk allows it and couldn't envisage a big problem in a normal lecture theatre.)

[PhilB]

Where is your cut-off? 200 people in the room? 250? 300?

If its 200, then what about another 10 people?

Then what about another 10?

There should be no cut off. I would use professional judgement in each case. If I was dealing with a building with 500 people one exit and a travel distance of 100m it may be acceptable...if say it was a stonemasons with negigible fuel and few ignition sources and a ceiling height of 20 metres.

Please note I still think there could be a fire....but it's likely development would be so slow that the means of escape may be adequate.

Prescription should no longer be with us as I'm sure most of us on here agree.

[CivvyFSO]

So 550 people? 600 people? 650 people? 700 people? Theres a "personal" cut-off somewhere where you might decide that another exit is needed, or controls to manage the number of people.

[PhilB]

Of course there's a personal cut off in each particular case. But that should be based on common sense and professional judgement.

 The guides can assist a competent assessor ...but if the assessor cannot move away from the guides when appropriate they should not be assessing...in my opinion only of course.

[CivvyFSO]

Indeed.

The main point I am trying to make is that I don't have to agree that 4 inward opening doors is ok for a lecture theatre that seats 150 people. A competent assessor may make the decision that it is ok and I may look at it very carefully to see if it was something worth challenging. Chances are it wouldn't be worth challenging because if the assessor is indeed competent then it will be probably be down to a difference in opinion, but at the same time I would not be saying I agree with the assessor, and it would not be my responsibility if anything went wrong.

[Mark50]

why not compromise and ask for two doors to be turned around? Its cheaper than 4 , and safer than none and you can all walk away with a clear conscience.

[messy]

500 people working in a stone masons?

You've been watching too much Flintstones!!

[Ken Taylor]

There needs to be a good and justifiable reason to depart from the published guidance and, in this case, it seems to me that 'ps' has clearly assessed the situation from personal knowledge and experience and made the right decision.

[val]

Published guidance is a amalgamation of established knowledge. Indeed, it is decades of the best 'risk assessment' consolidated to make most people's life a bit easier. It represents a simple way of complying with legal requirements in most cases. As many posters have noted, there should be good reason to move away from it.

Yes, clever and experienced assessors can move away from the guidance, and indeed should, but the end game in this process is that every tiny decision is challenged and we clog up the courts seeking 'clarification'. This clarification never actually arrives because every situation is subtly different.

So why bother with guides at all? Everything should be risk based... we will get out the probabalistic pocket calculator every time we want to re-site an extinguisher and feed in all the many variables to arrive at a mathematical solution that has covered every possible angle. I may be a 'scientist' by nature but I do not trust it that much. Or, of course, we can go to a guide that says, "it should go here".

[CivvyFSO]

why not compromise and ask for two doors to be turned around? Its cheaper than 4 , and safer than none and you can all walk away with a clear conscience.

Someone working strictly to the guides could possibly discount the inward opening doors altogether from MOE then using the other 2 "suitable" doors end up with an occupancy of 100. (120 for low risk

Swings and roundabouts...