lecture theatres

[jokar]

Everything has a benchmark to standardise by.  Therefore, in any given situation the measures taken or to be taken will fall on what is acceptable in certain situations.  You can only get to the answer from knowledge, experience, training and personal qualities, in other words being competent.  As a competent fire sfaety individual you will know the bencmarks and this will aid the decison making process.  No guess work please, you may inadvertenetly put a life at risk.  We as humans do not behave as others thing we do and therefore your calculation, mathematical or not, have to have us as a constant.  There are no easy answerrs any more, just be prepared to justify to the Rp, the FSO or a court your decision and let it go from there.  In this instance everyone is right because it is their view using their KEPT, that they all have to justify not only to themselves but to others.

[CivvyFSO]

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".

Agreed Val.

The guides are a very useful tool for the average occupier of a premises. Most people who can use the guides would not need a consultant to come anywhere near their premises. Then the consultants can go earn their keep risk assessing the complex premises.

In the case of the lecture theatre the amount spent on a consultant to come and say the doors are ok will probably be about the same as buying a guide then turning the doors round in the first place.

From the Fire Service point of view I am sure we will keep trying to keep things near the guides when possible as Fire Authorities would not want to take any responsiblity for saying "These 4 inward opening doors are ok." Can you imagine the attempted liability claim if we were wrong? Consultants can go in, make their opinion, the RP takes the blame, then we will probably say "O.K then. Its not to the guides, but you are responsible for that decision."

[PhilB]

From the Fire Service point of view I am sure we will keep trying to keep things near the guides when possible as Fire Authorities would not want to take any responsiblity for saying "These 4 inward opening doors are ok." Can you imagine the attempted liability claim if we were wrong? Consultants can go in, make their opinion, the RP takes the blame, then we will probably say "O.K then. Its not to the guides, but you are responsible for that decision."

Then Civvy as I feared we have not moved forward. It should not just be consultants that can interpret the guidance and then use common sense. Surely competent inspecting officers should be able to do that as well.

If they cannot then why should the FRS retain the role of enforcers...give it to environmental health officers, BCOs or indeed anyone who can read a guide and apply it prescriptively.

In my opinion if an inspecting officer cannot take responsibility for justifying his decisions he would be better off riding the big red lorry.

[nearlythere]

I think one has to take into consideration the Fire Service view. We have moved on - as far as we are allowed by the codes.  Every code in the country will specify that doors expected to be used by more than 50 or 60 persons should open in the direction of escape. If there a current code of practice which says otherwise then use it, but I think one would be hard pressed to find one.
It would be a very lonely person who would argue against the collective views of codes of practice written by so highly placed authors.
" Your Honour, I did not suggest they reverse the swing of the doors because I thought it would be too much trouble for them to do so"

[Tom Sutton]

Thirty years ago FSI`s were accused by businesses and fire consultants of being inconsistent. What would they think of the present situation?

[PhilB]

Every code in the country will specify that doors expected to be used by more than 50 or 60 persons should open in the direction of escape.

Why is that Nearlythere?

You need to understand why the codes say that not just quote it regardless in every situation.

If one doesn't don't know why that recommendation is made, can't identify when it may not be appropriate, and can't explain the reasoning in plain English in each particular case I would suggest one shouldn't be giving advice. That is not directed personally at you Nearlythere, hence the term one.

Take time to look around you, you will find many situations where rooms are used by more than 50 persons and doors open inwards including shops, hotels, pubs, offices etc and there is no problem.

WHERE NECESSARY in order to safegaurd the safety of relevant persons...it apppears many on here are incapable of determining what where necessary means without hugging a code and that concerns me.

[greg]

talking of 'where necessary' in Article 14 (1) it states exit routes and exits are kept clear at all times in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons.

That being said the only time that it would be acceptable to block all routes and exits would be where they are not necessary, one assumes when the building or part of it is not in use?

Example: I own a building with innummerable exits linked by innumerable corridors. Due to the size  layout and occupancy of the building I require two exits. That decided I only have to maintain the routes to those two exits clear at all times.

If that is a logical arguement then surely the same would follow for exit doors, if it is deemed that they are necessary  to safeguard the safety of relevant persons (have a fire exit sign above them?) then surely they must open in the direction of escape.  It does not state that all doors have to open outwards, only those deemed necessary to safeguard the safety etc.

So it would seem that you determine the number od escape routes/exits required through occupancy numbers/travel distance or both and those exits must be outward opening, any others doors are a bonus.

[PhilB]

if it is deemed that they are necessary  to safeguard the safety of relevant persons (have a fire exit sign above them?) then surely they must open in the direction of escape.  It does not state that all doors have to open outwards, only those deemed necessary to safeguard the safety etc.

No Greg that is not correct. Doors may need to open in direction of escape if a lot of people are likely to arrive at the exits together....there are many exits that open inwards and are perfectly acceptable placing no-one at risk...... but it takes a competent person to recognise when doors need to open in direction of escape and it appears that there are not too many of them around.

If what you say is correct the legislation would have read all emergency doors must open in the direction of escape..........the 'where necessary' would have been omitted, it was not for a good reason.

[wee brian]

I've got to come in with Phil on this (ish).

I'd rather the doors faced the other way and unless there's some problem I think I would still get them changed. However its not a big deal and Phils argument is a strong one - either way I wouldnt lose any sleep.

For the direction of opening to be an issue, you need enough people to be trying to get out such that the door cannot be opend back towards the crowd. As phil suggests this isnt very likely in some lecture theatres so, if this is the case for the theatre you are dealing with then it would be OK to let it go.

Of course you should record all of this (is it a significant finding - ask me another???). This is especially the case as the Order (yes not just the guide) makes specific reference to doors opening in the direction of escape.

[CivvyFSO]

but it takes a competent person to recognise when doors need to open in direction of escape and it appears that there are not too many of them around.

Ooh, handbags...

What the new fire safety regime seems to have created is more arguments. Because it is not set in stone what is required then some things turn into a matter of opinion. I don't think anyone has said you are wrong, people's opinions are different and there is clearly no clear cut right or wrong in this case. Some people would be happy with a room with 150 people in and inward opening doors. Some people may be happy if there's only 100 in the room, some people may be happy with 200 in the room.

What you seem to be saying is that because you are a competent person and you decide that inward opening doors are ok, then it is not something open to be challenged, and anyone wanting it closer to the guides is either (a) A guide hugging dinosaur or (b) Incompetent. If you could show some working out or anything that proves it, i.e. fire loading, smoke calcs, likely human behaviour, case history etc, then everyone could just admit you are right. If it is something that is simply based on 'opinion' then you need to allow other people to have theirs.

IF I wanted to argue against your decision I would be mentioning that you have seating in rows, which makes evacuation a bit slower since people tend to have to 'shuffle accross', you have members of the public in there (which class as a vulnerable group), lecture rooms tend to get higher at the back, so a fire at the front could also spread smoke to the top rear doors quickly due to them being closer to the ceiling level cutting of these doors as a MOE. If we have 150 people in the room, a fire at the front would probably lead people to all evacuate via the rear doors, 75 per door is still above suggested limits for inward opening doors. Finally, outward opening doors could be fitted with push pads or push bars to enable quicker escape in the event of an emergency. I will also admit, none of this makes my opinion correct.

[PhilB]

[
IF I wanted to argue against your decision I would be mentioning that you have seating in rows, which makes evacuation a bit slower since people tend to have to 'shuffle accross',

That arguement tends to support my views Civvy, slow evacuation so why do we need outward opening doors???


You also said...."Some people would be happy with a room with 150 people in and inward opening doors. Some people may be happy if there's only 100 in the room, some people may be happy with 200 in the room. ..."

There should surely be a consensus of what is acceptable in each case!!!!!!!! How could one person be happy with 100 yet another accept 200 in exactly the same circumstances??? Would that not tend to suggest that one was more competent than the other??

All I have been saying is that there is a need to justify what you are asking for and understand why the guides make certain general recommendations. That justification should not be based on assumptions and matters of opinion.

I personally have teaching fire safety since 1999 and this issue of inward opening doors is not new. There will of course be times when they are needed, but that is generally when large amounts of people are likely to arrive at the exit at the same time. 50-60 is a good benchmark, that is all.

Nothing really has changed, the old home office guides gave similar recommendations yet you will see many rooms occupied by more than 50 people with inward opening doors. Many such buildings have fire certificates.

Why?? because some inspecting officers did receive appropriate training and were happy using professional judgement and common sense.

It appears that many brigades are reducing the training given at a time when the type and number of premises to be inspected has risen.

That is why, in my opinion, many posters on here do not feel comfortable moving away from guides.

All the new guides constantly make the point that if in doubt, consult a competent person that person will be on occassions an inspecting officer from a  FRS. Some are very very good...some are not.

[kurnal]

Cor Blimey are we still going round in circles over this one?

Phil one  important thing you appear to overlook is that many of the premises you mention that do have inward opening doors have actually never been critically assessed either by the responsible person or the enforcement authorities.
Even many of those that did have fire certificates and had inward  opening doors it was very rarely justified in the rigid proforma of the  fire certificate so impossible to prove whether it  was by accident or design.
 
I agree 100% that provided a proper assessment is made, logic is followed and reasoning recorded, then inward opening doors are fine in many situations.

But where would we be if not for the guidance? We would end up having to make a seperate case for every exit door in every building rather than just spotting the exceptions and considering those cases on their merits.

[CivvyFSO]

That arguement tends to support my views Civvy, slow evacuation so why do we need outward opening doors???

You also said...."Some people would be happy with a room with 150 people in and inward opening doors. Some people may be happy if there's only 100 in the room, some people may be happy with 200 in the room. ..."

There should surely be a consensus of what is acceptable in each case!!!!!!!! How could one person be happy with 100 yet another accept 200 in exactly the same circumstances??? Would that not tend to suggest that one was more competent than the other??

My argument is simply trying to prove that unless we somehow arrive at an exact figure then it is going to be down to opinion. A considered opinion, yes, but an opinion still the same, and in being such people will disagree.

[saddlers]

Assuming this building has suitable TD's etc etc this scenario could exist in a new build lecture theatre constructed to Approved Document B 2006. ADB says no more than 60 persons for an inward opening door on an escape route. Four exits with one discounted, leaves three available exits, therefore maximum occupancy would be 180 persons.

Obviously without seeing all the details there is no way of giving a definitive answer, but I am with Phil B on this one, the response from the crowd appears a bit onerous.

[CivvyFSO]

I didn't think it worked like that. I thought that to work strictly to ADB then all inward opening doors would probably be discounted from MOE if more than 60 people are likely to be in the room.