Why blame the fire safety order?

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

A question that need asking I think.

There have been two serious fires in the past few months that have cost lives.

Why is the reaction to blame the Fire safety Order?

Is it this legislation which makes serious fires that could well have occurred anyway suddenly break out or is it just about apportioning blame?

[The Lawman]

An impossible question to answer but nevertheless a lot of questions will rightly be asked when the time is appropriate and all the facts are known about the incidents involved.

[jokar]

I think it is about trust.  Business trusted the FRS to get it right but a number of people now do not trust the RP to do the same.  Therefore, to follow the logic, the fires and unfortunate deaths have occurred because the FRS are not in control.  This is completely false of course as many RP's do a very good job as do many Assessors.  My experience is that the FRS in a number of circumstances still want to revert to black lines on paper and to inspect as this seems to fill a need within them  The truth of this is that many fire certs were poor and much happened in buildings before and after visits by FRS staff.

GIven time the RR(FS)O will be the most influential piece of fire legislation thta we have ever had as the findings from an FRA are live and dynamic and therefore RP's have to respond to this perhaps daily.  All sides need to embrace this and work with it to get the best outcomes for the life safety of us all.

The 3 tragic fires will possibly still have occurred with previous legislation in place that is the unknown price of change.

[Jim Creak]

Quite right, and to put it in to perspective. More people die or seriously injured driving at work every week than die in fires at work in the last 5 years.

[slubberdegullion]

To be able to draw any statistically significant conclusions from any situation you must have a reasonably large sample size.  We are in the very early days of the new legislation and it is much too early to start to analyse the correlation between occurrences of fire and the procedures that are now in place.  

There are always natural fluctuations and it is not possible yet to tell if the fires you refer to are such fluctuations or if they are indeed consequences of the new regime.  

It is, however, human nature to look at these incidents and attribute them to what we perceive to be significant changes.

Time will tell.

Stu

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

The reason I asked the question is because following the Penhallow incident, the trend seemed to be "we told you so" and the numbers of fatalities would increase following the introduction of the Fire Safety Order.

Then there was another fatal in Blackpool.

Now the Fire and Rescue Service mourns the loss of another colleague with three still unaccounted for and on another thread, the steer is towards the Fire Safety Order.

I just get the impression that people are trying to pin everything on it as a means of venting frustration and anger.

Maybe, just maybe, the new legislation will highlight the poorly managed and unsafe premises in order to ultimately protect life. At least those responsible cannot hide behind a fire certificate and now have no excuses.

[Ken Taylor]

I think a case may be made if the introduction of the RRO leads to a substantial reduction of FRS visits and enforcement action through insufficient resources. Just as paper fire certs didn't actually prevent fires, paper risk assessments (good or otherwise) wont prevent them without the required associated action - which tends to be more likely if there is a reasonable expectation of inspection and being held to account.

[Tom Sutton]

Now the Fire and Rescue Service mourns the loss of another colleague with three still unaccounted for and on another thread, the steer is towards the Fire Safety Order.

Why should they steer is towards the Fire Safety Order? Firefighters are not considered relevant persons by the FSO except when conducting certain inspections.

[Midland Retty]

Now the Fire and Rescue Service mourns the loss of another colleague with three still unaccounted for and on another thread, the steer is towards the Fire Safety Order.

Why should they steer is towards the Fire Safety Order? Firefighters are not considered relevant persons by the FSO except when conducting certain inspections.

YOu are correct TW but i I think the point being made was that perhaps if the RRO was being actively followed in the premises the fire wouldnt have occured in the first place.

I must point out that there is nothing to suggest that there was any fire safety failing at the premises and I was just making a general point.

[CivvyFSO]

I am of the opinion that this would have happened under any legislation. In some respects the RRO (If complied with) makes occurences like this tragedy more unlikely than before due to it's focus on prevention.

One thing that clearly 'could' have prevented this happening is sprinklers. So should the people who need something to blame be looking at building regs instead?

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Now the Fire and Rescue Service mourns the loss of another colleague with three still unaccounted for and on another thread, the steer is towards the Fire Safety Order.

Why should they steer is towards the Fire Safety Order? Firefighters are not considered relevant persons by the FSO except when conducting certain inspections.

Perhaps I didn't word that particularly well.

It should have read that as we mourn the loss of more colleagues, there was an individual who mentioned the Fire Safety Order. There was no comment as to whether this was in relation to compliance or just merely blaming it's introduction.

Hope that's a bit clearer!

[messy]

I don't understand the comment that "if the RRO was being actively followed in the premises the fire wouldnt have occured in the first place?"

That's nonsense as even the best protected/managed buildings can fall foul of electrical problems or arson et al.

The RR(FS)O will never eliminate fire, but if followed correctly, should reduce the likeyhood

[Tom Sutton]

Point taken Midland Retty I just got the wrong end of the stick.

[val]

Civvy FSO

You are right but it is not just a case of looking for someone to blame. The only thing we can say with any degree of certainty is that if this enourmous warehouse had been fitted with functioning sprinklers then four firefighters would be alive today.

The fact that BRAC decided that the statistical evidence did not support the mandatory fitting of suppresssion systems in such large buildings when they revised ADB is regrettable. I am no statistician but I wonder how the calculations would have looked today?

[Ken Taylor]

It's an interesting point, Val. I would have thought that, in terms of life safety, a larger building would present a greater need for suppression due to travel distances for both escape and firefighter access and also potential increased loss of larger premises and extra content. Should history carry a greater weighting in risk assessment than loss potential?!