Why blame the fire safety order?

[wee brian]

Its basic economics chaps- four lives out of thousands of buildings isnt enough - its a horrible sum but thats the way it is. £1.5m * 4 doesn't pay for sprinklers in every warehouse in the UK.

If this had happend at the primark fire or the ironmountian fire then what would the sprinkler lobby have said then?

(two major fires in storage buildings, in the last year or so, where the sprinklers failed)

Statistically smaller fires are more dangerous

[Ken Taylor]

What could the insurance 'remission' be on the other side of this equation?

One thing about the Building Regs approach to safety improvement is that it's almost always progressive as new build and major amendments take place - thereby spreading the overall cost over time.

[slubberdegullion]

One thing about the Building Regs approach to safety improvement is that it's almost always progressive as new build and major amendments take place - thereby spreading the overall cost over time.

I'm inclined to agree with you that this progressive approach, though sometimes appearing to be painfully slow, does seem to be an effective (or at least cost effective!) method for continual improvement.

How would you describe fire safety legislation?  More of a pendulum approach?

Stu

[BHCC]

Does anyone know why the firemen were sent in to the building? As there doesn't appear to have been any other person inside

Mark

[kurnal]

Its much too early to speculate but a full enquiry will be carried out by a number of different organisations most importantly Hereford and Worcester Brigade, who are able to stand back and take a completely independent  overview as well as having the expertise and experience to judge it from a firefighters viewpoint. Only those who have had to make these decisions at the sharp end will understand the issues involved.

Even so no review or investigation can ever replicate exactly what the first fire commander found on arrival, the state of the fire, internal and external signs,  and how the full range of  information available at the scene at the time came together in the more or less instant decision on the tactics to be adopted.

There is only one way to effectively fight a fire. Ex CFO braidwood of the London Brigade expressed it very well a few hundred years ago. A summary of what he said was that to be effective you have get inside a building and tackle it from within. There is little to be gained by spraying water onto the waterproof walls and roof of a building on fire.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with wee brian, unfortunately the economic value of human life does not come into the picture. However economics can be a major driver B&Q for example did start to retrofit sprinklers after they lost a store in Leicester. The accountants suddenly found out that it was cheaper to fit sprinklers than it was to lose a store.

As far as the Fire Safety Order goes I don't think the fault is in the technical aspect of the order or in the guides (with the notable exception of the animal establishments) but in the manner it was introduced. It seemed more like an exercise in reducing costs to government by shifting the responsibility onto the employer rather than an effort to increase fire safety. Bear in mind that the original FPA covered all non domestic establishments but was only activated for workplaces. The original aim was to extend the coverage of the FPA but the Fire Brigades never had the resources to cope with the work involved with workplaces let alone take on more.

As it was the RRO was dumped onto the employers rather properly introduced and this is where the porblems will and have arisen.

[PhilB]

Bear in mind that the original FPA covered all non domestic establishments but was only activated for workplaces. The original aim was to extend the coverage of the FPA but the Fire Brigades never had the resources to cope with the work involved with workplaces let alone take on more.

The FPA did cover domestic premises Mike if they were in a certificated building and it covered hotels whether persons were employed or not.

It only covered certain workplaces, not all of them.

I believe that domestic premises should have been included in the Order in certain cases e.g. flats within certain buildings but we can get round that one.

The Fire Safety Order covers far more premises than the 71 Act and should lead to improved safety but this will only happen if it is effectively enforced and not many FRS are yet doing that.

[The Lawman]

Does anyone know why the firemen were sent in to the building? As there doesn't appear to have been any other person inside

Mark

The first question you ask is if there is anyone in the building. They only finally said on Sunday that no workers were missing. If someone answers "I don't think so" you have to make a judgement call that there could be lives involved and a search would be your priority bearing in mind that "we risk our lives a lot, in a highly calculated manner, to save a life" etc etc.

The OIC at that incident reacted to the information he had and was given.

Sadly it doesn't always have a happy ending. There but for the grace of god......

[Chris Houston]

Statistically smaller fires are more dangerous

All fires start as small fires.

[Chris Houston]

Does anyone know why the firemen were sent in to the building? As there doesn't appear to have been any other person inside

Mark

Do FRS only send fire fighters inside burning buildings when there are people trapped?

[Redone]

'Does anyone know why the firemen were sent in to the building? As there doesn't appear to have been any other person inside'

Mark

Mark, it appears they were searching for the location of the fire.  I've just spoken to one of the crews who entered on the initial search, say's the place is vast, like a rabbit warren inside, his crew searched for the location of the fire.

The crew that perished entered the mezzanine (on guide line)after the crew above had searched and exited, when it appears a flash over occurred.

I'm guessing that the fire may have been going for 40 - 60 minutes minimum, appliance travel time to the incident in the sticks and the duration of the BA set(s).

The Press keep appearing at both Stratford and Alcester asking why crews entered the building...  I know I'm out of touch procedurally, but it appears the O/ic did exactly what would have happened when I was in the job, as Kurnal say's, you cannot fight a fire till you locate it.

H&W are doing a sterling job on site; the Urban Rescue crews are beyond praise, the Warwickshire fire crews truly appreciate the risks you are taking in those extremely perilous conditions.  

Well done lads, be safe, I pray no harm comes to you.

[jokar]

Chris, to answer your question the DRA now is about saveable life and saveable property.  A judgement made by info gathered at the scene and the SOP's of the Brigade in question and the skills and mangement of the Fireground managers.

[Chris Houston]

Chris, to answer your question the DRA now is about saveable life and saveable property.  A judgement made by info gathered at the scene and the SOP's of the Brigade in question and the skills and mangement of the Fireground managers.

I would be interested to see the criteria that is used.  Are environmental issues not also part of the decision?  As an insurance person, I always wonder what circumstances the fire service would enter an unoccupied building to try and undertake essential property protection fire fighting.

[jokar]

Chris,
DRA is a contentious issue amongst fire folk and many see it too the disadvantage of people and property.  However, H&S law applies to all employees and FRS have to take steps to ensure their personnel are not injured at an incident and therefore PPE and SOP's and other consideartions apply.  If for example an FRS attends a fire within a factory and the security staff have no information as to what is inside and there is no EAC signage then a DRA would probably initiate defensive actions outside rather than attcking actions eitherb within or outside dependent on the circumstances.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Not being funny or anything, but the Dynamic risk assessment really has nothing to do with my original question!!

Anyway, why is it a contentious issue amongst us "fire folk"?

I don't see it as contentious, it's a requirement under health and safety legislation and part of the decisionmaking process in relation to formulating a tactical plan.

Or is the Order to blame for that too?  :-)