No need for fire extinguishers cos we've got sprinklers

[Paul2886]

What would you guys say to a FSO that says that the usual amount of fire extinguishers are not required because of the installation of sprinklers. This is a mutli storey office block.
To me it sounds ridiculous that any trained  member of staff,  discovering a fire in its incipient stages, just stands back and waits for it to grow big enough to activate a sprinkler head. Surely an extinguisher is there to prevent that whilst the offices are occuppied.  Oh and by the way the company is enquiring as to whether they can return some of them and obtain a refund.
Perhaps I'm thinking wrong.

[Galeon]

Sprinklers are installed to contain the spread of fire until  the big red things with blue lights turn up . Its an added bonus if they actual put the fire out.

[Thomas Brookes]

I would put a complaint into his Chief Fire Officer, they are not above the law and the RRO does recomend extinguishers as a means of controlling a small fire.

[finsp]

FSOs should be reviewing the suitablility of fire risk assessments , not providing opinionated solutions that are then interpreted as prescription by RP's. It is for the RP to decide if extinguishers are required based on the findings of their risk assessment. Anyway the guidance document for offices and shops is i reckon pretty clear. Isnt it???

[AnthonyB]

Even before significant fire regulations existed in the early 20th century it's always been accepted & pointed out that sprinklers do not replace first aid appliances.

It is however a risk assessment matter and the scales in BS5306-8 are only a guide and you if you can provide a convincing argument then it should be OK. In an office with the primary ignition source being electrical and not furnishings, waste bins, etc you could argue that the sprinklers allow you to reduce your A-rating cover as you only need CO2 as anything that's grown beyond it's source of origin is beyond a first aid attack.

To be honest it shouldn't be any of the FSO's concern anyway as long as the risks are covered - the RP should do an FRA and the FSO's job is to ensure it is adequate and that the requirements of the order are met, if the provision is more than the minimum it's not his issue.

The cost saving of a few less extinguishers isn't much anyway unless they are from a London Securities company or a UTC company on 'off the street' terms.

[Benzerari]

What would you guys say to a FSO that says that the usual amount of fire extinguishers are not required because of the installation of sprinklers. This is a mutli storey office block.
To me it sounds ridiculous that any trained  member of staff,  discovering a fire in its incipient stages, just stands back and waits for it to grow big enough to activate a sprinkler head. Surely an extinguisher is there to prevent that whilst the offices are occuppied.  Oh and by the way the company is enquiring as to whether they can return some of them and obtain a refund.
Perhaps I'm thinking wrong.

Seems to me very similar to who says; we do not need MCPs as long as there are SDs every where, indeed this is ridiculous  

[kurnal]

In large sprinklered buildings I usually reduce the class A firefighing general provision. I still ensure that there is one at each fire alarm call point / at each exit and ensure that there is one within 30 m travel distance of the entirre floor area, but where the formula would require you to double up on extinguishers to achieve the A rating requirement I just recommend a single unit. It works out about 50% of the BS5306 rating in a big building but savings are not significant in a smaller building

[jokar]

The only difficulty I can envisage is when the sprinklers are down.  I would expect to see something in the assessment that would cover this eventuality.  We have not been told whether or not detection is in place and this may enhance the scenario.  Please do not forget we are talking of life safety here not property protection.

As regards the MCP mentioned in a post above, some premises have had them taklen out and rely totally on detection because of high incidence of False Alarms due to malicious use and or mechanical damage, schools as an example.  Also P1 , P2 and L5 system do not have MCP as part of the package.

[FSO]

I would put a complaint into his Chief Fire Officer, they are not above the law and the RRO does recomend extinguishers as a means of controlling a small fire.

Really?

Where?

[FSO]

I know of a buliding that has no extinguishers because of the passive and active measures in place......debate away!

[CivvyFSO]

I would like to know more about it, and the reasoning before I made any comment.

[FSO]

Sleeping for naughty little boys.

 Brand new build, L1 system, smoke extraction, full sprinkler coverage, fire blanket in kitchens and 1 extinguisher in staff office.

Sleeps about 10, fairly large building with day resources a few staff always on site.

Extinguishers in place would be constantly discharged by naughty boys.

[CivvyFSO]

That is a reasonable example to be honest. I would have been tempted to have more FFE provided than 1 extinguisher though. Water and CO2 as a minimum, and possibly in some other areas where they may be able to be secured for staff use only.

[FSO]

I see where you are coming from, however the RRO is there to protect life.

If everybody can can escape then whats the problem? Article 13 is more than covered by the installation of sprinklers.

I fully agree with the principle of extinguishing a fire in its early stages if possible, but from a legislative point of view it may be argued either way.

Intresting

[CivvyFSO]

Sprinklers are not technically fire fighting equipment though. It is suppression, or simply a means of controlling a fire to a specific size. It MAY extinguish the fire, but there is no assumption made that it will. This does have the effect of protecting relevant persons, especially neighboring premises etc as the fire should not grow beyond it's set size. This mean you have got measures to mitigate the effects of fire.

Sprinklers do not replace the need for FFE, but the 'naughty boys' reason for having less in your example is a valid one. (Legislation-wise IMO you are successfully hitting the requirement of "take measures for fire-fighting in the premises, adapted to the nature of the activities carried on there" Even without sprinklers I would consider this reduction. Look at the average pub, do we have FFE at the exits for people to pinch/activate/use as weapons? Nope, we tend to stick them behind the bar out of reach. if they are stuck behind the bar then what is the point of having 1 per 200m2 of floorspace, considering that we advise people that if 1 hasn't put the fire out then it is time to leave.