Generic Risk Assessment 3.2 High Rise Firefighting version 2.

[memnon]

Has anyone read the new version as it seems to imply that firefighting lobbies are now not to be used. It suggests that firefighters cannot connectin to a riser on the firefloor and must use the riser on the floor below. This will result in doors being held open by hose which will allow smoke into the stairwell. (page15),
Any comments ?

[Phoenix]

Can you imagine two BA men trying to run out two lengths of 45mm hose and charging it in a fire-fighting lobby that can be as small as 5 sq m.  The thought has always tickled me.

For years firefighters have been using the floor below as their bridgehead, more recently two floors below, though with satisfactory ventilation some are sticking to one floor.

Yes, this results in doors being held open, that's what the ventilation in the lobby and staircase is for.  With modern smoke shafts it is an advantage to have certain of the doors open - the idea being that buoyant smoke rises up the shaft (opened by fire fighters) drawing replacement air from the staircase - note that the direction of air movement will prevent, to a large extent, smoke from entering the stairs.

Having the fire service using a staircase for fire fighting operations will make that staircase unavailable for evacuation.  The latest iteration of ADB discusses this briefly for tall buildings but, depending on the anticipated attendance time of the fire service, this may need to be considered for smaller buildings that have fire fighting shafts (i.e. you may have to lose a staircase when calculating vertical means of escape).

Stu

 

[CivvyFSO]

Stu, the problem there is that modern shafts are still in the minority. The crews are much more likely to be faced with a shaft from the CP3 days, or a BS5588 pt 5 smoke shaft. We get too involved sometimes with how things are built now, and current standards, and forget that the majority of the building stock out there is quite old.

[Phoenix]

Stu, the problem there is that modern shafts are still in the minority. The crews are much more likely to be faced with a shaft from the CP3 days, or a BS5588 pt 5 smoke shaft. We get too involved sometimes with how things are built now, and current standards, and forget that the majority of the building stock out there is quite old.

Ahh.  Very true.  In any case, it often happens that the attending fire fighters aren't fully aware of the significance of the fire fighting shafts (I could be much more blunt than that) and that is why they have a generic procedure to set up a bridgehead two floors below the fire.

Stu

[Steven N]

Hi Stu
We are certianly trying to change that at the moment, implementing a training programme that addresses that issue.

[Phoenix]

Hi Stu
We are certianly trying to change that at the moment, implementing a training programme that addresses that issue.

And that is highly commendable.  Half hearted attempts have been going on for years, maybe forever.  Of course, the fire service is peopled by transient beings who stay in post for a short while, instigate a project or two (maybe some form of communicative link between fire safety and ops, for example), and then move on to some entirely different field.  No one is left behind who feels they have ownership of the laudable projects and with no champion, they die.  This doesn't have to be the case though, and in some FRSs it isn't.  Go at it full steam ahead.  I wish you every success.

Stu