getting rid of extinguishers

[nearlythere]

1. Legislation requires, where necessary, FAFFE. If they are considered necessary then use BS5306 as standard. Employers may not be following guidance but can be within the law.
Good industry practice? Do you mean the FAFFE industry?

2. Maintenance is "where necessary". If extinguishers are not provided then it is not necessary to maintain.

3. The removal of extinguishers reduces the risk to potential users. The risk associated with persons using extinguishers is clear.
If extinguishers are necessary to safeguard the means of escape then there is something seriously wrong with the means of escape.
If extinguishers are necessary to safeguard means of escape then why are they not located in central locations, not at storey and final exits.
Does guidance not consider separation as a possible means of mitigating the detrimental effects of a fire?
F&RS advice is that firefighting is the last course of action, if it is safe to do so.

[Davo]

Fishy

Para 4, Where in Guide E does it say that?
All I could find Chapter 13.2.2  2010 ed  says "you could argue they are not necessary"!

davo

[Jim Creak]

Ultimately the decision about suitable and sufficient provision has to be in a court of law. It will be the view of the passenger on a Clapham Omnibus that will make the determination. I would not want to try and argue against someone that will no doubt make the point that for the sake of 30 quid a life was lost.....

[Midland Retty]

Extinguishers aren't for life safety puproses as we all know. But the Government of the day placed a duty on organisations to mitigate the effects of fire.

There are wider issues behind why they have done that, envrionmental, economical, political and social issues to name a few, which are pointless discussing here, as I assume everyone understands what those issues are.

There is an expectation that you prevent a small fire turning into a big one.

How do you do that? you can either train a percentage of your staff on the safe use of fire extinguishers, who then safely attempt to put out a small fire within the limits of their training

Or you could possibly put in fire supression or spinklers systems, or fire seperation as measures to mitigate the effects of fire in some circumstances.

So do you always need fire extinguishers to mitigate the effects of fire? No. But be sure in your FRA to demonstrate there are other measures in place to mitigate the effects of fire if you do recommend the removal of fire extinguishers.

I said before that the mitigating the effects of fire  is going to become a big issue in future, and I think you will see more and more organisations prosecuted or have some of formal enforcement action against them for not doing so. There is political will behind it.

[CivvyFSO]

I agree with you regarding maintenance NT.

People should be trained in the safe use of FFE so the risk to them should be minimal compared to the risk of a fire left to grow unchecked.

Fishy has a good point regarding reasonably practicable. It is surely reasonably practicable to have FFE.

You should read:
a) A consultation document on the reform of fire safety legislation (This explains the intentions of the RRFSO, and the provision of FFE extends beyond simply protecting the MOE)
b) Guidance Note No. 1 (This explains how we as enforcers should be enforcing the RRFSO, and explains that FFE will be required in almost all circumstances)
c) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (The directive that the WP regs, then the RRO were based upon in part, and it says "the employer shall take the necessary measures for fire fighting")

What we have is government documents explaining the requirements/use of the legislation vs the opinion of some people on an internet forum. (No offence meant, for a change) I appreciate that arguments can be made, but I know where my money is.

[CivvyFSO]

Ultimately the decision about suitable and sufficient provision has to be in a court of law. It will be the view of the passenger on a Clapham Omnibus that will make the determination. I would not want to try and argue against someone that will no doubt make the point that for the sake of 30 quid a life was lost.....

I think the problem here is that the big corporations do not see the 30 quid. They see a bill for 3,000 extinguishers being bought/maintained. The one that saved their building is simply a "recharge" on the same bill.

[nearlythere]

Civvy
 
c) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (The directive that the WP regs, then the RRO were based upon in part, and it says "the employer shall take the necessary measures for fire fighting")

Is a means of calling the F&R Service a firefighting measure?

[Davo]

NT

You win the gold star, thats whats being argued


davo

[kurnal]

Davo dont do it for all the reasons Midland Fire points out. Most of the issues he raises must ring a bell with you? Especially in those areas where you detain people.

Think of all the electrical and electronic equipment and other hazards you will have at the custody control which very often are open to the escape corridors from the cells. And never forget that when you actually do have a fire many of the communications and security controls are vulnerable and you cannot relay on them in planning the evacuation of people at risk. It would be crazy not to have equipment to help mitigate the growth of a fire.

I would double check what you have and use BS5306 as a benchmark. I wager you will have a very substantial over provision and significant savings can be made without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Also take a look at the latest FIA survey which has shown that 90% of fires are extinguished by portable extinguishers.  My advice is cut it to the quick but no further.

[kurnal]

In answer to NT I would counter in a similar way - like their duty to make arrangements for mitigating the effects of fire, Responsible Persons have a duty to make effective arrangements to fire emergencies including evacuation procedures.

Are you now of the opinion that calling the fire service and leaving residents of care homes in their bedrooms would be suitable and sufficient?

[Davo]

Hi Prof

I think you know where the idea comes from, not me guv, honest


In regard to the EC Directive and the Consultation, neither have any legal standing, but yes, I am on message


davo
ardup manor
skint
somewhere north of Watford

[Clevelandfire 3]

Tell your boss to go ahead and remove them. The fire authority would never prosecute the police authority there aint the political will. Instead the chief fire officer and chief constable will have a cosy chat down at the lodge, play a bit of golf, have a spot of lunch at some swanky restaurant, pull a few strings and the whole thing will be forgotten about. Its the usual one rule for one, and not what you know but who you know.

[Steven N]

not everyone is in the lodge cleveland, & i thought i was cynical

[Clevelandfire 3]

Nah not everyone, just the elite. Come back David Icke all is forgiven

[kurnal]

http://www.fia.uk.com/en/Information/Details/index.cfm/obj_id/A28B88D5-DA5F-497D-81EDA4BD746DB5BF