Approved Document B

[david911cockburn@btintern]

Hi All,
Let me get this straight:
Because of the amount of vandalism of communal fire alarm systems caused by people driven crazy by frequent false alarms from other residents boiling their milk over, we have now decided that we won't have communal fire alarm systems in blocks of flats, instead we can just pass the liability over to the builders and blame fatalities and smoke inhalation the structure of their building.

When all that is actually needed is to delay the response of the fire alarm panel if a smoke head operates within a flat, in order to give the old lady a chance to clear the smoke out of her kitchen.

[Northern Uproar]

No, we have not 'just decided' - its been guidance for decades, and as mentioned, its becuase of how people react to alarms in that occupancy, not just down to vandalism or milk, toasters, deoderants, showers or spray polish, and as such a general fire strategy was based around how people behave. As mentioned in another thread, most fatalities in flats are within the flat of origin, so there is no reason why this should be altered.

i'm all for spending money on systems if they have a significant contribution to the safety of the building, but common alarms don't (in buildings with an appropriate compartmentation strategy), so a further cost like time delayed smoke alarms are a solution to a problem that does not really exist.

[Beast]

Oops it seems somebody forgot to lock the lid

[SamFIRT]

Hi Dave

People don't react because they're sick and tired of hearing fire alarms!

Where’s your empirical evidence for that?
 

[Northern Uproar]

Hi Again,

I have little idea of what empirical means, but what other reason could there be.

Human nature and threat perception mainly - we would like to think that people respond in a timely manner to alarms, but they don't, quite often because there are no cues to say that they are threatened other than a siren going off, but even if there are signs of fire people don't move (photos from Bradford City fire show people stood around watching smoke rise under the stands, and there's the newsagents fire video, where a fire starts in the racks and people remain queuing) if they can't see anyone else moving - look out your door, no ones there, must be nothing, don't want to miss what's on the TV - even if there is no history of false alarms.

[Golden]

I always wondered how you got to become a 'hero member' on the forum.

In the past few hours I've begun to get an idea how it works!!

[Beast]

There was no fence at Bradford City.

[Northern Uproar]

Hi Northern,
That doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to do the job right.

Quite agree, but to do that, you have to have an understanding of how people respond before appropriate fire precautions are put inplace - this is why the precautions in a hotel are different to an office. If you know there is liklihood that people will not respond to an alarm/fire in a way you would want to, why pretend that they will? How is that 'doing it right'?

 Is the flat strategy that you have a bee in your bonnet about not working? It doesn't appear so, so why spend extra money on anything that has been shown not to work?

Take a look at some the BCFC fire photos from the stands - people stood there and didn't begin to move even though there was signs of a fire -this is where psychology and human behviour comes in - where there is no one in authority, people will tned to do what they see others doing, and if no-one moves, no one wants to be the first - particularly if there's something important on like a football match! Same with flats - people will not respond to alarms if they're in bed, watching TV, in the bath or if its raining outside and they don't want to be the only lemon stood outside getting wet, and that's even before you add in any potential for false alarms - why pretend otherwise? This is why compartmentation is the best strategy for flats.

[Wiz]

I always wondered how you got to become a 'hero member' on the forum.

In the past few hours I've begun to get an idea how it works!!

Unfortunately, it doesn't bestow any super-powers. Which I found to my disappointment.

[SamFIRT]

Hi dave

Empirical eveidence is based on or characterised by scientific observation and experiment instead of blind theory. As opposed to: Anecdotal which is consisting of or based on second-hand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.

I agree that repeated exposure to false alarms may be a contributory factor, but so is the “not me first” human behaviour issue. There is a lot of research into human behaviour in fire. There appears to be a set pattern in the pre-movement stage..... before people take action based on stimuli like alarms. Engineers and Risk Assessors need to take note.

[AnthonyB]

People did not evacuate the Bradford City stadium because they couldn't get out, twenty foot barbed wire fencing made sure of that. I know nothing of the incident at a Newsagent but it sounds like it was first thing in the morning, do newsagents even have alarm systems?

You quite obviously know only a little about the Bradford Fire and I will happily supply you with the Popplewell report so you can see what the problems really were.

In fact the lack of close perimeter fencing saved lives at Bradford and the two main factors were the combustibility of the stand and the inadequate means of escape that were not sufficient in size/number or ease of opening.

The 'Newsagent' is actually a lock up shop unit used by Threshers and is a bit of CCTV footage well used in fire training courses to show Human Behaviour and Fire spread. It was used in a Channel 4 documentary 15 years ago the clip narrated by Dick van Stratten who was one of my instructors at the Fire Service College at the time and showed our group it before it was broadcast (tipping us the wink of the transmission date to ensure we all taped it for training!)

[ahmedh]

I always wondered how you got to become a 'hero member' on the forum.

In the past few hours I've begun to get an idea how it works!!

Unfortunately, it doesn't bestow any super-powers. Which I found to my disappointment.

You needs a can of spinach for that 

[colin todd]

Ah Dick van stratten- I remember him on tv right enough.  I was always envious of him for being able to play alongside mary tyler moore-she had amazing legs in her younger days.

[Graeme]

Hi Again,

I have little idea of what empirical means, but what other reason could there be.

If alarms are being tested every week, add in false alarms and the noise begins to mean nothing at all.

A new electrical system doesn't need testing for 10 years and a fire alarm system should be no less reliable. Panel batteries should last for 4 years, therefore why test a fire alarm system any more frequently than six months or a year? Limit the amount of false alarms by using a time delay mechanism at the panel with regard to smoke-heads in flats and people will become used to silence.
Then when an alarms sounds people will take it seriously.

because in the real world not theory batteries do fail before 4 years. Call points can (in kitchens-become clogged with greasy yuck) =stopping glass dropping and not work. Detectors like any other electrical equipment can stop working.  The call points in an L system are vital so how can you justify a yearly test???

I have a combi boiler that is guaranteed for 5 years but im not going to ask my service provider not to come back until 2016 as nothing should go wrong with it..

[Graeme]