Merseyside FRS risk based approach to attending 'unconfirmed' AFA's

[fitter]

Interested to read reports of Merseysides approach to AFA's. The CFO says that the measures proposed (I guess not attending certain categories of call unless confirmed as a fire) will reduce the number of calls by 4200. It wont of course, it will reduce the calls they attend, the calls will most likely still occur. It would be interesting to hear the views of others on this.
It seems surprising that the CFO has chosen to take this stance at this time as I understand that CFOA is reviewing its protocol on UwFS following on from the comments of the Sherrif in the Rosepark FAI. Have they not read (or understood) the report.
One of the points made in that report is that in essence, an immediate call should be made to the FRS. This comment is made in direct relation to the delay that took place in the attendance of the FRS. The comment, I would suggest, presupposes an immediate response from the FRS. Otherwise, why make the comment?
It seems very strange to me that FRS's (some it should said) will use any and all excuses, reasons or whatever to justify not attending AFA's (confirmed or otherwise) than to respond to a transmission of an AFA. After all, is that not what they are there for? And I speak as an ex fire officer.
Your views would be welcome.

[jokar]

I think there is a slight difference in calling a fire brigade to a confirmed fire, Rosepark, and calling them to a fire alarm actuation with an unconfirmed fire.

[fitter]

Quite, but you dont know if the fire is confirmed or otherwise when the alarm operates, hence the comment to call the FRS immediately. The Principal Sherrif recognised that time is critical. Since the Rosepark incident Strathclyde FRS do not call filter to any life risk and respond immediately with a full attendance on blue lights. And thats the way it ought to be in my view.

[nearlythere]

The reason for flooding the country with AFAs is to warn persons in a building that there could be a fire and there is a need to respond accordingly. I don't for one moment believe it has anything to do with getting the F&R Service out asap. Remember that emergency evacuation procedures must now be effective without the attendance of the Fire Service.
The political fallout from fire deaths because the F&R Service is being run down to a standard comparable with the police and ambulance would be considerable. So therefore, any premises must ensure that there is an early automatic warning of fire for all building occupiers and that everyone is capable of evacuating or being evacuated without the FS being there. The insurance company will pick up the tab for the building.  
No deaths, no news.

We should stop thinking that the fire service will always be to hand in an emergency. They don't have to be because fire safety has been beefed up so much in recent years and premises operators have to provide the means to empty a building asap. Does the new legislation not require greater risk ownership.

[Midland Retty]

And thats the way it ought to be in my view.

But why? If a care home is unable to evacuate its residents without the aid of the fire service then surely something is very wrong. As Nearlythere states no fire plan should rely upon the outside assistance of the Emergency Services

I spoke to one woman recently who is responsible for the storage of critical records in a secure facility. She was outraged by several brigades approach on AFAs stating that if the documentation were lost in a fire lives could be potentially lost down the line and that "time was of the essence during a fire to save property".

She was dumbstruck when I advised her that even during a genuine emergency fire crews may not commit into the building and save the documents - they may simply squirt water defensively from outside the premises. Suffice to say if the documents are really so critical, then surely the building should be upgraded to ensure it is well protected against the fire.

[The Colonel]

Midland, interesting about the document store and the owners reaction. I have just completed an assessment on an uncompartmented warehouse about 90m x 30m with high bay racking for over 21,000 boxes also used as an archive store with legal documents requiring keeping for up to 50 years. Only 3 beam detectors, means of escape etc, no fire fighting or prevention systems in place and have emphasised within the assessment that the whole store is at risk. The fire service will not commit to the racking and are likely to go into defensive mode so possible total lose, waiting for the significant fall out when they digest the assessment. Their alarm is monitored so I guess they just expect the fire service to respond to an AFA in a building that is likely to be empty of personnel.

I am hoping that they see sense and exercise due diligence or business continuity could go to the wall.

[Owain]

I spoke to one woman recently who is responsible for the storage of critical records in a secure facility. She was outraged by several brigades approach on AFAs stating that if the documentation were lost in a fire lives could be potentially lost down the line and that "time was of the essence during a fire to save property".

She was dumbstruck when I advised her that even during a genuine emergency fire crews may not commit into the building and save the documents - they may simply squirt water defensively from outside the premises. Suffice to say if the documents are really so critical, then surely the building should be upgraded to ensure it is well protected against the fire.

Or the documents should be copied/scanned and the backup copy(ies) stored elsewhere.

[nearlythere]

I spoke to one woman recently who is responsible for the storage of critical records in a secure facility. She was outraged by several brigades approach on AFAs stating that if the documentation were lost in a fire lives could be potentially lost down the line and that "time was of the essence during a fire to save property".

She was dumbstruck when I advised her that even during a genuine emergency fire crews may not commit into the building and save the documents - they may simply squirt water defensively from outside the premises. Suffice to say if the documents are really so critical, then surely the building should be upgraded to ensure it is well protected against the fire.

Or the documents should be copied/scanned and the backup copy(ies) stored elsewhere.

From what I am led to believe they must be stored as documents.

[The Colonel]

This one client had a quote of around £1,000,000 to scan all the documents,so I don't think the cost of a few fire prevention measures would be that bad in comparison.

[Tom W]

Il scan them all for £50k

[fitter]

I'm not sure how this thread got to scanning documents.
The thread was about FRS policy on attending AFA's together with comments made in a Fatal Accident Inquiry about the importance of an early call to the FRS and the supposition that a rapid and full response follows by the FRS.
My point really was that that is exactly what the FRS are employed to do, their reason to be as it were.

[Golden]

Fitter the FRS are not employed to go charging around the country to deal with malfunctioning systems, they are employed to fight fires. There are many issues to be considered and I'll summarise my thoughts - driving to fire calls is dangerous and a number of fire fighters and members of the public have been killed or seriously injured in the process. Its a waste of time attending calls to premises where the occupiers can't be bothered to sort out their fire detection system (140 calls a year to the same premises at my last posting?) Other lives are put at risk if the fire fighters are busy proceeding to an AFA when a real fire call comes in - I've personally experienced a 'persons reported fire being called seconds after the AFA to which we were committed and which we were aware of on the RT. It costs money to attend AFAs in diesel, wear and tear, overtime, retained call-outs, etc., etc.,.

I believe that in today's modern computer aided society that it is possible to check if a location has previous history of false alarms and they should be asked to confirm before mobilising; if there's nobody there to confirm there isn't a life risk so its not a priority. If there is no history of false alarms then mobilise as normal - surely its all about risk management?

[Midland Retty]

I have to agree Golden.

Fitter to answer your question I go back to my original post. If any building regardless of its use must rely on fire service intervention for evacuation something, somewhere is horribly wrong.

[fitter]

I dont think I have suggested anywhere that managers of buildings should rely on the FRS for rescue etc. Take it from me, I understand the FSO as well as most. I am merely making the point that a senior law person in Britain has made certain comments which may have serious implications at some future point in time. I fully accept that there are duties placed on managers of buildings to properly manage fire detection systems. No argument. My point is that when a call comes in to the FRS they ought to be responding.I could ask 'How much of this is driven by the argument of its dangerous to proceed to fires?' but I wont.

[Tom W]

Its who the call comes from though, if the call comes from a call centre miles from the incident who have taken instruction from a machine it is fair enough in most premises to question the validty. (Not sleeping and high risk)

If the call comes from a person who can qualify the presence of fire, then attend.

If they can save some pounds and pence by cutting down on false alarm attendances then that money can go back in to improving brigades and will ultimately help more people.