what the FSO said...

[lingmoor]

......"the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to secure the means of escape"

mmm... so they're not to stop a small fire turning into a dirty great big one then?

[nearlythere]

......"the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to secure the means of escape"

mmm... so they're not to stop a small fire turning into a dirty great big one then?

Who said that?

[lingmoor]

a fire safety officer during an audit of a premises

[nearlythere]

If the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to secure the MOE why, other than those for specific risks, are they at final and storey exits and not in the middle of the building?

This reminds me of advice, from a fire extinguisher provider, to an industrial unit where chips were part fried in a bank of fryers. There was a dead in the room created by the positioning of the fryers and storage and he placed a fire blanket in the dead end.
"In an emergency, if a fryer goes up, you wrap the fire blanket around yourself to get past the flames."

[Dinnertime Dave]

Firstly let me say that I totally disagree with the FSO`s comments. but the guides don`t help ¬

"In residential care homes the emphasis must be towards the safety of residents
rather than fighting the fire; extinguishers should primarily be used to protect life
and facilitate safe escape. They should otherwise only be used if they can be used
safely and without risk of trapping the user."

[kurnal]

The offices and shops guidance is closer to the mark.
3.4.2 Firefighting equipment and facilities
Firefighting equipment can reduce the risk of a small fire, e.g. a fire in a waste-paper
bin, developing into a large one. The safe use of an appropriate fire extinguisher to
control a fire in its early stages can also significantly reduce the risk to other people
in the premises by allowing people to assist others who are at risk.

[nearlythere]

Has anyone ever trained someone on how to use an extinguisher to effect an escape or a rescue? Is this something RPs must now look at for inclusion in fire awareness training?
Imaging it, in slow motion, the office manager hero running along a corridor with someone over his shoulder and two extinguishers blazing killing flames as they leap out of offices at him.
Sounds like the makings of a good movie.
I think we have to put this advice into perspective. The use of extinguishers has its place but to be used to self rescue or to get past a fire to rescue someone else is just stupid. I'm sure that is not what the advice intends but maybe some might read it that way.

[Midland Retty]

Yes Dinnertime Dave is correct the resie care guide does state that.

But that said the FSO should know better - rookie mistake!

[facades]

The FSO is wrong absolutely.  If you need to use FFE to get out then it's all gone horribly wrong.

[lingmoor]

it does say its for means of escape in the HM Gov. Fire Safety Risk Assessment document though...doesn't help

[nearlythere]

The FSO is wrong absolutely.  If you need to use FFE to get out then it's all gone horribly wrong.

Absolutely. Maybe its preparations for a major reduction in fire cover. We do actually get a fire class service in UK which is probably the envy of the world. I was staying in a touristy town in South Africa a couple of years ago. Lots of B&Bs and backpackers accommodation. Nearest fire station was at best 1 hr away. No detection or extinguishers that I could see.

[Fishy]

I seem to recall that extinguishers were referred to as 'supporting' means of escape deliberately, as the regulators were unhappy about people 'risk assessing' them out & removing them?

[AnthonyB]

I seem to recall that extinguishers were referred to as 'supporting' means of escape deliberately, as the regulators were unhappy about people 'risk assessing' them out & removing them?

If so it hasn't worked as quite a few places have done this and even myself, the extinguisher enthusiast, have done so in certain cases.

Where they are required it doesn't help if an FSO says you don't need to service them if you have less than 5 staff.....

[nearlythere]

I seem to recall that extinguishers were referred to as 'supporting' means of escape deliberately, as the regulators were unhappy about people 'risk assessing' them out & removing them?

If so it hasn't worked as quite a few places have done this and even myself, the extinguisher enthusiast, have done so in certain cases.

Where they are required it doesn't help if an FSO says you don't need to service them if you have less than 5 staff.....

I seem to get that feeling of misunderstanding about the recording of a FRA AB. Many seem to think that unless there are more than 4 employed the employer needs to do nothing.

[Phoenix]

I think a few people are letting their imaginations run away with them.  I'm no great supporter of extinguishers at all but I recognise that they can help to protect means of escape, but only in the following way and not in the way described by others above - quite simply, if a fire breaks out in a building and is extinguished by someone with an extinguisher then the means of escape for everyone else in the building has been protected. 

They deal with the root problem and if they don't work then we have more recognisable elements to protect escape routes.

There is no question that their purpose might be to protect the extinguisher operator's means of escape, we all know that is nonsense; he or she will have other fire safety features protecting his or her escape route.  The extinguishers, if used successfully, will protect everyone else's means of escape.

The FSO, if quoted correctly, didn't quite get it right.  What he might have meant was, "one of the benefits of extinguishers is that they might contribute towards the overall protection to the means of escape."

Stu