Author Topic: BB100 schools guide  (Read 73174 times)

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2006, 10:49:35 AM »
Of course we should not overlook life safety but  there are other ways. I would fully recomend sprinklers for property protection but not for life safety on every occassion.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

fred

  • Guest
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2006, 12:36:06 PM »
Lives won't be lost in a day risk school fitted with adequate AFD, adequate means of escape and adequate fire safety management.  By the time the sprinkler system is activated everyone is out of the building - it will save the school - but that's not life safety.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2006, 01:10:59 PM »
I agree with Fred but you need to insert the odd Probably in there somewhere. Nothing is definate in this game.

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2006, 02:56:04 PM »
I also agree with fred and think passive protection supplemented with active solutions based on the circumstances of the case is best for life safety. Security and sprinklers are the best solution to arson attacks using reduced insurance premiums and consequential loss (see PD,s posting) to convince education authorities for their need.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Chris Houston

  • Guest
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2006, 02:57:56 PM »
Quote from: fred
Lives won't be lost in a day risk school fitted with adequate AFD, adequate means of escape and adequate fire safety management.  By the time the sprinkler system is activated everyone is out of the building - it will save the school - but that's not life safety.
Fred, the objective of the document is clearly to cover both sides.  Sprinklers do this.  Very few of the schools in the UK have comprehensive fire detection.  Very many have terrible compartmentation.  The majority can't manage to complete a fire safety risk assessment never mind boast about fire safety management.

I suspect that most people on this site work for organisations who don't have much interest in property protection, but it is an important issue.

Chris Houston

  • Guest
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2006, 03:02:58 PM »
Quote from: twsutton
I also agree with fred and think passive protection supplemented with active solutions based on the circumstances of the case is best for life safety. Security and sprinklers are the best solution to arson attacks using reduced insurance premiums and consequential loss (see PD,s posting) to convince education authorities for their need.
School insurance is not as simple as one might expect.  The people who build schools are different people who insure them.  Many are insured as part of a block policy.  All stakeholders must accept that the efforts to curb the arson problem have not worked.

As there is a solution that solves both problems, I am surprised that so many people appear unconvinced.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #36 on: March 02, 2006, 08:15:58 AM »
An interesting point to note is that the latest fire stats show another fall in fire casualties. But this has been a terrible year for fire losses, it was a record breaker before buncefield.

The insurance industy are often quick to moan but they rarely put their money where their mouth is.

fred

  • Guest
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2006, 09:28:32 AM »
I can't help but feel that if we go down the route of recommending sprinklers for life safety - especially if designers press for extended travel distances, relaxed compartmentation, and reduced structural fire protection as trade offs (and you can be sure eggs is eggs that they will) we will eventually compromise life safety in day risk schools - all because of the drive to fit sprinklers in schools.

In the US (who have already gone down this path) it resulted in amendments in building codes to allow trade-offs for anything as long as sprinklers are fitted.  There is now active campaign there to restore the balance between effective fire safety measures and effective property protection measures - and to understand the distinction.  There is room for trade-offs I agree, but it is extremely important to be aware of the consequences of structural measures being given away.

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2006, 10:23:06 AM »
I agree with your views Fred but an answer to arson attacks and increasing fire losses in schools is security, compartmentation and sprinklers. How do we convince the education authorities?
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Chris Houston

  • Guest
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #39 on: March 02, 2006, 10:28:22 AM »
Quote from: wee brian
The insurance industy are often quick to moan but they rarely put their money where their mouth is.
What do you mean?  Insurance commpanies exist to do just that! - to put they money where their mouth is by paying out for all of these losses!

fred

  • Guest
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #40 on: March 02, 2006, 12:18:30 PM »
It’s all about the stakeholders having a greater understanding of what fire safety provisions are required - and why, and the limitations of those requirements.  

Each should understand the differences in the effectiveness of those measures - by both day and night, (or occupied / unoccupied) and the effect on the pupils / teachers / local authority and community in the event of losing the premises.

If the school is likely to be subject to security threats and arson – and the latest buzz word ‘resilience’ – then additional provisions have to be made – however the effectiveness and limitations of those additional measures must be made clear.

If we can get that right then we're all singing from the same hymn sheet

“Education Education Education” seems quite appropriate !



The views expressed are my own, not necessarily those of my employer.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #41 on: March 03, 2006, 08:21:25 AM »
Chris- OK I was being abit flippant.

The insurance industry is forever going on about how we should put more effort into property protection - rightly so in some cases.

If they just stopped insuring these buildings then attitudes would change PDQ. They did this job with EPS insulation to great effect.

The insurance industry research buget for fire is about £500k a year compared with over £5m for motoring.

Offline dave bev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #42 on: March 03, 2006, 03:46:22 PM »
what about the life safety of firefighters who go into buildings to rescue occupants and fight fires? a fire doesnt have to kill you to take your life (oops thats an odpm line, forgive me!! LOL)

is life safety really limited to losing life? what about those potentially injured in/by or as a result of a fire?

dave bev

Chris Houston

  • Guest
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #43 on: March 03, 2006, 08:27:57 PM »
Quote from: wee brian
Chris- OK I was being abit flippant.

The insurance industry is forever going on about how we should put more effort into property protection - rightly so in some cases.

If they just stopped insuring these buildings then attitudes would change PDQ. They did this job with EPS insulation to great effect.

The insurance industry research buget for fire is about £500k a year compared with over £5m for motoring.
Where to begin, where to begin......:lol:

1 - Insurance companies are (mainly) profit making organisations, just like every other business, they make money.  And (with rare exception) what ever happens, they will make money.  If fires cost X, they will chage everyone X + 10%

2 - They regularly decline to offer or continue insurance.  Indeed "one famous one that I have heard of" have about 100 people, who, every day visits people and tell them to do something or they will cease to be insured.

3 - I can't speak for the insurance industry, only my personal opinion, and I have no idea how much is put into the FPA, the ABI, the arson control forum, and all these other things.  I think now that the LPCB is BRE certification it is no longer funded by insurance - are you sure about the £500k?  How do you know this?  

4 - Ultimatly it must be the job of our law makers and society to solve this problem, not individual profit making companies - that said, often they do seem to have the loudest voices.............

fred

  • Guest
BB100 schools guide
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2006, 08:53:17 AM »
Quote from: dave bev
what about the life safety of firefighters who go into buildings to rescue occupants and fight fires? a fire doesnt have to kill you to take your life (oops thats an odpm line, forgive me!! LOL)

is life safety really limited to losing life? what about those potentially injured in/by or as a result of a fire?

dave bev
Totally accept your point DB - however my point relates to the provision of sprinklers in day risk schools.  I believe the only purpose they serve is to protect the building.  I don't think there is any justification for the provision of sprinklers to protect firefighters in the highly unlikely event of them having to enter a burning school for rescue purposes.  Adequate AFD, adequate MOE and adequate management are the only fire safety measures required for life safety in day risk schools.  Sprinklers to save the school building of course - but lets not try and convince ourselves that they are for life safety.