Brigade attendance to automatic signalled systems

[David Rooney]

Apparently Kent are no longer going to send pumps to any building - with a few exceptions -  with automatically signalled alarms.

Extract from the KF&RS official email ....

"From 2 April 2012, all calls from automatic fire alarms will be challenged by the Service’s 999 staff. During the day (6am to 6pm), unless the incident can be confirmed to be an actual fire or signs of fire, an engine will not be sent. However, for a further year (to April 2013), a fire engine will be sent to calls to automatic fire alarms received at night (6pm to 6 am), where a procedure has not been introduced to confirm a fire. This is to allow those responsible for managing premises extra time to make any required changes to their procedures."

What actually constitutes a "procedure" to confirm the fire?

Presumably they want a human voice on a phone telling them their feet are hot but is any other automated means acceptable ... eg. a double knock system - signal only sent when two detectors have gone into alarm?

We are looking after a Club where the Steward lives above (three stories) and there is poor phone signal strength. If a fire were to take out the phone line there may be no way the Steward could contact the brigade directly and could be trapped.

[Mike Buckley]

There are a number of brigades who appear to be introducing a similar policy to this,although Kent appears to have been the most up front about this.

What is a procedure to confirm a fire? Very good question, pass. The best people to ask would be Kent, although I would be surprised if you get a straight answer. I suspect at the end of the day it would be a phone call, either the Brigade or the ARC would phone the place to check whether there or not there is a fire. or they would receive a call via the 999 system.

With regard to the Club, the reply could well be, if the steward could be trapped it is obvious that the means of escape from the accomodation is inadequate.

[jokar]

Most Brigades now want, other than Scotland, confirmation of a fire to attend.  The cost of attending for false alarms, staffing, fuel etc is a driver for this as well as the chance that a proper incident will occur elsewhere whilst the applanace is unavailable.

London already includes call filtering as noted from the Kent details above and in the safety plan, LSP5 that reduces appliances and closes stations is also going to charge for calls to false alarms from 1 April in line with the Localism Act 2011

[David Rooney]

Thanks Mike ... the Club has an L2 Category system but the place is 200 years old and I suspect zero effective compartmentation.

I'm sure the alarms will operate early enough to satisfy Standards but in reality it's still a single staircase and the guy would have a family to wake up and get out and they are concerned that there is a chance they won't be able to call the brigade directly.

I have emailed Kent (two weeks ago now) asking what constitutes "confirmation" and not had a reply ....

Is this going to be another policy where we have to wait for someone to get killed before we famously "learn the lesson and will put a policy in place to never let it happen again ...." I wonder ......?

[Midland Retty]

Thanks Mike I was also worried about the issue of MOE from the Stewards flat!

You should phone the fire brigade once you have safely escape the building.

With regard to brigades not attending AFAs. If you call the fire service and say "my fire alarm is going off" the likely response you will get it "Is there are a fire?" A fire alarm activating doesn't mean there is a fire.

From what I understand most "call challenge brigades" will respond to sleeping risks without call challenging those properties (could be wrong)

It is not unreasoanble these days for an RP to have trained bods to SAFELY investigate AFAs and confirm if a real fire is in progress .

And in the case of the steward or other tenant if the fire alarm goes off evacuate, look for signs of fire on evacuating or from outside once activated.

[Mike Buckley]

My understanding is that some brigades have restricted attendance to sleeping risk to sheltered and care accomodation only.

Yes I suspect that the policy will stay until there is a major c***up and then watch everyone hit the floor when the s**t flies.

My personal feeling about not responding to automatic fire alarms is mixed. I can see the economic arguement but I believe it is a smokescreen. If you eliminate the responses to AFAs then you reduce the turnouts from a station which will enable you to justify downgrading or closing a station.

It tars the whole field of automatic systems with the same brush so it does matter if you have a properly maintained alarm system that only goes off when there is a fire or a faulty system that is always going off.

Finally what is the point of having an alarm receiving centre for an L type system? if there is anyone on site when the alarm goes off then they can call the fire brigade, if no one is on site what does it matter? let the place burn.

[David Rooney]

Well as has been said before I'm sure, it does make a mockery of the whole third party accreditation fiasco which as far as I can see is still a pointless moneymaking exercise.

If the schemes haven't improved the quality of designs and alarm systems and reduced false alarms (which they obviously haven't otherwise we wouldn't still be in this situation after nearly 10 years) and the scheme and by association the registered companies and auditing UKAS accredited companies (that are charging the fees) are essentially not trusted by the brigades then what's the point of me paying out £1000s of pounds in fees to the NSI?

And if the schemes haven't achieved their objective after this period then even more obviously there is something wrong and they should be changed.

There seems to be absolutely no benefit of remaining a member.

If the Brigades and ARCs simply said "no BAFE certificate - no Redcare connection - no Response" I could understand it and there would at least be some accountability of the "Approved Maintainer" and the RP and perhaps systems would improve or troublesome systems would be struck off and ignored by the ARC.

Either way it's a win win for the Brigades apart from the fact they'll get called out less and thereby cutting their own throats.....

[jokar]

In the world of H&S the terms savable life is used by Brigades so perhaps you are correct when you say what is the point of having an ARC receive a signal.  5839 in its new guise when it comes out this year will still say that a 999 or 112 call has to be made regardless of the ARC signal so seek and search have a role to play.

The interesting part is that fire safety officers are still enforcing for detection and warning systems even for Brigades that call filter without knowing what is going on and some RAs have no idea where Brigades are with the Localism Act and Uwfs.

[Midland Retty]

The interesting part is that fire safety officers are still enforcing for detection and warning systems even for Brigades that call filter without knowing what is going on

Why wouldn't they?

People - don't mix up life safety systems with property protection systems.

If a property requires a life safety system it requires a life safety system end of, thats got nothing to do with ARC and call filtering. Its there to ensure people are alerted to a fire in progress (and then evacuate)

Property protection measures aren't enforced by fire authority, but I take the point that if you are going to recommend a property protection system linked to an ARC then you need to have a little think on what it will achieve. 

[David Rooney]

Property protection measures aren't enforced by fire authority, but I take the point that if you are going to recommend a property protection system linked to an ARC then you need to have a little think on what it will achieve. 

But unless someone defines what is acceptable as "confirmation" of a fire we are all stuck as the only method of confirmation that appears to be presently acceptable is a phone call which as you say ... for Property Protection there is likely to be no one around at an early enough stage that it might make a difference.

It's fine saying "let it burn" but if its a national treasure and the insurance won't pay then eventually someone's got to get sued .... and who will that be??


 

[AnthonyB]

Property protection measures aren't enforced by fire authority, but I take the point that if you are going to recommend a property protection system linked to an ARC then you need to have a little think on what it will achieve. 

But unless someone defines what is acceptable as "confirmation" of a fire we are all stuck as the only method of confirmation that appears to be presently acceptable is a phone call which as you say ... for Property Protection there is likely to be no one around at an early enough stage that it might make a difference.

It's fine saying "let it burn" but if its a national treasure and the insurance won't pay then eventually someone's got to get sued .... and who will that be??

It seems that where 'confirmation' is a call from site then for the ultimate property protection you will need either:
- Night Watchman on patrol out of hours (a la the old days before widespread AFD & monitoring)
- Automatic supression linked to monitoring by a security company that would dispatch a mobile patrol

[David Rooney]

Just seems to me that no one in authority is prepared to make a decision and have buried their heads in the sand ........

[SamFIRT]

If a fire crew are chasing a false alarm they cannot rescue someone from a real incident.

[nearlythere]

I saw this coming years ago folks were there would be issues in relation to blitz fire detection in buildings. In NI anyway, and maybe elsewhere in the UK, some Building Control Inspectors interpret where it says in the Regs:-  

Means of escape

A building shall be so designed and constructed that in the event of a fire there is—
 
(a)where appropriate, adequate means of automatic detection;

(b)adequate means of giving warning; and

(c)adequate means of escape, which can be safely and effectively used at all material times.

as meaning, regardless of the "where appropriate" bit, whack it in everywhere.

As and example I have seen full AFD in a small stable block. The owner said that Building Control made her install it.

This requirement to install such a system in such a premises was obviously made with due regard to nothing other than someone seeing the words "means of automatic detection" in the Regulations without giving consideration to the whether it would be appropriate or not to install.

So I'm afraid the Fire & Rescue Service is reaping the sowings of others.

I think it should also be said that the Fire Service do not get turned out to false alarms. They get turned out a report of a fire which in some cases is an automatic report, be it to the occupiers or otherwise. It is only a false alarm, or unwanted call, when no fire is found. But the technology which many occupiers were required to install by the authorities is indicating a fire, not a false alarm, and they respond accordingly by calling the fire service.
Did they not see it coming?

I'm certainly not saying that there is no place for AFD. Clearly there is in certain high risk premises, but a more considered approach to determining where detection is appropriate should be the order of the day.

Perhaps the Regulations should say that AFD should not be installed other than when it would be considered appropriate for a specific risk.

[AnthonyB]

You tell a sad but true tale, I don't think I've been in any new build in recent years that hasn't been L1 - not P1/M, not engineered solution, but traditional benchmark built building but with L1.