PAS79 versus Relevant Persons

[ST1878]

As both the 2007 and the 2012 versions of PAS79 apparently accept the possible harm to the sleeping occupant of a room on fire (definition of 'slight harm'), does this methodology not conflict with the Fire Safety Order requirement to ensure the safety of all 'relevant persons', or am I missing something? 

[nearlythere]

As both the 2007 and the 2012 versions of PAS79 apparently accept the possible harm to the sleeping occupant of a room on fire (definition of 'slight harm'), does this methodology not conflict with the Fire Safety Order requirement to ensure the safety of all 'relevant persons', or am I missing something? 

This was the subject of much comment a while ago ST. Maybe the nice Mr K might give you a link to the topic if you speak to him nicely.

[kurnal]

Try this for starters.

http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4428.0

[Midland Retty]

Hi ST

The thread that Kurnal has added refers to the subject of automatic fire detection in particular. Research and a high profile determination arrived at the decision that regardless of what type of fire detection is fitted, a person asleep in the room of fire origin will in all probability die (i.e; they will not be roused in time to escape).

The RR(FS) Order contains the terms "where necessary" and "reasonably practicable".

As I said above no type of automatic fire detection system would save someone asleep in, for example a hotel, in the room of fire origin. But the AFD is designed to give warning which will "save" everyone else by raising an alarm, alerting guests to evacuate.

So what measure(s) would save every relevant person including the one in the room of fire origin?

The answer depends on whats reasonably practicable. Up until very recently (so a respected fire engineer reliably informs me) no one has ever died in a building protected by sprinklers.

So is the answer to install sprinklers everywhere? is that reasonably practicable?

Ideally we want to be able to protect everyone at all times, but its not always possible. The order requires you to provide what is reasonably practicable, where necessary. That doesn't stop the drunk hotel guest who ignores the no smoking signage in his bedroom falling asleep with a cigarette in his hand causing a blaze. 



 

[Wiz]

.......Up until very recently (so a respected fire engineer reliably informs me) no one has ever died in a building protected by sprinklers. ..........

What about all those that drowned or fell down the stairs?


Sorry about that. I'm in a silly mood. I went to the banter Bar and found it closed. Nothing much fun happens around here these days.

p.s. I am obviously not the respected fire engineer that MM refers to.

[ST1878]

Thanks for that all.
The Oxford English Dictionary definition for 'practicable' is given as "capable of being done" or something that is "feasible".
As BS 54-1 refers to raising the alarm at the earliest practicable time, how then does providing heat detectors in bedrooms do this, because if a heat detector can be fitted in the room, so can a smoke detector?

[Wiz]

On the basis that research shows that no type of automatic fire detector is likely to operate to save someone sleeping in the same room as the fire, it would appear that there is no 'good' reason to use a smoke detector instead of a heat detector. But there are 'good' reasons for using a heat detector instead of a smoke detector.

Installing sprinklers is certainly 'capable of being done', but is it 'feasible'? It may not be feasible in terms of cost.

[colin todd]

ST, the requirement is not to do what is practicable but what is REASONABLY practicable.  If you want to know the difference, you will find clear guidance on the Scottish Government fire website, which explains the difference between reasonably practicable.  It would be practicable to put sprinklers in Midland Retty's mansion in Bordersley Green.  All he would need to do was phone a sprinkler contractor, and they would be round in a jiffy to fit the system, for which he would pay there are then with cash in hand from his huge wall safe.  However, it would not be reasonably practicable, because the cost time and effort would not be proprotionate to the risk.

[jayjay]

If Retty's huge safe is filled with cash then the risk may be proportionate.

[kurnal]

However, it would not be reasonably practicable, because the cost time and effort would not be proprotionate to the risk.

There is now some evidence to show that retrofitting sprinklers can be achieved in a cost effective manner. 

http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/Sustainability%20through%20Planning/Callow_mount_Retrofitting_sprinkler_systems_Steve_Seaber.pdf

[nearlythere]

ST, the requirement is not to do what is practicable but what is REASONABLY practicable.  If you want to know the difference, you will find clear guidance on the Scottish Government fire website, which explains the difference between reasonably practicable.  It would be practicable to put sprinklers in Midland Retty's mansion in Bordersley Green.  All he would need to do was phone a sprinkler contractor, and they would be round in a jiffy to fit the system, for which he would pay there are then with cash in hand from his huge wall safe.  However, it would not be reasonably practicable, because the cost time and effort would not be proprotionate to the risk.

What? The risk of opening the safe?

[ST1878]

All clearly understood, but my problem is why is it not reasonable to give the occupant of a bedroom the earliest possible warning/chance? Is this not what the FS requires for ALL relevant persons?

[Mike Buckley]

ST the whole issue is not what is reasonable or what is practical, it is what is reasonably practical. This is a principle from the Health and Safety legislation (sorry Colin for once South of the border got there first) where you have to balance all the pros and cons of implementing a control measure.

So you start with fire detection and alarms in every bedroom, which you have in hotels, then you look at the people who may be drunk therefore you increase the volume of the alarm, then they could be deaf so every bedroom needs a beacon. But hang on this is ok for hotels what about the smaller bed and breakfasts. Then of course you have the rental accomodation.

Now, what about getting out of the place obviously it is easier to get out if the room is at ground level, so all buildings must be single storey. Then of course there is the problem of what about the escape route being blocked, no issue, lets get rid of all the walls. The ceiling will spread the fire so that goes as well!

How many people have been killed by a fire, sleeping in the open, in a field?

Individually it is all practical, is it reasonable?

[colin todd]

How does Retty's fortune affect the risk. 

[Midland Retty]

It affects the risk greatly Sir Col

The more Wonga in my safe, the greater the fire loading... that's bread-and-butter basics.

I shouldn't have to talk to you about that basic level of fire science your Lairdship!!! Perhaps the current heat wave has dehydrated you - drink some Talisker m'lad - lubricate the mind !

Now then, the radiated heat from any fire will eventually eminate through the metal structure of the safe and ignite my well earned wedge of readies inside. That is very serious. I can't afford to lose £25 Sir Col !.