Fire Service Risk Assessments

[wee brian]

Surely, if you dont know what the fire is like then you can't do a proper assessment of the risk.

If you end up with a "requirement" for guidelines for all fires in that building then what do you do if there's a small bin fire in the managers office?  You'll look pretty silly with your bit of string with all the staff watching you, when all you need is an extinguisher.

[dino]

Dinnertime Dave

I totally agree that the decision to use guidelines will be based on the DRA but my point is that the info we have on the premises is not suitable and sufficient and if challenged, may leave the service at risk.

I am sure a lot of fire services will be the same with regards to this and it is not until things go wrong that it is really challenged.

I had hoped to suggest measures to help protect the service and the only thing I can think of is that if we do an assessment and find there is no way of securing guidelines, we log this on the OI and under no circumstances do we consider using them at an incident.

This takes the choice away from the initial OIC and proves we have robustly assessed the risks to fire crews.

The only issue with this proposal is that if we mark on the OI that guidelines will not be used- do we have to tell the owner of the premises?

[kurnal]

This takes the choice away from the initial OIC and proves we have robustly assessed the risks to fire crews.

I don't think you can do this. The initial OIC will make a decision on the situation as they see it and the resources at their disposal and will act accordingly. What would your OI assessment say? You must not use guidelines in these premises or you must not commit BA teams to a fire in these premises?

What if its persons reported and there appears to be a realistic chance of saving them? 

[dino]

This takes the choice away from the initial OIC and proves we have robustly assessed the risks to fire crews.

I don't think you can do this. The initial OIC will make a decision on the situation as they see it and the resources at their disposal and will act accordingly. What would your OI assessment say? You must not use guidelines in these premises or you must not commit BA teams to a fire in these premises?

What if its persons reported and there appears to be a realistic chance of saving them? 

A fire service should carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment to see if they can use guidelines in a premise if they have to.
To say on an OI to consider guidelines when you have not assessed if you can use them properly leaves the service exposed in my opinion.

The HASAWA section 2, Management of Health and Safety regs 1999 and  PUWER all  have parts which could be used against services if they ask crews to consider guidelines without a proper assessment.

In my opinion, the  way we do it now leaves the services at risk but if we do a robust assessment, realise that we cannot secure guidelines properly and then put this on the OI, I personally feel that we would be protecting the fire services, and more importantly, the fire crews, should an incident happen.

[dino]

Surely, if you dont know what the fire is like then you can't do a proper assessment of the risk.

If you end up with a "requirement" for guidelines for all fires in that building then what do you do if there's a small bin fire in the managers office?  You'll look pretty silly with your bit of string with all the staff watching you, when all you need is an extinguisher.

Hi Brian
The assessments I am talking about is usually in the medium to high risk premises where fire crews have carried out an assessment which we call Operational Intelligence or OI. They have identified a disorientation potential or a complex layout in a fire situation and a control measure for this is to consider guidelines.

whilst I agree that you shouldn't have  to put on the OI "guidelines required", what I would like to know on the OI is that if you are considering using guidelines, you should know if you can secure them properly.

Incidentally, I have seen an OI where it specifically states that guidelines will be required and goes on to confirm that there are sufficient tie off points.

[kurnal]

Dino it's a pity you never met Billy who used to post regularly on this forum. You and he have a lot in common.  The fact is that there is much merit in what you say and the risk  of firefighters becoming disorientated and lost  in a building is one that must rightly be considered. Do you have a solution in mind?  Can the scenario you describe be rectified? Are you suggesting that there should be legal powers to enforce the retrospective installation of tie off points in existing buildings and that potential disorientation of firefighters should be a consideration under the Building Regulations in England and Wales or the Scottish Tech Standards?

[nearlythere]

It is surprising that arguably the single most dangerous situation faced by firefighters is smoke for all its risks and yet there has been little technology developed to address this. I seem to remember thermal cameras built into visors being looked at. Did this lead to anything?

[dino]

Dino it's a pity you never met Billy who used to post regularly on this forum. You and he have a lot in common.  The fact is that there is much merit in what you say and the risk  of firefighters becoming disorientated and lost  in a building is one that must rightly be considered. Do you have a solution in mind?  Can the scenario you describe be rectified? Are you suggesting that there should be legal powers to enforce the retrospective installation of tie off points in existing buildings and that potential disorientation of firefighters should be a consideration under the Building Regulations in England and Wales or the Scottish Tech Standards?

Well since you ask Kurnal- I do have a plan but it involves the fire services firstly doing a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and if they think they need guidelines, they will record this on the OI form.

If there are sufficient tie off points than all is well and these will be marked on the OI form.

If not, then they must tell the owner or occupier of the premises that we have assessed the risk to fire crews and we cannot use a guideline.

 The Guideline is a recognised control measure to reduce the risk of disorientation within complex layouts in a fire situation.

Now here is the contentious issue- The fire Scotland act, section 53 (2) (a) states that ?Each employer shall?
(a)   carry out an assessment of the workplace for the purpose of identifying any risks to the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace;?

The million dollar question is- Under section (a) above, is the owner complying with the act if we tell them we can?t use our equipment that we need to use in a fire within his premises?

Would the fire service not being able to use this equipment constitute ?risks to the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace;??

I also have a solution as well but would like people?s views on the proposals above.

[nearlythere]

Dino it's a pity you never met Billy who used to post regularly on this forum. You and he have a lot in common.  The fact is that there is much merit in what you say and the risk  of firefighters becoming disorientated and lost  in a building is one that must rightly be considered. Do you have a solution in mind?  Can the scenario you describe be rectified? Are you suggesting that there should be legal powers to enforce the retrospective installation of tie off points in existing buildings and that potential disorientation of firefighters should be a consideration under the Building Regulations in England and Wales or the Scottish Tech Standards?

Well since you ask Kurnal- I do have a plan but it involves the fire services firstly doing a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and if they think they need guidelines, they will record this on the OI form.

If there are sufficient tie off points than all is well and these will be marked on the OI form.

If not, then they must tell the owner or occupier of the premises that we have assessed the risk to fire crews and we cannot use a guideline.

 The Guideline is a recognised control measure to reduce the risk of disorientation within complex layouts in a fire situation.

Now here is the contentious issue- The fire Scotland act, section 53 (2) (a) states that ?Each employer shall?
(a)   carry out an assessment of the workplace for the purpose of identifying any risks to the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace;?

The million dollar question is- Under section (a) above, is the owner complying with the act if we tell them we can?t use our equipment that we need to use in a fire within his premises?

Would the fire service not being able to use this equipment constitute ?risks to the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace;??

I also have a solution as well but would like people?s views on the proposals above.

Does disapplication for firefighting purposes apply in Scotland?

[Dinnertime Dave]

It is surprising that arguably the single most dangerous situation faced by firefighters is smoke for all its risks and yet there has been little technology developed to address this. I seem to remember thermal cameras built into visors being looked at. Did this lead to anything?

You mention thermal imaging, this technology has come on leaps and bounds since it was first introduced but don't forget Positive pressure ventilation, this can be very successful in the right hands.

[Mike Buckley]

The point that needs clarification is the status of the OI, is it just information provided for the OiC to assist them in carrying out the dynamic risk assessments at an incident or is it considered to be a risk assessment in itself?

If it is the former then IMHO it should record that it is a large and complex building and guidelines may be required. It is then up to the officers and crews at the incident to decide whether to use guidelines and if it is safe to do so. Bear in mind that under the H&S legislation there is a duty for the employees to look after their own safety. Under this the BA crews going in to lay guidelines are fully entitled to withdraw if they believe they cannot safely lay the guideline following their training. They can do this as they have responsibility for their own safety and also their responsibility for the safety of others.

If the OI is to be a risk assessment then forget about two sides of A4 you are looking at a book for some buildings, not only that but you are also looking at crews being on site for a long time completing the risk assessment.

About tie off points for guidelines the answer is simple: the crews laying the guidelines should be equipped with a percussion hammer fire bolts into the wall and then attach the guideline to the bolts, simples!

[nearlythere]

The point that needs clarification is the status of the OI, is it just information provided for the OiC to assist them in carrying out the dynamic risk assessments at an incident or is it considered to be a risk assessment in itself?

If it is the former then IMHO it should record that it is a large and complex building and guidelines may be required. It is then up to the officers and crews at the incident to decide whether to use guidelines and if it is safe to do so. Bear in mind that under the H&S legislation there is a duty for the employees to look after their own safety. Under this the BA crews going in to lay guidelines are fully entitled to withdraw if they believe they cannot safely lay the guideline following their training. They can do this as they have responsibility for their own safety and also their responsibility for the safety of others.

If the OI is to be a risk assessment then forget about two sides of A4 you are looking at a book for some buildings, not only that but you are also looking at crews being on site for a long time completing the risk assessment.

About tie off points for guidelines the answer is simple: the crews laying the guidelines should be equipped with a percussion hammer fire bolts into the wall and then attach the guideline to the bolts, simples!

What about sky hooks?

[dino]

The point that needs clarification is the status of the OI, is it just information provided for the OiC to assist them in carrying out the dynamic risk assessments at an incident or is it considered to be a risk assessment in itself?

If it is the former then IMHO it should record that it is a large and complex building and guidelines may be required. It is then up to the officers and crews at the incident to decide whether to use guidelines and if it is safe to do so. Bear in mind that under the H&S legislation there is a duty for the employees to look after their own safety. Under this the BA crews going in to lay guidelines are fully entitled to withdraw if they believe they cannot safely lay the guideline following their training. They can do this as they have responsibility for their own safety and also their responsibility for the safety of others.

If the OI is to be a risk assessment then forget about two sides of A4 you are looking at a book for some buildings, not only that but you are also looking at crews being on site for a long time completing the risk assessment.

About tie off points for guidelines the answer is simple: the crews laying the guidelines should be equipped with a percussion hammer fire bolts into the wall and then attach the guideline to the bolts, simples!

Hi Mike

My whole point is that the BA teams should already know if we can use guidelines safely as if the OI is suitable and sufficient, it should have been already included in the OI which was done in normal office hours and with clear vision and not in a fire situation.

The DRA should therefore say whether it is safe to put crews into the building and not whether it is safe to use guidelines, as again, this should already be known.

As for percussion hammer bolts to be used by BA teams to secure a guideline, did GMC not try this and decided not to progress it?
With reference to the PUWER regs, the equipment must be suitable for use in the premises and conditions it is used- I cannot imagine a percussion hammer passing a risk assessment for being suitable for use in almost zero visibility.

As said previously, I have a solution and have already trialled it with operational fire crews who have said it is a great improvement in what they currently do.
And  the  one thing I have always admired about operational fire crews is their honesty where equipment is concerned- if my proposals were crap I would have heard it by now (only using different words but it would mean roughly the same as crap).

[William 29]

I remember years ago we had a fire captain come over from the States on a visit to the fire station and we showed him with some pride how we would search a large open area with guide and branch lines doing a block search.

He watched with interest and then commented........"you mean you follow a piece of string into a burning building?"  

[kurnal]

Dino I have heard you mention your solution a couple of years ago but you have never shared any more details with us.

We are interested, please give us a summary of what it is, what it does and how it is used. I fully recognise that you want to preserve some secrecy over your idea but currently it seems to be getting nowhere without publicity and wider support. You wont get it off the ground unless you create some demand.