Fire Service Risk Assessments

[dino]

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.

Hi Kurnal

I totally agree with your comments and feel that this does need wider support or at least exposed to a wider audience for scrutiny and assessment.

Firefighters hate using guidelines because they have absolutely no faith in them and they don't work in their present form.
Any training venues we used for guideline training firstly had to be fitted with handles so we could actually secure the guidelines onto (if only we had this luxury at incidents)!

I carried out tests with the new design and the handles we fitted and got the following results.
Firstly, using handles to tie off the guideline

   On average, crews use approximately 1.5 metres of line to tie off a guideline to a suitable object in a building.
   It took them an average of 1 minute to locate a securing point and tie each knot.
   During the trial, we had 10 securing points within the premises.
   This meant that we used 25% of the line to secure it within the building to be searched.
   It also meant that almost 25% of cylinder contents was used up whilst the crews were securing the Guideline instead of
        searching off it.

We then tried the new design and got the following results

   The crews used 20 cm of line to tie off each knot using the new design.
   It took an average of 10 seconds to secure the line using the new design.
   This meant that we only used 3% of the line to secure it within the building to be searched
   The results also showed that a maximum of 3.5% of cylinder contents was used up whilst crews were securing the Guideline.
   One of the most surprising results was that to get to the same point within the building, the crews using the new design used
        50% less air than the previous crews.
   Both crews were comparable in age and fitness and the crews who were securing the line in the conventional method stated that
        they felt that was more stressful and may have contributed to them using more air.
   Another factor in using less air to get to the same point was that they would have got there almost 7 minutes quicker.

I will put the details up later but I have got work to do just now.

[Davo]

Dino

OI from site visits must form part of the Risk Assessment.
It may identify additional measures for FF safety.
A dynamic RA can be made on site based on what is in the OI and what is gleaned from site when there is a real fire
Dynamic RAs cannot be made on the hoof


davo

[dino]

Dino

OI from site visits must form part of the Risk Assessment.
It may identify additional measures for FF safety.
A dynamic RA can be made on site based on what is in the OI and what is gleaned from site when there is a real fire
Dynamic RAs cannot be made on the hoof


davo

Hi Davo

I agree 100% with all your comments but why would you put on an OI to consider Guidelines when you have not done an assessment within the same OI of whether you can use them properly.

[nearlythere]

Dino

OI from site visits must form part of the Risk Assessment.
It may identify additional measures for FF safety.
A dynamic RA can be made on site based on what is in the OI and what is gleaned from site when there is a real fire
Dynamic RAs cannot be made on the hoof


davo

Hi Davo

I agree 100% with all your comments but why would you put on an OI to consider Guidelines when you have not done an assessment within the same OI of whether you can use them properly.

Perfect stuff guys where you have oodles of FT stations but, in general, not practical. How do you apply this to a  PT situation? There is barely enough time for drill night training and whatever else they have to do.

[Tom Sutton]

Dino what will you do if you cannot use them properly, ban there use in that building? I believe in the resourcefulness of firefighters they can usually find a way even if it is not perfect and what do you do if person are reported. Before you demonise guide lines or the lack of tie off points please research the fire in RAF Neatishead, Norfolk, 1966.

[dino]

Dino what will you do if you cannot use them properly, ban there use in that building? I believe in the resourcefulness of firefighters they can usually find a way even if it is not perfect and what do you do if person are reported. Before you demonise guide lines or the lack of tie off points please research the fire in RAF Neatishead, Norfolk, 1966.

Hi Tom

you asked what I would do if I  cannot use them properly in a building and in my opinion, I would actually ban them for the following reasons and I would reiterate that this is based purely on Firefighter safety and protecting the Fire Services.

 Most buildings we would consider using Guidelines in have already been visited by Fire Crews who have carried out an OI on the premises and some of these OI's actually say that we should consider Guidelines.

This leaves some services liable in my opinion under Section 2 of the HASAWA, the Management of Safety regs 1999 and also the PUWER regs.

 I agree with you 100% that Firefighters are extremely practical and resourceful and could possibly secure it in some sort of fashion that may be of benefit. But in most cases they cannot secure them properly and my point is- why should they, when we already know the issues.
Searching these buildings is difficult enough and I do not know any Firefighter who has faith in using Guidelines so to ask them to be resourceful in a life threatening situation when we could make it safer for them is something I believe we do not have to do.

I am not demonising Guidelines but only wish that we start using them properly and for the benefit of the Fire Crews.

You mention the incident at RAF Neatishead and I am aware that some RAF bases similar to this one have pre-laid guidelines permanently fitted throughout the premises- I wonder of this was as a result of the incident you mentioned?

If so, it shows that other organisations believe that guidelines used in the right way and secured properly are of benefit to  the people in their buildings.

[Tom Sutton]

Dino If you decide a premises may need guidelines but because of the lack of tie off points, guidelines are banned and you get a persons reported to those premises do you enter without guidelines or take no action other than adopt a defensive role?

On 6 February 1966 at 1245 hours a fire broke out at a secret underground radar station at RAF Neatishead in Norfolk. It burned for 9 days. No personal lines - Team members got separated and lost, this lead to the death of 3 firemen. No main or branch guide lines - In the case of the former, the distance between the main entrance to the incident and the fire was some 500 yards. The hose being used as a guide line was so long and snaked under pressure that it was difficult and sometimes impossible to follow. As a result of the snaking travel distances were increased dramatically.

Following the lessons learnt at RAF Neatishead, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council issued FIRE SERVICE CIRCULAR 46/1969 in December 1969 following extensive trials by brigades. The Circular dealt with both the specifications and operational procedures for the use of guidelines, personal lines and branch lines. To provide more information, a number of diagrams of equipment were attached as an appendix

From an eyewitness "I've only seen black & white photos, they show an inkling of the real horror of what it must have been like for the firemen. We went in to the PBX room (1st right on the gallery above the main stairwell) and saw the blood-encrusted handprints of the fireman who died in there" I understand this was as a result of trying to find his way out of the room.

[dino]

Hi Tom

To be brutally honest, if I have done a suitable and sufficient risk assessment that indicates a complex layout and disorientation hazard to fire crews and I know there are no securing points for Guidelines, why would I send crews into this building with a guideline?

As mentioned earlier, I believe this action would go against numerous Health and Safety legislation and leave the  fire service liable.

But if I know the risks and hazards and put on the OI that guidelines have not to be used I believe the services are still liable!

This is because I believe that if we know that we cannot use our equipment, we must make the owners or occupiers aware of this?

Could you imagine going to court and trying to justify that you never used guidelines because you couldn't secure them, only for the owner to say that you never told them of the issues, and if you did, they would have fitted them! The service would still be liable in my opinion?

This whole concept is not about turning up to a building that you have never inspected before but relates to buildings that crews have been in on numerous occasions and know full well the risks and hazards, and more importantly, have carried out an OI to lessen the risks to fire crews.

[dino]

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.

Hi Kurnal
I was busy earlier in the week and forgot to reply to your request above!

Everyone should be aware that there is a variety of signage throughout most modern buildings and this signage is generally accepted as being necessary within the premises.

The signage varies from Fire and Health and Safety signs to general direction signs and a lot of buildings now have asset management tags fitted on most doors and even on the door frames.

The proposal is to use these existing signs and adapt them to secure guidelines onto.

This would involve the sign instead of being fitted directly onto the wall, it would be fitted on a plate which would be the same size and shape as the sign.

This would be fitted using spacers between the wall and the plate to create a gap of about 4mm.

The guideline would simply be wrapped round the sign and secured with a half hitch knot. The 4mm gap creates an interference fit with the guideline and helps lock it in place.

Most of these existing signs are already located where they would be required such as near doors and exits and if you consider most door frames are around 12mm thick, the guideline plates would protrude less than the frames.

So the hope is that fire Services will do a suitable risk assessment and inform owners that they might need to use guidelines but cannot secure them properly.

The owner then has the choice to fit these signs or not and the fire service will record in their OI whether they can use guidelines safely in the premises- (subject to any DRA).

This from the outset has been driven by firefighter Safety and it is hoped that services will see this as an improvement on what we currently do.

I hope I have explained the concept sufficiently for people to comment on it but if you have any views or opinions on these proposals, they would be welcome.

[Bruce89]

Do away with guidelines as existing.
Unless there is saveable life or property the likeliness is defensive tactics would be employed. By the time sufficient resources are available to commit with guidelines, (particularly bearing in mind how all Fire Services are being cut back minimum riders at best), it's highly unlikely there will be saveable life, the property will just be written off.
The problems and issues clearly demonstrated by the posts regarding this matter far out weigh the benefits; besides to be honest how often are they now used in anger!

[Tom Sutton]

What would you do if you attended a person reported in a premises that had a complex layout and disorientation hazard to fire crews and you know there is a limited  securing points for Guidelines (I have never attended a premises where there is no securing points). Leave the possible victims to their own devices or go in with or without a guideline?

[dino]

What would you do if you attended a person reported in a premises that had a complex layout and disorientation hazard to fire crews and you know there is a limited  securing points for Guidelines (I have never attended a premises where there is no securing points). Leave the possible victims to their own devices or go in with or without a guideline?

Hi Tom

the exact scenario you have given above is what most fire services do at this point in time and the horrible decision that the OIC has to take!

Most officers will not use them because of the lack of faith in them by the crews and we need to have an awareness of the amount of firefighter deaths we have had in large buildings.

A poorly laid guideline in my opinion is more dangerous than no guideline at all, but the point I am making is relating to the majority of buildings where we have carried out a risk assessment with regards to the safety of crews.

We have deemed there is a disorientation hazard and on occasions told the OIC to consider guidelines- without assessing if they can be used.

So basically, you are asking if I would use a guideline in a building where I knew I could not secure it as per laid down procedures?

If I made a decision to use a guideline under these circumstances, in my opinion, I would be contravening the following legislation:

HASAWA section 2 (a)- Using a guideline without proper securing points is not a safe system of work
HASAWA section 2 (c) firefighters have not had sufficient instruction information and training on how to lay a guideline when there are no securing points.

Management of Health and Safety regulations 1999- it could be argued that we have not carried out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment with regards to the risks to the health and safety of our employees.

Provision and use of work equipment regs 1998, section 2 states:   In selecting work equipment, every employer shall have regard to the working conditions and to the risks to the health and safety of persons which exist in the premises or undertaking in which that work equipment is to be used and any additional risk posed by the use of that work equipment.

So I think I could justify not using a guideline and if you want to play devils advocate, it could be argued that with my research into this subject, I would have guilty knowledge if I used one without ensuring the premises had been assessed as being suitable.

But if I was OIC at an incident, I would send crews in without a guideline and at greater risk to themselves to try and save, saveable lives or property.

And I would be praying to God that this incident never went to a FAI or my crews never got injured in a building when they weren't using a guideline when it said on the OI to consider guidelines.

[dino]

Do away with guidelines as existing.
Unless there is saveable life or property the likeliness is defensive tactics would be employed. By the time sufficient resources are available to commit with guidelines, (particularly bearing in mind how all Fire Services are being cut back minimum riders at best), it's highly unlikely there will be saveable life, the property will just be written off.
The problems and issues clearly demonstrated by the posts regarding this matter far out weigh the benefits; besides to be honest how often are they now used in anger!

Hi Bruce89

Your views and opinions are based on the premise that guidelines cannot be used safely and I totally understand that point of view.

but I have done tests where crews could secure the guideline in under 10 seconds and used 50% less air to get to the same point within a building.

 The guideline was also laid tightly, at waist height and was easy to follow and search off.

And until we do get rid of them, do you not think we should be doing everything we can to make them as safe as possible?

[Mike Buckley]

Very much a case of dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

If you don't send the crews in to rescue someone on the grounds of H&S involving guidelines you will get the headlines 'Firefighters refuse to rescue victim on grounds of Health and Safety'.

If you send a crew in without guidelines and they get lost and die 'Haven't the Fire Brigade learnt anything from Neatishead and Smithfield Market?'

Guidelines are a solution, all be it not a very good solution but until someone comes up with something better, they work. They have drawbacks and the only way to reduce the drawbacks is constant practice laying and following guidelines in zero visibility conditions.

Your idea of tie off points seems a reasonable solution however persuading businesses to fit them is a totally different issue.

[kurnal]

Dino thanks for sharing your idea with us and I agree your idea has merit- but it will not take off without national recognition and impetus through national guidance such as ADB / Tech standards and criteria for its use. Biggest obstacle is who will pay?

New builds are unlikely to require your system if compliant with ADB unless adopted as part of a fire engineered solution and existing buildings in England there is no legal basis for retro fitting. Insurers may see it as a good idea and take it on board?