Fire Service Risk Assessments

[Bruce89]

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?

Yes Dino I do.

However the fact remains ICS was nothing like it is now and I reiterate with all the cuts resulting in fewer appliances and bums on seats, by the time sufficient resources are in attendance it's highly likely there would no longer be saveable life. It would be interesting to send a FINDS message and see nationally how often guidelines have been used to successfully save life in the past 12 months.

[dino]

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?

Yes Dino I do.

However the fact remains ICS was nothing like it is now and I reiterate with all the cuts resulting in fewer appliances and bums on seats, by the time sufficient resources are in attendance it's highly likely there would no longer be saveable life. It would be interesting to send a FINDS message and see nationally how often guidelines have been used to successfully save life in the past 12 months.

Hi Bruce89

I know of incidents where the fire was going for over an hour and they still got people out alive so to put a time limit on when there is saveable life is very difficult and even more problematic if you have to do it in a court of law!

 you mention saveable life but this is also about Firefighter safety and changing the culture with regards to guidelines. so instead of them being a piece of equipment that most have no faith in, they become something that gives fire services  a better chance of saving lives and also preserving the lives of crews.

We seem to have forgot that guidelines are there to make it safer for fire crews and should be classed as a control measure in certain situations to reduce the risk to crews. That is their primary function and to use them to  rescue someone and save their life is a bonus IMO.

The FINDS message you mention would probably have more significance if you asked how many OIC's put crews into fires in large buildings with complex layouts in the past 12 months without guidelines because they had no faith in their use?

[dino]

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?

My hope for this to progress was to use existing legislation and this would require the Fire Services to look at the way they carry out their  risk assessments for the safety of fire crews.

I hope that we are in agreement that the current method of recording the fact that guidelines may be required without assessing if you can actually secure them is flawed and will leave fire services open to challenge with regards to numerous health and safety legislation?

For fire services to cover themselves, they must assess if guidelines are required and also if they can be secured properly, and this information must be available to the OIC if an incident arises.

Now if there are insufficient securing points, I believe the fire services should tell the owner and give them the opportunity to take remedial action.

At this point, if the owner does not provide securing points, my argument is that he is not complying with the
Fire Safety Act 2005, 53 Duties of employers to employees, where section (1) states: Each employer shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace.


Now if the fire services have carried out a robust assessment and have concluded that they cannot use guidelines safely within that building, they are within their rights IMO to record this and to let the owners /occupiers know this as well.

At this point, when the owner/ occupier is made aware that we cannot use equipment to fight fire and possibly rescue people, should a fire occur, are they complying with (1) above?


kurnal, you mentioned insurers and the insurance companies may be key to this for the following reasons:

These companies, like most businesses, are driven by making money for their shareholders and all claims will be challenged and scrutinised to ensure the policy holders were complying with the  policy and other related legislation.

If they can prove that the owners did not comply    in any way, or that the fire services were not complying with legislation, they will use this to reduce any claim.

It could be reasonable for fire service tell an owner that they cannot use their equipment safely and will therefore not use it unless the owner fits securing points.

I would not like to be an owner of a premises in a court of law trying to justify why they never fitted securing points.

[kurnal]

Dino forgive me if I have misunderstood your point and sorry to be pedantic but it is really important to use and quote  the correct and appropriate legislation.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 covers general fire safety in England and Wales.

In Scotland, requirements on general fire safety are covered in Part 3 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, supported by the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006.

Theres also separate legislation covering Northern Ireland.

The point is that the Legislation is very different in Scotland to that in England and fire fighter safety is covered  differently. I think you may be based in Scotland.

You can download the E&W legislation here:- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1541/pdfs/uksi_20051541_en.pdf

See in particular  the definition of relevant persons on page 6 and article 38 - maintenance of measures provided for protection of fire fighters. The duty is to maintain any facilities equipment and devices that have been provided under other legislation - but there are no duties to install anything for use by fire fighters under the Fire Safety Order 2005.

The Scottish Legislation can be downloaded here:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2005/5/pdfs/asp_20050005_en.pdf

See in particular Section 59 on page 28 - referring to the power of the Scottish Ministers  to make regulations for the protection of firefighters.

Lets take the discussion on from there.

[dino]

Thanks for your clarification Kurnal- I thought we jocks just took the legislation and added words like "aye, ken and whit" but now you have put me right

The point I was trying to make is that if we cannot use our equipment such as guidelines within premises, the relevant persons could  be at greater risk.

I am aware that fire service personnel are not classed as relevant persons under  Scottish, English and Welsh legislation.

I have previously quoted the Scottish legislation but under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in England and Wales,Risk assessment
9.?(1) The responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to
which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions he
needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this
Order.

My question here is- should the responsible person take into account the risk assessment carried out by the fire service?

[Tom Sutton]

In E & W the fire safety legislation requires the RP to conduct a FRA and consider the general fire precautions which are detail in article 4.

In Scotland the fire safety legislation requires the duty holder to conduct a FRA and consider the fire safety measures as are necessary, as detailed in schedule 2.

Which doesn't include fire service personal and why should he consider the ORA unless he has a legal requirement to do so, dino I think you are grasping at straws.

[Dinnertime Dave]

The point I was trying to make is that if we cannot use our equipment such as guidelines within premises, the relevant persons could  be at greater risk.

Sorry dino, that one phrase sums up what is wrong with your argument. If the Resposible Person is reliant up fire service intervention to reduce the risk to relevant persons to an acceptable level then the buildings fire strategy is flawed.

Whilst I have no problem in the fire service documenting in site specific information any information you want, you can't expect fire risk assessors to be familiar with operational procedures and incorporate them into the building.

[nearlythere]

Thought I would throw this in to the pot.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/council-criticised-in-bray-firefighters-inquest-verdict-1.1790117

[Golden]

NT I'm not sure that scenario is relevant to gathering information about the specific premises or the use of guidelines but more about pre-determined operational plans and the associated training. The factory unit was derelict with no need to use guidelines as it was very small - from what I've seen the issues leading to these tragic circumstances came well before the crews attended the fire and the unfortunate set of events that followed were as a consequence of these failings. As an IC I was always loathe to commit crews to a derelict premises (although there is always the possibility of vagrants or children inside) and this fire could have been brought under control from outside before committing crews. I think there is a difference between the 'normal' building and the exceptional risks when undertaking information gathering visits - for example I always insisted on crews visiting those premises that needed pre-planning rather than, for example, a garage or workshop where you would expect cylinders or flammable liquids to be stored.

[dino]

In E & W the fire safety legislation requires the RP to conduct a FRA and consider the general fire precautions which are detail in article 4.

In Scotland the fire safety legislation requires the duty holder to conduct a FRA and consider the fire safety measures as are necessary, as detailed in schedule 2.

Which doesn't include fire service personal and why should he consider the ORA unless he has a legal requirement to do so, dino I think you are grasping at straws.

Thanks for the comments Tom

I do agree that my trying to link current legislation to help strengthen the case to fit securing points might be grasping at straws and maybe I should be looking at other legislation or approach it from a different angle.

What I hope I have agreement on is that the current recording of risk information on premises  that some fire services use is not suitable and sufficient and could be challenged.

To make it suitable and sufficient, fire services should assess if they may need guidelines and also assess if they can use them safely.

In my opinion, I believe that fire services should tell the responsible person if fire crews cannot use guidelines safely and the responsible person will have the choice of fitting securing points or not.

And there may be no legal requirement for the responsible person to fit them  but i believe that this risk assessment  by fire services would help protect fire crews at incidents and also the service as a whole with regards to any claims against them.

Your comments and opinions on this topic are greatly appreciated.

[nearlythere]

NT I'm not sure that scenario is relevant to gathering information about the specific premises or the use of guidelines but more about pre-determined operational plans and the associated training. The factory unit was derelict with no need to use guidelines as it was very small - from what I've seen the issues leading to these tragic circumstances came well before the crews attended the fire and the unfortunate set of events that followed were as a consequence of these failings. As an IC I was always loathe to commit crews to a derelict premises (although there is always the possibility of vagrants or children inside) and this fire could have been brought under control from outside before committing crews. I think there is a difference between the 'normal' building and the exceptional risks when undertaking information gathering visits - for example I always insisted on crews visiting those premises that needed pre-planning rather than, for example, a garage or workshop where you would expect cylinders or flammable liquids to be stored.

Yes I know. Just thought I would throw it in as I said.

[dino]

Hi guys

I really appreciate all your comments and I am looking for legislation to help  get this design into buildings to improve firefighter safety and help them to save saveable buildings and save lives.

I believe Fire Services should be looking at implementing some of the systems I mentioned to protect themselves from litigation and comply with statutory legislation such as HASAWA, PUWER, and Management of Health and Safety regs.

I do agree that I am grasping at straws with the English Fire Safety legislation but  feel that the Scottish regs may be able to be used to strengthen this argument.

Fire (Scotland ) Act 2005
FIRE SAFETY
CHAPTER 1
FIRE SAFETY DUTIES
Duties
53   Duties of employers to employees
(1)    Each employer shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace.
(2)   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 question I am asking is under the above legislation, if we tell an employer that we cannot safely use guidelines in their building in the event of a fire- do they need to take it into account during their assessment in respect of harm to their employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace?

I would have thought that if we cannot use our equipment that we may need to help us extinguish the fire and possibly save lives, this would constitute a risk to the employers employees?

Your views and opinions on this would be most welcome.

[Mike Buckley]

My view would be that this is irrelevant to the use of guidelines. The whole thrust of the Fire Safety Legislation is that the employees and relevant persons can be safely evacuated in the event of fire without the intervention of the fire service. Therefore if the fire risk assessment states that guideline securing points are required to assist the fire service to rescue our people it immediately admits that the Responsible Person has failed to carry out his duties to take reasonable fire precautions.

[dino]

My view would be that this is irrelevant to the use of guidelines. The whole thrust of the Fire Safety Legislation is that the employees and relevant persons can be safely evacuated in the event of fire without the intervention of the fire service. Therefore if the fire risk assessment states that guideline securing points are required to assist the fire service to rescue our people it immediately admits that the Responsible Person has failed to carry out his duties to take reasonable fire precautions.

Hi Mike

I do understand your point about the relevant persons being safely evacuated without the intervention of the Fire Service but I still feel that any 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 should take into account the fact that we cannot use our equipment properly and have told the owners this.

whether this falls under  53 (2) (a) of the act or not, I still feel that services should be making the owners aware and let them make the choice.

My aim firstly is to try and get the Fire Services to protect themselves and more importantly. their crews in relation Operational Intelligence in complex buildings.

If I can get the Services to consider these proposals, the arguments about who may or may not be liable should an incident occur can be taken up by people who are far better at it than myself.

[Mike Buckley]

Whilst I appreciated your feelings on the matter, this issue does not come under the RRO or its offshoots, there is no mention of guideline tie off points in Building Regulations or the Technical Handbook etc. Also in the legislation that preceded the RRO etc. where the Fire Brigade provided Fire Certificates with plans for the fire precautions required in a premises there was similarly no reference to the fire brigades using guidelines.

Another aspect to consider is that the philosophy behind the RRO etc. is that the person who was competent to carry out a risk assessment did not have to be ex fire service and you really have to be an experienced operational firefighter to understand the issues involved in laying guidelines. I will stick my head above the parapet and say, not only are fire risk assessors not all experienced fire fighters but, these days, neither are the inspecting officers from the fire brigades.