Self Storage Buildings

[Billy]

Dave

I also agree that the laying of Guidelines may not be a priority, but i would like to know all your views on the following:-

1.People dislike guidelines greatly because of their experiences with them.

I am currently involved in training and I encourage people to make decisions based on their experiences- call it recognition- primed decision making or experiential learning as I prefer to describe it, This is what makes most of us good at making decisions.

This means that most of you who have bad experiences, or have heard of bad experiences with guidelines will be extremely reluctant to use them.

I train and encourage personnel to act upon their experiences so I would be hypocritical if I said to Fireftrm, Dave, PSmith and the likes to use Guidelines against their better judgement and experiences with them!

I believe that the only way we will  change peoples opinions or experiences on Guidelines is to physically show them how they could work.

This is the only way people like the ones mentioned above will accept their possible merits and this is in no way meant to be a criticism of them.

My perspective is that I have done presentations to Fire Services throughout Scotland on the Guideline and the views of some of the crews who use them has changed as a result of my presentation.

This either means that I am a brilliant salesman and crews can be convinced of anything (No chance) or that crews will listen to balanced reasoning and make up their own minds.

I prefer to believe the latter and have found that the most honest, forthright and accurate opinions have came from crews who may have to use Guidelines.

I think that given the chance, I could convince personnel that Guidelines, laid properly and quickly could be a benefit to fire crews.

Will this ever happen nationally- I doubt it!

Rant over- back to reality- Scotland 2- Norway 1,  Just wait to see us snatching  World cup Qualifying  defeat from the jaws of Victory!!!!!

[ian gough]

Billy,
I guess that the five guys who died at Smithfield Market in 1955 might have been grateful for a guide line.
What I would also add: is that you must surely train in accordance with both brigade and national guidance and policies. If you don't like these policies make representations to management and the relevant committees (FBU aswell as CFOA). Sadly, good quality practical information is increasingly not getting into these places where proper change can be achieved. I blame both the above mentioned organisations for this, who seem far more concerned with other matters.  
And well done Scotland!

[Paul]

Guys,

Firstly well done Scotland!!

I guess it is a persons own perspective of risk.  I too stand by my own opinion and that of most people in the profession.

I don't really want to rant on about this as we are clearly at opposite ends of the stick with this.  As I have said before, to use such kit safely then it must be used in training sessions more.  The simple fact is, that it isn't.  No one likes it, everyone has a bad tale to tell regarding them and for this reason no one wants to get the bag out at an incident.

I guess the point that I am trying to make is that it has been a number of years now that fire fighters have been expected to use this in anger.  Since its arrival it has never been improved on, yet it is the one bit of kit that fire fighters totally rely on if it ever used.  If we look at almost every other item carried on a first line appliance, improvements have been made, whether it be RTC kit, BA kit, PPE, it has all come along way, even the techniques that are used in fire fighting have been developed with appropriate procedures and new fangled high pressure systems etc.  So if this is the case, why can we not look at how we manage an incident such as a large multi storey warehouse.

Well I think it can be done.  Its really down to better planning and risk assessment.  LFRS must be getting into such buildings and looking how to deal with such incidents.  For instance, if a drawing can be available at the scene of an incident then do we really need guide lines??  We can now predict the route FF's will take.  Simply relying on fire fighters skill levels to deal with such incidents is no longer acceptable, as buildings get more complexed we must be looking at such premises with a keen eye as it is the very people who walk round on 11d risk visits, who will be expected to enter such premises attached to a bit of string.  

To expect someone to enter into a large building of this nature is a risky business for which I believe must be under extra-ordinary circumstances.  One of which is persons reported.

Persons reported missing in such a building generally have a low likelihood of survival, so why put more people at risk by deploying them on guide lines.  As has already been said, by the time they have been deployed my children would have grown up and left home, let alone had chance to rescue a poor sole.

Lets get the planning right from day one.  Risk Assess, Sector management, Risk visits, detailed information of such high risk premises to be made available at incident, possible ventilation, increased level of enforcement!!

All of this would take away the need to deploy guide lines.  Lets keep them where they belong.........on station!!


Paul

[ian gough]

Paul,
But you still do not have a solution. Billy got lost in his self storage warehouse - after a considerable amount of time!
Again, I'll ask you: what is your brigade policy on this? I bet it differs from the view you've expressed here. If so, you are on very dangerous ground.
I don't really want to get bogged down on the guideline topic, as it seems to have been previously covered. However, with the exception of a couple of posts, there does appear to be a sparsity of ideas from 'operational' readers as to how to deal with such buildings when involved in fire. Wee Brian: I trust you are taking note?

[Paul]

Ian,

If you  think there is a quick fix solution we can implement tomorrow then you are sadly misguided.  My point is that other systems and equipment have improved over the last 10 -15 years, but guide lines have stayed the same.  No improvement on the use or the procedures we use.  As you state the Smithfield Market was back in 55, well I’m sure they would have been grateful for more than guide lines back then.

My second point is how we can deal with such incidents is with better planning, improved enforcement and information available at incidents.  This will obviously take some time to influence and implement but I still stand by my ‘personal opinion’.  This in general has been a shortfall over the last decade in allowing such buildings to be constructed in this manner without any consideration for FF’s  who will potentially deploy into such buildings.  The modern fire service can not stand still on they way in which incidents are dealt with.  I can not believe anyone would defend this to such an extent.  There appears to be no middle ground in your opinion.  I agree at present this is all that is available but I do not agree that it is the best we can do, far from it!!!  We can look at using PPV more effectively, we can influence the way in which we deal with incidents and its resultive outcome by planning and assessing in such premises.  Surly there is sufficient knowledge out there in the LFRS’s across the UK to influence this!!  Yes not straight away, but there are some factors that I have discussed that would, in parallel with GL’s, benefit those entering into such a building for some operational tasks.  I do not believe that this is an effective method of rescue as I have said in previous threads.

So the fact that Billy got lost in such a building lays down the fact that the building had little or no attention form the LFRS in the way of planning before the incident.  This would of prevented this to a large extent.  Familiarity of high risk premises on your patch is essential.  I know this goes on in some LFRS but not all.  But believe me it works.  

Surly you can not argue that there must be a better alternative to deploying GL’s, this can not be an opinion popular with the troupes.  It may be the case that in the training establishment you represent you firmly believe that they are best practice, and without knowing your new philosophy I can not comment, but as always I am more than willing to listen and learn, as we all must to progress.  Perhaps you could suggest that it is considered in the review of AD B, perhaps fixed tie off points (tongue in cheek).

I do not represent any LFRS in this discussion, I simply give my own professional opinion, and one I have had opportunity to speak at length with at senior level around the UK and I have to say the general consensus is one of bad feeling, one that has been taken from years of experience.

SORRY JUST NOTICED IT WAS BILLY WHO IS WITH THE TRAINING DEPT.  APOLOGIES IAN.

Paul

[fireftrm]

Ian

The points that are being missed are:

A guideline takes an inordinatley long time to lay. As Dave (correctly) says, and I fail to see how anyone could not understand his post, there will be no people left alive by the time the guideline is laid, so  it can't be of any use to search for them.

There were firefighter deaths at Smithfield, but so were there at Gillender St and guidelines were the main contributory factor.

My FRS policy - we have guidelines, we train with them. I know of no ICs who would actually consider using them though.

I actually have to disagree with Paul when he says " Lets keep them where they belong.........on station!!" - I don't think they should be allowed anywhere near operational fire and rescue service premises.

[Chris Houston]

...water being poured through the roof is only really for show....

......the public will still expect to see water going into the burning building. Are you advocating that we stop this practice? I would agree, but the customers don't understand and will be up in arms.

Personaly speaking, I would rather the taxes I paid were not spent on pretending to fight fires.

I would rather the public knew the problems FRS faced with such fires and FRS just said, sorry, we can't do anything for buildings like that.  Perhaps we would see less of them if that was the case.

I am genuinly stunned by what I have learned from your posts.  I had no idea it was part of the role of the FRS pretend to be doing something.

[Billy]

Psmith Said

Quote:"  My point is that other systems and equipment have improved over the last 10 -15 years, but guide lines have stayed the same.  No improvement on the use or the procedures we use."

 I disagree with this, as I believe that we have an improved Guideline and have the opportunity to improve the procedures to make it work!

I wonder if any of the doubters would use the new guideline and new procedures if it was proved to be of benefit to fire crews in allowing them to find their way back to safety, and could be deployed quickly and easily!

I await your replies!!!!

[ian gough]

I'm stunned too Chris.

But just to clarify a little: I'm not saying BA guidelines are the best thing since sliced bread - but we have them - and it is the policy of most, if not all fire authorities (and I bet FBU H&S Committee!) to use them - as necessary. I accept there are limitations and problems - but no fire officer can adopt a policy of leaving them in their bags. Mind you, if they are put into their bags upside down - then they should be left on the station! And my point that anyone lost and injured in the fire Billy attended would have a good case against the FA - because the OIC didn't deploy guidelines, is surely a valid one?

I've personally used them (in my youth....) as West Mids did train with them. And, of course, deployed the resources needed for large industrial complexes. In the 'shires', however, I did notice a lack of appreciation. Mind you, not as much as I've found here.

And I'm not saying there is a simple solution to the problems of firefighting in these buildings - quite the opposite. I'm concerned though, that too many readers have an apparant simple solution ie DON'T ENTER! This, I believe, is naive and ultimately more dangerous, because you always go in at sometime.

I've already alluded to my concerns about current compartment size re: fire appliance access. Nobody seems bothered about that however. And I do believe some fixed systems eg sprinklers are required - but exactly what - I'm not sure. Wee Brian's question is a good one, unfortunately he has not extracted many useful suggestions yet.

[fireftrm]

Chris

It is not our role to pretend to do something and as an informed member of the public you may well be in aposition to prefer that we did nothing. The remainder would not be so happy.

Here are some scenarios - please take a moment to say what you would expect the FRS to do and then what they should:

1. Flooding, many houses affected
2. Single storey sandwich panel clad warehouse, no one in, on fire
3. Car off road submersed in flowing water
4. Bale stack alight at farm, in stand alone barn
5. Outdoor bale stack alight 10 m from nearest building

I am stunned that you, as (I understand) an insurance expert, are not aware that such buildings would not be extinguishable by the fire service and that we would not countenance entry without very good reason. Such fires have had just this response from the FRS with demands to install sprinklers for firefighter safety before we would consider entry. Indeed the insurance industry has placed special risk premiums on such premises because they understand that they will almost certainly present a total loss. Should they be built with LISPs then they definitley will be. Allowing that you must have understood that the building was already a lost cause what did you expect the FRS attendance to be there for? We will try and put out the fire, but without being able to attack it directly any such attmpt is really not going to be effective and is more for show, or do you really think we should say that we will pop back in  a few hours when it has died down a bit and we can be more effective? What do you really think the public would make of that and could we educate them to believe it, after all many FRS personnel wouldn't be too convinced, only those who really understand it. Look at the  number who still believe we should enter every fire as a guide...............

I look forward to your ideas about the fires above, I will respond with what I would be doing and what I think we should be doing (not necessarily the same and I will give my reasosn)

[Paul]

Billy,

As I said,  'and without knowing your new philosophy I can not comment, but as always I am more than willing to listen and learn, as we all must to progress'.

Please tell me more.  I am not aware of these new guide lines and procedures, so I can not agree or disagree until you tell me more, as I said.

I awiat your reply with great interest.

Paul

[Billy]

Paul

The new Guidelines have indicator tabs you can feel with your gloves on (unlike the ones used at Gillender street) and are rough in one direction and smooth in the opposite way so there is only one aide memoir- SMOOTH WAY OUT.

These have been extensively tested by fire crews ( the people who matter most in all of this) and almost all have said that they are better, safer and easier to understand than the ones currently in use.
for more info visit www.simline.co.uk

The suggested procedure involves crews doing something you suggested earlier in relation to:
  QUOTE "better planning, improved enforcement and information available at incidents".

The crews carry out a thourough risk assessment and decide if we may have to use Guidelines.

If the answer is yes, they will then see if they can be deployed safely, IE are there tie off points so we can attach them as stated in our procedures.
I have seen hooks that you just clip the guideline into without tying them so they can be deployed far easier.

Now here's the really simple bit :- We then inform the owners of the premises that we cannot use our equipment safely and the owners then decide if they want to fit the tie-off hooks for us, or not!

If they fit them- we will use Guidelines, but we now know we can do it safely and as per our procedures.

If they don't- we won't use them, but we have acted professionally and carried out a risk assessment  and logged the decision of the owners.

Why should owners fit them- Duty of care to all who may have to enter the premises- this now includes fire crews under the new Fire bill. Also insurance companies might have something to say if owners go against the recommendations of a FRS

Why should we ask for them-  We know they don't work the way we use them just now and being proactive and trying to improve things is better than the "ostrich mentality" we have at present.

it also takes the "damned if you use them-damned if you don't" pressure off the OIC.

Finally, any equipment that when used properly, can reduce the risk to crews in a potentially life-threatening situation, must be considered beneficial by all on this site!

[Paul]

Billy,

Thankyou for the info provided.  I have not seen this before.

I think you have a tough battle on your hands.  Firstly, coming from a fire safety background, I am always going to promote the preventative methods of fire safety in trying to ensure that fire does not occur in the first instance and if it does have passive and active systems in place to, as far as is reasonably practicable, ensure that occupants have every chance of leaving the building in the first instance and I'm sure you'll have to convince tougher cookies than me to use this kit.  LFRS may well prefer this to what is available, but that doesn't make it the correct choice.

It is only my opinion so please do not shoot me.  I feel that efforts would be far better placed in concentrating on a greater level of enforcement to control such premises in order to ensure the above.  To simply sit back and rely on a system that effectively says - ' don't worry about fire safety management as the boys will get us out if it goes titis up' is in my mind not something you could class as a duty of care upon the landlords.  The duty of care is placed upon landlords to ensure that their fire safety management systems are in place to consider all occupants.  This is where the enforcement is required, not with making Landlords of high risk premises install loops or some kind of snap on hook system.  I don't think Building Control would ever see this as an acceptable alternative to prescriptive standards.

I have to say, I also feel that this system may be confusing for FF's also, and this is no disrespect, actually its quite the opposite.  If you consider the extreme pressures placed upon FF's when working under such conditions, we all know how the mind reacts.  Adding 2 +2 can seem like astro physics.

I genuinely don't like being negative to new ideas and wish anyone well in new ventures.  The opinions I have given are my own and I accept that the perception of risk with each and every one of us is different, therefore I do not wish to continue this discussion out of respect, so please don't try and dangle a hook to involve me on this subject any further.  My opinion  remains unchanged after reading the info on the web etc, although its only my opinion, doesn't mean its the right one, just what I believe.

Good Luck

Paul

[fireftrm]

Clips so that guidelines can be used quickly? No chance. What is the point in having them unless all the walls are completely clear and the clips very easy to spot - maybe with large flashing arrows and bunting lit by emergency lighting? No. They would be no easier to find than any other 'tie-off' point and so only easier by virtue of saving a knot. Quicker? Maybe, just maybe, a tad. But not so as to save any lives. Yes I know the argument about Ffs getting back to the entry but then guidelines have always managed this haven't they? Or have they killed people?.

Get away from them altogether and, as Paul quite rightly and logically suggests aim to have such buildings meeting better standards.

Smoke extraction systems would mean there would never be a reason/need to get the ball of string out, sprinkler systems would mean that the fire was contained and we could walk to it, water mist systems would mean that the fire would probably have been extinguished.

Guideline clips would mean areas of wall that the occupiers could not use and, or, that they keep getting hurt by. Unlike the other active/passive systems that could be installed they would not save a life, or save any property.

We should be making quite clear to the occupiers that their premises present a significant risk to Ffs int he event of a fire and that we would therefore be adopting defensive actions, which will not save their property. Their only recourse is to fit active/passive measures to reduce that risk.

Ian - are you really stunned by the fact that water application on a fully involved warehouse building is not actually achieving much? Do you really think that the aerials pouring 4000+lpm into the mouth of an inferno are really effective? Have you never considered just how long these actions take to put the fire out? Had you ever considered how long the fire would have burned without that intervention and then noted that maybe it would not have been much longer? You being stunned does rather strengthen my argument that there are many Ffs who think that we are doing some good, becuase ven they do not fully understand how little we can really do faced with the seriousness of the fire!

[Billy]

Fireftrm

You stated- QUOTE
"Yes I know the argument about Ffs getting back to the entry but then guidelines have always managed this haven't they? Or have they killed people?."

No- Guidelines haven't always managed to get Ffs back to the entry point, but your response seems to be "don't use them"!!!

My suggestion is to see where the problem is and fix it!

The crews at Gillender St couldn't read the tabs so we fix that by making them so simple and easy to read-even with gloves on!

Even you must agree that if the guidelines were laid properly and the crews could read the indicator tabs, the 2 Ffs wouldn't have died?

You seem to be saying that if guidelines are not used properly, they are dangerous- so we shouldn't use them?

Or do you think that a piece of equipment that can get you back to your point of entry should not be used in any circumstances?

If you think Guidelines kill people- how much fire crews are killed at fires wearing BA?
So do you advocate not wearing BA at incidents or do you see where things went wrong and bring out systems and procedures to ensure it does not happen again?

The fact that you would not even consider Guidelines, even if was proved to be of benefit to crews just about sums it up!

Meanwhile, they are still on every front line appliance in the UK, they still don't work for the reasons that everyone knows and the best some people can come up with is "don't use them"!

It is good to see the ostrich mentality is alive and well, but a word of warning- WHILE YOUR HEAD IS IN THE SAND- THE REST OF YOU(INCLUDING YOUR A*SE)  IS REALLY EXPOSED!!!!!!