Stay Put again.

[nearlythere]

Lets try and clear up a few things relating to this.

It isn't necessary or wise to put a common fire warning system in a purpose built block of flats unless it is built to the standard for that purpose. Little concrete boxes, inconvenience especially false actuations, obstruction of fire fighters, etc etc.
But when we have a stay put strategy why are we always told that any strategy must not be dependent on the arrival of the FS?

Next, where  a SP policy is in place and if it gets to situation that an evacuation is necessary we cannot expect residents to walk through fire and smoke. Surely with SP there must be an expectation that eventually residents should be able to get themselves out by a protected and safe route. We cant expect them to trap themselves in their apartments - can we?

[Tom Sutton]

The following is the Fire procedure from CP3 Chapter 4 : Part 1 1971,

AT ALL TIMES

Keep the passages and hall clear of obstructions, particularly of combustible goods and any form of `naked flame' heating. Use the rooms only for the purpose, for which they were intended, e.g. steeping, cooking, etc., not, for storage or as workshops.

IF A FIRE BREAKS OUT IN YOUR DWELLING

l.   Leave the affected room at once, together with any other occupants, and close the door,
2.   Do not stay behind to put out the fire unless you are sure you can do so safely.
3.   Alert occupants of other rooms in the dwelling.
4.   Leave the dwelling, closing the front door, and give the alarm (see below). Use the stairs, not the lift. Balconies should not be used unless they form part of an escape route.

IF A FIRE IS EVIDENT OR REPORTED ELSEWHERE

You will normally be safe to stay within your flat. You should close doors and windows, but in the unlikely event of smoke or heat entering the flat before you are able to do so, leave at once closing the doors behind you.
You may have confidence that you will be safe if this is done and it is your responsibility to other occupiers to do so.

This is why I think the terminology should be "stay put if it is safe to do so" and not "stay put".

[jayjay]

The theory of stay put is only OK if it can be guaranteed or reasonably ascertained that fire and smoke will stay within the flat on fire. (It does not consider the risk of fire coming in from outside via the windows)

To do this requires that every compartment is confirmed as being a complete fire enclosure and has not been compromised by alterations, poor workmanship, structural defects or inappropriate materials etc.

To ascertain the structural integrity of a flat requires more than a walk around the common areas checking that doors are in place, and all maintenance and service has been carried out.

Every fire resisting door should be checked for suitability and particularly in single staircase buildings the provision of effective heat and smoke seals.
Only when a detailed and if necessary an intrusive survey is carried out can confidence be given to the theory of Stay Put.  This I suggest is not the norm in many high rise accommodation fire risk assessment.

What is the alternative to Stay Put? Only evacuation which presents its own problems. To blindly follow stay put has shown not to be effective in some cases and dangerous when stay put advice is given over the telephone by persons not familiar with the building or the current conditions.

[nearlythere]

The theory of stay put is only OK if it can be guaranteed or reasonably ascertained that fire and smoke will stay within the flat on fire. (It does not consider the risk of fire coming in from outside via the windows)

To do this requires that every compartment is confirmed as being a complete fire enclosure and has not been compromised by alterations, poor workmanship, structural defects or inappropriate materials etc.

To ascertain the structural integrity of a flat requires more than a walk around the common areas checking that doors are in place, and all maintenance and service has been carried out.

Every fire resisting door should be checked for suitability and particularly in single staircase buildings the provision of effective heat and smoke seals.
Only when a detailed and if necessary an intrusive survey is carried out can confidence be given to the theory of Stay Put.  This I suggest is not the norm in many high rise accommodation fire risk assessment.

What is the alternative to Stay Put? Only evacuation which presents its own problems. To blindly follow stay put has shown not to be effective in some cases and dangerous when stay put advice is given over the telephone by persons not familiar with the building or the current conditions.

But JJ the true SP will be as a result of those in other places not hearing a fire warning so that they can stay in their little boxes blissfully unaware and so undisturbed. Do I recall, in the old days, that, apart from a Pt6 system, each dwelling also had a heat detector in their hallways that in the event of an actual fire would sound a warning throughout the building, a heat detector being more inclined to pick up an outbreak in a unit rather than false actuation through steam and black toast.

If not perhaps that's how it should be?

[Tom Sutton]

Do I recall, in the old days, that, apart from a Pt6 system, each dwelling also had a heat detector in their hallways that in the event of an actual fire would sound a warning throughout the building, a heat detector being more inclined to pick up an outbreak in a unit rather than false actuation through steam and black toast.

If not perhaps that's how it should be?

Perhaps that's how it should be but it certainly wasn't, council blocks of flats including highrise had no fire alarm not even domestic smoke alarms, not till later in the century.  

[Owain]

Perhaps a legacy of Grenfell will be that all high-rise buildings have addressable/zoned voice alarm systems so that clear instructions can be given to occupants when to move and when to stay put.

And perhaps a superintendent to be on duty in the building at all times -- I think New York and other US cities have this requirement -- and all buildings to have an evacuation plan including an emergency refuge(s) already identified. In London at night these might be tube stations - they were used as shelters during the War, and at night the traction current is off for the tunnel cleaners.

[David Rooney]

But JJ the true SP will be as a result of those in other places not hearing a fire warning so that they can stay in their little boxes blissfully unaware and so undisturbed. Do I recall, in the old days, that, apart from a Pt6 system, each dwelling also had a heat detector in their hallways that in the event of an actual fire would sound a warning throughout the building, a heat detector being more inclined to pick up an outbreak in a unit rather than false actuation through steam and black toast.

If not perhaps that's how it should be?

This is generally the requirements for HMOs and flats not built to current Building Regs ie. L2 in the common areas.

The problem with any AFD is always going to be vandalism, maintenance and access.

There is always lots of vandalism, little effective maintenance and impossible access.

It's very idealistic ... but then so is SP !!

[Owain]

The problem with any AFD is always going to be vandalism, maintenance and access.
There is always lots of vandalism, little effective maintenance and impossible access.

That might be addressed by legislation. Vandalism of a safety system = mandatory 6 months imprisonment, loss of all social housing eligibility for 5 years. Mandatory allowing access for maintenance/inspection, enforceable with a Big Red Key if necessary, with all repair costs charged to the flat leaseholder or, if in rented housing, mandatory eviction and loss of all social housing eligibility.

Maintenance - and this is going to be a big issue post-Grenfell - a named responsible person (not a body corporate) facing personal fines, imprisonment, loss of public-sector pension (like the police face in cases of gross misconduct) and disqualification from being a responsible person or a landlord.

(Oh, and I'd like the moon on a stick dipped in hundreds-and-thousands too please.)

[lyledunn]

Currently, there is an understandable clamour for high rise residential buildings to be provided with every fire safety measure known to man. No doubt the expectations and demands for the Grenfell inquiry to come up with sweeping changes will be high. However, the response needs to be measured. One ought not forget that the primary cause of this disaster was the combustible rain screen cladding. Had it not been for the cladding there would have been no fire of any consequence.  If this concern was removed in considering fire safety in such buildings, under what other circumstances would a stay put policy be defeated in a properly constructed and maintained building? Whatever the answer to that question, if fire detectors are involved they will only be required to generate signals for control and monitoring rather than alert.

[Tom Sutton]

We need to consider the understanding of the term "stay put" and not only those in fire safety but joe public. I have researched fire procedure notices and the guidance, on stay put, which gives poor information that does not comply fully with the purpose built flats guide page 154. The line "If you are in any doubt, get out" is most important.

[colin todd]

I have scrupulously avoided commenting on this matter and will continue to do so, but, as the moderator is currently rather busy and is probably not monitoring all the instant solutions and other pontification , I would implore all the armchair experts not to make allegations such as "..the primary cause of this disaster was the combustible rainscreen cladding" nor to make potentially libellous statements about any individual on the basis that if is it is stated in the Daily Mail it must be true.  This is the matter of a criminal investigation of possible manslaughter as well as a public inquiry and it is wholly inappropriate for anyone to make such bold assertions.

[Lazyhman]

I have to fully support Colin Todd`s post. Unless you a part of the investigation team, which if you were you would not be posting on here, please stop the assumptions and rumours and wait to see the outcome of the inquiry and criminal investigation.

[lyledunn]

Could I implore the experts not to implore the armchair experts to not make assertions such as "the primary cause of this disaster was the combustible rain screen cladding". Not one person pursuing any aspect of the investigation of this fire will be swayed by comments and opinions made on this or any other forum, or indeed, the Daily Mail. If they are, they shouldn't be on the investigation team!
Fire safety experts are a dime a dozen these days and I can understand why they would want to gang up and gag the poor old armchair experts. The latter ask too many difficult questions which sometimes finds the expert not to be so much of an expert in the first place!
By the way, forty years of bully-boy dictators in Northern Ireland trying to stamp their authority on their local community never prevented me exercising my god-given right to state my opinion, so bog off to any one who wants to block it now!

[Mike Buckley]

I personally always considered Stay Put as being the wrong term, it should be Delayed Evacuation. The consideration being that although it was usually the case that people were relatively safe to remain in their flats, there may come a time when they would need to evacuate and they should be able to do this safely.

ADB does specify the fire separation of between the individual flats and the means of escape. The unfortunate issue is that the fire separation is frequently not maintained.

Although stay put seems easier as a procedure, it does require a much higher standard of maintenance and fire protection than an evacuation procedure.

[David Rooney]

I personally always considered Stay Put as being the wrong term, it should be Delayed Evacuation. The consideration being that although it was usually the case that people were relatively safe to remain in their flats, there may come a time when they would need to evacuate and they should be able to do this safely.

And the problem is always how do you communicate the evacuation should the occasion arise?

Presently it's down the FRS to knock on doors!

Have always said there should be a "big red button" to manually signal an evacuation controlled by a responsible person if the proverbial looks like hitting the fan .....