Protected Routes and Travel Distances

[wee brian]

Phil

If your trying to look clever it's not working. Try to grow up a little.

Getting back to the subject - yes there are lots of ways of measuring TD and it really doesn't matter too much which one you use.

However if you build a new building using one method and then some bright spark turns up and insists on another method then there are all sorts of problems.

The key issue is to understand that its not an accurate science and not to get over excited about these things.

[PhilB]

It was you and your chum that confused the issue Wee Brian. I'm not trying to look clever just give advice that was requested. "Try to grow up a little"...not sure where you're coming from there but please contact me personally to discuss.

[Firewolf]

This is getting very silly.

PhilB isnt trying to be "clever" Wee Brian. He has argued his point sensibly.

Mr Todd appears to have misread the original question on the thread and has resorted to sarcasm to try and get his point across.

I dont find that particularly "clever" or useful, and considering Im going to be attending one of his courses shortly I cant say I've got a very good impression of him so far!

Its a little bit annoying that I've paid membership fees to listen to grown men act like children. Lets stop the personal jibes and lets keep things light humoured !

Phil B is absolutely right - infact my colleagues and I sat for three hours looking into this issue. USING THE BLUE GUIDE (Please note this Colin) PhilB is unquestionably correct to state you need corridor approach, or lobby to make a staircase a protected route and therefore stop your travel distances.In buildings of a certain height additional protection is required.

In the real world  IO's dont go round hugging their blue guides we instead try and apply common sense using the risked based approach to enable us to provide a simple and practical solution to the public.

Colin you are right in stating that different guides say different things, but that was not the question, I asked specifically about the blue guide.

Wee Brian you are right that stating that this is not an exact science, PhilB has also pointed this out on this thread. He isnt defenduing the guide he simply answered my original questions.

So back onto the original question please gents, and sorry PhilB meant to thank you for all your help yesterday.Indeed thanks to everyone who have posted sensible discussion to this thread.

[wee brian]

FW/PB

Sorry if you don't think I'm helping but I was trying to.

The original post didn't mention the Blue Guide.

I think you are wrong but I don't think you wan't to hear what I am saying.

wb

[Firewolf]

Wee Brian

You are helping and your contributions are much appreciated.

The more sensible discussion on this subject the better.

I just objected to certain persons becoming silly and sarcastic.

I will always listen to sensible points of view.

[wee brian]

Ok I'll try and be good.

The Blue Guide is out of date and, on this issue, inherantly floored.

It is quite normal and acceptable to have an open plan office building with single check protection to the stairs.

Using the blue guide you would have to measure your travel distance all the way down the stairs to the final exit.  This is daft and would mean that half the office buildings in the country won't comply.

Please stop using the Blue Guide.

wb

[PhilB]

Brian
Blue guide has some good benchmarks. We use it as an aid to teach basic principles risk appropriately. Until new guidance is produced there is nothing much else to go on, and the new guidance is worrying from what I have seen, albeit only in draft.

[wee brian]

I've promised to be good so I'll say no more.

[Firewolf]

I agree with you both!

The Blue Guide does have floors, but conversely it also conatins good bench marks.

I think it is extremely important to use it as an aid to teach basic principles, but I also accept that some IOs will have difficulty with a risk based approach.

On most courses Ive attended IO's readily admit they aren't used to the new risk based approach. We arent all quite the nasty stick weilding dinosaurs some people make us out to be.

We are still taught the blue guide not only to highlight out where it fell down but also where it gave some good sound guidance which can be carried forward.

IO's (i am one myself) can longer bang people over the heads with the blue book, but instead be flexible,listen to proposals and where necessary explain why we feel those proposals are insufficient.

This is why Ive generated this thread. I wanted to know why the blue guide asked for corridor or lobbied approach, what was the reasoning behind it?, why do we need it?, is it applicable these days etc etc

Its important to understand the content of the blue guide because despite legislation changing we will be inspecting existing premises which will probably have fire safety measures within them which were installed to the guide.

So if someone asks me "excuse me mr fire officer can I take that fire door off that staircase" i can think about why it was put there in the first place, assess whether it is or isnt required or ortherwise.

[colin todd]

If it was the background to the requirement you wanted all you had to do was ask. It was because the authors had not realised that it was common to have open plan accommodation opening directly into a staircase. This was admitted off the record at the time it was written. Its what happens when you have codes drafted by people who are not practitioners.

[colin todd]

On a point of detail, Philip, the WFPL includes certian clauses of the Man Regs, but then you already know that.

[steve walker]

I agree with you both!

The Blue Guide does have floors, but conversely it also conatins good bench marks.

I think it is extremely important to use it as an aid to teach basic principles,
...

So if someone asks me "excuse me mr fire officer can I take that fire door off that staircase" i can think about why it was put there in the first place, assess whether it is or isnt required or ortherwise.

One problem is that we professionals have not agreed what the basic principles are. I would love to have a concise description of the principles of fire safety, unfortunately my thread didnt get very far, but I enjoy the  search.

The guides are useful tools but in a few circumstances are confusing or contradictory. They are a typical British mix of pragmatism and common sense. This has served us pretty well but has its flaws.

I would like to see a more scientific approach with a real commitment to plain english. They should be available free on the web and should be easily and regularly amended and improved. The web is a great way to do this.

[colin todd]

Steve, Was BS 7974 and its associated PDs no good to you?

[steve walker]

Colin,

It was very interesting but fell down a bit in the plain english department. It didn’t define clearly what principles it was based on or what the principles of fire safety are.

For the fire engineer a great tool and interesting for a lesser mortal to dip into. I particularly liked the section that you referred me to, the time line, it shows a lot of basic information nice and clearly. I think this really does sum up "escape from fire" very neatly and yet a student of fire safety could spend many a happy hour exploring its intricacies

This time line is shown in the "Principles" section of PD7974 - 6 (Figure 1). This section does ramble on a bit (like me) and although it may contain a few principles it doesn’t clearly state what they are.

[colin todd]

Steve, I think it makes clear that the fundamental principle ( one might even say truism) is that you need the escape time to be less than the ASET.