Author Topic: Means of Escape for Firefighters (Read 13319 times)

Richard Maze · « **on:** November 08, 2005, 10:25:08 AM »

Is anyone aware if the proposed guidance documents to the RRO are to give guidance to employers on protecting means of escape for firefighters? In particular, where will employers stand in respect of illuminated exit signs over doors which are locked and secured after hours?

PhilB · « **Reply #1 on:** November 08, 2005, 10:34:00 AM »

Firefighters are not relevant persons when attending incidents.

Tall Paul · « **Reply #2 on:** November 08, 2005, 05:21:35 PM »

Fire fighters are not relevant persons with regards to general fire precautions. However article 38 provides for the maintenance of measures provided for the protection of fire fighters. This may include fire fighting shafts, dry risers, smoke venting systems, sprinklers etc where these are provided for fire fighter protection via other legislation.

Paul

Richard Maze · « **Reply #3 on:** November 08, 2005, 05:30:02 PM »

Thanks Paul, that was my initial thought. Appreciate your comments.

val · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2005, 08:41:56 PM »

Just to make things a little more complicated.

Firefighting shafts, etc, normally provided under B5 are not provided for the safety of fire fighters...they are provided to assist firefighters in saving others from fire. This makes Article 38 slightly wrong as most provision isn't strictly for the protection of fire fighters. It is also prefaced by the term 'where necessary' and would be subject to the same test of reasonableness as everything else. E.g. I rent the ground floor of an empty mill with a totally shot dry riser. Is it reasonable to make the tenant or owner re-instate the entire dry riser?

Funny old world.

Paul · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2005, 10:00:25 PM »

Reading the review of part B it would appear that due consideration has been given to FF safety. Although I guess this is not retrospective it is at least an improvement.

Surely ODPM will consider this??

wee brian · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2005, 10:38:22 PM »

The current Part B already deals with firefighter safety. But as Val points out the firefighting provisions are there to facilitate fire fighters protecting others.

The Order is unnecesarily complicated on this issue. There could easily have been ageneral requirement to maintain all fire safety measures.

val · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2005, 11:19:57 PM »

Ah Wee B, if only! ODPM scared of nasty fire fighters demanding sprinklers for protection of fire fighters. Accordingly came up with this fudge. Such is life.

PhilB · « **Reply #8 on:** November 09, 2005, 08:36:24 AM »

And to further complicate things, failure to maintain those facilities provided by virtue of article 38 is only an offence if relevant persons are placed at risk.

Therefore if firefighters are killed in a buidling due to a lack of maintenance of a fire-fighting shaft, no offence has been comitted unless other relevant persons have been placed at risk.

wee brian · « **Reply #9 on:** November 09, 2005, 09:09:44 AM »

This daft measure in the order was put there to keep firefighters happy. They had been promised a measure to ensure that firefighting facilities were maintained.

Rather than just bundling all safety measures together they decided to make a special article just for this purpose and then got themselves all tied up.

jasper · « **Reply #10 on:** November 09, 2005, 08:57:14 PM »

How odd is this, I seem to do my fra's wrong as I assess ALL people including firefighters entering the building

wee brian · « **Reply #11 on:** November 09, 2005, 10:33:27 PM »

Jas

We are talking about the Fire Safety Order which isn't in force yet. The FRAs you are doing now are a different beast altogether.

Of course need to consider fire fighter safety isn't covered by the WP regs iether.

Perhaps you should change your approach.

jasper · « **Reply #12 on:** November 10, 2005, 11:04:39 PM »

Oh no I've been doing my fra's wrong for the past 6 years! (being considerate to the firefighters)

colin todd · « **Reply #13 on:** November 10, 2005, 11:29:57 PM »

Och well Jas, not a lot of harm in protecting the nice operational chappies. Wee B and I like them. Its the old guard fire prevention officers we don't like.

wee brian · « **Reply #14 on:** November 11, 2005, 08:54:28 AM »

Exactly

If we had just a simple - fire safety measures must be adequately maintained clause then this would all have been covered.

But many folk claiming to represent the operational guys insisted on more specific requirements - this, in my view, has led to less protection for firefighters.

News:

Author Topic: Means of Escape for Firefighters (Read 13319 times)