In a widely-reported incident earlier this year, a risk assessment company recommended the removal of fire extinguishers from the communal areas of two blocks of flats in Bournemouth, Dorset. The decision was later revoked but, as letters this month and the article, Portable position, illustrate, it continues to be a controversial issue for the fire industry

Debate on removing extinguishers from common areas

I WISH to challenge the headline to the main article which appeared in the Fire Industry Association (FIA) newsletter contained within the July edition of the journal. Having been part of the ‘fire industry’ for close on 45 years, I object to the ‘Fire industry speaks out against extinguisher decision’ banner headline in the newsletter. On a personal level, I support the recommendation to remove fire extinguishers from the common areas of a residential apartment block. I suspect there are many others who would take the same view.

Fire extinguishers are an extremely effective firefighting aid when used properly by people who have received adequate training. In the hands of an untrained person, they are potentially dangerous to that individual. To ignore that fact is extremely reckless. The Government’s own technical advice in support of the Fire Safety Order recommends that those expected to use extinguishers should be trained in their use. Any fire risk assessment in any other type of occupancy, which did not confirm that fire extinguisher training had been given to those who were expected to use them, would not be accepted by a fire authority. Why is the same logic not applicable to a residential apartment block?

By way of the banner headline, the three commentators in the article (beyond the comments of the FIA’s own chief executive officer) are presented as supporting the placing of fire extinguishers in common areas of residential apartments and, in consequence, their use by untrained residents. Closer examination of their comments casts doubt on this supposition.

Jonathan O’Neill’s comments seem more appropriate to any occupancy other than a residential apartment block. He mentions the need for training but only in the context of ‘employers and their staff’, not an elderly resident in an apartment block.

Iain Cox confines his comments to ‘providers of sheltered and multi-occupancy housing’. In such places, it would be reasonable to expect that carers would be present and that they had been trained in the use of fire extinguishers. Again, these comments were not applicable to a normal apartment block.

Tom Carroll quite rightly expresses the benefits of fire extinguishers but then adds a caveat by saying the general public should not
put themselves in danger and should only use an extinguisher if it is safe to do so. If residents have not had proper training, how can they be expected to make such decisions?

It was particularly disappointing to read Mr O’Neill’s comments on the competence of the person undertaking the risk assessment. Having admired his even-handed and practical approach and contribution to fire safety issues over many years, I can only hope his comments were taken out of context.

The article raises an important issue with regard to the safe use of fire extinguishers and the implications posed by health and safety legislation. What the ‘fire industry’ and this issue needs is intelligent and reasoned discussion, not the biased pronouncements of a trade association intent on protecting the interests of one section of its members. The tenor of the article also casts significant doubt in my mind as to the FIA’s credentials to provide representation for those people involved in carrying out fire risk assessments, as proposed in the same newsletter.

Patrick Carey GIFireE
Locke Carey

Confusion over the provision of first-aid fire appliances

I READ with interest the front cover story on the latest Fire Industry Association newsletter in July 2008 [about the decision by a risk assessment company to remove fire extinguishers from two blocks of flats in Bournemouth and its subsequent revokal]. I also noticed the very carefully chosen words of the influential people being asked to comment. The newsletter represents various trades within the fire industry, fire extinguishers being one of them, and obviously no one would compromise the use or otherwise of first-aid appliances – this I understand.

I, too, would agree that any existing fire extinguishers should not be removed from premises, but these influential people should be very careful not to send out a mixed message. If the general public read the article in the newsletter, I think they could be a little confused.

Unless the situation has changed since I retired some three years ago, the majority of fire brigades previously advocated a policy of ‘get out, stay out and call us out’. However, there was no mention of ‘get out’ in any part of the article.

Since retiring after some 35 years in the fire industry, I have moved into a newly constructed apartment block which is almost totally of concrete construction. The building is fitted with fire alarms to meet current regulations and complies with a fire engineering solution for smoke control. However, it does not require fire extinguishers.

Should fire extinguishers have been required then I would ask the question as to who would operate them in a residential situation. Who, if anyone, would have or had appropriate training, except perhaps myself? Who would be responsible for that training, and who would pay? The residents would also have to pay for maintenance of fire extinguishers in their service charge, and this could be no small expense and should be considered in the overall strategy.

Having now lived three years in an apartment block and now acting as fire warden, I maintain that there is no way that extinguishers should be provided without adequate training.

I would also be afraid that, as I have seen in other apartment blocks, the fire extinguishers might be used to wedge open fire-resisting doors for various reasons, but mainly when residents move things in and out of apartments, including the weekly shopping.

All you very experienced people, what is the correct advice?

Vince Procter GIFireE
Former chairman of the Sprinkler Engineers Society

Professional judgment and the Fire Safety Order

I WAS interested to read David Sugden’s letter, Fire Safety Order leading to confused thinking, back in the June issue of the journal.

I work for a consultancy, one of whose products is the carrying out of risk assessments for clients in compliance with the requirements of the Fire Safety Order. While I would not consider myself a ‘self-styled expert’, I have tried to ensure my ability to give sound, practical guidance to clients, by attending an FPA Fire Risk Assessment and Fire Safety Management training course, satisfying the requirements of the CFPA Europe Examination in Principles of Fire Safety at Work, and carefully studying the comprehensive government guidance supporting the Fire Safety Order.

I have dealt with clients who have in place fire extinguishers in compliance with the Order, yet whose policy in the event of fire is not to use them, but rather to ensure prompt evacuation. That is their professional judgment, to place the safety of the individual ahead of that of the premises. And surely the Fire Safety Order is about ensuring the safety of people ahead of property and equipment? It is also in line with the UK’s long-standing health and safety legislation, which is goal-setting, rather than prescriptive. Professional judgment does indeed have an important role to play.

Finally, I would question the assertion that those who carry out risk assessments would be liable in the event of a disaster. How is it possible to make such an assertion until there is sufficient case law? My advice to anyone carrying out a risk assessment would be to protect themselves and their companies by recording the results, together with the reasons for their recommendations.

Nick Berentzen
Risk Services Consultant
HFL Risk Services Limited

Sprinklers a key part of the fire safety ‘toolbox’

I RECENTLY read the letter by Gary Daniels in the June 2008 edition of Fire Risk Management in which he refers to the retrofitting of sprinklers as a ‘pipe-dream’, preferring to promote the retrofitting of smoke detection.

It is clear from statistics that the use of smoke detection has helped to reduce fire deaths and injuries in homes across the world. It is, however, not the only reason. I would cite, for instance, the introduction of combustion modified foam, particularly in the UK, as another contributory factor.

My point is that fire safety is continually evolving as technologies and systems become available. To preclude the use of any worthwhile ‘tool’ is, I believe, short-sighted. To this end, I believe that both smoke detection and sprinklers have a more prominent role to play in protecting from fire, reducing fire losses and maintaining a healthy environment.

I am also convinced that automatic fire suppression systems should be more widely used where persons are not capable of reacting to smoke or fire detection. Gary alludes to the high percentage of fire casualties among the elderly, infirm or very young. One way to reduce these casualties is to fit automatic fire suppression, which can at least give an early ‘intervention’ to a fire situation – something which smoke detection alone is incapable of.

In short, the fitting of sprinklers is no pipe dream. Installation numbers are increasing, even in retrofit circumstances. This is because the benefits of sprinklers are becoming more widely appreciated by an increasing number of people across the globe and, importantly, in the UK. We need to use all the tools available to make us safer from fire.

Steve Mills, Station Officer, Operational Support, West Midlands Fire Service

Concern over new policy of fire college library

I have recently attempted to borrow some papers from the UK Fire Service College (FSC) library on the same basis as I have done previously.

Over the past ten years I have paid an annual fee to utilise the excellent facilities of the library, paying extra for any document copied or borrowed. Like other supporters of the library, I arranged donated copies of new fire-related booklets, etc.

Suddenly last month, without any warning, on contacting the library I was told that now nothing can be loaned out, no copying is permitted and no one outside the College can use the library.

As a former fire service officer, a senior course director at the FSC and long-time supporter of the College, I find this sudden about-face in the cutting of the library as a resource of information and research absolutely amazing. This policy goes against the common plicy of open access in other major fire schools/colleges that I have dealings with around the world.

The FSC always wanted to be a centre of academic excellence. By pulling up the drawbridge, whoever the ‘spooks’ are behind this secretive policy have done a grave disservice to the whole of the fire establishment, both public and private.

R Coates
MIFireE, FCMI, MIET