Posted By Descarte I think if the sign was big enough it would say "person discovering a fire'should attack a fire if possible without personal risk, if they are and feel competant to do so ensuring their own escape route is behind them and available at all times, using a maximum of 1 fire extinguisher, which if this does not extinguish the fire the that person must evacuate ASAP" In essence every person on your site should have an induction and this should include your company policy and basic fire safety, exit routes, alarm sounds, evac points etc... Some companies would not even suggest employees even try to tackle a fire, some companies nearly insist! Everyone should do some fire training to know how to operate an extinguisher and this should also cover when and when not to attempt to extinguish the fire. Hope this answers your question Des

Posted By shaun mckeever Hi Chris The law requires that firefighting equipment be provided in places of work. The law also requires that some staff are trained in the use of extinguishers. What is also required is that all staff, irrespective of their role, are trained in basic fire safety e.g. what action to take on discovering a fire, what action to take on hearing the fire alarm. There is no law that requires any staff to tackle a fire. Any sign or instruction that implies that anyone must tackle a fire is wrong. In my view if you can nip a fire in the bud before it becomes a problem then why not? The fire extinguisher trades association will produce statistics that suggest that 80% of fires are extinguished by the use of extinguishers. No doubt they have an ulterior motive but I wouldn't mind betting that a significnat number, well over 50%, are probably extinguished by fire extinguishers and the fire service never become involved. Others on this forum (hello Frank) will not advocate the use of extinguishers but I think there is greater benefit to do so providing, of course, no personal risks are taken and that a few safety rules are observed. Now I am only talking about very small fires. I do not advocate tackling major infernos with a hand held extinguisher or anything else. That job is for the professionals. What I do not agree with is fire marshals being the ones expected to tackle fires. Their role during a fire is to ensure the building is safely evacuated and reporting the status of their floor to the senior marshal/fire service etc. What are the benefits? Well you might have a place of work to turn up to tomorrow. Firefighters also deserve consideration. If a fire is allowed to get out of control when it could so easily have been nipped in the bud then they may have to place themselves at risk unnecessarily. You may even save a colleagues life by preventing a fire from growing. So on balance I think there is merit to nipping a small fire in the bud before the problem escalates. Over to you Frank.....

Posted By shaun mckeever Sorry David, the law does require that persons are trained to use the fire fighting equipment provided. If the fire fighting equipment is fire extinguishers then there is a duty to have persons trained to use them. The new RRO wil require similar provisions to be made in respect of providing fire fighting equipment and persons to be trained to use that equipment.

Posted By Frank Hallett I found this one by accident - Hi Shaun; you've partially misquoted me again, but thanks for the mention!! This thread ought to be on the Chat Forum really. The original question asked about the mandatory fire action sign and what Christopher appears to believe is the mandatory content. As has been identified, we've thrashed the life out of this one several times on the Chat forum; but, to assist the thinking:- Fire Action signs are mandatory; The content of those signs is not prescribed anywhere except in a relevant Fire Certificate; The actions defined on that Fire Action Notice must be as a result of a relevant FRA and incorporate the procedures for that particular activity or premises; The controller of the premises is exclusively responsible for the FRA and the Fire Action Notices; Even where a Fire Cert may still be applicable; absolutely no-one can require anyone to attack a fire; If fire extinguishers are considered essential, then all who may be put in a situation where they may need to use them must be properly trained for the circumstances that may arise. The study referred to regarding the alleged success of fire extinguishers in the workplace is the result of a study by FETA and the sources of the information in that study have never, to my knowledge, been made fully public! I've certainly never had a full copy despite having challeged the authors in the SHP and other places to provide it! Lastly - the provision of fire extinguishers should not be to cover deficiencies in the fire prevention and overall fire safety regime - unfortunately, this is what they're usually used for! Frank Hallett

Posted By Eric McCann It is my understanding that everyone should be able to use a fire extinguisher, as they are there to aid escape, therefore does it not make sense that everyone is given basic instructions on them at the initial induction Eric

Posted By shaun mckeever Hi David I have lifted a couple of quotes form both the Fire Precations Act 1971 (still enforceable) and from the Home Office/HSE document (Fire Safety: An Employers Guide)which gives guidance on compliance with the current Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations. I have also provided the relevant section from the new legislation which will be enforceable when it comes in. Sorry it a bit long winded but you asked for it:- The Fire Precautions Act 1971 (Section 9A) (1) All premises to which this section applies shall be provided with - (a) such means of escape in case of fire, and (b) such means of fighting fire, as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case. (2) The premises to which this section applies are premises which are exempt from the requirement for a fire certificate Fire Safety: An employers guide ‘You need to have enough fire-fighting equipment in place for your employees to use, without exposing themselves to danger, to extinguish a fire in its early stages. The equipment must be suitable to the risks and appropriate staff will need training and instruction in its proper use. In small premises, having one or two portable extinguishers in an obvious location may be all that is required.’ The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Fire-fighting and fire detection (Section 13) (l) Where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that— (a) the premises are, to the extent that it is appropriate, equipped with appropriate firefighting equipment and with fire detectors and alarms; and (b) any non-automatic fire-fighting equipment so provided is easily accessible, simple to use and indicated by signs. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) what is appropriate is to be determined having regard to the dimensions and use of the premises, the equipment contained on the premises, the physical and chemical properties of the substances likely to be present and the maximum number of persons who may be present at any one time. (3) The responsible person must, where necessary— (a) take measures for fire-fighting in the premises, adapted to the nature of the activities carried on there and the size of the undertaking and of the premises concerned; (b) nominate competent persons to implement those measures and ensure that the number of such persons, their training and the equipment available to them are adequate, taking into account the size of, and the specific hazards involved in, the premises concerned; and (c) arrange any necessary contacts with external emergency services, particularly as regards fire-fighting, rescue work, first-aid and emergency medical care. (4) A person is to be regarded as competent for the purposes of paragraph (3)(b) where he has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable him properly to implement the measures referred to in that paragraph. The legal language is a bit hard to understand but take my word for it you will be required to provide extinguishing equipment and persons must be trained to use it. I have deliberately tried to avoid implying that everyone must be trained because this is not the case. I am also aware that this has already been tested in court but I am not sure how to source that information. Perhaps another reader may be able to help.

Posted By shaun mckeever The word 'shall' has the meaning of must. Where 'reasonably required' is mentioned it means that unless you can have absolute certainty that a fire will not occur then you must have firefighting equipment. I have trimmed up the RRO jargon to help make it easier to read. 'Where necessary the responsible person MUST ensure that the premises are equipped with appropriate firefighting equipment and take measures for fire-fighting in the premises by nominating competent persons and ensure that their training is adequate. A person is to be regarded as competent where he has sufficient training to enable him to implement the measures (i.e. use an extinguisher if that is the fire fighting equipment provided). 'Appropriate' means, for normal run of the mill stuff all you need is a portable fire extinguisher but a manually operated wet chemical system may be more 'appropriate' for commercial kitchens. Providing nothing is not considered appropriate.

Posted By shaun mckeever Paul I felt that my earlier post with all the legal wording was difficult to understand so I made an attempt to make it easier for anyone reading it, not just for you. It was not meant to be patronising and I'm sorry you have taken it that way.

Posted By Christopher Long Hi all, Thanks once again for your thoughts on this one. It seems clear to me that the installation of extinguishers is subject to risk assessment. If they are installed then the owner of the building has a duty to provide the correct type for use and ensure that those persons who will be using them are trained in their use - the competency bit. In my work situation this issue arose because of the liability issue surrounding the term competent, and because the mandatory sign states that 'anyone' discovering a fire could use an extinguisher. I understand previous comments saying that you can prevent a small fire turning into a major fire by nipping it in the bud, but comments at my place of work arose purely on the grounds of liability and the implications of injury or death due to non-competent persons attempting to tackle a fire and getting into serious trouble. No person is expected by law to tackle a fire and most would simply leave the building, but this harks back to the mandatory fire action sign which gives employees the impression that they could attempt to tackle a fire even without training - you just cannot leave it to chance that someone might be bold enough to have a go. I think that the mandatory sign is wrong. Still, at least this is healthy debate although I meant to post this on the chat forum but somehow ended up here! Kind regards to all.

Posted By Donk why has no one mentioned the management regs, or the HSAWA, all applicalble i believe.

Posted By AMJAD AL ATA Hi all, I would like to add a response that reflect a real situation. In our fire action signs we did contained the phrase that one have to fight fire (without exposing to risk) after alarming it, but we also did a traning in the use of extinguishers & hose reel & the trainig inculdes a criteria for issues such as which fire to fight, when to leave .. etc. I am talking here about a power station that employed about 65 staff (60 of them are technical), but does it make big difference if we talk about a workplace where non-technical people may exist (hospitals, universities.. etc? Regards Amjad