Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
firestar967  
#1 Posted : 04 November 2009 13:32:59(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

At present I work for a contract as a fire fighter and used to be the company health and safety rep. The department has been given an unused building to use for training purposes. Unfortunately one of the managers has decided to use a metal bin with straw in to simulate a smoke environment inside this building. This is done at night when only four employees are on duty that means a breathing apparatus team of two, with another in BA as the instructor and one person outside. Everything about this seems wrong as even our SOP’s state that an emergency team is to be made available as soon as possible when using BA. I have spoken directly to the manager, no good, the new health and safety rep, still no effect. The managers seem quite happy to let this practice continue. The building itself is well constructed but has no power to it, so has no ventilation system in place should something go wrong. Any helpful advice welcome.
Steve Granger  
#2 Posted : 04 November 2009 21:15:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve Granger

get it in writing..... without seeing it its difficult call, but I suspect a FRS bod might offer risk assessment for simulation training and idenntify synthetic smoke is used for a reason I have to assume that the current R includes aspects such as ; COSHH assessment of the smoke (for those in viscinity as well), Env Protection (pollution), contamination and cleansing costs, .... oh yes, and risk of fire! Perhaps occasional might be excusable for realism, but I would still be cautious as safety, exercises are meant to develop people not endurance test them. Simulation Steve
firestar967  
#3 Posted : 04 November 2009 22:03:34(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Hi Steve, Managed to get somewhere today by the simple expedient of stating a couple of possible outcomes. Any incident involving Breathing Apparatus is reportable under RIDDOR including training. Because smoke (not synthetic) is being used thereby making the atmosphere within the room toxic this now makes it a confined space and all those regulations now apply. I then explained what the legal penalties could be and it has been decided that all training exercises within the building using real smoke is to cease. The company health and safety engineer has been contacted and asked to review this procedure. The nail in the coffin was the support of my fellow fire fighters backing up my arguments which meant the manager had to concede the point. Reason why I'm no longer the rep is because the managers would not listen or act, which the new rep has told me that he had put my previous concern in writing to the senior manager and was totally ignored. Any wondered why I'm looking for a new job??? Still win a few and hopefully never lose a few!
firestar967  
#4 Posted : 05 November 2009 15:58:46(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Well forget my previous post as apparently the safety engineer has approved the use of real smoke in this building. So I stand corrected but find it goes a bit against the grain. A two story building that is totally blacked out with a cellar and stone steps. No power to the building so no emergency lighting should an accident occur and no ventilation system to remove the smoke rapidly. If a fire fighter was to become injured the only choice would be to remove the casualty which could cause complications (not forgetting it’s only a crew of four fire fighters). As a breathing apparatus instructor and 26 years of experience as a fire fighter this rings alarm bells. Also I’m just awaiting my Unit D results so would say that I have up to date knowledge of the legislation as passed all them demanding exams this year. This is for training purposes but obviously my interpretations of the health and safety legislation must be wrong. Well I tried my best!
David Bannister  
#5 Posted : 05 November 2009 17:51:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

As a complete outsider I feel that fire service personnel should be exposed to real smoke in a training scenario before they are expected to enter a smoke-filled room to rescue a smoke-victim for real. Any errors can be dealt with and corrected by experienced and competent personnel. The time to find out that the theory isn't understood is not when the firefighter is about to rescue my Grannie!
David Bannister  
#6 Posted : 05 November 2009 17:54:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

Just noticed - I've been promoted from New forum user to Forum user. Note to boss to be written tomorrow!
firestar967  
#7 Posted : 05 November 2009 19:24:14(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

stuff4blokes wrote:
As a complete outsider I feel that fire service personnel should be exposed to real smoke in a training scenario before they are expected to enter a smoke-filled room to rescue a smoke-victim for real. Any errors can be dealt with and corrected by experienced and competent personnel. The time to find out that the theory isn't understood is not when the firefighter is about to rescue my Grannie!
Agreed in full and have done so many times in training and as a BA instructor but certain safeties have to be put into place in a training environment. As a mistake in training should not result in a serious injury as it would in a real situation. So normally for actual training smoke filled rooms an emergency ventilation systems is in place and the temperature in the room is closely monitored, also emergency lighting kicks in with alarm bells to alert both staff and trainees. This facility does not have any of the above. The fire fighters also are required to do refresher training every four years at a proper training facility where they will do this as well as backdraught and flashover training (flashover is where you are really exposed to some serious heat and often get minor burns). This is about cutting corners and sudjecting employees to unnecessary risks, as this smoke can be simulated using synthetic smoke so no point in using the real as no real benefit IMHO.
bleve  
#8 Posted : 05 November 2009 20:21:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

At the end of the day, a works ERT has absolutely no business effecting BA & line rescue, this must be left to the professionals. Similarly, training/drilling of an ERT, even in a dedicated module offers indiviuals nothing but a false sense of security. Use of BA and CPS/GTCPS for release scenario fair enough, ERT entry into a building involved in fire is sheer negligence on the part of the responsible person. Buildings are provided with alarm system, means of escape and often times active fire protection. Building premises are covered by insurance policies, persons reported and effecting rescue should be left to the fire service. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.
Steve Granger  
#9 Posted : 05 November 2009 21:35:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve Granger

Stuff - we stopped 'induction rights' and burn to learn a few years ago -after killing some trainees. I think Firestar is right and they have the right approach to attend specialist 'hot training' - occasionally, but should 'practice' with synthetic. Bleve - I am contemplating a response but not confident to challenge you on this...... yet .... (help someone it could be a 'heated debate'?). Smokey Steve
Brett Day SP  
#10 Posted : 05 November 2009 23:03:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Brett Day SP

firestar967 I'm nothing to do with Fire and Rescue - my experience is from the confined spaces training that I've had and everything you've described to me about this set screams 'amatuer hour'. Sorry if that's a little blunt but I can understand exactly your concerns and were I in your situation I would also be querying: The lack of emergency venting / extraction. The lack of energency lighting - every facility where I've done traing and refresher has had emergency lights - whilst during the exercise these have been turned off, had a problem arisen a flick of the swithc and lights come on. Why a 'toxic' smoke is being used as opposed to synthetic where the BA can just be removed and 'normal' breathing resumed. Why no 'rescue / standby' team. Why is this being done at night? For me I wouldn't want to approve this the margins are far too slim for any error. In comparison with the facility you described in a later post what is on site seems wholly inadequate.
firestar967  
#11 Posted : 06 November 2009 10:04:39(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Hi Bleve, Not a works ERT team, as all trained fire fighters with all relevant competencies (including IPDS) not LA but MOD contract. Sorry for the confusion, should have made that clear. Thanks for all your responses, at present a couple of things are in motion so will see how it pans out and of course will let you know the results.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.