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
A Kurdziel  
#1 Posted : 30 March 2015 15:43:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32114546
Would a UK firefighter do this or would the dynamic risk assessment tell them not to be so daft?
John M  
#2 Posted : 30 March 2015 16:57:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John M

I'm sure every fireman in the country would do likewise in that situation except that the safety bods here in the UK would find an excuse not to.

Jon

Ian A-H  
#3 Posted : 30 March 2015 17:52:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Ian  A-H

"The excuse not to" is patently obvious in the film clip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
firesafety101  
#4 Posted : 30 March 2015 18:23:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

The short answer is NO! Followed by DEFINATELY NOT!

USA firefighters ventilate at the top by accessing the roof and making holes to allow the heat and smoke to escape, in theory that then allows access to the building at ground level which is clear of smoke.

I joined Liverpool FB in 1966 and was never trained to do that as it is obviously too dangerous.

There are many many videos available on youtube with similar falls through a roof by American firefighters.

Yes Health and Safety comes more into it now but we never did that even before HASAWA.



mssy  
#5 Posted : 30 March 2015 20:50:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
mssy

There’s a lot to be gained in venting early (including top venting) in a certain circumstances. One example may be where a fire has broken out in a very large single storey warehouse. Early venting at the apex may stop lateral fire spread much more effectively than splashing lots of wet stuff on the fire.

But in the US, it appears standard practice on smaller fire including those (like the one shown) where there appears to be very little to gain in relation to preventing further damage.

So its not necessarily the rationale, but the method I question. UK fire crews tend to vent laterally by removing windows etc, and may do so later on during the fire. Any work at a higher level would involve ladders or aerial appliances – all of it controlled by a dynamic risk assessment (DRA).

As has been said, NO UK FF would be tasked to go aloft a wooded ‘shed’ with a well developed fire below as shown here. I sometimes tended to bend general fireground rules if there was a gain, but I just cannot see what sort of advantage could be gained in such a reckless move.

Note
In 2013 at total of 55 Firefighters died from activities at a fire scene in the US and 29,760 were injured on the ‘fireground’ – That is an astonishing set of figures!
Source: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/
RayRapp  
#6 Posted : 30 March 2015 21:13:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

mssy wrote:


Note
In 2013 at total of 55 Firefighters died from activities at a fire scene in the US and 29,760 were injured on the ‘fireground’ – That is an astonishing set of figures!
Source: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/


That is an extraordinary set of figures, even given the much larger US fire service than the UK. Clearly there appears to be a very different ethos between the US and UK. I believe in the UK fire fighters avoid unnecessary risk if the building is unoccupied - a sensible measure. Perhaps there is some middle ground.
firesafety101  
#7 Posted : 30 March 2015 22:11:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

To add to the post by mssy who gave a very good description of the difference in venting methods, the UK FRS has suffered extreme cuts in manpower, stations and appliances. In two days time Merseyside FRS will close two fire stations and the two pumping appliances will be moved to other stations, once there it is likely they will be "off the run" more than "on the run" due to further cuts in finances/manpower.

The aerial appliances messy mentioned are very few and far between now and are frequently "alternatively manned" by sharing a crew with a pump. This has the effect of delaying turn outs which in turn means fires will develop further before the arrival of the firefighting appliances and crews.

It is becoming increasingly unlikely for ventilation to be required as the premises involved in fires are usually so badly damaged as fire progresses faster than the firefighters can travel therefore larger fires with resulting fire damage are more frequent.

Firefighters are now prevented from taking risks by entering burning buildings unless there are person/s reported inside.

Last Saturday there were 24 pumps available in Merseyside...
Three stations closed and another station's pump off the run.

The other week they had a grass fire in one area (2 pumps) plus three other incidents at the same time and they were "cream crackered".

They were stacking calls and not even attending some calls.

Sorry for the rant but this is the way it is at present and it will get worse.
bob youel  
#8 Posted : 31 March 2015 08:14:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

fire safety

here here
User is suspended until 06/03/2021 17:06:50(UTC) Ian Bell  
#9 Posted : 31 March 2015 09:00:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell

~7 did the call outs interrupt the weekly snooker league?
mssy  
#10 Posted : 31 March 2015 09:19:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
mssy

Ian Bell wrote:
~7 did the call outs interrupt the weekly snooker league?


Ian, you are a funny man!
achrn  
#11 Posted : 31 March 2015 10:27:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

mssy wrote:

Note
In 2013 at total of 55 Firefighters died from activities at a fire scene in the US and 29,760 were injured on the ‘fireground’ – That is an astonishing set of figures!
Source: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/


American safety at work statistics are horribly bad anyway (eg, 3.2 fatal per 100,000 at work in 2013 cf 0.44 (or 0.56 for a longer term average) in the UK - https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html and http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm).

Even worse, the 3.2 figure "is the lowest total since the fatal injury census was first conducted in 1992"

Not knowing the size of the US fire service, I don't know if their firefighters figures are proportionately more or less bad than their average at-work figures are.
firesafety101  
#12 Posted : 31 March 2015 14:48:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

A vast number of USA firefighters are part time and/or volunteers.

Some will attend many fires therefore be quite experienced but others will be inexperienced in comparison.

I don't know the figures but would suggest the number of death and injured US firefighters will be from those two groups.

There is an estimate that 75% of firefighters in Merseyside will be retained (part time) by 2020.

That is the way forward I'm afraid.

Take a look at this and I will let you know the station later, but please feel free to guess the location.


https://www.youtube.com/...bedded&v=CynVjc2JcX4
firesafety101  
#13 Posted : 31 March 2015 14:49:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Sorry I didn't realise the location is on the video DOH
Users browsing this topic
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.