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
Admin  
#1 Posted : 04 August 2000 08:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Young I would appreciate comments from the forum regarding the issue of the use of fire marshalls in buildings. I have a belief that the inherrent problems in the use of fire marshalls, e.g. absence, training, risk to the marshall etc. are enough to outweigh the benefits of such positions. My thoughts are that by having good evacuation procedures in place that are tested regularly and by empowering everyone to leave the building as soon as they hear an alarm would be reasonable enough. My concern is that the reporting to the attending fire officer may not be as accurate. Comments please. Ron
Admin  
#2 Posted : 04 August 2000 09:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor I suppose it depends upon the nature of the building, its occupants and the extent to which management are prepared to risk fire-loss. The advantages of fire marshalls can be considerable: trained in use of extinguishers; appreciate nature, causes, spread of fire; train and instruct colleagues; inspect/check their work areas; ensure extinguishers are in place, escape routes free, etc; assist with practice drills; keep management informed; check areas are 'clear' in the event of fire; ensure arrangements for disabled persons are operational; etc; etc. If management can cover all these by means other than appointing fire marshalls they might then reasonably consider whether they are necessary.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 04 August 2000 10:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Anthony Buck Although generally not a legal requirement, some fire certificates will specifically require the appointment of fire wardens/marshals. Thus in the first instance you should check the fire safety training & drills appendix of your certificate. In all but the smallset premises some form of warden is required to sweep the floor. Where it cannot be guaranteed that a warden would always be available in their appointed area due to work patterns, then the shop fire warden system should be used. Instead of appointing individuals, in the event of a fire alarm the department manager or other senior person who hapens to be present at the time of the alarm takes charge & will normally collect a floor wardens card detailing that floor's assembly point etc. Each card holder can then report the status of their floor to the fire officer or ideally a co-ordinater for the whole building. Having one person co-ordinating the reports of the wardens means that thefire officer only needs to speak to one person, not a dozen. As all staff are legally required to receive annual fire action training (which can be done in house during a luch break- it does NOT mean sending every employee on an expensive course)the card systm usually works well. I have attended fire evacuations in both wardened & un-wardened buildings & there is a considerable difference between the two & it is worth finding a varient of the fire warden system that works best for you.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 04 August 2000 10:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Anthony Buck Additional: Fire Marshalls are not at an extra risk in doing their job. If they are, it's because you have not apointed sufficient Marshalls to cover the building in a safe reasonable amount of time. In evacuations in Marshalled buildings, the Marshalls do not spend ages in the building, and are merely at the back of the bunch of staff they are responsible for, thus leaving at virtually the same time.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 04 August 2000 12:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie I would say that marshals are necessary where you have large numbers of "non-residents" eg schools, hospitals, shops etc, but in a normal place of work it is up to line managers/supervisors to oversee the evacuation. I work with a large number of marshals (FE College), and it is made quite clear to them that the only thing they are responsible for is ensuring that every unlocked (note - unlocked) room is empty before leaving themselves. Those of you who have never worked with young people would be amazed at the number who ignore fire alarms!! Laurie
Admin  
#6 Posted : 04 August 2000 20:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt Laurie Surely that's going round in a circle? The supervisors/managers are acting as fire marshalls and need training quid pro quo Geoff
Admin  
#7 Posted : 07 August 2000 10:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie Geoff You may be right, but how much training do you need to check that a room is empty? Laurie
Admin  
#8 Posted : 07 August 2000 10:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Anthony Buck You would be suprised what training ought be given. A marshall will only hear the alarm, & not know where it originated. It may have been from a room in their area, & the alarm may have been triggered by Automatic Fire Detection, rather than a person. If the Marshall just rushes into the room, they could put themselves in peril, particularly if there was a backdraft, or at the very least get a lung full of smoke. Basic home fire safety includes checking a door before opening & proper workplace training should include how to open doors ifyou are not sure what's behind them- you don't just swing it wide open. The chances of opening the door to the fire area are not large, but are enough to warrant attention to the matter. If training is not practical, the information should at least be in fire safety induction material that all staff should get anyway.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 08 August 2000 08:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor A limited view on the use of Fire Marshalls seems to have emerged. Please see my earlier response. I believe that there is great value in having specific people 'on the ground' who know about fire and what needs to be done about it - not just during an evacuation. Safety Officers cannot be everywhere at once and Managers have busy schedules but 'local' motivated people can supplement the duties of the foregoing and help to keep things safer for us all.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 08 August 2000 09:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Anthony Buck Quite true. Fire Warden Courses cover day to day Fire Prevention (or should)& the investment made in training should not be wasted by assuming wardens only have a job when the alarm rings. Routine duties of wardens are often forgotten, but they are invaluable for spotting fire hazards in their area, training other staff in the fire procedure, & liason
Admin  
#11 Posted : 08 August 2000 09:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Young Thanks for your comments. It appears that the opinion is to have wardens as long as they are adequately trained and that my thoughts of no wardens are not agreed with. However the question of cover for absences appears to be more of a problem inasmuch that there is no clear consensus of what to do when wardens are not at work. The idea of the senior person taking charge is what I have in place at this time but senior people are often out of the office at meetings etc. and their presence cannot be guaranteed. I am working on the principle that by covering the issue with enough nominated people, we are acting reasonably. Is there anyone out there who works in an office based environment of several floors who uses methods other than wardens?
Admin  
#12 Posted : 16 August 2000 22:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt Ron Had an interesting experience with a client. Various factors contributed to a fire in their premises. There are no fire wardens. The surprise was that despite procedures being in place (evacuation is supervised by managers who are not formally trained in fire procedures but they do carry our regular fire drills) and tested - when it came to the real thing people just stood and watched the fire and the attempts to put it out. The LFA man wasn't surprised, apparently it is quite common. One lesson learned though was that the fire hose in one corner of the main workshop wasn't long enough - another one has now been installed. Geoff
Admin  
#13 Posted : 17 August 2000 09:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Young Geoff, Your comments regarding managers doing nothing in the event of a real fire could also happen to fire wardens. No amount of practice or training can identify those who will panic and who won't, in a live situation for the first time. Expert advice on the question of using fire wardens and to what extent is mixed at present. Interesting question for the "risk assessment" lovers. How many of you have included the potential for panic as detailed by Geoff in the findings of your risk assessment and what recommendations have you made to alleviate it?
Admin  
#14 Posted : 17 August 2000 12:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jane Blunt Dear all I support the idea of having fire wardens. One solution to the absence problem can be to have 50% more trained wardens than there are zones to be checked. You then must have some kind of card or token system, to ensure that only one person is checking each area. Make sure your fire training and your procedures extend to the aftermath. I have witnessed a real fire situation at a place of work in which, so as to get rid of the 'nasty noise', the fire alarm was switched off almost straight away by a member of the maintenance staff. This meant that people approaching the building, but out of sight of those evacuated, started to enter it, while there was a fire inside. Make sure that everyone knows who is in charge of the management of the situation, including those helpful maintenance staff!! Jane
Admin  
#15 Posted : 21 August 2000 09:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Anthony Buck As illustrated in the above case, peoples reactions are not what you expect. Most people expect panic, but this is not the case, with the exception of large crowds of the public. In the typical employee only workplace, most people's initial reactions are the opposite. There have been several cases of people watching fires, & there is an ongoing problem in getting people to evacuate. You should always assess the liklihood of panic, as some situations are likely to develop it, but you must also address the just as likely situation of peope not evacuating properly/at all.
Admin  
#16 Posted : 21 August 2000 20:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle The is is the advice of the Fire Protection association; 1) Legal responsibility for single occupier buildings lies with the owner of the building. 2) If in multiple occupation, the owner must apply for a fire certificate and the owner/occupier of each set of premises have respnsibilities for complying with the various fire precautions required. 3) All companies, in practice, should have a director or senior manager responsible for fire safety. 4) The fire safety manager should appoint a fire warden or wardens as required, each of whom should have deputies. Hence the fire safety manager should; a) appoint fire wardens/deputies by name b) designate areas of the premisies for which they will be responsible c) specify their duties in writing d) establish procedures for their reports to be actioned e) train them f) maintain continuity when staff who are wardens are on leave or move to other companies g) control issue of hot work permits h) liaise with the Fire Brigade 5) The role of the fire warden is; a) take appropriate and effective action if a fire occurs b) Ensure that escape routes are available for use c)Identify hazards in the workplace d) record and report their observations 6) If a fire is discovered the fire warden should; a) ensure the alarm has been raised b) check that manufacturing or other processes have been made safe c) evacuate staff from the building or area involved d) check that any staff or visitors with disibilities are assisted as planned e) call the reporting centre and give details of the location, severity and cause of the fire if known f) fight the fire if safe to do so. This advice is taken from the publication; Fire Risk Management in the Workplace - A Guide for Employers - Second Edition by Adair Lewis and Willian Dailey Published by the Fire Protection Association ISNB 1-902790-04-9 £15.00
Admin  
#17 Posted : 30 August 2000 16:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jerry Hill Having well trained marshalls and well practiced evacuation routines has got to be the answer surely. Staff attempting to fight fires who haven't received adequate training could well end up damaging themselves or trapping themselves between the source of the fire and the escape route. During a practical demonstration, I once saw someone 'shoot themselves in the foot' with a CO2 extinguisher, because she had forgotten to angle the horn towards the fire. Fortunately, there were no lasting effects, but in an emergency situation...who knows what might have happened. Follow the advice of the Fire Brigades...GET OUT, GET THE BRIGADE OUT and STAY OUT!
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.