Posted By Richard Might go against the grain, but sometimes it is the more practical solution. We run a hairdressing service for older people, ages ranging up to 90+. The risk to a lady of 93 stood outside with wet hair for up to twenty minutes at 3.40 pm on a December afternoon is much greater than moving her to adjacent protected building or zone! I'm sorry, but that is a fact of life - as usual, risk assessment is all Richard

Posted By John Webster Both of the business sectors in which I have worked advocate indoor assembly points in certain circumstances. In my (current) healthcare setting it is clearly undesirable to evacuate patients outdoors. Hospital design creates fire protection zones, and evacuation plans aim to place a protected zone between patients and the source of the fire. If fire breaks through into the next zone, evacuation moves one stage further etc. In oil and gas, the danger area is usually outdoors, and there may be unseen risks from toxic or flammable gas clouds. The tendency is therefore to assemble indoors until the situation is assessed. On installations, the assembly area will be pressurised to keep harmful fumes and gas out. Whilst this had tragic consequences on Piper Alpha, post-Cullen improvements have included an enclosed safe refuge linked direcly to means of evacuation. John

Posted By Mike Charleston Hi Andrew Your reference to leaks of freon or whatever has prompted me to point out that one significant influence on a single muster point outside will be the current wind direction (or potentially other forms of adverse, or calm, weather). If your people have it drummed into them that the muster point is fixed, they might well use it at times when you actually would prefer them to go in the opposite direction!! The benefit of more than one muster point is therefore obvious - those with enough clarity of thought at the time will avoid the danger area; those with less awareness or experience will at least be distributed at more than one location. Mike

Posted By domino I think Andrew's original question provokes more answers than may be expected, as shown by the responses. The biggest problem with having FAP's in different places is in how you inform the occupents of the nature of the fire/emergency. This is relatively easy in those buildings with Voice Alarm but most only have bells and BS5839 frowns on the use of these devices for more than their installed purpose (with relaxation for school class change). I believe that it is far better to have an external FAP which is an area that has been defined as totally without risk (weather permitting). This allows FM's the opportunity to carry out the muster without pressures from the emergency. Additionaly, all staff will congregated in an area where they will not be in the way of emergency services. On the advice of emergency services the company will then be able to make a decision as to whether or not to send some/all staff home or move them to a further location in the event of inclement weather. (This could be written into the Disaster Recovery Plan, where neighbouring companies may be able to provide short term support for staff on a "buddy system") I have fitted a Voice Alarm system into premises where in a particular gas emergency (rather than fire) staff are instructed to close all windows and doors and remain in the building. This would not have been practical with the original bell system fitted. Sounders now have a wide range of tones available for use different emergencies, which could be used if there are hazards other than fire. But it should be remembered that if using different sounds staff training should be to a higher level, testing should be increased and this should be further emphasised by the use of hi-viz warning notices. Whatever location is decided for FAP's and how to inform staff of the nature of the emergency the priority must be the safety of life domino