Posted By shaun mckeever
Salus

Just because a building has been standing 50 years does not mean that it won't have a fire.
How long does it take to evacuate the building? That is a good question and would be one of the measures assessed when determining the solution I have proposed. What is the reality of persons being harmed? Well lets think about that one. Instructions to staff on hearing the fire alarm is to use their nearest exit. When is the fire alarm sounded in a building that does not have automatic detection? That depends on the staff occupying the floor affected by fire - if it is occupied. If it is unoccupied then it is anybody's guess. A fire may be well underway by the time the alarm is raised. Lets say fire occurs on ground floor. Staff on upper floors respond to fire alarm (which may be some time after the fire has started) as instructed using nearest exit which in some cases will be the external exit. Several people from various floor levels now discharge onto external escape as fire breaks through ground floor window venting onto external escape. Security features prevent people on stairs re-entering building. Where do they go now? There will be a mix of reactions some will panic, some will try to go down others will try to go back up. Mayhem ensues.

Nobody suggetsed that two exit routes will be affected simultaneously. Unless it is arson it is highly unlikely. Those whose nearest exit was the protected route will have escaped safely.

Your suggestion at the end 'make sure you have suitable detection and alarm systems' is exactly what was proposed. The rest made up the management procedures e.g. evacs, fire marshals etc. So you put your head above the parapet but you have only agreed with what I have proposed.


GT

I don't think risk assessment is about applying regulations retrospectively or otherwise. It is about deciding what the risk is and if unacceptable removing or reducing the risk. Guidelines are there to help - to guide. In this case the original assessor decided there was a risk and proposed a solution in line with current guidelines. As it turned out that solution was far more expensive than anyone had realised. I was subsequently asked did I agree with the original assessors view and if so what other alternative solution was there. The building manager also invited his friend who happened to be a very senior fire officer to look at the problem. His view was that he was happy with the way thing were. That was his view and his assessment. I share the view of the original assessor, I do not share the view of the fire officer. Unfortunately most people accept the view of someone who has a bit of braiding or a couple of pips on their shoulder above someone who does not. Fortunately in this case the landlord did not.

Your reply seems to indicate that you think only one floor would be affected. As you see from my description above it is more than that. It could in fact be 7 floors.

If we looked at this problem another way. If the same building were being built from scratch today would we accept unprotected external stairs? No. Would the risk be any different? No. So why would we not accept a new build with unprotected stairs?

Posted By shaun mckeever
GT

Why would you assume that training has been successful? Research shows that staff regularly are not satisfactorily trained. Look at the Maysfield Leisure centre fire in Belfast to see how tragically wrong it can go. Middle of the day, fire station only two minutes away yet 8 people died.

That is of course if the floor is occupied. The floor may be unoccupied or it may be occupied by contractors refurbishing etc.

Staff exiting onto the external escape are unlikley to be aware that the escape is being affected by fire until it is too late and they are stuck on the external escape, or the pressure build up behind the fire or a flashover could cause the windows to go whilst perons are passing the window. These are realistic scenarios.

You do know what use the floors are being put to. You asked the information earlier.

The owner is convinced, only he wants the cheapest solution. The only person who remains unconvinced is the fire officer. Until I dropped that bit of information into this debate no-one was arguing for the status quo. This highlights the problem we have that everybody has so much faith in fire officers that anyone else who puts forward a different view must be wrong.

Posted By shaun mckeever
Thanks GT I enjoyed the debate. I only wish those others on this forum who claim to be able to do fire risk assessments would enter the debate. Like you I am happy to be corrected or learn off other people.

I am going on holiday for a couple of weeks but when I come back I might throw another contentious problem in!

cya