Posted By SBH Section 14 of the RRFSO states: (d) emergency doors must open in the direction of escape;

Posted By Driller Mick Thanks for that, I have just been reading through the Fire Stratgey and it states that: "Doors will open in the direction of escape unless less than 60 people are likely to need to use the door". This fire exit will never have anymore than 10 persons max using this exit in the event of a fire alarm activation. My interpretation of The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Section 14 (d) is that this is an absolute duty as it states (d) emergency doors must open in the direction of escape; I am correct in stating the term "must" is an absolute duty. Or is there some loop hole that designers, engineers & architects can use to get round this? Aye Driller (Dumb Struck)

Posted By SBH The limited numbers is usually related to the width of the doors not to whether it opens inwards or not. Are there exterior hazards preventing the doors opening outwards?

Posted By Crim Are the doors in question fire exit or fire doors. A slight difference as fire doors internal to a building could open in either direction. (However should be in the main direction of travel). Have the doors been installed according to the design? If not have them corrected, if so the designer could be negligent? No fire certificate these days only a fire risk assessment. Your fire risk assessment should probably advise changing the doors to open in the direction of travel. Must is the same as shall - so it is written so it shall be done!

Posted By MT In my experience, the best course of action is to call in your community Fire Officer and ask for his advice. I did that for a new build, and he gave excellent advice and told us exactly what needed to be done in order to comply.

Posted By CFT Driller 'Shall & must' are absolutes as you have suggested. There are on occasions some anomalies to consider for final point of exit and that is; does it enter a busy (person) traffic route, i.e. could it present danger to those on the other side? In which case subject to numbers of occupation or attendance, then opening inwards 'may' be acceptable in a given circumstance. Who signed the building off for BR's? LA or were you contracted out? And finally, what did the design state, was it inwards? If not then a mistake may have been made, the latter being unlikely IMO. CFT CFT

Posted By Derek Housley You are all correct, but what has been missed is that under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 part 2 14 (1) it states in reference to Emergency routes and exits the and I quote "Where necessary" So that door can open open inwards or outwards. But it would only be necessary for them to open outwards when there are 60 or more persons to pass through it. Above 60 persons a second means of escape would be required, again with the door opening outwards. Under the fire risk assessment there is always exceptions to rules and "where necessary" for example in a high risk area i.e. a spray booth used for spraying flammable paints, the doors would be crash doors and open outwards with greatly reduced travel distances. I would also be looking for less non flammable materials to spray with under the risk assessment if this was achieved again it may be acceptable to have the doors inward opening. Hope that helps Derek Housley MIFSM MIFPO G.I.Fire.E