Call Challenging AFAs

[Jono]

Has any of the numerous Brigades that people work on here adapted and improved on the call challenging process for AFAs?

I do know at some point there was talk of this becoming more of a thing to narrow down pumps responding so alarms so they can be possibly utilised elsewhere on a more serious jobs.

I still feel we go to jobs that could be solved with a single question from control to some of these premises( should it be called in) that would stop responding to activated alarms that have been deliberately set off with false intent. 

Im not singling control out as I’m not fully aware of there procedures should one call through. I just thought “is there signs of smoke or heat anywhere” would narrow down the type of response needed.

What are others opinions? 

[Dyson]

A firefighter in support of not attending fire calls ? Wow that’s a 1st ! 

Most brigades have a reduced attendance depending on the premises and risk rating. 

[Vema11]

We attend residential 24/7, commercial AFA we attend from 17:00 to 09:00. So not business hours. 

I personally think we should be attending all AFAs anytime. In a way it’s good to get a bit of familiarity with the route and the building itself also access codes, keys, what type of fire protection it has, some risks within the building (high fire loading for example), gives you an idea of the lay out, were the fire panel is etc, So when there is a actual fire your better prepared.

I know senior management and the government see them as a waste of resources also tying up fire engines  and I can see that argument too. 
But we can be re directed off them if a more serious incident comes in, plus I know in my old service they had the option of “available at the incident” on the MDT so they could get binged to a house fire whilst at a AFA investigating. 

[LFB92]

Not sure I think being able to be mobilised away from an AFA is a good idea. Something has caused the system to be set off. It could be a small smouldering fire in a waste bin for example and you are mobilised away to only return to a fully developed fire a few hours later.

We also run the risk of bringing cuts on ourselves by removing AFA calls. 

As far as I’m concerned AFAs are fires until they aren’t.

[Dyson]

I totally agree. I’ve attended so many over the years that were jobs.  Both residential and other. In the Brigade I work for, if the caller calls to cancel, control give the officer in charge of the attendance the duty of deciding whether to attend. I always attend with the full attendance as was turned out.

One such call was a called to an AFA in a house. No further calls, no radio traffic on route, turned out to be the whole of the ground floor going like a train, and a ladder rescue from the 1st floor. She would of certainly lost her life had we not attended. 

This is a serious business we are in…

[LFB92]

Absolutely, my first decent job was a AFA. The only thing I would change for AFAs were if control were to contact the key holder after mobilising us, rather than it needing to be requested.

[Jono]

Nobody is saying anything about not being in support of going to Fire calls or AFAs in general.

What I’m saying is “if” and i suppose it’s a big if, it has been deemed false by a mistake and has a person on the phone to declare that it could of been something like toast or cooking etc, then that I suppose could stop a pump going….

That said completely agree with the argument presented that the Decision is a big one do OIC not to attend and see for yourself and declare it safe…as I would imagine nobody would take on. Better to be safe than sorry and look stupid I guess.

This also brings me into another topic that do you think something like this “999 eye” or whatever it’s called when control operator will be able to access a video on somebody’s phone will change any of this? I have heard the obvious one about it being able to send an image for a job prior to arriving to give the OIC some sort of POA but will it also be utilised for this?

Also agree with @LFB92 regarding the key holder being notified as soon as mobilised.

[BRV]

19 hours ago, Vema11 said:

But we can be re directed off them if a more serious incident comes in, plus I know in my old service they had the option of “available at the incident” on the MDT so they could get binged to a house fire whilst at a AFA investigating. 

You can only select available at incident after you’ve sent a stop.

[Messyshaw]

Personally I think its ridiculous to send a crew to a medium to low risk premises which is occupied at the time the AFA actuates 

An office, a supermarket,  a warehouse - all have staff capable of checking the cause of the AFA without the need to put the community at risk (by removing local fire crews from being available) and risking the crew and others from a needless blue light run

Its not rocket science to check for the reason an AFA has sounded, or does it represent a risk that only fire crews can deal with.

There is no statutory duty that requires fire service attendance, in fact there are a range of permitted changes to fire alarm systems that prevent unwanted fire signals 

I am responsible for a large number of buildings from large office buildings to technical and light industrial.  None - not one - have a procedure where we call 999 for help

In the biggest building, there are over 3000 detector heads including VESDA, the premises is occupied 24/7/365 and in 10 years we have called the LFB about 5 times for AFAs- and even then only as there was a smell of burning or on one occasion,  it wasn't possible to access a locked room immediately 

It takes effort including staff training which all costs money. 

I have missed shouts - including rescue shouts- as I was tied up on an AFA. And was involved with clearing up a RTC where a pump overturned and colleague and friend died en route to a regular AFA

I understand the fear of cuts, but its a far bigger problem 

[Vema11]

21 hours ago, BRV said:

You can only select available at incident after you’ve sent a stop.

Yeah I’m not 100% sure how it worked. 
but maybe something worth considering to stop you being tied up or if you get info on arrival that’s it’s a false alarm. You could book mobile at incident whilst you do a bit of digging or give paperwork. So the time tied up at a incident is limited again. 

[Noddy]

Im with messy and have no problem with a cancelled attendance if an occupier calls it in as a false alarm.  If a call isn’t challenged though, then yes, we should go. 

[Dyson]

22 hours ago, BRV said:

You can only select available at incident after you’ve sent a stop.

Fire control have the gift to order you to redirect, if they so wish. 

Totally understand where messy and noddy are, and it’s a great opposing or alternate argument. I guess it’s about personal perspective. Firefighters are always gonna want to go on calls….

[Messyshaw]

When considering the whole attendance (or not) to AFAs its worth considering why the fire alarm has been installed.

The vast majority of automatic fire detection systems are designed to inform occupants of the presence of a fire so they can take appropriate action - which of course usually involves those at risk making their way to a place of safety 

Procedures must be in place to enable persons to get to a place of safety without fire service intervention- so fire service resources are not required to effect an evacuation. 

So why send an attendance to moderate and low risk premises at all? What role does that crew have? They can check the zone, reset the panel or if a fire, carry out first aid firefighting until further help arrived- all tasks the premises concerned should be capable of.

High risk premises such as hospitals and residential care homes should still attract a fire service response, but even there, regular AFA shouts should be investigated and Fire Safety teams mobilised for repeat offenders to consider enforcement action under Article 17 of the Fire Safety Order (maintenance)

[Noddy]

11 hours ago, Dyson said:

 Firefighters are always gonna want to go on calls….

Couldn’t agree more mate, which is why I’m in favour of being stood down from an AFA if it’s challenged and deemed to no longer need an attendance from us.  Too many times was I dealing with an AFA only to miss a proper job.  

[Dyson]

Ok guys I hear and feel what you’re saying, I do! But what about the jobs I’ve been to that were AFAs on the call sheet ? What about lives that have been saved ? Property saved ? Disaster averted by that early fire signal ? 

I don’t mind going to AFAs because my experience tells me that’s the right thing to do. At the same time I do understand and respect the alternate view, I just don’t agree ❤️

[Br9mp81]

a lot of afa systems are run by remote security companys can that not be tied in to cctv on the building if only as way of a heads up

[Noddy]

On 09/07/2021 at 21:48, Dyson said:

Ok guys I hear and feel what you’re saying, I do! But what about the jobs I’ve been to that were AFAs on the call sheet ? What about lives that have been saved ? Property saved ? Disaster averted by that early fire signal ? 

I don’t mind going to AFAs because my experience tells me that’s the right thing to do. At the same time I do understand and respect the alternate view, I just don’t agree ❤️

And this is why I love this forum and it’s members 👍 honest and respectful debate 👍

I guess it’s down to reliable call challenging mate.  I agree with you in that if the only thing we get is an alarm actuation then yes, we should go.  I don’t agree however that we go anyway despite a follow up call to say it’s a false alarm. 

[Healdav]

Perhaps a little caution is needed. I worked in an office block where no one had told the architect or builders that it rains from time to time and that rain is wet and short circuits electrics.

For months, every time it rained heavily all the fire alarms would go off, and they would try to evacuate the building. This was not popular. People just looked out of the window, saw the rain and thought I'm not going to get soaked for a short circuit. Eventually even the Fire Brigade stopped attending. They just looked out of thew window!

[LFB92]

@Healdav problem is, on the time it isn’t caused by rain and there’s a fire, no one leaves and it’s now a problem. I’ve been to a fire where an entire floor of workers were still In the office so it does happen.

[Messyshaw]

If the AFA is actuating when it rains, its not fit for purpose

The relevant fire service should offer advice, or use enforcement 

[Healdav]

13 hours ago, Messyshaw said:

If the AFA is actuating when it rains, its not fit for purpose

The relevant fire service should offer advice, or use enforcement 

Eventually, after several months the builders were forced to sort it out. It took only a few days. What happened behind the scenes I don't know.

15 hours ago, LFB92 said:

@Healdav problem is, on the time it isn’t caused by rain and there’s a fire, no one leaves and it’s now a problem. I’ve been to a fire where an entire floor of workers were still In the office so it does happen.

I agree, but when there's a thunderstorm outside and you are expected to evacuate across the roof in the lightning, your viewpoint does tend to change!

[Becile]

Just seen this from my old service

Afa attendance

 

[Messyshaw]

About time too @Becile

It simply cannot be right for tens of thousands of hours to be spent by crews dashing about to premises where they often know it was Liz with her hairspray or dust from Freds sander before calling 999, but have to as its 'procedure'.

Where I worked for 12 years after the LFB we had a strict staff search policy. It took some considerable training and effort, but by not doing so you are effectively condoning sending a false alarm call in. That is never acceptable 

 I note the LFB have been pulled by the HM Fire Inspector over their lack of action in reducing unwanted fire signals so they may be next

I would be interested in the criteria for those premises where an attendance will always be made 

[Becile]

@Messyshawlooks like they've been pulled for nearly everything in tranche 2 inspection

[Messyshaw]

I am not sure what a tranche 2 inpection is I am afraid. 🙄