Who inspects Squadron HQs and who is responsible. we have all seen evidence come out from the Grenfell disaster inquirey about various people having input into the fire precautions. Do local authority fire and rescue services have any input into fire precautions and implementation of regulations and laws. Also such things as electrical testing of equipment, checking that fire etinguishers are in date, and that alarm systems work, who pays for this? what about training and paperwork that will actually in the event of an incident that will stand up in court, not a military one as that is now not possible but a Coroners and maybe a criminal one which is unbiased.
It will not be, the soon to be Capita fire services for the MoD turning out to an incident but your local fire station. As a âpublicâ building do they have copies of plans of the buildings, and any inspection rights in particular if the HQs are not on RAF stations etc.
As has been said on here are CFAVs who are not in effect employeeâs responsible under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 S3 or does that devolve to RCs and WEXOs.
Grenfell, should be sharpening the minds at what has come out so far.
TBH if you had a situation like that in the block of flats in a cadet hut, then we are in serious trouble.
Why not invite the fire brigade down for a cadet chat and do an inspection if it concerns you.
Iâve got a hut with two doors, at least one of which should be accessible. note should be.
What would be interesting is, do we have Fire Brigade pattern locks on buildings and gates? I bought FB padlocks for the gates, so at least they donât have to have break that down.
When a squadron has an influx of cadets then they if they go above the fire certificate numbers allowed on the premisis for both cadets and staff, then they should be re-inspected as the fire inspection previously is void. I ask the question, do you need more emergency doors, a better fire alarm system and emergency lighting. Whilst you may never use these things not to have them is foolish in my opinion.
Also, it does not take into account electrical equipment brought into the building.
The qustion of ultimate responsibility is also apposite, the Squadron OC, who now cannot be dealt with under the system, the WEXO or the RC or even the CAC?
The responsibility for inspections lie with DFRMO (Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation) they should do an annual inspection of the unit, during this they will do an annual inspection of the fire extinguishers etc. They also complete our fire risk assessments and need to be completed every so often I think it is 5 years or if anything major changes. Itâs our responsibly to follow the fire RA especially in regards to building numbers.
Any works are though RFCA and they also employ an contractor to the tests of the emergany light system. Along with PAT tests.
In regards to personal portable electric appliances there are guidelines to follow and we have a policy in place that adheres to that guidance, such as having OCs consent for the appliance and that visual checks should be completed before use etc.
As long as the advice is followed by CFAVS and anything reported for works I cannot see any blame being put on the unit staff.
As we are now told we are volunteers. All risk is held by the paid employees. I am as OC not paid or trained in risk management or fire safety. As we have seen in the Grenfell fire was well outside any training given to the Station officer in charge of fighting the fire. Indeed the Grenfell fire went outside his training to cope with the situation.
Most spooner huts will have a door at the front and at the back. Easy to turn your back on the fire and leave. Other buildings will have their own fire safety plan, if you are in a ARC then there will be somebody paid to look after the unit, not a RAFAC job.
I was told all new builds are supposed to take 100, but I think that it is based on internal volume. Personally I wouldnât say any more than 30 in a hut, unless it was at least half as big again. If all of mine turn up, itâs almost like playing sardines.
Still doesnât clarify if the locks are standard Fire Brigade which I thought after speaking to a couple of people was a standard for public buildings, as it means the FB can get in without the aggro of breaking gates and doors.
To be honest, given the construction of most of the spooner huts there wonât be anything left to have doors attached to by the time that the fire brigade arrives.
I imagine it would depend on what they do on said inspection, the local DFRMO unit inspects our building once a year in line with the mandatory annual fire extinguisher inspection.
As volunteers I would agree that we arenât trained to mange fire safety at all but we are however, we ultimately have a moral duty to assist where we can, such as completing the monthly inspections of fire safety equipment to the best of our abilities.
The regulatory reform(Fire Safty) order 2005 lists some tasks under maintenance and testing
You must carry out regular checks to make sure that:
all fire alarm systems are working
the emergency lighting is working
you record any faults in systems and equipment
all escape routes are clear and the floor is in good condition
all fire escapes can be opened easily
automatic fire doors close correctly
fire exit signs are in the right place
Which is all part of your monthly HS&E inspection. Which are all pretty easy to complete and dont require specialist training.
If that however wasnât carried out Iâm sure that some level of blame will be found for OC and Sqn HS&E coordinator that should have signed the HS&E statement or OC and/or TORs for coordinator.
The first paragraph of that HS&E statement says
" I am conscious of and accept my duties as OC____________________ RAF Air Cadets, to maintain a safe and healthy environment as detailed in the Secretary of State for Defence, Royal Air Force and Commandant RAFAC Health, Safety and Environmental Protection Policies. We will therefore provide safe facilities and equipment, necessary information, training and supervision to ensure the safety of all participants and those who might be affected by our activities so far as is reasonably practicable."
It differs from building to building as it depends in layout and fire exits if you have a double fire exit ie 2 doors, means you can have more people than if it was 1.
Huts would depend on the lay out as the walls can be placed where they want. When I was on a sqn with 2 huts one had a capacity of 35 and the other 20 due to the different layouts.
Your FRA will tell you quite clearly the limit and you should have a copy of it on display on your HS&E notice board so not too hard to find out, as breech that maximum and the blame will be on the person who let it happen. I think we have found out though Grenfell that ignorance or I didnât know isnât an excuse
Considering that those keys are available on eBay for less than ÂŁ20 I would hope that we arenât using them, Iâd rather pay for a replacement padlock after Trumpton have cut it off than have someone just walk in with a set of keys off eBay!
Why do you think that we have a moral duty to assist? Do teachers have a moral duty to inspect FAFA when they are in school?
We donât own the buildings, so why are we expected to manage safety critical functions? We should be responsible for the personnel, not the fixtures and fittings.
IMHO, itâs a cost issue, plain and simple. RFCA/HQAC deem it too expensive, so have palmed it off onto an unpaid, unqualified volunteer.
Iâve always deemed it ridiculous that we have a âbuilding managerâ within the RFCA that parents us who gets very twitchy about us doing anything at all, and yet I have to go round and check the fire alarm once a month. Heâs paid to, Iâm not. Guess who does it more?
Same with PA tests and fire extinguishers. I have to check every month theyâre in date but Iâm not responsible for doing them, canât get a test certificate out from the RFCA and canât do anything about it if theyâre not in date.
âŚthen you find out they arenât, or arenât in the green band. On reporting this to RFCA through the chain the response is âmehâ or silence! and you hope they get round to resolving it sometime.
The point is âunqualifiedâ anybody who takes on such a role without suitable training is leaving themselves wide open as HQAC will say âwe did not know the persons training needs, they never told usâ.
Look how the Grenfell Inquirey is going and the watch manager was a professional and he wasnât suitably trained.
If when reported it should be acted on instantly as if not you are acting outside the fire certificate the second you allow cadets and staff into the building. That becomes your responsibility not the CAC or anybody elses.
I would contend you are responsible by accepting the responsibilty when not suitably qualified, when you should be kicking it up the CoC and not using the building until the defects are rectified. The CAC downwards will hang you out to dry if anything goes wrong.
People are making too big a deal out of the Grenfell enquiry. Yes the watch manager is having to answer some difficult questions, but ultimately itâs going to come down to the Brigade itself. He has said âI was never trained in thatâ so the next round of questions will be directed at the Brigade âwhy was he never trained to do thatâ. They will quite rightly say âbecause you canât train people for everything and it was assessed as so unlikely as to be unrealisticâ.
Comparing the management of a single or at most 2 storey cadet hut to a 23 story residential block is quite frankly a ridiculous thing to be doing. Our policy is always going to be âget out by the nearest exitâ.
So the actual number of high rise buildings in London is not significant, I think not. But ask the question, how many squadrons both staff and cadets have any fire training whatsoever. No point in having fire extingushers if you donât know how to use them, donât have regular fire drills etc.
People are being asked to do things with no training, so how can you formulate a risk assesment?
We do all sorts of risk assessments without training, why because unless its a very complicated subject most risk assessments are just common sense.
Risk assessing fire safety at a cadet hut should come down to very few things, donât obstruct fire exits, take registers of whoâs in the building and have fire drills.
We arenât fireman (in general) and neither are our cadets, so why complicate matters? When it all goes wrong plans and actions need to be as simple as possible.
Now going back to Grenfell, although off topic it needs to be said. I find it ridiculous that they are going after the fire brigade. The Stay Safe Policy is sound and would have worked at Grenfell if the building owners hadnât put a flammable outside on the building. The press are making a big deal about the station Officer not having been trained, but in reality even if he had made that decision there was no way to communicate it to the majority of residents because those sort of buildings donât have a central alarm. (Because the whole design and planning is based around staying put). Oh and the barrister who claims they were institutionally racist needs a punch in the throat!
Weâre trained at work to use a fire extinguisher, but only to get out if the fireâs in the way. My training means I can put out a fire in a bucket or douse a PC in CO2 and not water or foam.
The problem with the ATC is IF we were trained and the building burnt down we, or more correctly the CO would be accountable. So Iâd rather not have the training through the ATC and whereas my training at work was practical and only to be familiarisation and took 1½ hours in total, the ATC in its excitement would make it as day and pass/fail and then ârequalsâ.
As for Grenfell crap happens and as Daws says you cannot prepare for every single eventuality. IMO IF the block of flats hadnâ't been in Kensington it wouldnât have attracted the excitement it has. But because it is Kensington which has the extremees of rich and poor and i very much doubt not the only place in the UK where thatâs the case, it gave people someone to blame.
Like @pEp I find the whole checking thing to be a nonsense and completely our of kilter with the real world. Our extinguishers at work, get checked once a year and no one has said to do otherwise, but then like in an ATC hut they are ornaments that get in the way, because the instruction in case of a fire is get out, quick and safe and let the fire burn.