Fire precautions, who inspects a Squadron building?

Adult Staff Execs
21

The number of high rise builings in London (and the rest of the UK) isn’t significant to the Air Cadets, as we don’t parade in high rise builings.

As to the minimum written standards we should adhere to:

Each squadron should be inspected by DFRMO and a fire risk assessment produced by them.

We should carry out fire drills with a minimum frequency of 1 every 3 months.

We should test the emergency lights once a month*. My lights have a maintenance contract in place through RFCA.

The FAFAs should be visually inspected once a month. FAFA should be serviced yearly, and replaced if needed.

The fire alarm should be tested weekly, and if you have an electronic system, you should rotate which call point you use. My alarm has a maintenance contract in place, through RFCA.

We should receive training in FAFA, but since our official guidance is to not attempt to fight the firearm, I’m guessing that the cost of providing training is prohibitive.

Monthly inspections of the building to take place, looking for building waste paper or other fire hazards.

As I’ve said, although not particularly onerous, I personally disagree with OCs taking responsibility for the hardware, especially since if there is a fault, we can do nothing to remedy it.

*Emergency lights should stay illuminated for 4 hours, but I’ll be blowed if I’m sitting in a building with no electricity for 4 hours once a month!

22

Why have so many fire drills? We do one a year at work and no one seems to say anything different. This applies to the fire alarm as well.
We don’t inspect extinguishers at work, so why in the ATC?

We are expected to do far too much, for what reason? If they want these checks done monthly, let the local full time RFCA bloke do it and not CFAV.

23

Trip the test switch for the emergency lights using the little forked key. Then you can sit in the building and use the electricity while you test the lights :slight_smile:

1 Like
24

Indeed in 10 years at work we have only had 1 fire drill when I was on duty. They were very upset that we didn’t evacuate, but it’s not our fault that the fire alarm is the same as the custody affray alarm!

We all ran down to the cells, saw all was in order and went back to work! :joy::joy::joy:

5 Likes
25

Who is paying you to do this?
They pay a sparks to waste his days doing this and charging RFCA a fortune to do it. If I had to do this at work, I’d be getting paid to do it.

We provide enough CFAV freebies as it is.

3 Likes
26

Maximum number of occupants at any one time: 33 Cadets + 10 adult Instructors.
1.6a: Drill Hall – restricted to 42 persons (seated).

Found this on a fire safety plan on “whatdotheyknow” relating to an ATC squadron, which I assume is for a single hut. So squadrons with similar huts and more cadets than this attending are in breach of the FSP and I would imagine the OC could be in trouble if something did happen.
We hire our village hall for things and the maximum number of people is 91 and in the hire agreement it states if the number is exceeded the insurance is void and the organisers will be liable.

Reading the thing it said about testing the electric fire alarm, we had one fitted and I’ve never tested it, as being in a single hut we shout fire to clear the building, which has been all I’ve done since I was a cadet. I’ve been in the building when it’s been ‘let off’ and I think it’s designed for industrial settings as our one at work isn’t that loud. Our one at work is quieter but has a flashing red lights, I assume to cater for the hard of hearing. Anyway part of the evacuation process is check all rooms.

27

The maximum capacity is noted on your fire safety management plan, and should be tailored to your building.

A couple of years ago, we were inspected by a DFRMO representative. When I received the updated fire safety management plan, it gave 37 persons as the maximum capacity. When I questioned the WExO, who had accompanied the inspector, he said that the inspector had used the Bader stats to arrive at that number. I had 37 cadets and staff on the books, so that was the number he used… After a couple of months of email ping pong, and not inconsiderable badgering,I was able change it to a figure based on square footage.

Again, my fire safety management plan says that an annual service contract must be in place (again, it needed months of emails and phone calls to get it sorted with RFCA), and that the call points must be tested on a weekly basis. We have three call points, and test 1 a week, on a rotating basis.

Annoyingly, other huts locally just have a single rotary bell, so don’t take nearly as much effort to maintain.

1 Like
28

Is that an empty or furnished area calculation? Did it take walls, cupboards, corridors, stores areas and door opening into account. or was it the building is x*y and that’s the area.
Area calculations are dangerous unless you take things mentioned into account.
I thought 33 is about right, as I say I’ve got a single hut and if all of them turn up it is bloody uncomfortable in the hut and like sardines and that’s 35, plus 5 staff.

Think of your house without furniture and then with it in and how much space you lose.

29

Empty, I guess!

Practical capacity and maximum legally allowable capacity (as stated in the FSMP) are two different things. The problem with saying that only 33 (or 37 in my case) people are allowed, is that it doesn’t allow for recruitment events, visitors, joint events etc.

My argument to the WExO was:

What would happen if all of my cadets and staff (37 at the time) paraded at our AFI? Do I make three cadets stand outside whilst the Wing Commander, WSO, and WWO are in the building? What if the committee are present as well? Do I send more cadets out side?

1 Like
30

You would have thought the practical capacity would be the figure to use.

Many years ago we had an office redesign and had a bit of a discussion around this, as according to the people doing it we could get 9 people in it, but with desks, cupboards, printer etc it is only just big enough for 5 of us. I used the 1 m gangway for evacuation as a throw away.

2 Likes
31

We had our inspection a couple of years ago. The Max for the spooner huts in the wing was 30.

The minimum size for a sqn is 30. This is a class E sqn, The staffing for a Class E sqn of 30 cadets is 3 Offs 3 NCOs and 4 CIs. If the committee turns up that can be another 6. That is a total of 42 people.

If the roomers are correct then HQAC are looking very hard at under strength squadrons but the majority of squadrons in my wing would be acting in contravention of it fire regs it everybody turned up on the same night.
Luckily I have two sooner huts so double the numbers but when I have final parade ant all of the staff are in the main hall am I breaking fire regulations. Also I only have two toilets 1 male and one female. That limits my numbers to 25 males and 25 females.

1 Like
32

I have gone unisex on my toilets for this very reason.

33

I will be doing the same.

34

Then how can a Squadron that has undergone co-location, go into a building that has just had its allowable number increased from approx total of 40 to 100 with no changes to the building. This absolutely stinks as politics are at play in all this to merge the squadrons with no regard tp the risks.

1 Like
35

I don’t know the answer to that.

From my own experiences, the original maximum occupancy of my building was 37 (it actually specified 32 cadets and 5 staff). That number was simply the number of cadets and staff I had on the books at the time.

I have since had that increased to 60 (with a maximum of 40 people seated in the drill hall), which was based on square footage.

Perhaps the same process has been followed in your case?

If you think there is foul play afoot, ask to see the Fire Risk Assessment. It will show the maximum occupancy, any amendments, and why it was amended. If you think the squadron is operating outside of the Fire Risk Assessment, call the RAFAC confidential reporting line.

As an aside, I tend to think that trivialities such as complying with Fire Risk assessments tend to be brushed over when someone has a super idea, so it’s not impossible that your Wing Commander is ignoring rules just so their “smashing idea” doesn’t end up making them look silly!

1 Like
36

Where do I find that?

37

01400 267 816 - The Air Cadets Confidential Reporting Line.

1 Like
38

Bob, this organisation is playing fast and loose
Because it has no leadership at the top decisions are being made with people not even thinking only a quick yay or nay.

If what you say is tried then I urge you to report it…
As they will wash their hands of any wrong doing and blame you

39

The acid test would be having a fire, the local fire brigade turning up and any subsequent investigation finding that you had more than you should in their eyes, but iaw the RFCA/DFRMO capacity assessment. I would say that given the local FB would be coming to the incident, they should do the building assessment, not RFCA/DFRMO and RFCA/DFRMO get a copy.

Years ago when I was running a DF the fire assessment and check was done by the local FB and I forwarded this to Wing and they tried to say we had to check things. I passed this to the owners of the building who advised them the fire risk covered all users and users were not permitted to do anything outside what they had done, which was used for insurance.

When it comes to squadron numbers I don’t think safety comes into it as the ATC is all about numbers. Maybe they’ve been lucky in not having had a major fire incident with casualties.

40

Personally, I think the local fire brigade have enough to do!

I’m not really sure whether you think the assessments are too generous, or not generous enough?

Lets not forget that DFRMO is not the RAFAC, and therefore not as susceptible to “pressure from above” as RAFAC personnel are. Somebody in that organisation has to sign off on the risk assessment, knowing that if someone dies in a fire, they will be called to account for every decision. Who would want to risk that all because some civil servant in a uniform has asked them to fudge the numbers?