FOCUS
Learn by example Richard Jenkins describes how concerning
levels of false fire alarms can be tackled by adopting the security sector’s approach
R
ECENTLY PUBLISHED reports about fire and rescue service (FRS) deficiencies have highlighted a number of deep
seated problems in the fi re safety sector. These have focused on issues including significant training lapses and an unduly high number of unnecessary FRS callouts to false alarms. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services evaluated 15 FRSs in 2019 and identified three (London, Essex and Gloucestershire) as requiring improvements. It also found that London Fire Brigade (LFB)had been ‘wasteful’ and ‘slow to implement changes’ over the past three years. While average LFB response times in 2017-18
were graded as ‘excellent’, the report said that approximately 48% of these were to false alarms and that not enough was being done to reduce unnecessary callouts. Home Offi ce fi gures show that more than 150,000 FRS callouts in England in the year ending March 2019 were ‘due to apparatus’ such as automatic fi re alarms – about two thirds of all false alarms. Of those, 40,813 were caused by ‘faulty equipment’ and 34,582 were listed as ‘cooking/
48 JULY/AUGUST 2020
www.frmjournal.com
burned toast’. These have been the top two causes of false alarms among English FRSs for the past eight years. BBC News reported in December 2019 that fi ve out of six English FRSs say they do not send crews in response to every automatic fi re alarm, because the ‘vast majority’ are false and the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) has said that repeated false alarms put the public in danger. The majority of these false alarm calls are
caused by automatic systems being set off by, for example, burnt toast, steam, aerosols or cigarette smoke; or simply because the system is badly maintained. Frustratingly, the fi re sector is yet to benefi t in a similar way to the security sector, where 25 years ago deep seated problems associated with high levels of false alarm rates were tackled by a combination of measures implemented through a cross party collaborative approach. This successfully tackled detrimental issues affecting intruder alarms through actions centring on third party certification (TPC), inspection and approval of installed monitored alarm systems.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
