Fire Doors & Cabin Hooks....

[Paul1979]

Please can I ask for peoples opinion on something which has cropped up during a FRA at two of the premises we manage...

Cannot give too much information due to owners discretion, however the premises are places of large gatherings (one is 1,000 capicity and the other is 3,000) and are used for theatres, stage acts, etc.

Previous management at both venues had allowed the fire doors leading to the large seating areas to be kept open during public arriving & leaving using cabin hooks...now, their mitigating case was that they ensured that a member of staff stood by each door so that, in the event of a fire, the doors would be manually closed by the said member of staff once all members of the public had left...

Other fire doors are not held open at all.

Obvious alarm bells ringing (pardon the pun!) - the first FRA completed by an outside consultant [all previous FRA's were carried out by the caretakers] highlighted this as a concern as we expected...the FRA states that cabin hooks are to be removed completely to prevent temptation of use, and has recommended mag holders with a time delay of 1min be fitted so that the doors automatically close, with the thinking that everyone has evacuated from the area within 1min. My thinking is that this may be pushing it a bit fine, especially as there will no doubt be disabled / elderly / etc. who may need longer...

The owner has told us that the procedure was agreed with the local Fire Brigade as it was back in the 1980's...as per usual, nothing to back this statement up.

We have found an old certificate issued by the local F&RS (issued under the Fire Precautions Act 1971) which doesn't mention this procedure at all.

Has anyone ever had any experience where such a procedure as the cabin hooks / member of staff has been accepted??

My thinking was that if the owners insist upon this, we draw something up officially and invite the local F&RS to visit?

Any thoughts / experience / guidance always much appreciated.

PS - and yes, the owner is bulking at the idea of fitting the mag holders due to costs...

[bernicarey]

The system you are describing is something I have seen is use at large regional theatres which I have attended in recent years, with a capacity of the sort you are speaking of, over several floors, Stalls, and several Circles above them.

The doors are closed until they are ready to let the audience in.
The Usher arrives and hooks the door open while taking ticket stubs.
The Usher unhooks the door when they leave their post for the performance to commence.
The Usher may, or may not, return and hook the doors open at the end of the performance, to facilitate exit.
They then unhook the door once the auditorium is clear.

I don't see any problem with it so long as it is documented in the FRA and in their working procedures.
In my opinion, the person doing the FRA does not understand the situation.
When do they think the hooks might be used in an unauthorised manner?
Are there clear instruction in the training of the staff, that the hooks are only to be used in the direct supervision of an Usher?

Basically the Assessor can't just go wetting themselves because they see a Cabin Hook.
I'd much rather that, with a documented procedure for their use, than find random wooden wedges laying around the floor.

Some people are just so blinkered, they get fixated and can't see the bigger picture.
The regulations are about keeping people safe, not blind obedience to aspects in isolation.

[Messy]

I have to agree with Bernicarey, this is normal practice in many places of entertainment and poses little risk if managed effectively.

As long as the doors are only held open during the times when people are entering and leaving the auditorium- including intervals- I wouldnt be unhappy

Think about your proposal to fit door magnets with a 1 min delay - what does it add compared with an adequately trained member of staff who can react immediately. Plus, after automatically closing the doors, in many cases they would be open seconds later as 100s evacuate thru them.

A staff managed option is often used when there is a difficult problem. I had a very old listed office building- formerly a house - where 300 persons were needed to pass thru an inward opening final door. It could not be rehung to open outwards over the pavement

So a system was developed that the receptionist would immediately react to a fire alarm by opening the offending door and hooking it open. This was accepted by the fire service

My advice would revisit this procedure and see what can be done to make it work. One way would be to ensure management of the doors is effective. Staff training, briefings/induction for new staff. 2, 3 or 4 fire drills maybe? Even postcard encapsulated instructions carried by staff

[witsd]

If there's no evidence of these doors being held open when not in use, then there's no issue.

It's the same theory as doorstops – if you can guarantee that the doors are not being left held open, there's no reason you can't have them. The obvious issue is that general staff aren't going to remember to close them if the fire alarm goes off, or even if they really need to go and pee.

In this instance, it sounds like trained fire wardens with clear procedures are manning the doors, so that issue is far less likely to crop up.

Of course, at the first sign that the doors are being left open, action would need to be taken, and retraining might well be inadequate. I'd probably recommend that the door status is noted and recorded during drills to ensure the procedure is working.

[Paul1979]

Thank you all for your replies and insight - its a new sector for us managing this style of building, which comes up with a multitude of H&S challenges, so we are learning all the time & appointing third party assessors to complete all the risk assessments. On the basis of what you have said, I will contact the fire risk assessor to challenge the remedial actions.

Thanks again & keep safe.

[bernicarey]

.... I will contact the fire risk assessor to challenge the remedial actions.

Paul
It is most likely that the Assessor will simply dig their heels in and say 'that's my recommendations live with it'.
If that's the case it doesn't matter.
You simply include the relevant staff actions/instructions in your Fire Safety Management Plan for the premises.
I would expect that following the FRA, there was some sort of documented response to the recommendations placed 'on file' with it, detailing your response, i.e. what you had done regarding each recommendation.
All you do is state that you do not agree with the recommendation about the doors and that your mitigation of that risk is as follows, etc, etc.

[Paul1979]

Hi bernicarey, okay, thank you - understood.

Yes, there is a remedial checklist with a box to comment in, so we will get together next week with the Owner and put a formal procedure in place.

Again, everyone's advice is much appreciated. Especially by the owner as he doesn't have to get rid of the cabin hooks!!

[andybz]

I am a bit surprised that people are willing to accept this practice so readily. I do agree it may be acceptable but procedural controls like this come at the very bottom of the hierarchy of risk controls and need to be fully justified. The stumbling block would be that an engineering solution (magnetic door catches) exists and because it is higher up the hierarchy the fact that it has some cost is not enough of a justification on its own.

I would expect part of any justification to be a demonstration that a fire external to the room does not create a significant risk to the people in the room. Maybe that could be because people would evacuate immediately before any significant smoke ingress.

[bernicarey]

I am a bit surprised that people are willing to accept this practice so readily. I do agree it may be acceptable but procedural controls like this come at the very bottom of the hierarchy of risk controls and need to be fully justified. The stumbling block would be that an engineering solution (magnetic door catches) exists and because it is higher up the hierarchy the fact that it has some cost is not enough of a justification on its own.

I would expect part of any justification to be a demonstration that a fire external to the room does not create a significant risk to the people in the room. Maybe that could be because people would evacuate immediately before any significant smoke ingress.

I think you're totally missing the point.
In the circumstances as far as I'm aware of, and have witnessed elsewhere, the hooks are used before a performance while the Usher is stood there checking tickets. So a staff member is in attendance, on the spot.
In addition, they may or may not be used to hold the doors open while the event/show empties out at the end of the performance. So people are already exiting the premises.
So the circumstances you are describing of 'risk to persons in the room' are nonsense.
Magnetic door catches are for doors you want held open for a long time, such as a corridor, not the entrance to an auditorium/theatre.

Did you not read the circumstances of use that I described previously?

[andybz]

So the scenario I have in mind is the usher hooks the door open for the 20 or 30 minutes whilst people enter the room. In this time they become aware of a commotion and go to investigate. It turns out to be a fire. The usher rushes off to raise the alarm but forgets the door is still open. Smoke pours into the room. Unlikely I agree, but I don't think it is impossible? Please remember that major accidents are a combination of lots of small things going wrong, not one big problem. As I said, I would not rule out the reliance on a procedural control just it needs better justification than just "I have seen in use" elsewhere.

I would view a fire door as a safety barrier. Propping a door open is overriding its safety feature and should not be done lightly. Occasional overrides (i.e. wedging a door open to allow equipment to be taken into a room) is acceptable with controls (make sure the wedge is removed). Routinely overriding a safety barrier, which is what is being described, is another matter. Again, as I said, I would not rule out the reliance on a procedural control just it needs better justification.

I was not aware that magnetic door catches are only for corridors. They would seem ideal on entrance doors to an auditorium, especially if there are several doors. They could be programmed to release at the start of the performance, so no reliance on people remembering to unhook, and of course will close if fire is detected and fail safe on power loss. I guess it depends on your definition of what a "long time" is when referring to a door being held open. 30 minutes before a performance, 15 minutes at the interval and another 15 minutes at the end is an hour. Repeat that every day, and maybe more than once a day it adds up.

[Messy]

So the scenario I have in mind is the usher hooks the door open for the 20 or 30 minutes whilst people enter the room. In this time they become aware of a commotion and go to investigate. It turns out to be a fire. The usher rushes off to raise the alarm but forgets the door is still open. Smoke pours into the room. Unlikely I agree, but I don't think it is impossible? Please remember that major accidents are a combination of lots of small things going wrong, not one big problem. As I said, I would not rule out the reliance on a procedural control just it needs better justification than just "I have seen in use" elsewhere.

I think the issue here is that everyone contributing to this thread has a different image in their head when carrying out their own assessment of the situation. Its inevitable and nothing wrong with that.

The point about a risk assessment is it is not attempting to eliminate risk to 'impossible' levels, but reduce it to a tolerable level. So if you have assessed something is 'unlikely', its is surely more difficult to justify expensive control measures.

With respect, I don't think anyone is justifying anything here purely as they have seen it before, but it does show the potential for a precedent. I was a fire safety inspector in a team that covered London's west end with literally thousands of entertainment premises - including huge theatres, cinemas , casinos and the like. I can tell you that this open door system was widely accepted with caveats

My view is that a properly trained and managed staff system like this in a high risk premises will be quicker to react and more effective than relying on technology. An attendant will be able to release the door catches on a smell of smoke or in the early stages of a fire. A commercial fire alarm system is nowhere near as sensitive than the human nose and of course the attendant will be on scene and able to reassure & direct the public.

Don't forget that already in many big theatres and places of assembly, there is no audible alarm for the punters automatically linked to the fire alarm system. Instead staff are alerted (pagers or discreet flashing lights) before an announcement is made. One nightclub I inspected used a short burst of the Dr Who theme to get bouncers in place by fire exits before announcing an evacuation.

Its true, people can be unreliable - and it would be difficult to accept a system of manual intervention in a workplace for whole working day, with staff that may attend meetings elsewhere or pop out for lunch or get otherwise distracted. But for a concentrated (say) 3 hour period, using theatre staff whose role includes safety stewarding, it is entirely justifiable

[bernicarey]

As I said, I would not rule out the reliance on a procedural control just it needs better justification than just "I have seen in use" elsewhere.

I was not aware that magnetic door catches are only for corridors. They would seem ideal on entrance doors to an auditorium, especially if there are several doors. They could be programmed to release at the start of the performance, so no reliance on people remembering to unhook,

I afraid I think you're being selective and misquoting to suit your opinions.

The indication of having seen the system in use was an indication that it is clearly acceptable to Fire Inspectors up and down the country.

I did not say the catches were 'only for corridors' and I find your suggestion that they could be used for Auditorium doorways lacking in consideration of the public using the premises.
I'm sure an elderly person using a walking aid to get into the auditorium would not appreciate the door suddenly closing on them without warning simply because an automatic programmed system had decided the door must now be shut as it is 30 seconds to the scheduled performance start.
I equally doubt that such a programmable system is in any way practicable in a theatre where individual performances may have their start time delayed due to all manner of unforeseen circumstances.