BRIGADE INSPECTOR URGES WAYS OF LESSENING RISKS AT FIRES

Grey River Argus, 9 April 1948, Page 3

BRIGADE INSPECTOR URGES WAYS OF LESSENING RISKS AT FIRES

CHRISTCHURCH, April 8. Roy Girling-Butcher, inspector of fire brigades, told the Royal Commission inquiring into Ballantyne’s fire to-day: “Something can be and should be done to minimise the risk of disasters similar to Ballantyne's”. He said post-war conditions in the building industry and in local authority administration were such that it would be many years before the constructional rekuirements of the approved egress code could be applied to existing buildings. There should be an immediate inspection of all commercial buildings by qualified officers of the fire brigade or local authority (.0 determine the deficiencies of buildings in respect of the spread of fire and egress facilities. The primary responsibility was on the individual for the protection of his or her own life and it would probably be neither wise nor just to attempt to transfer the responsibility to the brigade or the building occupier, he continued. Publicity should be given Io the necessity for co-operation with the brigade on the evacuation of buildings and some indication might also be given on the standard of care by occupiers necessary to give an adequate evacuation order, particularly where employees were responsible for money, goods or records and might for that reason delay evacuation unduly. Mr Girling-Butcher also suggested that in addition to the installation of special evacuation warning devices in individual buildings, a standard evacuation warning should be adopted for all buildings. That, he said, could convenient?/’ be arranged by operating a siren on a stationary fire engine on a rising and falling note, produced by switching the siren on and off at regular intervals. The warning signal could be given at the request of the occupier of the building or at the direction of the officer in charge of the fire. Referring to the model by-law on means of egress in the Standards In-> stitute building code, Mr GirlingButcher said he agreed with the provisions, with the exception of the clause referring to an existing building. He considered the clause too indefinite. It placed an unfair obligation on local authority officers. Mr Girling-Butcher said that there was ample time even after the arrival of the fire brigade for the complete evacuation of Ballantyne's, after the volume of smoke showed that the fire was attaining serious proportions and before the break through. “The loss of life must therefore be attributed mainly to want of appreciation by all concerned of the potentialities of a fire of this nature in a building of this construction ano contents”. he added. The primary duty of the brigade was to put out the fire, if this could be done in the early stages. Problems of evacuation and rescue did not arise. The two duties were normally undertaken side by side, but protection of human life took precedence over property. Mr Girling-Butcher said it was the first responsibility of the officer in charge on arrival at a fire to satisfy himself by observation, inquiry or search that everyone was clear of the building.

Review of Firemen’s Work at Ballantyne’s P.A. CHRISTCHURCH, April 8. At Ballantyne’s fire inquiry this afternoon, the Chief Inspector of Fire Brigades, Mr Girling-Butcher, in reply to Mr G. G. G. Watson (for the Crown) said that since 1907 there had been a deputy inspector only once—for about 15 months after his appointment in 1944. Cross-examined on inspections he had made to ensure that brigades were efficient, he said that the last occasion on which ha had tested the efficiency of the Christchurch Brigade, in the manner prescribed in the Act, was in 1943. It was not customary to tost city brigades in such a manner under peacetime conditions. His reports usually covered organisation and equipment, rather than turnout. Asked whether he was satisfied with the brigade’s efficiency under the leave system, which meant that the superintendent and his deputy could be away at the same time on occasions, witness replied “no”. He agreed that, with the present system of training, it was wrong, and possibly dangerous, that the third or fourth“officer should be left in charge of fire-fighting in a city the size of Christchurch. To further questions, .he said it was desirable that auxiliary firemen should be appointed in Christchurch. USE OF LADDERS There was a long cross-examination on the use of electric ladders and wheeled escapes. Witness said that a wheeled escape would be desirable as a compliment to the Tilling-Stevens ladder. He had not recommended a wheeled escape for Christchurch as former Superintendent Warner had not favoured the equipment. There was a difference of opinion among firemen on the usefulness of such escapes. Mr Watson: “If there had been a hooked ladder at Ballantyne’s, would it not have been very useful for rescue work when the Ajax ladders failed to reach the windows?” “Yes. I think it would. In New Zealand I regard hooked ladders as a secondary piece of equipment. In the light of Ballantyne’s fire, I would regard it as desirable that they should be standard equipment on at least some engines in Christchurch and Dunedin. The buildings in (hose cities are not as high as those in Auckland and Wellington, where hooked ladders are used”. Asked about the trial of the electric ladder, Mr Girling-Butcher said that in a certain position, the ladder could reach the third floor of Ballantyne’s without fouling the power lines. Mr Watson: “Having regard to test, do you think there could ' have been any justification for not sending the ladder when the call was received?” —“I think it was an error of judgment, out understandable. When the ladder was at the fire, I understand it was not used because the power lines were considered to be in> the way. The barrage of wires looked threatening”. Mr Watson: “There is some evidence that the ladder passed Goodman’s building and that the driver’s attention was drawn to the girls”. Witness: “If the driver heard such a call, I do not think he would disregard it. He certainly would not. be instilled if he did”. He considered that every officer should have kept in. mind the advisability of using the electric ladder for rescue work, and that, if they did not, they had not fully discharged their duty. Mr Watson: “Was it. not the duty of some officer to make an immediate inspection of the building to discover the seat of the fire?” —“That is standard practice”. “Should he not. then discover the entrance to the cellar?” —“One would think so. The officer made a genuine effort to do so, but was taken for a route march round Hio back of the building. The most, serious omission of the brigade at Ballantyne’s was the failure of the officer to make an immediate inspection with a view, to taking surrounding and covering measures with water; if necessary”. He thought such an inspection would

have resulted in the discovery of the fire escape between Goodman’s and Congreve’s buildings. SHOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED He agreed - that someone should have investigated what was happening on the first floor of Congreve’s buildings. The action of Duty Officer Station Officer Thompson in not sending out. the electric ladder was a breach of routine orders, said Mr Girling-Butcher. The breach was committed by a man who really should have no say in the matter. To Mr T. P. Cleary (for Baiiantyne’s) witness said that unprotected vertical oepnings and large unprotected floor areas were common in New Zealand. The Standards Institute, by law on the means of egress, should be adopted eventually. He agreed that' the building owners and occupiers were entitled to guidance front the authorities as to the specific standard of safety vzith which they should comply. The Commission adjourned until to-morrow.