 | IFE Nederland |
Verslag van het Congres IFE Nederland / report of the Dutch IFE Congres on 1 April 2011 16-05-2011
Verslag Congres IFE 1 april 2011
IFE Nederland, the Netherlands Branch of the Institution of Fire Engineers
AGM and Conference, Groningen April 1st 2011.
Impression from the Branch President
1st AGM
Most important issue during the AGM was the formal inauguration of our branch. International President John Woodcock inaugurated IFE Nederland as the 41 branch and the only fully functional branch on the European continent. The branch currently has almost 60 members.
During the AGM the branch council unfolded plans for the coming year. IFE Nederland wants to establish a forum where members can bring in difficult questions for consultation by their peers. The idea is to be different from the several internet forums where it seems that complicated queries get a rather shallow approach. Members may expect a more thorough reply on a query, once the questioner has prepared himself, has done the appropriate research and still is unable to find a satisfying answer the forum can give directions where to find alternative solutions.
Furthermore the branch wants to introduce and reinforce the use of Peer Review as a tool to help with the evaluation of engineered fire safety solutions. In the Netherlands Peer Review is quite unknown, and there is a need for documented guidance for the review process.
Finally during the AGM members were called to step forward and join the organising committee for the next conference in 2012.
Conference: Parking Structures, Ventilation or Sprinkler
The branch registered almost 100 participants, who were welcomed by our host, the Hanze University of Applied Sciences.
At the start of the conference the International President, John Woodcock, awarded Fellowships of the Institution to Ynso Suurenbroek and Ruud van Herpen, both are highly experienced and very dedicated fire professionals.
Some interesting observations from John’s introduction were the increase in the cost of fire losses of 16% per annum in the UK over the recent period, and his focus on the environmental aspects of fire safety.
The conference was moderated by Thomas Faber, Fire Chief of the Greater Groningen Area.
After a general introduction, and viewpoints expressed by 4 speakers, a lively discussion developed about the pro’s and con’s of ventilation and sprinkler protection of closed parking structures.
In the Netherlands there is a strong movement towards forced ventilation of parking structures as part of the fire fighting tactics. There is discussion about the proper design and layout of ventilating systems and performance criteria, and the expectations that the parties involved have from the Fire Service to control fires in parking structures.
It is felt that there is an unbalance in the influence and knowledge between the parties involved in the design, construction, ownership and public safety of parking structures.
Recent incidents have shown that ventilating systems combined with the established firefighting procedures are not a recipe for guaranteed success.
The development of good practices is hindered by the absence of clear regulations, and the power (or lack of power) of several interest groups. For example there is the widely spread unfounded assumption that the fire service will extinguish a fire in a parking structure within a certain time, in undescribed boundary conditions. All of these problems are intensified by the fire behaviour of modern cars.
The discussion was brought to a next level by Ynso Suurenbroek, he explained that there seems to be no integral, scientifically supported basis for the design of parking structures. This basis should consist of a clear objective, supported by research, and should include fireground tactics and procedures.
Our current approach to fires in parking structures is not enough focussed on the objectives: only the solutions are in the centre of our interest. This results in parking structures that are in compliance with the “rules”, but still seem to burn down with unacceptable losses to society.
The general objective of fire safety is to safeguard human lives, and to prevent losses. The audience was challenged to focus on the approach to “keep the fire small” as a focal point in fire safety. Since there are several ways to keep the fires small (fire behaviour, detection, automatic suppression, fire brigade response, passive fire protection). This approach should give guidance to the parties involved, they should move to a higher level of competence, supported by (international) science.
Observing the following discussion I was impressed by the openness of the attendants to a wider and integral approach. The atmosphere was positive, and under the broadly felt sense of urgency participants seemed willing to set aside their specific interests an work towards guidelines for the safety and loss control in (not only) parking structures.
My personal feeling is that the massive increase in fire losses as observed in the UK (and there is no real reason why we would not see that in the Netherlands) must lead to a new focus on fire safety, and the role of the parties involved.
Furthermore the effect of fires on the environment is enormous and we have high environmental targets that we aim for in the Netherlands. This should encourage us to add the effect of proper Fire Engineering, and an appropriate Fire Service response to the toolbox that our society uses to accomplish the environmental targets.
Marcel P. Lasker B.Eng MIFireE
President
IFE Nederland
Netherlands Branch of the Institution of Fire Engineers