Inspection Outline
Managing Automatic Fire Signals
Fire detection and alarm systems protect buildings and their occupants by
detecting fire at an early stage of its development. Each year there are
over 47,000 incidents across Scotland which are attributed to fire alarm
system actuations. Of this number, less than 3% are as a result of fire and
in the case of the remaining 97% no intervention by the fire and rescue
service is required1.
The burden on the Fire and Rescue Service caused by false alarms from automatic
systems is well recognised. Alongside these headline figures, but something which is
less routinely reported on, is the number of blue light appliance journeys made to
these calls, and this figure reflects Scottish Fire and Rescue Service policy on the
number of appliances which are mobilised and the road speed at which they are
instructed to attend.
There are a number of similar terms which are used to describe the type of call we
are interested in here. In this inspection, we will primarily use the term “automatic fire
signals”. Another term in common use is Automatic Fire Alarm (AFA). When the
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service talks about unwanted signals, we take that to mean
the 97% which turn out to be false alarms.
1. Introduction
Over the last 10 years or more, research and analysis has taken place within the UK
on the cost and benefits of attending calls from automatic fire alarms. And as with
many things in the UK, there is significant variation in the policies and practices
which have been implemented by fire and rescue services. As part of that
background, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service inherited a variety of policies from
its predecessor Services.
Calls from automated systems can of course be of great benefit, providing an early
warning of fire, and thereby reducing the likelihood of injury to people and damage to
property. On the other hand, blue light fire appliance journeys can and do lead to
vehicle accidents and the injury and death of firefighters and members of the public.
And there are a number of other downsides to responding to automated calls
including a reduced availability for actual incidents and a reduction in the ability to
carry out training and community safety activity. All of these things need to be
weighed against the benefit of responding to automated calls.
It is of fundamental importance, therefore, that the Fire and Rescue Service makes a
balanced judgement taking all factors into account when defining its policy on the
response to, and management more generally of, unwanted fire signals.
1
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Managing Unwanted Fire Alarm Signals Incident Policy
March 2014
2
Inspection Outline
Managing Automatic Fire Signals
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Our stated objective for this inspection is:
To consider in detail the policies and procedures which the Scottish Fire and
Rescue Service is using to manage and respond to calls generated by automatic
systems and, in particular:

To examine how the SFRS is working with building owners, occupiers,
and alarm receiving centre operators to reduce false alarm calls

To assess the extent to which the SFRS is balancing the risk and benefit
of how it manages calls generated by automatic systems

To examine how the SFRS determines the speed and weight of
response to automatic alarm calls and how, and to what extent, the
Service varies pre-determined attendance as a result of experience, time
of day, or any other relevant factor.
We will be interested in any call which is generated by automatic equipment (with the
exception of standalone domestic smoke alarms) regardless of whether the call to
the SFRS is made automatically or by a person responding to the actuation of an
automatic system.
The outcome of this inspection will be a published report commenting on the matters
listed in the bullet points above.
Copies will be given to the Scottish Ministers, laid before the Scottish Parliament, and
available on the Inspectorate’s website.
Supporting evidence and risk assessment
We consider it is proportionate to address the assessed risk through scrutiny activity
because it is fundamental to the success of the SFRS that its operations should be
outcomes-focused and based on sound evidence as to which interventions will
provide the best fire safety outcomes for Scotland, while taking the requirement to
provide Best Value into account.
Taken together with the figure of 97% actuations caused other than by fire, is the
cost of responding fire appliances to an automatic alarm, and the inevitable risks to
the public and staff posed by fire appliance response to incidents, particularly where
this is under blue light conditions. Alongside these things is a concern that people
become complacent when they experience multiple false alarms with an automatic
system. These factors have led both Chief Fire Officers’ Association (CFOA) and the
former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in London to publish discussion papers on
management of automatic fire signals, including modified response to automatic fire
alarms where there is no supporting information to confirm the existence of an
emergency.
3
Inspection Outline
Managing Automatic Fire Signals
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
We understand that SFRS response protocols for automatic fire signals were
harmonised in December 2014. Prior to that date, the legacy response protocols for
the predecessor fire services had differing approaches to response to automatic
alarm systems. Some services responded in the same, or a similar, way as though a
999 call had been received from someone reporting a fire at the premises: others
adopted a modified response in cases where there was no information, apart from
the actuation of the automatic alarm system, to suggest that there was an
emergency. This harmonisation of policy is of obvious interest to us.
2. Areas of interest
During the course of this inspection, and taking particular account of our stated
purpose, we will be focussing our attention on the following areas:

The overall management of calls from automatic systems, including volume
reduction strategies and response modification

A comparison of SFRS mobilisation protocols to fire alarm signals, with those of
the predecessor services

Consideration of the process by which the current protocols were developed and
any arrangements which have been made for ongoing monitoring and review

An analysis of the number of ‘blue light’ fire appliance movements under the
current protocols, as compared with former protocols

An analysis of outcomes from calls originating from fire alarm systems under
current protocols, as compared with former protocols

A review of research and industry practice on mobilisation to fire alarm signals
across the UK.
3. Who we would like to talk to and documents we
would like to review
We will review documents relating to current and former mobilising protocols to fire
alarm signals, and will request data on fire appliance movements and outcomes.
We will also request data held by the SFRS on motor vehicle collisions involving fire
appliances and any associated injuries to staff or members of the public.
We will request discussions with the individuals within SFRS who developed the
current SFRS policy, to include the Director(s) responsible for considering and
approving it.
Inspection Outline
4
Managing Automatic Fire Signals
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
We will speak to a cross-section of Control Room and operational staff about the
practical implementation of relevant SFRS policies.
We will ask to meet with SFRS Board members to gain a better understanding of the
respective roles of the board and SLT in setting policy in this area.
We will consider guidance and research documents including the 2008 UK
Government document ‘Costs and Benefits of Alternative Responses to Automatic
Fire Alarms – Fire Research Series 2/2008' and the CFOA ‘Policy for the Reduction
of False Alarms & Unwanted Fire Signals’.
4. Timetable
Our outline timetable is:
May 2015
Pre-planning and consultation on the inspection outline
June 2015
Inspection team document review
June 2015
Inspection team interviews
July/ August 2015
Report drafting and consultation
September 2015
Report submission to SFRS/ Ministers/ publication
5. The Inspection Team
The inspection team members are:
Steven Torrie QFSM, Chief Inspector
Paul Considine, Assistant Inspector
Brian McKenzie, Assistant Inspector
Graeme Fraser, Inspection Officer
Kirsty Bosley, Principal Analyst, Justice Analytical Services provides the team with
analytical support.
Inspection Outline
5
Managing Automatic Fire Signals
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The team receives communications support from Andrew Slorance and advice on
equality and diversity matters from Elaine Gerrard.
The team’s work is reviewed by a quality assurance panel whose members are:
Peter Holland, Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser for England;
Des Tidbury, Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser for Wales;
Christina Yule, Lead Inspector, HMIC Scotland.
6. Responding to this Inspection Outline document
This inspection outline document has been prepared to describe why we are carrying
out an inspection and how we will go about the work. It is also intended to support
our consultation with Ministers, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, management
team and representative bodies. If you wish to make any comments or observations,
these should be submitted to the Chief
Inspector by emailing
HMFSI@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
The team members can also provide clarification on any of the content and can be
contacted through the same email address.