It is easy to say, or should I say – safe to say, that a false sense of safety and security will often cause the most painful damage. This is partly due to the direct consequences of the loss that occurred; i.e. property damage due to fire, smoke damage to goods, etc., but also partly due to the lingering feeling of ‘how could this happen’ and ‘I thought everything was fine’.

Therefore, it is my opinion that a ‘false sense of safety’ is one of the major factors in fire incidents, and will no doubt continue to have an effect on future fire incidents.

A false sense of safety and security can blur your perspective of potential fire hazards. That, and combined with lax nature prohibits the emergence of one very simple, basic statement: ‘how could a fire occur?’ which generates other follow-up questions such as: ‘How many layers of fire protection were in place and which one could fail?’, ‘Did the building undergo a proper Fire Risk Assessment beforehand?’, and ‘Who is in charge of Fire Safety Management?’.

Of course, it does not have to be that way. Stakeholders need to understand that it is in everyone’s interest to keep the building safe for all parties related. After all, nobody really wants to own, visit, or insure a faulty property. However, at least based on my limited experience, we still have a long way to go here in Indonesia. 

This leads us back to the first sentence, a false sense of security. In my opinion, there are various reasons why a false sense of security can creep in. First is the aforementioned lax attitude which leads to negligence. This could be in the form of poor maintenance of existing Fire Protection systems, poor handling of Fire Safety Management aspects, etc. All fun and games until an incident occurred that directly resulted from negligence.

Recently, NFPA launches several free-access tools for water-based fire protection system maintenance, as well as other operational and maintenance documents. Closer to home, the national standard SNI regarding several aspects of the fire protection system will be updated, and rightly so. I was lucky enough to be part of the team which review this update, and hopefully, this will invigorate fire engineering and safety in general, here in Indonesia.

Second is the limited awareness regarding Fire Risk and associated hazards. This might not be such a big deal for low-risk occupancy but could spell trouble for more complex building occupancy. 

The third is the limitation regarding expertise. Fire is a complex phenomenon which constitute combustion process of fuel, which would then release heat (and therefore, involve the heat transfer process and thermodynamics). The subsequent fire dynamics in itself is a complex phenomenon worthy of a textbook, and lest we forget about the Fluid Dynamics aspect of the smoke movement. As per England and Wales Regulatory Fire Safety Order (2005), only a competent person is allowed to conduct a Fire Risk Assessment. 

So, what can we conclude from this opinion piece? Spreading awareness of fire risk is the first step that needs to be taken, especially here in Indonesia. Grassroots level education and awareness of fire risk, for the general public, is key to maintaining momentum as stakeholders, and building owners start to realize the importance of a proper Fire Risk Assessment, and the danger of a false sense of safety. 

It’s been 17 years since England and Wales published the Regulatory Fire Safety Order (2005) in which a competent person must conduct Fire Risk Assessment, for ALL non-domestic premises, and it is currently under amendment from the UK Government. I think it is about time to put similar amendments and detailed regulations, here in Indonesia.

Writer: Fahri Ali Imran - CEO Ignis Fire & Risk