Burn down原則是什麼？是否真的有這個原則？

01-09

在微博上看到有人提這個原則然而並沒有搜索到相關內容。

「Burn Down原則」是什麼鬼，牆內牆外都查不到確切定義，顯然是扯淡。為消防員感到惋惜並沒錯，但像這種情況可以說犧牲幾乎是必然的，正確的點應該是，是在合理措施下英勇犧牲還是成為指揮失誤的炮灰。像「Burn Down」這樣「死人就是不對我們應該都撤遠一點靜靜地看煙花炸完就好了」是來搞笑的嗎？

查閱NFCA以後發現針對化工廠並沒有類似條例，主要運用於森林自然火災。例如我所在的俄勒岡州，在處理森林自然火災之時常常使用隔離帶，每次都會隔離好大
一片。而且在NFCA條例中，對於預防的做法是「must」，而對於火災現場如何處理用的都是「suggest」！第一原則都是第一時間拯救遇險人員！火災險情處理都是由當地的Fire Service 的 cheif 具體到現場偵測所決定的！

美國也有過因為消防隊長決定進火災救人致死一名隊員而被起訴上法庭的事情發生過。而且說真的，美消防法立的特別細，所以查閱起來真的特別麻煩。

_(:з」∠)_有機會我打算預約一下我這裡的cheif去問問到底有沒有什麼原則是必須遵守的

When engineers reviewed offshore designs following Piper Alpha, one of the lesson learnt was
that fire pumps had little benefit in reducing the risk to staff for unmanned platforms, and so it
became the practice to assess, but generally to refrain from such provision. It became the norm
to describe such assets as having a 「burn down」 philosophy, and to avoid providing safety
systems where the risk balance was negative, i.e. maintenance visits exposed operators to more
risk than the benefit from the systems during the period when it was manned.

以上內容摘自John Evans的文章"Total Loss Prevention – Developing Identification and Assessment Methods for
Business Risks"（文章原址http://granherne.com/tlp_paper.pdf），幾乎是google搜索結果中唯一明確提到burn down philosophy/principle的文獻資料。稍後他在Linkedin上對這一定義與別人有過討論：

Shima Sharifi：

I found it in HSE philosophy
"The core HSE philosophy for this project is based on the COMPANY』s basic operating principles which are applicable to each well pad facility as follows:
* Burn down』 principle adopted in case of major fire;

Fabienne Salimi：

Well, as far as I understand this means that if there is a fire, we isolate the well pad and let the inventory of isolatable section burn. There won"t be a active fire protection in this case.
We can go for this concept mainly for gas systems.
I hope that John gives us more feedback about this subject.

John Evans：

I would agree with Fabienne. The burn down philosophy is an admission that the costs of adding fire protection to avoid the particular scenario, loss of a well pad, are not a good investment.
This may be so. My concern is then how the burn down philosophy is exported to other much more valuable assets. I have even heard it used about an FPSO!

It also does not address other well related issues for a single pad. Is this pad a particularly vital one in the field infrastructure? Could it equally well be protected by downhole safety valves? Is the well toxic and near to a community (or accommodation for workers)? What is the nearest water body? How is fire fighting effluent managed and so on.
So the burn down philosophy is not the end of a story, but merely one aspect of the story and we are responsible for the design we pass on.
I hope this answers the immediate question!

thread地址：Could you please tell me what is burn down principle?

基本上就把這個說法（不是學說，也沒有文章/聲明/公約表明是通用原則）解釋清楚了。總結一下這裡的burn down就是評估risk balance之後不採取施救的做法，thread當中引用的某項目HSE philosophy也提到這個原則。綜上，burn down是一種消防過程中可能考慮的做法（*名稱存疑），但沒有被廣泛認可，並且在絕大多數條件下不適用，因此不能稱為通用原則。

[1] http://granherne.com/tlp_paper.pdf. Evans, John. Thakorlal, Geeta. Total Loss Prevention – Developing Identification and Assessment Methods for
Business Risks. London: Granherne Ltd.

看到一個寫的很全面的答案，貼在這裡：化學品爆炸國際通用的是 Burn Down 原則，即划出隔離帶、人員撤離、裡面燒完炸完再進去處理嗎？ - 李澤龍的回答

有啊，Burn down讀出來就是「笨蛋」

經過查閱google學術，應該是有burn down principle的。由於研究水平有限，僅提供一些參考文獻，希望對您有幫助。

could you please tell me what is burn down principle ?（這個似乎要翻牆）

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290140/pmho1005bjit-e-e.pdf

適用情況

1、生命不受威脅

2、不能預見火勢減弱

3、滅火會造成消防員危險

4、財物無法搶救

5、天氣條件合適（風力風向吹向安全處）

6、排放的水會流向敏感區域。

7、其他

第一個問答里有位同學回答的不錯。

一圖流

公知按自己的想法造的！每個公知都有一個皇帝夢！

http://www.zhihu.com/question/34546651/answer/59116900