Seems to me this is a pretty good example of how questionable practices, often a bit shy of outright error or outrageous risk, line up to allow a major loss.
Among those that might be listed:
1) Fire/evacuation plan was not established and practiced. (This would have influenced 3,4,7 and 10.)
2) Highly flammable temporary structure used for living.
3) No fire extinguisher present.
4) Building has only one exit.
5)Stove of questionable reliability and safety used for cooking.
6)Stove not fastened down or made stable.
7)Most probable source of fire located near the only door.
8) Dog allowed near unsecured source of fire.
9) Sole light source located over most probable location of accidental fire.
10) Reserve light source not readily available.
11) Second source of communications not maintained in safe location.
1) a formal evacuation plan is perhaps going too far
2) Most temporary huts or similar are highly flammable
4) such small buildings normally only have one exit
With the other points, I agree entirely.
WITHOUT the cookstove, the whole idea was very low risk, the owner does not smoke, and no flame based lighting was used in or near.
Had I been staying in such a hut I would have cooked outdoors, and then considered the arrangements acceptable.
I would also have kept basic supplies in the vehicle, and hidden a spare key to this.
The permanent house being built is being made as safe as posible from fire, recent events have concentrated the mind somwhat !
Previous Topic
Index
