The Fire Engineer will see you now

Five behavioural conditions quietly killing your project - and how to treat them before it’s too late.

Let’s be honest.

Most major construction projects don’t fall apart because someone forgot to read the Building Code. They fail in plain sight - while everyone is doing what they believe is the right thing.

You had the right consultants. A bold, ambitious design. A budget that could stretch, just enough. Services were engaged, structure coordinated, DA was a breeze.

And yet, somewhere between documentation and delivery - it all started to come undone.

A Fire Brigade objection. A certifier query. An egress route that suddenly was too long. A $250,000 variation that no one saw coming. Or worse - a last-minute delay to occupancy that triggered weeks of contract drama.

All the usual red flags were absent.

So the team is left asking the same question project managers have been asking for years:

“What the hell happened?”

This article is your answer.

Fire Engineering isn’t just a report. It’s a full-body diagnostic.

Most people still treat fire strategy like a procedural task. Something to be submitted for approvals. A hoop to jump through. A line in the program. A risk on the register.

But here’s what fire safety actually is:

It’s the most revealing systems test your building will ever go through.

It checks how structure, services, egress, access, ventilation, construction staging, and human behaviour interact under the worst-case scenario - not the ideal one.

It’s the only part of the design process that requires your building to fail spectacularly (in simulation) before it can succeed in real life.

And that’s why Fire Engineering issues don’t show up early... they show up exactly when it’s most painful to address them:

• During CC.
• During tender.
• During commissioning.
• During PCA walk-throughs.

But here’s the twist: it’s not always about technical error. Often, it’s behavioural.

After a decade working across dozens of complex projects, we started to recognise a pattern. Certain decisions. Certain habits. Certain beliefs.

They aren’t code breaches. They’re mindset traps.

So we gave them names.

The five fire-induced conditions

Why even smart, experienced teams do daft things when fire safety enters the room.

These five conditions are not one-offs. They’re endemic. They show up across sectors - education, defence, transport, commercial, residential. Across project sizes - from $10 million interiors to billion-dollar precincts.

They creep in unnoticed. Until it’s too late.

Here’s what they look like.

1. Pyrospendaphobia

The irrational fear that early fire engagement will blow your budget.

This condition starts with good intentions. You're trying to keep fees down. The concept isn’t confirmed yet. Fire safety feels like a documentation thing. And besides - the BCA Report has been completed yet?

So the Fire Engineer doesn’t get a look-in until CC. Or worse, until services clash. And by then, you’re trying to retrofit logic into decisions that have already been built over.

The irony? We’ve seen teams spend $60,000 on variations that a $6,000 early-stage review would have completely avoided.

Pyrospendaphobia always feels like a savings play. But it nearly always costs more - in money, design quality, and timeline certainty.

The cure is simple: fire engineers at concept stage. Not because something’s wrong, but because it’s cheaper to get it right than to fix it later.

2. Opporblockosis

The belief that fire engineers only fix problems, rather than unlock opportunity.

This condition causes otherwise capable teams to miss the full value of performance-based fire engineering. Fire is treated like insurance. Not innovation.

Design moves forward. BCA assessment flags a few issues. Then the Fire Engineer is brought in to “make it work.”

But the real missed opportunity is this: The best performance solutions don’t fix problems. They create freedom.

We've helped preserve open stairs that were otherwise going to be enclosed. We’ve unlocked atrium designs. We’ve helped recover net lettable area that was lost to prescriptive travel distances.

But none of that is possible if the Fire Engineer is brought in after the concept is fixed and the structure is signed off.

That’s where we see Acquired Lategagement Syndrome (ALS) - a condition that almost always follows untreated Opporblockosis.

Benign ALS affects teams new to performance-based design. They simply didn’t know early fire engagement was a thing.

Malignant ALS is worse. It affects teams that do know better - but delay anyway. They think they’re saving time. They believe “we’ve done this before.” They ask for sign-off without review.

And by then, performance is reduced to paperwork - not strategy.

3. Consultophobia

An irrational aversion to stakeholder consultation - especially with Fire & Rescue NSW and certifiers.

This condition is deeply entrenched and surprisingly contagious.

It starts with pressure: to hit program, avoid delays, and move things along. So the team convinces itself:

“We’ve done this before.”

"Let's not complicate it."

Why would the Fire Brigade need to see this anyway."

Here’s the truth: for performance-based solutions, you are now required to consult with all relevant stakeholders and this will probably mean Fire & Rescue NSW.

That mandate exists because, for too long, design teams quietly avoided it (can we do this as a CDC anyone??) - treating FRNSW as a risk to manage rather than a stakeholder to engage. Certifiers were left out until late. The PBDB (or FEBQ) was rushed to keep up with program. And feedback, when it finally came, was seen as a setback rather than a safeguard.

This is when we see FEBQ Syndrome: Frantic Evasion of Brigade Questioning - where the report’s logic doesn’t survive contact with authority review.

It’s rarely the complexity that causes pain. It’s the late timing.

Early consultation isn’t about inviting delay. It’s about preventing disaster.

And when done properly, it builds confidence, not confusion.

4. Outascope Disorder

The tunnel vision belief that fire safety only applies to your contract.

This one is subtle and extremely dangerous.

It shows up in novated projects, fitouts inside base builds, and multi-staged precincts.

Everyone works inside their scope. But no one zooms out.

The Fire Engineer is only shown the architectural set. The builder is handed an FER but no services drawings. Services consultants assume the fire strategy is resolved. The tenancy connects to a stair - but no one has checked whether it complies across both stages.

The result?

• EWIS cascades that sequence incorrectly
• Fire compartments with missing walls
• Exit paths that are unreasonably long
• Strategy assumptions that don’t survive construction

This condition is often invisible until the PCA or Fire Brigade starts walking the site. By then, the coordination work that needed to happen has already been buried under three revisions and a dozen RFIs.

Fire doesn’t care what your scope was. And neither does the certifier.

You either coordinate the whole system - or it breaks.

5. She’llberightitis

Blind faith that if no one has raised a fire safety issue, everything must be fine.

This is the most dangerous of the five - because everyone thinks they’re doing great.

There’s no conflict. No open RFIs. Consultants are submitting on time. The builder isn’t raising any flags.

It feels... fine.

But no one has walked the fire compartments. No one has checked that the FER matches the final documentation. No one’s checked whether the operstion of stair pressurisation aligns with the evacuation strategy.

Then commissioning arrives. Suddenly, things aren’t fine.

The certifier finds non-compliant details. FRNSW demands a revised strategy. The builder can’t install the damper because there’s no wall left to fix it to. Occupancy is delayed and the project ends on a bitter note.

She’llberightitis doesn’t kill with conflict. It kills with silence.

The cure

Each of these conditions is common - and 100% preventable.

Not through bigger reports. Not through tighter contracts. Not through checklists you don’t read.

But through cultural change.

The best projects we’ve worked on had one thing in common: They treated fire strategy like design - not documentation.

That means:

• Bringing fire engineers in before concept is locked
• Coordinating fire logic across all scopes
• Consulting authorities before problems emerge
• Walking the fire strategy, not just writing it
• Treating performance as possibility, not patchwork

Fire engineering is the cheapest tool you have to unlock confidence, coordination, and design freedom.

But only if you use it when it matters most - at the start.

Final thought

If you've ever been blindsided by fire compliance… If you've ever watched a building unravel during commissioning… If you've ever said, “Why didn’t we see this earlier?”…

Chances are, one of these conditions was quietly at work in the background.

So next time you hear someone say:

“It’s probably fine.”

"We'll figure that out later."

"That's not in our scope."

Take a breath. And ask the better question:

Are we about to catch something preventable?

Because fire safety doesn’t fail in flames. It fails in silence.

Think you’ve seen one of these conditions on your project? Tag a colleague. Share the video. Or reach out for a strategic briefing before it spreads.

T-Shirt Drop

New issue, new tee. Because let’s be honest - fire engineers deserve better merch.

Each design pokes fun at the madness, says what we’re all thinking, and still looks sharp enough to wear on site or at the pub.

Want one? Flick me a DM and I’ll hook you up. No form-filling. No fuss. Just fire.

This week’s tee: