FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: nearlythere on July 30, 2010, 08:21:38 AM
-
Does the panel agree with me that online fire risk assessments would not be considered as being carried out by competent persons?
-
If we are talking about completing a pro forma without looking at the premises then yes. Nothing wrong with FRA record access via web though.
Plent of FRA carried out at a premises by incompetent persons too. ;D
-
NT, I agree with Bleve. If it's the format that you need and, that online version meets the requiremnts of the rro...
But, the persaon completing (giving the information for) the online version, must meet the requirements under the rro also. (obviously if that person has passed the info to an admin person to upload...
-
Plent of FRA carried out at a premises by incompetent persons too. ;D
Absolutely, but as you say "plenty" but generally you should normally expect to get a suitable and sufficient FRA when someone inspects and surveys the premises.
With on line assessments I would think that if the user knows and understands what they are looking at and for, they wouldn't need an online service.
I am dealing with a fast food outlet chain at the moment who had or tried to use an online service. Each document had 50 pages which was mostly a condensed version of the CLG Guide for shops with a few pages to record the findings.
Non of the managers I spoke to could understand any of it and this was very evident when I read their findings.
On my advice the chain is abandoning the on line service.
-
NT, I agree with Bleve. If it's the format that you need and, that online version meets the requiremnts of the rro...
But, the persaon completing (giving the information for) the online version, must meet the requirements under the rro also. (obviously if that person has passed the info to an admin person to upload...
If I as the provider asked the user to check that a stairway is enclosed to fire resisting standard would they know what to look for?
-
If I as the provider asked the user to check that a stairway is enclosed to fire resisting standard would they know what to look for?
I believe this is the problem NT with on line FRA's it doesn't matter how good the website is it relies on the input of the client and in most situations the client will have no or little knowledge of fire safety. The old computer adage "garbage in garbage out" sums up most online FRA's if not all.
-
I follow the arguement but surely this applies to all FRA packages. Even something like PAS79 will be useless if the person using does not have the relevant knowledge and competence.
At the end of the day the packages are there to give a framework for the FRA. The nearest thing to an idiots guide are the Guides from CLG and think of the fun this forum has had arguing about them.
-
Totally agree Mike.
The template or format isn't the issue here, it's the person undertaking the assessment
The online package may be perfectly acceptable, if the person filling the form in knows what they are doing and the package / template covers all aspects of fire safety applicable to the building being assessed.
It all boils to down to the same old thing. It might be that lay persons could successfully complete a FRA for a simple corner shop, but more complex premises will need the services of a competent risk assessor, and part of being competent and responsible is actually knowing when something is beyond your capability - something that lay persons do not always recognise!
-
Does the panel agree with me that online fire risk assessments would not be considered as being carried out by competent persons?
In itself - no. If a risk assessment is done by a competant person, they will know if the proforma used (online or otherwise) is sufficient for recording the findings of the perticular premises. If the person isn't competent, then the risk assessment won't be suitable and sufficient, again regardless of whether its online or not.
-
I have had many debates concerning the competency of fire risk and DSEAR risk assessors.
Many of which made me look like a zealot.
I have always had difficulty with lay person risk assessments and also for fra carried out by safety bods that do not recognise their limitations.
On the other side of the coin there are many ex fire service personnel who carry out fra and who do not have a clue.
Very few clients would know the difference between a good fra or otherwise, until it's too late
-
MB I agree with all you said but I was specifically referring to those Online FRA's where the employers see it as a cheap option usually an online version of the tick box type.
-
Yes Tom I know you were, but my point is that the critical part of the equation is the skill of the person doing the assessment not the format of the FRA.
At the end of the day I can buy a paint set but I will never produce the Mona Lisa!
-
A large part of the problem is due the CLG guidance notes, it is a common perception that anyone can carry out a fire risk assessment all they have to do is follow the guides or get hold of a bootleg checklist from PAS 79.
There are also many safety practitioners who believe that they are only dealing with a triangle of fire (whats a tetrahedron between friends). No big deal to fire risk assessment a fire door is a fire door, compartment wall is a compartment wall, people will be out of the building so smoke spread is not an issue etc etc.
Yet amazingly they don't take the same approach to COMAH, DSEAR etc.
-
Yes Tom I know you were, but my point is that the critical part of the equation is the skill of the person doing the assessment not the format of the FRA.
Mike sorry to labour the point but isn't that what I said "on line FRA's, it doesn't matter how good the website is, it relies on the input of the client (skill of the person doing the assessment)" or was you clarifying the point?
I also think many of the online FRA's are trying to be an idiots guide and conducting a FRA by remote control which I believe will never work satisfactorily because it depends on the competency of the person on-site.
-
Tom, yes I was clarifying the point but I was also expanding it. On line FRAs get the stick, probably because they are so accessible. However I don't think the problem lies with the format of the FRA, (whether it is on line or bought in book form or borrowed from a mate) it lies with the competence of the person doing it.
-
Bit like a surgeon guiding the house porter through a surgical procedure on line.
The surgery still isn't being performed by a competant person.
-
A large part of the problem is due the CLG guidance notes, it is a common perception that anyone can carry out a fire risk assessment all they have to do is follow the guides or get hold of a bootleg checklist from PAS 79.
If people actually bothered to use the full DCLG guides at all (not just the introductory booklet) and the further references therein things would be better, few people even apply these, especially with the Yes/No/NA type assessments.
-
Mike, the format of RA, if it covers all requirements of rro, then does it matter where it comes from? But yes! The person carrying out the RA must be competant et al.
Are we not over complicating this issue?
-
Mr P I agree, if as you say it is a good format, it doesn't matter where it comes from. The point I am making is that it is the competency of the person doing it that is crucial.
-
Are we still discussing online FRA's because my understanding of an online FRA is the website asks the RP a questions the RP answers and the website produces the FRA. No matter how good the website is or its format what questions can they ask to ensure they get the right answers without being on site. Unless the RP is competent in fire safety then he wouldn't need them and could download a free FRA template to save a couple of quid.
-
Although not directly on the online FRA topic see
http://www.fire.org.uk/Articles/Fire%20risk%20assessments-dangers%20of%20cheap%20and%20cheerful-1.pdf
-
I agree with much of the article. However, disagree with the detail wrt cause & effect programming, false alarm criteria (OTT)etc
it would be s&s to ensure compliance with BS 5839 plus demonstrable maintenance.
-
My problem with them in is you have so much faith in the fact the assessor understands the question properly.
AND
If you are completing an online risk assessment you would probably be sat at a desk. Thats not the best place to be when assessing a building especially for a novice