BS5839-1 and 6 Competent person.

[Thomas Brookes]

Anyone got ant thoughts on if in BS5839-1 & 6 there should be a requirement of competency like Annex E of BS5306.

This basicly states who is a competent installer/ Maintainer and what training they should have under their belts. Most of the fire alarm bodies (Bafe, BFC, FIA, FSA-ECA, IFEDA) seem to have adopted the idea of being qualified in each section of work.

My personal opinion is;

For each stage of fire alarm work you should sit a reconised course with a independant test/exam.

Design.
Installation
Commissioning
Maintenance

What do you think

[Allen Higginson]

I wouldn't be for this because a monkey can get credited after doing a course (and Ive worked with a few in the past 20 years!) but it doesn't prove competancy,just an ability to read and regurgitate.

[Benzerari]

Indeed;

A one day course i.e. FIA one, would not make some person a competent person..., I have seen in several courses of FIA, people copy each other during test, and I am one of them  , every 20 mn or so, you have a quick test of say 10 mn..., we have done these courses just because it was requirement from ...Investor in people, BAFE, customer of first priorities...etc, so we need to show our engineers have certificates of competency, but I don't agree for what so ever, that certificates make some person a competent person, it might be the first step towards being ...., but only after hard work and long experience... etc

Also this is not a total withdraw of the utility of such courses, they may give further undestanding but not to built up a CP from scratch, it just top up the existing skills and knowlegde... etc

[Benzerari]

Also the word of CP (Competent Person) still a general public appellation, it has to be upgraded to it's right appellation it deserves, CP may mean different thing to different people and in different issues, I think it has to be well specified to the proper name of 'Engineer' or 'Technician'...

To make person a competent person CP, it has to be through education and training, and only through a special institution..., and not through a one day courses... etc



Also see this topic:    http://forum.fire.org.uk/index.php?topic=3389.0

[Thomas Brookes]

I agree that a one day course does not make anyone competent, unfortunately most of the people on here have years and years of experience and knowledge and this is not something that is aimed at these people.

But I can guarantee every one on here has been asked to look at a job or been to service a job installed by a sparky with little or no knowledge or some with even less knowledge, where it just does not get even close to complying with BS5839.

The courses would have to change to ones with a proper exam at the end, and would be possibly 5 days of courses with a idependant exam at the end. This is how fire extinguisher engineers are tested now.
Lets face it fire extinguisher maintenance is not rocket science.(and before any one jumps down my neck, I service extinguishers as well). The Standards for Extinguisher maintenance is about 30 pages where as the BS5839-1 is over 100 pages. Yet extinguisher engineers have to have a independantly run exam at the end of a course.

I recently got involved with a job, three story building installed by a NICEIC electrician must have 20 years experience being an electrician, yet his install of the fire alarm was pittyful. Two rear exit doors (no MCP), no detection within 1.5m of the lift, electronic door locks not conected to the fire alarm (and yes he installed the door locks as well). No as fitted drawings, no certificated apart from a BS7671 wire cert, the list went on.
It is blatently obvious that this sparky possibly did half a day on fire alarms 20 years ago, I would bet my house that he has not even got a copy of the standard BS5839.

If some sort of fire alarm training was compulsory in BS5839 may be standards would be better overall.

To Answer Benz on people copying, this would have to stop under a independant exam.

[Graeme]

Anyone got ant thoughts on if in BS5839-1 & 6 there should be a requirement of competency like Annex E of BS5306.

This basicly states who is a competent installer/ Maintainer and what training they should have under their belts. Most of the fire alarm bodies (Bafe, BFC, FIA, FSA-ECA, IFEDA) seem to have adopted the idea of being qualified in each section of work.

My personal opinion is;

For each stage of fire alarm work you should sit a reconised course with a independant test/exam.

Design.
Installation
Commissioning
Maintenance

What do you think

Thomas

i 100% agree with you but i have already shelled out nearly £1000 on myself on courses 1-6 on part 1 and more on another 3 engineers. Has it made any difference?

No- the other companies in the area who claim to be fire experts have not bothered and still carry on as normal. No one asks for proof of competance,i wish they did as then all the money i have spent would finally start to benefit the company.

Sparks are my biggest gripe.   We cannot wire in a fused spur now without having to be a member of some trade body but they happily carry on installing fire systems(badly) and never produce any documentation at the end.

Do not do enough part 6 systems to justify more money on courses but honsestly what is the point as sparkies have that area cornered as well.

I stll also see designs from consulatants from the dark ages...the norm   to be installed to 5839-1 1988 and all in 2.5mm MICC cable etc etc.

The intruder industry got it's act together years ago and sparkies rarley fit them unless they are audible only. The fire is more crictical in my opinion so why is it still behind?

[Thomas Brookes]

Like you Greame, I spend thousands on alarm training and it really ******* me off when a sparky installs a fire alarm badly.

I am a member of the British Fire Consortium (BFC) and this is an area where they in the past pushed for this clause in fire extinguisher british standards and got there in the end.
I can not see why this can not be brought in to the BS5839.

There has recently been a big who-are with a particular training company when the BFC said they wouldno longer reconise his training courses of engineers. He threatend suing the BFC etc but, in the end he had to back down because he was not on the list in BS5306.

[Benzerari]

I agree that a one day course does not make anyone competent, unfortunately most of the people on here have years and years of experience and knowledge and this is not something that is aimed at these people.

But I can guarantee every one on here has been asked to look at a job or been to service a job installed by a sparky with little or no knowledge or some with even less knowledge, where it just does not get even close to complying with BS5839.

The courses would have to change to ones with a proper exam at the end, and would be possibly 5 days of courses with a idependant exam at the end. This is how fire extinguisher engineers are tested now.
Lets face it fire extinguisher maintenance is not rocket science.(and before any one jumps down my neck, I service extinguishers as well). The Standards for Extinguisher maintenance is about 30 pages where as the BS5839-1 is over 100 pages. Yet extinguisher engineers have to have a independantly run exam at the end of a course.

I recently got involved with a job, three story building installed by a NICEIC electrician must have 20 years experience being an electrician, yet his install of the fire alarm was pittyful. Two rear exit doors (no MCP), no detection within 1.5m of the lift, electronic door locks not conected to the fire alarm (and yes he installed the door locks as well). No as fitted drawings, no certificated apart from a BS7671 wire cert, the list went on.
It is blatently obvious that this sparky possibly did half a day on fire alarms 20 years ago, I would bet my house that he has not even got a copy of the standard BS5839.

If some sort of fire alarm training was compulsory in BS5839 may be standards would be better overall.

To Answer Benz on people copying, this would have to stop under a independant exam.

Tomy;

Why I mentioned people copying each other in FIA courses or others..., I found it really boring of being tested every 20mn or so..., to get certified, it in fact tests your memory capability to hold information... and not the meaning of the information, the print out can be published and sold at the book shop, and any literate one can purchase it and read it..., he can even have it as a data book at all time, he doesn't need to hold in memory every single bit..., look at American style in education, they never ask you to hold in memory unnecessary details, American style of education based on keeping the mind fresh and to be used for reasoning, brain storming, analyzing and combining some hypothesis to conclude some substantial outcomes..., and not to fill it up with details..., this remind me old colleagues of mine, they were student doctors, they have to hold in memory on a daily basis the lesson and answer it the day after, before a new lesson is given, they were like capacitors, charged and discharged on a daily basis..., and at the end they become doctors…, with high salary and a better situation than mine and yours… ?

[Graeme]

agree Benz

there was guys on the courses i went to that i would not want near a fire alarm and spent the whole time looking copying the persons next to them.The rubber was also being used frequently when marking the papers.

Fair enough part 2 is a bit tricky  3 has a few detailed sound calculations and 6 went into some calculations with cell structured ceilings but if you had to cheat on units 1.4 and 5 then it's a worry as they were very easy.

[Thomas Brookes]

This what I was saying aout a independant exam.

With BFC Fire Extinguishers you sit a three day course and on the last day the trainer goes home and a examiner comes.
You sit a written exam (not multipal choice) I think its 2 hours.
Then you do a practical exam, basicly you have to service half a dozen extinguishers.

You have to get I think an overhal pass of 75%.


What I just do not understand is why the fire alarm industry allows un-trained or poorly trained people to install and maintain a life saving system.

We all should do more to force the governing bodies to get behind getting proper training for fire alarm engineers.

[Galeon]

And so it shall pass , until they trade  test the individual .

[AnthonyB]

but even if a more rigorous standard of testing is applied as with extinguishers it is all to naught unless it is mandatory.

There are a lot of firms and one man bands that have no clue what they are doing with extinguishers, either being unqualified or 10,20 or more years since last trained.

Hong Kong had the right idea - you had to be approved by the authorities in one of the 3 grades of fire protection you wished to trade in & maintain. If not on the list it was illegal to operate and once on the list you weren't there for life and had to maintain your standards & quals to stay there. not sure if post handover to China to still runs, but it was how things ought to be.

After all anyone can't just start up doing MoTs can they - fire should be the same.

[Benzerari]

 My opinion is an independent institution to train the theory and practice of the fire alarm systems, with all related modules not just testing what the engineers are holding in memory...,

What’s the point to ask an engineer the detector spacing in case of what so ever? It’s mentioned in the book why not just apply it..., that's what made me saying they are boring tests..., but the sort of questions I would agree about is i.e.:

1  -  Explain how optical and ionization technologies works? What’s the difference between the two technologies? And where can you apply each of them, and state why and so on.... etc
2  -  How conventional fire alarm system principle works?
3  -  Give brief description of how analogue addressable works (protocol of communication) issue… etc

There is no way to copy each other, you have to use your own wording to convince the tutor...

The practical tests have to be multiple testing in fault finding rewiring and so on... while explaining what you are doing…

I always go back to the idea of this link     http://forum.fire.org.uk/index.php?topic=3389.0

[Thomas Brookes]

Anthony,

I agree totally, how ever I feel that if the british standards 5839 was changed to include who is a competent person I feel that all the electrical bodies ECA, NIC EIC would have no choice but to insist that their approved contractors etc should have to comply.

Like you say unless the government regulate its never going to stop the cowboys but its got to be a step in the right direction.

I was recently asked to look at a job in Skegness, where a so called electrician had improved the fire alarm in a HMO, because there was Quote "a few faults the sparky could not find".

The first thing noticed was how badly the trunking and cabling was, sounders and detectors in normal cable and plastic choc blocks on every circuit. The one zone panel (6 flats on three floors) was showing a processor fault and none of the sounder circuits or zone was working. The bell above the panel was buried in the plaster (so no dinging).
This was just in the entrance hall, we had a quick look upstairs and then condemned the system and left.

[Thomas Brookes]

Since starting this thread I have been looking at the different bodies fire alarm training courses and how long it takes.

British Fire Consortium:  5 different modules 5 days
FIA (formally BFPSA)    : 6 different modules 6 days
ECA (FSA)                         : 4 modules I think 4 days (their info is a bit confusing)
IFEDA                    : 5 modules 5 days
And the big surprise
NIC EIC     2 day course that include emergency light training as well.   now I know why I see so many poorly designed fire systems. I think that stinks of arrogance, we don't need more than a day of training on fire alarms.