FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Guides and Legislation Links => Topic started by: Eli on July 15, 2011, 12:13:07 PM
-
PAS 79 is out for public comment
http://drafts.bsigroup.com/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2fDocument%2fManage%2f809
Interesting! particularly in light of the fire risk assessor getting sent to prison; the advice on selecting competent assessors is at best duff and at worst selective to say the very least.
-
Interested to hear more detail of your views Eli as I sit on the steering group (as the FIA representative) and I believed the information reflected the situation at the time the draft changes were discussed back in January this year. Things have moved on apace and it would be appropriate to review the content in the light of recent developments.
-
I think a particular certification body should be spelled out in capital letters so it gets prominence amongst all others. Happy now Eli (aka xxxxxxx).
-
Just had a quick scan. I might have to make some comments but I thought I'd ask some questions here first.
Firstly, I couldn't get the above link to take me to the document but found it at this link:
http://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/Details/809
Excuse me if I have misunderstood or missed some things in my quick scan, but I would make these comments:
- The scope states that this is not intended as a guide to fire safety and that it is for use by people with a knowledge of fire safety. So why do we have sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18? These seem to give the fire risk assessor instructions on fire safety principles - shouldn't he/she know all this (and much more) anyway?
Shouldn't this guide stick to what it says it is targeting?
- The definition of fire risk is 'Combination of the likelihood of the occurrence of fire and consequence(s) (number and severity of injuries) likely to be caused by a fire.' What concerns me is the measurement of consequences under this definition - 'number and severity of injuries.' Is it okay if only one person dies? Is it worse if a hundred people get away with minor but permanent lung damage? The whole concept of consequences is often mis-placed in the fire safety world. The way it's applied came across from health and safety but this method of application is often meaningless in terms of fire safety.
Later on in the document we have a table with likelihood set against likely consequences, the consequences are 'slight harm', 'moderate harm' and 'extreme harm' - okay, if we have an EL fitting out, the worst that might happen might be that someone breaks their leg on the stairs (is that slight?) - but aren't we looking at 'extreme harm' (i.e. people dying) as the likely worst consequence in most (if not all) cases when considering means of escape? Either people get cut off by a fire or they don't. Either they suffer burns to their skin and lungs or they don't. The whole aim of fire safety is to get people out of the building without suffering any significant injuries; any failure, to me (and hopefully to you), is 'extreme.'
So if the consequence is virtually always extreme, isn't two thirds of that table redundant? Isn't the concept of trying to guess what the worst injury might be, due to some shortfall, redundant? Shouldn't we forget this naive distraction and concentrate on controlling the defect?
- Figure 1 is a pig's ear and clarifies little
- But the worst thing about Figure 1 is that it is one of only three in the entire document! I find the whole document inaccessible due to its verbose, circumlocutory bulk. Who's going to wade through all that? If you're queueing up out there to pore over every word please get back to me and tell me I'm wrong to think that the presentation of this document makes it cumbersome and turgid.
I'm not attacking the content particularly here; there are, of course, good points (many of them) in the document but they are not easy to find in the morass of flim flam.
I remember the first attempts at the CLG guides, they were all words, and the same for the first attempt at BB100. All thrown out and replaced with documents with diagrams, illustrations, graphics and other devices that abbreviate much of the wordiness and serve to make the documents more manageable for the reader. I'm not saying everything in these other documents is great, I'm just saying they're accessible.
- Going back to the scope, the document dismisses property protection, environmental protection, business protection, etc. These elements might not be required by legislation but they are often of particular interest to the building occupier and I would have liked to have seen some more discussion of the inclusion of these elements in FRAs. Maybe, the document does come back to this matter in its appendices, I don't know, I haven't the stamina to check.
- The terminology, 'trivial risk' doesn't sit right with me. If something is trivial, it is of little worth and insignificant. If it is insignificant, why bother mentioning it? There is a place in FRAs for comments and observations regarding matters that are noteworthy but which do not require any remedial action. Personally, I always record these under 'observations' and give a discussion and rationale for those who may follow to understand my thought processes. But 'trivial risks' - either something is a risk and requires remedial action or it is not a risk and requires none. I don't think there's any place for 'trivial risks.'
- In a similar way, what is a 'tolerable risk'? If something is 'tolerable' then it is satisfactory and requires no remedial action. I think I understand what class of risk is intended to be addressed by this phrase but I believe the use of the word 'tolerable' is misleading. To the lay person it conveys something that can be tolerated and that needs no rectification. What about 'slight'?
- Figure 3 could be better depicted showing a more realistic safety margin between RSET and ASET. I know that the graph shows no scale but the small margin shown is, unfortunately, mirrored in many fire engineers reports and design fire strategies. It would be better if this document did not serve to preserve this bad practice.
- Apart from that, fine.
Stu
-
I think a particular certification body should be spelled out in capital letters so it gets prominence amongst all others. Happy now Eli (aka xxxxxxx).
Conflict of interest again! IFE last time wasn't it?
Just do it right Colin; without bias and blatant promotion. I believe the IFE stuff got pulled in the second edition no doubt you thought you could get away with it this time too.
It is a PAS not an advertising brochure for what ever scheme you are chair of at the time.
-
A minor comment on BSI practice - if drafts are for 'Public Comment' why do you have to register with the BSI website before you can view a such a draft........
-
If risk assessment as a methodology for the BSI is available as BS 18004 why aren't the principles of that document on show in this attempt? Surely BSI should follow the rules already set in motion for risk assessment. As has been mentioned above clear definitions such as significant and insignificant risk are needed and these are already set.
-
Ah Eli, so jaundiced, so twisted. The IFE were an active supporter of the first edition and acted as a form of sponsor, so they were rightly acknowledged. There was nothing "pulled". Nor is there anything to get away with, as I have no axe to grind SINCE I DO NOT (amended by Kurnal) TRY TO CONCEAL ANY AFFILIATIONS THAT I MAY HAVE. So when I make comment here or elsewhere, everyone knows who I am and what any affiliations are, though in drafting public documents I am always impartial. Now do you want to tell people who you are and who you work for, Eli, so we all know your particular angle on life.
-
Ah Colin, so deflective, so narcissistic.
So if you pay for a PAS you can stick in what you want? I am shocked, are there no rules? Who do I send a cheque to?
Cash for promotion in a PAS; sounds like a scandal to me! Who do I call at BSI?
BAFE and FIA must have coughed up a ton of cash! They first appear in page V in the foreword with a very special mention. No other bodies get such a promotion which I find strange.
Colin is it me or is it loaded in favour of two specific organisations? Is that what you call impartial?
UKAS or not?
Why FIA and BAFE?
What about the IFPO, IFSM, IFE, FRACS registers?
Have you read the forum rules?
Did you read my responses last time you tried this?
Did the moderator not make direct contact with you?
For a point of accuracy all I want in the PAS is unbiased sound advice. That can be done without any direct promotion of any specific schemes. Or can it?
-
Well Mr Anonymous Eli, whoever you might work for, here is the answer to your questions as to what about IFPO IFSM and Warrington, (content deleted by Kurnal).But let the public of firenet decide whether the above are impartiality covered by the following text which is a copy and paste from the draft PAS 79:
There are a number of means by which the public can be assisted in selecting a competent fire risk assessor and/or a commercial company that carries out fire risk assessments. At the time of writing, these include registration or certification schemes operated by the following bodies:
• The Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE), which has, since 2003, operated a “Register of Fire Risk Assessors and Auditors”, on which can be found persons who are considered by the IFE to be competent to carry out fire risk assessments (or to “audit” dutyholders’ fire risk assessments as the inspecting officers of enforcing authorities). The list can be accessed at: www.ife.org.uk/frr/.
• The Institute of Fire Safety Managers (IFSM) operates a register of fire risk assessors. The IFSM Register can be viewed at: www.ifsm.org.uk/register.html.
• The Institute of Fire Prevention Officers (IFPO), operates a register of fire risk assessors. IFPO can be contacted via their website, www.ifpo.org.uk.
• Warrington Certification Limited, a third party certification body, operates a register of fire risk assessors and a certification scheme for companies that carry out fire risk assessments on a commercial basis (www.warringtonfire.net/6/113/default.html).
In addition to the above, membership of the Fire Industry Association (FIA) includes companies that carry out fire risk assessments. These companies are signatories to an FIA code of practice, under which member companies of the FIA that carry out fire risk assessments agree to have in place various quality management systems and to employ competent fire risk assessors. FIA member companies that carry out fire risk assessments can be viewed at www.fia.uk.com.
At the time of writing this PAS, British Approvals for Fire Equipment (BAFE) are in the advanced stages of publishing a third party certification scheme for companies that carry out fire risk assessments. The intention is that this scheme will be operated by any third party certification body that is, itself, accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) for the purpose. It is likely that, during the lifetime of this PAS, one or more certification bodies will begin to offer certification under the BAFE scheme.
If this is not impartial enough for you, by all means complain to BSI. I can only imagine that you dont like the order in which the organizations are set out, which, as it happens, was chosen to be chronological in their initial date of operation, so as to be impartial. However, please feel free to suggest a basis for another running order, and I am sure we will take that on board.
-
In the meantime, I shall pass your post on to BAFE and FIA, with a note that I have discovered that, according to you, they have coughed up a load of cash for their mentions. I am very annoyed about this, as I have not been cut in on the dosh. Where is my share? Thanks for the tip, Eli. I shall make sure that when I get my share of the loot I cut you in for 10% for drawing it to our attention.
Equally, I do hope that you are correct in your allegation or BAFE and FIA might be a tad upset.
-
On a further point of accuracy, concerned that somehow, unbeknown to me, there might be even a tiny morsel of truth that "the references just keep coming" I have word-searched for the organizations to which Eli refers, but can find none after the foreword, other than the cut and paste above. So, where are all these references?????
So that everyone is aware, as also made clear in the draft, for impartiality, the stakeholder group that is steering the draft includes BAFE, FIA, IFE, IFSM and IFPO.
-
On re-reading the relevant section of the draft, and to be fair to all parties involved, the following form of words may be more equitable:
Warrington Certification Limited, a third party certification body, that is, itself, accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) for the purpose, operates a register of fire risk assessors and a certification scheme for companies that carry out fire risk assessments on a commercial basis (www.warringtonfire.net/6/113/default.html).
Thanks to Phoenix and Bleve (though on a different thread) for a range of interesting comments worthy of further consideration and comment, though in the context of this being a periodic review of an existing PAS, (as always these things are authored by a third party) I cannot conceive the Author agreeing to make the fundamental changes Bleve suggests in moving towards a graphics based approach. Can we realistically expect such fundamental changes at this review to a document that has been in use for 6 years with only minor modifications in 2007. Besides this the use of diagrams, though useful also has its pitfalls. Diagrams can be used to illustrate a point but cannot impart the underlying logic behind that point. So many people just look at the pictures- including some enforcement officers.
Phoenix my views on the inclusion of technical guidance are similar to yours - the best place for detailed technical guidance is in the sector specific technical guidance documents, though others may feel that the guidance is included to illustrate points relative to the process of conducting the risk assessment. Further consideration of the guidance is justified in my view.
More on your comments later.
As moderator I would ask all parties to keep on topic and to respect the privacy of other posters, even though some may wear a very thin veil
-
In the meantime, I shall pass your post on to BAFE and FIA, with a note that I have discovered that, according to you, they have coughed up a load of cash for their mentions. I am very annoyed about this, as I have not been cut in on the dosh. Where is my share? Thanks for the tip, Eli. I shall make sure that when I get my share of the loot I cut you in for 10% for drawing it to our attention.
Equally, I do hope that you are correct in your allegation or BAFE and FIA might be a tad upset.
According to Eli
-
On a further point of accuracy, concerned that somehow, unbeknown to me, there might be even a tiny morsel of truth that "the references just keep coming" I have word-searched for the organizations to which Eli refers, but can find none after the foreword, other than the cut and paste above. So, where are all these references?????
So that everyone is aware, as also made clear in the draft, for impartiality, the stakeholder group that is steering the draft includes BAFE, FIA, IFE, IFSM and IFPO.
Fire and rescue authorities can advise on the fire safety legislation that applies to any
premises, and on means for compliance.
If in doubt regarding the requirements of
legislation, consultation with the fire and rescue authority is strongly recommended.
Advice
can also be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced fire risk assessor or fire
safety practitioner.
A number of bodies maintain a register of persons who they consider
competent to carry out fire risk assessments. These include professional bodies and at least
one third party certification body. Registration of a fire risk assessor on such a register can
give the duty holder confidence in the education, training and experience of the fire risk
assessor to those who wish to use the fire risk assessor’s services.
At the time of publication of this Publicly Available Specification, one third party certification
body also provides a scheme, accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS), for companies that carry out fire risk assessments on a commercial basis. British
Approvals for Fire Equipment (BAFE) are, at the time of drafting this PAS, also in the
process of developing such a scheme, which, when published, will be able to be operated by
any third party certification body that is accredited by UKAS for this specific scheme.
“Company certification” schemes of this type are based on a combination of assessment of
the competence of the persons who carry out the fire risk assessments and a suitable quality
management system. Member companies of the Fire Industry Association (FIA) that are
listed by the FIA as offering fire risk assessment services are required to comply with an FIA
code of practice and will, ultimately, be required by the FIA to achieve third party certification
under a company certification scheme.
The foreword as printed.
-
On a further point of accuracy, concerned that somehow, unbeknown to me, there might be even a tiny morsel of truth that "the references just keep coming" I have word-searched for the organizations to which Eli refers, but can find none after the foreword, other than the cut and paste above. So, where are all these references?????
So that everyone is aware, as also made clear in the draft, for impartiality, the stakeholder group that is steering the draft includes BAFE, FIA, IFE, IFSM and IFPO.
An exaggeration agreed; thanks for the search. I could amend it but probably no need considering your subsequent post
-
I will take that as a retraction and apology. The Foreword, which is jut a preamble and not part of the PAS is equally impartial.
You may now wish to retract and apologise for your suggestion that BAFE and FIA paid for all these mentions WHICH YOU NOW ADMIT DO NOT EVEN EXIST, particularly as, when I rang FIA today to ask for my share of this slush fund that you allege, they did not know what I was talking about and deny any collusion or payment in respect of the text. Stangely, they seemed less than pleased that you should make such a scurrilous allegation. Just as well that we do not know who you work for (Do we????) or it would hardly promote good working relationships with these bodies, assuming of course that whoever you work for does have any such relationship,which of course I am not in a position to know (Am I???) as you choose not to tell us.
By the way, you raised the subject of rules of the bulletin board. There used to be a rule that you could not have two names..............
-
I will take that as a retraction and apology. The Foreword, which is jut a preamble and not part of the PAS is equally impartial.
You may now wish to retract and apologise for your suggestion that BAFE and FIA paid for all these mentions WHICH YOU NOW ADMIT DO NOT EVEN EXIST, particularly as, when I rang FIA today to ask for my share of this slush fund that you allege, they did not know what I was talking about and deny any collusion or payment in respect of the text. Stangely, they seemed less than pleased that you should make such a scurrilous allegation. Just as well that we do not know who you work for (Do we????) or it would hardly promote good working relationships with these bodies, assuming of course that whoever you work for does have any such relationship,which of course I am not in a position to know (Am I???) as you choose not to tell us.
By the way, you raised the subject of rules of the bulletin board. There used to be a rule that you could not have two names..............
Amended, no apology no retractions; get your spoon and stir, but two key points need to be answered.
Why the special mention in the foreword (not part of the PAS according to you), for two bodies and no mention of anyone else by name at all? That’s hardly impartial!
Did the author/s consult with the professional bodies and CBs over the text used for the references? It seems very heavy on text in some and very light in others. The Scottish government did consult and we all know they always get it right. I can’t speak for IFPO, IFSM, IFE or WCL but would be interested in their comments on the special mention given to BAFE and FIA in the foreword (not part of the PAS according to you)
I only have one name on the forum. .
Actually an apology to the other Forum users I should know better than to get dragged in to this again but like many others on this site I don’t believe Colin has the right to be right all the time. In my opinion he is wrong on this. Nothing personal apart form the narcissistic comment but that kind of fits your attitude and approach so I’ll leave that in.
Getting back to the PAS; as Kurnal says we should. Shouldn’t the advice given on competence match that of CLGs? Shouldn’t the reader be directed to the responsible person’s advice given by CLG? The Scottish government advice is different than the English governments’ advice so which one is right.
http://www.firelawscotland.org/fraregistration.html http://www.communities.gov.uk/fire/firesafety/firesafetylaw/
No mention of BAFE in either! Does anyone know if the Welsh have a fire safety section on their site or NI for that matter?
Do they give special mentions to BAFE and the FIA?
-
Gosh! Colin & Eli, are you trying to take the heat out of the phone tapping scandel? It's becoming a bit...
-
I'm very disappointed that my phone is not being tapped. Obviously not important enough. :'(
-
There are a number of means by which the public can be assisted in selecting a competent fire risk assessor and/or a commercial company that carries out fire risk assessments. At the time of writing, these include registration or certification schemes operated by the following bodies: ........etc.
PAS 79 targeted audience is fire risk assessors, is it likely that this advice will be in other documents targeted at RP's? I would sooner have one register with approved providers ( similar to the list in PAS 79) supplying the names for the register but this would certainly be better than no advice at all or is it available in other guides.
-
Thomas, To the best of my knowledge, PAS 79 is the only doc that (in its current draft) provides this wholly impartial and informative list. The public and the fire community will soon be benefited by the availability of several TPCBs offering certification of fire risk assessment companies. The final date for comment on the BAFE scheme is with us, and it is looking like, with some tweaking, a good scheme. The cometence standard produced by the FRA Competence Council will help set a benchmark, so overall its all good news.
-
Thanks Colin sorry to go off thread but it seemed an important aspect and as you said its all good news. I also found the draft of SP 205 which makes interesting reading, new to me, but I imagine not to the rest of you guys that frequent this forum. http://www.bafe.org.uk/uploads/DOC4DD26521F409A.pdf just in case.
-
Thanks Colin sorry to go off thread but it seemed an important aspect and as you said its all good news. I also found the draft of SP 205 which makes interesting reading, new to me, but I imagine not to the rest of you guys that frequent this forum. http://www.bafe.org.uk/uploads/DOC4DD26521F409A.pdf just in case.
Tom the BAFE consultation is now over; I think it finished at the end of last month. I know it has finished however because I got my comments in on the last day
There will however be an end user guidance document aimed at the RP, to accompany the competence standard for fire risk assessors. It will contain generic and impartial advice on the way to appoint a fire risk assessor. This will hopefully expand on the concept of completing a due diligence process. A process which may partly rely on accredited certification of competent fire risk assessors or non accredited registers of fire risk assessors. It should hopefully give good practical advice on what to do when appointing an assessor who isn’t certificated or registered. Perhaps the PAS should direct people to this guidance document?
However in the current draft formats they are quite far apart, which is a shame as the end user may be confused by the different advice given.
-
Odd, Eli, you should say they are far apart when:
1. Large chunks of the competence standard are copied word for word from PAS 79 (but then you knew that didn't you Eli because you have heard it said before). There is no greater compliment than plagarism.
2. PAS 79 has a space for the competence standard to be inserted (but then you knew that didn't you Eli because you have heard it said before that it would).
-
No greater compliment than palgarism !!!!!!! gud spellin ;D
-
To be fair to CT, I think he is trying to plug a gap between the CLG guides and 9999 level.
Its clearly aimed at small business who fancy a stab at FRA, I don't think its aimed at the FRAs who frequent this forum (tugs forelock ::))
davo
-
Odd, Eli, you should say they are far apart when:
1. Large chunks of the competence standard are copied word for word from PAS 79 (but then you knew that didn't you Eli because you have heard it said before). There is no greater compliment than plagarism.
2. PAS 79 has a space for the competence standard to be inserted (but then you knew that didn't you Eli because you have heard it said before that it would).
Ah Colin, you haven't read my post correctly (again) I am talking about the draft guidance document for the RP; not the competence standard itself. You know the one as you felt the need to inform the competence council members via email that it was not to your liking. Probably because it didn’t use PAS 79 or the IFE guidance ‘wot’ you wrote.
‘Not the word of Todd. How dare they’
By the way; its not really plagiarism if you are on the editing team that put that section together.
Not sure what ‘ism’ it is! Answers on a post card please
-
I think, Eli, you will find that some of those who used the excellent and sage words of PAS 79 were groups with which I had no involvement. They simply recognized good advice when they saw it. Shame you dont.
-
I think, Eli, you will find that some of those who used the excellent and sage words of PAS 79 were groups with which I had no involvement. They simply recognized good advice when they saw it. Shame you dont.
Too wooly; not specific enough and generally not hierarchical, would be my observation.
There is a lot of very good advice about selecting competent trades’ people out there; particularly about competent builders, all of which revolve around a decent due diligence process ie doing your home work. Please do re read PAS 79 and your own words for the IFE and see if the how to appoint is water tight, it’s not in my opinion and others too.
Colin you probably remember this old world war II saying
‘Time spent on reconnaissance is seldom if ever wasted’
How much does the PAS or IFE advice concentrate on reconnaissance and recording that reconnaissance?
What’s your defence under the RRO? ‘
‘Well the guy told me he had suitable training, experience and qualifications to be doing the job’
That just won’t cut it Colin and you know it!
-
So let me see if I have this right, Eli, its not just me that has got it all wrong, its the IFE as well, a non commercial body with no axe to grind, and that forsaw the emergence of inadequately qualified fire risk assessors before there was even a Fire Safety Order and so put measures in place to protect the public, rather than line the pockets of shareholders or others.
You are well aware of the IFE process and your description of it is, as you well know, a complete travesty of the truth. One has to ask what angle you are coming from and why you are so vehemently jaundiced, but as we do not know who you are or who you work for (DO WE?), it is difficult to understand.
-
Sorry Colin I’ve been away on holiday so I couldn’t respond to your strange comments sooner. However I thought I saw you in a pasta and seafood restaurant in the Barbican at Plymouth. It turned out to be a ‘lookalikey’ with a south west accent. If it had been you I would have told you this; the advice given in the PAS and the IFE document is slightly better than that given by the DCLG; which as we all know is, ‘look in the yellow pages’.
If you intend to appoint a fire risk assessor what steps should you go through to ensure they will provide you with what you are paying for? What things should you look for and what should you not take at face value? What qualifications are suitable and what experience should they have? Most importantly how this should be checked and recorded by the RP. How do you spot the Cowboy? Does the IFE and PAS document go in to this detail? No! In my personal opinion they don’t.
I realise that in your world anyone who has a different opinion than yours is wrong; and they must have a devious and commercial reason for ever disagreeing with the word of Todd, but that is part of what makes you, you. It’s much easier for you to ignore questions and just deflect from the forum debate by trying to suggest there is some other overreaching motive for me criticising what is already in existence.
I believe this forum is for the purpose of expressing personal opinion and I think the moderators need to get a grip of your comments which are divisive and offensive.
Kurnal hasn’t Mr Todd been yellow carded already?
If an RP goes through a methodical system and checks qualifications experience and references the cowboys should be weeded out. The problem is the RP doesn’t check or more importantly doesn’t know what to check. They need better and more structured advice to follow. This in my opinion will come in the RP guidance document, which will accompany the fire risk assessor competence standard.
-
I was worried that you would not respond Eli or whoever you are and that the constant publicity for PAS 79 would go down the stack, but I should have known you would not let me down and that you were just on your hols, so thanks for the further publicity.
The DCLG guide does not say look in the yellow pages. Its a bit like your reference to PAS 79 not saying anything about your favourite CB and about it making an alleged constant reference to BAFE. It is all based on your jaundiced misconception, but sadly is misinformation that you spread.
Remind me how many fire risk assessments you have actually carried out by the way.
-
I was worried that you would not respond Eli or whoever you are and that the constant publicity for PAS 79 would go down the stack, but I should have known you would not let me down and that you were just on your hols, so thanks for the further publicity
There is no such thing as bad publicity; as the say
The DCLG guide does not say look in the yellow pages
This is off the communities’ web site “You may feel more comfortable employing a fire safety specialist to help you. Companies providing fire safety services are listed in local directories. Alternatively you may be able to ask your insurer for a recommendation” not exactly top advice. Look in the yellow pages! (Please note other local directories are available)
Its a bit like your reference to PAS 79 not saying anything about your favourite CB and about it making an alleged constant reference to BAFE
Post amended to ‘special mention’. In the foreword (not part of the PAS folks!) I think you will find that quite a few people noticed this too and have commented on this aspect of PAS 79 either through the public consultation method or via a direct letter to BSI. But like the letters of complaint last time I am sure they will be ignored.
It is all based on your jaundiced misconception, but sadly is misinformation that you spread
By ‘jaundiced’ you mean different to your opinion and one that obviously no one else shares. National register anyone? Our survey says yes 2 to 1 in favor; but Colin ...he say NO
Remind me how many fire risk assessments you have actually carried out by the way
Thwack! Nail on the head.
None, nada, zero, zilch, but if the RP followed the PAS and IFE advice I would get work as a fire risk assessor tomorrow no difficult questions asked! On paper I have IFE approved training, IFSM approved training, 4 years in fire safety, CPD hours by the bucket full. I am even an advanced fire door installer and have a certificate to prove it.
However if the RP completed a proper due diligence on me, with a step by step approach (as suggested in the RP guidance document draft) I wouldn’t get appointed by anyone. Thus a cowboy would be out of work. It really is that simple, apart from some of the cowboys are actually in trade associations, so that would never do.
Things have moved on since 2006 and the advice you wrote then needs updating to reflect the difficulties we now know an RP faces when appointing a competent person. To help the RP get it right a more structured and graphic approach is needed.
-
It really is all getting a bit tedious. Someone knock it on the head for all our sakes !!!! >:(
-
It really is all getting a bit tedious. Someone knock it on the head for all our sakes !!!! >:(
Thanks Facades I agree, consider it 'Knocked' from me.
-
And on a final note, I was interested to note the following statement in the IFPO magazine, Fire Safety Professional, by the IFPO Technical Chairman, Ian
Shakespeare:
"Suggestions have been made about the IFPO joining forces with the scheme currently run by Warrington, but I can categorically deny this will take place. The IFPO is proud to be independent and will hopefully continue to be independent in the future."
Of PAS 79 Ian says "Members who use this document would be well advised to purchase their own newly revised copies"
I have always liked Ian.
THE END
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-
I never really understood his plays
-
He once described the cloned comments on PAS 79 (all using more or less the same wording, without even troubling to change the wording, so only equivalent to a single comment alas) in the following manner, Brian:
"Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" Macbeth Act 5 Scene 5
But then there is a serious academic theory that the bard could not actually write for himself, but merely plagarised the ideas of others. Though I have never subscribed to the theory, if its true, a couple of people who have commented on PAS 79 come from the same school!
-
Colin perhaps if Eli is not happy with the way each of the schemes are listed you should do it in order of size?
IFE I know have 127 and are surely one of the largest? Im not going to sit there and count the rest. Warringtons was easy though they have 12.
Maybe ranking them by popularity would be a better way?
-
I think your right Colin didn’t Jayne Jacobs write some of his farces?
“There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness or disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served”
One comment; I can’t say I am surprised.
-
You should have stuck to teaching, Eli cos you are clearly better at literature than review of publicly available specifications.
-
Pack it in you two or there will be no CBeebies after tea!
-
Pack it in you two or there will be no CBeebies after tea!
No Problem Civvy the ‘Laird of Fire Safety’ (self appointed) told us on Friday at the FIA CPD day how BSI publications work.
For those that didn’t attend it’s very simple; a book is a book and the author has carte blanche on editing and content.
A British standard goes through a proper consultation process after the working group has produced the document, with every comment referenced and the reasons why they have been accepted or refused noted and made available.
A PAS goes through the same process as a standard but the author has the final say.
Now I know how it works I can let it go, does that mean I get a choice of what we watch after tea? I like Balamory; the best thing to come out of Scotland; ever!
-
The best thing to come out of scotland is an old saying, namely "there is nane sae deef as those that dinnae want to hear". As you were not listening right, Eli, it is BSI that have the final say as to what goes in.
-
Most people only hear the things they want to hear and disregard the rest.
-
The best thing to come out of scotland is an old saying, namely "there is nane sae deef as those that dinnae want to hear". As you were not listening right, Eli, it is BSI that have the final say as to what goes in.
I thought 80/- beer and the Festival pretty good.
Where would we be without Dunlop, Bell and Baird?
-
Most people only hear the things they want to hear and disregard the rest.
I know he didn't actually say that Kurnal it’s just me putting 2 and 2 together and getting 4!
Colin; applicable to all those living South of the border are the English versions
There's none so deaf as those who will not hear.
There's none so blind as those who will not see.
"You are like what is said that the frying-pan said to the kettle, 'Avant, black-browes'." Cervantes' Don Quixote From the English translation 1620 Origins of 'The pot calling the kettle black'
-
Its ok Eli, I realise that you tend to distort things without meaning to be malicious. You were probably thinking about how to sell your next certification scheme while I was talking, which, in all fairness, is much more important than listening objectively to anything I have to say, so consider yourself forgiven for yet again misleading the readers of firenet with misinformation. No harm done.
-
I thought golf was the best thing to come out of scotland?
-
I thought golf was the best thing to come out of scotland?
More so than rugby I suppose.
Fishing?
Hill walking?
Man eating midgies?
Mostly the people I would have thought.
-
I thought golf was the best thing to come out of scotland?
M6 South.
-
Its ok Eli, I realise that you tend to distort things without meaning to be malicious. You were probably thinking about how to sell your next certification scheme while I was talking, which, in all fairness, is much more important than listening objectively to anything I have to say, so consider yourself forgiven for yet again misleading the readers of firenet with misinformation. No harm done.
I was just entering in to the spirit of ‘PAS 79 - The Consultation Pantomime’.
Script and plot bare no resemblance to reality.
The audience yelled ‘Boo Hiss’ ‘Boo Hiss’ ‘Boo Hiss’ ‘Boo Hiss’ but sadly got ignored.
The curtain is down the cast, crew and director having all gone home; let us move on.
-
I for one will not be shelling out my 99 quid or whatever, too much infighting
Besides, I've never used my existing copy.
davo
-
Am sure the Laird will be crying into his scotch broth or iron brew when he reads your post:'(
-
Only some of the audience, only some of them. Others took thetrouble to write in to say how much they liked it, but then they had no axe to grind.