instruction to fire officers

[jasper]

Hello all, I have a question for you all -
Does anyone know who will be providing training for serving fire safety officers in the correct format of assessments they inspect to comply with the RRO?
The area I am mainly talking about is the north-west of England as I have heard (or probably misheard) the Mr Todd will be making an appearance and providing instruction.
If it is you Colin, will you be insructing them on the fomat outlined in PAS79?  
The reason I ask is because a coleage of mine has been told to rewrite 50 fra's of public houses due to there not being a clear 'description of each escape route'
I have attempted this today on a town hall building and the description ammounted to 1500 words.
This obviously takes more time when undertaking a fra and will incurr more costs to the client - is this right?

[wee brian]

There is no correct format for FRAs. Even Colin accepts that PAS79 is only one possible approach.

Describing each escape route sounds like a waste of time to me.

[colin todd]

Jasper, You are opening a whole big can of worms, as this is a well known chestnut. There will no doubt be contention over what I am about to write, but here goes anyway:
1. Officers of FRSs have received, are receiving and will receive training from various sources. Many now receive training from consultants. This includes not just ourselves but several other consultancy orgainzations, most, or probably all, of whom are just as competent to provide the training as we are. Happily, most of us, I think, sing from a similar hymn sheet. The others are simply not as young and good looking as me.
2. There is NO such thing as a ''correct'' format. This is the view of the ODPM, and more or less universal view of all professionals in the business. PAS 79 also makes this clear (I hope).
3. PAS 79 is based on the course we have  run for some years, and not the other way round. We use the example format in PAS 79 as an EXAMPLE of a suitable format for the WFPL, stressing that there are many other equally suitable formats.
4. This issue of description is contentious, and usually stems from the Management Regs requirement to record the preventive and protective measures. There are those who think that game set and match this means describe them in detail. It does not. In fact, the requirement does not take you down the road any further at all in terms of definitive requirements. If you record that there is adequate emergency escape lighting, you are recording a protective measure. Look at it this way. The Regulations in question come from H&S Directives. If you record in a H&S RA that there is a suitable number of first aid boxes throughout the building is that not a record of a protective measure? Where does it say you need to write a 1500 word essay on where they are and how many Band Aids they contain? There was an ADO in legislative fire safety in a large met brigade (No Not yours messey, this time) who insisted that this meant that the significant findings included a schedule of each and every FRSC door in the premises. None of the inspecting officers in the FRS seemed to take a blind bit of notice of this, but he was permitted to tell employers this until he retired, when his boss then cheerfully admitted that it was never the case.
5 Carrying out an FRA saves lives. Writing beautifully scripted essays does not.
6. Be careful in terms of pubs as they need a plan showing fire precautions for licensing applications.

Hope this helps.

[colin todd]

Brian, I was not ignoring your post, but I started typing mine before you posted yours, so didnt see it until I pressed the submit button!!! Seems as usual we agree in any case.

[PhilB]

I agree that it comes down to which definition of suitable & sufficient and significant findings you choose to adopt.

Surely detail should be proportional to the risk, i.e the the more complex the building/process more detail is required.

I believe the significant findings should include a record of the preventitive & protective measures...I also believe that in complex buildings the best way of doing so is by use of a plan. I know Mr Todd disagrees.

What does concern me is that some FRS are training IOs soley within the framework of PAS79. I think inspecting officers need to know about the diversity of methods out there and how to audit them.

Many methods are pure tick box types and I do not think they are suitable and sufficient. Means of escape satisfactory-tick!!!!...what does that mean?

PAS79 templates are based on tick box but have space for commentry which is I believe necessary but sometimes not sufficiently completed. I also question whether PAS79 demonstrates due process....i.e. reasoning to support conclusions particularly if little commentry is provided....but lets remember proportionality.

What I believe is most important is that the assessor is competent to assess the building...unfortunately in many cases he/she  clearly is  not.

Jasper to answer your original question many FRS are sending their inspecting officers on courses run in house or at other training establishments. So there is no national recognised methodology or framework that will be used.

[colin todd]

PAS 79 is not prescriptive. Youc an use any template you fancy, or indeed not use a template at all.

[PhilB]

I never said it was prescriptive Colin, if your templates are used by competent persons they may be suitable & sufficient.

I just do not understand why some SFSO's want to train their IOs in only one framework when there are many out there.

[val]

Phil,
I don't disagree with anything said on this thread, but in answer to your last question...time and cost. Oh and most CFO's don't know we exist.
I could provide training for FSO's almost every day on some technical matter but ultimately they have to do some 'imperfect' inspecting.

[PhilB]

Yes Val I appreciate time and cost that is my point. As funds are limited SFSOs should send IOs on a course that develops delegates ability to audit a variety of templates, methodologies & frameworks. Not just PAS79.
I can supply details of such a course that many SFSOs use again & again.

[jasper]

It just seem to me that it would be easier for all parties if there were a few prescriptive 'this must be included in a fra for it to be acceptable', as personally I have written my company fra template which took me 3 weeks in total reading closely the regulation itself and trying to incorporate all requirements.(the fpo was happy with the assessment format with the exception of 'not enough detail on describing the moe and description of the building)
The thing is the friend of mine (glad it's not me) has been told to re-write 50 assesments which is about 2 months work without pay, the client won't pay untill the fire officer is happy with the assessments, which to me is like blackmail 'do it my way or don't get paid'
Has he a leg to stand on in court over this? as he has asked the fire officer for an example of he want, but the resonse was that he dosent have it.
p.s. I have nothing against fpo's,I think they do a great job, but this guy appears to want to make a name for himself.

[enigma]

Ultimately it is unimportant if a given training course chooses to use a particular risk assessment method as a framework for training providing that over methods are acknowledged and the essential elements of the process identified.
Albeit a matter of contention, the risk assessment need only record the significant findings. However this probably misses the point as the RA will represent only one element of complying with the RRO. Regardless of what emerges from the RA there will be a requirement for the responsible person to manage fire safety at the premises. This will be difficult if there is not some understanding of how the fire safety "system" is meant to work at that premises. Prudent that this is recorded somewhere for the puposes of due dilligence - recall under the Order the burden of proof is on the responsible person to prove compliance!

[PhilB]

Jasper ACOP to management regs clearly explains what should be included. It explains what suitable & sufficient means and explains that significant findings are:
1) A record of the preventitive & protective measures
2) An action plan for remedial work.
3) Proof of due process

The problem is that many people are unaware of or choose to ignore this guidance.

[colin todd]

Yup, courses should not just teach a particualr mthodology for recording fire risk assessments. Thats why PAS 79 is a useful benchmark , as it has no particualr methodology associatred with it. I can provide details of such a course that many SFSO use again and again and again and again.

[PhilB]

Yes I'm sure you're right Colin. Delegates who attend your course will be competent to carry out FRAs carried out to framework promoted by PAS79. That's good for many out there but not much good for FRS IOs whose role is to enforce legislation and audit premises and RAs.

If those RA's fit with pas 79 then SFSOs have spent wisely....but what if RA they audit is to another framework??

[colin todd]

Oh Phillip, PHillip, how many times do I have to tell you. you can audit anything against PAS 79. Virtually any suitable and sufficient FRA will comply with PAS 79. It was written to be so. It is the benchmark that the IOs are looking for. And most SFSOs seem to think they have spent wisely as they nearly always come back for more. Some even act as references for us, having spent their money wisely trying different courses to see which suits their IOs the best.