FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => General Interest => Topic started by: Wiz on September 17, 2006, 04:39:31 PM
-
I was recently talking to the owner/manager of a fire alarm company with 25 years experience in the industry who was complaining about the lack of opportunities to gain paper qualifications without undergoing expensive and time-consuming 'training'.
Evidently, he recently paid and took the time off from his normal duties to attend a BFPSA module, which he 'passed' with flying colours, but thought it was a waste of his time and money because he learnt nothing that he didn't already know.
He told me that he has kept abreast of all the revisions and amendments of BS5839 over his long career, reads every article in the trade press appertaining to the subject, and has Colin Todd's book on the subject as his bedtime reading!
He wondered why the organisation that provides the training also sets and marks the questions and why it wasn't possible to take independent exams, for a reasonable cost and time requirement, to gain the qualifications. He told me that he now wasn't prepared to spend the time and money taking further BFPSA modules.
can anyone advise if there are recognised qualiciations in BS5839 part 1 2002 that he could take, without requiring to spend the time and money on the training that he feels is a waste of time and money in his case?
It also made me wonder if is right for any training organisation to set the questions and mark the answers.
Any advice or comments?
-
I can't see why he is upset. I did a NEBOSH course and I knew most of it before I got there, but I can't blame the assessment centre for this? This is no different from any qualification, anywhere.
In a ideal world we would have some sort of body who sets and marks the exam, but I imagine there are insufficient people taking such exams to have such as system. As long as the system is an accredited one, I again can't see the problem.
Surely someone in the industry must be in favour of third party approval systems?
-
On a positive note, by attending the BFPSA modular course, have you not demonstated one aspect of competence under the RRO?
As detailed in section 13 - Fire-fighting and fire detection
(b) nominate competent persons to implement those measures and ensure that the number of such persons, their training and the equipment available to them are adequate, taking into account the size of, and the specific hazards involved in, the premises concerned;
-
In a ideal world we would have some sort of body who sets and marks the exam, but I imagine there are insufficient people taking such exams to have such as system. As long as the system is an accredited one, I again can't see the problem.
Surely someone in the industry must be in favour of third party approval systems?
I don't think the guy thought the BFPSA module was poor, in any way, in respect of content and delivery. He said it was just that he already knew everything that was covered and he answered the questions easily.
I'm sure if he was an employee and his employer was paying for the course, and paying him to attend, then he would have thought it was a 'great day out'!
I wonder if the BFPSA have ever thought about running seperate training and examinations?
-
This is no different from any qualification, anywhere.
Chris,
I was just mulling over the above part of your answer.
I think someone would be allowed to take a car driving test without having any lessons (I appreciate that 'that someone' would probably fail!) or a 40 year old man could sit a GSCE in mathematics, without taking any further lessons since those he last had at school all those years ago ( and probably get an A* instead of the miserable Grade 2 he got at CSE back then!!!!!!!)
It's only a thought!
-
So your argument should be that the BFPSA should have let him sit their test without having sat in on their lessons. Who knows what they would have said? It doesn't follow that the test should be skipped.
-
So your argument should be that the BFPSA should have let him sit their test without having sat in on their lessons. Who knows what they would have said? It doesn't follow that the test should be skipped.
I don't quite understand the above reply. I think he wants to skip the training and just take the test. However,I think you meant to say that to sit the BFPSA test, you would obviously always have to have had the BFPSA training first. If so, I can understand this. Particularly in respect of the BFPSA ensuring they earn enough money to pay for the training/tests.
However, I don't agree with your comment that 'you wouldn't know what they were going to say' during the training. I thought the course modules were about BS5839 Part 1, surely they don't include anything in the tests that are not part of that BS. If they do surely that would be wrong, and I must say I've never noticed that they do!
Please note that I personally don't totally agree with what my guy is saying, and it is not 'my' argument. I think the BFPSA courses are quite good, especially considering that for many years there has been nothing like them available.
However I think the point my guy made has some validity. And it is a shame that he won't bother to gain the other module qualifications because he feels it is too time-consuming and expensive going over stuff he feels he knows.
He asked me if there were any 'exams only' that he could pay for and sit, to gain similar recognised qualifications. Since I didn't know, I wondered if anyone else in this Forum had any advice.
-
Yes Chris I'm in favour of third party approval, but only if insurance agents stop accepting photocopied certificates from joe bloggs with no accreditation.
It should be like Corgi, - illegal to write a certificate without accreditation - but that's another thread!
I can see why the guy just wants to take the exam, I felt similar when I went through the courses.
All I would say was that it was actually quite interesting listening to other peoples interpretation of the regulations which prompted a lot of discussion!
-
I agree that he should be allowed to just sit the exam.
-
All I would say was that it was actually quite interesting listening to other peoples interpretation of the regulations which prompted a lot of discussion!
David,
This caught my eye because I know what you mean, and I've 'been there'.
Did the 'interpretations' include strongly-held views that the trainers had got it wrong on a few points? Surely the trainers should have it 100% right!
Actually do you not think it is unfortunate that regulations can be so far open for 'interpretation'. I know it probably is an impossible situation to write a regulation that everyone understands totally and immediately, but it never ceases to amaze me how many amendments need to be made just a few months after a British Standard, that took years of discussion to agree, is finally published!
-
Wiz
quite impressive that your friend has inside out knowledge of 5839-1.
However i thought the same but i still picked up on a few things that i had interpreted them a different way from just reading the regs alone.
I still answered all the questions easily but i'll be honeset and say i still learned from them.
-
Wiz
quite impressive that your friend has inside out knowledge of 5839-1.
However i thought the same but i still picked up on a few things that i had interpreted them a different way from just reading the regs alone.
I still answered all the questions easily but i'll be honeset and say i still learned from them.
Graeme,
He's not really a friend but someone I met on my travels. He appeared to have survived and succeeded in the 'back-biting' fire alarm industry for a long time, so he probably is quite impressive! I don't think he ever told me he had an 'inside out' knowledge of BS5839 part 1 - that would make him a 'right little know it all' - and there are enough of them around already! Just that he didn't learn anything new on the training module.
I agree that there is normally always something to learn from every experience, and I did actually promote this point of view to him. But he was adamant that he didn't want to 'waste' any more of his time and money.
Since no-one here has come up with an alternative for him, I'll advise him that it appears that the BFPSA modules are the only option open to gain the qualifications he was seeking.
-
All I would say was that it was actually quite interesting listening to other peoples interpretation of the regulations which prompted a lot of discussion!
David,
This caught my eye because I know what you mean, and I've 'been there'.
Did the 'interpretations' include strongly-held views that the trainers had got it wrong on a few points? Surely the trainers should have it 100% right!
Actually do you not think it is unfortunate that regulations can be so far open for 'interpretation'. I know it probably is an impossible situation to write a regulation that everyone understands totally and immediately, but it never ceases to amaze me how many amendments need to be made just a few months after a British Standard, that took years of discussion to agree, is finally published!
Oh yes ! And lets face it, the last amendment was a rip off anyway.
One of the things that baffles me is the alarm levels. It used to be simple, 65db or you've failed (- excepting bedrooms), now you are allowed 60db in certain areas and there is a little note that this figure is also "arbitrary"!!??
And there is always a debate over where detectors should be installed in an open plan office with one or two partitioned offices stuck in the corners, when designing to L3 or L4.
-
Oh yes ! And lets face it, the last amendment was a rip off anyway.
One of the things that baffles me is the alarm levels. It used to be simple, 65db or you've failed (- excepting bedrooms), now you are allowed 60db in certain areas and there is a little note that this figure is also "arbitrary"!!??
And there is always a debate over where detectors should be installed in an open plan office with one or two partitioned offices stuck in the corners, when designing to L3 or L4.
Agreed, not so much an amendment but a buy-a-complete-new-copy ment!
Despite my whingeing about having to interpret recommendations, I actually agree with the explanation I was given for the apparent vagueness in Sound Levels in the 2002 recommendations, namely it was in response to those people who would delight in 'failing' a pre 2002 system by finding a reading of 64db by huddling in a corner of an office or stairwell! This also extends to the latest MCP mounting height range, and the ability to agree Variations generally.
With respect to the detector positioning recommendations you mention, what is your interpretation? I'm not trying to put you on the spot in any way. I realise that there may be some in this forum ready to pounce at the slightest error or misinterpretation, but I also feel that there are many like me, who like to read interesting questions and opinions and to also to discuss and learn from the replies.
-
Well........
If you imagine a very large open plan office lets say the size of a football pitch, and at one end is a partioned office (occupying the 18 yard box), and lets say the exit from this floor is in the opposite goal mouth.
L4 means the escape route requires protection, in this case the complete football pitch or access room (excepting our partitioned 18 yard box) or inner room.
L3 would include L4 and in addition, the 18 yard box, or inner room, although only a single detector would be required near the door from this office.
(The above description ignores vision panels and 500mm gaps etc etc.)
Hope this analogy has come across !!
-
Well........
If you imagine a very large open plan office lets say the size of a football pitch, and at one end is a partioned office (occupying the 18 yard box), and lets say the exit from this floor is in the opposite goal mouth.
L4 means the escape route requires protection, in this case the complete football pitch or access room (excepting our partitioned 18 yard box) or inner room.
L3 would include L4 and in addition, the 18 yard box, or inner room, although only a single detector would be required near the door from this office.
(The above description ignores vision panels and 500mm gaps etc etc.)
Hope this analogy has come across !!
Thanks for this David. I understand your analogy and the problem. This is a good one and I hope that someone will say there is a definitive answer, which if they are right will help us all out. I would like to add some more info to this query.
Firstly, should the open plan office to be covered by automatic detection anyway in a L4 system?
Is it considered to be a Circulation Area? A Circulation Area is defined as an 'area (including stairway) used mainly as a means of access between a room and an exit from the building or compartment' Would this include the open plan office because it has the inner office area such as you mention?
The Category L4 is for 'systems installed within those parts of the escape routes comprising circulation areas and circulation spaces, such as corridors and stairways'. there is no definition provided for a circulation space so do we assume it is the same as a circulation area and does the category description mean that only corridors and stairways are considered as these circulation areas/spaces in this category?
The Category L3 is generally considered to add automatic detection rooms leading on to the escape routes but even allows you to site the detector in an 'unusual' (can't be bothered to explain this - i'm sure you know what I mean!) position near the door leading to the escape route and it is not necesary to include rooms leading onto a short lengths of corridor containing automatic detection and fire resisting construction.
In these L3 circumstances does the inner room require automatic detection? And does this also mean only a single automatic detector installed in the open plan office close to the exit door to the corridor is sufficient, even though the open plan office is, say, 150 sq m?
For those considering these questions, I would also refer them to BS5839 part 1 2002 8.2 d) Note 5 which states 'An open plan area of accomodation, in which occupants will quickly become aware of fire, need not be protected in a Category L3 or L4 system, even though occupants within this area clearly need to pass through the area in the first stage of escape, unless it forms part of the escape route from other areas. However in a Category L3 system an automatic detector should be installed on the accomodation side of any door that opens into an escape stairway, a corridor of more than 4 metres in length (or alternatively, where staircases are approached through low fire risk lobbies, and door that opens onto the lobby).
i agree with David that it all gets a bit confusing because the open plan office might be considered part of the escape route for someone in the inner office.
Would anyone like to add their opinions or a definitive answer with a clear (!) explanation?
-
In my opinion the only issue with inner rooms is that it is important for the occupant of the iner room to be made aware of a fire in the access rooom so that they can make a safe escape in case of fire. So there is always a need for a detector in the access room (or a vision panel in the absence of a detection system), but it will not normally be required in the inner room.
I would not describe the main office as circulation space,or as an escape route, it is an office and an access room and in my opinion to meet the requirements for the L3 system it is only necessary to give early warning by providing detectors in the vicinity of the doors to the escape routes. However if it has an inner room it will need detection throughout for the benefit of the occupant of the inner room ( or vision panels) unless someone can prove that a fire in a remote area of the office will not pose a threat to the occupant of the inner room.
-
In my opinion the only issue with inner rooms is that it is important for the occupant of the iner room to be made aware of a fire in the access rooom so that they can make a safe escape in case of fire. So there is always a need for a detector in the access room (or a vision panel in the absence of a detection system), but it will not normally be required in the inner room.
Kurnal thanks for your input.
I'm not disagreeing with any of the above, but just opening a debate for us all to consider; What do you think about the point of view that as soon as you designate the main (access) room as part of the escape route for the inner room, then in a L3 system, the inner room would also need detection on the basis that it is now a room opening on to an escape route! ( I appreciate that a detector in the inner room would probably be a definte requirement if the access room was part of an escape route from other seperate areas, than just that inner room)
-
Wiz
I think if you extend your argument to the next stage you would end up requiring total coverage as per L1 because every room through which a person may pass may therefore be construed as an escape route.
So I think you need to consider the fire safety package as a whole- travel distances, protected routes, structural safety, nature of occupancy, nature of contents.
Its this assessment that determines the level of coverage appropriate and from there you select an appropriate category of fire detection. To do it the other way round puts the cart before the horse, designing the building round the categories of system rather than making the alarm fit the needs of the building and its users. And as you say the BS is flawed because we do not have clear definitions for some of the terms used.
-
....in my opinion to meet the requirements for the L3 system it is only necessary to give early warning by providing detectors in the vicinity of the doors to the escape routes.
Now that is interesting as that used to be the way I thought of it, but was "corrected" by our NSI BAFE Inspector!
In the old days, using the analogy above, we would have installed a detector in the inner room (our 18 yard box) one detector on the accommodation side of the storey exit near the door (the opposite goal mouth) and that essentially would have satisfied the old L3 definition. The detector being used to warn if that escape door became threatened by smoke.
Our BAFE man says (as you say wiz) the access room is the escape route therefore the complete area requires AFD.
-
Our BAFE man says (as you say wiz) the access room is the escape route therefore the complete area requires AFD.
David, Actually I'm not sure that what Kurnal is saying is wrong. I think in some circumstances it is totally right.
The point of view that I put forward as a question to Kurnal, which, in fact, your own BAFE man advised you is right, is very common, and I therefore highlighted it to see what further thoughts Kurnal had.
You had raised a good initial query and I have realised that there are some very 'able' people on this forum. Therefore I felt it will be good to get some friendly and helpful debate and opinions going on a subject that may help us all. We might even conclude with an agreed interpretation that we could all even 'rely on' in the future!
I hope some other members also join in on with some views.
-
Wiz
I think if you extend your argument to the next stage you would end up requiring total coverage as per L1 because every room through which a person may pass may therefore be construed as an escape route.
So I think you need to consider the fire safety package as a whole- travel distances, protected routes, structural safety, nature of occupancy, nature of contents.
Its this assessment that determines the level of coverage appropriate and from there you select an appropriate category of fire detection. To do it the other way round puts the cart before the horse, designing the building round the categories of system rather than making the alarm fit the needs of the building and its users. And as you say the BS is flawed because we do not have clear definitions for some of the terms used.
Thanks for this Kurnal. I didn't necessarily disagree with what you originally said. My question wasn't 'my argument' but a widely-held understanding of the COP, so I thought it would be good to request opinons about for everyone's benefit. I understand David has been told by his BAFE man that you must always install detection in the analogy given.
I'm glad you highlighted how the recommendations need to used as part of an overall package of considerations and, not least of all, some commonsense. Whilst I wouldn't agree with you that including access rooms, in some circumstances, in the coverage of an L3 system, is virtually creating a L1 system, I fully understand and agree with where you are coming from.
In the precise analogy that David presented I agree with your views entirely, in as much as we are trying to protect escape routes, and the access area may not actually really form part of an escape route for the building overall. However, In my own model of my agreement I'm assuming that the partioned inner office is half-glazed and contains a couple of workers.
But, if that inner office was made of fully fire-resistant walls and doors with no, or virtually no, vision ability to the main (access) room and it contained a dozen workers, and if they would have to travel, say, 20 metres through the access room to reach the escape door, I would consider this an escape route, and then I would definitely install automatic detection coverage to the whole of the access room to provide sufficient early warning to the inner office workers. In this second example, I would never include a detector in the inner room, even under L3, because if a fire started in it, when occupied, it would be noticed immediately, and if unoccupied, smoke escaping from it into the main (access) room would be highly unlikely to prevent people from escaping the main room. However, if the main room was connected to yet another area from which people might pass through the main room when escaping, and past the door to the inner room previously described, I would then include a detector in the inner room for a L3 system.
-
Wiz- I totally agree with you.
And as far as Daves BAFE man is concerned I think he could be missing the point. I wonder if he has overlooked the fact that for an inner room situation on its own, an L5 system is the answer and that this more than anything else will determine the siting and number of detectors? Now if the building also needs an L3 system then the two needs have to be combined but lets not lose sight of why we are installing the detectors in the first place.
This brings another point to mind over third party accreditiation. The BAFE man may be an absolute expert on fire alarms and the relevant standards but does he also have an understanding of other issues such as building design codes, fire characteristics and growth, human behaviour in fires, structural fire protection? The same thing goes for extinguishers , electrical work and so on. If we are not careful with these accreditation schemes we may end up with a committee of specialists looking at their individual aspects of a building and nobody taking an overall view with a more rounded but less in depth knowledge. Perhaps more based in common sense?
Hey wiz- reel me in!!
But if I have got you wrong Mr BAFE please forgive me. For I know not of your background or qualifications.
-
Just to highlight kurnal's point about the holistic approach. The example of the office within the big room where the occupants would have to travel 20m to get to the one exit goes counter to building regs and the RRO on travel distance. Also both these documents call for an automatic smoke dectector in the outer room unless there is a gap between the top of the wall to the inner room so that smoke can be seen or there is a vision panel giving adequate vision from the inner room to give an indication of the conditions in the outer room and the means of escape.
If the right don't get you the left hand will.
-
Kurnal I've now put the brake on, and hopefully it's stopped you from spiralling away!!!!!!! :) =)
With reference to both Kurnal's and Mike's recent posts; Can any one person know everything?
I mean, for example, is it possible for a Fire Officer to understand the electronic principles used in fire alarms in depth, or the problems in installing cables or for a fire alarm engineer to understand how various materials burn or in-depth building regulations.
Can any one type of person have the passion to learn, in reasonable depth, all these different disciplines? I'd like to think there is and I'd really appreciate having them around as a source of answers! But I wonder if it is too rare a species that can know and do it all to a sufficiently in-depth level! As Kurnal said it might then be better to have a reasonable level of knowledge in everything necessary, than an in-depth knowledge in one subject
I love Mike's byline of ' if the left don't get you the right hand will!' I know what he means and there always seems that if you follow BS 5839 someone will say 'but why haven't you taken into consideration the local guidelines produced by the Red Watch of the Isle of Nowhere's FRS recommending that if the wind is in the west on alternate Thurdsdays then MCP's can be mounted at a height of 795mm without an Agreed Variation!
Is it really impossible to incorporate the important parts of every discipline in respect of fire alarm and detection systems and incorporate them in one set of recommendations? Forget the fact that they would probably be impossible to interpret, but at least it would be a start and then maybe training and qualifications could be based on the 'holistic' approach.
Mike, having no training in building regs. can you please advise me, if 20m is obviously too far a travel distance to an exit from a room, what is the maximum such travel distance? And what happens in big areas such as airports? I'm sure I've often been more than 20m away from an exit in such places.
Again Mike, if BS5839 seems to allow no detection in the analogy we worked on, but you confirm that building regs may demand it anyway, why didn't the latest revision of BS incorporate it as standard to also comply with the building regs(assuming that it is not a more recent building reg)?
Guys, thanks for all your input on these questions. I'm enjoying it and I'm sure that David, who started it all is interested as well. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not the only one who is getting fed up with that unexpected 'right' crashing in just after I've avoided the 'left'!
-
Thanks Wiz theres a lot to be said for vallium.
The BS5839 is a bit like the Approved Document B- it gives design solutions for most situations commonly encountered but cannot possibly cover every situation. And was never intended to. All that matters is that people are as safe as reasonably practicable if a fire breaks out. ( This is one of the Functional requirements of the building Regs- how you achieve it is up to you but if you follow the approved document you wont go far wrong)
If you choose to stray from the standard approach you have to be able to prove that your method gave a level of safety at least as good as the approved document. So neither the ADB or any BS is a design bible- I dont think one exists. We do now have BS9999 which is the nearest thing yet to the idiots guide to fire engineering ( even though most of it is beyond me) but starts to give guidance on equivalence eg trading off structural protection for detection or suppression.
The guidance Mike refers to is that in ADB they recommend that the furthest distance from any point in the inner room to the exit from the access room is a maximum actual travel distance of 18m- but may be measured with a stretchy tape.
You mention airports- I have some plans in front of me of a proposed building with a long walkway the centre of which is 140metres from an exit. But on the other hand it is a protected route with nothing but people in it. no conveyor, no luggage, nothing but lights. We would stop counting travel distance in a protected route so why should I be concerned? How far would you travel in a high rise building down a tower staircase- possibly even having to pass the fire?
-
Wiz,
I agree with you I don't think it is possible for one person to fully comprehend the whole fire issue. The best pattern would seem to be the health system where the first point of contact is a GP who then refers you on to specialists if needed.
This to a great degree is how it used to work with the Local Authority Fire Prevention Officer, who would apply the Fire Precautions Act and then make recommendations based on this. If the recommendation was for a detection system then the occupier would need to contact a fire alarm installer who could work out all the BS technicalities.
An advantage of the system was that the FPO was independent so the advice would not be tempered by commercial interests.
With regard to travel distances these vary depending on the use of the premises, but if we stick with offices the rule was escape in one direction only the maximum distance you needed to travel to a place of safety was 18 metres, starting at the furthest point away from the entry to the place of safety. If you could escape in more than one direction then you can be 45 meters away. Then the fun starts with what is meant by the escape in more than one direction? If you start with escape in one direction then you reach an area where you can escape in more than direction? What is a place of safety? What are protected routes etc.? As kurnal says the tape can be stretchy depending on what else is in place i.e. sprinkler protection.
The travel distances are still in the ADB and are in the proposed new edition consultation document. They are also in the RRO Guides.
However they do not appear in the LPC Design Guide for the Fire Protection of Buildings but this is more relevent to saving the building and reducing the loss from fire.
Given this it is easy to see why the Fire Brigades were never really able to keep up with the work and parts of the FPA were never enacted.