FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: William 29 on February 19, 2008, 09:38:59 PM
-
Has anyone looked at the Bodycote Warrington assessor’s scheme trail? I have just asked for the application form and the required technical and practical knowledge is very comprehensive.
The scheme itself is similar to the IFE's scheme in that each applicant is required to put forward a portfolio of experience and assessments, before being invited for interview to assess practical knowledge and understanding (1 to 2 hours!). The technical details of the scheme have been written in association with RICS and compiled with a view to accreditation by UKAS.
They say it is a step up from the IFE's scheme and it is their intention to give the scheme as much gravitas as they can. BRE has a competence scheme run over a day and has many of the same elements but without the UKAS accreditation.
The fees to apply are not cheap.
Application fee: (non-refundable) £160 Competency assessment: Stage 1 : (document review) £175
Stage 2 : (technical interview) £225
What attracts me to this scheme is the accreditations that go with it and the fact that you have to re submit FRA’s and be reviewed regularly to maintain the accreditation, meaning that your CPD will also have to be up to scratch.
I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of assessors out there are retired and may have not had any recent fire safety training/course for a considerable time. My feeling is that they will have to prove they are competent to conduct an FRA if/when it hits the fan.
Any thoughts…….
-
Too many accreditation schemes are a bad thing- the effect is diluted and its confusing for the Public in my opinion.
As a consumer I have little confidence those operated by trade bodies and even less in ISO9001 et al. Have just thrown away the best part of a grand on an ISO9001 registered IT company to no avail and then found a back street guy whose fixed the mess they left for £50.
-
I agree with Kurnal. Too many schemes are a bad thing. I am with the IFE scheme. I chose the IFE scheme because in my opinion the IFE is and has always been the No 1 professional body for the fire profession. It is the one that is mostly being asked for by local authorities etc. It also requires re-application after 2 years and assesses CPD. The only concern I have is that some of the schemes are not as stringent as the IFE. For example, the BRE scheme, I know someone who has very little experience in fire safety went on the BRE course and is now listed as a BRE Fire Risk Assessor!
There is a need to regulate this otherwise it will get out of hand. Perhaps the CFOA could raise the matter at their next meeting and lobby the government?
-
Accreditation schemes are, it seems to any government, to be a matter for the trade and others and not for them. For example, the Part 'P' of the building Regs introduced a couple of years ago limits electrical work in parts of domestic premises either to be done by the occupier with checks by the local Building Control department or by an accredited person who only has to tell BC that the work has been done. At the last count there were no less than 6 accredition schemes in existance!
It does seem to me that there is a need for some form of overall control of such schemes so that all are working to a common standard.
-
Ashley
I know this is lazy and a little research would give me the answer but what did you actually have to do to be accredited by the IFE?
If you had to show them your work then who is to say that the assessor looking at it is right and you are wrong in the way you have it carried out your work?
How many do they reject?
We all do things differently and not all to PAS 79, if you have the fire safety experience and knowledge and as long as the outcome is a fire safe(r) environment, all the avenues have been explored and a safe solution produced then it's one persons view against another whether the FRA is good enough for IFE accreditation
-
Too many accreditation schemes are a bad thing- the effect is diluted and its confusing for the Public in my opinion.
As a consumer I have little confidence those operated by trade bodies and even less in ISO9001 et al. Have just thrown away the best part of a grand on an ISO9001 registered IT company to no avail and then found a back street guy whose fixed the mess they left for £50.
ISO9001 - what a laugh...
Write down what you do, then do what you wrote down. Absolutely pointless as it demonstrates no competence other than you can follow a paperwork system, which may in itself be completely flawed from any other perspective than that you are doing what you said you'd do (wrong or right).
-
Lingmoor,
To be an accredited fire risk assessor with the IFE I had to attend an IFE approved training course, at that time 4 days in NI. I then had to provide several fire risk assessment examples of actual assessments, provide references (which were checked) and provide details of my fire experience and qualifications. You then may be asked to attend an interview, dependant on your back ground and experience. You must hold a minimum of £1 million PI.
The panel that assessed me included the well known industry celebrity Collin Todd of CS Todd consultants. I think most who know or have met Collin know his level of experience!
As regards rejections? Who knows?
I use PAS 79 and it is this that the IFE course works from. I believe there is a connection between Collin and the PAS 79 concept (author).
Best regards
Ashley
-
Not all training provisders for the IFE use Colins work and give him money. The IFE have allocated their accreditation to others and list them on their web site. Everyone nowaday has to sit a panel interview with 3 members of the IFE. There rejections due to a lack of ability, lack of technical knowledge, poor FRA methodology, and use of non up to date standards. For example quoting BS5266 Part 1 1999 and not the newer version alongside the part 7 and part 8.
-
There rejections due to .........use of non up to date standards. For example quoting BS5266 Part 1 1999 and not the newer version ..........
Thats a bit worrying at first sight. I hope they allow you to refer to the version of the standard appropriate to the premises in question, for example if a premises was constructed to the 1985 version of ADB then any discrepancies should relate to the relevant standard at the time of construction and not seek to apply the 2006 version of the guidance. The same thing could apply to emergency (or escape) lighting, fire alarm installations and sprinkler systems where standards have improved over the years and it may not be reasonable to upgrade or change to meet the new standard , but perfectly reasonable to expect the original spec to be maintained.
-
has anyone here got any work due to being accredited?
-
Kurnal,
I think that is right but you would need at interview to explain that logic and thought process. I believe what has happened is that FRA has stated that a system should be designed to meet a particular standrad which is not current without any logical process to back this and then when questioned the individual can not "defend" the reasoning. It is not a attcak but an intelligent issue to ensure that those accreditedhave the underpinning skills and knowledge to undertake the task, in other words they are competent. I am sure we would all agree that should be the case.
-
Jasper, Yes I have recieved work from being on the IFE register.
-
Jasper, Yes I have recieved work from being on the IFE register.
congratulations
I didn't go down this route because I didn't think the cost and time taken to join would be paid for in the increase of work like some of my other failed marketing ideas
-
Are you saying that you HAVE to attend the Colin Todd 4 day FRA course or similar to get on the IFE register?
-
No, the system is designed so that anyone can access the register. If you do an approved course of training the number of FRA's you have to send them is lessened. From memory it is 20 plus in differnet environments without training and down to 4 if you have undertaken the training.
-
Jasper is correct. There are other IFE accepted courses now as well.
-
Fully support the IFE Register.
I have been on the Register since 2006 and have received work through accreditation.
I would however suggest that until the Register is:
a) better advertised in the marketplace and
b) fire authorities encourage its use in a far more robust (g** forbid) manner, especially in respect of medium to high risk premises.
we will still have many out there oblivious to the real changes that took place October 2006. Perhaps oblivious could be a new defence in law? Oh sorry I mean fire law.
-
IFE has had a long association with the Fire Service been on their register for over two years, after two years they require evidence of CPD and required two latest fire risk assessments. I believe it's a good organisation, going to bed now, good night assessors.