FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Chris Houston on November 11, 2008, 01:47:05 PM
-
Ladies and Gents,
My friend is seeking a career change, he has a background in people managemenet and environmetal waste management. One options that he is considering is getting himself on a FRA course and seeking a role as a fire risk assessor.
I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on how much a course might cost. If you could recommend this. If you can offer this and if anyone has any vacancies for new/trainee fire safety risk assessors or indeed any role for someone who is enthusiastic, smart, and keen for a new challenge.
Cheers,
Chris.
-
Ladies and Gents,
My friend is seeking a career change, he has a background in people managemenet and environmetal waste management. One options that he is considering is getting himself on a FRA course and seeking a role as a fire risk assessor.
I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on how much a course might cost. If you could recommend this. If you can offer this and if anyone has any vacancies for new/trainee fire safety risk assessors or indeed any role for someone who is enthusiastic, smart, and keen for a new challenge.
Cheers,
Chris.
I too would be interested in this as I need a change before I go (more) biccies!
-
Ladies and Gents,
My friend is seeking a career change, he has a background in people managemenet and environmetal waste management. One options that he is considering is getting himself on a FRA course and seeking a role as a fire risk assessor.
I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on how much a course might cost. If you could recommend this. If you can offer this and if anyone has any vacancies for new/trainee fire safety risk assessors or indeed any role for someone who is enthusiastic, smart, and keen for a new challenge.
Cheers,
Chris.
Better of where he is, since environmental waste management is an increasing issue every where, why not getting more post graduation studies, to build up more interesting skills, background and knowledge within the same trend, also it depends of the age, the more old you are, the more difficult you can jump from field to other… this is just my opinion :)
-
Buzzard - I asked first. All members should offer my mate a job first or their accounts will be deleted. :lol:
Benz - He has injured his hand and must not use tools and therefore decided on a career change. Thanks for your advice anyway.
Now where are these job/training offers? :lol:
-
Buzzard - I asked first. All members should offer my mate a job first or their accounts will be deleted. :lol:
Benz - He has injured his hand and must not use tools and therefore decided on a career change. Thanks for your advice anyway.
Now where are these job/training offers? :lol:
I bags the ones in Norn Iron!
-
Aye, OK. My friend is only looking for jobs in SE England, so I think we can share them.
-
Buzzard - I asked first. All members should offer my mate a job first or their accounts will be deleted. :lol:
Benz - He has injured his hand and must not use tools and therefore decided on a career change. Thanks for your advice anyway.
Now where are these job/training offers? :lol:
It's good idea to open a special topic for fire jobs opportunities
-
The IFE site has the approved accredited FRA courses on it and the providers by name and e mail. Costs vary dependent on which provider is delivering the course and they vary from 4 to 5 days. Some providers require pre course training fire safety areas.
-
join the fire brigade, learn to fight fires, retire at a young age, set up fire consultancy - just kidding :)
Your friend will need quite an extensive course i.e. at least 5 days plus a hell of alot of background reading
-
Ladies and Gents,
My friend is seeking a career change, he has a background in people managemenet and environmetal waste management. One options that he is considering is getting himself on a FRA course and seeking a role as a fire risk assessor.
Chris
has your friend considered a job as a non-uniformed inspecting officer with the fire service. (do i hera all the consultants booing and hissing??) they are provided with all relevant courses and training, given appropriate background knowledge and at the end of their career or when suitably competent can become a fire risk assessor!!
-
Chris,
just a thought, that if your freind is thinking of setting up as a self employed fire risk assessor the initial outlay for a trainng course and insurances and such are quite considerable. Then comes the tricky bit of building up a client base to recoup the outlay by doing the work. But most clients seek evidence of competency through completed risk assessments and there lies a chicken & egg problem. (this is also where retired Fire Officers have an advantage because it is commonly believed they are already comepetent and experienced in fire risk assessments).
if however this a career change is on behalf an employer, the post training practioner expertise can be built up.
Either way Izan's post may be very relevant
-
Chris,
just a thought, that if your freind is thinking of setting up as a self employed fire risk assessor the initial outlay for a trainng course and insurances and such are quite considerable. Then comes the tricky bit of building up a client base to recoup the outlay by doing the work. But most clients seek evidence of competency through completed risk assessments and there lies a chicken & egg problem. (this is also where retired Fire Officers have an advantage because it is commonly believed they are already comepetent and experienced in fire risk assessments).
if however this a career change is on behalf an employer, the post training practioner expertise can be built up.
Either way Izan's post may be very relevant
The assumptions that a retired fire fighter is autumatically good at fire safety is a bit like the assumption that a retired surgeon would make a good health and safety officer. But I know that isn't your fault.
My friend isn't looking to go self employed.
Thanks for the advice so far.
-
Chris,
just a thought, that if your freind is thinking of setting up as a self employed fire risk assessor the initial outlay for a trainng course and insurances and such are quite considerable. Then comes the tricky bit of building up a client base to recoup the outlay by doing the work. But most clients seek evidence of competency through completed risk assessments and there lies a chicken & egg problem. (this is also where retired Fire Officers have an advantage because it is commonly believed they are already comepetent and experienced in fire risk assessments).
if however this a career change is on behalf an employer, the post training practioner expertise can be built up.
Either way Izan's post may be very relevant
The assumptions that a retired fire fighter is autumatically good at fire safety is a bit like the assumption that a retired surgeon would make a good health and safety officer. But I know that isn't your fault.
My friend isn't looking to go self employed.
Thanks for the advice so far.
Nobody with any savvy would acknowledge that a retired firefighter is automatically good at fire safety. I certainly wouldn't. However, a retired fire safety officer with considerable Fire Safety experience is well on the way.
Is someone with a qualification suitably experienced?
Is someone with experience suitably qualified?
Do those with qualifications think that F&R Service experience counts for nothing?
Do those with F&R Service experience think the same of qualifications?
There are some very good experienced persons and there are some very poor ones.
Equally, there are some very good qualified persons and there are some very poor ones.
I think each must appreciate the other for what they are and what they have to offer.
-
The industry needs new people coming in and many of the skills required are transferable between different H&S or engineering disciplines.
Theres also a lot of hostility by people from different backgrounds- we ex firefighters / fire safety officers on the one side, on the other side are people who have qualifications in fire engineering but possible little else, and in the middle are many marketing based risk assessment companies that that regard risk assessments as just another way of making money and often have no underlying interest in the subject.
Your friend clearly has a lot of useful exerience and many skills that will be of use int he fire field. I would suggest that they first take a basic awareness course such as those accredited by the IFE or the fire course run by NEBOSH to test the water- to assess areas of common ground and ascertain whether they feel comfortable and interested by the topic. These courses will not make them competent to carry out other than the most basic assessment of an already satisfactory building but will be a good start. And then go from there- consider the IFE membership qualifications as development route for the future, read and research to broaden your knowledge and understanding.
The term general fire precautions is defined in the fire safety order. It defines the scope of the risk assessment and what must be recorded. On the face of it it is simple enough and limited in scope. What I find is the problem- and it might me me thats doing it wrong- is that most of the guidance and the definiton of general fire precautions make an assumption that the basic structure and systems in the building are already to a satisfactory standard.
This creates a foundation of safety on which the fire risk assessment can build- the buiding is inherently safe in itself, now through risk assessment make sure you are using it safely.
If only life were so simple. The fact is that so many fire alarms ands sprinkler systems are wrongly specced or poorly installed, so many corners are cut by builders, so many building inspectors will issue completion certificates without looking at the building in any detail and checking if fire stopping, compartmentation is actually in place.
I dont think it is possible to confine yourself to definition of general fire precautions as expressed in the guidance to carry out a competent fire risk assessment because you are so often starting from the platform of a substandard building. But to recognise that you do need a much deeper underlying knowledge of building standards, far deeper than is taught on any of the fire risk assessment courses.
By the way very many people tell me I have it wrong. And maybe I do.
I was looking at a clever risk assessment by one of the marketing based fire risk assessment companies the other day that found the landlords areas of large shopping centre to be entirely satisfactory. I looked at one tiny area for one of the tenants and found 14 landlords issues in the common escape routes that needed attention. When I looked at the template it had 5 pages of exclusions, 8 pages explaining the fire safety order and 4 pages listing british standards and explaining the fire alarm categories. And the clever bit was that it made the caveat to the effect that as the building was fairly recent the risk assessment was based onan assumption that the that all matters relating to the building regs and the installations had been inspected and approved by the responsible authority. But very glossy paper.
-
Prof
No way are you wrong
I speak from experience when I say most of our premises were unsatisfactory for those very reasons, including some Ok'd by BC on the basis of a quick shufty firewise that is.
I know its not BC's main priority etc etc but its now mine for my sins
I am in a catch 22 as far as training is concerned also. I would have to do the full Nebosh course as I passed my Nebosh cert 12 years ago
The Tech IFE appears now to require an engineering degree or similar so thats out.
I hope after 8 years of reading up,watching and learning, and 3 of going on this site that I am beyond the Nebosh anyway but I have to say the best bit of advice was given to me 18 years ago by a retiring Council H & S Officer
KNOW YOUR LIMITS
davo
-
The industry needs new people coming in and many of the skills required are transferable between different H&S or engineering disciplines.
Theres also a lot of hostility by people from different backgrounds- we ex firefighters / fire safety officers on the one side, on the other side are people who have qualifications in fire engineering but possible little else, and in the middle are many marketing based risk assessment companies that that regard risk assessments as just another way of making money and often have no underlying interest in the subject.
Your friend clearly has a lot of useful exerience and many skills that will be of use int he fire field. I would suggest that they first take a basic awareness course such as those accredited by the IFE or the fire course run by NEBOSH to test the water- to assess areas of common ground and ascertain whether they feel comfortable and interested by the topic. These courses will not make them competent to carry out other than the most basic assessment of an already satisfactory building but will be a good start. And then go from there- consider the IFE membership qualifications as development route for the future, read and research to broaden your knowledge and understanding.
The term general fire precautions is defined in the fire safety order. It defines the scope of the risk assessment and what must be recorded. On the face of it it is simple enough and limited in scope. What I find is the problem- and it might me me thats doing it wrong- is that most of the guidance and the definiton of general fire precautions make an assumption that the basic structure and systems in the building are already to a satisfactory standard.
This creates a foundation of safety on which the fire risk assessment can build- the buiding is inherently safe in itself, now through risk assessment make sure you are using it safely.
If only life were so simple. The fact is that so many fire alarms ands sprinkler systems are wrongly specced or poorly installed, so many corners are cut by builders, so many building inspectors will issue completion certificates without looking at the building in any detail and checking if fire stopping, compartmentation is actually in place.
I dont think it is possible to confine yourself to definition of general fire precautions as expressed in the guidance to carry out a competent fire risk assessment because you are so often starting from the platform of a substandard building. But to recognise that you do need a much deeper underlying knowledge of building standards, far deeper than is taught on any of the fire risk assessment courses.
By the way very many people tell me I have it wrong. And maybe I do.
I was looking at a clever risk assessment by one of the marketing based fire risk assessment companies the other day that found the landlords areas of large shopping centre to be entirely satisfactory. I looked at one tiny area for one of the tenants and found 14 landlords issues in the common escape routes that needed attention. When I looked at the template it had 5 pages of exclusions, 8 pages explaining the fire safety order and 4 pages listing british standards and explaining the fire alarm categories. But very glossy paper.
At least they used nice paper.
As you allude to Kurnal the government is of the misguided opinion that every employer, who's premises were not certifiable, provided the necessary fire safety measures because it was their moral and legal obligation to do so without the F&R Services having to enforce it.
Out of touch or what?
-
Thanks to Davo for your supportive words. This weeks horror stories include:
A care home with a residential sprinkler system, fully commissioned and approved by BCO. No recorded variations from BS9251. Commissioning cert states residential system but flow rates quoted are domestic. Installer says " Sorry mate but its approved by BCO"
Another building has commissioning cert for fire alarm to L3. Room off the staircase has no detection. Installer has not stated any variations. Installer now wants £500 extra to put in an extra detector- it was approved by BCO and compliant with architects plans.( no designer of course- the installer - a sparks- put the kit where it was shown on architects plan)
Another place has no emergency light in disabled toilet.
A factory has a mezzanine floor with protected stair. Mezz floor protected by suspended ceiling but missing tiles - too lazy to cut them round the steelwork - and the protected staircase not underdrawn, whilst uprights are encased all of the exposed bracing is naked unprotected steel.
All of these are brand new buildings with completion certs.
-
And don't think shortfalls that weren't picked up by BCO's & subsequently completion certified are safe from further action - a completion cert does not in itself mean FSO compliance.
Recent example - Premises required compartment walls between occupancies & escape tunnel. Got relaxation from Secretary of State as long as tunnel provided and 3m walls used instead of full ceiling height (over 12m). Built tunnel, but didn't bother with walls, but still got completion cert.
A couple of years later FRS inspect after complaint and issue notice and take steps to prosecute because of insufficient compartments/limitation of fire/smoke spread, no fire alarm, etc.
Completion certificate deemed by FRS as more use as toilet paper than a defence to the notice.
If going into fire, it's worth gaining some knowledge of the old codes & why they were used and how to recognise older type precautions such as doors, alarms, lighting, etc & how they work as most of our buildings in this country are quite old and a lot of older kit is still in use and this has thrown some dual trained H&S/fire staff who have done a course only showing current technology and current standards, with them missing or wrongly interpreting things at 'real world' sites.
-
Precisely Anthony- the demise of the statutory bar has meant that these issues can be enforced by the fire and rescue service.
The point is that having been through the regulation process and having paid good money to all concerned- builders, installers, architect and building authority none of them want to help out when problems are found after the event. Short of expensive civil litigation for the poor old client who has paid good money to all for a crap job.
-
My fairly biased opinion is that the role of civilian inspector is more than a good place to start, it is a very good career in its own right if you get into the right FRS.
I have to disagree with Izan FSO that people could get deemed as competent and then go out risk assessing. Even though they technically can do it, I quite firmly believe that once the FRS you work for deem you as competent and let you out on your own, it is THEN that you really start learning. In a similar vein to passing a driving test.
-
I have been studying for 6 years whilst working for a consultancy company and i am still no where near the mark of the experienced guys. Its a strange one because even if you attend a decent 5+ days course you are still not able to carry out risk assessments here there and everywhere. So to approach a company with no experience in fire but a short course it would be very hard to get work. They would only be able to employ your services on small low risk properties.
I don't think its a ever a case of doing a course then your off, as mentioned in previous posts it takes alot of reading and self study and not to get your guys heads too big this forum is a good learning tool
The IFE website lists all approved/accredited risk assessment courses
http://www.ife.org.uk/edutrain/approvedcoursesatoz/fireriskassessment