FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tom Sutton on November 29, 2008, 10:12:47 AM
-
The only thing the wheel has fallen off is fire safety enforcement in england.
The above statement is from another thread. http://forum.fire.org.uk/index.php?topic=3852.0
Why! I assume every thing is fine in the rest of the UK so what’s the problem in England and please don’t give us the throw away statement "many things" give us specifics.
-
I can't wait to hear your reply Colin lol
-
It would seem that many FRS FSO's are still living in the prescriptive world and not prepared to lok at hazard and risk. There is also a difficulty with the legislation in that the FRS Act wants FRS to be the givers of advice on fire prevention and means of escape but they have no fire safety duty in the RR(FS)O. FRS then have a problem of what to do with their FSO's and how they train them. To enable them to give advice on means of escape they need to know codes and guides as well as the law but the solutions are not always correct under the RR(FS)O for the differing premises types. Add that to the fact that new builds are the sole remit for the functional requirements of BCO's and AI's and the FSO's have little to do. They have consultation on the Building Regs under Articles 45 and 46 but have no fire safety duty in the Order, therefore they just give advice under FRS 2004 in accordance with the Procedural Guidance.
That leads to confusion about what they are there for, some are trying to enforce prescription in guidance under RR(FS)O, some give prescriptive solutions under Articles 45 and 46 in order to comply with the Buidling Regs and some what to enforce but have no idea what thta means.
The other side of the coin is that there are many RAers out there plying a trade who have no idea either about hazrad and risk and what they are in theory doing. Those are the code hugger types who love passive fire safety but have no idea why. FRA's range from comprehensive stuff to tick box stuff with some very good assessments of risk thrown in and good solution based action plans for the RP to deal with.
All in all it is a bit of a mess, created by 2 separate pieces of legislation. When it all goes wron at a fire the FRS will probably be asked lots of questions about why, when maybe it was not ther responsibility in the first place, think Bradford, that makes CFO's think prescription to make sure that a premises meets guidnace cover ebven if that does not consider the risk. They also want a safe built environment and want FSO's to be involved in that process although that does not folow the Procedural Guidance.
The added problem is the National Framework document that instructs CFO's to have a risk based inspection programme in accordance with IRMP circular 4 to evaluate risk of buildings and areas wheras the RR(FS)O is about premises.
Another thing is that the guidance documents vary the content of British Standards, the Sleeping Guide as an example with the Part 6 recommendations of 5839 with adds to the confusion. And going with this is an attitude of I do not like what it states so I will do something else, the HD/SD debate.
Therefore until someone say this is what you do and this is what you do and neither get involved with each other confusion will reign.
Anyone know how the DTI pilot is going?
-
Yes it is actually better elsewhere. NI do not have the badly written FSO, nor will they have as they are copying the Scottish legislation. Also, NI has only one F&RS (and a fine bunch of chaps they are too, who believe in reason and persuasion, rather than heavy enforcement). Scotland has better written legislation, continuity on the part of the civil servants and advisory unit, so they actually know what they meant, a single CFOA forum to hammer things out. Oh and of course they are ....um....well.... Scottish (in the main). Oh and the new fire safety officers are awfully well trained at Gullane, where all 8 F&RS train together.
Now, since you did express an interest, to England ( which, as Paul Simon said, where my heart lies):
1. Lots of misunderstanding about the stupid term responsible person and what it means. Its not a good start to enforcement, TW, if one does not know against whom one is enforcing.
2. Massive prescription, with no thought about risk, using the guides like a set of rules. Wonder where we had that before?????
3. Huge inconsistency, with some F&RS using powers of enforcement to require smoke detectors to be changed to heat detectors, while others tell the same bloody chain NOT to do that, as they PREFER heat detectors.
4. Officers making it up as they go along. The Bluff and Persuasion Act was not repealed by the FSO, nor were the Do As I Fancy Regulations revoked.
5. Misconception that relevant persons are some new group who were never protected by the FP Act.
6. Some F&RS refusing to use action plans on the basis that the punter will always let you down so might as well cut out the middle step and issue enforcement ntoices all the time, while on the opposite coast the F&RS take the view (very commendably) that every enforcement notice is a failure on the part of the F&RS to persuade and reason with people. Check the numbers of notices issued by different F&RS. It is enlight
Will that do for starters TW, as I have been working on an expert witness report all day, and I fancy going for some chicken and chips, which will probably be wrapped in some of the notices one sees nowadays, as they are worth less than yesterdays newspaper. I am sure others can add to the list.
With love and best wishes.
Frustrated and despondent of Surrey
-
Jokar, I thought he was asking me!!!!!!! I hate you for getting in first. Sadly, much of what you say is correct, and I did not read it before writing mine-honest guv. We were typing at the same time.
-
4. Officers making it up as they go along. The Bluff and Persuasion Act was not repealed by the FSO, nor were the Do As I Fancy Regulations revoked.
Agreed!
-
Ah, Colin your good mind and my average one coming to a similar conclsion, I feel good indeed.
-
Princess. You know me so well, but only in the Biblical sense. Hope TW is listening to all this.
-
Colin and joker from your postings it appears the problem is partly the FSO and the training of FSI’s or at least the lack of national training.
I didn’t realise there were major differences between the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 and the FSO also is the guidance documents part of the problem? Also is the DCLG fit for purpose as compared with the Scottish Government’s Police and Community Safety Directorate, it appears so.
I have been out the loop for ten years so I do not know what is happening in the FRS now, but from threads on this forum it appears each FRS fire safety departments do their own training and there appears to be no national training. Colin before you continue, take a chill pill, what about using Moreton, after all it’s a collection of lecture rooms and the same format used at Gullane could be used there. If this cannot be considered is this about budgets?
The Princess joke ???
-
Tw, the problem is mainly budget but also the pride of some FRS is such that sending an FSO on a Moreton course is seen as a failure of that particular FRS. I am also led to believe that people with childcare responsibilities don't like residential courses and that some FRS are afraid of being accused of discrimination!
-
TW, Training is a huge problem. Partly government fault for bringing in such radical changes without better guidance and support ofr the Fire and Rescue Service, and partly their view of fire safety enforcement. When the matter was out for consultation, a question asked was who should enforce fire safety legislation and should it be the F&RS. I confess to having said in my consultation response that it matters less about who did it than that they were well trained and consistent. I have to admit to saying that the F&RS would be fine. I now admit to wondering. There are not major differences between the two regimes, but the devil is in the detail. While the thrust is the same, as Professor Everton puts it so eloquently, the two regimes are cousins, not sisters. Forget Moreton. Do not even think about it TW. The idea of national training there will never happen and the concept brings me out in a cold sweat. I need to go take that pill and lie down.
-
As time goes on and the level of safety experience in the F&R Services decreases to floor height I wonder about the quality of audits of FRAs. Without coal face experience IOs are going to be relying on the codes for an interpretation of their rules. The financial implications of appealing a notice for the provision of a fire door which a FRA has considered unnecessary would be cost prohibitive and the door will be provided, as maybe a code recommends.
We will be going back to the future.
-
IMHO,
Training, Training, Training!!!!!!!!.
The recent out come of a formal complaint I put to the Chief Fire Officer was this.
"Sorry about what was said by our officer, he was not aware any other body can test fire alarms but the NIC electricians. Unfortunately hes old school, and doesnt keep as up to date as the other officers"
I then said he should have extra training then.
I was then told " He has only got another year to go before he retires so hes unlikely to change now".
Another one recently told a big (400) people meeting/ conference rooms (with full kitchens,bars, basements and upstairs) that they needed a BS5839-6 system to LD3.
-
Interestingly, I think that you can train personnel all you like and where you like. The problem lies with whether or not the the staff who are told, asked or volunteer for the training have or want to take in the information. Numbers of individuals on this forum give information for free and still people question it even when the clause is pointed out. It seems that if it does not fit their individual wants then regardless of what is actually written down or stated they will still do their own thing.
Perhaps it is a comfort blanket thing and being unsure of hazard and risk they stick to what they once new. The other point is perhaps the policies that FRS write out are not read by FSO's and even some of the policies may be a little dubious. There are of course all sorts of political with a small p reasons for some of them.
-
Ref Colin Todd Heat/Smoke Detectors
Where does that leave the poor hotelier
What do we do. Put them in or refuse to put them in.
and how would i, as the RP, stand legally
-
David, I think we have been here before. The BS states HD and a system that is to the BS is satisfactory. Your FRA should point this out and you have the right to appeal against any notice that the FRS issue. The onus of responsibility in Article 34 is on you as the RP to prove you have done everything to ALARP. The fire safety duties in Part 2 are all yours as the RP as well. All FRS are enforcers, they have no fire safety duty at all. Their function is one of policing the legislation and ensuring that your FRA is suitable and sufficient for the hazard and risk that the premises has. Therefore, in any one bedroom there is more than one control measure for the inherent risk that is within the room. For example, there is detection and warning, there is means of escape, there is testing of the electrical installation and the portable appliabnces that you provide. Yoyur staff are trained, there are extinguishers available for use. Therefore you have numbers of control measures already in place and to go to the cost of providing additional measures is against ALARP.
That is why this thread has been started and you can already see from the responses that the belief is that FRS are getting it wrong and do not understand hazard and risk.
-
Yes it is actually better elsewhere. NI do not have the badly written FSO, nor will they have as they are copying the Scottish legislation. Also, NI has only one F&RS (and a fine bunch of chaps they are too, who believe in reason and persuasion, rather than heavy enforcement). Scotland has better written legislation, continuity on the part of the civil servants and advisory unit, so they actually know what they meant, a single CFOA forum to hammer things out. Oh and of course they are ....um....well.... Scottish (in the main). Oh and the new fire safety officers are awfully well trained at Gullane, where all 8 F&RS train together.
Now, since you did express an interest, to England ( which, as Paul Simon said, where my heart lies):
1. Lots of misunderstanding about the stupid term responsible person and what it means. Its not a good start to enforcement, TW, if one does not know against whom one is enforcing.
2. Massive prescription, with no thought about risk, using the guides like a set of rules. Wonder where we had that before?????
3. Huge inconsistency, with some F&RS using powers of enforcement to require smoke detectors to be changed to heat detectors, while others tell the same bloody chain NOT to do that, as they PREFER heat detectors.
4. Officers making it up as they go along. The Bluff and Persuasion Act was not repealed by the FSO, nor were the Do As I Fancy Regulations revoked.
5. Misconception that relevant persons are some new group who were never protected by the FP Act.
6. Some F&RS refusing to use action plans on the basis that the punter will always let you down so might as well cut out the middle step and issue enforcement ntoices all the time, while on the opposite coast the F&RS take the view (very commendably) that every enforcement notice is a failure on the part of the F&RS to persuade and reason with people. Check the numbers of notices issued by different F&RS. It is enlight
Will that do for starters TW, as I have been working on an expert witness report all day, and I fancy going for some chicken and chips, which will probably be wrapped in some of the notices one sees nowadays, as they are worth less than yesterdays newspaper. I am sure others can add to the list.
With love and best wishes.
Frustrated and despondent of Surrey
-
Rex what’s your comment? ???
Are there no positive comments, even though it would be very difficult I still think training is the answer with a syllabus from one source and if Scotland has got it right then let’s copy them?
-
I think that Rex just likes what I said and wanted people to read it again. He is clearly a discerning man.
-
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments already mentioned especially the lack of consistancy.
Training is a key issue but its common sense that seems to be lacking. They seem to want to hug the guidance and are either scared or just plain lazy. You can't train people in common sense unfortunately.
I wonder if we would have all of these problems if the F&RS no longer hired non uniformed officers
-
Yeah. spot on piglet, getting rid of uniformed officers would be a lot better.
Driving big red lorries and fire engineering are not the same thing.
-
This thread (an previous earlier similar threads) seem very quick to lay all the sins of the world at the door of the F&RS Enforcement Officer. Nobody seems prepared to consider that Enforcement Officers (whether uniformed or not) are frequently confronted with FRA's which are neither competent nor valid. The offering of guidance on how to overcome this lapse seems deeply resented and somehow also seems to seek the lowest comon denominator through comparison.
Perhaps, occasionally, those of us who are 'delivering' FRA's should first ensure our house is in order before lambasting F&RS officers.
Happily, I live and work in Scotland where all our houses are in order and we never have any Enforcement problems whatsoever ................
-
It is not laying all blame at their feet it just becomes a joke when someone is deeming your work suitable or not when they have precious little experience in fire safety and law and you have plenty!!
Just because i can drive doesn't make me a mechanic
-
Piglet you say you want to get rid of "NON UNIFORMED INSPECTING OFFICERS" and Wee Brian then agrees with you by saying ""YES LETS GET RID OF UNIFORMED OFFICERS"
Now come on what's it to be lads..do you want to get rid of uniformed or non uniformed officers hmm? and if so why ? Then tell me who you would like to replace them with to enforce the Order?
On the issue of Inspecting Officers and FRA's I'd simply say "Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" because as I have said many times before there are good and bad enforcers, and guess what, there are good and bad FRA's too.
Where risk assessment is concerned it can be difficult to achieve consistency
At the end of the day the RRO in England and Wales isn't perfect by any means. But thats not the IO's fault. They dont make the policy they simply enforce it. Its still bedding in. And there are learning curves for everyone involved.
Sir Colin Todddd may be right in saying the RRO is pants,but alas parts of the RRO have had to be written in the way they have to take into account English law and all of its associated little quirks shaped, no doubt, by inumberable test cases taken in the past.
And atleast it gets rid of prescription does it not?
Is it not difficult to stray from a standard or guidance because these benchmarks are normally tried and tested methods / ways of doing things formulated by some very learned experts (some of which darken these forums).
Im all for ALARP, I'm all for viable alternatives which achieve the same thing as accepted benchmarks, but any alternative solutions offered should be capable of demonstrating that it is equal in standing or suoperseeds the benchmark standard.
Otherwise anyone could offer all kinds of weird and wonderful solutions which wouldn't achieve what we want.
So FRA's im going to lay down the gauntlet to you. If you disagree with what a fire officer has required - then challenge it - go for a determination - put your money where you rmouth is - if you firmly believe you are right and the fire officer is wrong then go for it. As far as Im aware it doesn't cost to appeal or go for a determination (unless anyone knows otherwise?)
-
Im all for ALARP, I'm all for viable alternatives which achieve the same thing as accepted benchmarks, but any alternative solutions offered should be capable of demonstrating that it is equal in standing or suoperseeds the benchmark standard.
well said Mr. Retty! and guess what the alternative solution usually relies on quoting this standard or that specification to prove the alterantive works. Alternative solution based on more code -hugging!
-
Im all for ALARP, I'm all for viable alternatives which achieve the same thing as accepted benchmarks, but any alternative solutions offered should be capable of demonstrating that it is equal in standing or suoperseeds the benchmark standard.
well said Mr. Retty! and guess what the alternative solution usually relies on quoting this standard or that specification to prove the alterantive works. Alternative solution based on more code -hugging!
Absolutely Mr Burner
The issue here is that we need something to measure alternative standards against.
Compare
"Sorry Mr Fire Officer this "such and such" hasn't been manufactured to BS3333. It was made in China and meets their CS 2222 standard which seems to be an equivalent"
with
"Sorry guv this "such and such" doesn't comply with BS 3333 but I reckon it should work ok cos the bloke down the pub who sold it me said so"
How do you expect an I.O or FRAss to quantify something which is unknown, how would you know how something might perform in a given situation without some form of spec
I accept that some issues can be ratified using a bit of common sense rather than a piece of paper saying something accords to a standard but when you start getting into more complex issues then I would always want evidence of accreditation to a recognised standard, or would ask you to have it tested to see how it would perform.
So whether you like it or you dont you cant avoid code hugging or standards worshipping in one way shape of form... I think therefore the argument is really about how tightly you hug them.
-
and there lies a difficulty. ALARP does not mean that you have to comply with or have equivalence to a standard. It means understanding that time trouble and inconvienience are balanced against cost. Therefore Cost Benefit Analysis comes into play as does proportionality. Whether you agree or not there is always more than one way to solve a difficulty and it is not always the most expensive solution and before you blame RAers, it is not their choice either. A good FRA will offer the RP a range of solutions to the identified areas of need and the RP will have to make decision on these based on information from the RAer. The RP might decide to live with risk and maintain what they already have, that is there decision. When an enforcers looks at these they will ask the relevant question and if they do not like the answer they can enforce something. Then, it is up to the RP to take on board the things in a Notice or appeal the notice and argue their case under Article 34, after all it is there FRA.
Also, I know there are RAers out there who have insufficient knowledge of the same areas that are being discussed here. Hopefully, one day all will all be singing fron the same sheet.
-
Colin re your 04:27:11 PM posting above, and what Jokar has said, there is clearly some way to go - especially for training both inside and outside the FRS. It might amaze you but there are some in the FRS who really do want to sort the mess that the CLG left the FRS in when they scrapped national exams and let the college get into such a state.
There may be a few dinosaurs singing verses of auld lang syne for a wee bit yet - so it may take some time before we can all sing from the same hymn sheet - but I reckon we can get there so long as we don't all suddenly claim a proclivity for modern jazz. (You know that an optimist is what a pessamist calls a realist! ;D
-
Are you saying joker if in a premises the travel distance/time in an area was double the standard as shown in the CLG guide with no compensatory factors. If the RP considered that time, trouble and inconvenience, balanced against cost he could live with risk and maintain what they already have and the enforcers should look at this situation and ask the relevant questions. If they do not like the answer enforce or something well isn’t this what happens?
-
Yes and No. In certain instances as the guidnace may not be met it will be enforced anyway without any consideration of hzrad and risk plus proportionality. There has to be an understanding of how a solution was reached and the reasons why not just a blanket it does not fit a standard so we will enforce.
-
Just out of interest, where did all you experienced consultants receive your training?
Mr Todds 3 and a half day wonder-course?
A few weeks of a NEBOSH?
BEng? BSc? (IMO, you can roll it up and wedge a door open with it for all the good it does with run-of-the-mill fire safety. Always looks good on a business card and in court though, that is granted.)
Or built up over many years? If so, where did you start?
-
There has to be an understanding of how a solution was reached and the reasons why not just a blanket it does not fit a standard so we will enforce.
In the places where enforcement is taking place it is highly likely that no solution was reached. It will have just been bad conditions, simple as that.
Take enforcing HD to SD in hotel bedrooms. All you see is a FRS nazi going against the British Standards, implementing his will on some poor helpless hotellier with 100% RRO compliance and the lot.
What you choose to ignore and what the poor hotellier fails to divulge is that there was no risk assessment, all the doors are ill fitting with no strips/seals, missing self closers, no maintenance, no staff training, wedged doors etc etc etc. Cheapest option? 20 doors and frames, or 20 detectors?
FWIW, there is some grey ground somewhere between those 2 examples. I think it's called fire safety.
-
Yes you can have ALARP but you have to bas it on something Jokar. You cant just pluck ideas or solutions out of the sky. It has be based around something.
-
There has to be an understanding of how a solution was reached and the reasons why not just a blanket it does not fit a standard so we will enforce.
In the places where enforcement is taking place it is highly likely that no solution was reached. It will have just been bad conditions, simple as that.
Take enforcing HD to SD in hotel bedrooms. All you see is a FRS nazi going against the British Standards, implementing his will on some poor helpless hotellier with 100% RRO compliance and the lot.
What you choose to ignore and what the poor hotellier fails to divulge is that there was no risk assessment, all the doors are ill fitting with no strips/seals, missing self closers, no maintenance, no staff training, wedged doors etc etc etc. Cheapest option? 20 doors and frames, or 20 detectors?
FWIW, there is some grey ground somewhere between those 2 examples. I think it's called fire safety.
Hurrah atlast some honesty and truth Well said Civvy FSO. I do have to smile at som RA'ers who make on taht all IOs are jack booted Nazis who go round barking requirements willy nilly. In reality there maybe some very isolated cases of that but the in the main most RA'ers or consultants who have an axe to grind with the fire authority dont know enforcement procedures very well. Yes they may have been ex fire service and reckon they know the score or what was done of old but things change and procedures are revised.
And how many times on this forum have we given advice about what to do if a Insp Off is overburdensome. Theres a whole raft of things you can do before having to go for an appeal or determination and enforcement is never taken lightly and has to be OK'd by a line manager who incidently will be covering his or her back side with 12" thick steel to ensure that the brigade doesnt get sued for requiring OTT solutions. So hello and welcome to planet earth people. If you are going to criticise lets be honest and talk facts not half truths or urban mythology please.
Perhaps some of you genuinely have come across really horrid fire officers who get out the wrong side of bed each morning or who have not received the love of a good woman for quite some time. But dont tar every last IO's with the same brush, I dont treat every responsible person or RA'er like that.
I said in my last post that yes you can have ALARP but you cant just pluck ideas out of the sky . You have to base your assessment against known quantities or have a bloomin good reason for straying away from know standards. You need to be able and confident to justify your decision in court. Some of us just don't seem to appreciate thats where things may end up. And it's intimidating and intense in court because you will be put under the spotlight being asked to back up opinions. And unless you have something to base you assessment of why you have allowed such a deviation you are just merely giving professional opinion if you have not tested your theory in some way. And that may mean the prosecution then asks you why you are so qualified to ake such decisions. If youre not careful you will be shot down in flames by a prosecuting barrister. However if you are competent and you know what you are doing and are confident in that decision then great I haven't got a problem with that.
-
Just out of interest, where did all you experienced consultants receive your training?
Mr Todds 3 and a half day wonder-course?
A few weeks of a NEBOSH?
BEng? BSc? (IMO, you can roll it up and wedge a door open with it for all the good it does with run-of-the-mill fire safety. Always looks good on a business card and in court though, that is granted.)
Or built up over many years? If so, where did you start?
CivvyFSO, I feel you need to explain your statement or retract it, I am not saying you are wrong or right but feel you need to explain your possibly slanderous statement.
So CivvyFSO, are you saying Mr Todds wonder course is no good then.
What are you baseing your opinion on, have you sat it and thought "thats rubbish" or is it just a guess.
I also take it that Nebosh is no good either, again this is based on what? you have sat them or again its a guess?.
BSc, BEng both poor, again please explain.
And finally I feel you should start us off with your CV.
I think I could be F**ked as I have done all of the above (apart from BEng) and the Todd course was a less than three days but is was a many years ago.
-
WELCOME BACK CLEVELAND ;D
Its been dull without you.
-
Having read through this thread again, I'm feling quite wounded, and covered in all the tar! I've dealt with a FRA that was carried out by a 'professional RAer' that identified all the risks/hazards (hurrah), then singularly failed to identify any action plans, alternative solutions etc or even where his poor client could go for answers.
What was left for me to do - declare the FRA not suitable and sufficient. I then spent a good hour or so teaching the RAer about action plans. Let's not forget that FS standards have evolved over a number of years as knowledge, technology etc increases and progresses, therefore we do have to move with the times. If us professionals find this a little difficult at times, how do you expect the poor RP to manage. I guess we need to write down some sort of standard that can be used for their own FRAs. Lets call them a guide so we can all look at them and assess what it is proposed against a normative standard.
Wev all know that if you let an inch be taken there are some (not all) who don't stop at a mile or so, so how do we, the poor FO's, deal with this. YES we use what experience, training, etc we have to make a decision on what we consider is a minimum safe standard, and apply that unless we are persuaded otherwise by a well presented and cogent case.
We will make mistakes, but not on purpose. We will try to assist the RP to make their premises safe (ALARP), but we will also enforce as we are charged to do by law, and don't forget, any FRA carried out by a 3rd party (once paid for) belongs to the RP, which they must understand and work with after the consultant is tucked up in bed with a warm toddy or three.
Rant over - sorry folks - but I must defend my corner as well.
-
Just to add a little anecdote to this interesting thread.
I had the pleasure to come up against a 'highly qualified' fire consultant in a legal case. He was truely awful, spoke utter rubbush and was so out of date that I sat there fuming, (unable to cross examine...which would have been a joy).
After the case, I casually struck up a conversation, (as one does), and he opening and gleefully told me that he would say anything, the pay was brilliant and he had a vintage porsche in the garage.
There are good and bad in any field but I have yet to find a fire safety officer with such a poor approach.
-
Colin Todd said-
I think that Rex just likes what I said and wanted people to read it again. He is clearly a discerning man.
Rex said- sorry Colin, I pressed the wrong button!!!! But I like you.
Colin,
I attended a fire risk assessment course that you organised for a FRS, this was for the inspecting officers of that brigade, [I got on this course as a civi when I left the service] not all I believe passed the course, again the problem is training. During my time within the fire prevention department no formal internal assessable training was implemented for fire prevention officers I did instigate informal on the job training one day per month if circumstances allowed. I am lead to understand this lack of internal training within brigades is still applicable. Not only training for enforces of the RFO is required, but also training for fire risk assessors . Poor fire risk assessments, and lack of training for enforcers is not a happy position for all concerned, I am still learning, particularly from this forum.
-
WELCOME BACK CLEVELAND ;D
Its been dull without you.
You're right it has been dull without me but dont worry I'm back now ;D. Seriously nice to hear from you Kurnal and thank you for the kind welcome :-*
So it seems then in conclusion that - shock horror stand back in amazement - we all agree fire safety professionals be they IO's, FRAss or consultants could all do with extra training in some areas, that inevitably guides and benchmarks have to be referred to or "hugged" unless a suitable alternative is put forward and that actually we all have a common goal of achieving using ALARP processes to reduce life and property risk in most cases. (Despite the different angles we may approach it and the misconceptions we have of each other).
Im quite tearful actually for this is a beautiful moment. Where is Wiz I want to embrace him and tell him Im sorry. Midland Retty drinks all round because guess what we professionals are probably singing from the same hymm book, we just need to all get on the same hymm sheet and life will be good.
-
Cleveland, different name same person, welcome back, if it is you that is.
-
Hi Jokar thanks hope you are well. Im afraid it is me yes... different person same name or something like that ;) ;)
-
CivvyFSO, I feel you need to explain your statement or retract it, I am not saying you are wrong or right but feel you need to explain your possibly slanderous statement.
I don't feel the need to retract anything, and if you can point me to where I am being slanderous it would be much appreciated. However I will explain very slowly for you.
So CivvyFSO, are you saying Mr Todds wonder course is no good then.
No. Just that 3 and a half days training does not make a good risk assessor.
What are you baseing your opinion on, have you sat it and thought "thats rubbish" or is it just a guess.
I am basing my opinion on three and a half days not being enough time to learn enough fire safety to go out risk assessing buildings.
I also take it that Nebosh is no good either, again this is based on what? you have sat them or again its a guess?.
Same again. I quite simply do not think a Nebosh on its own guarantees a good risk assessor.
BSc, BEng both poor, again please explain.
Being part of the way through a BEng, as far as the risk assessment aspect goes I have had very little input that I consider valuable for risk assessing buildings, or even quite basic fire safety, and I see little on the horizon that will assist with that aim. Good input for fire engineering though, as would be expected.
And finally I feel you should start us off with your CV.
I am glad you feel that way.
The whole point is that qualifications alone do not make for competence in fire safety, and I would hazard a good guess that there are many people out there with no qualifications at all who make excellent risk assessors.
-
Hi CivvyFSO,
Please dont take this as I am having a go at you I am interested in what makes everyone with qualifications a poor risk assessor and all the ex-fire officers much better at it.
You say experience tells you Colin Todds course poorly equips people for the job of RA, have you seen poor risk assessments done by people qualified by Todd wonder course?.
Again the Nebosh Diploma is a Degree level risk assessors qualification respected world wide, it commands high wages and you say it is poor as well, I assume you have you sat this exam to be able to say it is poor.
In a way I agree with you that having qualifications alone does not make you a good anything, but any qualification will give you some extra knowledge.
-
I am not saying they are poor qualifications, nor am I saying that the fire officers are better at the task. I am simply saying that none of the qualifications on their own make you a good risk assessor.
People love having a go at FSO's about lack of training. So where should we all go for our training? Does the Nebosh touch on BS9999, ADB, BS5588, BS7974, BR368 etc etc etc?
-
Civvy, I agree with Tam that your scurrilous allegations have serious legal ramifications.
If they use my excellent course notes to wedge open fire doors that form part of the general fire precautions required to support the objective of Article 8 of the FSO, or part of the fire safety measures required to support Sections 53 or 54 of the Fire (Scotland) Act, or part of the general fire precautions required under Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations (NI) 2001, then it might be possible that there has been a contravention of Article 14(2)(b) of the FSO, or Regulation 13(2)(b) of the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations or Regulation 5(2)(b) of the FP(W)R (NI). If such a contravention placed one or more relevant persons in Great Britain at risk of death or serious injury on the event of fire, or an employee at risk of death or serious injury in the event of fire in NI, then an offence might have been committed under Article 32(1)(a) of the FSO, or under Section 72(1) of the F(S) Act, or under Section 11 of the FP(W)R (NI).
I do not think on the balance of probabilities it would be grossly disproportionate in relation to the reduction in risk to remove my excellent notes from the bottom of the door and read them thoroughly. Accordingly there might be no defence available. In fact, I think that failing to read the notes should be some sort of crime.
I think you should put up or shut up and tell us the addresses of the premises in question. Then, according to where this terrible thing has happened, in one capital city, stormtroopers can be sent in, leaving a trail of chewing gum on the carpets. In another, someone will be sent round to talk about rugby (a boring game, discussion of which will be sufficient punishment to act as a future deterrent). In another, a caution will be issued along the lines, " see yon notes, Jimmy, git them oot oh yon door right noo, tak them ootwith the building and git reading them". In a further capital, there will be a chat over two pints of Guinness, and a couple of bushmills, followed by the friendly advice " get wise to yourself seamus, go on ahead and take toddys notes out of that door and read them" (the sanction of severe arthritis of the knee caused by a man of standing in the community being reserved soley for cases of imminent and serious risk.)
If the door needs to be held open, I recommend that a hold open device is installed in accordance with the recommendations of BS 7273-4 for Category A or B reliability according to the location of the door in question, which I note that your posting does not describe. Alternatively, the notes could be replaced with my latest book, A Comprehensive Guide to Fire Safety, available for purchase from BSI, or any good bookshop in time as a Christmas present.
PS Did you just love the paragraphing?
-
CIvvy wrote: I am basing my opinion on three and a half days not being enough time to learn enough fire safety to go out risk assessing buildings.
Sadly, you have clearly never read or understood the course objectives. It is not a fire safety course. It is a fire risk assessment course. It assumes existing fire safety knowledge. We do other courses on fire safety, one of which acts as a feeder for the FRA course, and which we regularly deliver to new inspecting officers of a particular F&RS, who have want both the basic fire safety and FRA courses.
-
Colin,
Please tell me that the BSI Tech meetings will be this entertaining?. Are we allowed sarcasum?
I have just got the web site details through & noted you are on the same ones.
-
It is at the ones I go to.
-
Not sure whats your real name?
im on
FSH/012/02 Fire detectors
FSH/12/1 - Installation and servicing
FSH/12/3 - Control and indicating equipment.
-
This is all getting interesting! Some people are getting far too heated and there are some chests puffing out. There are lackings in quality on both sides of the fence its just amusing that once one side of the fence gets to a certain age they join the other side!
There are plenty of good courses out there i would only reccomend those who have third party accreditation from the IFE. However wonderful these courses are (and im sure Mr Todd would agree) it cannot give you experience. You must start off small and on a low risk premises. The Risk Assessment must be suitable and sufficient which means you must have a good understanding of the work practices. Quality consultants can go to any premises and grasp what goes on fairly easily but i think there is a new breed of new ones who are biting off more than they can chew.
I stick by my previous statement though and say that there are some bloomin awkard FSOs who are unwilling to listen and prefer to see codes of practice as the definitive guide.
-
I am not saying they are poor qualifications, nor am I saying that the fire officers are better at the task. I am simply saying that none of the qualifications on their own make you a good risk assessor.
People love having a go at FSO's about lack of training. So where should we all go for our training? Does the Nebosh touch on BS9999, ADB, BS5588, BS7974, BR368 etc etc etc?
Nebosh does not look in detail at any British Standard, What it does how ever is equip you to know where to find the extra iformation that may be needed.
I can guarantee that no one on here can quote chapter and verse BS9999, ADB, BS5588, BS7974, BR368, Bs5839, Bs5306, BS5266 etc etc etc, it would be physically impossible, I doubt even the Great Mr Todd could do this on every standard, but I am sure he knows where to find the answers.
What most competent RA's will do is go back and research any thing thats out the ordinary so they can quote the relevent British Standards or building codes etc.
I recently spent 2 days reasearching steel beam protection for a customer, case historys,standards building codes etc etc.
-
IMO
Fire Safety is similar to H & S in only one manner
You get code huggers who ban everything/demand hard hats for standing on a kick stool etc
Or you get those like me who like to practice common sense and reason
To defend our FRS colleagues, the ratio of good to bad I/Os I have met is 10 to one, 90% will listen to reason.
Perhaps the next guidance note will iron out a few more problems
davo
-
Just out of interest, where did all you experienced consultants receive your training?
Mr Todds 3 and a half day wonder-course?
A few weeks of a NEBOSH?
BEng? BSc? (IMO, you can roll it up and wedge a door open with it for all the good it does with run-of-the-mill fire safety. Always looks good on a business card and in court though, that is granted.)
Or built up over many years? If so, where did you start?
Personaly speaking, 3 years doing a BA degree in risk management, nebosh general certificate, self learning, 2 years designing fire alarms, 6 years insurance surveying, fellowship of IRM, membership of IFE, fire experience from 3 years in red cross fire emergency responce, visits to fire scenes follow large insurance losses, on the job training from experienced collegues.
I tend to limit myself to simple FRAs due to lack of awareness of some standards but am familiar with some.
Despite knowing my limits I seem to meet plenty who don't and still use bluff, persuasion and guesswork.
-
Sadly, you have clearly never read or understood the course objectives. It is not a fire safety course. It is a fire risk assessment course. It assumes existing fire safety knowledge. We do other courses on fire safety, one of which acts as a feeder for the FRA course, and which we regularly deliver to new inspecting officers of a particular F&RS, who have want both the basic fire safety and FRA courses.
I was not claiming your course was aimed at ensuring that people can go out risk assessing, I am pointing out that there is very little out there that would immediately qualify an FSO to go out inspecting, or a risk assessor to go out assessing. We all have to learn by experience. (And also asking the question, where do the consultants get their skills/experience/training)
The sad issue with the FRS is that we are in a period of 'handover' almost. All the 'old boys' are leaving at the same time, taking their experience with them. Not a bad thing for some of them, but there were some very good ones. This means that we have a high level of inexperience at the moment. The good news is, hopefully most of these people, instead of having a few years in fire safety before they retire, will still be doing the job in 10/15/20 years time. This should lead to good retention of knowledge, and hopefully happier punters.
And your paragraphing was much better. It was actually quite readable, thank you.
-
Alternatively, the notes could be replaced with my latest book, A Comprehensive Guide to Fire Safety, available for purchase from BSI, or any good bookshop in time as a Christmas present.
Funnily enough I have a copy of that. Not enough pretty pictures for my liking, but quite good. I will get back to you in due course with any more constructive comments.
-
I think Colin should give us all a signed one free, as a thank you for us asking stupid questions
-
I will accept the book thanks. No need to go to the trouble of signing it Colin but thanks for the offer.
-
After the volatile Ding Dong it appears its, six of one and half a dozen of the other is there any solutions, maybe training needs a higher profile, does registration have a part to play, should the CLG be playing a greater role or do we have to wait until things settle down?
The good news is, hopefully most of these people, instead of having a few years in fire safety before they retire, will still be doing the job in 10/15/20 years time. This should lead to good retention of knowledge, and hopefully happier punters.
Do you know if this is the same for most FRS's are the days of jumping in and out of Fire Safety, firmly in the past?
-
Some of the smaller Brigades will not have the funding to have seperate operational crews and fire safety officers, but many of the others are coming round to the use of civilian Inspectors. At the moment there is a reasonable mix of ex-operational and 'new' people, and I think this helps. But since operational crews are now not doing fire safety as part of their training the benefits to be had there will cease in the long term.
I am however a firm believer that you do not have to have squirted water at a fire to understand fire safety. But I would say that wouldn't I?
* Civvy walks off pretending he knows about fire safety. *
-
Yes perhaps BOG OFS are the future of fire safety, cos if you buy a civvy IO instead of a fire-fighter, they says its By One Get One Free.
-
Yes, how very amusing. Doesn't seem to be the case any more though. Career structures are appearing with reasonable wages, comparable to Building Control work. Might not seem much to you, but there are many worse jobs out there for much less money.
It's all just a drop in the ocean compared to what you probably charge for putting the willies up the Fire Service though.
-
My old grandfather had a saying. Well, he actually had three, so, if you will indulge me, I will tell you them all. They were: never show a woman a job half done, speak as you find, and the labourer is worthy of his hire. These remain, even in this day and age, good principles to live by. On a point of accuracy, F&RS seem quite happy with what we charge them, both for training and acting as expert witnesses on their behalf in prosecutions and enforcement issues. I am glad you too are well paid. I am sure you deserve every penny. Perhaps I should retire and seek employment as an inspecting officer. I had set my sights on being a chief officer, but, on contemplation, maybe I would not enjoy being nice to the elected members.
-
Do you know thats strange Col cos my grandfather had three sayings too. If you care to indulge me I'll tell you about them. Firstly never let them see you bleed, secondly beware of women with Adam's Apples and thirdly be careful of certain scottish folk who take thy employers money with one hand and openly moan about them behind their backs with the other.
Anyway back to these 101 reasons.... we're still waiting ....
-
It does not matter what jobs/ careers you look at some one will always claim they have the worst job in the world for the worst pay.
In my working life I have had one big rule.
As soon as i am not happy with what im doing, (be it pay or conditions etc)
I sort the problem if I can and If not I get a new job.
I got to the stage in my life when I just could not stand listening to the idiots above me (managers) any more so I went on my own.
And when I took over £600k of work off them over the next 5 years I feel I paid them back for all the hassel.
Im not saying that you can take work of the F & RS but if you guys working for them are really that unhappy, leave and get another job or really put your balls in the noose and set up on your own, one thing I will say is it really is not as easy as some of you employed people think it is.
My grandfather had a saying as well. " the grass is never greener on the other side of the fence, and never eat yellow snow"
-
A wise man once said "If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law."
You can bury yourself in standards but the quality lies in commonsense. It comes down to individuals you cannot tar either side with the same brush
-
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp272/twsutton/firestats1.jpg)
I looked at the fire statistics for fires and fatalities from 1990 to 2006, which is shown above. They both show a trend in the right direction despite any differences people may have and fire safety appears to be working.
The trend for the number of fires in other buildings shows a constant decrease up to 2006 could that be due to the increasing use of active fire precautions instead of the reliance on passive methods?
The decrease in fire fatalities is less smooth, and I know the numbers in 1971 was 152 which dropped to 28 in 1998 and on the introduction of the workplace regs increased at first and then started to decrease. On talk of the RR(FS)O being introduced the figure started to increase and we will have to wait some years to see if the figures come down.
As I was only looking at trends I discounted 2004 which was a very bad year and included Rose Park.
I accept the observations are not very scientific but I think it does show Fire Safety is heading in the right direction.
-
but if you guys working for them are really that unhappy, leave and get another job or really put your balls in the noose and set up on your own, one thing I will say is it really is not as easy as some of you employed people think it is.
I thoroughly enjoy my job and I personally think the FRS I work for is a particularly good employer. (Not perfect, but very good nonetheless) Being a 'civvy' I have spent many years seeing what other employers are like, I have also spent some years self employed so I know how that works. (The tax breaks rule, but the sick pay and holiday pay sucks.)
I think Dr Todd was the one who clearly thinks we don't get paid enough.
-
Cleveland, You really must try to interpret things better. Its not the employers I moan about, its some of their their employees. But as you rightly say, in my own small way, for charges that appear to be less than competitors, I try to help the employers and the employees. Its a lot of fun, and the employees, according to course evaluations, appear to enjoy it too. So, all in all everyone is happy. Sorry, if that is not what you would like to believe, but feel free, of course, to put your own spin on it. And old TW has just gone to some trouble to show that the trend in fire reduction was nothing to do with the FSO. More facts, I am afraid.
-
[quote
Do you know if this is the same for most FRS's are the days of jumping in and out of Fire Safety, firmly in the past?
[/quote]
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news TW but following the Rank to Role our brigade is going back to a two to four year turn around for Operational Inspecting Officers, however we do still have our non-uniformed inspecting officers who are consistant
-
Little trolling on the MOE Forums as I like to do found this interesting entry.
http://www.means-of-escape.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=90