FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Thomas Brookes on December 13, 2008, 10:34:02 PM
-
Anyone got ant thoughts on if in BS5839-1 & 6 there should be a requirement of competency like Annex E of BS5306.
This basicly states who is a competent installer/ Maintainer and what training they should have under their belts. Most of the fire alarm bodies (Bafe, BFC, FIA, FSA-ECA, IFEDA) seem to have adopted the idea of being qualified in each section of work.
My personal opinion is;
For each stage of fire alarm work you should sit a reconised course with a independant test/exam.
Design.
Installation
Commissioning
Maintenance
What do you think
-
I wouldn't be for this because a monkey can get credited after doing a course (and Ive worked with a few in the past 20 years!) but it doesn't prove competancy,just an ability to read and regurgitate.
-
Indeed;
A one day course i.e. FIA one, would not make some person a competent person..., I have seen in several courses of FIA, people copy each other during test, and I am one of them ;D , every 20 mn or so, you have a quick test of say 10 mn..., we have done these courses just because it was requirement from ...Investor in people, BAFE, customer of first priorities...etc, so we need to show our engineers have certificates of competency, but I don't agree for what so ever, that certificates make some person a competent person, it might be the first step towards being ...., but only after hard work and long experience... etc
Also this is not a total withdraw of the utility of such courses, they may give further undestanding but not to built up a CP from scratch, it just top up the existing skills and knowlegde... etc
-
Also the word of CP (Competent Person) still a general public appellation, it has to be upgraded to it's right appellation it deserves, CP may mean different thing to different people and in different issues, I think it has to be well specified to the proper name of 'Engineer' or 'Technician'...
To make person a competent person CP, it has to be through education and training, and only through a special institution..., and not through a one day courses... etc
Also see this topic: http://forum.fire.org.uk/index.php?topic=3389.0
-
I agree that a one day course does not make anyone competent, unfortunately most of the people on here have years and years of experience and knowledge and this is not something that is aimed at these people.
But I can guarantee every one on here has been asked to look at a job or been to service a job installed by a sparky with little or no knowledge or some with even less knowledge, where it just does not get even close to complying with BS5839.
The courses would have to change to ones with a proper exam at the end, and would be possibly 5 days of courses with a idependant exam at the end. This is how fire extinguisher engineers are tested now.
Lets face it fire extinguisher maintenance is not rocket science.(and before any one jumps down my neck, I service extinguishers as well). The Standards for Extinguisher maintenance is about 30 pages where as the BS5839-1 is over 100 pages. Yet extinguisher engineers have to have a independantly run exam at the end of a course.
I recently got involved with a job, three story building installed by a NICEIC electrician must have 20 years experience being an electrician, yet his install of the fire alarm was pittyful. Two rear exit doors (no MCP), no detection within 1.5m of the lift, electronic door locks not conected to the fire alarm (and yes he installed the door locks as well). No as fitted drawings, no certificated apart from a BS7671 wire cert, the list went on.
It is blatently obvious that this sparky possibly did half a day on fire alarms 20 years ago, I would bet my house that he has not even got a copy of the standard BS5839.
If some sort of fire alarm training was compulsory in BS5839 may be standards would be better overall.
To Answer Benz on people copying, this would have to stop under a independant exam.
-
Anyone got ant thoughts on if in BS5839-1 & 6 there should be a requirement of competency like Annex E of BS5306.
This basicly states who is a competent installer/ Maintainer and what training they should have under their belts. Most of the fire alarm bodies (Bafe, BFC, FIA, FSA-ECA, IFEDA) seem to have adopted the idea of being qualified in each section of work.
My personal opinion is;
For each stage of fire alarm work you should sit a reconised course with a independant test/exam.
Design.
Installation
Commissioning
Maintenance
What do you think
Thomas
i 100% agree with you but i have already shelled out nearly £1000 on myself on courses 1-6 on part 1 and more on another 3 engineers. Has it made any difference?
No- the other companies in the area who claim to be fire experts have not bothered and still carry on as normal. No one asks for proof of competance,i wish they did as then all the money i have spent would finally start to benefit the company.
Sparks are my biggest gripe. We cannot wire in a fused spur now without having to be a member of some trade body but they happily carry on installing fire systems(badly) and never produce any documentation at the end.
Do not do enough part 6 systems to justify more money on courses but honsestly what is the point as sparkies have that area cornered as well.
I stll also see designs from consulatants from the dark ages...the norm to be installed to 5839-1 1988 and all in 2.5mm MICC cable etc etc.
The intruder industry got it's act together years ago and sparkies rarley fit them unless they are audible only. The fire is more crictical in my opinion so why is it still behind?
-
Like you Greame, I spend thousands on alarm training and it really ******* me off when a sparky installs a fire alarm badly.
I am a member of the British Fire Consortium (BFC) and this is an area where they in the past pushed for this clause in fire extinguisher british standards and got there in the end.
I can not see why this can not be brought in to the BS5839.
There has recently been a big who-are with a particular training company when the BFC said they wouldno longer reconise his training courses of engineers. He threatend suing the BFC etc but, in the end he had to back down because he was not on the list in BS5306.
-
I agree that a one day course does not make anyone competent, unfortunately most of the people on here have years and years of experience and knowledge and this is not something that is aimed at these people.
But I can guarantee every one on here has been asked to look at a job or been to service a job installed by a sparky with little or no knowledge or some with even less knowledge, where it just does not get even close to complying with BS5839.
The courses would have to change to ones with a proper exam at the end, and would be possibly 5 days of courses with a idependant exam at the end. This is how fire extinguisher engineers are tested now.
Lets face it fire extinguisher maintenance is not rocket science.(and before any one jumps down my neck, I service extinguishers as well). The Standards for Extinguisher maintenance is about 30 pages where as the BS5839-1 is over 100 pages. Yet extinguisher engineers have to have a independantly run exam at the end of a course.
I recently got involved with a job, three story building installed by a NICEIC electrician must have 20 years experience being an electrician, yet his install of the fire alarm was pittyful. Two rear exit doors (no MCP), no detection within 1.5m of the lift, electronic door locks not conected to the fire alarm (and yes he installed the door locks as well). No as fitted drawings, no certificated apart from a BS7671 wire cert, the list went on.
It is blatently obvious that this sparky possibly did half a day on fire alarms 20 years ago, I would bet my house that he has not even got a copy of the standard BS5839.
If some sort of fire alarm training was compulsory in BS5839 may be standards would be better overall.
To Answer Benz on people copying, this would have to stop under a independant exam.
Tomy;
Why I mentioned people copying each other in FIA courses or others..., I found it really boring of being tested every 20mn or so..., to get certified, it in fact tests your memory capability to hold information... and not the meaning of the information, the print out can be published and sold at the book shop, and any literate one can purchase it and read it..., he can even have it as a data book at all time, he doesn't need to hold in memory every single bit..., look at American style in education, they never ask you to hold in memory unnecessary details, American style of education based on keeping the mind fresh and to be used for reasoning, brain storming, analyzing and combining some hypothesis to conclude some substantial outcomes..., and not to fill it up with details..., this remind me old colleagues of mine, they were student doctors, they have to hold in memory on a daily basis the lesson and answer it the day after, before a new lesson is given, they were like capacitors, charged and discharged on a daily basis..., and at the end they become doctors…, with high salary and a better situation than mine and yours… ?
-
agree Benz
there was guys on the courses i went to that i would not want near a fire alarm and spent the whole time looking copying the persons next to them.The rubber was also being used frequently when marking the papers.
Fair enough part 2 is a bit tricky 3 has a few detailed sound calculations and 6 went into some calculations with cell structured ceilings but if you had to cheat on units 1.4 and 5 then it's a worry as they were very easy.
-
This what I was saying aout a independant exam.
With BFC Fire Extinguishers you sit a three day course and on the last day the trainer goes home and a examiner comes.
You sit a written exam (not multipal choice) I think its 2 hours.
Then you do a practical exam, basicly you have to service half a dozen extinguishers.
You have to get I think an overhal pass of 75%.
What I just do not understand is why the fire alarm industry allows un-trained or poorly trained people to install and maintain a life saving system.
We all should do more to force the governing bodies to get behind getting proper training for fire alarm engineers.
-
And so it shall pass , until they trade test the individual .
-
but even if a more rigorous standard of testing is applied as with extinguishers it is all to naught unless it is mandatory.
There are a lot of firms and one man bands that have no clue what they are doing with extinguishers, either being unqualified or 10,20 or more years since last trained.
Hong Kong had the right idea - you had to be approved by the authorities in one of the 3 grades of fire protection you wished to trade in & maintain. If not on the list it was illegal to operate and once on the list you weren't there for life and had to maintain your standards & quals to stay there. not sure if post handover to China to still runs, but it was how things ought to be.
After all anyone can't just start up doing MoTs can they - fire should be the same.
-
My opinion is an independent institution to train the theory and practice of the fire alarm systems, with all related modules not just testing what the engineers are holding in memory...,
What’s the point to ask an engineer the detector spacing in case of what so ever? It’s mentioned in the book why not just apply it..., that's what made me saying they are boring tests..., but the sort of questions I would agree about is i.e.:
1 - Explain how optical and ionization technologies works? What’s the difference between the two technologies? And where can you apply each of them, and state why and so on.... etc
2 - How conventional fire alarm system principle works?
3 - Give brief description of how analogue addressable works (protocol of communication) issue… etc
There is no way to copy each other, you have to use your own wording to convince the tutor...
The practical tests have to be multiple testing in fault finding rewiring and so on... while explaining what you are doing…
I always go back to the idea of this link http://forum.fire.org.uk/index.php?topic=3389.0
-
Anthony,
I agree totally, how ever I feel that if the british standards 5839 was changed to include who is a competent person I feel that all the electrical bodies ECA, NIC EIC would have no choice but to insist that their approved contractors etc should have to comply.
Like you say unless the government regulate its never going to stop the cowboys but its got to be a step in the right direction.
I was recently asked to look at a job in Skegness, where a so called electrician had improved the fire alarm in a HMO, because there was Quote "a few faults the sparky could not find".
The first thing noticed was how badly the trunking and cabling was, sounders and detectors in normal cable and plastic choc blocks on every circuit. The one zone panel (6 flats on three floors) was showing a processor fault and none of the sounder circuits or zone was working. The bell above the panel was buried in the plaster (so no dinging).
This was just in the entrance hall, we had a quick look upstairs and then condemned the system and left.
-
Since starting this thread I have been looking at the different bodies fire alarm training courses and how long it takes.
British Fire Consortium: 5 different modules 5 days
FIA (formally BFPSA) : 6 different modules 6 days
ECA (FSA) : 4 modules I think 4 days (their info is a bit confusing)
IFEDA : 5 modules 5 days
And the big surprise
NIC EIC 2 day course that include emergency light training as well. now I know why I see so many poorly designed fire systems. I think that stinks of arrogance, we don't need more than a day of training on fire alarms.
-
Another issue to be raised up, is not only the young unqualified installer to blame, they didn’t come in on their own, it’s rather the management it self to blame, very few alarm installer companies use what's known by project management software like Microsoft project management 2003 or alternatively..., I have seen so many companies dealing with even large project of installations, where many technicians involved and left to their own, having tasks not well monitored, the whole projects having no dead line or a limit of hand over..., they only start to panic when the customer start to rush them..., they call for electricians some times to cover the lack of fire alarm installers, with no prior training, probably it’s the market to blame, as what’s available as fire alarm engineers doesn’t cover the high demand…
-
I dont like the idea of using the BS system as the vehicle for a whole raft of new rules that the cowboys will ignore. If the enforcers- building control and fire service were better trained to recognise poor practice and actually acted on it when it arose then things would improve.
How big is the problem? Are people dying or getting injured as a result of poor installation practices that we all see every day of our working lives? Is there political will for yet another expensive scheme? Will a piece of paper stop the "competent" cowboy cutting corners because he knows he can get away with it? If theres money to be saved corners will always be cut. Period. And some sectors of the industry and community seem to cut corners as part of their in built culture.
Alarm systems are nothing compared to the problems of poor installations that I am seeing arising from BS9251 sprinkler systems. I am currently battling for one unfiortunate client trying to obtain redress where the fire service and building inspector have signed off a residential sprinkler system for a care home in which the installer has been brazen enough to only claim 120L/Min flow available on the residential system commissioning cert without comment or variation and the the thing has passed all approvals without comment. Now the installer is saying up yours to the client.
Fire doors and doorsets are another minefield. Where does it end????
-
Where does it end????
It seems most of us complaining about similar issues, I would like to support one of Tomy's Statements, when saying:
'We all should do more to force the governing bodies to get behind getting proper training for fire alarm engineers.'
Now the stage reached into:
How? ???
-
Like you Greame, I spend thousands on alarm training and it really ******* me off when a sparky installs a fire alarm badly.
I am a member of the British Fire Consortium (BFC) and this is an area where they in the past pushed for this clause in fire extinguisher british standards and got there in the end.
I can not see why this can not be brought in to the BS5839.
There has recently been a big who-are with a particular training company when the BFC said they wouldno longer reconise his training courses of engineers. He threatend suing the BFC etc but, in the end he had to back down because he was not on the list in BS5306.
If it was copper bottom I would back this 110%,however when a member of the body that you are a member of promotes training yet didn't know that a fused spur was no longer acceptable then it discredits each bodies "qualifications".
-
i 100% agree with you but i have already shelled out nearly £1000 on myself on courses 1-6 on part 1 and more on another 3 engineers. Has it made any difference?
No- the other companies in the area who claim to be fire experts have not bothered and still carry on as normal. No one asks for proof of competance,i wish they did as then all the money i have spent would finally start to benefit the company.
Sparks are my biggest gripe. We cannot wire in a fused spur now without having to be a member of some trade body but they happily carry on installing fire systems(badly) and never produce any documentation at the end.
Do not do enough part 6 systems to justify more money on courses but honsestly what is the point as sparkies have that area cornered as well.
I stll also see designs from consulatants from the dark ages...the norm to be installed to 5839-1 1988 and all in 2.5mm MICC cable etc etc.
The intruder industry got it's act together years ago and sparkies rarley fit them unless they are audible only. The fire is more crictical in my opinion so why is it still behind?
Absolutely agree.
Trouble is the BS is written as if the client knows all about it, however, they don't know what certification to expect so never quibble when they are handed the back of a cornflake packet.
And sparks (generally) get away with it.....
-
I agree that it would be a good idea to have a 'register' of persons who have proven their competence.
The issue I have is where the organisation providing training to prove 'competence' also set the syllabus and any test to demonstrate competence. I can never accept that such an organisation is not just 'passing' most people because they have paid for the 'training' (no matter how poor that might be)
A syllabus of what is required to prove skills, knowledge and experience along with any tests for such, should be determined by a completely independent organisation (which does not offer training courses). These tests should be open to anyone who is prepared to sit them (at a reasonable cost!) i.e something like City & Guilds examinations.
Other organisations would then be free to provide training courses to teach the skills and knowledge to those that require it to try and pass the test, instead of giving a 'pass' to anyone who can remember 80% of what they were told a few minutes previously, and just because they have paid hundreds of pounds to that organisation.
-
Another issue to be raised up, is not only the young unqualified installer to blame, they didn’t come in on their own, it’s rather the management it self to blame, very few alarm installer companies use what's known by project management software like Microsoft project management 2003 or alternatively..., I have seen so many companies dealing with even large project of installations, where many technicians involved and left to their own, having tasks not well monitored, the whole projects having no dead line or a limit of hand over..., they only start to panic when the customer start to rush them..., they call for electricians some times to cover the lack of fire alarm installers, with no prior training, probably it’s the market to blame, as what’s available as fire alarm engineers doesn’t cover the high demand…
I would like to add to the above some bits..., alarm companies bosses are to blame too, I have known some one who used to be fire extinguisher engineer but 20 years ago or so, he setup his company dealing with fire alarm systems, but neither him nor his 28 years old girl friend, promoted as operation manager, know the difference between addressable and conventional...etc, probably the only certificate he has is, his birth certificate, he got registrations with professional bodies because he paid the fees, but just to receives magazines, which he never ever read them..., I am talking about some one I knew, but I haven't got any personal problem with him, just giving an example, as we don’t work together either.
None of the engineers who worked for him resisted more than 2 years, he either suck them out, or they just resign..., probably it's the new fashion of thought 'money is in fire', is to blame…
Some one once said: 'if the top head is bending what do you expect the bottom to be?' Unqualified boys didn't come in, on their own though!
-
Buzzard905
If it was copper bottom I would back this 110%,however when a member of the body that you are a member of promotes training yet didn't know that a fused spur was no longer acceptable then it discredits each bodies "qualifications".
Not sure what you mean here please explain?
As far as i am aware still in the standards is 25.2 c) To facilitate local isolation during maintenance, suitable means should be provided for double pole isolation of the low voltage supply circuit that serves the power supply and control equipment.
Note 4 says that a special tool may be required to stop unauthorised access.
We tend to use a double pole Mk box with a fishtail key and a screwed in fuse (all needing a special key).
-
Buzzard905
If it was copper bottom I would back this 110%,however when a member of the body that you are a member of promotes training yet didn't know that a fused spur was no longer acceptable then it discredits each bodies "qualifications".
Not sure what you mean here please explain?
As far as i am aware still in the standards is 25.2 c) To facilitate local isolation during maintenance, suitable means should be provided for double pole isolation of the low voltage supply circuit that serves the power supply and control equipment.
Note 4 says that a special tool may be required to stop unauthorised access.
We tend to use a double pole Mk box with a fishtail key and a screwed in fuse (all needing a special key).
I shouldn't really post when it's bedtime!I know of a member of the BFC who was still using a standard unswitched spur unit up to 4 or 5 months ago and was quite surprised to know that this was not what 5839 says you use.He then had to back track all his installs that were signed off on post 2002.From that point I thought it rich that they were advocating training on standards that they didn't follow as an installer.
I use the same MK ones as you by the way
-
Unfortunately, theres good and bad in what ever organisation you are in, up till recently the BFC had very poor fire alarm training and the BFC emphasiss was fire extinguishers, how ever it is changing and the training is now done by Trevor Boxer who is fairly good (he sits on the BS tech committee for BS5839).
Im also in the ECA and I could tell you a massive horror story about one of their members.
This company turns over £1m to £ 2m a year and I had to do a full report on how bad there fire alarm work was, the list was massive including sounders in the same office set on different tunes, not enough sound level, no certificates or plans etc etc.
And to top it off at the end when they had agreed to put it right he asked if I would let him use my copy of BS5839-1 as they did not have one!!
-
Like you Greame, I spend thousands on alarm training and it really ******* me off when a sparky installs a fire alarm badly.
I am a member of the British Fire Consortium (BFC) and this is an area where they in the past pushed for this clause in fire extinguisher british standards and got there in the end.
I can not see why this can not be brought in to the BS5839.
There has recently been a big who-are with a particular training company when the BFC said they wouldno longer reconise his training courses of engineers. He threatend suing the BFC etc but, in the end he had to back down because he was not on the list in BS5306.
If it was copper bottom I would back this 110%,however when a member of the body that you are a member of promotes training yet didn't know that a fused spur was no longer acceptable then it discredits each bodies "qualifications".
the same one that thought ALL fire systems have to have 72 hours battery back up?
-
IMO there has been an awful lot of sensible comments made and a similar amount of rubbish spoken here.
As the owner of a BAFE accredited company with 22 years trading, I think we are competent persons , all engineers having many years vocational training. Unfortunately in this age of box ticking, years of experience is not proof of competence and is not an acceptable means of measure or judgement of ability for others to assess competence by. The only practical method is that of third party accreditation.
Unfortunately, we who are conscientious and competent and have the prescribed third party accreditation to prove it, are only proving our abilities to other FA companies i.e. those parties who are aware of the schemes. Until the RRO fire safety order is amended to include the statement that design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of FA systems can only be carried out by TPA companies in the way the gas industry with CORGI does, then we are piddling in the wind.
Who other than a bona-fide FA company even knows about BAFE? BAFE muste wake up and spend some of its fee income on propmoting itself and TPA in general.
Finally an off topic comment, I look at this forum quite often and occasionally subscribe but I am amazed at some of the questions asked particularly by senior members, their ignorance and naivety is unbelievable. If this is an indication of the industries level of competency, then the sooner the suggestions in my bleatings are implemented the better.
?? New Topic ?? how about a boycott of the BSI until their pricing and charging policy is reviewed.
-
From 1st April 2009 the operation of the HSE register of gas installers that covers England, Wales and Scotland will pass to Capita, after nearly 20 years of operation with CORGI. At the time of writing it is not too clear how this transition will work - it is likely that around 250 or so staff at CORGI who are directly involved with the Gas installer registration scheme would be transferred to the new body, to ensure continuity of operations.
CORGI Services, CORGI's commercial arm will still continue to operate and offer such services as:
Competent Person Schemes for electrical, plumbing and ventilation
CORGIdirect
Gas Installer magazine
Insurances
Consultancy and incident investigation
The profit made from CORGI Services Ltd will be gift aided to the CORGI Trust to continue its work with Gas Safety.
One of Capita's main challenges will be in creating a new 'Gas Safety' brand for the trade and public from April 2009. Currently CORGI has over 93% public awareness across the UK
So it seems all schemes have bad hair days !
-
Finally an off topic comment, I look at this forum quite often and occasionally subscribe but I am amazed at some of the questions asked particularly by senior members, their ignorance and naivety is unbelievable. If this is an indication of the industries level of competency, then the sooner the suggestions in my bleatings are implemented the better.
What you have to bear in mind Jim is this is not exclusively an engineers forum and is made up others involved in various aspects of fire safety and prevention,as well as those who put them out!
-
Jim, in support of Buzz's comments; as an engineer I have gained much knowledge from this Forum on subjects that a fire alarm engineer would otherwise know very little about. In return, I will answer a question on anything I know something about, no matter how 'basic' that question might seem to me. That, for me, is why Firenet is so good for us all.
-
As the owner of a BAFE accredited company with 22 years trading, I think we are competent persons , all engineers having many years vocational training. Unfortunately in this age of box ticking, years of experience is not proof of competence and is not an acceptable means of measure or judgement of ability for others to assess competence by. The only practical method is that of third party accreditation.
Unfortunately, we who are conscientious and competent and have the prescribed third party accreditation to prove it, are only proving our abilities to other FA companies i.e. those parties who are aware of the schemes. Until the RRO fire safety order is amended to include the statement that design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of FA systems can only be carried out by TPA companies in the way the gas industry with CORGI does, then we are piddling in the wind.
Who other than a bona-fide FA company even knows about BAFE? BAFE muste wake up and spend some of its fee income on propmoting itself and TPA in general.
Jim, I'd generally agree. But I know engineers with decades of experience who have also been doing it wrong for decades..... Experience isn't the "be all and end all"....
I know sparks who always install 6mm cable to cookers "cos that's the way it's always been done" regardless of the loading or diversity...
Your right about the RRO but then generally I find the majority of our clients still don't know its full implications, just that they (if you are lucky) are supposed to do a risk assessment.
There does need to be independent training and assessment, which should perhaps be "refreshed" each time the BS is re-written in the same way sparks have to do a city and guilds each time the electrical regs are revised.
-
It is a bit like ISO9000, having the certificate does not mean you are doing it correctly, it just means you are doing the same every time.
I personally would to see a independant exam on Design, Installation, Maintenance & commissioning and then a refresher course every three years. The same as is in fire extinguishers. It would not matter who does your training if you have to sit an independant exam afterwards.
-
IMO there has been an awful lot of sensible comments made and a similar amount of rubbish spoken here.
As the owner of a BAFE accredited company with 22 years trading, I think we are competent persons , all engineers having many years vocational training. Unfortunately in this age of box ticking, years of experience is not proof of competence and is not an acceptable means of measure or judgement of ability for others to assess competence by. The only practical method is that of third party accreditation.
Unfortunately, we who are conscientious and competent and have the prescribed third party accreditation to prove it, are only proving our abilities to other FA companies i.e. those parties who are aware of the schemes. Until the RRO fire safety order is amended to include the statement that design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of FA systems can only be carried out by TPA companies in the way the gas industry with CORGI does, then we are piddling in the wind.
Who other than a bona-fide FA company even knows about BAFE? BAFE muste wake up and spend some of its fee income on propmoting itself and TPA in general.
Finally an off topic comment, I look at this forum quite often and occasionally subscribe but I am amazed at some of the questions asked particularly by senior members, their ignorance and naivety is unbelievable. If this is an indication of the industries level of competency, then the sooner the suggestions in my bleatings are implemented the better.
?? New Topic ?? how about a boycott of the BSI until their pricing and charging policy is reviewed.
Freedom of expression Jim, that's good and well done;
If you spend more time in this forum you will enjoy it, no matter how much you know or you don't... Down to earth, I support what Buzz and Wiz have said, the forum is for every body..., I personally came late to this industry comparing to other members…, but I have learnt from THEM so many things I have learnt from: Kurnal, Chris, Grame, Buzz, Wiz, Colins and Johns, Galeon, Afterburner, Nearelythere, Dave, Tom, Retty, Davo, Arckangel... etc, and the list is still open and sorry for not mentioning every body... , even a senior member can say: ‘I don’t know’, even a senior member can ask in basic and obvious things, that’s what gave dynamism to this forum… we all live to serve in a friendly manner, it doesn't matter of how much you know or you don't … :)
-
IMO there has been an awful lot of sensible comments made and a similar amount of rubbish spoken here.
As the owner of a BAFE accredited company with 22 years trading, I think we are competent persons , all engineers having many years vocational training. Unfortunately in this age of box ticking, years of experience is not proof of competence and is not an acceptable means of measure or judgement of ability for others to assess competence by. The only practical method is that of third party accreditation.
Unfortunately, we who are conscientious and competent and have the prescribed third party accreditation to prove it, are only proving our abilities to other FA companies i.e. those parties who are aware of the schemes. Until the RRO fire safety order is amended to include the statement that design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of FA systems can only be carried out by TPA companies in the way the gas industry with CORGI does, then we are piddling in the wind.
Who other than a bona-fide FA company even knows about BAFE? BAFE muste wake up and spend some of its fee income on propmoting itself and TPA in general.
Finally an off topic comment, I look at this forum quite often and occasionally subscribe but I am amazed at some of the questions asked particularly by senior members, their ignorance and naivety is unbelievable. If this is an indication of the industries level of competency, then the sooner the suggestions in my bleatings are implemented the better.
?? New Topic ?? how about a boycott of the BSI until their pricing and charging policy is reviewed.
Freedom of expression Jim, that's good and well done;
If you spend more time in this forum you will enjoy it, no matter how much you know or you don't... Down to earth, I support what Buzz and Wiz have said, the forum is for every body..., I personally came late to this industry comparing to other members…, but I have learnt from THEM so many things I have learnt from: Kurnal, Chris, Grame, Buzz, Wiz, Colins and Johns, Galeon, Afterburner, Nearelythere, Dave, Tom, Retty, Davo, Arckangel... etc, and the list is still open and sorry for not mentioning every body... , even a senior member can say: ‘I don’t know’, even senior member can ask in basic and obvious things, that’s what gave dynamism to this forum… we all leave to serve in a friendly manner, it doesn't matter of how much you know or you don't … :)
And indeed we have all learned a lot from Benz, e.g. the origins of the cosmos, intergalactic hyperdrives, how do they get the non stick coating to stick to frying pans etc.
-
IMO there has been an awful lot of sensible comments made and a similar amount of rubbish spoken here.
As the owner of a BAFE accredited company with 22 years trading, I think we are competent persons , all engineers having many years vocational training. Unfortunately in this age of box ticking, years of experience is not proof of competence and is not an acceptable means of measure or judgement of ability for others to assess competence by. The only practical method is that of third party accreditation.
Unfortunately, we who are conscientious and competent and have the prescribed third party accreditation to prove it, are only proving our abilities to other FA companies i.e. those parties who are aware of the schemes. Until the RRO fire safety order is amended to include the statement that design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of FA systems can only be carried out by TPA companies in the way the gas industry with CORGI does, then we are piddling in the wind.
Who other than a bona-fide FA company even knows about BAFE? BAFE muste wake up and spend some of its fee income on propmoting itself and TPA in general.
Finally an off topic comment, I look at this forum quite often and occasionally subscribe but I am amazed at some of the questions asked particularly by senior members, their ignorance and naivety is unbelievable. If this is an indication of the industries level of competency, then the sooner the suggestions in my bleatings are implemented the better.
?? New Topic ?? how about a boycott of the BSI until their pricing and charging policy is reviewed.
Freedom of expression Jim, that's good and well done;
If you spend more time in this forum you will enjoy it, no matter how much you know or you don't... Down to earth, I support what Buzz and Wiz have said, the forum is for every body..., I personally came late to this industry comparing to other members…, but I have learnt from THEM so many things I have learnt from: Kurnal, Chris, Grame, Buzz, Wiz, Colins and Johns, Galeon, Afterburner, Nearelythere, Dave, Tom, Retty, Davo, Arckangel... etc, and the list is still open and sorry for not mentioning every body... , even a senior member can say: ‘I don’t know’, even senior member can ask in basic and obvious things, that’s what gave dynamism to this forum… we all leave to serve in a friendly manner, it doesn't matter of how much you know or you don't … :)
And indeed we have all learned a lot from Benz, e.g. the origins of the cosmos, intergalactic hyperdrives, how do they get the non stick coating to stick to frying pans etc.
;D ;D ;D
-
Passionate replies all but some a little off target in a number of ways.
I did state that years of experience means nothing if those years have been spent doing things wrong and that we have to ensure that there is a bench mark by which everyone can be judged, not by ourselves otherwise we would all get top marks but by others, T.P.A.
The industry is in a state of flux but needing rapid crystallisation and direction.
Safety is the name of our game, safety of others but when Ivan O’level the loca ;)l spark offers to install the F/A in the three story care home in which he’s working because he can run cable and has worked on lots of fire alarms even did one in his local chippy, well the flat above, and he’s cheaper than ADT / GENTS and course he’ll give an installation certificate Oh! And a commissioning certificate because he’s done them too, and can get them off the interweb, then that is a recipe for disaster.
Make TPA compulsory, accredit, test, assess by any method you want but for goodness sake we must preserve our business and besides there’s a new ‘S’ Class out and I need the Nectar points.
;)
-
Im sure ive met theat sparky in my area, does he use lighting cable all round !!
-
he gets around because i have met him too...
-
spark offers to install the F/A in the three story care home in which he’s working because he can run cable and has worked on lots of fire alarms even did one in his local chippy,
Was his name Elvis ??
;D
-
spark offers to install the F/A in the three story care home in which he’s working because he can run cable and has worked on lots of fire alarms even did one in his local chippy,
Was his name Elvis ??
Showing your age now David :D
-
Wrong Elvis kurnal-- not a lot of music culture in the east mids F&RS was there? The elvis at the chip shop was that of Kirsty Mac Coll. You will see her with the Pogues a lot over the next few days.
-
Wrong Elvis kurnal-- not a lot of music culture in the east mids F&RS was there? The elvis at the chip shop was that of Kirsty Mac Coll. You will see her with the Pogues a lot over the next few days.
Yes indeed Colin. I danced to it im my youth, whereas you no doubt remember watching your grand children do the same.
On a sad note its eight years this week since she was hit by a speedboat and killed killed while swimming off the coast of Mexico, She was just 41.
"But he's a liar and Im not sure about you."