FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: natdan on August 07, 2009, 12:46:39 AM
-
I was just wondering if anybody was aware of a fire risk assessment franchise on the market. I wont go into detail but I am from a fire systems background and we asked the client to get FRA's carried out but we didnt offer them. They had a company come in with a very fancy document that looked good with fancy pictures but the document was a yes/No document and has set answers.
Anyway I caught up with a guy and had a chat and he said he paid £20,000 for a franchise and was a former mechanic. He then said he had 1 weeks raining on how to carry out assessments, and 1 weeks sales course on how to sell them. This guy is now considered to be competent to carry out a FRA and has a IFE certificate.
I then asked the guy what would he recommend about the alarm system and extinguishers in the building and he said not sure about alarms I will ring the office who advise me.
Is this acceptable in the industry and how can these companies just come up recruit people with promises of big money and send them out with no idea what there getting into with regards the lawful aspect?????
-
Could you give me his number. There is a constant squeaking noise at low speed from the rear nearside wheel in my car, which the garage can never seem to hear, but I swear is there. I could give him the advanced FRA course that takes him beyond his current extensive knowledge,while he fiddles with my wheel. We have had one week's raining here too. I blame the Russians for this crazy weather. My old mother always said this would happen with all those sputniks being sent into space.
-
If the local Fire & Rescue Service see them as suitable and sufficient then they must be fine. Remember that the safety departments are being steadily pruned of experienced IOs and the easier the FRA is to read the better. A yes/no answer is much easier to understand than one that goes into description, analysis, evaluation, mitigation and conclusion.
-
Colin ,
Thats a bit off , I didnt moan when you started your pole dancing club , and you wanted scaffold poles compliant to BS 5eXY :-*
-
A "Yes/No" tick box may be ok for a very simple premises where the owner/occupier has carried out the FRA using the Guides, and is likely to be on the premises to discuss rationale where necessary.
Where a premises is more complex whether by way of size, layout, age, occupancy or all of the above then I would not be happy unless the assessor's reasoning was clearly laid out and provided a suitable approach for addressing significant findings. The more complex the building, the more I would expect to be written, and the higher the level of 'expertise' required. It's all a question of scale.
Statements that categorise fire safety officers or fire safety consultants as a whole are less than helpful. Discussions that improve overall understanding and underpinning of the FSO, the Guides and the myriad of research documents would be better.
Just my opinion.
Paul
-
There has been a lot of discussion on this forum about the FSO and the interpretation of it. Most of the simpler stuff was thrashed out soon after the order came into effect.
There is also a great deal of concern about both Inspecting Officers and Fire Consultants as well as the format of Fire Risk Assessments. To quote an old sci fi series, "we are grey, we stand between the darkness and the light". There are some excellent IOs and FCs about but there are also some who are a disgrace. It is right that we condemn the bad and, being british, we tease the good.
In the same way there are differing ways of doing a Fire Risk Assessment, the problem is that one size will not fit all, a few premises can be covered by a simple tick box form, whilst a few will need a complex written assessment, most will fall between.
The "black art" is to judge what is needed and the best way to communicate this. It is as bad to stick ridgidly to one type of assessment as it is to judge an assessment by its form.
The pity is that the authorities seem to think that the FSO has made the IO's life simpler whereas I think it has made it a great deal more complex. It is no longer a case of sticking to the code, value judgements must be made which is never easy.
-
Well said Mike.
-
Mike, I fully agree with all that you have to say. Except for the last paragraph.
IO's believe that the FSO has made their job extremely difficult, and many of the older, more experienced hands, well versed in the previous prescriptive roles, feel that they may be losing their way. Rather than look at a building, assess the management regime and apply a formula, they are now having to do the job from scratch.
The FSO for the inspecting officer means an assessment of the FSA (which might be presented in all manner of words, ticks or numbers); an attempt at interpreting what the author of the FSA has seen or is offering; a review of parts of the building to see if it marries with the findings of the author; and very often a process of educating the RP who has either not read, not understood or not complied with the FSA anyway. For those with the right head on it is good fun, and certainly not repetative, because they are all a different mix. For those on the other hand who believe that the FSA should address the significant findings appropriately it is often frustrating. I work with officers who fall into both camps.
IO's do not want to see proformas, because they generally don't believe that a tick without a qualifying comment means much. However, they will work with whatever is presented to them provided that the significant findings are, in some way or form, clearly addressed.
I have come across FSA's that state that the protection to the means of escape is 3.5, with no written statement in support.
You call it the black art, I call it the dark side, but we're both in the same field. The reason for my earlier posting is that I become frustrated by the bickering between IOs and Consultants on a forum that should support both. I work with officers, some new, some longer in the tooth, and I come across consultants, some new and some longer in the tooth. I would rather work with both than dumb either of them down. There has to be room for mick taking in a profession such as ours... provided that the 'fun' does not discourage the younger members from taking an interest in the site, which I fear may be the case.
Paul
-
Paul,
I think we both actually agree with my last paragraph. By the authorities I am not so much talking about the IOs, more their lords and masters in the government and authorities.
I may be biased but I come from an era where Fire Safety was seen as a shortcut to promotion by some as the Operational route was clogged up. I hope things have changed but the legacy may still be there.
I agree that both sides need to work with and respect each other however in a world where you can buy a proforma DIY Fire Risk Assessment over the internet and Fire Safety depts are facing more complex work with fewer staff, there are bound to be problems.
I hope the 'fun' does not discourage anyone from younger members from joining in. I find in general the vast majority of questions on the forums are taken seriously and answered. However it is sometimes difficult to revisit a question that has been thrashed out several times already. (I think I'll scream if I see the arguement about whether retained firefighters should have blues and twos on their private cars to respond to their pagers, come up again).
It is always worth using the search facility to see if a point has been addressed before and reviving a thread if there is a new slant on it or if someone does not understand or disagrees with the points being made.
Please understand that sometimes the residents of the Home for the Terminally Bewildered will ramble off the point in a surealistic manner but at least you find out what the Toddmaister likes to drink and his favorite watering holes.
-
Mike.
It's good to talk. I am very familiar with the onboard search facilities, and use them frequently. Please don't be put off by the 'newbie' title - I was a prolific user of the forum in its previous incarnation, and have been using the current forum under a pseudonym until I felt that I would prefer to discuss issues under my own name.
I constantly encourage newer staff to use the forum to expand their own horizons and to see what the world at large feels about particular subjects that are close to their hearts. Many however give up because of what they perceive as constant snipes. That is probably why I feel the need to speak up when discussions vere off in that direction.
As for proformas.
Whilst I personally would like to see all DIY proformas torn up in favor of on-site understanding of the issues at hand, as long as CLG are putting in print, as they do at the start of each of their guides, that the uneducated can use their book as sufficient 'qualification and experience' to carry out FRAs in less complex buildings, and provide a DIY proforma in the same book, then our hands are somewhat tied.
Watching the faces of the owner/occupier as IO's start to explore areas that they had not even considered is always worthwhile.
I feel that the greatest benefit would be for our masters to put in larger print... "If you read this guide and decide that you are unable to apply the guidance, then you should seek expert advice from a competent person". It might steer more RPs in the right direction.
Paul
-
that the greatest benefit would be for our masters to put in larger print... "If you read this guide and decide that you are unable to apply the guidance, then you should seek expert advice from a competent person". It might steer more RPs in the right direction.
Good idea, unfortunately I can see a comment like that will light up £ signs in the eyes of the RP. I have just finished working for a firm where the Financial Director decided off his own bat that it was a waste of money to have the pump which emptied the new degreaser tank fitted. So when we had a problem with it and had to empty it, we had to spend £1800 buying the pump and accessories and wait 3 weeks for it to be delivered from Italy. His next coup was to decide the company didn't need a Health and Safety officer and this could be outsourced with a facilities company. I don't know the date when the HSE is taking him to Court but in the meantime anyone got a job going?
-
Colin Todd you really are a prat. A serious discussion where you again try to ruin with your smart arse comments.
-
natdan
Let it waft, natdan
We don't appreciate comments like that
davo
-
natdan
Re fire risk assessment franchises- in every walk of life there are people who are passionate about what they do and others who are passionate about making money.
Those of us who are passionate aboout fire safety recoil against the idea of people with no skills or real interest in the subject making a killing. (or being ripped off by buying something effectively worthless as a franchise) But it has always been this way and always will be.
And if you stick your head above the parapet by using an internet bulletin board you have to be ready to duck whatever comes your way. We all make a choice to post on here whilst it can be irritating if we go off topic none of us get paid for the advice given we have to have a bit of fun from time to time. We have remarkably few trolls compared to many similar sites and so far nobody maliciously giving bad advice. I guess I am sort of saying put up or shut up, or if you cant stand the heat etc.
-
We don't appreciate comments like that
Less of the 'we' please.
:-X
-
MATRONNNN!!!! Quick to the battlements. Stand to (or three- if you've finished the diet).
Ration the rations Kurnal, we could be in for the long one.
There's a life down there Jim - but, NOT as we know it CivvyFSO...
Davo, also quick even hastierly, check someone has put Cat safely in the bag and secured her will you?
Nearly, old chap, get the wagons encircled too please!
-
1. Natdan. I did not take in that a question as to whether a car mechanic was competent to carry our fire risk assessments was a serious one. I will, however, ask around to see if anyone knows the answer for you. It is certainly a tough one, but I believe they do take in all and sundry as enforcing officers nowadays, so it is probably just a private sector analogy of that.
2. Davo. I think that by PRAT, he was using the acronym for Professional Risk Assessment Trainer, which od course is an accurate description, so I naturally take no offence.
3. Kurnal. The heat in the kitchen was probably not detected as the car mechanic had to telephone the office for advice as to whether to use a heat detector, a smoke detector or carbon monoxide fire detector.
-
CT
I've noticed some of my fellow posters agree your courses are quite od ::)
davo
-
This guy is now considered to be competent to carry out a FRA and has a IFE certificate.
I think I know who the guy is; he was a mechanic at a fire and rescue service HQ for many a year, working on the engines and servicing the fire chiefs Merc. So naturally he must have picked a lot up from the uniformed lads in the canteen.
Regardless of his background he has IFE accreditation, so he must know his stuff……right?
He must have been on an approved IFE course and submitted many a good risk assessment. No doubt due to his lack of experience in fire safety he will have attended an interview with Mr Todd and his merry band of peers.
He may not have singed his whiskers saving a family of Lithuanian immigrants from a third story bed-sit or ever been near the holy site of Moreton in Marsh but he is working and accredited which is more than some former fire service employees are.
I am sure he is in it for the money and not the love of it; he is after all £20,000 down for a start. Just because he is not ‘Captain Fire Safety’ it doesn’t mean he doesn’t do a good job.
He may have had to get some advice from his franchise regarding fire alarms but we all need some help some time (apart from CT; granted) hence we use this site.
We have to start some where, or are fire risk assessors born not bred?
-
No you don't have to of had a life time of driving in a big red truck squirting water in order to be considered competent.
From reading this story it seems to of been written on a strange time line and its not specific enough.
So a mechanic (fair enough)
Did a one week FRA course (fair enough)
as the story goes
he is now on the IFEs register?
OR
what is more likely is
He did a course for a week with an approved course provided (FPA my guess) and has started completing risk assessments.
His proforma might not be great but it he has to start somewhere.
What risk of premises is he assessing? If its a low risk then i can't see a problem.
I am not of a fire service back ground but ive done many a course and read many a document and listened to my peers. I know when my experience won't cut it.
Who is to say he doesn't?
His clients should be checking his credentials, if they don't feel a 5 day course is suitable then don't hire him!
From reading these posts its suggesting (i may be wrong) that he is on the IFEs register - this i doubt.
For those of you out there that have come from the fire service and are against non ex-brigade people completing risk assessments - don't be naive.
-
Piglet
I would venture to suggest that a lifetime of squirting water from a big red truck will never equip you to carry out a FRA correctly, however they may at least know what they dont know. But from what I have seen there are one hellava lot of others out there who dont know what they dont know (apologies to Mr D Rumsfeld) & they do frighten me.
As has been pointed out before there are lots of good & bad risk assesors out there & I cant see that changing.
-
Piglet
I would venture to suggest that a lifetime of squirting water from a big red truck will never equip you to carry out a FRA correctly, however they may at least know what they dont know. But from what I have seen there are one hellava lot of others out there who dont know what they dont know (apologies to Mr D Rumsfeld) & they do frighten me.
As has been pointed out before there are lots of good & bad risk assesors out there & I cant see that changing.
Ah Piglet, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head!
Don’t get me started on that one again.
Q) How difficult would it be for government to say that any fire risk assessor who charges for his/her services should be certificated to a national standard?
A) Anyone heard the news, they found a piglet in space; he flew there himself!
-
I am going to have to apologise because for some reason I can't start a new thread so I have hijacked a similiar thread.
Being competent to carry out a FRA
Is being an "off duty fire fighter working on the side" a sufficient definition of being competent to carry out FRA's.
The customer has two premises. The first is a warehouse full of boxes filled with electrical fittings and a very small quantity of live electrical equipment. 300m/sq
The second is their offices which are split in two by two separate front doors. Standard office risks.
The customer has in the main 6Litre Foam Extinguishers and 2 kg CO2 Extinguishers as their main cover and they also have some 6kg Powder Extinguishers
The FRA carried out initially recommended that all the of the foam and powder extinguishers on the customers two premises be replaced with CO2 extinguishers in addition to the CO2 extinguishers that the customer already had leaving the customer with no Class A cover.
I pointed out that the customer would have no Class A cover. The FRA now says that “the foam extinguishers (which have a 13A 144B rating) are useless for the premises because the premises has no flammable liquid risks and that the foam extinguishers are only suitable for flammable liquids.”
The FRA recommendation has also changed to replacing the 6Litre Foam Extinguishers and 6kg Powder Extinguishers to:
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher on the ground floor of the warehouse
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher on the warehouse mezzanine
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher for one office complex
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher for the second set of offices
and all of the 2kg CO2 Extinguishers should be changed to 3kg CO2 Extinguishers.
I have told the customer that the extinguishers specified in the FRA have not been manufactured since 1997.
I have agreed that replacing the Powder Extinguishers would not be detrimental.
I have asked the customer if the person carrying out the FRA is competent and their reply is that they are an “off duty fire fighter working on the side" and that they must be competent.
What next. I don’t think that the assessor is competent.
-
He must be a damn old off duty fire fighter. An expert witness could run rings around him in court with regard to competence.
Obsolete sizes, no A-rating floor calculations, he is clearly incompetent when it comes to specifying PFE (& I can say that with no fear of his lawyers- bring it on!).
He is taking a premises with adequate cover and throwing their cash down the drain in order to install non existent extinguishers, when I would bet that the existing cover works out adequate and just requires ongoing maintenance.
I wouldn't let it drop - I'd get his details and pursue the matter, his employer wouldn't be too chuffed. Best way of getting you believed - get a real genuine up to date fire safety enforcement officer down: an on duty specialist trumps an off duty amateur (which he is as he is a professional fire fighter, not a professional FPO)
Foam extinguishers, prior to BS5423 & BS 5306-3 (& the fire rating scheme) in the early 80's could not be specified for Class A risks if the codes of the time were followed as they were not deemed the most suitable or efficient - remember in those days you still used Chemical Foam extinguishers (which weren't that good for Class B either!) and Foam branchpipe extinguishers with protein & fluoroprotein foams, although something revolutionary called 'Light Water' from 3M had started to appear in the Pyrene/Read & Campbell/Chubb Group product.
In the early 80's the A rating & new codes meant you could use Foam for AB risk, furthered by the pioneering use by Thomas Glover of AFFF as a non aspirated spray (originally labelled as an ABCE class extinguisher).
Prior to fire ratings and the new BS specs, extinguishers were specified by mass, and standard imperial measurement capacities were used by industry & codes. With the onset of metrification & the new BS, the traditional sizes were retained in metric or changed to Euro sizes. Thus the 1 gallon water size became 6 litres (not the 4.5 litre direct metric conversion), although it was briefly revived in the early 90's with the original 4.5 litre Chubb Hydrospray Elite; 2 gallons became 9 litres and 2.5/5/7/10/15/20 lb Powder became 1/2/4.5/6/9 kilo. CO2 generally metrified with 2.5lb being 1.1 kilo, 5lb being 2 kilo (not 2.2), 10lb disappearing to become 5 kilo. The quirks of maritime specification led to two sizes being retained in direct imperial steel cylinders - the 7lb steel was retained as the 3.2 kilo & the 15lb as the 6.8 kilo. Never was there a 3kilo size.
Expect little contribution on extinguisher threads after tomorrow as I'm away for 3 weeks on hols - hooray!
-
I am going to have to apologise because for some reason I can't start a new thread so I have hijacked a similiar thread.
Being competent to carry out a FRA
Is being an "off duty fire fighter working on the side" a sufficient definition of being competent to carry out FRA's.
The customer has two premises. The first is a warehouse full of boxes filled with electrical fittings and a very small quantity of live electrical equipment. 300m/sq
The second is their offices which are split in two by two separate front doors. Standard office risks.
The customer has in the main 6Litre Foam Extinguishers and 2 kg CO2 Extinguishers as their main cover and they also have some 6kg Powder Extinguishers
The FRA carried out initially recommended that all the of the foam and powder extinguishers on the customers two premises be replaced with CO2 extinguishers in addition to the CO2 extinguishers that the customer already had leaving the customer with no Class A cover.
I pointed out that the customer would have no Class A cover. The FRA now says that “the foam extinguishers (which have a 13A 144B rating) are useless for the premises because the premises has no flammable liquid risks and that the foam extinguishers are only suitable for flammable liquids.”
The FRA recommendation has also changed to replacing the 6Litre Foam Extinguishers and 6kg Powder Extinguishers to:
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher on the ground floor of the warehouse
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher on the warehouse mezzanine
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher for one office complex
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher for the second set of offices
and all of the 2kg CO2 Extinguishers should be changed to 3kg CO2 Extinguishers.
I have told the customer that the extinguishers specified in the FRA have not been manufactured since 1997.
I have agreed that replacing the Powder Extinguishers would not be detrimental.
I have asked the customer if the person carrying out the FRA is competent and their reply is that they are an “off duty fire fighter working on the side" and that they must be competent.
What next. I don’t think that the assessor is competent.
Nim, being an off duty anything certainly does not make one competent. In fact many persons on duty can be quite incompetent, and in some cases very.
A competent FRAer should give consideration to any existing extinguishers and determine if they are suitable and adequaqte and, in the interests of economics, make a case for retaining them. An existing foam extinguisher could be considered appropriate for Class A use.
What a good assessor should be doing is assessing the risk and providing appropriate control measures for the risk, not carrying a code compliance audit.
Sounds to me that this assessor is not really one at all.
If you are a competent fire extinguisher supplier I would provide your client with an appropriate assessment of your findings. As the RP the client can choose whichever assessment of the means provided for fighting fire he finds most suitable and of better value.
-
That depends what your role is Nim.
If you are a consultant or extinguisher supplier all you can do is tell the RP and put your concerns in writing. Then shrug your shoulders and walk away.
If you seek vengeance you could try a letter to the CFO and put your concerns in writing, if the off duty chappie hasn't got clearance for outside employment then things may get a little sticky for him. If he has then its his judgement against yours even if he is wrong and its up to the buyer of the service to satisfy themselves that they have sought competent assistance, though in a place so small makes you wonder why they havn't had a bash themselves.
-
If you are a consultant or extinguisher supplier all you can do is tell the RP and put your concerns in writing. Then shrug your shoulders and walk away.
This is pretty much what I have done. The customer is convinced that the person who carried the FRA out is competent because they are an "off duty fire fighter working on the side". I have said that I didn't think that he knew about portable fire extinguishers if what she told me was correct. Initially the first contact from the customer was by phone and it was just what she told me. Since then everything has been by email and all of his responses are in writing and very amateurish. He clearly hasn't got a clue and all of it in writing.
If you seek vengeance you could try a letter to the CFO and put your concerns in writing, if the off duty chappie hasn't got clearance for outside employment then things may get a little sticky for him. If he has then its his judgement against yours even if he is wrong and its up to the buyer of the service to satisfy themselves that they have sought competent assistance, though in a place so small makes you wonder why they havn't had a bash themselves.
This has occurred to me but I am not really sure I want to go down this road. The author of the FRA has not put his name to it and the company who have put their name to it have decided not to reveal any contact details. Not sure even that is good practise. All I have is email addresses so even if I wanted to pursue I wouldn't know which CFO to approach.
in the interests of economics,
Ironically the customer initially asked why Foam extinguishers were installed and was it because they were more expensive. I acknowledged that they cost about a tenner more but the additional cost could be justified because a 6Litre Foam was far superior to a 9Litre Water extinguisher for a number of reasons. Firstly at least half of the staff were females and the 6Litre Foam was lighter and easier to use with the same fire rating as a 9Litre Water Extinguisher on Class A risks. It has also passed the 35kv dielectric test and is ideal in office environments where Class A risks need to be covered but where live electrical equipment is present and is safe for inadvertent use on live electrical equipment. I got an email back asking for manufacturer’s technical data sheets.
Supplied these which sent him down the “foam extinguishers only for flammable liquid fires” route
http://www.thomas-glover.co.uk/tgserver.php?request=setTemplate:singlecontent&contentTypeA=tgProductGroup&contentId=676
http://www.ukfire.co.uk/shares/extinguishers/doc13.pdf
Don’t agree with UK Firemaster when it comes to putting the electrical flash on Foam Extinguishers but so be it.
If you are a competent fire extinguisher supplier I would provide your client with an appropriate assessment of your findings. As the RP the client can choose whichever assessment of the means provided for fighting fire he finds most suitable and of better value.
I am competent to give advice on portable fire extinguishers and have already done this. I ain’t competent on the rest of the FRA