FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Tom Sutton on October 31, 2009, 10:41:08 AM
-
Can any of you fire alarm and extinguisher experts or anybody who has any point of view, please comment on BAFE schemes. They claim "Established in 1984, BAFE is a non-profit making organization dedicated to improving standards in fire protection" how good are their SP schemes, do they live up to the hype. I do have most of the details and it seems a good system on paper. But in practise is it that good, quite often things don’t live up to the hype.
-
With respect to extinguishers, BAFE member companies, in my experience, are more likely to carry out current and correct maintenance regimes than non members and not omit important checks during the basic service (but not always!).
However they are as likely to over specify extinguisher requirements and be liberal in condemning equipment as any other firm.
Members are more likely to be at the upper end of the price range for product and services.
BAFE does ensure some checks and balances are in place, but you can find suitable and fairly priced non members, just as you can find unsuitable overpriced members - it is not a guarantee.
Dangerous flaws in maintenance are far more likely with non members, particularly those that are also not members of a trade body either.
-
i know of one company recently accredited and they are a total joke. Makes me wonder whats the point sometimes..
-
We've been in it for all modules since 2003.
It's basically standardised procedures and personally I think it works well for us mainly because we like to do a good job and make it work.
We did have NICEIC but dropped it as a waste of time in favour of BAFE having checked the over inflated and rediculous cost of LPS1014.
However, I know other companies in the scheme who just want the logo and they do the minimum....
Like any scheme, you get out what you put in.
-
This is just my Opinion;
Up till now I haven't seen any other discipline using the word of 'Competent Person' as a professional title and mentioned in their standards..., except in their general conversations, they rather use the proper titles; say (Engineer, Technician, Assessor, Surveyor, ... etc, and they implicitly are meant to be competent any way..., also I think the name of 'Competent Person' doesn't need special definition either within standards or else where, it's fairly clear...
-
Yes I follow what you are saying Benzerari. Trouble is there are many people out there who say they are competent but aren't.
-
Personally I think it's down to the conscience of the engineer...I certainly couldn't sleep at night if I didn't do the job properly.
I too have seen some of the worst servicing standards from companies who have multiple logos on their labels.
-
The term 'Competent Person' has a degree of legal status in health and safety matters and particularly in the electrical industry. In BS 7671:2008 Requirements for Electrical Installations (the IEE Wiring Regulations) there is a definition of 'Competent Person' that reads:
"A person who possesses sufficient technical knowledge, relevant practical skills and experience for the nature of the electrical work undertaken and is able at all times to prevent danger and, where appropriate, injury to him/herself and others."
-
"A person who possesses sufficient technical knowledge, relevant practical skills and experience for the nature of the electrical work undertaken and is able at all times to prevent danger and, where appropriate, injury to him/herself and others."
Why he isn't simply called 'Electrician' then? Because, he is implicitly meant to be competent any way? and if he is 'not competent' call it 'Apprentice' or 'Trainee'..., I think any foreigner understand the general word of 'Competent Person' nevertheless an English born..., also what about 'Expert' or 'Professional'... they all general words go under the same hat... why there is no specific definitions for each then?
-
Also I think there are number of issues and ambiguities in the standards that need clear definitions and explanation rather than insisting about the definition of general term of 'Competent Person', any one who is professionally competent and qualified should have a professional relevant title or name, as he is not just a person or any person.
-
You mean something like Kurnal Competent.
-
You mean something like Kurnal Competent.
Why not? :)
-
If thats meant as a compliment Jokar then many thanks and I just wish it were true. Trouble is every day identifies yet another black hole in my knowledge and understanding.
But I think Benz was meaning more formal qualifications or membership of professional organisations of standing. Such as the CDM and bar, MIFireE ?? MIFSM?? BSc?? Phd?? CEng?? Would that instill confidence? And would such confidence be justified?
I am starting to come to agree with the need for a decent register of competent assessors though. Been in a very old fashioned traditional department store today. The previous risk assessors in 2006 charged 4 times my fee and totally focussed on spotlights, combustible contents and their perceived lack of fire extinguishers. They then sold them a further £3k worth of kit. They never commented that the FR protection to the staircase was all on the inside- the structure on the risk side of most the protected shafts was thin plywood, the true ceilings above the suspended were all lath and plaster- but much more exposed lath than plaster- with the timber floors it was effectively open from basement to third floor and the biggest sin of all- every fire door was on a magnet linked to a mainly manual alarm system. very, very few detectors. Not a mention in the "risk assessment"
Some people in our industry are a disgrace.
-
I agree with Benz (I think)
Doesn't this all come down simply to formal personal qualifications?
An electrician is an electrician by qualification and by implication competent.
If you're not qualified then you're impersonating and breaching trade descriptions.
Fire alarm engineers still have no formal qualifications and range from electronics whizz kids to old buggers with 30 years experience of working on one system.
I think all FA engineers should be third party certificated... making the definition of competency very simple....!
-
If thats meant as a compliment Jokar then many thanks and I just wish it were true. Trouble is every day identifies yet another black hole in my knowledge and understanding.
But I think Benz was meaning more formal qualifications or membership of professional organisations of standing. Such as the CDM and bar, MIFireE ?? MIFSM?? BSc?? Phd?? CEng?? Would that instill confidence? And would such confidence be justified?
I am starting to come to agree with the need for a decent register of competent assessors though. Been in a very old fashioned traditional department store today. The previous risk assessors in 2006 charged 4 times my fee and totally focussed on spotlights, combustible contents and their perceived lack of fire extinguishers. They then sold them a further £3k worth of kit. They never commented that the FR protection to the staircase was all on the inside- the structure on the risk side of most the protected shafts was thin plywood, the true ceilings above the suspended were all lath and plaster- but much more exposed lath than plaster- with the timber floors it was effectively open from basement to third floor and the biggest sin of all- every fire door was on a magnet linked to a mainly manual alarm system. very, very few detectors. Not a mention in the "risk assessment"
Some people in our industry are a disgrace.
Problem being K is that the store owner may have been very happy that he did not have to pay a fortune to upgrade the building to what it should be and now you come along and want him to spend oodles of money.
I have a similar problem with a newly renovated and extended 3 storey hotel which had the FRA done by our online buddies. It was a pathetic document which disregarded the structural protection of the escape routes because there was AFD installed and because the owner, who was the surveyor, only reported back on what he was competant enough to see. If we go down the line of a register then it is important that the competancy of surveying is also included. I do not believe registration will work without a proper audit of the whole process and not just the quality of the finiished document which can be conjured to be perfect.
-
Thats right NT but the MD was fine when I walked him round and explained the issues. I have had it the other way though in the past.
I dont mind when they have had a go themselves and not observed important and fundamental problems because the Politicians when drafting the Order and commissioning the Guidance were looking through rose tinted glasses. I think they took a view that nearly all buildings conformed to ADB etc and all that was needed was an audit of ignition sources and combustible materials.
My concern over the registration scheme is really about how it can be applied in a timely and cost effective manner. I fear it will more likely be a CRB, HIP and CSA style farce that will be a costly paper exercise, achieve very little, cause a famine of support out there and cost a fortune. The Govt will recognise a lack of diversity amongst praticioners and then we will have HIP style courses to teach people to become registered assessors in 5 minutes driving us all down to a lowest common denominator meaning the fundamental big hazards will still be missed.
I think that unless it is thought through very carefully and implemented in stages the industry will grind to a halt for some considerable time. The people who will benefit the most will probably be the the on line risk assessment companies who will work outside the scheme. Many of these operators already have a huge profit margin compared to the consultants who actually walk the floor and advise the RP. We should ensure that this drift is forseen.
If the register is to be implemented properly- whether that is FRACS, IFE or IFSM standard- which ever is right, how can it be resourced- theres a huge bulge of existing practicioners who will all apply at the same time. Then nothing till it comes up for review.
-
I have been a fire alarm engineer for quite a few years now and am amazed at the variation in background and varying practical and technical ability and knowledge....and sometimes the lack of the aforementioned i have witnessed.
I have known some very good engineers who were time serviced,started as apprentices and learned on the job.Then i have met electricians..some who took to it like a duck to water and others who i sincerely wonder how they ever became electricians let alone so called fire alarm engineers.
What i am very surprised about is the fact that some people who are now fire alarm engineers have got into the industry with absolutely no electrical or electronic background or qualifications at all and they dont even know how an optical detector works and if you asked them how to read a resistor or explain how a diode works would not have a clue !
I firmly believe that ALL fire alarm engineers should have to have a set of minimum qualifications, core subjects and then have add ons, specialist subjects such as gas extinguishing systems, aspirating systems,beam detection etc
The core basics should be things like... Health and Safety,electronic servicing or electricians qualifications,basic maths and english.then you should have an exam to test your knowledge of conventional and addressable systems.