FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: hammer1 on November 05, 2009, 10:38:01 AM
-
When I attended of fire seminar a while back from the IFSM. One of the speakers said that if you did not have a good understanding and knowledge of BS9999 you should not class yourself as competent.
Not sure how many on here are familiar or have attended any courses (the vast majority I assume) on this BS, but there is a section on risk profiling.
Has anyone here started to incorporate this (or any other section) into their FRA format. Also would the fire authority/inspector have a scooby when reviewing it.
This can assist the RP in assessing what management levels are required to be implemented and could make them understand more than our current qualitative or semi-quantitative (or whatever else) risk ranking system we use.
Thoughts....
-
In NI we had an introductory two day seminar on BS9999 in October last year, this was mostly attended by Building Control and FRS people. There's a wide awareness of it but few seem to have studied it, it probably needs to be promoted more by all concerned.
The company that is currently reviewing our FRAs refers to it a lot in their reports, particularly risk profiling and management levels; it has helped us on a quite a few occasions. My organisation's policy for development work is to refer to Technical Booklet E (similar to ADB) first, then BS9999 as an intermediate step to help avoid resorting to purely engineered solutions.
-
Hammer1
I attended a seminar by the guy who led the writing of it. A very nice guy who believed it to be the best thing since sliced bread.
Whilst I only claim a partial understanding, I learned enought to stay well clear.
If you use any part of it be prepared to defend yourself.
Just why did you add 10% and another 10% and another 10% to travel distance Mr Hammer1?
Answer cos the BS says I can may not cut it.
IMHO maybe only a dozen guys on this forum can declare themselves competent based on that statement.
The fact that it hardly figures in postings might give you a clue ;D
davo
-
Hammer1
I attended a seminar by the guy who led the writing of it. A very nice guy who believed it to be the best thing since sliced bread.
Whilst I only claim a partial understanding, I learned enought to stay well clear.
If you use any part of it be prepared to defend yourself.
Just why did you add 10% and another 10% and another 10% to travel distance Mr Hammer1?
Answer cos the BS says I can may not cut it.
IMHO maybe only a dozen guys on this forum can declare themselves competent based on that statement.
The fact that it hardly figures in postings might give you a clue ;D
davo
This maybe because people don't want change or/and are quite happy in their comfort zone.
Are we not all agreed the more we move away from prescriptive guidance, the more competent a person must be in their advice and what they take from such BS as BS9999 and how they interpreted them.
Surely using such BS provides the basis that we as competent risk assessors are worth our weight in gold, rather than code hug and use the government guidance documents increase unnecessary burden to the employer, and conduct in the same way as any RP could do themselves in certain environments/if they wanted or had the time to read such guidance documents.
There is all this talk about risk assessors registers and competent risk assessors, but they all seem to dodge areas where you would need some balls to apply such advice in FRA's.
Some parts of BS9999 has given us the chance to fully risk assess situations and not just code hug or copy and paster from various documents. I think if you are competent and have fully risk assessed a premises, then moving away from prescriptive is the whole point of where we are going surely???
Obviously there are some points in BS9999 that warrant attention, but to disregard it as a whole is oh so very wrong. If I saw a FRA that incorporated various parts/used various guidance from BS9999 with also your usual BS/ prescriptive codes I would think that fella/lady has a current pro-active thinking attitude and may know his/her stuff.
Grow some balls people :)
-
Hammer1
Very dangerous to pick and mix. Would you pick bits from other BSs?
Apply 9999 for everything or for nothing, your choice ;D
davo
-
Those who are competent to apply BS 99 99 should feel free to do so, those who aren't shouldn't. It is that simple.
What you must not do is cherry pick from the standards.
If you are going to base you assessment on BS9999 you must stick to it all the way through.
Simples ;)
-
Hammer1
Very dangerous to pick and mix. Would you pick bits from other BSs?
Apply 9999 for everything or for nothing, your choice ;D
davo
1 quick example I can give is that BS5266 advise daily checks but most FRA's are concerned with monthly, 6 monthly and annual discharge.
Why not take all the BS and only bits happens a lot to be honest, the reason behind this is the competent risk assessor is providing a risk base approach and that BS are not Law but only best practice. There is even a bit in LACORS which suggest sometimes providing the correct maintenance in line with certain BS cannot be practicable on occasions.
-
Those who are competent to apply BS 99 99 should feel free to do so, those who aren't shouldn't. It is that simple.
What you must not do is cherry pick from the standards.
If you are going to base you assessment on BS9999 you must stick to it all the way through.
Simples ;)
Where do you get 'MUST NOT'. BS are there to provide best practice. A lot of people cherry pick all BS, if we all had to do all BS that we recommend, the business world would come to a halt. You use the BS as a competent person to base your risk assessment. It does not say in Law do not use only parts of BS. If you can prove certain parts will assist the RP in carrying out their duties to fall in line with the FSO and the fire safety management of their building then happy days.
Simples ;)
-
Those who are competent to apply BS 99 99 should feel free to do so, those who aren't shouldn't. It is that simple.
What you must not do is cherry pick from the standards.
If you are going to base you assessment on BS9999 you must stick to it all the way through.
Simples ;)
Would you say those who feel not competent in BS9999 are no longer competent in fire safety??
-
When I attended of fire seminar a while back from the IFSM. One of the speakers said that if you did not have a good understanding and knowledge of BS9999 you should not class yourself as competent.
I think I may have been the speaker you are referring to! Let me explain. In my view to be a competent fire risk assessor you need to be able to apply all current fire safety guidance and standards to any FRA that you do. That would include obviously the fire safety order, British Standards, LACORS etc, etc so that when you conduct a risk analysis of a premises or a given situation you can apply that knowledge and give the client a range of options where possible. Certain circumstances and premises would dictate that the use of BS 9999 would be the most appropriate approach in conducting the FRA. I agree with the comment above that you can’t pick and choose from the sections of 9999 and it also says so in the document.
Like most I suspect, I have done a 2 day 9999 course from a recognised training body and although that does not make me an expert we have applied it to certain premises. We have recently submitted a proposal via an architect to building control in the conversation of a basement in a multi-occ building to a night club. A proposal under ADB would not get off the ground due to the numbers the clients wants in the club and the exit widths available. By using 9999 in its entirety as the submission and building a risk profile including a BS 5839 L2 fire alarm with voice actuation Section 19.2 of 9999 would allow a 15% reduction in door width which it just what the client needs to gain the full desired occupancy. We have stipulated other parameters as well such as Level 1 management.
As an aside the local building control authority in question do not accept that BS 9999 can be applied in a licensed premises even though the document makes reference to the consumption of alcohol? They argue that you can’t guarantee the management levels. I can’t see how this stands up as they are saying the management will be less that the required standard before the club has opened! The architect is now using an AI.
I don’t profess to be a 9999 expert as we now need to apply the document when required. I think we will see the document being used more and more and even getting clients requiring submission in circumstances where ADB is rigidly applied. Dare I say it will take over from ABD??!
-
Those who are competent to apply BS 99 99 should feel free to do so, those who aren't shouldn't. It is that simple.
What you must not do is cherry pick from the standards.
If you are going to base you assessment on BS9999 you must stick to it all the way through.
Simples ;)
What about AM's comments in this thread?
http://www.kingfell.com/~forum/index.php?topic=4545.msg47689#msg47689
-
When I attended of fire seminar a while back from the IFSM. One of the speakers said that if you did not have a good understanding and knowledge of BS9999 you should not class yourself as competent.
I think I may have been the speaker you are referring to! Let me explain. In my view to be a competent fire risk assessor you need to be able to apply all current fire safety guidance and standards to any FRA that you do. That would include obviously the fire safety order, British Standards, LACORS etc, etc so that when you conduct a risk analysis of a premises or a given situation you can apply that knowledge and give the client a range of options where possible. Certain circumstances and premises would dictate that the use of BS 9999 would be the most appropriate approach in conducting the FRA. I agree with the comment above that you can’t pick and choose from the sections of 9999 and it also says so in the document.
Like most I suspect, I have done a 2 day 9999 course from a recognised training body and although that does not make me an expert we have applied it to certain premises. We have recently submitted a proposal via an architect to building control in the conversation of a basement in a multi-occ building to a night club. A proposal under ADB would not get off the ground due to the numbers the clients wants in the club and the exit widths available. By using 9999 in its entirety as the submission and building a risk profile including a BS 5839 L2 fire alarm with voice actuation Section 19.2 of 9999 would allow a 15% reduction in door width which it just what the client needs to gain the full desired occupancy. We have stipulated other parameters as well such as Level 1 management.
As an aside the local building control authority in question do not accept that BS 9999 can be applied in a licensed premises even though the document makes reference to the consumption of alcohol? They argue that you can’t guarantee the management levels. I can’t see how this stands up as they are saying the management will be less that the required standard before the club has opened! The architect is now using an AI.
I don’t profess to be a 9999 expert as we now need to apply the document when required. I think we will see the document being used more and more and even getting clients requiring submission in circumstances where ADB is rigidly applied. Dare I say it will take over from ABD??!
I totally agree. Must say the seminar was interesting with all the different disciplines offering their take on things .
I also feel using BS9999 to bring to the RP attention the benefits of producing a fire safety manual, incorporating regulation 16B (doesn't have to be a 100 page waffle, just as much as it warrants to be) all areas that have in the past been swept under the carpet in the past. I feel the management section improves and moves us forward as competent persons to advice our RP clients on alternative solutions and to use parts of it only if it applies to the RP circumstances that may lessen their burden. I am shocked people still quoting all areas of BS5588??
-
Would you say those who feel not competent in BS9999 are no longer competent in fire safety??
Hi Hammer1
The short answer is no.
I attended a three day course on BS 9999 earlier this year. It didn't turn me into an expert overnight, it only gave me a very brief insight into the standard.
Does that defacto make me incompetent in the field of fire safety ? No.
Does it present limitations in terms of my competency / knowledge base? Yes.
If I were a Fire Safety Consultant would that limit the choice of solutions I could give to my client? Most Probably (if it were a new build and I was invloved in the design of the building of course)
To answer your other question and, as somebody has already said, BS 9999 itself states that you shouldn't cherry pick from it.
So I stick by what I said befiore if you are competent to do a certain thing then fine do it - if you are incompetent, and dont know what you are doing then don't do it
Still Simples :D
-
William29
Are you saying you spoke on an IFSM seminar after only 2 days on a course?
Good job the audience were clueless ;D
davo
Fellow posters
Any advance on Retty's three days, do I hear four ???
-
William29
Are you saying you spoke on an IFSM seminar after only 2 days on a course?
Good job the audience were clueless ;D
davo
Fellow posters
Any advance on Retty's three days, do I hear four ???
Nice one!! I'll give you that! :P To be honest I don’t think there are any courses over 3 days unless you go on an internal Brigade one. They would be a fortune anyway!! I am sure the FPA or the centre for fire safety excellence will come up with a 4 week course soon?
-
so much agree with all the comments on cherry picking, I have to ask people who think they can cherry pick for the bits they like, have you ever read the darned thing?
-
For my money if you do cherry pick its shows lack of competence. Think on mc hammer
-
BS 9999 is risk based. AD's & other BS's are not. Particularly ADB being biased towards worst case.
MR - I agree - 'Simples', one or the other. :o
-
Interestingly, 9999 is a standard that allows you to cherry pick from other standards as well and can be used effectively as an FRA document as well as a design guide. My belief is that it is limited as a design guide for new buildings and most consultancies will stick to 7974. However, for conversion of existing buildings and for FRS's it could be a useful document.
-
IMO BS9999 has its place as a tool for creating or evaluating a risk based design that takes account of varying human factors, building constructional features and passive and active fire safety measures to justify variations to otherwise rather prescriptive design documents formerly used.
It is very simplistic in its approach and its outcomes are broad approximations from the more complex calculation based outcomes that would be achieved using fire engineering approaches such as BS7974.
It doesnt bring anything new and earth shattering to the table- what it does is actually quantify variations from a benchmark that may be achieved- giving paramaters for varying these benchmarks. We have actually been doing this for years- but without formal guidance over what variations are reasonable.
We have always known that human factors are a major consideration and hence we always had different guidance documents for sleeping risks, hotels, offices, factories etc, these took account of things like management levels, response times / travel distances / standards of detection to ensure that persons have an appropriate time to respond to a fire and get out of the building.
We have also in the past recognised that exit doors from high risk buildings needed to be wider to allow people to get out in 2 minutes, whereas low risk buildings were given a 3 minute evacuation time and hence exits could be narrower for the same number of people. ADB did us all a disservice by only having one set of tables averaged on a medium risk evacuation time of 2.5 minutes hence the 5mm/person based on approximations taken fromt he post war building studies.
In my mind its largely just a case of what goes round comes round.
-
For my money if you do cherry pick its shows lack of competence. Think on mc hammer
Can't touch this 8)
Now if I have got this wrong please enlighten me. BS9999 is a British Standard Code of Practice?? It is to provide risk based solutions for the 'competent person'. It is the next level from the 'copy and paste' level of the official guidance documents issued by the Government to assist RP's to do the FRA. The level above BS9999 is as mentioned the complex 7974 (if you thin 400 odd pages is big, you should have a look at this beauty).
The aim of BS9999 is to provide risk based solutions in areas from design, construction, and management.
So if you have an existing building obviously the design stage and construction stage has been and gone. However the management stage is a useful tool to advise the RP in carrying out their duties in line with the FSO. Please have a butchers at the Appendixes at the back, and tell me that you could not use that good bit of information to certain environments you assess and provide a more detailed and current FRA??
'Cherry picking' as you have decided to call it, seems like good common sense to me and to providing the RP with the best possible advice via risk base solutions.
In the real world designers/Architects 'cherry pick' ADB. In the real world BC seem to enforce certain parts of ADB. In the real world all consultants only 'cherry pick' wha various British Standards are relevant by risk base approach. No one gives a monkeys about Regulation 16B.
I personally have attended a course on BS9999 and have read it through a good few times in my sad life and feel there is a lot to benefit from such a document and obviously the whole document does not apply to all environments. If people read it properly and began to love it, I am sure you will come through. ;D
But alas stick to your code hugging, Government documents if you want. Copy and paste was a great invention ;)
When the building regulations first came out, wonder if it got the same response??
On a serious note, if you guys saw on a FRA in the executive summary the Company using the risk profile section (occupancy characteristics, fire growth, management levels) to advice the RP what type of management is required for such a property , would you not think it is a good add on the the FRA to provide more information to the RP into carrying out their duties or would you think 'this crowd are a bunch of cow boys'???
P.S This is only my opinion
-
so much agree with all the comments on cherry picking, I have to ask people who think they can cherry pick for the bits they like, have you ever read the darned thing?
How would they know what to cherry pick if they had not read the darned thing??
-
I can buy into your argument Hammer1. I have no problem with BS9999 and akcnowledge it does have advantages over more established alternatives / standards.
But what you shouldn't do (note I ommitted the word mustn't this time round) is use bits of it on an adhoc basis.
The whole thing is designed to be applied from start to finish, all the way through. You shouldn't cherry pick the best bits from it simply because it's the easiest option.
Whilst BS9999 does allow certain "freedoms" there are trade offs and provisos to take into account - you cannot simply replace "A" with "B".
-
There is an article in the FRM journal for June 2009 called "Grand Designs" page 18 and the author comes to the same conclusion cherry picking is a no no choose ADB or BS 9999 or BS 7974 and stick to it.
-
There can be little doubt that the next iteration of ADB will be compelled to follow the route that 9999 has taken. In fact it won't be an 'iteration,' as issues have been referred to, it will be a completely new document. That's why they're suggesting that it won't be coming out until about 2013.
And, probably about the same time, the CLG guides will need to be updated to incorporate the principles. There's no stopping it.
(Here's another thing - if a building has been designed on the basis of 9999, how can you do a complete fire risk assessment if you're not familiar with the guidelines that have been applied in the design? How can you check the exit capacities, for example?)
This is why all fire risk assessors should take steps to become familiar with the concepts in 9999. It's not that hard. Don't be put off by the length of the document, a lot of it is annexes that are aimed at specific building types and can be left until they are specifically needed.
Stu
-
Is that you in the picture Phoenix ? together with your alter ego?
-
Is that you in the picture Phoenix ? together with your alter ego?
I've changed it now.
Too controversial...
Stu
-
Am I being a bit thick here or am I actually reading that some people put there are using BS9999 on existing buildings?
My understanding is, after attending a relevant course, is that it is a design document for new builds or existing buildings undergoing alteration/conversion etc.
As one who looks at other peoples risk assessments, I would definately be challenging them, particularly if they have used it to get longer travel distances for example.
Absolutely agree that there shouldn't be "cherry picking" from the standards to get the best solution. Again, if it is done, then the risk assessor should be able to justify it, and more important, the responsible person must be able to understand it, after all, it's normally they who are sat in front of me being asked all the questions!
After all that, I do agree that the management part is relevant!
;D
-
Am I being a bit thick here or am I actually reading that some people put there are using BS9999 on existing buildings?
My understanding is, after attending a relevant course, is that it is a design document for new builds or existing buildings undergoing alteration/conversion etc.
As one who looks at other peoples risk assessments, I would definately be challenging them, particularly if they have used it to get longer travel distances for example.
Yes absolutely. Why not use the relevant guidance in BS9999 when carrying out fire risk assessments on existing buildings? Its really useful to analyse and clarify your thinking on existing buildings. Extending travel distances? Well yes perhaps. Heres a scenario.
Take hotel bedroom corridors as an example. Dead end corridors in bedrooms under the original FP Act red book guidance could be up to 13m long. Many of them are. But under the Fire Safety Order guidance the benchmark is 9m. Thats nearly 50% difference betweeen the two. Both guides covering existing buildings. Now what do we do?
BS9999 is an ideal tool to carry out a gap analysis and determine options for additional risk control measures. It gives us a reliable framework from which to work.
Heres another justification. Take a look at page 41 of the Fire Safety Order guidance for large places of assembly. "This guidance gives only limited advice..........for these types of premises the principles given in the following references should be applied flexibly......... BS5588 part 10........."
I rest my case mLud.
-
The text actually states that it can be used to do risk analysis as Kurnal has succinctly put it. So 9999 is a tool through which risk assessment can be drawn. There are a number of existing buildings out there not in use or in part use that with the conceptual approach of 9999 can be further utilised.
-
Am I being a bit thick here or am I actually reading that some people put there are using BS9999 on existing buildings?
My understanding is, after attending a relevant course, is that it is a design document for new builds or existing buildings undergoing alteration/conversion etc.
As one who looks at other peoples risk assessments, I would definately be challenging them, particularly if they have used it to get longer travel distances for example.
Yes absolutely. Why not use the relevant guidance in BS9999 when carrying out fire risk assessments on existing buildings? Its really useful to analyse and clarify your thinking on existing buildings. Extending travel distances? Well yes perhaps. Heres a scenario.
Take hotel bedroom corridors as an example. Dead end corridors in bedrooms under the original FP Act red book guidance could be up to 13m long. Many of them are. But under the Fire Safety Order guidance the benchmark is 9m. Thats nearly 50% difference betweeen the two. Both guides covering existing buildings. Now what do we do?
BS9999 is an ideal tool to carry out a gap analysis and determine options for additional risk control measures. It gives us a reliable framework from which to work.
Heres another justification. Take a look at page 41 of the Fire Safety Order guidance for large places of assembly. "This guidance gives only limited advice..........for these types of premises the principles given in the following references should be applied flexibly......... BS5588 part 10........."
I rest my case mLud.
Rest any case you like so long as you agree you must use 9999 in its entiriety and not just part apply it for the bits which make life easy for you as Retty says
-
Rest any case you like so long as you agree you must use 9999 in its entiriety and not just part apply it for the bits which make life easy for you as Retty says
I only need to apply those parts that are relevant to the issue in question.
Provided I am diligent in doing so and always recognising that individual recommendations from 9999 applied in isolation may give little or no benefit and may even reduce the level of fire safety.
It is essential to consider all interactions and influences and to record all such considerations. I think we are all in agreement but there can be a tendancy to put up the shutters and to become very prescriptive.
Hey and lets not forget there are still loads of typos and points open to question in the document.
-
Am I being a bit thick here or am I actually reading that some people put there are using BS9999 on existing buildings?
My understanding is, after attending a relevant course, is that it is a design document for new builds or existing buildings undergoing alteration/conversion etc.
As one who looks at other peoples risk assessments, I would definately be challenging them, particularly if they have used it to get longer travel distances for example.
Absolutely agree that there shouldn't be "cherry picking" from the standards to get the best solution. Again, if it is done, then the risk assessor should be able to justify it, and more important, the responsible person must be able to understand it, after all, it's normally they who are sat in front of me being asked all the questions!
After all that, I do agree that the management part is relevant!
;D
BS 9999:2008 - Fire safety in design, management and use of buildings...........which means existing building 'wow i am so current' oh hang on does it also refer to CDM 2007...............HOW DARE IT
Please forgive me but did i hear management .
god dame you cherry pickers code huggers
-
Am I being a bit thick here or am I actually reading that some people put there are using BS9999 on existing buildings?
My understanding is, after attending a relevant course, is that it is a design document for new builds or existing buildings undergoing alteration/conversion etc.
As one who looks at other peoples risk assessments, I would definately be challenging them, particularly if they have used it to get longer travel distances for example.
Yes absolutely. Why not use the relevant guidance in BS9999 when carrying out fire risk assessments on existing buildings? Its really useful to analyse and clarify your thinking on existing buildings. Extending travel distances? Well yes perhaps. Heres a scenario.
Take hotel bedroom corridors as an example. Dead end corridors in bedrooms under the original FP Act red book guidance could be up to 13m long. Many of them are. But under the Fire Safety Order guidance the benchmark is 9m. Thats nearly 50% difference betweeen the two. Both guides covering existing buildings. Now what do we do?
BS9999 is an ideal tool to carry out a gap analysis and determine options for additional risk control measures. It gives us a reliable framework from which to work.
Heres another justification. Take a look at page 41 of the Fire Safety Order guidance for large places of assembly. "This guidance gives only limited advice..........for these types of premises the principles given in the following references should be applied flexibly......... BS5588 part 10........."
I rest my case mLud.
Rest any case you like so long as you agree you must use 9999 in its entiriety and not just part apply it for the bits which make life easy for you as Retty says
Being a competent person i hope you can use parts/all/bits of the document to suit the RP in carrying out their duties to comply with Law. To disregard the document is to code hug and copy and paste.
Surley making life better for RP is a better life for us
BS5499, BS9990.....TAXI
Anyone read ADB lately ???? now thats cherry picking
Regulation 16B..........
-
Blimey! I've never been quoted so much in a post! :P
I fully accept and agree with the arguments/statements put forward for using BS9999. As my post says .... 'am I being a bit thick' and quite clearly I was having a thick day!
I have no issue with competent risk assessors referring to and quoting extracts from relevant codes/guidance where they will be present at inspection/audit. My concern is where it is used with little or no understanding, which is a situation I have recently come across during a meeting with a 'competent risk assessor' who was using purely to attempt to justify extended travel distances as those quoted in the guides and ADB were 'too short'. The person didn't understand the process and had selected the information that suited his needs without actually looking at all the elements. He was advised not to use at the time and put justification through reasoning in the risk assessments.
It's nice to see a mention of BS5588 pt10 in a CLG guide .... so when will that be amended I wonder? ;D
-
Well said Baldyman.. Prime exmple of people cherry picking without looking at all the angles that go with it.
-
I can fully understand and appreciate peoples comments on cherry picking, especially on the more technical aspects of the document. But I was really referring solely to the risk profiles and assessing risk section. The Guidance itself describes the section 2 risk profiling as not to satisfy the requirements of the FSO and FRA, HOWEVER it can be used to extend the FRA to include needs fire protection of buildings etc.
So why not expand your FRA and go further to provide more info for the RP??
Saying that it also warns people of a 'pick and mix' approach and if only individual aspects are adopted it may have little or no benefit and might even reduce the level of fire safety. But dare I say it, it might also be of benefit to the RP.
So I suppose it is down to you if you feel doing a 2,3 or 4 day on the document gives you the right and confidence to use all or parts of it.
At the end of the day it is only a guidance document to assist us all in the one and only goal...........preserve life and to a lesser extent property.
I remember many, many old FRA's always referring to BS5588 Part 12 (Management) so why not now..... ;)