FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: nearlythere on February 28, 2015, 10:26:15 PM
-
Anybody any idea where IFE get 10 categories of FA system out of 5839? Have i missed an amendment since 2013?
-
No.
-
No.
Is that No and No Dot?
-
Where has this come from NT? It's not the first time I have heard of it being stated and attributed to the IFE. As far as I am aware it is wrong. If there were 10 categories they would be listed in BS5839-1 2013 and Dotties book.
-
Depending how you count it I can get 8 or 11, but not 10!
M, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5 , P1, P2 for the 8
Add the combinations L5/M, P2/M, P1/M for the 11.
-
Where has this come from NT? It's not the first time I have heard of it being stated and attributed to the IFE. As far as I am aware it is wrong. If there were 10 categories they would be listed in BS5839-1 2013 and Dotties book.
An IFE interview.
-
Depending how you count it I can get 8 or 11, but not 10!
M, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5 , P1, P2 for the 8
Add the combinations L5/M, P2/M, P1/M for the 11.
I thought around this as well AB.
-
Depending how you count it I can get 8 or 11, but not 10!
M, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5 , P1, P2 for the 8
Add the combinations L5/M, P2/M, P1/M for the 11.
Bet they forgot L5/M!
-
Combined categories are, by definition, not categories. There are 8 categories.
-
Should the BS5839-6 catagories LD1, LD2 & LD3 not also be included Colin?
-
Only if you include both standards. I thought the question related to BS 5839-1.
-
Only if you include both standards. I thought the question related to BS 5839-1.
But that does not make 10. Is it maybe an IFE thing that has to go unquestioned? Perhaps we have to accept that IFE does not mean clever?
-
Colin, the original question merely refered to "5839"and I read this to mean all parts not just part 1.
NT, any chance that you can provide the actual IFE reference rather than paraphrasing?
-
Colin, the original question merely refered to "5839"and I read this to mean all parts not just part 1.
NT, any chance that you can provide the actual IFE reference rather than paraphrasing?
Question from panel at registration interview. Did i not already say that from the start?
-
No you didn't. Anyhow the right answer is 8. Maybe you misunderstood what the interviewer said???
-
No you didn't. Anyhow the right answer is 8. Maybe you misunderstood what the interviewer said???
I thought IFE Interview was plain enough at 11am on 2 march. Yes there was a misunderstsnding - as to why it was 10.
Anyway if you want to get pernickity I'll just drop the subject. I suppose its one of those unbelievable things that an IFE type could possibly come out with such a thing.
-
I can see how being able to name them from memory might be useful and a relevant question, but committing (potentially) useful brain cells to remembering how many there are - can't see why IFE would expect anyone to do that? When doing design or specification the number of categories is irrelevant - so long as you're able to select the right one!
-
I can see how being able to name them from memory might be useful and a relevant question, but committing (potentially) useful brain cells to remembering how many there are - can't see why IFE would expect anyone to do that? When doing design or specification the number of categories is irrelevant - so long as you're able to select the right one!
is the right answer...I would have passed you ;)
-
Messy. I have flogged myself to near death with a rubber hose (actually until i started to enjoy it) and wrote 100 lines as penance for my blasphemous comment. :P
-
I colleague I know was told this in his IFE Fire Risk Assessor Interview when he answered with the normal '8'