FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: kurnal on January 04, 2016, 08:02:47 PM
-
Many will have seen Colin Todd's avatar statement "civilianise enforcement-you know it makes sense".
Does it? I thought it might be interesting to explore this.
The first assumption though is that fire services will remain the authority responsible for enforcing fire safety legislation in the UK.
If this is to be the case then I wager that most fire services already employ non operational staff (ie civilians? every member of the Fire Service is actually a civilian within the meaning of the word.)
in the role of inspecting officer and in fire engineering roles.
Presently very many Inspecting Officers are former operational staff re-employed on artificially low salaries as they are in receipt of a fire service pension. But they are all getting pretty long in the tooth and the changes to the pension scheme mean that they are a diminishing resource.
I contend that the best, most qualified and experienced inspecting officers come from an operational background where they will have experienced at first hand the very hazard that they are employed to protect relevant persons from.
They will have experienced thousands of fire situations and will understand the characteristics of fire in all its stages.
They will have witnessed and managed human behaviour in fire situations.
They will have experience in investigating the cause of fire.
They will have experienced at first hand the toxicity aspects of fire and smoke.
They will have an understanding of firefighting in high rise buildings and the importance of siting risers, shafts and ventilation and providing access for firefighting.
They will have experienced at first hand the effect of fire on the elements of construction and understand the protection afforded by walls, doors, ceilings, floors, shutters etc.
They will have witnessed the benefits and operation of fixed installations and sprinklers in a fire situation.
The system was working well up to the mid 1990s and was well supported by a structured range of training courses at the National Training Centres. These courses provided for all management levels and were reinforced by competence measures - the Station Officers and IFE exams included fire safety papers.
It all started to go wrong with the implementation of the Workplace Fire Safety Regulations because Inspecting Officers were faced with two very different regimes for the same buildings at the same time. The Regulations were based on risk assessment whilst at the same time the Fire Precautions Act guidance and enforcement were extremely prescriptive especially for certificated buildings. So Inspecting Officers, who should have had the best of training for dealing with such a different and dual approach were let down by CACFOA and most Fire Services by a decision to provide minimalistic internal risk assessment training within each Service and most senior officers, -those responsible for signing off fire certificates- felt they were above such training and continued to insist on the prescriptive standards under the FP Act.
I would love to expand on this and the subsequent role of New Labour, Sir George Bain, CFOA and CFOs in general in wrecking a good system but it might be wise to keep my counsel.
But as Colin rightly points out having broken the old system it is unlikely to be reinstated, and the changed priorities and focus on different output measures and performance indicators means that any talk of additional funding would be a pipe dream. So when the pool of current IOs finally retires the only options are:
Privatise enforcement by selling the right to enforce?
Recruit and train non operational staff to the role of Inspecting Officer?
Make another body (eg local authority EHOs) responsible?
There are no zero cost options. There is also the question of how the essential underpinning knowledge will be delivered, experience gained and competence measured under a new regime.
Many brigades are already employing non operational staff to the role. Their training appears to comprise a 4 day NEBOSH fire module as part of the Gen Cert, and a weeks basic course at the College. But no experience of real fires, historic building codes, Building Regulations etc.
One thing is certain- many fire brigades will soon run out of competent experienced IOs as my peers retire and something needs to be done to ensure continuity. Any thoughts anybody?
-
Interesting post.
After my 26 years in the fire service, the last 12 as an IO then 7 months re-employed as a "civilian" before leaving, I have done both roles you describe. I have a few views on the advantages and disadvantages of both business models.
But I would like to hear Colin's views on why it make sense.
-
Hi Prof
I'm afraid you will be proved right when a certain company well know for large scale cock-ups takes over...........
After all, privatising BC is working well, don't you know :D
davo
-
Was it really that good in the good old days?
I'm sure there was a similar level of competence, with some good and some bad much the same as any profession.
-
I've not served in the brigade but I've been messing about in this industry a good while.
Ops experience can help and provide some insight. but it doesn't guarantee that somebody will have the aptitude for fire safety work.
Some people seem to think it does, they tend to be the problem.......... (or one of them anyway).
Like a few have said, there are some great people from both ops and civvie backgrounds and vice versa.
-
I contend that the best, most qualified and experienced inspecting officers come from an operational background where they will have experienced at first hand the very hazard that they are employed to protect relevant persons from.
They will have experienced thousands of fire situations and will understand the characteristics of fire in all its stages.
They will have witnessed and managed human behaviour in fire situations.
They will have experience in investigating the cause of fire.
They will have experienced at first hand the toxicity aspects of fire and smoke.
They will have an understanding of firefighting in high rise buildings and the importance of siting risers, shafts and ventilation and providing access for firefighting.
They will have experienced at first hand the effect of fire on the elements of construction and understand the protection afforded by walls, doors, ceilings, floors, shutters etc.
They will have witnessed the benefits and operation of fixed installations and sprinklers in a fire situation.
I think the type of experience you describe above really has died out, you will be lucky to find anyone with that kind of background these days that are coming up to retire. We just don't get those types of fires or ops experience since the number of fire calls has dropped drastically over the last 10-15 years, even then you had to be stationed at an inner city type fire station. I was fortunate (or not!) to have served at some of those stations at perhaps the peak of fire calls around the mid to late 90's. However did that make me a better fire safety enforcement officer or risk assessor?
On your other points, do the enforcers need that type of experience when they are really preforming an auditors role. Fire authorities are looking into joint BCO and FSO post and fire officers being based at local authority building control buildings, that tells a story.
Retiring FSO's are simply not being replaced, I know of a large Borough where there are currently 3 FSOs due to retire this year, none of which are being replaced. FSO's from other areas will just "take up the slack".
There must be a bigger plan somewhere to phase the FSO as we know it out? Just my views.
-
Maybe we could leave the high risk stuff to the FRS. There is a large bulk of relatively low risk buildings that could be left to LABC. That would let resources be directed in a more appropriate manner. Mind you, that is a wee bit like the way resources are being deployed in NI but the building control guys or EHOs aren't exactly enthusiastic. Many still need IOs from the NIFRS to hold their hand.
-
Twice when offered civilian positions in the past the thing that struck me was how poorly paid they were, even when the terms included starting at the top of the pay scale and this has to be realistically one of the main reasons several brigades jumped into the civilian route early on.
The limitations of the off the street staff were illustrated at a meeting at a fire engineered building to discuss concerns and negotiate practical resolutions - the very young lady whose area it was attended, but the meeting and discussion was entirely handled by an older civilian officer (who was a retired ex-FPO) and a current uniformed management rank FPO. The poor old Junior was left out of it in such a way that they were unlikely to learn much.
Conversely another FRS who brought a civilian trainee to a site meeting over some potentially severe breaches where some out of the box solutions were being proposed actively involved them and explained the various points.
Civilianisation can work if the FRS are willing to pay a decent wage and to include suitable mentoring/apprenticeship in the field in addition to the classroom.
Privatisation however, by handing the lot over lock, stock & barrel to a corporate entity is another matter
-
Was it really that good in the good old days?
I'm sure there was a similar level of competence, with some good and some bad much the same as any profession.
Yes I agree Cardiff it was not perfect in the old days and there were always variations in knowledge and most important attitude, there were some unnecessary jack boots. It was so easy to hide behind the prescriptive rules of the factories act, osrp and latterly the FP act and those long in the tooth at the time of the workplace regs really struggled for reasons I outlined. We were forced by our senior managers to ruin so many lovely small 3 storey buildings with double door protection to comply with the hotels guide which at the time only required a manual alarm system. Trade off for detection? No chance. But pre 1991 we were also responsible for MOE in flats and this was a great training ground.
Those are some of the weaknesses of the old system. But more recently you are more likely to encounter fire officers with little underpinning knowledge, greenhorn fire engineers who include unjustifiable twaddle in their "engineered" solution and AIs who are happy to approve anything without reading, understanding or challenging stupid claims. One fire engineers report for a 23 storey residential building justified the use of half hour doors to the firefighting staircase (unsprinklered) because it was offset by a two hour standard to the elements of structure of the staircase. Trade off? What planets code are they using? Another in a student block with many shortcomings stated that as students are young and fit they could be relied on to respond immediately to a fire alarm so response time would be immediate. Ok obviously.
It seems to me that the old timers might be inflexible but could be relied on not to walk away from an unsafe building. Whereas the new enforcement officers and fire engineers are less likely to spot or recognise obvious problems and the new audit system in place discourages them from looking anyway.
-
Apologies I have drifted off into the good old days argument yet again when the topic is the "civilianisation" of enforcement. It would be good to know what Colin has in mind ?
-
I would suggest that civilianisation means taking enforcement out of the hands of the fire service and handing it to the HSE or a new body along the lines of the HSE.
-
They will have experienced thousands of fire situations and will understand the characteristics of fire in all its stages.
They will have witnessed and managed human behaviour in fire situations.
They will have experience in investigating the cause of fire.
They will have experienced at first hand the toxicity aspects of fire and smoke.
They will have an understanding of firefighting in high rise buildings and the importance of siting risers, shafts and ventilation and providing access for firefighting.
They will have experienced at first hand the effect of fire on the elements of construction and understand the protection afforded by walls, doors, ceilings, floors, shutters etc.
They will have witnessed the benefits and operation of fixed installations and sprinklers in a fire situation.
Are these all valid??
The reduction in fire calls has already been mentioned. And it could be argued that many of the numbers in the old days were increased by False Alarms. How much experience can be gained by attending a FA? Or by being on the crew of the second, third, or even fourth pump attending such a FA? Or even a fire for that matter? How does setting into a hydrant and standing by as an emergency BA crew give the aforementioned experience? I am not arguing against experience. Just the point that you had to be a member of an urban FRS to gain it.
But the case is sound and experience matters.
So if the call rate to fires is dropping? (notwithstanding increases in special services; RTA's, Flooding etc) how can the modern operational fire fighter (Manager) gain the all important experience. How can their experience dove-tail into the academic learning of their non uniformed colleagues? Do we need academically trained Fire Managers? Are people suited to be academics suited to be emergency staff? ( a rhetorical point). Discuss.
Would specialisation by uniformed staff assist? Or is there just not enough money washing around to allow this?
Let's take one of Kurnal's points "They will have experience in investigating the cause of fire". Really? How good are CM's WM's or even SM's at investigating fires for IRS? My research shows not very. Yes there are specialist FI's, but how much input do they have in the IRS statistics? There also needs to be a rationalisation of exactly who is responsible for investigating a fire, when and why. Is it a crime? Is it a H&S issue? Is it a Fire Precaution issue? Is it an insurance issue? Is it just a statistical exercise?
Lets take another. "They will have witnessed and managed human behaviour in fire situations". Yes..... but only after the fire has become out of control and the FRS has been called to attend. Much of the preventative work you people are involved in needs to look at human behaviour associated with cause of fire, early detection and first aid fire fighting. Very few operational staff have any concept of what goes on before the magic number is called and assistance called for.
Academically trained and experientially trained staff working together in partnership? :-\ Discuss.
Sam
-
We had the same arguments in the 1970's with Colin, we said you needed operation experience to make a good Fire Safety Officer, Colin disagreed. He argued the FS department should be independent from the operational side and I think I now agree with him. There should be no jumping in and out of FS for promotion purposes, how often have you heard on an interview board, "you need Fire Safety experience". It should be totally independent with its own management structure, own budget, a good training system and once you choose FS you remain a FSO until you retire.
However to try it at this time, with finance as it is, it would be a disaster, a poorly funded organisation would be worse than employing civilian staff and having its own management structure is the best we can hope for at this moment in time.
-
There's no doubt that over the years the UK fire service - changes to both operational and fire safety enforcement - make privatisation of both areas more likely and perhaps inevitable. Would a privatised fire safety enforcement give a better service or worse? Well that depends on your definition of 'better'.
For the taxpayer, some will argue it will be cheaper as the total costs will inevitably be reduced (or perhaps shown to have reduced)
However from the employees side, the savings will come from contracts which will mean less pay, less flexibility, poorer pension, longer hours, zero hour contracts and all the Victorian employment values that PFI companies are synonymous for.
From a fire safety entrepreneur's (fire safety consultancy) point of view it means a huge business opportunity with increase profits and a bigger faster car
But I predict that as has been so common in other areas where privatisation has occurred within the public sector, enforcement will not be any more efficient and may be disastrous. There have been massive cock ups in health, education and above all defence. Why will fire safety be exempt from the mess other Depts have suffered
Privatisation seems to lead to jobs for ministers post government, and knighthoods for PFI business leaders. I cannot bear the thought of Sir Colin Todd gloating on this forum of his investiture ::) ::)
-
Colin said "Big Al on a point of interpretation of my avatar, civilianise does not mean privatise" which started this discussion.
-
So it would appear that fire safety is back in the hands of the Home Office.
Will that have in impact on the matters discussed here?
Thoughts?
-
Depends on whether they want to put enforcement under PC Plod!
-
Its only a matter of time!
I have known of investigations under the FRSA 2004 investigated by the police. Equally the CPS have now taken a case under the RR(FS)O.
Fire safety inspectors will be carrying handcuffs soon! ::)
-
I really dont care who enforces fire safety legislation, but Tam is right, the world has become too complicated for fire-fighters to dabble for a bit on their way up.
However, I am selling off the firm's BMW fleet, as, thinking about Big Al's posting, I now realise to my horror that the damn cars were designed by engineers. These chaps should never have been allowed to design your 4 series either Big Al. These fellars have never been to a road accident in their lives. They have never carried out extrication techniques like we firemen. They have never seen the effects of an airbag explode (except in a classroom populated by academics). They have never seen Derbyshire farmers human behavior when they get behind the wheel. They have never seen crumple zones work on the motorway. I am now seeking to source a company car fleet comprising cars designed and MoT tested by a motorway policeman, pottering in the traffic department, pending a job coming up in CID.
I once sat in front of two Lancs FRS chaps who were pontificating about the merits or otherwise of intumescent strips required by one of their colleagues ENs. Now always deferrential to the English FRS, I asked them for the number of years operation firefighting experience they had. Naturally, I could only idolise their 35 years combined experience. I asked them how many fires they had been to, in which an intumescent strip had blown. There was a long silence. Then one piped up that he had seen one ONCE. The other puffed himself up with pride and he said he had seen as many as 2 but it could even be THREE.
Tam is right. I said in the 70s all this crap about knowing nothing about fire safety unless you have driven a red lorry was bunkum It was bunkum then; its megabunkum now.
Would you like to hear more anecdotes.
-
Colin don't overlook the very comprehensive vehicle crash testing and type approvals process in place in the motor industry for new cars and spare parts.. Every model is engineered crash tested and type approved. On the other hand buildings are designed and fire engineered and approved on the nod often with no effective scoutiny of the fire engineering design by AIs or fire services. At the age of 3 years cars are subject to a detailed MOT test, LGVs and coaches more so. Then VOSA staff investigate serious events. There is therefore no analogy there with regard to fire safety enforcement.
I am more interested in who you see being responsible for enforcement if the proces is civilianised, whether you think this role should stop with the fire services, and the level of competence required and how and by whom this should be delivered. The current audit process based on the CFOA guidance does not appear to me to demand a deep level of underpinning knowledge (imo!) more of a box ticking exercise with little technical evaluation of stanrdards and I see that as a huge weakness.
Work needs to be done on enforcement to plan adequately for the future provision, a career path needs to be defined and competences defined and delivered.
I wonder if anything is happening further nationally to promote and support the aspirations expressed in your avatar?
-
Would you like to hear more anecdotes.
Yes please, I find them entertaining in-between reading the old fire service manuals. :)
-
Following Colin's analogy, the problem is that the cars are being designed by members of the Amish community who have never left that community and are following a series of complex manuals which detail all the requirements of building motor vehicles from a moped up to an articulated lorry. Each manual refers to a specific part of the motor vehicle, the engine, steering, brakes etc. and there is one manual that deals with the precautions required in the event of the vehicle hitting another vehicle or part of the surrounding landscape.
Whilst I would agree that operational experience does not necessarily equate to good fire safety expertise, it helps. I remember the look on a Fire Safety Officer's face who was very proud of the work he had done on a secure mental unit including the secure air lock style entrance doors (inner doors cannot be unlocked if the outer doors are not locked) when the operational crew asked him how they were going to get water supplies for fire fighting into the building. (Sorry, these were the days when we actually went into buildings to fight fires).
I maintain that good Fire Safety work is a result of a mixture of theoretical knowledge and practical experience of fire and the best way to get that practical experience is actually fighting and investigating fires.
-
Does anyone remember the document that came out a few years before the RRO came in? The Regulatory Impact Assessment-fire safety order. I still have a copy but you don't seem to be able to source this on the web anymore! When you read it again now a few years on, the rationale of the RRO makes sense, from what was intended at least. That's why I feel we can debate this all day long but enforcement as we know it or have known it will change, perhaps to another enforcing body or a new one, I don't think anyone really cares that much, as long as it is "policed".
Below is Option 3 from the said document, that was implement, Option 1 was do nothing, carry on with FP Act and WP Regs, Option 2 was stop issuing fire certs and move to risk based approach legislation. Some of the reading will make you smile.
Option 3
Option 3 is a full rationalisation of all fire safety legislation. There are significant benefits over option 2 in terms of simplification, clarity and compliance, while the potential costs of option 3 are not expected to be significantly (if at all) larger than those for option 2.
While very little arises in respect of new burdens, it is expected that the new Order will improve compliance as a result of the clarity achieved through rationalisation, the attendant publicity and new guidance.
Removal of requirement to obtain a fire certificate
The removal of the requirement for businesses in England and Wales to apply for fire certificates will result in a saving to business of approximately ?1.65 million per annum .
Better targeting of resources
The move away from a system based on certification of prescribed classes or uses of building will give fire authorities the freedom to develop their inspection programmes on the basis of risk. Introduction of the new regime does not assume that there will be any alteration in the level of resources dedicated to fire safety, and it assumed that the number of inspections carried out will not change. Adjustments to resourcing levels may however arise due to other factors for example Integrated Risk Management Planning by Fire Authorities. Inspections will be focussed on premises that pose the highest risks in comparison to others in the area, and thus more effectively deployed. It also maximises the benefits in terms of the efficient use of fire service resources since fire authorities will more often be enforcing fire safety law in their own right, rather than as third parties consulted by those administering other regimes.
Savings in cost of fire
We have estimated the overall economic consequential cost of fire in England and Wales for 2001 at just over ?786m. (see Annex A). We have calculated the average economic consequential cost of fire to be ?25,900 , and have used this figure to calculate potential savings from the measures now proposed. (The economic consequential costs only include property losses, fatalities, injuries and lost business.)
The measures proposed in option 3 will promote greater compliance and more focus on prevention in high-risk properties. We cannot be precise about the reduction in fires, and cost savings, that might be delivered, but we can make a broad-brush assessment. A reduction in the number of fires in England and Wales of 5%, 10% and 15% would achieve annual savings of ?39m, ?79m and ?118m respectively. (See Annex B.) To this we should add the unquantifiable saving in terms of the human costs of fire outlined above.
Costs of Compliance
The proposed move to a system based on risk assessment should not create new burdens, because all those who would be covered by it are already required to undertake risk assessments under existing legislation.
We estimate it might take 1 to 1.5 hours for a manager (or the person nominated to implement the regime), to become familiar with the guidance, depending on how familiar they are with the existing requirements. Assuming an average labour cost for a manager of ?22.80 per hour , we would expect the cost of familiarisation to be within the range ?22.80 to ?34.20.
Total costs for an individual business would fall in a range of ?34.80 (assuming 1 hour is required for familiarisation) to ?46.20 (assuming 1.5 hours). Given the limitations of the available information, and the strong probability of double counting, we have used the broad estimate of 2m premises (England and Wales) for the purposes of our cost calculation. This suggests overall costs to business for obtaining the guidance and becoming familiar with it in a range of ?66m to ?88.8m.
Identify any other costs
The Fire Service has already moved towards a risk-assessment based enforcement regime independently of the reform following the introduction of the Workplace Regulations (1997): Most provisions of the new regime exist in law already and are enforced by relevant enforcing authorities who are already therefore, familiar with the requirements. Where new arrangements are in place it is not expected that there will be a need for re-training: New personnel who join will receive training in the new arrangements as part of the normal training programme.
Summary of Costs/Benefits
We expect those who operate premises (i.e. employers, the self-employed with non-domestic premises, and the voluntary sector, as discussed above) to obtain the guidance, and familiarise themselves with it. The costs of this are considered below. We have estimated a range of costs likely to be incurred in obtaining the new guidance and familiarisation with it. This comes within the range ?66m to ?88.8m.
We know that many businesses are not complying with the existing requirements upon them. We have estimated the total cost of complying, in terms of producing risk assessments and training staff, would be in the range of ?212m to ?301m for all businesses in England and Wales (see section 10 and Annex D). Most employers (65%) would face an average cost of ?196 for these activities. As this is not a new burden it has not been set against the quantification of the benefits of the arrangements proposed in the Order.
Essentially, therefore, we estimate the effect of the Order will be to achieve annual savings within a range of ?47m to ?137m, plus some wider but unquantifiable economic benefits, and benefits in respect of reduced suffering and trauma of victims of fire and their relatives and friends. This is set against an estimate of one-off costs within the range ?66m to ?88.8m for businesses to educate themselves about the new arrangements.
So, while it is estimated that there is likely to be one off cost to business of between ?66m to ?88m, this figure is offset by the projected savings. Consequently, in the year of introduction, the cost benefit range is from between a saving of ?49m and a cost of ?19m. Thereafter savings in the range ?47m-?137m will apply. Thus over a ten year period (not allowing for inflation), ongoing savings to business at current prices of between ?382 million and ?1.304 billion would be expected to accrue.
The Government believes that the benefits explained in this assessment over the longer term, outweigh the initial costs and fully justify the proposals for reform.
We intend to track the operation of the new legislation principally through monitoring and evaluation of performance statistics and data collection from fire authorities after a term of three years.
-
I'll throw my two pennies worth in here. For once I agree with Toddy.
A fire safety officer / inspector is a role. You don't need to know about gas cooling, friction loss in hose, how to take a ladder lock, or do a firemans lift to be a fire safety officer!.
So long as your competent in that role what is the issue? Being a firefighter doesn't make you a competent fire safety officer. Does operational experience help? I'd argue not - I know some 30 year firefighters who haven't really experienced that many big fires in their careers even though they worked at busy inner city whole time stations. It was just the case they always seemed to be off duty when these incidents occurred.Luck of the draw!.
To counter the argument (purely about fire safety inspectors) Non operational officers are taught fire behaviour - you don't have to go to a fire scene to understand fire these days (if ever it was the case) There's a wealth of information out there these days on the subject , videos of incidents, of human behaviour, case studies, and other media, infact I know some non operational officers who have experienced live fire conditions because their brigades have sent them into their live fire training facilities.OK they don't actually do any firefighting for obvious reasons - and they don't need to - they observe.
But the question remains do they really need to go to a live fire or into a fire house to be able to gain competence to do their job? of course not.
There is a huge elephant in the room. Its a Scottish elephant who has never ever ridden a fire engine and yet knows alot more than I ever will about fire safety. There are lots more elephants where he came from out there too.
Nowadays fire crews simply attend more RTCs than they do fires...
As SAMFriT also points out just because a CM?WM or duty SM providing has attended a level 1 or 2 fire investigation course as part of their roll maps doesn't make them a competent fire investigator (although many think it does).
Infact Fire Investigation is another case-in-point - it is a discipline where non fire service personnel have been involved with for years.... and they have never ridden a big red fire engine.
Think we have to accept there are a few firefighters who swagger around thinking because they've seen a fire or two they know it all. The awkward truth is they don't. I should know I've worked with may like them. There are the good ones who accept that we all have a job to do in this world, and that a uniform and a badge doesn't make you high and mighty or right!
Anyway it doesn't really matter now anyway - the Police will be enforcing the RRO soon anyway. Evenin' All.
-
Competency in role, as Clevelandfire 3 stated, is the key to who should enforce it. As has already been stated, this is a role in itself and if the fire brigades can keep the role seperate then there is no reason why they can't or shouldn't continue to enforce the legislation. But here lies the problem, alot of brigades are now trying to create a 'swiss army knife' multi functioning firefighter - putting out fires one day and providing fire safety advice and enforcement on another day and this is just not viable. There is too much information and skills to learn and then maintain both as an operational firefighter and as an inspecting officer.
An inspecting officer has to be trained to a high level in order to carry out their duties and responsibilities effectively both for the RP and enforcing authority. The 'swiss army knife' approach means that the skill level has dropped in recent times because the new inspecting officers don't have time to learn the job on a day to day basis because they have too many roles to do. This means that the skill level is gradually declining and will continue to do so unless things change. I'm not sure if this is the case with all fire brigades but it is becoming more and more of a problem. Managers seem to think that once you have completed the fire safety course then you are off and running when this is not the case. You have the basic knowledge which you can then gain experience and, over the years, develop your knowledge and skills still further to become more accomplished.
For strategic managers, business safety is far more important than fire safety because it helps the brigades in other areas e.g. reducing false alarms. Alot of managers fail to understand the importance of fire safety and, therefore, keep looking to see how it can feed in to their performance indicators which are all operationally driven. To me, business safety and fire safety are both important but one shouldn't be to the detriment to the other. Both rolls can and do overlap but there are also alot of areas where they are distinctly different.
With reference to the new CFOA 'safe enough' audit, due to the simplicity of the form it is even more vital for the inspecting officer to have the required knowledge and understanding in order to come to the correct decision i.e. is it really safe enough.
If this continues then the fire brigades are not the right organisation to enforce the legislation. Who should......I don't know, perhaps HSE or a regulatory body.
A swiss army knife on my key-ring looks good but I would rather have the correct tools in the boot of my car.
-
Well said. But going back to where this all started, Colin is just winding you all up. Just don't bite!
-
It goes further than that Brian. I think the industry and particularly fire services need to review where they are and where they are going in terms of enforcement. Fire services are very reliant on a rapidly diminishing pool of experienced staff who had the benefit of structured comprehensive training, and experience at an approriate level or rank and as these officers retire for the second time the existing structure and competences will be lost. Then standards of enforcement and technical reviews of building proposals will inevitably decline.
Indiana has it right, the role has been de-skilled since the Bain review. Prior to Bain most county brigades used station managers as inspecting officers, with a dual role of both operations and fire safety. They were responsible for territorial areas and in many cases the supervision and training of a group of retained stations, and fire investigations etc. Bain and cuts together have led to decimation of this valuable role and one of the first things Bain did was to pretend that watch managers without a designated training structure could be equivalent to the former inspecting officers. The public were fooled by the simple expedient of dressing the subs in charge of fire trucks in a white helmet so they did not notice the difference. But the substance, role, rank, knowledge, competence and experience was lost overnight.
The cities tended to have specialist teams dedicated to fire safety due to the workload with a designated management structure but again a with a heavy workload leading to experience and a training and competence structure relating to the role no longer found under the Swiss Army knife approach.
Colin might pretend to be teasing but the fire service management CFOA et al need to wake up and smell the coffee and consider what their enforcement and competence strategy will be when all the old guys have gone if they want to keep their current responsibility for enforcement.
These are very valuable skills and at serious risk of being lost forever. To me it does not matter if the individuals carrying out the enforcement role wear a uniform or not, and clearly there are roles for specialists such as fire engineers. But I believe the role of enforcement should continue to sit with the fire services and they should equip themselves to carry out the role effectively or risk losing it.
-
I wasnt teasing. What do we think of a supposedly trained and experienced officer who is dogmatic that you cant use chipboard as a core for a fire door, and his service who wont listen to Auntie Lin and the BWF in that respect.
-
I think civilians and fire fighters are both capable of being stupid.
Argh now I've bitten!
-
Wee B, so long as it is only your cheek and not the hand that feeds you!
-
There is so much more to enforcement than prosecutions!
There are thousands of visits where the enforcing officers do a hell of a lot of good and pick up very dangerous situations. There are countless seminars and initiatives plus advice and guidance for businesses from all our fire services across the UK. There are going to be times when an enforcing officer or authority get it wrong and they will be open to criticism and challenge on competence etc. But they are a 'uniformed' service with good intentions at heart and for me it should stay with the FRS, as we all know what happens when it becomes a free for all in an open marketplace; there is a very high chance that standards will not improve and the lowest common denominator will prevail within any different approach to enforcement. What would be interesting is to see some research on the incidents of when the FRS have got it wrong on a visit and see what kind of % that equates to in terms of the total number of visits. I obviously don't have figure for this but my gut feeling is the enforcing authorities do a very good job in general and like everyone they do make mistakes, hence the provision for challenge. Is it any different to negligent healthcare professionals or police officers/forces or children's services. Not really! The intent is to do 'good' the reality is they will fall short, but no shorter than other enforcers or service providers I suggest.
If we look at a couple of examples;
Police to Private Security, not renowned for quality and why? Lack of money and companies making profits.
NHS to Private Medical Care, renowned for quality and why? There is money and companies are making profits.
Which way would a change in fire safety enforcement go? My guess is that many of the issues caused in enforcement are caused through a lack of money and if anything that would only get worse if enforcement moved to another model.
-
Wee B, the difference is civilians often realise they have been stupid (I cite as an example, my marriage to the former Mrs Todd). Certain FRS, such as the second best in a capital city, but not the capital of Scotland , Northern Ireland or Wales) dont recognise stupidity when it stares them in the face. I have an article from an academic psychology journal (provided to me by Auntie Lin's Uncle Dave) which explains why stupid people dont realise they are stupid. In short, the answer is that they are too stupid to realise, but there are other reasons, which include many applicable to certain FRS officers, such as they are in a position of authority so for a quiet life no one tells them not to be so stupid.
-
Blimey, this is all getting very deep.
I can relate to some of this. Back in the day when I was but a simple building inspector, people used to ask me stuff. I would tell them and they would scurry away and do it. I felt good about this.
Then I realised that they would do what I said even if they were quite sure I was wrong. I then realised that I was sometimes wrong and this worried me. I am now much more careful about what I say and how I say it.
It probably took me a couple of years to realise all of this.
I was a civilain of course but I guess some of the comments people have made about fire service guys coming in and out of fire safety maybe they dont have time to see the light.
-
I believe you may be discussing cognitive bias... specifically; that an incompetent or under-confident person may not realise the level of their incompetence. Dunning and Kruger (1999) tell us that cognitive bias may exist where a persons confidence outweighs their ability, the 'Dunning-Kruger Effect', or conversely the opposite where a competent person lacks confidence, the 'Imposter Effect'.
Examples. The know it all fire-fighter or CM who thinks there is no room for 'book learning'. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
The bloke down the pub, or radio phone in, or on line encyclopaedia, sounding off about politics, or whatever takes their fancy at that moment in time. Dunning-Kruger Effect. ( perhaps that is me today???). :o
The newly promoted SM who feels threatened by external experts and who will not take advice, or back down. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
The academically trained expert who will not listen to the experienced fire officer. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
The newly appointed person, academically trained, or experientially trained, who knows they have the right answer but will not speak up for fear of looking foolish. The imposter effect. (Perhaps the 'perhaps that's me today' comment means I am suffering from that today) :-\
Both the efffects can be overcome by partnership working and peer review of work. So let's get on guys.
-
Great post Sam, it made me think that some of our regular and vocal contributors may be subject to confirmation bias...
-
Is it the Freddy Krueger effect?
-
Is it the Freddy Krueger effect?
Now that is a stupid remark, which presumably means as i recognise that fact, I am not stupid (is that how it works????) ::) ::)
-
or was I being clever by using a stupid remark?????
-
You are being clever by having your stupid remarks reviewed by your peers. ;D
-
Unless the peers consider the remarks to be stupid.
-
He is still being clever... as he is getting honest feedback. 8) As long as he reflects on it and modifies his behaviours. ;)
-
There has been much said about whether or not having an operational background makes for a better fire safety officer, what about the statement being made by some senior officers i.e. Having a fire safety background makes for a better operational officer!
-
A good fire safety officer does not necessarily have to be a good operational officer, similarly a good operational officer does not have to be a good fire safety officer, however the best officers are good at both.
The main issue used to occur when firefighter started their career on a fire station and as soon as possible moved into fire safety got promoted and then several years later appeared on a fireground as an officer sent on to take control.
-
I agree Mike as far as to say the best all round officer will be good at both ops and fire safety, however I have known some fantastic ops officers that know almost nothing about fire safety and equally some fantastic fire safety officers that were hopeless ops officers. My point is that the sweeping statements being made about having been an operational firefighter or having had a fire safety background make the best fire safety officers or ops officers respectfully is a complete load of old tosh! Everyone is different, there are some good and some bad, this is more about protecting fire safety jobs within local authority fire services rather than sound logic.
-
My point is that the sweeping statements being made about having been an operational firefighter or having had a fire safety background make the best fire safety officers or ops officers respectfully is a complete load of old tosh!
Can't argue with that - my initial posts were over the top to say the least but it prompted discussion!
this is more about protecting fire safety jobs within local authority fire services rather than sound logic.
There we disagree. One point of this thread was to point out that under the previous system there was a designated career path and qualifications, with a graduated role based structure culminating in the SFPO long course and more latterly on the modular approach. This system ensured a consistent level of the essential underpinning knowledge.
But we all recognise that that ship has sailed and when Colin suggested civilianisation of the fire safety role it struck me that there are many issues- it needs thinking through properly from basic principles. For example who should enforce? Should it stop with the fire service or another body? What skills are required and where would these be sourced and delivered? What underpinning knowledge is required for competence? How should this be delivered and measured? Who should audit the enforcers?
It strikes me that there is something missing at present. I don't think (IMHO) the existing CFOA audit report system gives an appropriate picture of fire safety compliance. As a result there appears to be no standard training or competence regime and it appears to me that fire services are using a variety of training providers and courses in an inconsistent way. I have met IOS who have only completed the Nebosh Gen Cert with fire module and a weeks in house course. Can this deliver the underpinning knowledge? I think not. I recognise that some services still send staff to Moreton for the modules. It would be interesting to know how widespread this is..
I would be interested to hear your opinions whether I have missed something and if I have this wrong?
-
In the past training providers e.g. Moreton, FPA etc. delivered courses in order for the recipients to gain qualifications to undertake their fire safety roles. Unfortunately prior to March 2013 these were not cross mapped or underpinned by National Occupational Standards or Skills for Justice.
CFOA took the decision to state that all fire safety auditors (Inspecting Officers), should, as a bench mark, have achieved these levels that would give the Inspecting Officer a Level 3 Fire Safety Certificate or a Level 4 Fire Safety Diploma. This in theory would ensure a consistency of level of knowledge and expertise throughout the country.
I am aware of at least one fire service that is putting all of its Inspecting Officers, all who have previously completed various training e.g. Moreton modules etc. through a programme of accredited prior learning in order that they will all meet the current standard requested by CFOA. On paper a team of up to date qualified Fire Safety Officers, in practise a box ticking exercise for the existing officers, however for new entrants into fire safety it appears a pretty comprehensive syllabus with a recognised qualification at the end. Time will tell but as with any qualification only any good if the practical application and experience under pins it, the analogy I always use is although you are technically qualified to drive when you past your driving test, you only become a real driver when you get some experience under your belt.
-
I would think the civilizing of fire safety is not who runs the department but having a department that has no connections to the operational side. The firefighters would continue to carry out fire prevention duties, house visits and such and there would be no connection to fire safety except for advice and help when required. Fire safety would be total independant with its own rank structure and training system, hopefully leading to qualifications. They would recruit from the general public and firefighters who wish to change profession permanently, no jumping in or out.
-
Yes Tom and as the control of the Fire Service has been moved back to the Home Office, the Fire Safety department could be moved under the wing of the PCC where they have a greater experience of prosecution and the other side of his business would just love the powers of entry enjoyed by the Fire Safety Inspectors. 'Just here for a fire safety inspection sir. Oh that's a funny plant you have growing there, would you mind accompaning me back to the station.'
-
The PCC is a political position to monitor the police and if the fire and rescue service went under his control, the police would still be subject to the Police Act, the fire rescue service the Fire and Rescue Service Act, there would be no difference. When I joined the job we were under the Home Office the biggest difference would be the Fire and Rescue Authorities getting the boot and somebody else selecting the chief fire officers.