Fire Safety Risk Assessment Course

[nearlythere]

The industry needs new people coming in and many of the skills required are transferable between different H&S or engineering disciplines.

Theres also a lot of hostility by people from different backgrounds- we ex firefighters / fire safety officers on the one side, on the other side are people who have qualifications in fire engineering but possible little else, and in the middle are many marketing based risk assessment companies that that regard risk assessments as just another way of making money and often have no underlying interest in the subject.

Your friend clearly has a lot of useful exerience and many skills that will be of use int he fire field. I would suggest that they first take a basic awareness course such as those accredited by the IFE or the fire course  run by NEBOSH  to test the water- to assess areas of common ground and ascertain whether they feel comfortable and interested by the topic. These courses will not make them competent to carry out other than the most basic assessment of an already satisfactory building but will be a good start. And then go from there- consider the IFE membership qualifications as development route for the future, read and research to broaden your knowledge and understanding.

The term general fire precautions is defined in the fire safety order. It defines the scope of the risk assessment and what must be recorded. On the face of it it is simple enough and limited in scope. What I find is the problem- and it might me me thats doing it wrong- is that most of the guidance and the definiton of general fire precautions make an assumption that the basic structure and systems in the building are already to a satisfactory standard.

This creates a foundation of safety on which the fire risk assessment can build- the buiding is inherently safe in itself, now through risk assessment make sure you are using it safely.

If only life were so simple. The fact is that so many fire alarms ands sprinkler systems are wrongly specced or poorly installed, so many corners are cut by builders, so many building inspectors will issue completion certificates without looking at the building in any detail and checking if fire stopping, compartmentation is actually in place.  

I dont think it is possible to confine yourself to definition of general fire precautions as expressed in the guidance to carry out a competent fire risk assessment because you are so often starting from the platform of a substandard building. But to recognise that you do need a  much deeper underlying knowledge of building standards, far deeper than is taught on any of the fire risk assessment courses.

By the way very many people tell me I have it wrong. And maybe I do.

I was looking at a clever risk assessment by one of the marketing based fire risk assessment companies the other day that found the landlords areas of  large shopping centre to be entirely satisfactory. I looked at one  tiny area for one of the tenants and found 14 landlords issues in the common escape routes that needed attention.  When I looked at the template it had 5 pages of exclusions, 8 pages explaining the fire safety order and 4 pages listing british standards and explaining the fire alarm categories. But very glossy paper.

At least they used nice paper.
As you allude to Kurnal the government is of the misguided opinion that every employer, who's premises were not certifiable, provided the necessary fire safety measures because it was their moral and legal obligation to do so without the F&R Services having to enforce it.
Out of touch or what?

[kurnal]

Thanks to Davo for your supportive words. This weeks horror stories include:

A care home with a residential sprinkler system, fully commissioned and approved by BCO. No recorded variations from BS9251. Commissioning cert states residential system but flow rates quoted are domestic. Installer says " Sorry mate but its approved by BCO"

Another building has commissioning cert for fire alarm to L3. Room off the staircase has no detection. Installer has not stated any variations. Installer now wants £500 extra to put in an extra detector- it was approved by BCO and compliant with architects plans.( no designer of course- the installer - a sparks- put the kit where it was shown on architects plan)

Another place has no emergency light in disabled toilet.

A factory has a mezzanine floor with protected stair. Mezz floor protected by suspended ceiling but missing tiles - too lazy to cut them round the steelwork - and the protected staircase not underdrawn, whilst uprights are encased all of the exposed bracing is naked unprotected steel.

All of these are brand new buildings with completion certs.

[AnthonyB]

And don't think shortfalls that weren't picked up by BCO's & subsequently completion certified are safe from further action - a completion cert does not in itself mean FSO compliance.

Recent example - Premises required compartment walls between occupancies & escape tunnel. Got relaxation from Secretary of State as long as tunnel provided and 3m walls used instead of full ceiling height (over 12m). Built tunnel, but didn't bother with walls, but still got completion cert.

A couple of years later FRS inspect after complaint and issue notice and take steps to prosecute because of insufficient compartments/limitation of fire/smoke spread, no fire alarm, etc.

Completion certificate deemed by FRS as more use as toilet paper than a defence to the notice.

If going into fire, it's worth gaining some knowledge of the old codes & why they were used and how to recognise older type precautions such as doors, alarms, lighting, etc & how they work as most of our buildings in this country are quite old and a lot of older kit is still in use and this has thrown some dual trained H&S/fire staff who have done a course only showing current technology and current standards, with them missing or wrongly interpreting things at 'real world' sites.

[kurnal]

Precisely Anthony- the demise of the statutory bar has meant that these issues can be enforced by the fire and rescue service.

The point is that having been through the regulation process and having paid good money to all concerned- builders, installers, architect and building authority none of them want to help out when problems are found after the event. Short of expensive civil litigation for the poor old client who has paid good money to all for a crap job.

[CivvyFSO]

My fairly biased opinion is that the role of civilian inspector is more than a good place to start, it is a very good career in its own right if you get into the right FRS.

I have to disagree with Izan FSO that people could get deemed as competent and then go out risk assessing. Even though they technically can do it, I quite firmly believe that once the FRS you work for deem you as competent and let you out on your own, it is THEN that you really start learning. In a similar vein to passing a driving test.

[Tom W]

I have been studying for 6 years whilst working for a consultancy company and i am still no where near the mark of the experienced guys. Its a strange one because even if you attend a decent 5+ days course you are still not able to carry out risk assessments here there and everywhere. So to approach a company with no experience in fire but a short course it would be very hard to get work. They would only be able to employ your services on small low risk properties.

I don't think its a ever a case of doing a course then your off, as mentioned in previous posts it takes alot of reading and self study and not to get your guys heads too big this forum is a good learning tool

The IFE website lists all approved/accredited risk assessment courses

http://www.ife.org.uk/edutrain/approvedcoursesatoz/fireriskassessment