Suitability of Fire Risk Assessment

[Paul]

Playing devils advocate here,

Do you really need to be ex brigade to be a fire safety consultant.  If we consider that Health and Safety professionals don't spend their lives before becoming qualified dealing with what they will later be providing advise about.

Do Fire Safety Consultants need to be attending fires for years before they can understand the principles of fire safety?  Is it essential to be a fire fighter and to have spent many years dealing different incidents to then provide advice on protecting a building / lives etc.  Much of which is learnt from text books??

Only asking the questions.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Novascot......

If your point was about not being able to gain the experience to be a consultant by spending a career as an operational firefighter then you should have put that..... plain and simple.

I would disagree anyway, after all, an individual may take it upon themselves to gain qualification/accreditation outside their normal employment.

Never mind..... another 8 years and I can call myself a consultant....... can't wait!!

I (and this is my own opinion) feel that with my operational experiences, I have a better understanding of how a fire both spreads and affects a structure, not something that can be learnt looking at a computer screen studying a model. This means I can explain the subject better to those I deal with and in a way they understand.
 I learn day to day from other officers and apply those new skills as I go and am not afraid to get stuck into the books.


Anyway, enough banter for now, lets get back to discussing the subject matter of my original post!!

[novascot]

Baldyman

if you want things to be plain and simple, you have chosen the wrong career move. I haven't seen legislation for Fire Safety which is plain and simple. Yes let's get back to your original point. If you want to buy a consultancy in 8 years time give me a call.

[Big A]

Novascot has been talking in general terms and I, as a serving fire safety officer with an operational role, agree with him. You have insisted on taking it personally - you may be wonderful but  I can assure you that some aren't.

[novascot]

Cheers for that Big A

[Tom Sutton]

What is this "Black Art" you refer to?

It was term used by Opps to describe Fire Safety but we retaliated and referred to them as knuckle draggers (lowest form of primate) how I miss that old banter

I agree with you Novascot we had this augment 30 years ago, lost then and would lose again. (Our main protagonist was dear old Colin T) Having an operational background is of some use but there is a great deal of study required and the application of that accrued knowledge to become a competent Fire Safety Officer or Fire Safety Consultant.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Thanks for that explanation.

I feel someone should re-read my posts as things seem to have been misinterpreted, but hey ho, all part of the fun of debate!!

For the record, I do not consider myself wonderful ....... I know how big a learning curve I'm on and happily meet that challenge head on, especially at the present time. I certainly don't think I've made a wrong career move either ......... I see it as personal development. In fact, following some training today, I've even managed to identify some personal training needs so it isn't all bad.

Not sure I'll be in the market to buy a consultancy in 8 years, but thanks for the offer!!!  :-)

[kurnal]

What do you all think of the sample formats provided for  recording the significant findings in the new guides?
Whilst accepting that the record is of the outcome of the RA rather than the process I think it rather pulls the rug from under the feet of those wanting more comprehensive reports showing matters taken into account in evaluating the risk as per the old management regs approach.

[John Webb]

I assume you mean the new Example form (in Appendix A2) which is, I think, an improvement on the simple list on page 21 of 'Fire Safety - an employer's guide'.

I do have a minor problem where the new Guides keep saying 'Evaluate ...'. This to me implies a mathamatical process, such as I was taught some years ago, about estimating the overall hazard from both the potential for harm/damage from a risk and the probability of it happening. But in the new Guides it seems to be a rather more subjective process possibly lacking a firm basis?

[wee brian]

That's just honesty.

Nobody actually uses real numbers for Fire Risk Assessments.

Probablistic assessments are specialist stuff.

[kurnal]

Theres a place for both qualitiative assessments based on judgement and quantative assessmants, eg based on probalistic analysis in fire safety and risk assessments.
The probabalistic and quantitative techniques will come into fire engineering, calculating likely fire growth rates and tenability limits etc.
But those who use wholly probabalistic techniques ( and some do) then fall down when they try to extend their technical calculations with those issues relating to human characteristics. They then start to thow in guestimates such as "its 50% likely that a person discovering a fire will not do the right thing". ( actual example used on a risk assessment course I attended). These figures are usually so great compared to the technical data that it throws the whole calculation into disrepute.

Cant beat a qualitative subjective judgement for human factors.  

But the new example forms dont appear to have a facility for me to point out that for example shortcomings in passive measures are compensated by strengths elsewhere.

[John Webb]

Regarding kurnal's comment re facility to point out things, could you either use the back of the form with a "See overleaf" in the appropriate part of part 3, or add a suitable section called "Comments" below Step 3 - take away the A2 heading and the form will have room to expand to include this new section.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

After reading kurnal's post ref human factors, do you include that as part of the risk assessment?

I know that occupancy behaviour should be anticipated in terms of likely reaction, and this is something I encourage responsible persons to include, but I don't actually find many that do.

Would this be classed as a significant finding?

Views appreciated!!

[PhilB]

Yes Baldyman I believe they are significant findings. However the new guides have a different definition of SFs to the one that we know & love from the ACOP to MHSW Regs. The glaring difference is that the definition in the new guide does not include....."proof that a suitable and sufficient assessment has been made".

So according to the new guide there is no need to show conclusions with reasoning as to why the building is safe. How people are going to evacuate before conditions become untenable. You just list what you have and what actions you are going to take.

Let's face it...we all knew it was coming. I have been ranting on about this in this forum for ages and it has now come to pass!

Poor old blokey on the street will have to carry out a fire risk assessment to comply with the fire safety order. To assist him a guide has been produced that defines significant findings.

He also has to do a risk assessment to comply with the relevant statutory provisions of the HASAW Act. There is an Approved Code of Practise to assist him, but the definition of SFs differs!

[wtfdik]

phil
I have watched your comments about the new FSO and coold not agree more the acop version of suitable and sufficient was laid down and this should have been continued however I believe that it can work with a robust enforcement regime does any one know hoe the Fire authorities are prepairing for this? I would be interested to hear about the metro brigades who have struggled with self compliance in the past.