Author Topic: Suitability of Fire Risk Assessment (Read 71919 times)

novascot · « **Reply #75 on:** June 20, 2006, 05:57:38 PM »

Fire Risk Assessment is all about estimating the CHANCE of fire (or the spread of fire) or in other words the PROBABILITY of fire (or the spread of fire) in given circumstances. You don't even have to be a mathematician to work out the % chance of something happening. This is what assessments are about so smoke and mirriors it may be to some but it is fundamental to assessing risk.

kurnal · « **Reply #76 on:** June 20, 2006, 08:05:02 PM »

Its only simple if you use probability instead of words, for example in a qualitiative judgement I might say that a mobile phone charger in use sitting underneath a whole insulating heap of paper constitutes a high fire risk, and I might say there is a high probability that it will overheat and I might give a figure- say 75% liklihood of it causing a fire.

But thats the smoke and mirrors bit- the 75% is no better than the words "very likely". It may deceive people in thinking my assessmet is more technical than the gut feeling it really is.

It only becomes a quantitative analysis if I get technical and start calculating heat outputs, the rate of heat growth, insulation factors of paper, ignition temperature of all the constituents, duration unattended, proximity and perhaps add in the average failure rate of these things in ambient conditions.

But even then it falls apart if its got the wrong fuse or someone has done an unauthorised repair. So in my opinion quantitative assessments are ideal for designing new buildings or installations but in the real world of life risk and existing building I will stick with my gut feeling and qualitative judgement.

And after all my gut is more than ample for the purpose.

novascot · « **Reply #77 on:** June 20, 2006, 08:21:37 PM »

kurnal,

if you quantify your gut feeling with a figure, your outcome will be the same but making it understandable to Joe Public. He will understand the % likelihood of something happening but he won't understand your gut feeling no matter how big it is. haha
Numbers replace phrases like: Tolerable, not tolerable, satisfactory, substantial etc. etc.

You can thenrelate those figures to a graph which will show the likelihood of a fire starting and if it starts the likelihood of it staying in the space/room of origin then the likey path of the fire. At a glance you can see the predictions and know where the problems lie in the premises/building.

But hey, gut feelings are good too.

kurnal · « **Reply #78 on:** June 20, 2006, 08:58:17 PM »

Ah. Theres method in your madness.
To be honest I slept rather well through those sessions and dreamed of more inspiring curves.

novascot · « **Reply #79 on:** June 20, 2006, 10:07:38 PM »

well kurnal I hope I wasn't your tutor when you fell asleep. No, you wouldn't fall asleep in my lecture room. haha. I also hope those curves were not of the insect variety.

Nearlybaldandgrey · « **Reply #80 on:** June 21, 2006, 08:56:43 AM »

It's all very well producing a risk assessment full of likelyhoods, percentages and nice graphs, but does the person you produce it for fully understand it and more importantly, will they be able to give an explanation and demonstrate understanding when subjected to an audit by an inspecting officer?

I've come across this situation many times when the responsible person produces a risk assessment but hasn't got a clue on the process used yet alone undestands the outcomes.

novascot · « **Reply #81 on:** June 21, 2006, 09:04:53 AM »

Hi Baldyman,
this system has been tried , tested and proved by both practitioners and end users. Some FRS have been using it for years and it is very easy to understand. I know some Brigades who will be using this way of thinking for auditing purpses.

Nearlybaldandgrey · « **Reply #82 on:** June 21, 2006, 10:27:44 AM »

I understand the process, but the responsible persons I audit don't.

I've seen some really good assessments provided by consultants but when probing the responsible preson, it's obvious they don't have an understanding of the document or the process.

I personally think it is important that they understand, afer all, it's them I am firing questions at. The only other option is to have the person who did the risk assessment at the premises when the audit is carried out, which is not always possible when you're a busy person!

ian gough · « **Reply #83 on:** June 21, 2006, 07:52:40 PM »

Gary, I can assure you that one is never seated when grilled by a Judge (or more likely a lawyer). However, looking at some of these posts we may be in for some fun times - seated in the Public Galleries!

novascot · « **Reply #84 on:** June 21, 2006, 08:04:12 PM »

Baldyman,

I assume you are a serving Fire Safety Officer which confuses me when you say that you "fire questions at them".

What happened to the enforcement concordat? When you audit a Fire Risk Assessment what questions do you have to fire at people? Surely it is the assesasment you are auditing not the occupiers.

Nearlybaldandgrey · « **Reply #85 on:** June 22, 2006, 08:53:08 AM »

Novascot,

The answer to your question is yes I am!

I should have worded my post better ....... by fire questions I meant that I have to ask questions of the responsible person. These are to clarify information and test their knowledge and understanding of the fire risk assessment.

True, I'm auditing the fire risk assessment, but also the management of the premises. The fire risk assessment is only effective if supported by effective management who actually understand the process and reasoning.
With reference to the Enforcement Concordat, I work well within the gudelines and mention it as part of my brief to the responsible person.

Hope this is clearer.

Big A · « **Reply #86 on:** June 22, 2006, 09:09:04 AM »

Novascot,

Although 'fire questions at..' is not the expression I would have used, what other method would you suggest for testing that 'the responsible' person has carried out the risk assessment or, at least, understands it, and that the 'relevant persons' have received any instruction?
I also have had a number of inspections/audits where a fairly dusty looking (but beautifully produced) risk assessment is brought down from the shelf where it has been sitting ever since it was delivered by the consultant (next to the very dusty fire certificate that never gets looked at either).

novascot · « **Reply #87 on:** June 22, 2006, 11:40:29 AM »

Big A

Point taken. It was a poor choice of expression. We tried to get away from the jackbooted FSO some years ago with a gentler approach and "firing questions" did not seem to be appropriate. Of course the responsible person must show an understanding of the assessment and it is his/her or the consultants duty to make sure that happens.

Nearlybaldandgrey · « **Reply #88 on:** June 22, 2006, 12:51:47 PM »

Glad we all agree there!!!

fred · « **Reply #89 on:** June 28, 2006, 02:42:18 PM »

As the RRO looms a bit closer and all the sad ones like me are reading it in a bit more detail I submit the following point for debate ...

RRO Art 18(1) states that the Responsible Person must appoint a competent person "to assist him in undertaking the preventive and protective measures"

The definition of "preventive and protective measures" in Article 2 is "measures which have been identified by the responsible person in consequence of a risk assessment"

This clearly implies that the "preventive and protective measures" have been identified by risk assessment before the competent person is appointed.

Perhaps "undertaking" is just a poor choice of word ........

I guess consultants will hope so anyway

News:

Author Topic: Suitability of Fire Risk Assessment (Read 71919 times)

fred