Qualifications in respect of BS5839 part 1

[Wiz]

I was recently talking to the owner/manager of a fire alarm company with 25 years experience in the industry who was complaining about the lack of opportunities to gain paper qualifications without undergoing expensive and time-consuming 'training'.
Evidently, he recently paid and took the time off from his normal duties to attend a BFPSA module, which he 'passed' with flying colours, but thought it was a waste of his time and money because he learnt nothing that he didn't already know.
He told me that  he has kept abreast of all the revisions and amendments of BS5839 over his long career, reads every article in the trade press appertaining to the subject, and has Colin Todd's book on the subject as his bedtime reading!
He wondered why the organisation that provides the training also sets and marks the questions and why it wasn't possible to take independent exams, for a reasonable cost and time requirement, to gain the qualifications. He told me that he now wasn't prepared to spend the time and money taking further BFPSA modules.
can anyone advise if there are recognised qualiciations in BS5839 part 1 2002 that he could take, without requiring to spend the time and money on the training that he feels is a waste of time and money in his case?
It also made me wonder if is right for any training organisation to set the questions and mark the answers.
Any advice or comments?

[Chris Houston]

I can't see why he is upset.  I did a NEBOSH course and I knew most of it before I got there, but I can't blame the assessment centre for this?  This is no different from any qualification, anywhere.

In a ideal world we would have some sort of body who sets and marks the exam, but I imagine there are insufficient people taking such exams to have such as system.  As long as the system is an accredited one, I again can't see the problem.

Surely someone in the industry must be in favour of third party approval systems?

[Gary Howe]

On a positive note, by attending the BFPSA modular course, have you not demonstated one aspect of competence under the RRO?

As detailed in section 13 - Fire-fighting and fire detection
     
(b) nominate competent persons to implement those measures and ensure that the number of such persons, their training and the equipment available to them are adequate, taking into account the size of, and the specific hazards involved in, the premises concerned;

[Wiz]

In a ideal world we would have some sort of body who sets and marks the exam, but I imagine there are insufficient people taking such exams to have such as system.  As long as the system is an accredited one, I again can't see the problem.

Surely someone in the industry must be in favour of third party approval systems?

I don't think the guy thought the BFPSA module was poor, in any way, in respect of content and delivery. He said it was just that he already knew everything that was covered and he answered the questions easily.

I'm sure if he was an employee and his employer was paying for the course, and paying him to attend, then he would have thought it was a 'great day out'!

I wonder if the BFPSA have ever thought about running seperate training and examinations?

[Wiz]

This is no different from any qualification, anywhere.

Chris,
I was just mulling over the above part of your answer.

I think someone would be allowed to take a car driving test without having any lessons (I appreciate that 'that someone' would probably fail!) or a 40 year old man could sit a GSCE in mathematics, without taking any further lessons since those he last had at school all those years ago ( and probably get an A* instead of the miserable Grade 2 he got at CSE back then!!!!!!!)

It's only a thought!

[Chris Houston]

So your argument should be that the BFPSA should have let him sit their test without having sat in on their lessons.  Who knows what they would have said?  It doesn't follow that the test should be skipped.

[Wiz]

So your argument should be that the BFPSA should have let him sit their test without having sat in on their lessons.  Who knows what they would have said?  It doesn't follow that the test should be skipped.

I don't quite understand the above reply. I think he wants to skip the training and just take the test. However,I think you meant to say that to sit the BFPSA test, you would obviously always have to have had the BFPSA training first. If so, I can understand this. Particularly in respect of the BFPSA ensuring they earn enough money to pay for the training/tests.

However, I don't agree with your comment that 'you wouldn't know what they were going to say' during the training. I thought the course modules were about BS5839 Part 1, surely they don't include anything in the tests that are not part of that BS. If they do surely that would be wrong, and I must say I've never noticed that they do!

Please note that I personally don't totally agree with what my guy is saying,  and it is not 'my' argument. I think the BFPSA courses are quite good, especially considering that for many years there has been nothing like them available.

However I think the point my guy made has some validity. And it is a shame that he won't bother to gain the other module qualifications because he feels it is too time-consuming and expensive going over stuff he feels he knows.

He asked me if there were any 'exams only' that he could pay for and sit, to gain similar recognised qualifications. Since I didn't know, I wondered if anyone else in this Forum had any advice.

[David Rooney]

Yes Chris I'm in favour of third party approval, but only if insurance agents stop accepting photocopied certificates from joe bloggs with no accreditation.

It should be like Corgi, - illegal to write a certificate without accreditation - but that's another thread!

I can see why the guy just wants to take the exam, I felt similar when I went through the courses.

All I would say was that it was actually quite interesting listening to other peoples interpretation of the regulations which prompted a lot of discussion!

[Chris Houston]

I agree that he should be allowed to just sit the exam.

[Wiz]

All I would say was that it was actually quite interesting listening to other peoples interpretation of the regulations which prompted a lot of discussion!

David,
This caught my eye because I know what you mean, and I've 'been there'.

Did the 'interpretations' include strongly-held views that the trainers had got it wrong on a few points? Surely the trainers should have it 100% right!

Actually do you not think it is unfortunate that regulations can be so far open for 'interpretation'. I know it probably is an impossible situation to write a regulation that everyone understands totally and immediately, but it never ceases to amaze me how many amendments need to be made just a few months after a British Standard, that took years of discussion to agree, is finally published!

[Graeme]

Wiz

quite impressive that your friend has inside out knowledge of 5839-1.

However i thought the same but i still picked up on a few things that i had interpreted them a different way from just reading the regs alone.

I still answered all the questions easily but i'll be honeset and say i still learned from them.

[Wiz]

Wiz

quite impressive that your friend has inside out knowledge of 5839-1.

However i thought the same but i still picked up on a few things that i had interpreted them a different way from just reading the regs alone.

I still answered all the questions easily but i'll be honeset and say i still learned from them.

Graeme,
He's not really a friend but someone I met on my travels. He appeared to have survived and succeeded in the 'back-biting' fire alarm industry for a long time, so he probably is quite impressive! I don't think he ever told me he had an 'inside out' knowledge of BS5839 part 1 - that would make him a 'right little know it all' - and there are enough of them around already! Just that he didn't learn anything new on the training module.
I agree that there is normally always something to learn from every experience, and I did actually promote this point of view to him. But he was adamant that he didn't want to 'waste' any more of his time and money.
Since no-one here has come up with an alternative for him, I'll advise him that it appears that the BFPSA modules are the only option open to gain the qualifications he was seeking.

[David Rooney]

All I would say was that it was actually quite interesting listening to other peoples interpretation of the regulations which prompted a lot of discussion!

David,
This caught my eye because I know what you mean, and I've 'been there'.

Did the 'interpretations' include strongly-held views that the trainers had got it wrong on a few points? Surely the trainers should have it 100% right!

Actually do you not think it is unfortunate that regulations can be so far open for 'interpretation'. I know it probably is an impossible situation to write a regulation that everyone understands totally and immediately, but it never ceases to amaze me how many amendments need to be made just a few months after a British Standard, that took years of discussion to agree, is finally published!

Oh yes ! And lets face it, the last amendment was a rip off anyway.

One of the things that baffles me is the alarm levels. It used to be simple, 65db or you've failed (- excepting bedrooms), now you are allowed 60db in certain areas and there is a little note that this figure is also "arbitrary"!!??

And there is always a debate over where detectors should be installed in an open plan office with one or two partitioned offices stuck in the corners, when designing to L3 or L4.

[Wiz]

Oh yes ! And lets face it, the last amendment was a rip off anyway.

One of the things that baffles me is the alarm levels. It used to be simple, 65db or you've failed (- excepting bedrooms), now you are allowed 60db in certain areas and there is a little note that this figure is also "arbitrary"!!??

And there is always a debate over where detectors should be installed in an open plan office with one or two partitioned offices stuck in the corners, when designing to L3 or L4.

Agreed, not so much an amendment but a buy-a-complete-new-copy ment!

Despite my whingeing about having to interpret recommendations, I actually agree with the explanation I was given for the apparent vagueness in Sound Levels in the 2002 recommendations, namely it was in response to those people who would delight in 'failing' a pre 2002 system by finding a reading of 64db by huddling in a corner of an office or stairwell! This also extends to the latest MCP mounting height range, and the ability to agree Variations generally.

With respect to the detector positioning recommendations you mention, what is your interpretation? I'm not trying to put you on the spot in any way. I realise that there may be some in this forum ready to pounce at the slightest error or misinterpretation, but I also feel that there are many like me, who like to read interesting questions and opinions and to also to discuss and learn from the replies.

[David Rooney]

Well........

If you imagine a very large open plan office lets say the size of a football pitch, and at one end is a partioned office (occupying the 18 yard box), and lets say the exit from this floor is in the opposite goal mouth.

L4 means the escape route requires protection, in this case the complete football pitch or access room (excepting our partitioned 18 yard box) or inner room.

L3 would include L4 and in addition, the 18 yard box, or inner room, although only a single detector would be required near the door from this office.

(The above description ignores vision panels and 500mm gaps etc etc.)

Hope this analogy has come across !!