Plans with a risk assessment.

[johno67]

Val, your comments would very much be appreciated concerning the following approach that we have taken for Fire Safety Training (anyone elses too).

The Fire Safety National Occupational Standards are available:

http://www.ipds.co.uk/public/site/newsdocs103/1-Fire_Safety_Standards_Approved_October_04.doc

Although I believe they were not formally issued by the IPDS hub (which I understand has been dismantled) they are used for the Fire Safety NVQ's created by Edexcel. (They even had draft fire safety role maps at one time, but they have since dissappeared)

We have used the knowledge elements from the Fire Safety related elements as an outline curriculum, adding to it the enforcement tools that we use, such as the Enforcement Management Model (EMM), our standard letter package etc. and the other Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes that our IO's have been identified as needing (through a formal training needs analysis (TNA)) to carry out their roles competently. In addition we are in the process of attempting to incorporate the 6 Key Skills (Which have been signposted for us by LGE):

http://www.ipds.co.uk/public/site/newsdocs107/5-Fire_Safety_Key_Skills_Signposting_Approved_October_04.doc

This provides a basic introductory course for new entrants into the Fire Safety Department, and it appears to work well, although that will only be proven when our formal evaluation has been carried out over a longer period of time.

We use the Fire Service College's Outreach Training for the Fire Safety Solutions Courses, which cuts the costs dramatically.

We also use the College to provide the Fire Engineering Courses which the students attend on a residential basis.

We use CS Todd & Ass's for Fire Risk Assessment Training; and

Bond Solon for Legal Procedures and Courtroom Skills.

However when you look at the downsides of using the College:
Course costs of well over £1000 a week;
Appalling accomodation in some cases;
The College dictating when their customers (our students) will be allowed to attend the courses;
Large class sizes 30+ which rules out any real student centred activities or individual attention;
Appallingly laid out lecture theatres which are totally unsuitable for modern teaching practice;
The ocassional instructor who knows less about Fire Safety than the students (Present company excepted);
Padded out courses containing irrelevant material and 'Personal Study' time (even on some of the one week courses!)
etc etc etc (Starting to get RSI)
Is it any wonder that previous customers are looking elsewhere for their training providers, which is borne out by the fact that the place is more or less empty every time I've been down there over the last couple of years.

It appears to be the same old case of Fire Safety being pushed to one side again, which as we know always happens as our FRS Senior Managers are overwhelmingly from a solely Operational background.

[johno67]

Apologies for hijacking your thread Phil, I will put it up as a new post if you would prefer?

[PhilB]

We use the Fire Service College's Outreach Training for the Fire Safety Solutions Courses, which cuts the costs dramatically.

We also use the College to provide the Fire Engineering Courses which the students attend on a residential basis.

We use CS Todd & Ass's for Fire Risk Assessment Training; and

Bond Solon for Legal Procedures and Courtroom Skills.

However when you look at the downsides of using the College:
Course costs of well over £1000 a week;
Appalling accomodation in some cases;
The College dictating when their customers (our students) will be allowed to attend the courses;
Large class sizes 30+ which rules out any real student centred activities or individual attention;
Appallingly laid out lecture theatres which are totally unsuitable for modern teaching practice;
The ocassional instructor who knows less about Fire Safety than the students (Present company excepted);
Padded out courses containing irrelevant material and 'Personal Study' time (even on some of the one week courses!)
etc etc etc (Starting to get RSI)
Is it any wonder that previous customers are looking elsewhere for their training providers, which is borne out by the fact that the place is more or less empty every time I've been down there over the last couple of years.

It appears to be the same old case of Fire Safety being pushed to one side again, which as we know always happens as our FRS Senior Managers are overwhelmingly from a solely Operational background.

We really have strayed from the original subject here but you make some valid comments John which should promote some debate.

My personal response...........yes I have to agree FSC (FireSafety) at present very poor ...not the fault of the few remaining secondees but it appears that the senior management are no longer interested in providing quality fire safety training........the few secondees that remain have no time for course development so the situation is unlikely to improve in the near future.

Poor lecture rooms...yes...but they have a lovely reception now...and a new restaurant!!! if only 8 hours a day could be spent there!!!!!

Yes some instructors past and present could be much better...but that is no criticism of any existing tutors as it is not their fault having no development time.

Some previous instructors shouldn't be let out on their own!........lets's start a new thread on that one!!!!!!


Whilst I love Collllin Toddddd dearly I can never understand why a FRS would choose to train their auditors in the use of one methodology for fire risk assessment....particularly one that doesn't recommend or even mention the use of plans!!!!.


Bond Solon for Legal Procedures and Courtroom Skills.......why? their courses are not tailored specifically for the one piece of Statute the FRS must enforce.

Yes it does seem that in many FRS (but not all) that fire safety is being pushed to one side, that is wrong and we all know it....but until it becomes flavour of the month or good promotion fodder it will remain to one side.

On a positive note some of us obviously care and there are some very good alternatives to the FSC emerging and growing from strength to strength.

It must surely only be a matter of time before one of the new breed of FRS managers realises that fire safety is important and will only be achieved if their employees know what they are doing.

.............................apparently managers who can use the correct buzz words and can play the role of a pretend leisure centre manager will ensure the future of fire safety in our modern FRS.

.

[PhilB]

Apologies for hijacking your thread Phil, I will put it up as a new post if you would prefer?

no apologies necessary....good points that need discussing John.

[val]

Johno67

I have had a number of glasses of claret, but here goes!

My post was not an attack on the College, although there are some serious failings there. It was an attack on the pervasive culture of trying to get something on the cheap. Your post is very detailed and no doubt factual but it does not address the fundemental malise because FRA are not able or willing to develop medium or long term stategies for selection, appointment, development and retention of fire safety professionals.
As far as I am aware, almost no FRA has adopted the NOS in anything other than name.
We too use TNA, Bond Solon, teach EMM and all the rest but more by default than any planned and coherent strategy. Most FRA's ran a mile from the proper implementation of IPDS when they began to fully appreciate the costs and resource implications.

I remember a presentation in front of a hundered senior fire safety officers at Washington Hall when the presenter tried to sell the concept of the NOS but thought that fire safety officers had no role in taking offenders through the Courts...according to the presenter, (who had been involved in writing the NOS), the police did this! If ever a concept was destroyed...this was it.

[johno67]

Phil & Val, many thanks for your comments:

Phil,

I agree with virtually all of your comments.
I believe that the Fire Service College should be the Centre of Excellence that I think most of us want it to be. But it would take a lot of investment (from Government, if they want it to be a beacon) and a lot of bridge building to bring the majority of FRS' back through its doors on a regular basis. When run and funded properly, it is in my opinion a learning experience second to none.

We use the Colin Todd course as it is based upon the Accepted Methodology for Fire Risk Assessment (PAS79). I agree that there are certain aspects (such as plans) that don't sit right, but in my experience these are always, without exception, hotly debated by students and instructor(s). I think there are some very good aspects to the course, and besides, we don't swallow everything we are told. We apply the parts that we think are suitable and omit those that we consider are not. Are you aware of any alternative providers that would provide something more appropriate, as we are always looking to provide the best training that we can for our students?

Are you aware of a provider that supplies a more suitable legal training course than Bond Solon? I completed my training as part of the old B module at the College and thought it was very good (especially the day in court). I've never received any seriously negative feedback on Bond Solon's courses, and the officers that are using PACE and interviewing on a regular basis, seem to have the knowledge and skills required to carry out the role competently.

We also now have Fire Safety Managers who have never worked in the Fire Safety Department before.


Val,


I agree with your comments completely.

As an example, last year we received just over half of the training budget that we requested for the development of our Fire Safety Officers. And the full amount that we asked for was only to ensure that as a department we didn't move backwards!

We also held a seminar on the Fire Safety Order, that was attended by two of our PO's, who both spoke during the introduction to the day.
One said that he had completed a short time in the Fire Safety Department but had decided it wasn't for him, and the other said that for him Fire Safety is a very dry subject (that still makes me smile now) - great motivational speaking, which I think shows the general attitude of the FRS' Senior Management to the subject.

However, as we are only too aware, this is very unlikely to change in the near future, therefore we have to make the best of a bad situation (which I am sure we are all trying to do).
Maybe, as Fire Safety Departments tend to be comparatively small, and there appear to be fewer inflated egos, we could look to develop best practice and even a National Curriculum for Fire Safety ourselves. (or is my thinking too simplistic?)

[Tom Sutton]

we could look to develop best practice and even a National Curriculum for Fire Safety ourselves.

John if not you the DCLG should and now they have the RR(FS)O guidance notes, which appear to be similar to the old FPA Circulars, they could produce a National Curriculum for Fire Safety which may address some of the adverse comments about today’s FSO's you hear on this forum.

[AFD]

If the external people ( say consultants) are doing audits using a system devised by one individual.

And then that individual is teaching the new people doing the enforcing (say fire authorities ) about that system, and that they must accept the system devised by the individual.  

Are we ever going to get the findings of that system done by a consulatnt, criticised or faulted by the enforcing authority ?

If that same individual is then assessing people to go on a register of ' approved risk assessors', who would be best advised to use the aforesaid system or others but must fit the doctrine, does it not then self perpetuate ?

Is there only me thinks something is not quite right here ?

Today the UK, tomorrow the World !

[val]

AFD,

Colin doesn't post here anymore although I see he is still trying hard to make friends, (see his letter in IFE Journal).

Good job he's right most of the time.

[PhilB]

I think you know my views on this AFD, I totally agree with your concerns.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Why would a consultant be doing an audit, unless to verify their own process is correct or as part of a review of the risk assessment?

The audits are surely the remit of the enforcing authority inspectors ....... or are consultants now doing enforcement?

[Tom Sutton]

AFD just say Colin Todd and PAS 79 if I had to use it I wouldn’t be happy neither but what other national guidance is there.

[AFD]

I rest my case, its now called a 'national guidance' !

I thought it was one persons idea of a risk assessment ! if you thought it was OK, you paid the fee and could follow it, which seems fair enough if you thinks its alright buy it and use it. I have no problem with that ( big of me, I know).  

Some people will look at an Hyundia car and think its OK , its efficient and cost effective.  But it is not the 'national standard car'.
Until the driving examiners say you must take your test in one, and the chancellor says they are tax exempt and can run only them, on red diesel ( I know they don't make a diesel but it would spoil the story ), and all other cars must provide CO2 emmision levels the same as the Hyundia.

Then you would say 'Bloody Clever at Hyundia' !

But are they any good ?

This is only my personal opinion and no offence to Hyundia owners !

[BB]

Val, your comments would very much be appreciated concerning the following approach that we have taken for Fire Safety Training (anyone elses too).

The Fire Safety National Occupational Standards are available:

http://www.ipds.co.uk/public/site/newsdocs103/1-Fire_Safety_Standards_Approved_October_04.doc

Although I believe they were not formally issued by the IPDS hub (which I understand has been dismantled) they are used for the Fire Safety NVQ's created by Edexcel. (They even had draft fire safety role maps at one time, but they have since dissappeared)

We have used the knowledge elements from the Fire Safety related elements as an outline curriculum, adding to it the enforcement tools that we use, such as the Enforcement Management Model (EMM), our standard letter package etc. and the other Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes that our IO's have been identified as needing (through a formal training needs analysis (TNA)) to carry out their roles competently. In addition we are in the process of attempting to incorporate the 6 Key Skills (Which have been signposted for us by LGE):

http://www.ipds.co.uk/public/site/newsdocs107/5-Fire_Safety_Key_Skills_Signposting_Approved_October_04.doc

This provides a basic introductory course for new entrants into the Fire Safety Department, and it appears to work well, although that will only be proven when our formal evaluation has been carried out over a longer period of time.

We use the Fire Service College's Outreach Training for the Fire Safety Solutions Courses, which cuts the costs dramatically.

We also use the College to provide the Fire Engineering Courses which the students attend on a residential basis.

We use CS Todd & Ass's for Fire Risk Assessment Training; and

Bond Solon for Legal Procedures and Courtroom Skills.

However when you look at the downsides of using the College:
Course costs of well over £1000 a week;
Appalling accomodation in some cases;
The College dictating when their customers (our students) will be allowed to attend the courses;
Large class sizes 30+ which rules out any real student centred activities or individual attention;
Appallingly laid out lecture theatres which are totally unsuitable for modern teaching practice;
The ocassional instructor who knows less about Fire Safety than the students (Present company excepted);
Padded out courses containing irrelevant material and 'Personal Study' time (even on some of the one week courses!)
etc etc etc (Starting to get RSI)
Is it any wonder that previous customers are looking elsewhere for their training providers, which is borne out by the fact that the place is more or less empty every time I've been down there over the last couple of years.

It appears to be the same old case of Fire Safety being pushed to one side again, which as we know always happens as our FRS Senior Managers are overwhelmingly from a solely Operational background.

Johno

You've really sold the concept to me. Sounds like you have got an excellent set up in your brigade have you got any jobs for trainiers!!??

BB

[Tom Sutton]

I rest my case, its now called a 'national guidance' !

I thought it was one persons idea of a risk assessment ! if you thought it was OK, you paid the fee and could follow it, which seems fair enough if you thinks its alright buy it and use it. I have no problem with that ( big of me, I know).

No I do not think it’s OK, there are parts I would accept, and combined with Part 1 of the DCLG guides you could come up with a reasonable standard. This is what the DCLG should have done, mind you with the animal guide as an example maybe not.

At the moment everybody seems to be going their own way and to do an audit it must be a nightmare. I believe audits like re-inspections under the FPA are an essential part of the legislation.