Bad press for I.O's

[terry martin]

No one is the master of IO's, not CFOA not their bosses, just themselves.  No matter what training they have had, they will still do whatever they think is correct, rightly or wrongly and bury their heads in the sand.  Everything was rosy under FPA as they could dictate, quite wrongly inlost of cases what they wanted.  Nowadays they mostly have the same attitude, do not consider hazard and risk, passive fire safety and AFD is the answer to everything and FFE is really needed to protect the escape routes.

Its no matter that AFD is to protect escape routes as if you put in it office blocks with numerous of them, lone workers will be safe!!!  Put FFE in sheltered housing and the aged population will use them every day to put out the numerous fires that occur in such premises.  As for common parts of flats with 60 minute separation, most have never heard of defend in place as an evacuation strategy and believe that all should depart.

A rant I am afarid and I apologise to those good IO's out there wherever they are.

Firstly, apology accepted. however, i think i should be defending the corner for us I.O's. and for that reason have created a new post for this

 Yes we are human and sometimes we get things wrong, but we don't 'bury our heads'

Maybe everything was more clear cut and rosy under the FPA. and yes i'm sure some I.O's got it wrong, but not in lots of cases. that, to me, implys we're constantly getting it wrong. and we're not.

We do not 'mostly' still have the same attitude, there are, and will be for some time, some dinosaurs that will not change, but they are very few and far between and are getting fewer as time goes on.

But for the majority of us we do consider hazards and risks and are very good at our jobs. we look at every premise in it's own context. If that means it needs passive measures or AFD then so be it, we do not use it as an easy get out or an easy solution. and we have all heard of defend in place strategy an recommend it on a regular basis.

I am guessing from your rant that you have encountered bad I.O's in your time. but to post comments like yours in a public arena is not on really and to be honest i'm a bit offended. it implys that most of us work to a poor standard.

For the purposes of a balanced view

We are proffessional, we do work to a risk based approach and are not prescriptive. Nearly all I.O's i know are good at their jobs and do the best they can.

i'm sure many risk assessor's out there would feel equally annoyed if these comments where aimed at you.

[Midland Retty]

Agreed Davo

Those who like to criticise inspecting officers must also recognise and accept there are equally bad asessors and consultants out there.

Once again as Ive said many times before there are good and bad inspectors, assessors, consultants and RP's.

We shouldn't tar people with the same brush.

[nearlythere]

Risk Assessments are like car insurance. A complete and utter waste of time and money. Until you have a crash that is.

[terry martin]

terry



Try going on to the HSE website and looking at Myth of the Month.
You'll see what we have to put up with.

In all walks of life there are idiots out there who pass as expert, you just have to let it waft, man

davo

Davo,

those myths of the months where worth the read. I have heard some of them before and some are commonly held to be true in the general public.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/

 Just goes to show how easily it is for people to form an opinion without all the facts.

consider it wafted man.

[terry martin]

Risk Assessments are like car insurance. A complete and utter waste of time and money. Until you have a crash that is.

Sorry, got to disagree with that one. car insurance doesn't improve your driving or reduce the potential for something to go wrong, a FRA could (not improve your driving obviously, but you get my point).

It's like saying you don't need to learn to drive because you only needed to take lessons if you crash, because it's only at that point it proves you needed them. or.

You don't need to look where your going because it only when you walk into something you should of been looking where you where going

People risk assess every day. i.e.  i'm not going to step out infront of that car cos it's going to hurt, i'm not going to jump of that cliff because i can't fly and i will be deaded.

 For a more complex issue like fire safety the Risk Assessment is needed to help the responsible person put structure to identifying the hazards within their premises and thus reducing their associated risk. thus reducing the potential for something to go wrong

You could argue this is something they would do anyway. but if you need to write it down anyway why not keep it?

The only stage at which i beleive your point is valid, in my opinion, is when the RA is required to present to an enforcing officer to avoid any enforcement action or to satisfy a post fire investigation.