RR(FS)O Working

[SmokeyDokey]

2. Smokey, I am sorry you are confused. probably easier just to trust the fact that the FSO has not had any effect on anything yet, except creating a healthy income for many people and lots of expenditure by others. It all makes the word go round and finds work for out of work house painters and the like doing FRAs after a couple of hours' course.

Thanks for trying to ease my troubled mind CT but personally I subscribe to the view that the FSO (and the fire regs before them) are contributing to fire safety as part of an overall package. The timing of the reductions (from 2003/4)really start to come about from when fire certification was put on hold and enforcment of fire safety was largely done through the risk based regs and then the FSO. It will be interestuing to see what the CLG review throws up.

Incidentally I didn't know you included painting and decorating on your courses. Might be worht attending one after all as Mrs Dokey has been on at me about the kitchen ceiling ever since Dokey Jr wasted his good and tasty porridge for a redecoration job of his own.

Good discussion point from Chris H. In my view we have safety legislation because people die from others not giving enough regard to their common law duty of care to each other. Enough die as a result and you wind up with criminal sanctions et al. The FSO may not have been directly tombstone based but that is certtainly where its origins lie.

[Tom Sutton]

The timing of the reductions (from 2003/4) really start to come about from when fire certification was put on hold and enforcement of fire safety was largely done through the risk based regs and then the FSO. It will be interesting to see what the CLG review throws up.

SD the reduction you speak of, are they fires or fatalities in buildings covered by FPA and FSO. (Other Buildings) As this legislation is directed at life safety then statistics covering fatalities is the most relevant and fatalities 2003/2004 increased from 27 to 54 not a good example. Also reductions did not really start to come about from when fire certification was put on hold and enforcement of fire safety was largely done through the risk based regs because in 1971 when the FPA was introduced there was 152 fatalities in other buildings and it reduced year on year to 27 when the workplace regs was introduced 1997/8.

[colin todd]

Well said. TW. Thing is you oldies have the experience to understand that. Its an ingredient missing a lot today. What people are calling common sense is actually something derived from experience. A lot of people (both consutants and inspecting officers) are very short of experience. Thats ok if they have supervisors who do have the experience because, after all, everyone has to start somewhere.  In the absence of experience, then training is really important and education is even more important.   People from other backgrounds can enter the world of fire safety, provided they are prepared to crawl before they walk and walk before they run.  West Yorkshire have a predominance of non fire brigade inspecting officers, but they are not thrown out onto the streets to create mayhem. They have mentoring, training, supervision and a career progression.  It is proof that it does not matter what the background is. But there are people out there selling services, and in some F&RS, without the requisite understanding of the subject matter. They have been trained to follow the guides, or have simply read what the guides say.

But the guides are not text books on fire safety. You need an understanding of the subject before you even read the guides, unless all you are going to do is follow them blindly. That might be ok for the rp, but will not help those who want to practise fire safety as a career.  I am sure there are guides on frontal lobotomies, but you wouldnt want a house painter deciding that the credit crunch has reduced the demand for house decoration and that frontal lobotomies seems a good career to go into, so reading the guide and performing the operation. You would hope that the guide would be read and applied only by people with education in medicine.

Without education in the subject, you go back to prescriptive application of the guides, and no real understanding of fire risk.

[nearlythere]

  West Yorkshire have a predominance of non fire brigade inspecting officers, but they are not thrown out onto the streets to create mayhem. 

Are these non fire brigade IOs ex fire safety uniformed staff?

[CivvyFSO]

Are these non fire brigade IOs ex fire safety uniformed staff?

No. They are a mix of ex-operational people (Retired then returned as civilians) and fresh new people from all different backgrounds.

[nearlythere]

Are these non fire brigade IOs ex fire safety uniformed staff?

No. They are a mix of ex-operational people (Retired then returned as civilians) and fresh new people from all different backgrounds.

If the retired types are ex fire safety you have the advantage of some experienced IOs mentoring the freshmen and providing a steadying hand at the tiller.

[Midland Retty]

Some non uniformed IO's (or shall we say civilian or non operational IO's) already have a wealth of experience to bring to the job from their previous roles.

Many were fire safety or health and safety officers in private industry and can bring a fresh perspective to the role.

At the end of the day both uniformed and non uniformed officers that haven't had any past experience must be monitored / mentored / trained before being let loose, so long as experienced officers (either non ops or otherwise) are on hand to keep the newbies on the straight and narrow then job done.

[nearlythere]

Some non uniformed IO's (or shall we say civilian or non operational IO's) already have a wealth of experience to bring to the job from their previous roles.

Many were fire safety or health and safety officers in private industry and can bring a fresh perspective to the role.

At the end of the day both uniformed and non uniformed officers that haven't had any past experience must be monitored / mentored / trained before being let loose, so long as experienced officers (either non ops or otherwise) are on hand to keep the newbies on the straight and narrow then job done.

Agreed, Its the same with any profession. Even newly qualified doctors need mentoring.

[colin todd]

Archangel Retty, I thought that is what I said. Were you:

1. (Uncharacteristically) agreeing with me.

2. Trying to add something.

3. Disagreeing.

4. None of the above. (Please specifY.)

[SmokeyDokey]

The timing of the reductions (from 2003/4) really start to come about from when fire certification was put on hold and enforcement of fire safety was largely done through the risk based regs and then the FSO. It will be interesting to see what the CLG review throws up.

SD the reduction you speak of, are they fires or fatalities in buildings covered by FPA and FSO. (Other Buildings) As this legislation is directed at life safety then statistics covering fatalities is the most relevant and fatalities 2003/2004 increased from 27 to 54 not a good example. Also reductions did not really start to come about from when fire certification was put on hold and enforcement of fire safety was largely done through the risk based regs because in 1971 when the FPA was introduced there was 152 fatalities in other buildings and it reduced year on year to 27 when the workplace regs was introduced 1997/8.

Actually TW I was talking about primary fires. I fully acknowledge and agree about the FPA position (other than to note that the deaths in 1970 were 84 - moved up to the 152 mark in 1971 -3ish years around 140+ and then back down to 84 then from there began their very welcome decline to current levels. (I may only be from the early Jurasic period but I do have a sense of history despite what CT may have said).

By the mid-90's the fire deaths figures had largely plateaued around the mid 30's (with occasional ups and downs such as 1997/8 and 2003/4). Trouble now is that the figures are so small they form no useful measure as only a handful of fires can throw them about by large percentages (in my view it is wrong of CLG to be talking in percentage terms when looking at these figures).

However if you look at the primary fires figures then you'll find that since 1996 they've dropped by about 38%. One might hope that has something to do with the introduction of fire risk assessment and the requirements for managment of fire safety on people who previously had not been subject to specific fire laws or had only the likes of 9A.

Part of the ethos ofthe fire regs and the FSO is prevention through removal of risk so perhaps there is something in it and we will see reductions first in injuries (I think we already are) and ultimatley perhaps even a sustainable further reduction in fire deaths.

But hey ho I guess wereally need to wait a few years to see - after all the year of introduction of the FPA 71 and the couple of years thereafter had the highest level of fire deaths.

[Midland Retty]

Archangel Retty, I thought that is what I said. Were you:

1. (Uncharacteristically) agreeing with me.

2. Trying to add something.

3. Disagreeing.

4. None of the above. (Please specifY.)

Dear Hell's Angel Todd

Now Colin really, you must not get paranoid dear fellow. It is not that I disagree with everything you say at all, therefore it is erroneous to suggest that if I do agree with you I am behaving out of character. 

Anyhow the answer is 4. None of the above.

Inevitably with a thread of this size, magnitude and indeed complexity one can occassionally miss or overlook what someone else has added to the debate, particularly if one hasn't been in the office to catch the lastest updates. It would appear that  in this instance you had posted something in much the same vein as 'what I wrote'.

Therefore we appear to be in agreement about the aforementioned subject. Also I should point out I was directly answering a comment made by my old mate buddy pal Nearlythere - Irelands answer to Red Adaire. All in all I hope that in time you will understand that despite your Einstein-esque fly-away-silvery grey hair, unfathomable scottish accent, and questionable night time activities I do actually quite like you Col...and occassionally one finds one self in total agreement with you. Merry Christmas

[Tom Sutton]

SD the point I was making was the most fire legislation is designed for life protection and not property protection, with the exception of Building Regs, which covers both, therefore in my opinion the number of fatalities in other buildings, is the most relevant statistic. From 1971 to 2006 fire legislation, which the FPA and Building Regs are major players, has reduced the number of fatalities but the number of fire has remainder level (about 40000) but there has been a reduction from 2003 to 2006 of 30% but in my opinion three years are not sufficient time to predict a downwards trend.

As for trying to analysing any short trends I would not be brave enough other than to make general assumptions and I do not see anything in the workplace regs, not like the RR(FS)O, where part of the brief is to reduce fire risk.

What I do accept during the era of prescriptive legislation the first consideration was passive fire protection and active as a last resort. Now using risk assessment it appears to be visa versa and active fire precautions are more widely required. With the increase in the number of systems installed now, this will not only protect people, it will reduce the number of fires or at least allow occupiers to extinguisher fires at an early stage and not call the FRS.

[SmokeyDokey]

You know, TW, somehow I think we may actually be broadly in agreement - just coming from slightly different angles.

The only thing I'd like to add is that as far as I recall (jurassic memory may be a dangerous thing) when bring the FSO forward one of the things was said was that with the level of fatalities being so low there may be little more that could be done to reduce the levels further through physical precautions in premises that had been subject to fire law for some time.

What the FSO seeks to do is elevate the prevention angle that the workplace regs had (same principles of prevention as the FSO). Basic idea is if you can prevent fires from occurring (and mitigate the effects of those that do) then hopefully you reduce the risk of people being killed or injured in a fire. Less fires = less risk. That's why I think the number of primary fires figure is quite important.

[Tom Sutton]

I agree SD and through the life of the FPA it played a major part in reducing fatalities but had little effect on primary fires.

From 2006/7 onwards it’s up to the FSO and Building Regs with very few pieces of other fire legislation involved and hopefully it will reduce both fires and fatalities.

Maybe the thread should have been titled “Has previous Fire Safety legislation worked” it is going to be many years before we can answer that question for the RR(FS)O.

[Chris Houston]

FRO, RR(FS)O.  Have you used different abreivations for the same thing, or am I missing something.  I don't think we are helping any newbies with all these abreviations.