Fire Risk Assessment Franchise

[Mr. P]

MATRONNNN!!!! Quick to the battlements. Stand to (or three- if you've finished the diet).
Ration the rations Kurnal, we could be in for the long one.
There's a life down there Jim - but, NOT as we know it CivvyFSO...
Davo, also quick even hastierly, check someone has put Cat safely in the bag and secured her will you?
Nearly, old chap, get the wagons encircled too please!

[colin todd]

1. Natdan. I did not take in that a question as to whether a car mechanic was competent to carry our fire risk assessments was a serious one. I will, however, ask around to see if anyone knows the answer for you. It is certainly a tough one, but I believe they do take in all and sundry as enforcing officers nowadays, so it is probably just a private sector analogy of that.

2. Davo. I think that by PRAT, he was using the acronym for Professional Risk Assessment Trainer, which od course is an accurate description, so I naturally take no offence.

3. Kurnal. The heat in the kitchen was probably not detected as the car mechanic had to telephone the office for advice as to whether to use a heat detector, a smoke detector or carbon monoxide fire detector.

[Davo]

CT

I've noticed some of my fellow posters agree your courses are quite od

davo

[Bobbins]

  This guy is now considered to be competent to carry out a FRA and has a IFE certificate.

I think I know who the guy is; he was a mechanic at a fire and rescue service HQ for many a year, working on the engines and servicing the fire chiefs Merc. So naturally he must have picked a lot up from the uniformed lads in the canteen.

Regardless of his background he has IFE accreditation, so he must know his stuff……right?

He must have been on an approved IFE course and submitted many a good risk assessment. No doubt due to his lack of experience in fire safety he will have attended an interview with Mr Todd and his merry band of peers. 

He may not have singed his whiskers saving a family of Lithuanian immigrants from a third story bed-sit or ever been near the holy site of Moreton in Marsh but he is working and accredited which is more than some former fire service employees are.

I am sure he is in it for the money and not the love of it; he is after all £20,000 down for a start. Just because he is not ‘Captain Fire Safety’ it doesn’t mean he doesn’t do a good job.

He may have had to get some advice from his franchise regarding fire alarms but we all need some help some time (apart from CT; granted) hence we use this site.

We have to start some where, or are fire risk assessors born not bred? 

[Tom W]

No you don't have to of had a life time of driving in a big red truck squirting water in order to be considered competent.

From reading this story it seems to of been written on a strange time line and its not specific enough.

So a mechanic (fair enough)
Did a one week FRA course (fair enough)
as the story goes
he is now on the IFEs register?

OR

what is more likely is

He did a course for a week with an approved course provided (FPA my guess) and has started completing risk assessments.

His proforma might not be great but it he has to start somewhere.

What risk of premises is he assessing? If its a low risk then i can't see a problem.

I am not of a fire service back ground but ive done many a course and read many a document and listened to my peers. I know when my experience won't cut it.

Who is to say he doesn't?

His clients should be checking his credentials, if they don't feel a 5 day course is suitable then don't hire him!

From reading these posts its suggesting (i may be wrong) that he is on the IFEs register - this i doubt.

For those of you out there that have come from the fire service and are against non ex-brigade people completing risk assessments - don't be naive.

[Steven N]

Piglet
I would venture to suggest that a lifetime of squirting water from a big red truck will never equip you to  carry out a FRA correctly, however they may at least know what they dont know. But from what I have seen there are one hellava lot of others out there who dont know what they dont know (apologies to Mr D Rumsfeld) & they do frighten me.
As has been pointed out before there are lots of good & bad risk assesors out there & I cant see that changing.

[Bobbins]

Piglet
I would venture to suggest that a lifetime of squirting water from a big red truck will never equip you to  carry out a FRA correctly, however they may at least know what they dont know. But from what I have seen there are one hellava lot of others out there who dont know what they dont know (apologies to Mr D Rumsfeld) & they do frighten me.
As has been pointed out before there are lots of good & bad risk assesors out there & I cant see that changing.

Ah Piglet, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head!

Don’t get me started on that one again.

Q) How difficult would it be for government to say that any fire risk assessor who charges for his/her services should be certificated to a national standard?

A) Anyone heard the news, they found a piglet in space; he flew there himself!

[nim]

I am going to have to apologise because for some reason I can't start a new thread so I have hijacked a similiar thread.

Being competent to carry out a FRA

Is being an "off duty fire fighter working on the side" a sufficient definition of being competent to carry out FRA's.

The customer has two premises. The first is a warehouse full of boxes filled with electrical fittings and a very small quantity of live electrical equipment. 300m/sq

The second is their offices which are split in two by two separate front doors. Standard office risks.

The customer has in the main 6Litre Foam Extinguishers and 2 kg CO2 Extinguishers as their main cover and they also have some 6kg Powder Extinguishers

The  FRA carried out initially recommended  that all the of the foam  and powder extinguishers on the customers two premises be replaced with CO2 extinguishers in addition to the CO2 extinguishers that the customer already had leaving the customer with no Class A cover.

I pointed out that the customer would have no Class A cover. The FRA now says that “the foam extinguishers (which have a 13A 144B rating) are useless for the premises because the premises has no flammable liquid risks and that the foam extinguishers are only suitable for flammable liquids.”

The FRA recommendation has also changed to replacing the 6Litre Foam Extinguishers and 6kg Powder Extinguishers to:

1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher on the ground floor of the warehouse 
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher on the warehouse mezzanine

1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher for one office complex
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher for the second set of offices

and all of the 2kg CO2 Extinguishers should be changed  to 3kg CO2 Extinguishers.

I have told the customer that the extinguishers specified in the FRA have not been manufactured since 1997.

I have agreed that replacing the Powder Extinguishers would not be detrimental.

I have asked the customer if the person carrying out the FRA is competent and their reply is that they are an “off duty fire fighter working on the side" and that they must be competent.

What next. I don’t think that the assessor is competent.

[AnthonyB]

He must be a damn old off duty fire fighter. An expert witness could run rings around him in court with regard to competence.

Obsolete sizes, no A-rating floor calculations, he is clearly incompetent when it comes to specifying PFE (& I can say that with no fear of his lawyers- bring it on!).

He is taking a premises with adequate cover and throwing their cash down the drain in order to install non existent extinguishers, when I would bet that the existing cover works out adequate and just requires ongoing maintenance.

I wouldn't let it drop - I'd get his details and pursue the matter, his employer wouldn't be too chuffed. Best way of getting you believed - get a real genuine up to date fire safety enforcement officer down: an on duty specialist trumps an off duty amateur (which he is as he is a professional fire fighter, not a professional FPO)

Foam extinguishers, prior to BS5423 & BS 5306-3 (& the fire rating scheme) in the early 80's could not be specified for Class A risks if the codes of the time were followed as they were not deemed the most suitable or efficient - remember in those days you still used Chemical Foam extinguishers (which weren't that good for Class B either!) and Foam branchpipe extinguishers with protein & fluoroprotein foams, although something revolutionary called 'Light Water' from 3M had started to appear in the Pyrene/Read & Campbell/Chubb Group product.

In the early 80's the A rating & new codes meant you could use Foam for AB risk, furthered by the pioneering use by Thomas Glover of AFFF as a non aspirated spray (originally labelled as an ABCE class extinguisher).

Prior to fire ratings and the new BS specs, extinguishers were specified by mass, and standard imperial measurement capacities were used by industry & codes. With the onset of metrification & the new BS, the traditional sizes were retained in metric or changed to Euro sizes. Thus the 1 gallon water size became 6 litres (not the 4.5 litre direct metric conversion), although it was briefly revived in the early 90's with the original 4.5 litre Chubb Hydrospray Elite; 2 gallons became 9 litres and 2.5/5/7/10/15/20 lb Powder became 1/2/4.5/6/9 kilo. CO2 generally metrified with 2.5lb being 1.1 kilo, 5lb being 2 kilo (not 2.2), 10lb disappearing to become 5 kilo. The quirks of maritime specification led to two sizes being retained in direct imperial steel cylinders - the 7lb steel was retained as the 3.2 kilo & the 15lb as the 6.8 kilo. Never was there a 3kilo size.


Expect little contribution on extinguisher threads after tomorrow as I'm away for 3 weeks on hols - hooray!

[nearlythere]

I am going to have to apologise because for some reason I can't start a new thread so I have hijacked a similiar thread.

Being competent to carry out a FRA

Is being an "off duty fire fighter working on the side" a sufficient definition of being competent to carry out FRA's.

The customer has two premises. The first is a warehouse full of boxes filled with electrical fittings and a very small quantity of live electrical equipment. 300m/sq

The second is their offices which are split in two by two separate front doors. Standard office risks.

The customer has in the main 6Litre Foam Extinguishers and 2 kg CO2 Extinguishers as their main cover and they also have some 6kg Powder Extinguishers

The  FRA carried out initially recommended  that all the of the foam  and powder extinguishers on the customers two premises be replaced with CO2 extinguishers in addition to the CO2 extinguishers that the customer already had leaving the customer with no Class A cover.

I pointed out that the customer would have no Class A cover. The FRA now says that “the foam extinguishers (which have a 13A 144B rating) are useless for the premises because the premises has no flammable liquid risks and that the foam extinguishers are only suitable for flammable liquids.”

The FRA recommendation has also changed to replacing the 6Litre Foam Extinguishers and 6kg Powder Extinguishers to:

1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher on the ground floor of the warehouse 
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher on the warehouse mezzanine

1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher for one office complex
1 x 4.5Litre Water Extinguisher for the second set of offices

and all of the 2kg CO2 Extinguishers should be changed  to 3kg CO2 Extinguishers.

I have told the customer that the extinguishers specified in the FRA have not been manufactured since 1997.

I have agreed that replacing the Powder Extinguishers would not be detrimental.

I have asked the customer if the person carrying out the FRA is competent and their reply is that they are an “off duty fire fighter working on the side" and that they must be competent.

What next. I don’t think that the assessor is competent.

Nim, being an off duty anything certainly does not make one competent. In fact many persons on duty can be quite incompetent, and in some cases very.
A competent FRAer should give consideration to any existing extinguishers and determine if they are suitable and adequaqte and, in the interests of economics, make a case for retaining them. An existing foam extinguisher could be considered appropriate for Class A use.
What a good assessor should be doing is assessing the risk and providing appropriate control measures for the risk, not carrying a code compliance audit.
Sounds to me that this assessor is not really one at all.
If you are a competent fire extinguisher supplier I would provide your client with an appropriate assessment of your findings. As the RP the client can choose whichever assessment of the means provided for fighting fire he finds most suitable and of better value.

[kurnal]

That depends what your role is Nim.

If you are a consultant or extinguisher supplier all you can do is tell the RP and put your concerns in writing. Then shrug your shoulders and walk away.

If you seek vengeance you could try a letter to the CFO and put your concerns in writing, if the off duty chappie hasn't got clearance for outside employment then things may get a little sticky for him. If he has then its his judgement against yours even if he is wrong and its up to the buyer of the service to satisfy themselves that they have sought competent assistance, though  in a place so small makes you wonder why they havn't had a bash themselves.

[nim]

If you are a consultant or extinguisher supplier all you can do is tell the RP and put your concerns in writing. Then shrug your shoulders and walk away.

This is pretty much what I have done. The customer is convinced that the person who carried the FRA out is competent because they are an "off duty fire fighter working on the side". I have said that I didn't think that he knew about portable fire extinguishers if what she told me was correct. Initially the first contact from the customer was by phone and it was just what she told me. Since then everything has been by email and all of his responses are in writing and very amateurish. He clearly hasn't got a clue and all of it in writing.

If you seek vengeance you could try a letter to the CFO and put your concerns in writing, if the off duty chappie hasn't got clearance for outside employment then things may get a little sticky for him. If he has then its his judgement against yours even if he is wrong and its up to the buyer of the service to satisfy themselves that they have sought competent assistance, though  in a place so small makes you wonder why they havn't had a bash themselves.

This has occurred to me but  I am not really sure I want to go down this road. The author of the  FRA has not put his name to it and the company who have put their name to it have decided not to reveal any contact details. Not sure even that is good practise. All I have is email addresses so even if I wanted to pursue I wouldn't know which CFO to approach.

in the interests of economics,

Ironically the customer initially asked why Foam extinguishers were installed and was it because they were more expensive. I acknowledged that they cost about a tenner more but the additional cost could be justified because a 6Litre Foam was far superior to a 9Litre Water extinguisher for a number of reasons. Firstly at least half of the staff were females and the 6Litre Foam was lighter and easier to use with the same fire rating as a 9Litre Water Extinguisher on Class A risks. It has also passed the 35kv dielectric test and is ideal in office environments where Class A risks need to be covered but where live electrical equipment is present and is safe for inadvertent use on live electrical equipment. I got an email back asking for manufacturer’s technical data sheets.

Supplied these which sent him down the “foam extinguishers only for flammable liquid fires” route
http://www.thomas-glover.co.uk/tgserver.php?request=setTemplate:singlecontent&contentTypeA=tgProductGroup&contentId=676

http://www.ukfire.co.uk/shares/extinguishers/doc13.pdf

Don’t agree with UK Firemaster when it comes to putting the electrical flash on Foam Extinguishers but so be it.

If you are a competent fire extinguisher supplier I would provide your client with an appropriate assessment of your findings. As the RP the client can choose whichever assessment of the means provided for fighting fire he finds most suitable and of better value.

I am competent to give advice on portable fire extinguishers and have already done this. I ain’t competent on the rest of the FRA