Incorporating BS 9999 into FRA's

[hammer1]

When I attended of fire seminar a while back from the IFSM. One of the speakers said that if you did not have a good understanding and knowledge of BS9999 you should not class yourself as competent.

Not sure how many on here are familiar or have attended any courses (the vast majority I assume) on this BS, but there is a section on risk profiling.

Has anyone here started to incorporate this (or any other section) into their FRA format. Also would the fire authority/inspector have a scooby when reviewing it.

This can assist the RP in assessing what management levels are required to be implemented and could make them understand more than our current qualitative or semi-quantitative (or whatever else) risk ranking system we use.

Thoughts....

[Gasmeter]

In NI we had an introductory two day seminar on BS9999 in October last year, this was mostly attended by Building Control and FRS people.  There's a wide awareness of it but few seem to have studied it, it probably needs to be promoted more by all concerned. 

The company that is currently reviewing our FRAs refers to it a lot in their reports, particularly risk profiling and management levels; it has helped us on a quite a few occasions.  My organisation's policy for development work is to refer to Technical Booklet E (similar to ADB) first, then BS9999 as an intermediate step to help avoid resorting to purely engineered solutions.

[Davo]

Hammer1
I attended a seminar by the guy who led the writing of  it. A very nice guy who believed it to be the best thing since sliced bread.
Whilst I only claim a partial understanding, I learned enought to stay well clear.
If you use any part of it be prepared to defend yourself.
Just why did you add 10% and another 10% and another 10% to travel distance Mr Hammer1?
Answer cos the BS says I can may not cut it.
IMHO maybe only a dozen guys on this forum can declare themselves competent based on that statement.
The fact that it hardly figures in postings might give you a clue


davo

[hammer1]

Hammer1
I attended a seminar by the guy who led the writing of  it. A very nice guy who believed it to be the best thing since sliced bread.
Whilst I only claim a partial understanding, I learned enought to stay well clear.
If you use any part of it be prepared to defend yourself.
Just why did you add 10% and another 10% and another 10% to travel distance Mr Hammer1?
Answer cos the BS says I can may not cut it.
IMHO maybe only a dozen guys on this forum can declare themselves competent based on that statement.
The fact that it hardly figures in postings might give you a clue


davo

This maybe because people don't want change or/and are quite happy in their comfort zone.

Are we not all agreed the more we move away from prescriptive guidance, the more competent a person must be in their advice and what they take from such BS as BS9999 and how they interpreted them.

Surely using such BS provides the basis that we as competent risk assessors are worth our weight in gold, rather than code hug and use the government guidance documents increase unnecessary burden to the employer, and conduct in the same way as any RP could do themselves in certain environments/if they wanted or had the time to read such guidance documents.

There is all this talk about risk assessors registers and competent risk assessors, but they all seem to dodge areas where you would need some balls to apply such advice in FRA's.

Some parts of BS9999 has given us the chance to fully risk assess situations and not just code hug or copy and paster from various documents. I think if you are competent and have fully risk assessed a premises, then moving away from prescriptive is the whole point of where we are going surely???


Obviously there are some points in BS9999 that warrant attention, but to disregard it as a whole is oh so very wrong. If I saw a FRA that incorporated various parts/used various guidance from BS9999 with also your usual BS/ prescriptive codes I would think that fella/lady has a current pro-active thinking attitude and may know his/her stuff.

Grow some balls people

[Davo]

Hammer1
Very dangerous to pick and mix. Would you pick bits from other BSs?
Apply 9999 for everything or for nothing, your choice

davo

[Midland Retty]

Those who are competent to apply BS 99 99 should feel free to do so, those who aren't shouldn't. It is that simple.

What you must not do is cherry pick from the standards.

If you are going to base you assessment on BS9999 you must stick to it all the way through.

Simples 

[hammer1]

Hammer1
Very dangerous to pick and mix. Would you pick bits from other BSs?
Apply 9999 for everything or for nothing, your choice

davo

1 quick example I can give is that BS5266 advise daily checks but most FRA's are concerned with monthly, 6 monthly and annual discharge.

Why not take all the BS and only bits happens a lot to be honest, the reason behind this is the competent risk assessor is providing a risk base approach and that BS are not Law but only best practice. There is even a bit in LACORS which suggest sometimes providing the correct maintenance in line with certain BS cannot be practicable on occasions.

[hammer1]

Those who are competent to apply BS 99 99 should feel free to do so, those who aren't shouldn't. It is that simple.

What you must not do is cherry pick from the standards.

If you are going to base you assessment on BS9999 you must stick to it all the way through.

Simples 

Where do you get 'MUST NOT'. BS are there to provide best practice. A lot of people cherry pick all BS, if we all had to do all BS that we recommend, the business world would come to a halt. You use the BS as a competent person to base your risk assessment. It does not say in Law do not use only parts of BS. If you can prove certain parts will assist the RP in carrying out their duties to fall in line with the FSO and the fire safety management of their building then happy days.

Simples

[hammer1]

Those who are competent to apply BS 99 99 should feel free to do so, those who aren't shouldn't. It is that simple.

What you must not do is cherry pick from the standards.

If you are going to base you assessment on BS9999 you must stick to it all the way through.

Simples 

Would you say those who feel not competent in BS9999 are no longer competent in fire safety??

[William 29]

When I attended of fire seminar a while back from the IFSM. One of the speakers said that if you did not have a good understanding and knowledge of BS9999 you should not class yourself as competent.

I think I may have been the speaker you are referring to!  Let me explain.  In my view to be a competent fire risk assessor you need to be able to apply all current fire safety guidance and standards to any FRA that you do.  That would include obviously the fire safety order, British Standards, LACORS etc, etc so that when you conduct a risk analysis of a premises or a given situation you can apply that knowledge and give the client a range of options where possible.  Certain circumstances and premises would dictate that the use of BS 9999 would be the most appropriate approach in conducting the FRA. I agree with the comment above that you can’t pick and choose from the sections of 9999 and it also says so in the document.

Like most I suspect, I have done a 2 day 9999 course from a recognised training body and although that does not make me an expert we have applied it to certain premises.  We have recently submitted a proposal via an architect to building control in the conversation of a basement in a multi-occ building to a night club.  A proposal under ADB would not get off the ground due to the numbers the clients wants in the club and the exit widths available.  By using 9999 in its entirety as the submission and building a risk profile including a BS 5839 L2 fire alarm with voice actuation Section 19.2 of 9999 would allow a 15% reduction in door width which it just what the client needs to gain the full desired occupancy.  We have stipulated other parameters as well such as Level 1 management.

As an aside the local building control authority in question do not accept that BS 9999 can be applied in a licensed premises even though the document makes reference to the consumption of alcohol? They argue that you can’t guarantee the management levels.  I can’t see how this stands up as they are saying the management will be less that the required standard before the club has opened! The architect is now using an AI.

I don’t profess to be a 9999 expert as we now need to apply the document when required.  I think we will see the document being used more and more and even getting clients requiring submission in circumstances where ADB is rigidly applied.  Dare I say it will take over from ABD??!

[nearlythere]

Those who are competent to apply BS 99 99 should feel free to do so, those who aren't shouldn't. It is that simple.

What you must not do is cherry pick from the standards.

If you are going to base you assessment on BS9999 you must stick to it all the way through.

Simples 

What about AM's comments in this thread?
http://www.kingfell.com/~forum/index.php?topic=4545.msg47689#msg47689

[hammer1]

When I attended of fire seminar a while back from the IFSM. One of the speakers said that if you did not have a good understanding and knowledge of BS9999 you should not class yourself as competent.

I think I may have been the speaker you are referring to!  Let me explain.  In my view to be a competent fire risk assessor you need to be able to apply all current fire safety guidance and standards to any FRA that you do.  That would include obviously the fire safety order, British Standards, LACORS etc, etc so that when you conduct a risk analysis of a premises or a given situation you can apply that knowledge and give the client a range of options where possible.  Certain circumstances and premises would dictate that the use of BS 9999 would be the most appropriate approach in conducting the FRA. I agree with the comment above that you can’t pick and choose from the sections of 9999 and it also says so in the document.

Like most I suspect, I have done a 2 day 9999 course from a recognised training body and although that does not make me an expert we have applied it to certain premises.  We have recently submitted a proposal via an architect to building control in the conversation of a basement in a multi-occ building to a night club.  A proposal under ADB would not get off the ground due to the numbers the clients wants in the club and the exit widths available.  By using 9999 in its entirety as the submission and building a risk profile including a BS 5839 L2 fire alarm with voice actuation Section 19.2 of 9999 would allow a 15% reduction in door width which it just what the client needs to gain the full desired occupancy.  We have stipulated other parameters as well such as Level 1 management.

As an aside the local building control authority in question do not accept that BS 9999 can be applied in a licensed premises even though the document makes reference to the consumption of alcohol? They argue that you can’t guarantee the management levels.  I can’t see how this stands up as they are saying the management will be less that the required standard before the club has opened! The architect is now using an AI.

I don’t profess to be a 9999 expert as we now need to apply the document when required.  I think we will see the document being used more and more and even getting clients requiring submission in circumstances where ADB is rigidly applied.  Dare I say it will take over from ABD??!

I totally agree. Must say the seminar was interesting with all the different disciplines offering their take on things .

I also feel using BS9999 to bring to the RP attention the benefits of producing a fire safety manual, incorporating regulation 16B (doesn't have to be a 100 page waffle, just as much as it warrants to be) all areas that have in the past been swept under the carpet in the past. I feel the management section improves and moves us forward as competent persons to advice our RP clients on alternative solutions and to use parts of it only if it applies to the RP circumstances that may lessen their burden. I am shocked people still quoting all areas of BS5588??

[Midland Retty]

Would you say those who feel not competent in BS9999 are no longer competent in fire safety??

Hi Hammer1

The short answer is no.

I attended a three day course on BS 9999 earlier this year. It didn't turn me into an expert overnight, it only gave me a very brief insight into the standard.

Does that defacto make me incompetent in the field of fire safety ? No.
Does it present limitations in terms of my competency / knowledge base? Yes.
If I were a Fire Safety Consultant would that limit the choice of solutions I could give to my client? Most Probably (if it were a new build and I was invloved in the design of the building of course)

To answer your other question and, as somebody has already said, BS 9999 itself states that you shouldn't cherry pick from it.

So I stick by what I said befiore if you are competent to do a certain thing then fine do it - if you are incompetent, and dont know what you are doing then don't do it

Still Simples 




 

[Davo]

William29

Are you saying you spoke on an IFSM seminar after only 2 days on a course?
Good job the audience were clueless

davo

Fellow posters
Any advance on Retty's three days, do I hear four

[William 29]

William29

Are you saying you spoke on an IFSM seminar after only 2 days on a course?
Good job the audience were clueless

davo

Fellow posters
Any advance on Retty's three days, do I hear four

Nice one!! I'll give you that!    To be honest I don’t think there are any courses over 3 days unless you go on an internal Brigade one. They would be a fortune anyway!! I am sure the FPA or the centre for fire safety excellence will come up with a 4 week course soon?