Author Topic: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment  (Read 22062 times)

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2011, 11:20:10 AM »
Just to be awkward....

Why do you need a set format to follow? You are there to assess to risks to persons from fire and you have clear requirements as to the information that has to be recorded. You need underpinning knowledge of means of escape, human behaviour, fire behaviour etc, and you should be able to apply that to see where the risks are, what has been done, and what needs doing to protect people.

I am not saying that the various methods are unnecessary because if Mr Todd etc want to teach you how to assess the risks their way, then that is a valid way of assessing risks, but to create a standard 'accepted' way?.. Isn't that just creating another way to get it wrong?

"Yes, you have assessed the risks right but you have gone about it the wrong way, please do it all over again THIS way."

I think that what many people want is essentially an idiots guide to risk assessment, a form that will be asking them the questions which should really be second nature. What you can end up with is too much of a reliance on the template to point you towards the risks, and it becomes a tick-box exercise only.

To me, the risk assessment is predominantly done in your head. Knock it down to the basics: Where can we have a fire, who is at risk from these fires, how do we let people know if there is a fire, what can we do to improve/reduce/remove risks, etc etc etc. From that comes the significant findings, with some proof of process of how/why decisions have been made. Turn that into the prescribed information, and Bob's your Dad's Brother.

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2011, 12:27:28 PM »
Article 9 (7) defines the prescribed information that must be recorded.  9(7)a covers the significant findings of the assessment including the measures that HAVE BEEN or will be taken......

The measures that will be taken are easy to record.

The measures that have already  been taken are very difficult to record in a simple and logical way using a tick box approach especially where one impinges on another, for example where travel distances have been extended in recognition of other risk control factors or a BS9999 aproach has been taken. 

 9(7)b - it is necessary to record the details of any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk.

Most reports and templates only give a general overview of the relevant persons at the front of the report. Some risk control measures are only specific to individual and particular users of the building, for example people with special needs, visitors, contractors etc. I interpret the requirement as a need to record FOR EACH DEFICIENCY  the persons or groups of persons placed at risk by that deficiency.


I dont think the standard proforma in PAS 79 addresses these very well which is why I dont use it.

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2011, 01:31:57 PM »
".........significant findings of the assessment including the measures that HAVE BEEN........".
This is the gov seeing the situation through those rose tinted glasses again where it's expectation seems to be that every business in the country has abided by the law over the years and already provided the adequate means of escape etc etc. being the fine upstanding law abiding business community it is.

Would a significent finding of "have beens" be that the multi storey premises has been provided with a stairway? ::) It is afterall essential for means of escape and would be quite a significent finding of what has been provided.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline Phoenix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Get a bicycle. You will not live to regret it
    • MetaSolutions (Fire Safety Engineering) Ltd.
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2011, 01:20:46 AM »

Just to be awkward....

Why do you need a set format to follow? You are there to assess to risks to persons from fire and you have clear requirements as to the information that has to be recorded. You need underpinning knowledge of means of escape, human behaviour, fire behaviour etc, and you should be able to apply that to see where the risks are, what has been done, and what needs doing to protect people.

I am not saying that the various methods are unnecessary because if Mr Todd etc want to teach you how to assess the risks their way, then that is a valid way of assessing risks, but to create a standard 'accepted' way?.. Isn't that just creating another way to get it wrong?

"Yes, you have assessed the risks right but you have gone about it the wrong way, please do it all over again THIS way."

I think that what many people want is essentially an idiots guide to risk assessment, a form that will be asking them the questions which should really be second nature. What you can end up with is too much of a reliance on the template to point you towards the risks, and it becomes a tick-box exercise only.

To me, the risk assessment is predominantly done in your head. Knock it down to the basics: Where can we have a fire, who is at risk from these fires, how do we let people know if there is a fire, what can we do to improve/reduce/remove risks, etc etc etc. From that comes the significant findings, with some proof of process of how/why decisions have been made. Turn that into the prescribed information, and Bob's your Dad's Brother.

Here Here...or is it Hear Hear?....

You can get painting by numbers, you can get pianos with keys that light up when you're meant to play them and you can get a TV screen with the words on when you're singing along at the kara oke bar.  But do professional artists and pianists and singers use these when they're plying their trade?

No.  They just know what they're doing and they do it.

Don't come back with the argument that builders and car manufacturers and the like do have plans that they have to follow when they ply their trade.  Maybe they do but does the brick layer refer to it before he lays each brick?  Does the exhaust fitter in the car factory refer to it before he tightens each screw?

There are levels of complexity that the human brain is capable of that do not require continuous reference to guidance and there are levels of complexity beyond that.  A fire risk assessment, like most professional activities, more often than not, falls into the former category.

But you have to know what you're doing.  And we all have to learn.  So a template can be a useful learning tool.  Once you know what you're doing, chuck it away.


".........significant findings of the assessment including the measures that HAVE BEEN........".
This is the gov seeing the situation through those rose tinted glasses again where it's expectation seems to be that every business in the country has abided by the law over the years and already provided the adequate means of escape etc etc. being the fine upstanding law abiding business community it is.

Would a significent finding of "have beens" be that the multi storey premises has been provided with a stairway? ::) It is afterall essential for means of escape and would be quite a significent finding of what has been provided.

I'm not convinced that you're looking at this the right way, NT.  In answer to your final question, yes, this is a significant finding but, I would judge, one that is so obvious as to forgo the requirement of a mention.  What should be mentioned would include the presence of further staircases or a fire detection and warning system or emergency lighting or limited travel distances or fire resistance or management procedures, etc.  All positive things.  The idea, as I know you know, is that the things already present are complemented by the further things that need to be done so that, on completion, the building is safe.  All the fire safety features that are required in the building, whether already present or not are significant findings.  And all should be recorded.

If a building has a mezzanine floor, say, where some people work permanently and the public occasionally resort to and it has no protected route off, but it has been judged safe by the fire risk assessor because of certain fire safety provisions (maybe good detection, management and limited distances, for example) then how does an auditor know that it is safe unless the fire risk assessor has recorded the good fire safety features as significant findings.  The same is true for simpler situations were buildings have positive features that make them safe such as limited travel distances and alarm systems, etc.  All are significant findings.  If you don't record them then how can anyone follow your train of thought about overall safety in the building?

Stu


Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2011, 08:56:18 AM »
Naturally Pheonix. The point I was trying to make albeit badly was that we should expect a level of competancy of IOs that we should not have to write a book explaining every detail nor have to teach many inexperienced IOs on site the principles of fire safety.
I don't think we should have to put a lot of time and effort into describing a building in micro detail to pad out an assessment when, during an audit, they will be standing in the middle of it, other than that which would be relevant to support an alternative means of compliance.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline Phoenix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Get a bicycle. You will not live to regret it
    • MetaSolutions (Fire Safety Engineering) Ltd.
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2011, 10:53:18 AM »
Ah yes, NT.  That would be an ideal world.  But it would only work if all fire safety judgements could be shown to be objective and rational.  There is currently much subjectivity and, as I think you were illustrating, much incompetence in the fire safety world and I can't see it changing.  Hence there is often a need to explain the reasoning behind judgements.  And I would guess that that is why Article 9(7) is the way it is.

Stu


Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2011, 09:57:55 AM »

I can understand it would be difficult to have a standard means of conducting a FRA but I cannot see why the objections to a standard reporting format. It would make it easier for others including the auditors to understand the findings of the risk assessment I see it for their benefit not the risk assessor.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2011, 10:10:54 AM by Tom Sutton »
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Offline Dinnertime Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2011, 06:31:46 PM »

As an auditor I like PAS 79 it makes my job easier, but not if you just tick the boxes I would like to see something in the comments!

However, the best risk assessments I have seen use a narrative approach and if I was doing fire risk assessments for a living it is the narrative approach I would use.

Whilst we can`t and shouldn't be prescriptive on the way we expect the assessment to be documented there are items that need to be included for it to be suitable and sufficient.         

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2011, 08:42:10 PM »
I agree with you DD and I would get rid of all the tick boxes and use a narrative format only. I would probably include a plan but it could be a good starting point after putting it out for comments.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2011, 09:17:01 PM »
It just goes to show there's no pleasing everybody. I prefer a narrative report because it gives me freedom to balance all factors together that contribute to the fire safety in the building. But I find many fire enforcement officers who say they haven't got time to read narrative reports and would prefer the simple summary typical of the formats within the fire safety guidance.

Some are driven by the need to fill in their own audit form and simply want to transfer the information across from the fire risk assessment report into their own report as easily and quickly as possible.

It's always a delight to meet la creme de la creme of the enforcement team who take the time to read the report, walk the floor and discuss the findings.   

Offline Davo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2011, 09:25:15 AM »
Generally agree with the above, I follow the five steps format, narrative, as I hate ticky boxes.
However, for large premises narrative is far better providing there is an easy summary for the Management ::)

davo

Offline Mike Buckley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2011, 12:31:16 PM »
It still seems to come round to the horses for courses and the competence (or lack of it) of the Inspecting Officers. For a simple premise such as a small shop then the ticky box will probably surfice as long as there is a narrative element where required. However if it is a large premise there is no way the ticky box can cope and a narrative approach is the only way.

I also think that the inclusion of photographs is a must, at whatever level. A general view of the front of the place to prove you are all talking about the same place and then pictures of the relevant findings.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it.

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2011, 12:35:54 PM »
It just goes to show there's no pleasing everybody. I prefer a narrative report because it gives me freedom to balance all factors together that contribute to the fire safety in the building. But I find many fire enforcement officers who say they haven't got time to read narrative reports and would prefer the simple summary typical of the formats within the fire safety guidance.

Some are driven by the need to fill in their own audit form and simply want to transfer the information across from the fire risk assessment report into their own report as easily and quickly as possible.

It's always a delight to meet la creme de la creme of the enforcement team who take the time to read the report, walk the floor and discuss the findings.  

Its trying to strike a balance. Overall I think the narrative approach is good, because the assessor is explaining how decisions have been arrived at.

Some of the best assessments I've seen give a quick no nonsene summary of the significant findings atthe beginning of the assessment, which can be quickly and esaily scanned through, but also then have more indepth narrative to support it at the back.

So if I wander how one control measure has been selected i can then actually read the narrative

I still say however that we are looking at this from the wrong direction potentially. I feel we need to address competency to get uniformity and consistence, rather than argue about the quality and format of the assessment.

If you get the competency issue resolved (that applies to assessors and enforcers alike) I think the rest should fall into place.

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2011, 02:22:03 PM »
I think there is two issues, first is as you said the need to address competency to get uniformity and consistency. The second is communication, getting the results of an assessment over to others so they fully understand the assessors findings.

What about single line drawings which, I would think, could be beneficial and I know some assessors do use them.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Offline Clevelandfire 3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
Re: Standard for Fire Risk Assessment
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2011, 12:48:10 AM »
Drawings are good Tom I agree with that and I use them. They make things so much easier.I also think Midland would benefit from spelling lessons.