Like the rest of you, I encounter similar examples of over provision and under provision all the time. It's not just the supply of equipment and installations of alarms etc where the problems lie, the field of fire risk assessment is just as bad. People focusing on trivia of fire extinguishers and signs and not noticing huge and fundamental problems with means of escape for example. And it's not the one-man bands who are getting it all wrong either, many of the big official or national organisations are just as bad. I was in a large university building two weeks ago on behalf of one of my clients, a tenant within a large university building. Their own contracted out fire risk assessment was hot off the press and there was no mention of the fact that they had imposed an unacceptable fire loading in an atrium, and ruined the means of escape by removing fire doors at the base of one of the staircases essential to the MOE, to open it out into a large multipurpose foyer including a cafeteria.
To a great extent I blame the level of training, particularly those short courses which are so lacking in respect of the real underpinning knowledge of the fire safety design and layout of buildings, means of escape, compartmentation, fixed installations and sprinklers, fire detection and alarms, and human behaviour.
But why is it all happening? We have third-party certification schemes for fire alarms and portable fire fighting equipment, yet the average responsible person has never heard of them and thinks a fire alarm system is bread-and-butter to any practising electrician.
The politicians have no appetite for compulsory third-party certification of fire risk assessors but the industry moves ahead and FRACS Warrington, the FIA and BAFE are all helping to put things in the right direction. But just as with the third-party certification schemes in the alarms and portable sector the schemes will achieve nothing unless backed up and supported by publicity and the enforcing authority including the insurance companies.
The installation and maintenance of sprinkler systems is very very different. Why? Because with sprinkler systems the insurance companies take a very proactive role in making sure that systems are designed installed and maintained correctly.
I fear that those of us who have agreed to jump through hoops in the interest of driving up standards within the fire risk assessment sector (as all members of the FIA have agreed to do) in signing up for third-party certification are likely to see little return for our investment in time and trouble and cost unless the insurance companies and enforcers help to drive it forward by giving all third-party certification schemes, whether alarms, portables, fixed installations, or fire risk assessments the publicity and importance that they deserve. And the certification bodies must be more diligent in the work carried out by member companies and must not be frightened of imposing sanctions for bad practice and breaches of their schemes.