instruction to fire officers

[novascot]

Hello all,
does it really matter the type of proforma used as long as the information required to carry out the FRA is included. This can be in tick box reminder type with comments sections or fully written reports.

I know which I would prefer to do and I am sure FSO's would rather Audit the former. Whether it is PAS 79 or other type similar.

More important, is the knowledge and understanding of the FSO to interpret the FRA without quoting the prescriptive standards as seen in the benchmark standards of The Practical Guidance. (Sorry Scotland only)

I have what I would call disagreements leading towards training sessions often with FSO's and they show a complete lack of understanding the concept of FRA's without the comfort of The Benchmark Standards. In fact letters sent to RP's quote the Benchmark Standards and ask for compensatory features if they cannot be met.

What is that about??? Do an assessment for goodness sake.

 Hello Phil. You and Colin still not made up?

[PhilB]

Hello Phil. You and Colin still not made up?

Hi Dennis

Toddddy and I are the best of chums!!

I do agree with all you say in your last post. Too many code huggers, it will take a while for everyone to come to terms with a risk appropriate regime. Some FSOs are very very good...unfortunately some still cling to their prescriptive guidance.

But also, as I'm sure you've noticed, there are many incompetent assessors out there and some do it for a living. It must surely only be a matter of time before such incomptence is exposed, let's hope it doesn't involve too many deaths.

[Tom Sutton]

This can be in tick box reminder type with comments sections or fully written reports. Whether it is PAS 79 or other type similar.

I feel I am stepping into to the loins den but here goes. Firstly I believe a good FRA template is important and the one in the original PAS 79 is not a good example and does not fully meet the requirements of article 9. I have seen some good ones and an auditor would have no problems understanding the risk assessor solution, PAS 79 does not fall into that category. I cannot speak for the latest version of PAS 79.

[Davo]

TW
Absolutely!
Bought first version, didn't like it so haven't bothered with the update.
Have seen many tickybox templates, hated the lot.
They are all right I suppose for someone with a small premise but for the professional and me the keen amateur its the meat on the bone that matters.
Whether you codehug or not, risk matrix or not all boils down to the need to get some semblence of clarity in FRAs that the punter can understand.

davo

[Midland Retty]

Agreed Davo

To go on from that a good risk assessment should identify how certain decisions or judgements have been arrived at by the assessor. In other words the assessor should be able to show the auditer a "Logic " trail in what theyve assessed and the measures they have proposed to rectify failings or to lower risk levels. I don't think tick boxes can do that.

[Tom Sutton]

I am with you 100% on that MR I would consider that is the main purpose of the report, communicating with other interested parties.

[kurnal]

I agree with you but to be honest I have found quite a number of enforcement offices who dont want to bother reading my rather verbose reports and say all they want is a plan and a one page report in the format of the one liners on the sample presented on the  DCLG website. This peeves me somewhat- I understand where they are coming from but if I am trying to justify why my proposed solution represents ALARP  despite not fully meeting  current best practice guidance I think it warrants full consideration.

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal I would also be peeved I do not believe you can have too much information providing it’s relevant and well indexed. The sample presented on the DCLG website is possible the worst example I have seen and even with a plan it would be woefully inadequate.

Incidentally I agree with plans but they cannot take the place of good reports but are of mutual benefit if used correctly.

[Midland Retty]

I agree with you but to be honest I have found quite a number of enforcement offices who dont want to bother reading my rather verbose reports and say all they want is a plan and a one page report in the format of the one liners on the sample presented on the  DCLG website. This peeves me somewhat- I understand where they are coming from but if I am trying to justify why my proposed solution represents ALARP  despite not fully meeting  current best practice guidance I think it warrants full consideration.

Absolutely correct Prof.

Admitedly when carrying out an audit i do like to see a "brief overview or roundup"of the significant findings mainly because the RP hasn't got time to watch me sit and read through a large risk assessment.

What I then do is come back to the office and go through the whole document at my leisure rather than hold up the RP. I can then make comment if required following the audit, normally by phone call to assessor or RP and followed up in a report.

[Tom Sutton]

I have devised a FRA report format (for when I make the transition into the real world) and intend to have the very first page(s) entitled 'A Note to FS Enforcers'

In this 'note' I list what information the FS Order says needs to be recorded, and where in my FRA report (what section/page no) the specific information will be found.

This helps the IO find exactly what they are looking for without the need to speed-read the entire document.

MR I think messy idea would fit the bill I hope he precedes with it. A question from me, when you do an audit do you use the guides, standards and any other relevant guidance to set bench marks and if you do does that make you a code hugger?

[Davo]

Naughty boy TW, Matron will get you for that!


davo

[Midland Retty]

Naughty boy TW, Matron will get you for that!


davo

Yes very naughty boy Mr Sutton!

No Im quite open to ideas / alternative solutions that achieve a common goal or objective.

Wherever possible yes I do like to see comparisons made to benchmarks, and Ill happily accept deviations when suitably justified - I only very occasionally bring out my Phil Barry issue Anorak and hug my guides on cold mornings

[Tom Sutton]

Not intentionally MR I promise, I think I have a handle on the FRA side now I am trying to understand the audit side.

I have considered how I would conduct an audit and it would be how you have described. First have a good understanding of the legislation, guides and standards and use them as benchmarks. If any aspect of the premises did not meets those benchmarks I would ask the question why.

First I would check out the FRA report see if a satisfactory answer was there and also check the situation during my walk about, as it may be obvious. If I still could not find a satisfactory answer I would contact the RP for his response and if I was still not satisfied I would then consider further action.

To me this is not a prescriptive response so what are enforcement officers doing to warrant the description code hugger.

[Midland Retty]

Not intentionally MR I promise, I think I have a handle on the FRA side now I am trying to understand the audit side.

I have considered how I would conduct an audit and it would be how you have described. First have a good understanding of the legislation, guides and standards and use them as benchmarks. If any aspect of the premises did not meets those benchmarks I would ask the question why.

First I would check out the FRA report see if a satisfactory answer was there and also check the situation during my walk about, as it may be obvious. If I still could not find a satisfactory answer I would contact the RP for his response and if I was still not satisfied I would then consider further action.

To me this is not a prescriptive response so what are enforcement officers doing to warrant the description code hugger.

Yep pretty much spot on TW

There are unfortunately the odd code hugging dinosaurs out there.

Just liek anything really - there are some good inspectors, some bad, good risk assessors some bad.

[messy]

TW. That in a nutshell is how I go about an audit.

To give a definition of a code hugger:

It's an IO (or his line manager) without the knowledge, competence or balls to be able to veer away from a benchmark standard or the strength of character to ask if he doesn't know. This is usually caused by poor management, lack of training, or too much experience in FPA and unable to convert to a risk based approach.