Posted By grumpy In that context everyone that asks a question relating to health and safety or any other related topic in not competent either??? One of the uses of this forum is to share information and sometimes to see that we are on the right lines .... individuals are not asking a question because they are incompetent !!!!! ...... or are you just advertising the services of your colleague is subtle way !!!!

Posted By shaun mckeever Ceri, just wondered where in legislation it 'requires' somebody to be competent in fire safety to undertake fire risk assessments. As a fire safety engineer, I often give advice on this forum as do other similarly qualified people (Ashley Wood, Ken Taylor, Crim etc). I would hope there is plenty of choice for anyone who would like to take advantage of the offer you have made.

Posted By Phillipe What's the point in the Nebosh Fire Safety and Risk Management course then? I have that qualification but do not have 30 years experience, if I did I would have been 7 years old when I started my career? Are you saying that I am not competent and neither are the countless others who have studied this course?

Posted By Phillipe Furthermore, the last time I looked The Nebosh course is a H&S qualification, just on fire safety. As for your comments, any risk assessments you do, be them in fire safety or general health and safety, accountability will always come back to the person who performed it, if it goes belly up, so what point exactly is it that you are trying to make?

Posted By MetalMan Call me old fashioned but I thought a big part of being fully rounded Health and Safety bod was having the capability to research and learn about things I did not understand and to become knowledgeable enough to complete the task required,if you limit your work to things you already know about and are comfortable with you're not going to get very far. Fair enough if the job is too big or complicated for you to feel happy carrying out, call in someone to do it for you.This subject raises it's head on a regular basis and I have commented several times on it. If the whole area of fire safety is too baffling for us mere mortals to comprehend why is the responsibility now on the business owner to carry out their own assessments?

Posted By Crim This thread throws up quite a few issues, some I agree with and some I don't. In a nutshell if you look at the introduction to the guide to fire safety risk assessment for offices and shops it states "It has been written to provide guidance for a responsible person, to help them to carry out a fire risk assessment in less complex offices and shops. If you read the guide and decide that you are unhappy to apply the guidance, then you should seek expert advice from a competent person". This is where the word "competent" comes in. I believe I have the necessary competence but still refer to the guide. I would also limit my assessments to the areas I am more familiar with and not go beyond those boundaries. Sone people do go outside their boundaries and that's why they ask questions. I would hope that following receipt of the answer/s that they would then consider if they are competent or not.

Posted By Jim Walker Crim, I can answer that. I'm CMIOSH but do not consider myself competent to deal with fire safety "The danger arises when you don't know that you don't know".

Posted By Crim Yes Jim you are "spot on" and it looks like you know your boundary with regard to fire safety, but if you "don't know that you don't know" how do you find out - that must be by asking questions, which takes us back to the original thread. Are we getting anywhere?

Posted By shaun mckeever "im sure that to be competent all you need is a basic fire safety certificate. i don't understand the scare mongering here.....unless of course you are working in a oil refinery or nuclear power station........." Sara, I do hope you just placed this to be controversial. If you are serious about this then you have emphasised the point made by Jim Walker.

Posted By shaun mckeever PH that is the problem. People don't know that they don't know. I have pointed out in other threads some things that are often overlooked in what appears to be simple buildings e.g. close boarding or tongue and groove boarding separating the flat from the shop below, pressurisation systems in low risk offices blocks, digital locks on fire doors, the requirement to keep doors onto external fire escapes shut etc. All these are issues I have come across time and again when auditing other peoples fire risk assessments. I even audited one when where the person undertaking the fire risk assessment stated that the building had sprinkler protection throughout. I could not see the sprinklers so approached the person and asked her to point them out to me. She pointed at the smoke detectors! I am also aware that there are some who have applied to the IFE to get on their register of risk asessors where the panellists are so appalled at the standard of fire risk assessments submitted as evidence that they have even considered approaching the clients of these so called assessors to advise them not to implement the recommendations in their assessment because they are so dangerous. As has been said the problem is people out there do not know that they do not know.

Posted By Rob T Sorry PH - I meant Shaun. I agreed with your posting.

Posted By shaun mckeever Yes but that assumes that fire officers know what they are talking about. Sadly we put too much faith in fire officers and a lot less faith in qualified fire engineers who have studied and researched fire all their lives. Don't forget most of the fire standards/codes etc have been written by those who are not fire officers.

Posted By Sara D shaun, i was being lighthearted. i realise that a H&S forum is not the place to joke. i apologise

Posted By Davelfc Ceri, Fire Risk Assessment is not Rocket Science and I don't think others should be put off, The are many posts wit a more balanced view, than beware. I felt more than competent to conduct Fire Risk Assessment prior to the new legislation and since the guidance came out more so. Like Crim I got my head in the guidance and had a good read, and brought myself up to speed. The guidance is easy to follow, and with my experience, I set about putting in place, my fire risk assessment, from that I put in place control measures and checked the fire prevention measures and then put in an evacuation plan, trained all the staff, briefing them on the main points and findings and controls. I also did some internal Fire Marshall training and appointed persons to specific tasks. We then practiced an evacuation and did a de-breif. This was all recorded, and I invited my local Fire Officer in to have a look at what we had in place, he asked questions walked the site shook my hand and left me a card. Like I said not rocket science. Nothing for people to be wary of, yes know your limitations and take advice. the most important thing is that you have good systems that are briefed and practiced with hazards and controls highlighted. This is what saves lives, people know the actions on fire! and have practiced them. The fire legislation has simply put the onus on the employer to conduct a suitable risk assessment and controls in place rather than the old issue of the fire certificate. The employer now has ownership, the fire service are still quite happy once you have done this to come out and give advice particularly the chaps who have enforcing powers and they gave me piece of mind. My message is don't be scared off if you need advice ask for it but you dont have to pay a fortune to a consultant unless you have completely no idea and even then you will need to learn because there are so many checks inspection evacuations and reviews that you need to do you need to take ownership. In life you will always find someone somewhere that will blow you aware with there evident ability and competence we just all need to learn off these people, and what better place than on this forum. Regards Dave

Posted By shaun mckeever PH '..Would me not knowing about tongue and groove, for example, really mean that my assessment is flawed?' Yes. A fire at night in the shop producing toxic gases such as carbon monoxide are more likely to penetrate into the flat above where floors are close boarded. The sleeping resident wil not wake up. So yes it will be flawed. You must still consider the safety of residential occupants particularly in older buildings where close boarding is likely to be fitted. Most fire safety measures introduced into any building are primarily there for life safety purposes. Somewhere along the line there has been a need identified to have these measures installed. They have mainly been identified from previous fires where had they been installed then fatalities may have been avoided. Pressurisation systems are there normally for firefighter safety but can be for occupant safety too. These are critical where they are installed. New buildings where these are fitted will not be issued with completion certificates unless the pressurisation systems are proved. Would you use the stairs if the stairwell was full of smoke? I suspect not. Well that is what the pressurisation system is there for. So in answer to your question. Yes your fra is flawed if you fail to identify critical failures such as this. This comes back to the point that has been made. The problem is people don't know that they don't know. A big help in this will be the revised building regulations that came into effect in April, particularly section 16. There is now a requirement for the fire strategy for new buildings to be passed on as the building is handed over. Anybody undertaking a fire risk assessment must be asking for the strategy before undertaking the assessment. As for the fire officer who checks the assessment. You get good and bad fire officers the same as you do for employees in any other organisation. From my own experience I know that many firefighters who have spent most of their career riding on the back of an engine look to enhance their pension as they approach the end of their career. They do this by opting for temporary promotion as a fire safety officer to serve out their last two or three years. It is at this point that they start learning about fire safety. So the person who is inspecting your assessment may have very limited fire safety experience.

Posted By PH Shaun As always, thanks for the response. I think the point I am trying to make is how far do we go? I only know a handful of people with the level of knowledge you possess (this is only because I work for a consultancy with a dedicated fire division) which would suggest that most people out there undertaking FRAs are not competent. It also brings into question the validity of qualifications such as the NEBOSH fire cert. Is the whole point of risk management not identifying a measured response to the relevant level of risk? Regards, P.

Posted By Chris Jerman Forgive me for hijacking here, but shouldn't the main focus of so called fire risk assessments be about preventing fires from starting in the first place? It strikes me that the majority of postings on the forum are concerned with what do we do if one breaks out. Reading them sometimes is a bit like seeing who can wee up the wall the highest. Surely any well rounded safety professional can conduct an inspection of the workplace looking for sources of fuel and incendive energy. OK, going to be be difficult to check internal wiring etc, but there are other mechanisms to deal with that. Are assessments (as req'd by RRO) really about taking your building to bits to see what it's made of? Yes, yes, I know that there are all sorts of bits to watch out for, painted over door seals, sprinklers that are compromised etc - but couldn't all of the effort that's gone into these pages been used to produce a 'what to look for in an assessment' guide? We could call it 'Assessment for the not so daft' Well. I'd buy a copy. C

Posted By PH It's not how high the wall is but the size of the hose that matters!! ;) Regards, P.

Posted By John Murphy Ceri. I am sure you know the Communities web site provides the fire safety guides and instructions.(http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1162115). The web site states clearly "The guides are designed so that a responsible person, with limited formal training or experience, should be able to carry out a fire risk assessment. If you read the guide and decide you are unable to apply the guidance then you should seek expert advice. Clear enough I reckon Perhaps the subject of the next HSE myth? John