Posted By J Knight
Hi Crim,

I have read a few things, written largely by philosophers and social scientists, on the origins of common sense, and I personally distrust it almost entirely as a guide to understanding the world.

However, in response to your question; can somebody with common sense and no other knowledge or skill conduct a fire safety risk assessment? I would say no, no and thrice no (ooh missus).

Does common sense include a knowledge of fire separation? Does it include the need for electrical testing and inspection? Does it include an 18m travel distance, or 12 or 25 depending on circumstances? Does it differentiate between evacuation (which the fire service won't do) and rescue (which they will)? Etc etc etc.

You don't need to be an ex-fire-fighter or a fire engineer, but you do need uncommon sense and knowledge to do a suitable FRA,

John

Posted By anon1234
Anyone can do a fire risk assessment - the big question though will be, is it any good?.

In simple, 'low risk' environments I would suggest that someone with 'common sense' could undertake a perfectly acceptable assessment - assuming they refer to appropriate guidance etc.

In a complex, 'high risk' environment the level of 'common sense' required may need to be higher - i.e. they may need some additional training and would certainly need a greater knowledge of the site specific high risk issues

Posted By J Knight
anon,

you said it 'assuming they refer to appropriate guidance'. Using guidance comes into the area of knowledge, and supplements the 'common-sense' which as Tans says is very different for different people.

Risk assessment requires 'competence' (Reg 3 MHSW) and notwithstanding all the various debates running at the moment about what competence is or isn't, I think I can state with confidence that unsupported common sense isn't often part of it,

John

Posted By MP Grayson
Too right!

The only reason for buying a map is to see where you were going after you got lost going there.

I use SATNAV now, its ace but I wish them pedestrians would not try and cross the zebra crossing whilst I am re-programming it.

Now THAT IS COMMON SENCE surly.

Posted By Malcolm Hogarth
I have 2 standard replies when faced with this : firstly "What is common to one is not common to all", and secondly, Common Sense is not that common!

Coincidentely, the first example came from a fire officer presenting a seminar on the RRO and fire risk assessments.

To widen the debate further, my understanding is that Enforcement Authorities and the Courts do not accept common sense arguments and prefer hard facts and documentation.

Malcolm.

Posted By Colin Reeves
I have done the NEBOSH Diploma and also a British Safety Council Fire Risk Assessment seminar. However, I do not need to do fire risk assessments on a regular basis (not my department).

Therefore I would feel competent to do a RA on a small building with no significant hazards within it, but would not feel competent to do a RA for a large, complex building.

Even with training, I do not believe "common sense" on it's own is sufficient, even with access to information!

Colin

Posted By J Knight
anon,

Exactly, your common snese would see to it that you referred to appropriate guidance, and so would I, but I don't think that common sense as it is usually applied includes referring to guidance,

John

Posted By Pete Longworth
Here here Bob
I seen on many occasions on this forum people who have asked for advice on fire risk assessments being dismissed out of hand and told they are not competent so don't try to do one. Mainly, I suspect by consultants specialising on FRAs. You are spot on when you say that the main aim of a FRA should be to maximise the chances of getting out of a building on fire safely and should be approached from that point of view. We don't all need to be experts on the structural features of buildings to be able to assess travel distances, etc. The guidance published in support of the RRFSO gives the average health and safety bod enough info to conduct an FRA on his place of work, unless of course it is a particular unusual or high risk area. In fact I have been to a number of seminars and attended a couple of courses on FRA and the RRFSO organised by or attended by the Lancashire Fire Service. In each case they have been at pains to stress exactly what I have just said. You do not need extensive technical knowledge to conduct a fire risk assessment.

Posted By Crim
Thanks everyone, what a wide variety of views but quite close really.

I have always tried to have a common sense attitude to health and safety, that is I always listen to the other point of view, attempt to persuade by finding common ground, and sticking to the spirit of the law whenever I can.

If all else fails I then lay down the law as that is what we are required by law to do.

I have always believed that common sense includes experience in the doing as well as training of the theory and practical.

It has always made sense to me not to be afraid of asking when I do not have the answer and to have the relevant ACOP or guidance close at hand.

Many thanks

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Interesting if well worn debate about FRAs, competence, common sense...

I would like to put a slightly different slant on the subject. There is a lot, perhaps too much science, involved in the management of health, fire and safety. Some it promulgated by academics and alike. For example, I have had only basic fire training but I could complete a reasonable FRA in a low risk environment - part knowledge, and part applied common sense.

As a general practitioner working in a high risk environment I need to apply many skills and judgements. You cannot be an 'expert' in every field and if I felt out of my depth I would research, seek advice or refer the task to someone else. Is that common sense? Well, it is not rocket science.

Regards

Ray