Posted By FAH
Hi Richard

It possible that you've seen the earlier thread on this open forum re H&S competence; if so, may I draw your attention to some of the extremely valid comments there re different aspects of H&S requiring specific types of competence and then consider how those same concepts & principles might apply to the potential regulation of the fire safety industry.

I don't know whether you're an IOSH member and have access to the Members Forum where the same debate has rumbled on for some time. It would pay you to see the thoughts expressed there as well because they also have considerable relevance to your post.

I do fire safety - but I don't do structural design nor any form of fixed installations. My area of competence [possibly questionable as it hasn't been formally assessed using current formats] is in an area that is gravely lacking in the majority of the current fire safety industry - effective fire risk assessment and creating realistic & pragmatic procedures for the safe management of occupied [& unoccupied & therefore outside the FSO] buildings, including the management of emergencies.

I believe that there will be a need to segment the industry & allow people to develop the area of expertise that is of most interest to them. This will necessitate a plethora of assessment levels that include cross-matching across segments with the consequent bureaucracy that will inevitably be required.

What do you think?

Frank Hallett

Posted By Richard Hammer
I also agree with your comments, but I feel the basic understanding of fire safety is not even reached when conducting FRA's for low or normal risk properties.

Too often I have not seen passive and very little active fire safety addressed in FRA's.

If the FRA is that simple we should educate the client they can do it them self with a little teaching and reading from the various guidance documents out there.

If a consultant is called, we should offer that extra knowledge and not just quote from the guidance documents as this does not provide a professional service in my eyes. The client should have the /fire safety officer, offering solutions and expert advice.

I totally agree fire safety in various industries differ greatly and the knowledge also, as does H&S. But I feel even the basic advice sometimes is little more than text book stuff from someone who has little training, experience and knowledge.

With BS9999 the FSO getting used to, the next phase will be even further away.

Fire safety manual from design stage (same principles as CDM, H&S file). Fire strategy (even for simple properties, does not have to be complex).

Surely you need an understanding of fire integrity for even simple properties to provide competent advice on fire protection, compartmentation which is also hardly addressed in some cases.

Maybe I am being hard, but I feel this is a wider issue that seems to be not addressed.

How many consultants have you meet that include fire as part of H&S services ??? at least with H&S they have had some wide profession training,education through Diploma, Uni or NVQ level 4. All of which fire safety is a small small small part of the courses.

Posted By shaun mckeever
Richard I couldn't agree more with what you say. I think to be able to undertake a fire risk assessment you must have good knowledge of the subject. How many buildings have I inspected where pressurisation is part of the fire strategy? Is it mentioned in any of the FRA's I have looked at? How many would know where the minimum exit width of 525 mm comes from or why external windows must be 1.8 m from an escape route or the 'scientific' basis for the 2.5 minute evacuation time. Can we increase travel distance by 15% if a super duper fire alarm system is intalled? If so why? Surely having knowledge of these kind of things must help in being able to carry out a fire risk assessment. Just assessing against a 'prescriptive' standard is notreally assessing the risk and may be doing the clients an injustice and costing them money without actually improving anything.

Gosh I stayed away from this forum for a while but I seem to be getting drawn back in. I'm off now to get my tin helmet!

Posted By Peter F
For me fire safety is like everything else in health and safety, once the assessments are complete it's trying to get people to work with you to ensure that actions are carried out. I am by no means an expert, trained through NEBOSH in fire safety and risk assessment.

Sometimes the problem is we look for the major problems, i.e. how the fire will spread and not at how to prevent it in the first place i.e. good housekeeping, switching off electrical items, only smoking in designated areas etc. etc. etc.

over the past year we have worked closely with the fire brigade and invited local stations in as part of contingency plans. They do not carry out inspections but offer sound advice.
We will also take a FRA to an area for them to look over.

Posted By Fornhelper
Word of advice....the consultancy we used was an ex-fire fighter who, for the last 15 years of his professional life (within the fire authority) was heavily involved in the training of fire fighters and lay persons in fire safety management, building design etc.

We had him carry out assessments and do our fire safety training....result was the current fire safety officers had a look at the assessments and training and said 'not good enough'!!!

Our consultant with all his years of experience argued they were!! So who is competent??

Just because someone is a serving fire officer doesn't make them competent either and I would love to ask the question - what makes the current officers who decide whether our fire risk assessments are suitable and sufficient competent? Their uniform possibly!!!

The inconsistency of advice, comments and action that comes from different areas / branches / officers in the fire service makes me wonder if we will ever be able to define competency when it comes to fire safety.

FH

Posted By Messy Shaw
I share the concern about the multitude of less than competent fire risk assessors out there, but have some real anxieties about a registration scheme.

If it is a voluntary scheme, it would be a waste of time & cash as cowboys would still get through.

If it were compulsory, (ie. you could not complete a FRA unless registered/licenced), would this mean that I couldn't complete the FRA on my own business if not on the register? If so, it would be contrary to the Govt's aim of reducing the burden on industry and self regulation etc.

The methodology of registering also seems like a further expense for the registered assessor, creating another opportunity for the cowboy to undercut prices.

I assume there would be regular re-registering after a given period. Would that need evidence of CPD and if so, how much? Another financial burden perhaps?

I do accept that there is a real problem with non competent assessors. I once saw a FRA for a basement restaurant which used 200+ candles, many above soft furnishing that did not comply with the FS furnishing regs. This plainly obvious significant finding was missed by the assessor, who concentrated on non slip floors and a gas shut off valve. Clearly a H&S assessor over-reaching himself.

But I fear over regulation/registration might be more of a curse/burden for the industry unless properly managed. Call me cynical, but I fear some over bureaucratic unaccountable quango charging the earth for registration, but failing to effectively close the 'non competent' loophole, thereby allowing the cowboys room to continue operating - and without the financial burden of registration - offering a much cheaper service.