Inspection and certification of fire safety systems installation

These systems in part form part of a fire system, air ventilation can assist with the spread of a fire or air supply system can increase the intensity of a fire. Fire compartment become impacted where these systems are not appropriately maintained or tested for design performance.

Restricting the testing of the fire systems to the installer or plumber only will only increase the cost to building owners, so much so that you will see a reduction of regular servicing increasing the risk to occupiers and visitors to the buildings. QLD is about to head down this path where we will see hundreds of level 2 technicians put out of work.

I would like to see the introduction of qualified level 1 technicians that can conduct the basic services, i.e. monthly and 6 monthly services to sprinkler systems, splinklers fitters to conduct annual services. 6 monthly and annual services to pumps and hydrant valves, where higher level testing like flow tests are copleted by sprinkler fitters. this will maintain and improve safety while keeping maintenance cost low for building owners.

the introduction of qualified technicians over competent based will dramatically improve safety with a higher skill workforce.

There is a huge conflict of interest where operators are signing off their own work, there is no QA or accountability. We see this on a very regular basis where systems have been installed incorrectly but still certified, we feel that a min of Certificate III in appropriate field with an certification competency would be suitable.

There needs to be ethical independence between the certifier and the installer. certifiers need also be audited where appropriate evidence needs to be presented. This should include evidence of onsite assessments in the form of a audit report and photos.

As above

WE highly recommend AS1851-2012(a1) as the benchmark.

As per my fist comment, there is no reason we cannot train lower level technicians to conduct minor services and inspections like monthly and 6 monthly services to pumps, hydrants and sprinkler systems. Annual inspections on valves) this will increase the number of technicians available to conduct these services especially in rural areas. more technicians will increase the safety in buildings, less missed services and lowering the cost for building owners.

I am all for higher level technicians like plumbers completing complex annuals and flow tests. So often while reviewing service books you identify the tick and flick option for technicians, every month is identical. after reviews onsite defects are identified, the concern here is that these are already qualified sprinkler fitters or plumbers.

is this because the work load exceeds the capacity to perform the role they are required to do? there is no capacity for employers and RTOs to increase the number of persons completing apprenticeships to obtain these extra qualification. the number of buildings currently requiring maintenance exceeds the number of required technicians, by adding more workload to an already overstretched workforce will cripple the safety of buildings, not including the extra cost to buildings.

Lastly by introducing the requirement will see many lower level technicians put out of work.

Every building should be proving maintenance has been completed by qualified technicians annually , so many buildings we attend in NSW each year is being maintained by a person who has deemed themselves competent. services are not being completed correctly or to any standard.

We like the independent practitioner assessing buildings annually to confirm performance of systems and maintenance contractors are do the correct job.