Fire Exit Maglocks

[Guest]

I am sure many of you will have come across them. Final exit from a building, push bar facility and a maglock. The fire alarm activates and the maglock releases, then just push the bar the door opens. A sign is provided in for manual operation ie operate the adjacent fire alarm call point, the system is tested every week, maglock fails open on the event of a power failure any problems with this ? Various authorities insist on green break glasses others do not ! Would appreciate any comments.

[Guest]

Even if you label an exit as 'Emergency Use Only' it's likely that at some point someone will try and use that door in a 'non-emergency'. At least if you have a green break-glass, when they do so they will not evacuate the whole building by sounding the fire alarm.

[Guest]

I agree, however, the maglock is there for security purposes in the first place, the green box should not be operated unless it's an emergency. My point is the fire alarm acts as a deterent to misuse and does exactly the same job as a green box, so why have two break glasses if the appropriate information is provided upon activation of the fire alarm ?

[colin todd]

This is fraught with problems. Also you should read the judgement of the magistrates court in the supermarket case in GMC, as it is highly relevant. The fire authority won the day (and rightly so) in their failure to accept electronic locks plus push bar. With regard to why you should also have the green break glass, one reason is that the fire alarm system might not have been operated. Another is that, contrary to popular opinion, these devices do NOT fail safe in all circumstances. The fail safe only relates to loss of the power supply to the magnet. If the fire alarm system were powered down completely (unlikely I know), the system would not, in the vast majority of cases, fail safe because the common fire relay does not normally have a continuously energised coil. Also, the relay contacts at the panel could stick. I could go on postulating failure modes at the fire alarm panel that could trap people in a building by not releasing the locks. The green break glass is then the last ditch method of getting out. One big problem here is that there has been much dragging of feet in drafting a new code of practice (BS 7273-4) which will deal with this whole issue one day but don't hold your breath for when. In the meantime, there are lots of local guidance docs that say different things./

[AnthonyB]

This is fraught with problems. Also you should read the judgement of the magistrates court in the supermarket case in GMC, as it is highly relevant. The fire authority won the day (and rightly so) in their failure to accept electronic locks plus push bar. ./

Where is there an easy way of obtaining the details of this case? Some case law would be handy to have as ammo.

[Guest]

Thanks for the reply colin, and like anthony, where can I find the judgement. Surely fire authorities should be consistant if a ruling was made. However, does the same apply to green boxes relays etc. I have tested some that have been wired incorrectly and they didn't release the door and others where they fail locked, generally I find they are not regularly tested and I could go on but my point is that companies could go to needless expense, when on a risk assessment basis, if the alarm is tested weekly and the doors are checked at this time details recorded whats the problem. I know some will say thats my assessment but I am interested in all views, for green boxes and against.

[Guest]

I am sure he will love me for this but contact Mike Broszko on 0161 736 5866 at GMC for the details of case.

A further issue is that there are no standards for manufacturing these many and varied devices. Most of the ones I have seen are very well constructed by honourable firms but more widespread acceptance will soon have cowboy firms making 'maglock lites'.

We also need to think hard about why building managers want to fit them. Invariably it is because of stock loss. This can be addressed by more thoughtful positioning of valuable goods and boundary security. The case above admitted in court that the lock arrangement was fitted on the request of an off site security manager and that following fitting, no assessment was made of any reduction in stock loss. This security manager made no assessment of any increased fire safety risk. The actual loss, through the doors involved was tiny as a percentage of turnover or profits.
The case above also had a 15 second time delay following operation of the push bar.

Having said all that, I think there is a place for these devices following development of a standard but use in areas where the public can arrive before trained staff is always going to be dodgy.

[colin todd]

I agree entirely with James, except perhaps in respect of the comments about standards for devices. It is not quite as black as he paints it. With regard to the so called green boxes, there is no relay involved; the power to the microswitch is wired direct through the contacts of the switch. Yes the plunger of a microswitch can stick, but this is very rare, and for the failure to occur at the same time as the also very rare failure of a fire alarm system is like winning the lottery two weeks running. Also, the units are effectively break glass call points for which there is a robust standard, namely BS EN 54-11. The old judge in the GMC case got it right ( he was clearly educated in Scotland!) though the technical evidence he got was not quite correct. GMC could have made a better case if they had refuted the claim that locks are fail safe, but they did not seem to be any wiser than the general public in that respect. The judge did also seem to understand the principle of risk quite well, namely that risk is not just probability, but probability times consequences. If the consequences are Armageddon, the corresponding probability must diminish to something approaching zero. (He didnt quite put it that way, but that's what he meant.) If someone has a real need to read the judgment and is really really stuck, I have no doubt one of our girls would slave over a hot photocopier, but as James said GMC might oblige and probably have more time on their hands to do the photocopying. I find all this very frustrating, as I have been pushing hard to get work going on the new BS, to which the technical committee in BSI agreed TWO YEARS AGO! If anyone feels that a code of practice for interfacing fire alarm systems with doors (in the sense on connecting to MDHs, electronic locks or powered sliding doors on means of escape) is needed asap,  perhaps they would like to nag the BSI committee, as I am tired of stressing to them how urgently this is required. Just write or email the secretary of BSI Committee FSH/12/4.

[Ian Currie]

Does any one have experience of using maglocks in the context of care homes? I have a couple installed on my patch and up until a few weeks ago I happily thought that care homes had to be among my lowest risk premises. Now, although they were not a factor in the Rosepark fire, I feel just a tad uncomfortable with them. The idea is obviously to stop the residents from wandering off on their own and possibly coming to harm, but I think that I should perhaps re-evaluate their use in this area.
 (I also want to make sure that when my loving family install me in a home I can still get out to the pub!)

[Guest]

A certain Mtr Todd introduced me to this forum yesterday.........

I see that there is a pent up desire for product standards as well as codes of practice for these items.

Unfortunately the draft EN standard pr EN14846 which claims in its scope to cover these actually doesnt have any tests or requiremenst for them

Generally the range of EN standards covering door fittings is actually pretty good in terms of quality and requirements but this could be a booboo.

If you wish to emphasise a current need for a proper performance standard for maglocks then the man to email is "Malcolm White" who is the UK representative on TC33/WG4/TG3 which is the task group respsonsible.

By all means tell him I sent you!