Strange fire alarm system in the New Year 2008 ???

[Benzerari]

Hi guys happy New Year:

It seems that I have started the New Year with a strange fire alarm system of a new site; we have recently taken over…

It is a school with very old fire alarm system, it is sort of manual fire alarm system, the panel is the power supply itself with no buttons, a small basic PCB circuit inside, with one zone and sounder circuits, when tested the call points alarm went off normally, but the system can be silenced just by puling off the test key, there are no detectors at all in the whole school. Only fire exits, corridors and main entrance have call points, also in the corridors between call point and the next one to it, there is more than 45m. The sounder and zone circuits are not monitored for short and open circuits...


My concern is;

Is that kind of old fire alarm systems still acceptable by BS 5839 nowadays, if yes in what circumstances, and to what level of protection?

Thank you in advance

Benzerari

[AnthonyB]

Sounds like an old Gent's (or similar) 240V system - they came in three 'flavours':

1) The 'top range' model, where the system could be zoned, had a  electromechanical drop flag zone indicator system & 'silence' & 'reset' sliders.
The system was also available as a 24V system with trickle charged wet cell batteries

2) The 'basic plus' system - no zoning etc like version 3, but with a silence alarms button box that temporarily cut off the sounders allowing you to replace the broken call point glass in peace

3) The basic system - a series of call points and bells or electromechanical klaxxons the only control being the power supply switch at the fuse box.

Even some very large multi use buildings had (& still have) type (3) variety's. Most of these old systems are manual, but  you can find them with bimetallic strip heat detectors which are either risk specific in sparse locations or almost throughout the whole premises. Ion Smoke heads did exist, but are extremely rare as a lot were pulled out many years ago for various reasons including the fact they used a significant radioactive source (compared to their modern 24V & 9V counterparts).

A test key makes me think that the call points are not original - one building I assessed had a 240V type (1) variant that had been previously been 'upgraded' by replacing all the Gent call points with KAC call points for ease of the weekly test (Gents were always a pain, especially if you had forgotten your Allen Key - also after a decade or two the grub screws round off & you have to hammer in a small flat head screwdriver to unscrew it!).

If the alarm stops when the key is out then it's probably a variant (3) system - the most basic.

If its 240V only it's been illegal since 1996. (Safety Signs & Signals Regulations). It will also not comply with BS 5839.

A 24V version of the type (1) system would not be outright illegal, but may not meet BS5839 spec - suitability would be decided by the cover provided v risk and the condition of the system - a replacement may still require consideration.

Standards History:

Pre 1951

Installation Rules of the Fire Offices’ Committee

1951 – 1972

BSI - 1951 Code of Practice CP327.404-402.501

1972 – 1985

BSI - 1972 Code of Practice CP 1019

1985 onwards

BS 5839 Fire Detection and Alarm Systems for Buildings

[CivvyFSO]

I think AnthonyB has answered rather well and he even stopped up until past 1am to answer it. That's dedication for you.

My only comment would be about the call points being more than 45m apart. They could be 90m apart, as you should never have to walk more than 45m to get to the closest call point.

[Benzerari]

Sounds like an old Gent's (or similar) 240V system - they came in three 'flavours':

1) The 'top range' model, where the system could be zoned, had a drop flag electromechanical drop flag system & 'silence' & 'reset' sliders.
The system was also available as a 24V system with trickle charged wet cell batteries

2) The 'basic plus' system - no zoning etc like version 3, but with a silence alarms button box that temporarily cut off the sounders allowing you to replace the broken call point glass in peace

3) The basic system - a series of call points and sounders or electromechanical klaxxons the only control being the power supply switch at the fuse box.

Even some very large multi use buildings had (& still have) type (3) varient's. Most of these old systems are manual, but  you can find them with bimetallic strip heat detectors which are either risk specific in sparse locations or almost throughout the whole premises. Ion Smoke heads did exist, but are extremely rare as a lot were pulled out many years ago for various reasons including the fact they used a significant radioactive source (compared to their modern 24V & 9V counterparts).

A test key makes me think that the call points are not original - one building I assessed had a 240V type (1) variant that had been previously been 'upgraded' by replacing all the Gent call points with KAC call points for ease of the weekly test (Gents were always a pain, especially if you had forgotten your Allen Key - also after a decade or two the grub screws round off & you have to hammer in a small flat head screwdriver to unscrew it!).

If the alarm stops when the key is out then it's probably a variant (3) system - the most basic.

If its 240V only it's been illegal since 1996. (Safety Signs & Signals Regulations). It will also not comply with BS 5839.

A 24V version of the type (1) system would not be outright illegal, but may not meet BS5839 spec - suitability would be decided by the cover provided v risk and the condition of the system - a replacement may still require consideration.

Standards History:

Pre 1951

Installation Rules of the Fire Offices’ Committee

1951 – 1972

BSI - 1951 Code of Practice CP327.404-402.501

1972 – 1985

BSI - 1972 Code of Practice CP 1019

1985 onwards

BS 5839 Fire Detection and Alarm Systems for Buildings

Thanks AntholnyB for these details, one thing I wanted to make sure about is that; Is it a must for a service engineer to keep reminding the customer about these abnormalities, through his service dockets? stating i.e. system operation OK but........( rise concern about what should be ).

Because testing the system's operation is really just a piece of cake, but it still not complying with a lots of BS5839 such as zone and sounder circuits monitoring, MCP distance ...etc

Thank you

Benzerari

[AnthonyB]

I would keep putting the abnormalities on the service sheets - you are contracted to maintain the system to current standards & under those it fails to comply (even if working). It covers you and ensures the customer cannot claim they didn't know the system wasn't up to standard - I've seen this before when a client had to admit they'd been deliberately ignoring a problem, they couldn't escape it as it was documented on every 25% service sheet for the previous 4 years!

If it is still considered adequate by the user after your advice & the system works that's all you can realistically do

[Benzerari]

I would keep putting the abnormalities on the service sheets - you are contracted to maintain the system to current standards & under those it fails to comply (even if working). It covers you and ensures the customer cannot claim they didn't know the system wasn't up to standard - I've seen this before when a client had to admit they'd been deliberately ignoring a problem, they couldn't escape it as it was documented on every 25% service sheet for the previous 4 years!

If it is still considered adequate by the user after your advice & the system works that's all you can realistically do

Thanks AnthonyB thats all I wanted to know!

[Wiz]

To continually 'remind' a customer that his system doesn't comply with current British Standards is both time-consuming for the service organisation and could also cause friction between the customer and the service organisation.

BS5839 part 1 2002 Clause 46.2 clearly recommends a special inspection on appointment of a new servicing organisation. This special inspection is intended to highlight major deficiences in compliance with current standards. Once this has been done and properly recorded then the service organisation has done it's duty and there is no need to continually keep highlighting the same problems on every service visit.

After the special inspection, the recommendations for periodic inspections are covered in 45.3 & 45.4 and these include requirements to identify any changes in use and structure of a building, since the previous inspection, that may affect the system.

Rectification of non-compliances is a matter for the user to determine, and not for the service organisation to force through.

[John Webb]

Is it possible to point out to the client, as politely as possible, that his fire risk assessment under the RR(FS)O  needs to take into account the deficiencies in the existing alarm system?

[AnthonyB]

I've yet to see a special inspection report from a changeover and if it wasn't put on the regular sheets we wouldn't know about it! Many of our clients never see the engineers in person and it's only if we flag up problems in the FRA via faults recorded in the routine paperwork that they end up acting.

I'm not saying you are wrong & I see your point, but just going on my experience. I'm not expecting for modernisation to be 'forced through' unnecessarily, but in our sector of work the clients representatives need regular reminders or it escapes them - they all have many buildings to manage & often let fire safety run itself.

[Wiz]

Obviously there are different types of customers. There are those that need constant reminders of what they should be doing and who are happy to receive them. My own experience shows there are there are also those customers who take exception to being constantly reminded. They feel they are being inappropriately pressured or even 'oversold' and subsequently 'shoot the messenger'. Benzrari and others should possibly take this into account if they don't want to 'lose' customers. I always found that if the people receiving the reports only had responsibility for a number of buildings that they didn't own themselves then they were happy to receive constant reminders (which they just passed on to the building user/owner). Where the person who got the report was the user/owner then they hated being 'badgered'
I agree that the 'special inspection' has hardly become a popular option and this is because no-one wants to pay the costs associated in carrying it out! However it is the recommendation of British Standards and until everyone who 'takes over' a system insists on carrying it out, the situation will not get any better.
John is obviously right in stating that any deficiences have an impact on any fire risk assessment and, of course, the manner and method of informing customers of deficiences is important.

[Graeme]

I've yet to see a special inspection report from a changeover  often let fire safety run itself.

we do them as standard although it does not always make me popular as the customer always asks "why did the last company never mention all these?"

The fact that you have identified all the non complainces and another company has not, should do you credit but the customer usually thinks that the new company coming in is looking to make some money.

[Benzerari]

Who knows what have been discussed with the previous service company? probably it has just got fed up of servicing a none cost effective site located more than 70 miles away, with a service time of less than an hour, and further more it is what we called sometimes in French (Porteur de maleur) 'trouble bringer', with a customer who wants you to witness that his bicycle is doing the job just like a motorbike…

To be honest I would not spent my time to argue about any related past events which I had not been involved...

I agree that 'diplomacy' does much matter in convincing customers, being a service engineer and a good seller has never been that easy, also it is not that easy to convince customer to invest in the right direction in one service visit. That is why I wanted to keep reminding him in the service sheets till he gets the point.

We all want to make money by doing the right job and that is the bottom of the line thought!

[Benzerari]

Couple of things I have forgotten to mention is that; according to the Fire Log Book I  checked in there, it seems the service has not been done since 2002 except the weekly bell test records stating Bell test done OK but no trace of which MCP been tested. The fire alarm system is serving the school bells too, it is linked to the school bell’s timer which has two buttons for start and stop, I guess, they where doing their bell tests through that school bell’s Buttons and not from MCPs in rotations…

The MCPs are a mixture of very old types, with different types of screws, and few KAC ones… so you need:  Flat screw driver, Philips one, Alan key and KAC test key… to do 100% test. What’s this headache!

I would prefer then to make a full report once, and then join it with each service sheet as a reminder to save my time and cover my self …

[Graeme]

i still have a few Schools on my list with gents 240v systems and they bore the pants off me having to do them.
I find it very tedious having to service really bad or old installs and spend half my time writing the same non compliances out,time and time again.

i would much rather maintain new complaint installs where i could just do the testing and leave.

[Wiz]

How about having a box to tick on service inspection reports that said something like: Previously advised system deficiences NOT yet rectified, instead of re-confirming all the problems on each visit?