Heat or smoke detection in hotel bedrooms opinion please

[William 29]

The law

[PhilB]

So are you suggesting that Fire Certicates didn't cater for the safety of the person in the room??? You've lost me there William.


With the new technology and the smoking ban I can obviously see the point in fitting smoke detection in bedrooms when new systems are installed. They must of course be the correct type to reduce the risk of false alarms by steam etc.

What I am against is FRS issuing notices for existing sytems to be upgraded and heat detectors being replaced with smoke detectors.

I cannot see the justification for this when these existing systems were required under the 71 Act for the safety of all persons who resorted to the premises including the person in the room.

[kurnal]

What I am against is FRS issuing notices for existing sytems to be upgraded and heat detectors being replaced with smoke detectors

I totally agree with you on this point Phil. A notice would be inappropriate.

But everybody please put your risk assessment hat on and consider the following.
You assess two almost identical  hotels, part of a national chain. One has heat detectors in the bedrooms. The other has smoke detectors.

All other things being equal is there any significant  difference in the level of safety for guests in the bedrooms?

And as a risk assessor are you satisified with the residual level of risk in the one wth heat detectors or would you recommend installation of smokes at some time in the future? Would you even comment on it?

Its not a test, I am just interested in hearing opinions.

[PhilB]

Personally I am satisfied with the residual risk. Money could be much better spent fitting smoke seals and intumescent strips. I do not have smoke detectors in my bedroom, its not that I'm reckless, I don't think they're necessary. and I would not mention it in the assessment...then again I might just to explain my reasoning to a jackbooted inspector.

But if the jackbooted inspector challenged me I would hug onto my lilac guide and new hotel guide and ask where it says they should be smoke detectors!

I do however agree that the standard should be amended for new installations.

[Ricardo]

Surely 5839-1;2002  isnt that out of date,

It recognises that AFD should be located in sleeping risks, says so in commentary in clause 4.1

Clause 21.1.8 talks about choice of detection and what it depends on

Clause 21.1.8 also says
It is generally accepted that occupants in a room of fire origin are likely to be aware of a fire before it is detected by any form of fire detector, unless they are asleep, even if occupants are asleep  the risk to occupants of typically sized bedrooms might not be such as to warrant smoke detection within the bedrooms, except in the case of dormitory accommodation or rooms intended for mobility-impaired disabled people who require additional time to escape from a fire in their bedroom.

[jokar]

the whole issue here is not about us it is about the term relevant person and what an RP has to do to protect them.  Different people, different scenarios, different minds.  I have a piece of video that demonstrates the Christmas tree fire, room untenable in 20 seconds.  As above most commercial detectors may not have operated by then and i agree that not many people have Christmas trees in their bedrooms.  However, the point is a SD may have woken someone whereas a HD would not have.  I did my best M'lud.

[wee brian]

So we need to upgrade every alarm system in every hotel in the land - in case the mad trees get us - your not the guy who wrote the animals guide are you?

[jokar]

No thankfully not that mad, and no we don't have to do what is suggested just as a good risk assessor consider it.

[Ken Taylor]

I had an incident many years ago where an old fellow in a local authority care home died in a fire within his room and was believed to have fallen asleep in his armchair whilst smoking.  [This is not an argument for smoke (rather than heat) detection but just to make the point that there can be some instances where effective early detection within the room could be beneficial]

[PhilB]

But Ken a think you'll agree a care home is an entirely different scenario.

[kurnal]

Can anybdy explain why smoking causes so many fires and deaths in the home yet so few in hotels, even when smoking was generally allowed in hotel rooms?
I would not have thought there was such a difference in terms of habits, furnishings, alcohol etc between what you do at home and when in a hotel.

http://www.firesafercigarettes.org.uk/news

[PhilB]

My opinion only of course....because often the people dying in house fires are not the typical hotel customer.

There are usually other socio economic factors. Not that I'm saying that all fire fatalities are poor, thick or drunk.....but often they are....or old and infirm......or very young  ...and living in house with dodgy electrics and a praffin heater.......etc, etc.

Your average hotel client is not like that.

[Adam Jackson]

Smoke or heat alarms in hotel bedrooms should be fitted with a snooze function...

[Ken Taylor]

I'm sure you're right, Phil, and people tend to behave differently at home (to some extent) where the environment is familiar and lack of previous fire may tend to reduce the appreciation of risk.

[Tom Sutton]

Check out a previous thread at http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=786 which I believe is relevant to this subject. Its good to read Toddies wise words not for you Phil.