Common Escape Routes

[Wiz]

It would be totally over the top to install MCPs adjacent to each classroom door leading to fresh air. .................

M.R. I agree with Greg C that there is no way that mcps shouldn't be installed to all exits to the open air.

Yoo hoo im over here Wiz - I think you meant to say "Greg C I agree with M.R."  do put your glasses on!

Back to your spanner in the works GregC even if the classrom door leading to fresh air had a fire exit sign over it I still wouldnt expect to see an MCP in place.

It goes back to my original comments about putting in managerial procedures which would negate the need to have MCPs everywhere in this scenario.

Sorry M.R. but you are wrong and my vision is perfect! I used the word 'shouldn't' not 'should'.

I confirm that I agree totally with Greg C about B.S. recommending mcps at all exits to the open air.

And nowhere in B.S. does it mention any mangerial procedures overiding this recommendation.

[nearlythere]

Anther spanner in the works then, what if the door from the classroom was not indicated as a fire exit from the corridor but had a fire exit sign over the door, this then becomes a nominated exit and require detection even in a L4 system doe sit not?

(looks over shoulder to see where Wiz is spying on me from.....)

GregC, I can see you clearly from where I am sitting. I don't supply CCTV equipment to others and then not use it myself to spy on them!

To answer your new question; IMO, If the door has an exit sign above it then it should be a designated emergency exit, have all the correct hardware/locking devices/safety equipment fitted, be the right size etc. but then you would also need to fit a detector in the room for an L4 system cos' it would be part of the exit route!

Wiz m8. I used to be a closet code hugger too - until I saw the light.

[Wiz]

Wiz m8. I used to be a closet code hugger too - until I saw the light.

Me too Nearlythere! Although I still tightly hug those parts of the codes that I agree with 

[GregC]

My reason for posting..

An electrical contractor installed a fire alarm, the spec was to L3, there was a schedule of equipment and its location.

They somehow managed to miss a few corridors with mcp's and smoke detection, they installed a detectors by exits from classrooms, ignoring the rest of the room, despite the rooms opening onto corridors of 4m plus they missed sounders out of areas totally and did not clip a single cable in MMT2.

They used quality equipment ie HAES/Apollo/Fulleon and had drawings to follow so its pretty poor all around.

I was asked to compile a report on the failings and was unsure if by dropping the category to L4 if it would be easier for compliance (once the obvious had been corrected) as I feel L3 was a category left over from pre 2002 paperwork and has caught the consultant with his pants down now.

I have a couple of pictures that I will add (once I remember to bring in the camera and work out how to post them)

I also took a couple of pictures of a different school corridor but thats another topic entirely......

[Benzerari]

I think one has to draw a distinction between a fire risk assessment and a code compliance audit.

This is a good point, what are the main differences between the two neareythere? I am not trying to be silly, I am serious. 

[Benzerari]

Typically in infants schools the classrooms have external doors for the children to use at playtimes etc, with even a manual system these doors need to be covered by manual call points.

When a L4 system is specified do the classrooms become "any other part of the Common Escape Routes"?

If I were in a corridor and the fire alarm activated the exit signs would not normally lead me through a class room but via a dedicated exit, so I would argue they do not, however they are part of the escape route for the classroom so I could argue they are.

Where a classroom is larger than a single detector would provide cover for, would a detector adjacent to the external door be compliant for L4 recommendations?

I had seen a simillar situation in a infant school a long time ago, their classroom door exits to the playground had't have any MCPs, and had proposed to the customer to have MCPs fitted, as they were the closer exit for children, I was lucky that they accepted the purchase..., and didn't ask me what BS version is mentioning that, because I didn't know the answer, my proposal was based just on common sense.

[Graeme]

My reason for posting..

An electrical contractor installed a fire alarm, the spec was to L3, there was a schedule of equipment and its location.

They somehow managed to miss a few corridors with mcp's and smoke detection, they installed a detectors by exits from classrooms, ignoring the rest of the room, despite the rooms opening onto corridors of 4m plus they missed sounders out of areas totally and did not clip a single cable in MMT2.

They used quality equipment ie HAES/Apollo/Fulleon and had drawings to follow so its pretty poor all around.

I was asked to compile a report on the failings and was unsure if by dropping the category to L4 if it would be easier for compliance (once the obvious had been corrected) as I feel L3 was a category left over from pre 2002 paperwork and has caught the consultant with his pants down now.

I have a couple of pictures that I will add (once I remember to bring in the camera and work out how to post them)

I also took a couple of pictures of a different school corridor but thats another topic entirely......

goes back to the all too common story of duff installs by sparkies who continue to install fire systems without training or certifcation and rob the fire trade of work.

Agree with Wiz on the classroom not forming a common escape route and Greg on installing mcps' in the classrooms. The code has all exits that open into open air regardless if they are designated exits or not. Makes much more sense that the class all get outside and activate the alarm rather than a designated person looking for the nearest mcp. What i see often when the alarm goes for no reason is a shambles , the designated person would likely be running round in a panic like a headless chicken forgetting what they practiced months ago.

[nearlythere]

I think one has to draw a distinction between a fire risk assessment and a code compliance audit.

This is a good point, what are the main differences between the two neareythere? I am not trying to be silly, I am serious. 

There was discussion very recently regarding a 60 seater restaurant where the proprietor wanted to increase numbers to 100. The only escape route was an inward opening door and  code guidance says that doors provided for more than 60 persons should open in direction of escape and be panic bolted or free from restrictive devices.

Inspector Code would require an alternative escape route, the doors to open out and be panic bolted or free from restrictive devices because that what the code says.

Inspector Assessment would consider the matter and base his findings on risk assessment and fire prevention and mitigating circumstances.
The assessment would take many factors into consideration e.g.
•   Any fire risk in the space or adjacent rooms.
•   Nature of the undertaking,
•   The layout of the room or premises,
•   The type of persons involved,
•   How they may behave in the event of a fire,

If the risk to persons is low an assessor may accept an inward opening door with a normal door handle as providing an adequate means of escape under the circumstances.
Premises were there would be a closely standing audience situation,  a noisy environment and persons in very high spirits due to alcohol then the circumstances are very different than that of a restaurant.

In my humble opinion anyway.

[Midland Retty]

Sorry M.R. but you are wrong and my vision is perfect! I used the word 'sholdn't' not 'should'.

I confirm that I agree totally with Greg C about B.S. recommending mcps at all exits to the open air.

And nowhere in B.S. does it mention any mangerial procedures overiding this recommendation.

Bah! I should have gone to specsavers!

BS does recommend MCPs should be fitted to all exits to open air, but as you pointed out Colin Todd would advise us to excercise a bit of common sense and not hug guides too much.

I disagree that MCPs to all doors leading to fresh air from classrooms in this scenario.

I've known many officers both from local authority, fire authority accept managed procedures rasther than have hundreds of MCPs all over the place.

[AnthonyB]

Re: photos - i can upload them if required

re: Signs over exits.

I find a lot of fire exit signage upgrading to existing premises is done by people who don't know much about MoE (normal premises staff or maintenance) and either is not done in response to a signage survey appended to an FRA at all or to a vaguely worded FRA that just says "upgrade signs".

So you often see routes and doors signed as Fire exits when they are not required as MoE (accounting for travel distance, etc), never have been in the history of the buliding and are never likely to be. These doors often have no escape furniture, not even of the older style (Winchester bolt, Redlam bolt, key box, etc) and to retain as exits just because an exit sign from Staples was randomly stuck over it would be disproportionately expensive.

So the easy option is to remove the sign & update the staff.

[GregC]

Picture as promised

[nearlythere]

Picture as promised

This really doesn't say much Greg other than the detector is not fixed to the ceiling. Am I missing what you are trying to say?

[GregC]

Only that it was typical of the installation by an electrical contractor, not only are the cables not clipped in the trunking the trunking doesnt have sufficent fixings and the detector base screws werent long enough to reach a secure fixing.








Also I am playing with uploading photos on a boring Firday afternoon 

[nearlythere]

Only that it was typical of the installation by an electrical contractor, not only are the cables not clipped in the trunking the trunking doesnt have sufficent fixings and the detector base screws werent long enough to reach a secure fixing.








Also I am playing with uploading photos on a boring Firday afternoon 

Looks to me like the base was fixed at one time but removed to allow round conduit to be run to the light fitting.

[GregC]

If so it was very kind of the person who removed it to leave the screw in place.......