FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: PhilB on March 22, 2007, 10:56:41 AM
-
From other posts we know that many FRS are now requiring hotels to upgrade their fire alarm systems. Are you recommending heat or smoke detection for hotel bedrooms?
Could one argue that there is the potential to increase unwanted fire signals and thereby reduce the effectiveness of the systems if smoke detection is used?
The old lilac guide recommended heat detection in bedrooms for good reason.
-
The problem I can see with HD is that it is not very effective for the person sleeping in the room, and they are a relevant person.
-
But the purpose of the detection is not to warn the person in the room. It is to warn others before the escape routes are compromised.
That was why the old L3/L2 standard was changed in the late 8os. It was found that detection in corridors only was ineffective as the smoke had cooled and was filling escape routes from the bottom up, so by the time the detectors operated the corridors were full of smoke. It never was about warning the person in the room.
Yes the person in the room is a relevant person but he should be aware of a fire without the need for a detector.
-
When he is asleep?
-
Yes!!!! Do you have a smoke detector in all your bedrooms??
-
Yes!!!! Do you have a smoke detector in all your bedrooms??
Yes I do !!
Although the original intent may have been as PhilB suggests,I don't think it would wash in a court of law now
-
Well you're very safe Pip you must sleep very soundly but its usually not needed in bedrooms. Do some reserach and look into why the BS5839 was amended.
Why would it not wash in a court of law? That has been the recommended standard for the past 20 years and it has worked.
-
PhilB mentions changes in the L2/L3 standard in the late 1980s. I am fairly certain these resulted from work I and others at Fire Research did on the spacing of detectors in corridors. The principle problem was that with a FR door, smoke formed a plug in the corridor in the vicinity of the door as fire gases were considerably cooled by their passage through the door to frame/stops gap. If this happened between detectors in the corridor, then the plug could thicken to a considerable density well above the maximum level through which people might be willing to try and escape.
Because the severity of fire in the room of origin would have meant that any person in the room would have died, it was recommended that heat detection be put in each room to raise the alarm before escape for others was affected. At the time it was considered that the risk of false alarms from a smoke detector in each bedroom was too high. (And the cost aspect of smoke detection was also a consideration.)
Perhaps with modern multi-element detectors the FA problem is considerably reduced - and fast-response sprinklers also provide an alternative which could additionally save the life of the room of origin occupant.
-
Quite So John with modern detection the false alarms can be reduced but there will still be many. Also as hotels are upgrading they often cut cost of upgrade by only using short spurs of cabling into the rooms. Therefore detectors are often found just a few feet inside the door slap bang outside the bathroom.
If IOs demand smoke detection I believe they will infact be increasing the risk by increasing the false alarms and thereby reducing effectiveness of the systems that will inceasingly be ignored by guests fed up with sleepless nights.
-
Quite So John with modern detection the false alarms can be reduced but there will still be many. Also as hotels are upgrading they often cut cost of upgrade by only using short spurs of cabling into the rooms. Therefore detectors are often found just a few feet inside the door slap bang outside the bathroom.
Indeed, generally right next to the bathroom door. Hello steam.
-
Fire service recommends sd in bedrooms-and fits them,on home risk assessments,why should the ethos be different in a hotel bedroom?
-
One reason not to treat the same is that most hotel rooms will have a kettle, whereas most bedrooms don't, unless they have one of those old Goblin tea makers!!
-
Fire service recommends sd in bedrooms-and fits them,on home risk assessments,why should the ethos be different in a hotel bedroom?
Presumably you are targetting vunerable groups. The ethos should be different for all the reasons stated before, essentially to prevent UWFS.
-
Sprinkler it damn you
-
even under the old regime of certificates,in my area policy was we reccommended sd in all hotel rooms,it is still the same today, with a 90 sec delay in transmission of alert to enable staff to check,thus reducing false AFA calls to the Fire Service.
-
Did you or anyone ask why that policy was made? It was not what was recommended in the Home Office guide.
-
Or would optical detectors not reduce the risk of UFS?
I admit, HD would be the best option for management of UFS, but are we then saying the person in the room is expendable?
How about combined smoke and heat, with an alarm in the room only if smoke det is activated (with an option to silence it), full alarm if heat det is activated. That would be nice. I shall now run off and patent that idea.
And I do have smoke det in my bedroom. Main reason being my newborn son is in the next bedroom, and I do not want to be killed by smoke, leaving my son to be killed after that has happened. If you can guarantee that smoke will wake me, instead of rendering me unconcious and then dead, then I shall remove it at your professional advice. :)
-
No Civvy leave it there and put one in your toilet as well I bet Pip has!! I know you were jesting but sprinklers are definately the best option.
If the person is in such a deep sleep or so drunk that smoke won't wake them then they probably won't awaken anyway no matter how many gongs, bells and whistles are used.
-
DefinItely?
Indeed. Buy the drunkard as much time as possible. Lobby EVERYTHING!!!
Although, realistically, that "drunkard" could be any one of us!
-
If the person is in such a deep sleep or so drunk that smoke won't wake them then they probably won't awaken anyway no matter how many gongs, bells and whistles are used.
Quite so Phil - you are probably also aware of the little snippet in Schedule 1 Part 3 of the RRO - Principles of Prevention where it specifes that one of the principles is :-
"g) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures"
Do you think this means "let him burn!"
-
I think its high time the policy on the use of heat detectors in hotel bedrooms was reviewed.
I fully understand the alternative arguments about the risk of unwanted signals but in these days of multi sensor detectors, possible delays of up to 6 minutes for verification of alarms by staff, analogue addressable systems, BMS and system supervisor terminals there are so many ways to avoid the unwanted signals. And if an engineer sites a detector so close to the bathroom that steam is a problem then they are not complying with BS5839, as the designer and installer has a duty to take this into account.
I have been working on one system this week with multi sensor heads that even the test aerosol will not set off the optical element of the alarm without switching the system into commissioning mode.
I would ask the following question- what is the relative time to detection for a smoke versus a heat detector. Now we can adjust the threshold of detection we should provide the earliest warning possible without causing unwanted signals. I have last week specced a new hotel with Gent S Quad multi sensor detectors throughout all bedrooms and corridors in total confidence.
-
I quite agree Kurnal that there are nice new systems out there that can cope with steam, cigarette smoke etc. and eliminate these unwanted signals. But are FRS recommending them or requiring them in enforcement notices?
I doubt it so the RP will go for the cheaper version and the unwanted signals increase. Don't tell me you've got a smoke detector in your room too Kurnal!!!!!!
-
no it would be a nuisance when I smoke in bed.
But that happens less than it used to.
-
Why not have CO detectors on the rooms? As regards what would an IO recommend, that may be easy, a system to BS 5839 Part 1 2002 L2. It then gives the engineer the alternatives to make a decision or not on the risk involved.
-
I definitely have a SD in every bedroom, but not the toilet (although I have been known to nod off there in the past). If there is a fire in my or my kid’s bedrooms I want to know about it straight away and not wait until the smoke has reached the SD on the landing. There are just as many electrical appliances in bedrooms these days as what there are in living rooms, so why not. I suppose you could relate not having one to a traffic policeman not wearing a seat belt in his own car cos he is a safe driver.
I have never been able to get my head round writing off the occupant/s (there could well be a family in there) of a hotel room for the sake of unwanted false alarms. I thought we were in the business of saving lives; not writing them off because we don’t want to tip the local FRS out of their cot’s in the middle of the night.
Where on earth is the logic behind this “the purpose of the detection is not to warn the person in the room. It is to warn others before the escape routes are compromised”
You are being extremely presumptuous saying person; I would say that most hotel rooms are occupied by more than just one person.
I think we need to stop being choosy about whose life we save and whose we write off. Surely in this day and age we can try to save em all.
-
Davey
The research done in the past would indicate two factors
1- false alarms caused by areosols, steam, smoking etc in hotel rooms would cause many nuisance unwanted alarms. The more alarms that occur the less people take any notice of them and so when there is a real fire many people will ignore it assuming its just another flase alarm. This is actually a powerful argument- that more people would be placed at risk as a result of the extra detection. But I believe it no longer needs to be the case with more modern types of fire detection systems and monitoring equipment.
2- If I recall correctly tests carried out at the time of the research indicated that the chances of surviving a fire in a room were not very high and that the choice of detector whether heat or smoke had little bearing on this. Obviously this depends on the character of the fire to a great extent and the technology available at the time. The old ionisation detectors were not very good with smouldering fires and obviously the heat detector based on rate of rise would not be very quick to respond in this case.
Modern multi sensor detectors incorporating rate of rise and fixed heat detection, optical obscuration and and scatter and perhaps a carbon monoxide sensor should overcome all of these reservations in my opinion.
-
Where on earth is the logic behind this “the purpose of the detection is not to warn the person in the room. It is to warn others before the escape routes are compromised”
That was FPA logic - preserve the means of escape - not the people in the building - as opposed to the RRO where an assessment of the risk to relevant persons has to be made.
Similar but different ....
-
That was FPA logic - preserve the means of escape - not the people in the building - as opposed to the RRO where an assessment of the risk to relevant persons has to be made.
Similar but different ....
No Fred it was about saving the people in the building, the logic was that persons in the room should be aware so there was no need for detection.
The old L3/L2 was about protecting escape routes so is the new L2/L3. However the old one was found to be ineffective as escape routes could be compromised before the alarm was raised. That was why they changed it and put detection in rooms off corridors. Not to warn persons in the room but to warn everyone that the escape routes may soon be compromised.
Yes it would be marvellous to have smoke detection everywhere if it did not cause unwanted fire signals that, as Kurnal correctly points out, can reduce the effectiveness of persons response to alarms.
Davy I can understand the need for a smoke detector in your kids room, that is a totally different situation, I would question the need for one in your room however.
I cannot believe that so many of you have detectors all over your houses but if it makes you feel safe carry on.
-
Most hotels that are built these days have smoke detectors in the rooms. They only use heat detectors in the rooms where smoking is allowed.
seems fair enough to me. But I dont think making older hotels upgrade would be reasonable.
-
Just a few comments regarding points made in various previous posts;
The position of an automatic detector in a hotel bedroom is often strongly influenced by the owners of the building who do not want an 'ugly' detector in the the middle of their beautifully designed hotel room. They don't want it at all, but if they have to have it they don't want it too much on show!
In fact BS5839 allows the location of a smoke detector on the wall above the entrance door in hotel bedrooms because of this. And could it not be construed that the choice of this 'unusual' position is proving that the detector's purpose is to warn the occupant of the room of smoke leaking in from the corridor and proving that it is assumed than an occupant of a bedroom should be somehow aware of a fire in their own room but would need warning of fires from elsewhere?
With respect to the suggestions of fire alarm systems that warn the occupants of a possible false alarm condition in their own room without neccesarily giving a 'full evacuation' alarm immediately, this sort of facility is available as standard on addressable and even some non-addressable systems but the use of any such 'delay' is often veteod by the Fire Service as being a potentially dangerous delay that 'could cost lives'
-
I cannot believe that so many of you have detectors all over your houses but if it makes you feel safe carry on.
i did have a domestic detector in my loo but I found that the heavy methane vapours kept setting it off to the extent that I was starting to be charged by the fire Service for false alarms / good intent.
Sorry! Anyway getting back to your discussion I personally think this is a cracking debate Phil has started. I have come across different Fire Authorties, consultants and risk assessors all having different views on this mater.
I must admit personally I would prefer to see smoke detection installed in the bedrooms - i recognise it would only protect the person in the room, where as a heat detector would still warn everybody before the escape routes became untenable, it wouldnt be quick enough to try and save the resident in the room of origin.
I accept that half the time hotel guests are probably too drunk to hear the alarms - a classic case of "Beer ears " i think they call it.
But equally so, I think whilst UwFS can be a problem we need to try and rouse the person in the room of origin - smoke is the biggest killer and they may never wake up otherwise.
-
SD also buys all the other drunk/sleeping people more time. It's been identified that these people are hard to wake/move already so surely the more time we can buy them the better?
-
SD also buys all the other drunk/sleeping people more time. It's been identified that these people are hard to wake/move already so surely the more time we can buy them the better?
Yes Civvy but a heat detector will do that.
Think about the type of fire and speed of development in a hotel bedroom. What will start a fire?... the most likely cause in my opinion would be an electrical fault. I would suggest a lot of smoke would be generated and strange smells and noises that would rouse an occupant unless he was completey zonked out through alcohol.
As I said earlier if he is zonked out to that extent neither heat or smoke detection will wake him on time.
But a heat detector will warn all others before the escape route is compromised.
-
SD will warn them quicker though...
If there's no chance of the smoke overcoming the person before the HD is activated or the smell etc actually rouses them then I would have to try agree with you.
Otherwise I am sprinklering it, lobbying every room, external escape stair to every room, and a RA done for every room by one of you £700 per half a day consultants. SO THERE.
I AM THE LAW!!!!!
Oops. Time to settle down. Is there a darkened room around here somewhere?
If so, is it detected?
-
Unfortunately not. The law is the judiciary who may have something to say on the matter and after all the onus of responsibility is on the RP not anyone else. There seems to be a bit of an assumption here that SD works like s domestic smoke alarm and sounds imediately. Not true, do some testing and work out the times. A smoke detector may go of in a room and provide warning to others and the drunk may still not wake up.
-
You are right Jokar... commericial AFD can in some cases be slower to react than domestic type detection
However it still has to be argued that it is much quicker than Heat Detection.
Whilst you are right a heavy sleeper or someone under the influence of alcohol may never wake up even if Smoke Detection is employed it still has to be better that HD for all concerned.
As I stated before and PhilB is absolutely right on this the primary purpose of detection is to protect MOE not the person in the room.
But it begs the question these days with the RRO so open to interpretation and a greater onus on Competenmt persons to protect relevant persons whether or not changing heat to smoke would prove to a judge everything practicable was done to protect everyone in the hotel including yer slightly merry guest in the room of fire origin.
-
No Civvy leave it there and put one in your toilet as well I bet Pip has!! I know you were jesting but sprinklers are definately the best option.
If the person is in such a deep sleep or so drunk that smoke won't wake them then they probably won't awaken anyway no matter how many gongs, bells and whistles are used.
I only put detectors in my high risk bathrooms!:-)
-
Ah that's better Pip...bathrooms scary biscuits!!!
-
In regards to reduction of AFD's,local Fire Authority has hit Government reduction target 2 half years ahead of schedule.Its a new world out there now, and whatever the reasons for HD in hotel bedrooms before,they are not viewed the same by many now.Many cannot agree that it is reasonable to sacrifice one person, where there are other arrangements and modern equipment available.I am sure that eventually it will be tested in court, and fire authorities will adjust their policies to suit.
Lots of people I know have sd in their own homes beyond the downstairs landing,they are v. cheap nowadays, and when fitted by the local FS on home risk assessments they are put in landings and bedrooms,with 10 yr batteries.SD will not be the answer to everything,but it will be a big improvement and save lives.
-
I cannot believe that so many of you have detectors all over your houses but if it makes you feel safe carry on.
Why? Most deaths are in the home, if ever you wanted as much detection as possible its in houses.
Personally I would like to be woken before my escape route is beginning to be smoke logged, so rooms with an ignition risk onto the landings are covered, also I like my house and belongings so also want an early warning for property protection.
A detector in my bedroom is to save me from my smouldering bedroom TV and mainly to act as a sounder so i will wake up rather than rely on being roused by a landing head through a closed solid door.
Needless to say they are all linked - otherwise this defeats the object of having so many.
Premier Travel Inns on the whole use smoke heads to rooms, usually near the door or above it on the wall, with a room sounder. They have clear signage to shut the bathroom door whilst showering to prevent false alarms from steam. The only heat's I've seen in this chains rooms are in designated smokers bedrooms or very old premises with the original fittings
-
I cannot believe that so many of you have detectors all over your houses but if it makes you feel safe carry on.
Why? Most deaths are in the home, if ever you wanted as much detection as possible its in houses.
Yes I am aware that most deaths occur in the home, however most house fires do not start in the bedroom.
By all means put detection in every room if you can afford it but there is little point.
Childrens bedrooms, good idea due to risk of fire play and lots of electrical gadgets. Unless you use sleeping pills or consume vast amounts of alcohol you would most likely be awoken by the smoldering TV in your bedroom.
A detector on each landing would suffice in my opinion but it is your risk assessment, if it makes you feel safe spend away!
-
I cannot believe that so many of you have detectors all over your houses but if it makes you feel safe carry on.
Why? Most deaths are in the home, if ever you wanted as much detection as possible its in houses.
Yes I am aware that most deaths occur in the home, however most house fires do not start in the bedroom.
By all means put detection in every room if you can afford it but there is little point.
Childrens bedrooms, good idea due to risk of fire play and lots of electrical gadgets. Unless you use sleeping pills or consume vast amounts of alcohol you would most likely be awoken by the smoldering TV in your bedroom.
A detector on each landing would suffice in my opinion but it is your risk assessment, if it makes you feel safe spend away!
My view may be coloured,but the site of dead children in bedrooms is not one I want to see again, and if that means I have sd in my bedroom to improve my chances of waking up beyond'most likeley' to make sure I get my young kids out of the house,then I am more than happy to spend that extra money.A lot of people spend more money on fags a week than the cost of sd in the home.
-
My view may be coloured,but the site of dead children in bedrooms is not one I want to see again, and if that means I have sd in my bedroom to improve my chances of waking up beyond'most likeley' to make sure I get my young kids out of the house,then I am more than happy to spend that extra money.A lot of people spend more money on fags a week than the cost of sd in the home.
Yes I think many of us have been there Pip I'm not trying to kill all the children honest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just don't see the point in wasting money.
I hope you are also going to install domestic sprinklers because it is highly likely that if you would not be woken by your smoldering telly you would also not be woken by your smoke detector.
-
My view may be coloured,but the site of dead children in bedrooms is not one I want to see again, and if that means I have sd in my bedroom to improve my chances of waking up beyond'most likeley' to make sure I get my young kids out of the house,then I am more than happy to spend that extra money.A lot of people spend more money on fags a week than the cost of sd in the home.
Yes I think many of us have been there Pip I'm not trying to kill all the children honest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just don't see the point in wasting money.
I hope you are also going to install domestic sprinklers because it is highly likely that if you would not be woken by your smoldering telly you would also not be woken by your smoke detector.
you may be right,but I am willing to spend a fiver in case you are not.
-
Fors and against when talking about residential smoke detection... but if you think about it logically unless you install interlinked smoke detection stand alone units may not help
Scenario
You have single point detectors everywhere - great...
Fire starts in ground floor lounge... detector in lounge activates but you cant hear it as doors are closed and you are fast asleep.
Smoke breaks through into hallway and landing - landing detector activates - this is the time you want to be woken before your landing is lost to smoke. By the time the detector goes off in your bedroom you may not be able to get into the landing to go and rescue a child in a adjacent room.
So in reality ok I take the point that a fire starting in a child's bedroom next door to yours you might be able to hear the detctor go off in their room but im an on call fireman and have the loudest possible alerrter imaginable and at times i can sleep through it - leaving my partner frantically having to slap me round the face to wake me.
-
Fors and against when talking about residential smoke detection... but if you think about it logcally unless you install interlinked smoke detection stand alon units may not help
Scenario
You have single point detectors everywhere - great...
Fire starts in ground floor lounge... detector in lounge activates but you cant hear it as doors are closed and you are fast asleep.
Smoke breaks through into hallway and landing - landing detector activates - this is the time you want to be woken before your landing is lost to smoke. By the time the detector goes off in your bedroom you may not be able to get into the landing to go and rescue a child in a adjacent room.
So in reality ok I take the point that a fire starting in a child's bedroom next door to yours you might be able to hear the detctor go off in their room but im an on call fireman and have the loudest possible alerrter imaginable and at times i can sleep through it - leaving my partner frantically having to slap me round the face to wake me.
did i forget to mention that they were linked(cue outrage from Phil due to cost of bell wire:-) )
Unfortunateley I wake quite easily-and I always hear my alerter .My wife often slaps me round the face but its never been to wake me,normally to tell me to go to sleep.
-
Most contraversial Pip - Mr Phil won't like that!
Do you think he is Scottish perhaps? He seems very tight with the purse strings!
-
Fire service recommends sd in bedrooms-and fits them,on home risk assessments,why should the ethos be different in a hotel bedroom?
Because if I accidentally set my smoke detector off in my house at 3 am it does not result in 400 people having to evacuate to the car park, and if it repeatedly occurs I am only annoying myself and maybe my better half.
Because a much higher proportion of fatalities arise from dwellings.
Because the escape routes are unlikely to be protected by FR construction in dwellings.
I always believed that the detector was to alert others who may be affected by the fire, not the person in the room of fire origin. The same as sprinklers in resi care, and hence the new guidance in ADB on multiple beds, the person in the room of fire origin will not be saved unless they are well away from the fire source.
-
At last Saddlers, the voice of reason.
-
From BS 5839 pt1 2002 ( for guidance and best practice);
"" In buildings in which people sleep within rooms accessed by corridors, other than short lengths of corridor, research has shown that passage of hot fire gases through a door crack can produce smoke sufficiently dense and cool for a corridor to become smoke-logged before adequate warning can be given by detectors in the corridor. In this case, a Category L3 system, in which detectors are installed in rooms that open onto the escape routes, as well as within the escape routes themselves, is likely to be appropriate. The purpose of the detectors in these rooms is to give an early enough warning to occupants, other than, possibly, the person in the room of fire origin, such that they have adequate time to escape before their escape route is impassable as a result of smoke. Accordingly, within the rooms, the use of one or more of the following types of detectors is satisfactory: heat, smoke, combustion gas or multi-sensor detectors. In some circumstances, even a Category L3 system might not be sufficient to achieve the life safety objective. A fire risk assessment might determine that, in addition to the protection afforded by a Category L3 system, fire detectors need to be installed in rooms or areas that would not be protected in a Category L3 system. The resulting system would then be a Category L2 system. A Category L2 system would be appropriate if a risk assessment determines that the fire risk associated with rooms other than those opening onto escape routes is unacceptable. Alternatively, there might be a need to give enhanced early warning to occupants of certain rooms, such as disabled people, of a fire in their own room. In this case, smoke or combustion gas detectors within the rooms in question are necessary; heat detectors will not respond quickly enough."" end quote.
Which hotel group wants any deaths in its building ? in the interest of PR !
Under DDA etc. do we have to ensure all people are safe or just the chosen few ? All rooms covered to protect people with special needs
( many types) means flexibility in use of building, as all rooms can be used.
The problem of UWFS can be designed out with both good design and good management.
There seems to be an air of "I'll show you how cheap I can do this" attitude about this ( like other fire safety discussion points), instead of a true risk assessment that covers all areas and options, which also provides alternatives to an employer/responsible person/building owner etc. like 'if you want only to protect this ! you may need this ' but if you want to protect that plus this you will need this' !
long winded or what ?
-
Fire service recommends sd in bedrooms-and fits them,on home risk assessments,why should the ethos be different in a hotel bedroom?
Because if I accidentally set my smoke detector off in my house at 3 am it does not result in 400 people having to evacuate to the car park, and if it repeatedly occurs I am only annoying myself and maybe my better half.
Because a much higher proportion of fatalities arise from dwellings.
Because the escape routes are unlikely to be protected by FR construction in dwellings.
I always believed that the detector was to alert others who may be affected by the fire, not the person in the room of fire origin. The same as sprinklers in resi care, and hence the new guidance in ADB on multiple beds, the person in the room of fire origin will not be saved unless they are well away from the fire source.
Compliance with ADB does not necerssarily mean compliance with the RRO(FSO).I don't believe that you should write some one off because it is inconvenient to some one else.I am quite happy to follow the local policy until they tell me different.We are not having a big problem with UWFC to Hotels-and there are ways around it nowadays anyway.
-
There seems to be an air of "I'll show you how cheap I can do this" attitude about this ( like other fire safety discussion points), instead of a true risk assessment that covers all areas and options, which also provides alternatives to an employer/responsible person/building owner etc. like 'if you want only to protect this ! you may need this ' but if you want to protect that plus this you will need this' !
long winded or what ?
Thanks for quote AFD it explains exactly my point, the detection is not for the person in the room because it is generally not needed for that person.
I am not trying to save money by using heat detection but trying to get efficient systems that do not generate unwanted signals.
-
The point I am trying to make ( not very clearly , but that's an age thing ) is that the Detection is there to protect whoever or whatever the design strategy is aimed at, we cannot say in a 'blanket way' it is not there to protect occupants of a room but only others in the building. It depends on the owners/employers/designers strategy and requirements etc. they may want/need to only protect escape routes and others or want/need to protect everyone or everything. The RRO I suggest maintains that all relevant persons must be protected, so your risk assessments and strategys must reflect that.
-
I totally agree AFD, what needs to be provided should be determined by risk assessment to ensure the safety of every one, including the person in the room.
My point is that sometimes smoke detection is not necssary for the protection of the person in the room. However with some occupancies smoke detection will be necessary.
And people like Pip will put it everywhere regardless of the risk anyway.
-
AFD I agree in some respects, that each case will need to be assessed on its merits, but when we consider the full package that generally exists in hotels. Generally fabrics and furnishings are of limited combustibility, all electrical appliances are tested on a 12 monthly cycle (unlike those in our homes), controlled heating systems which should be positioned carefully to minimise the risk of ignition, to what extent do we go to protect the person in the room. In my opinion this clearly demonstrates that risks have been considered and minimised where possible. Whatever happened to "reasonable steps", and would this solution not demonstrate to a court that reasonable steps had been taken.
Do not all the statistics show that fatalities in buildings other than dwellings are minimal (I would be interested to know how many have occured in hotel rooms), and that false alarms are on the increase.
The only way I would consider smoke detection within the rooms would be with a delay on the alarm. But even in this scenario, to allow a suitable delay from the time of activation of the detector, to locate the incident and get to the room in question, would it not be probably too late anyway?
I also do not advocating putting lives at risk to save money, but do consider cost against effectiveness.
-
Where are the stats that show how many lives have been saved by AFD in Hotels?Local AFD reduction Target well ahead of schedule.
I know of 3 occaisions where I have carried out rescues although room occupier had not woken , neighbours had alerted Fire Service.
As most hotel room occupiers are 'Relevant persons',will the FSO change the previous reasons for AFD?
As far as I know,locally we will proceed with asking for SD untill challenged.
-
Pip
There arn't any stats as you well know... so whats the pomt your trying to make
you refer to 3 occasions where YOU carried out rescues, form the room of origin?.......................And why did the fire alarm in your hotels not waken the the other occupants.....or don't you have stats for that!
The whole point of the RRO is, I was informed by Andy Jack, to reduce the burdons on industry and commerce, but almost every posting I have read on here, since 1st October 2006, indicates extra this extra that, more detection, new systems, when will it all end ?
Conqueror.
-
I know of 3 occaisions where I have carried out rescues although room occupier had not woken , neighbours had alerted Fire Service.
.
Pip were these rescues carried out from hotel bedrooms, I think not. Earlier posts on here have expalined to you that the situation in other residential premises, particularly HMOs and some private dwellings is entirely different.
With regards to stats, do some research and I would welcome other posters inputs on this.........can someone give us an example where the occupant of a hotel room had to be rescued from the room of origin due to lack of smoke detction in the room?..I don't think there will be many examples.
-
hi we re doing an up grade in a arge hotel now, and we are doing alarm verification oon the detection in the rooms
contact me if you wish,
richard.earl@tecservuk.com
-
Conqueror states that the 'RRO was done to reduce the burden on industry' ! I think we know that is political speak - All the RRO does is state it is self compliance (in the future it will be self regulation). It means there will be reduction in the need for fire authority inspectors
( less money from public purse). The burden on medium to small businesses has increased. The larger organisations generaly have always had some form of fire safety advisor available, now the smaller one have to employ consulatants as they are fearful of not carrying out their duties.
The case of reduction in cost by implying they do not have to provide what is a satisfactory standard of fire precautions is nonsence, if the risk assessment concludes they need something doing, then they need it doing, if not they don't. I am still hearing consultants state 'its existing' !! So what ? fire certificates have gone ! We all know there are poor standards in buildings that have been left for years, we risk assess and if done in professional manner it will tell us what is required. There seems to a body of thought that we only 'risk assess downwards'
( including politicians ) if we act professionally a risk assesment will be true and accurate and provide a satisfactory standard of achievable fire precautions. If we do, we can move this industry forwards, and remove the bull !
-
The whole point of the RRO is, I was informed by Andy Jack, to reduce the burdons on industry and commerce.
You have more faith in government than I do; moving most of the responsibility from local government (FRS) to industry was going to reduce the burden? It certainly reduced the burden on FRS or was the strategy that most of industry would ignore the order and take a chance of a fire or being inspected by an EO.
-
The whole point of the RRO is, I was informed by Andy Jack, to reduce the burdons on industry and commerce, but almost every posting I have read on here, since 1st October 2006, indicates extra this extra that, more detection, new systems, when will it all end ?
Conqueror.
Doesn't all of what is happening go toward making safer premises though? Any precautions put in place through a risk assessment are there because they are deemed to be necessary. Won't the overall burden to business, i.e. reducing the damage/interruption of trading etc caused by fires, be less?
Maybe these people who were running sub-standard premises have been getting away with it for a long time and now it is their responsiblity they are standing up and taking notice? If members of your family were working in these premises then how would you have it?... With the employer happily 'getting away with it' because an IO has not visited yet, or having to do something to make it safe?
-
The reduction of burden to industry,was not aimed at not having a safe premise,just not having such a complex system.As the gov blurb says,if you have been complying with the FPWR there should not be too much problem.But of course commerce has not,in a lot of cases,so now they will have to play catchup.Risk assessment will always mean there are different perceptions and views placed on the level of risk.Nothing so far has convinced me that SD should not be the first consideration,with some caveats.As this has been happening locally for years,there is not going to be a problem with lots of hotels having to change HD for SD.We do not locally have a Large UWFC problem with these places.It works,it aint broke so why fix it?