FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Terry9 on April 23, 2007, 12:25:27 PM
-
I work for a company with several large hotels in central London, the largest of which has somewhere in the region of 4500 detector heads. At present we successfully manage a staff alarm where our fire team have 5 minutes to investigate an actuation by a single head before the fire brigade is called. This has significantly reduced the number of calls to the fire brigade over the years. However, we still experience fairly regular incidents of malicious call point actuations.
In order to reduce these, the call points are sited inside stairwells rather than along the corridors, and in some places have been provided with lift-up covers. In our experience having a cover to lift does very little to prevent a vandal from activating the call point if that is their intention. Nor would CCTV help much. Firstly we would need a huge number of cameras to cover every call point and even then, CCTV does not prevent vandalism, only helps to confirm that, yes, the call point was activated by an unknown human being.
Once we have one evacuation, we usually then experience copy-cat evacuations over successive days and nights, either from people who thought it was funny to see the fire brigade turn up in the middle of the night, or disgruntled customers out for revenge on their lost sleep. In any case, we have found the net result is that when you have to evacuate several thousand people at 4am because of vandalism, you can wave goodbye to their repeat custom and expect a flood of complaint letters erroneously claiming that the fire alarm ‘does not work’.
We have looked at the idea of phased evacuations, but when the alarm sounds at night, an evacuation on one floor will disturb everyone else in the building. To go down the route of a voice alarm system, whereby we could call people out section at a time would be wonderful, but after several enquiries, for the largest of our sites we would be looking somewhere around 250K to have the system fitted.
However, in the ‘new’ fire risk assessment guides for sleeping accommodation (pp.53-54) we think we may have found a solution. In the section on manual call points one of its recommendations to reduce unwanted alarms was to have ‘a delayed alarm for investigation purposes.’ When reading this I was reminded for the Fire Action Notices in my local London Underground station which say ‘Operate the fire alarm. No sound will be heard but the fire brigade will be called.’
I contacted our Inspecting Officer from the fire brigade and proposed extending the delay to call points in areas that had AFD coverage and providing a suitably worded fire action notice with each device. We reasoned that in most cases AFD would detect a smoldering fire before a person did and that the fire team would already be en-route by the time the person reached the nearest MCP and activated it. If the person reached the MCP first, it would not be long before AFD noticed the fire also. In our experience of using a delay, the average time for our fire team reaching even the furthest point on the guest floors is about 2½ minutes. Often they are on the scene much sooner than that. Given this proposal, the Inspecting Officer said he would not be against the proposal, but that we ought to perhaps check with our insurers to see if they had any objections.
This is the stage we are at now, and having read contributions on this forum with interest I thought it might be enlightening to see if anyone else has gone down this route, or what comments it might raise.
thanks,
Terry
-
It is refreshing for me to see such a detailed anaylsis of a problem and a thoughtful solution. Even more refreshing is the FSO officers response.
-
I work for a major insurer. I would be very nervous about a customer who wanted to do this, but would listen to, and consider, their argument. I would want to be certain that fail safe mechanisms were robust and that risk assessments were clear.
____________________________________
On a train, if you pull an alarm you are put in contact with the driver who will speak to you to find out the problem. Things would be much easier in the UK if fire alarms used the same technology.
-
In coming up with this idea we are putting a lot of emphasis on having 24 hour on duty fire team who have enough knowledge of the system to explain any queries that might arise. We would also build the delay into the security information that goes to coach party / student group leaders.
Beyond that we have argued that the failsafe for this set up would be that the areas provided with delays are covered by AFD and that if there was a fire we would very quickly get a 'double knock' which would activate sounders and the auto-dialler.
From our point of view the only people that would be inconvieienced by the lack of sounders activating immediately would be the vandals.
I think that the key to it working is in the wording of the fire action notice.
Terry
-
Chris
I would be interested to know why you would be nervous about this issue and that you would listen and only consider arguements.
Is it a case that you would listen and not consider because it would possibly go against what would traditionally be deemed Good Practice? What would be the alternative solution?
This issue is a bit like a hold open device on a fire door. If you don't permit it then it will be wedged open to never close when required.
This is where risk assessments are extremely useful. One sometimes has to think outside the box and find a reasonable resolution to a problem which is not covered in the Codes.
-
Terry 9
Does the Hotel use heat detectors anywhere, and if so, would MCPs in that area be 'wired' to immediately active the AFD?
If a member of staff discovered a fire, would s/he be able to over-ride the delayed MCP?
Will the delay be time related (just between certain times of day?)
Lastly, you mention that this new approach is based upon the reasoning that "in most cases AFD would detect a smoldering fire before a person did".
Have you evidence of this? As I would argue that there is no greater fire detetion system than a combination of a nose and eyes, and I have attended many fires where occupiers have discovered them well before the AFD.
Call me old fashioned, but I do have some reservations about extending delayed AFD systems to incorporate MCPs - especially in sleeping risks!
Maybe it's because I have been bought up assuming that Fire Risk Assessments are concerned with life safety, or in certain cases, business continuity. Now it seems that control measures are being squeezed to prevent vandalism affecting profits!!
One (very) last point: London Fire Brigade have a policy on Time Delay and Time related AFD systems, which definately would not permit MCP delays as proposed by your Hotel . Is there any sugestion that that policy is(or will be) scrapped?
-
It sounds fair enough to me. I've dealt with jobs where the MCPs have been relocated or even removed to avoid malicious operation.
My main concern would be that If I did see a fire and hit a break glass that there would be no indication that the thing had worked. Could you incorporate an indicator that showed that the signal had been raised? (flashing LED or a quiet sound).
-
To terry9:
I assume the lift-up covers fitted to some MCPs are the plain plastic type. I have seen protective covers with their own inbuilt sounder to deter vandels; could these help?
If you have staff permanently on duty and available to respond to the operation of a MCP, would it be possible to consider 'fire telephones' in the areas where the problem is greatest? Anyone spotting a fire could use these to speak with staff immediately, who could then investigate or sound the alarm depending on the information given them. Verbal communication does seem to deter hoaxers to a degree; I don't know if it would work well enough in your situation.
-
One (very) last point: London Fire Brigade have a policy on Time Delay and Time related AFD systems, which definately would not permit MCP delays as proposed by your Hotel . Is there any sugestion that that policy is(or will be) scrapped?
No indication yet, but virtually every LFB policy has or is being rewritten to reflect the RRO it will probabley be in the pipeline.
I think in the Age of the RA, the policy as it is would'nt really stand up against the RRO if challenged.
I am an I.O of the LFB and on the information given would certainly consider the proposal put forward. although the suggestion of MCP's 'back of house' not being on a time delay would be preferable.
-
Thanks for all the replies - there are a lot of things here that we have thought about going into this.
We are looking at putting the delay on call points in areas covered by smokes - call points in higher risk areas like the kitchens or plant rooms which are covered by heats would not have a delay, going on the theory that the detection time would be a lot longer and that they are out of bounds to the public.
I know about the LFB's policy on delays, as that is what has governed us up to this point, but we have dealt with a succession three long service Fire Inspectors, all of whom were quite happy for us to extend the delay providing we could demonstrate effective management of the system.
In a slightly wider scope, with our fire certificate effectively consigned to the dustbin, if we work to the risk assessment guides, and the risk assessment guide says 'consider delays on call points' and we carry out our risk assessment and demostrate effective management of our system, what exactly would Fire Inspectors be objecting to?
Also, we have looked at these MCP covers with built in alarms, and from experience the trouble with them is that the determined vandal will operate it anyhow and now we will have two alarms to deal with!
I noted in 5839 that it says a visual indication must be provided to show that the actuation of the call point has worked. I know the LED on the box will come on, but rather than a visual indication, to me it is a communication problem. If you have a flashing light attached and the person activates the alarm, but doesn't hear the sound, will they be satisfied by a flashing light? I think the key to it is providing an effective written instruction adjacent to the call point, as London Underground do, telling people they will not hear a sound, but that help will be on the way.
Behind all this is a desire to reduce unwanted alarms. It's not simply from the point of view of protecting revenue, although that is a consideration. The main point is that people get risk hardened to false alarms and will not react in future.
Adding up the pros and cons of this arguement, we have on one hand the issue of evacuating several thousand people at night, into the street because of 'a prank' against delaying the actuation of the sounders for 2-3 minutes while the fire team investigate, providing the system does not double-knock before they get there.
Terry
-
Chris
I would be interested to know why you would be nervous about this issue and that you would listen and only consider arguements.
Is it a case that you would listen and not consider because it would possibly go against what would traditionally be deemed Good Practice? What would be the alternative solution?
This issue is a bit like a hold open device on a fire door. If you don't permit it then it will be wedged open to never close when required.
This is where risk assessments are extremely useful. One sometimes has to think outside the box and find a reasonable resolution to a problem which is not covered in the Codes.
Simply, I would be nervous because if the system fails, and the evacuation of the hotel guests is delayed or not undertaken, following a fire and a fire alarm system activation, this could result in fatalities, cost a lot of money to the properly, liability and business interuption insurer.
Alternatives including immediate evacuation upon fire alarm system activation plus focussing on reducing false alarms.
I would add that while codes and legislation are useful benchmarks (and breaking them can make litigation easier) they are not the primarly issue for an insurer. i.e. something can be illegal, but not likley to result in a fire/injury in which case it's not a big deal for insurers, or something can be legal, but still unacceptable in an insurers opinin.
-
Terry9
How do vandals get in to your hotels in the first place?
Have you tried a scatter gun?
-
I noted in 5839 that it says a visual indication must be provided to show that the actuation of the call point has worked. I know the LED on the box will come on, but rather than a visual indication, to me it is a communication problem. If you have a flashing light attached and the person activates the alarm, but doesn't hear the sound, will they be satisfied by a flashing light? I think the key to it is providing an effective written instruction adjacent to the call point, as London Underground do, telling people they will not hear a sound, but that help will be on the way.
My understanding of 5839 is that there should be no more than a 3 second delay between pressing the call point and hearing the alarm, this is so that the person trying to activate the alarm does not hang about after pressing it.
I must admit, if I saw a fire, pressed a call point and didn't hear an alarm, it would give me serious worries and I do wonder if I would then evacuate immediatly or try to wake my friends and family (and others) first.
-
Chris
I would be interested to know why you would be nervous about this issue and that you would listen and only consider arguements.
Is it a case that you would listen and not consider because it would possibly go against what would traditionally be deemed Good Practice? What would be the alternative solution?
This issue is a bit like a hold open device on a fire door. If you don't permit it then it will be wedged open to never close when required.
This is where risk assessments are extremely useful. One sometimes has to think outside the box and find a reasonable resolution to a problem which is not covered in the Codes.
Simply, I would be nervous because if the system fails, and the evacuation of the hotel guests is delayed or not undertaken, following a fire and a fire alarm system activation, this could result in fatalities, cost a lot of money to the properly, liability and business interuption insurer.
Alternatives including immediate evacuation upon fire alarm system activation plus focussing on reducing false alarms.
I would add that while codes and legislation are useful benchmarks (and breaking them can make litigation easier) they are not the primarly issue for an insurer. i.e. something can be illegal, but not likley to result in a fire/injury in which case it's not a big deal for insurers, or something can be legal, but still unacceptable in an insurers opinin.
I know where you are coming from Chris but you surely have to look at it realistically. There is a serious problem which if not addressed could lead to the circumstances you describe.
Terry9 is trying to take measured steps to ensure that if the alarm sounds it is for the right reason.
Do you not think that with persistant false actuations of the alarm a "cry wolf" mentality might creep in?
-
Whilst London as a Brigade have a policy on Time Delayed systems they do not rigidly apply it and whilst that policy does not allow it for sleeping risks it has been used before. In some cases the time has been extended to 10 minutes in certain premises that are well managed.
-
.... but would listen to, and consider, their argument.
Insurers don't like this sort of thing. I think I'm doing Terry a favour by telling him this here frankly and allowing him to get his ducks ina line before he approaches his insurers. I can't speak on their behalf, but that's the reality.
You'll note above that if it were my call, I'd be happy to consider their proposals.
-
What an interesing thread and a good range of well considered arguments.
1- For what its worth my opinion is that all premises should have a means of manually raising the alarm of fire.
2- The siting and spacing of these should generally be in accordance with the codes of practice otherwise this may lead to confusion.
3- It is important that on operating the alarm clear feedback is given to the person operating it that the alarm is operating- within 3-4 seconds as per BS. Otherwise they may panic and go back into the building looking for alternative means. The Basil Fawlty reaction but this is very real- and while many people do stay calm- but many dont when confronted by a real fire. Their priority becomes alerting their nearest and dearest.
4- A building without manual call points could be considered but in compensation would need multi sensor detection configured for sensitivity to any criteria in isolation. And such a system would lead to more AFD unwanted signals. Theres a balancing act to be carried out between AFD sensitivity, unwanted signals and manual means of raising the alarm.
5- Sprinklers may be a decent alternative:-)
6- The easy ways- alarmed covers as suggested by John may be the easiest first step.
7- If this doesnt work a telephone linked to reception in lieu of a break glass call point may be a reasonable alternative if the language barrier can be overcome
-
Dear Nearlythere,
For 'vandals' read 90% paying customers (either drunk. mentally unbalanced, juvenile, disgruntled or a combination of these); 5% clumsy contractors carrying ladders etc; 2% idiot staff wondering if the alarm call points really do work like we showed them; 2% thieves who use the chaos of an alarm as cover to break out of the buildings unnoticed; and 1% disgruntled staff who missed out on a pay rise, etc.
T.
-
I too, have really enjoyed the considered comments and thoughts surrounding this post and would like to add my own.
Would it be possible to consider having a 'double-knock' system so that it takes two devices to operate before immediate operation of alarm warning devices? In this scenario all the call points would be signed with a warning that operation of them does not do anything other than summon staff to investigate. Obviously there would be a delay timer before automatic operation of the alarm warning devices but also that the operation of a second detection device would cause immediate operation.
Vandals not knowing about the above 'double knock' operation scenario might then lose the temptation to operate any manual call points because it does not cause immediate evacuation.
Until something is done to make punishment for this sort of vandalism equal to the detrimental effect it has on society then there will always be problems of this sort. Also non-commercially minded persons shouldn't minimise the hoteliers complaint about false alarms due to vandalism impacting on their profits. This is a very serious issue to any business person. A solution must be found to this sort of problem otherwise some people might start considering dangerous short-cuts to protect their livlihood. Not being able to feed your family is a powerful force. This is something that people who receive their own pay solely through the taxation of others rarely consider when deciding on rules and regulations.
Also the idea of sprinklers fitted in a hotel that can't cope with 'false' operation of manual call points is scary! I can see a vandal really enjoying the damage and confusion that breaking a couple of sprinkler heads in a corridor would cause!
-
Thanks by the way for all the comments. I put the post in for people to find flaws in the system.
I’ve been thinking about the behavioral side of this issue overnight. If I was in a hotel and discovered a fire, I would (hopefully) trot off following the fire exit signs to the nearest call point and raise the alarm. If next to the alarm was a fairly large sign that said in clear letters ‘you will not hear the alarm but security will have been called’ (or words to that effect) I might think it a bit odd, but like when I am at my local underground station, I would say to myself ‘I’ve done my bit’ and off I would go, relying on London Underground to have trained their staff.
Let’s say, on the other hand, I am a typical guest. I am Senor Lopez an elderly gent from Buenos Aires having just traveled across the Atlantic for the first time and have arrived in London where upon I have just sampled my first pint of British beer, eaten a plate of fish and chips and am now in deep jet-lag and alcohol induced sleep without having bothered reading the fire instructions in my bedroom, even though they are in Spanish, because I’ve lived to this ripe old age so far and have never had to know how to escape from a burning hotel before and doubt I will ever have to do so.
Who is actually going to discover the fire: Senor Lopez, or the smoke detector in or outside his room?
I think a lot of people get worked up about ‘sleeping risk’ that you need to have call points to raise the alarm quickly. This is probably because most hotels I’ve heard about have heat detectors in their bedrooms. We have smokes in our rooms because we realize that if a fire breaks out at night, the vast majority of people will actually be asleep and will know nothing about the fire. From our point of view, in the accommodation areas the first line of defence is the smoke detectors, an addressable panel, and a 24 hour fire team equipped with VHF radios.
When we have had incidents in the past (thankfully minor ones like a vacuum cleaner overheating) the speed in which our smoke detectors pick up the incident has always been faster than someone hitting a call point. A few years ago we had some Spanish kids setting fire to toilet rolls in their bedroom. That obviously activated the alarm in their bedroom and within seconds of them opening the bedroom door it activated a detector in the corridor and double-knocked the system. About a minute and a half later the first member of the fire team was on hand, picked up the burning toilet roll and dropped it into the bath tub and put the shower on. Three or four minutes after that the Brigade arrived having been brought out by the auto-dialler and confirmed everything was ok.
In the six years I have been involved in operating the systems we have here, never once have we been alerted to an incident by a call point actuation – it has always been through a detector activation.
By having a delay on the call point the worst thing that is going to happen is this. A businessman stays in the hotel on his own. He falls asleep with his cigarette in bed and sets fire to sheets. He leaps out, runs outside and heads for the fire exit where he finds a call point. The bedroom door closes behind him on the door closer and so no smoke goes into the corridor. By now in all probability, the smoke detector in his room would have activated, he now hits the call point and the system gets a double knock. Let’s say however, he gets to the call point first. He presses the button. Nothing happens. He is puzzled, but then sees the sign that says security are on their way. He stands there scratching his head for a few seconds more by which time the detector in the room picks up the smoke and sends the system into double knock. The hotel is tipped out etc etc etc. After the event, the businessman is downstairs at reception paying for the damage he has caused to the room by falling asleep smoking. Out of curiosity he asks the concierge why the alarm didn’t go when he pressed the button. The concierge, ably trained, says: “ah – but the alarm did go off down here – we heard it. Didn’t you see the sign that said the bells would not sound upstairs?” Businessman says ‘yes I did.’ “There you go then” says the smiling concierge.
One last thing. Come July we are banning smoking in all our bedrooms. We do not permit cooking facilities in the rooms either.
Now, does the delay on MCPs in public areas covered by smoke detectors sound unreasonable?
Terry
-
Also the idea of sprinklers fitted in a hotel that can't cope with 'false' operation of manual call points is scary! I can see a vandal really enjoying the damage and confusion that breaking a couple of sprinkler heads in a corridor would cause!
The would not enjoy it at all. They would be covered in a black stinking water first and would be easy to spot (water sitting in pipes gets pretty mucky). Maybe because they are ceiling mounted, maybe because they are more difficult for the untrained eye to spot, malicious activation of sprinklers isn't really a problem in the UK. Recessed sprinkler heads would most probably be used by a hotel for aesthetic reasons.
-
Also the idea of sprinklers fitted in a hotel that can't cope with 'false' operation of manual call points is scary! I can see a vandal really enjoying the damage and confusion that breaking a couple of sprinkler heads in a corridor would cause!
The would not enjoy it at all. They would be covered in a black stinking water first and would be easy to spot (water sitting in pipes gets pretty mucky). Maybe because they are ceiling mounted, maybe because they are more difficult for the untrained eye to spot, malicious activation of sprinklers isn't really a problem in the UK. Recessed sprinkler heads would most probably be used by a hotel for aesthetic reasons.
Good points Chris, but I would put good money on a bet that vandalism of sprinklers will become prevalent as their popularity increases in public buildings. It is only a matter of time. There will be millions of pounds of damage caused to schools, hotels etc etc once the vandals work out what a catastrophic effect vandalising sprinkler heads can have!
-
Terry. I'm with you brother.
Although the reason people get so excited about sleeping risks is that they tend to be where people die in fires.
I still think a small buzzer or something in the MCP would be preferable but its not something I would lose sleep over.
-
Good points Chris, but I would put good money on a bet that vandalism of sprinklers will become prevalent as their popularity increases in public buildings. It is only a matter of time. There will be millions of pounds of damage caused to schools, hotels etc etc once the vandals work out what a catastrophic effect vandalising sprinkler heads can have!
There are many hotels with sprinklers and about 400 schools with them. Vandalism isn't a problem and it would cost more like hundreds of pounds, not millions should this occur. Please note that even if someone broke one head, water would only come out there, an alarm would sound immediatly.
-
I'd be very wary of putting sprinklers upstairs in the hotel as a flood caused by vandalism would be quite catastrophic and knock whole sections of the hotel out for weeks while the carpets were dried and the walls redecorated. It's bad enough with the hose reels being used for water fights between rival groups let alone a sprinkler-induced, biblical style flood.
Also, our biggest building is something like 85,000m2. Although the ground floor and below are sprinklered, I'd like to see the cost of putting a sprinkler system into the rest of the building and calcualte the loss in revenue while those floors were shut down for installtion work and redecoration. I don't think my bosses would go for that!
Terry
-
Terry
Do you keep records of the unwanted signals- including those investigated by staff without evacuation?
With 4500 detectors I would expect even a well maintained and designed system to give 90 unwanted signals per year. It would be interesting to know what the cause of these is, and whether you have any statistics on previous fires and what was involved, and whether the detectors worked.
If you have ionisation smoke detectors in rooms these tend not to be sensitive to the smouldering fire such as one caused by smoking in bed.
If vandalism is a problem , and if you are to ban smoking in all rooms, is there a chance that persons wishing to have a crafty fag in the privacy of their own room may cover up the detector?
Personally I dont like the idea of a double knock with a combination of automatic and manual call points. If I discover the fire but a smoke or heat detector has not- covered up or defective- I cant raise the alarm.
I can see the logic in having a low level local sounder and multi lingual sounds, and think this, or voice communication of an alarm or tamperproof break glass call points with alarms may be the better answer.
-
Whilst not exactly the same I was involved in a site where there were a number of buildings used for student accommodation. There was a big problem with false/malicious activations. In this particular case the fire brigade accepted removal of all the call points in the student blocks. This was despite my advice against removing them. The fire risk assessment flagged up the issue of detectors being covered, students wedging open fire doors to allow freedom of movement between bedrooms and the communal areas including kitchen, previous history of fires and students under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The insurers 'reluctantly' accepted the removal of the call points on the basis that all other avenues had been explored. I don't think all avenues were explored.
The site did have 24 hour security and had a full management tean on during the day. They did try CCTV but this failed to solve the problem. They also tried the 'lift the flap' deterrent but this did not work either.
Admittedly the buildings were designed as flats much like any other block of flats. This was the basis for the fire brigade to accept the removal of MCP's.
I know it is not exactly the same but it does show that some fire authorities have gone that one step further and allowed full removal of MCP's against the advice given in the risk assessment.
-
Shaun
Surely prior to removal of the MCPs a RA would have been carried out? Secondly, would you not consider that a risk assessment is undertaken to maintain an acceptable level of safety taking into consideration all of the circumstances? These circumstances would include specific issues relevant to the function of the property to include occupant behaviour.
You would not ask for EODs on cell doors of prisons without firstly taking into consideration the function of the premises and the nature of the occupants. A prison must function as a place of enforced incarceration.
A normal fire alarm system incorporating MCP's in a place where there is a biosterous occupancy will be subject to abuse.
-
How about this for a solution.
programme the MCP's to day/night mode. Day mode is normal evac. night mode is the 5 min delay. Fit one Vesda per 200m of corridor / floor and cover the staircases and circulation routes away fron the public areas.
Time the vesda off during day mode and on maximum sensitivity at night. Vesda output is silent but starts the search.
Double knock the vesda and the callpoints at night.
Theory is: night time sleeping areas are covered with normal detection on delay. Fire in a room or corridor will detect and evac. Rooms are locked therefore vandals only have access to corridors and staircases. Early smoke will be detected by vesda before anybody needs to raise a manual alarm. If they beat the vesda then you dont have a fire problem yet but the MCP and the vesda will give you full instant evac on the double knock.
If you have false ceilings in the corridors then the installation price will be lower for the pipe and you dont need to worry about the size of the vesda zone. You are not trying to find the smoke source!! just to confirm that you have smoke somewhere will do!!
The model needs some work on it but I think it should fly as on the RA you are adding sensitivity and time as a trade of against the time delay on the MCP's
Dave
Dave
-
Should have added that in the public areas you have the MCP's on sounder evac. Should'nt be anybody sleeping here unless it's a Smiths concert. On the upper floors anybody investigating a Vesda alarm just hits a callpoint for instant evac.
-
LU's alarms operate as follows:
- a two-minute timer to acknowledge the coded alert (at the panel);
- five further minutes to investigate and (if nothing found) reset;
- immediate evacuation if two or more devices activate (call points; call point and detector; two detectors etc);
The two call-point activations and 'evac' means that, if staff investigate and find a fire, all they have to do is find a second call point, activate it, and they'll chuck the system into full 'evac' immediately.
-
Shaun
Surely prior to removal of the MCPs a RA would have been carried out?
Yes I did say a risk assessment had been carried out
Shaun
Secondly, would you not consider that a risk assessment is undertaken to maintain an acceptable level of safety taking into consideration all of the circumstances?
Yes I would/did
Shaun
You would not ask for EODs on cell doors of prisons without firstly taking into consideration the function of the premises and the nature of the occupants. A prison must function as a place of enforced incarceration.
I agree
Shaun
A normal fire alarm system incorporating MCP's in a place where there is a biosterous occupancy will be subject to abuse.
And it was hence the decision to remove, but in my view without exploring all the avenues.
Thebeardedyorkshireman has already given one avenue that was not explored which is ironic since his name appears to have some relevance to the brigade concerned.
-
Bearded Dave.
Now you are talking!
You may be in danger of taking over from Dr Wiz as my superhero.
That is a solution I would be happy to go along with.
-
Bearded Dave.
Now you are talking!
You may be in danger of taking over from Dr Wiz as my superhero.
That is a solution I would be happy to go along with.
It happens to us all at sometime.
One minute a superhero, the next, cruelly discarded.
-
I have read many posts on this issue with great interest and I am still not convinced about time delay. Five minutes to investigate is a long time. How long before a fire flashes over?
Second, how is it that CCTV would not work? If staff are present all the time can they not monitor? Furthermore, would notices stating that those caught maliciously actuating call points will be prosecuted under the Health & Safety at Work Act not work?
What if a guest discovers a fire? He looks for a call point, breaks the glass and nothing happens. he panics and then what?
It might be a simplistic view but if there are too many false alarms the management of the hotel in question needs to be looked at under Article 11.
-
Sid - I'm guessing you are an enforcing officer. In general prosecuting your customers is bad for business.
I agree about the silent MCPs though - I would prefer that they made a noise or something so that you knew that something was happening.
People rarely panic, but they do do daft things.
-
Sid - I'm guessing you are an enforcing officer. In general prosecuting your customers is bad for business.
I agree about the silent MCPs though - I would prefer that they made a noise or something so that you knew that something was happening.
People rarely panic, but they do do daft things.
Wee Brain - Seriously how did you guess?
-
Hi, I can see your problem as a high school near me has a fire activation about 4 times a week. They have a GENT vigilon networked system and a number of callpoints rising over the hundreds.
Because the school was linked with an ARC (alarm receiving centre) they have to conduct a full evacuation because they dont have time to get to a telephone, choose their right option from a switch board, get put through to somone and cancel the alarm signal because the chances are the fire brigade have already been called and on their way to the site.
Their solution was to set up a delay time of 3 minutes so if any device was activated a pager system would be activated in the same idea as an autodialler on a burglar alarm so key members of staff can make their way to a control panel and locate the device which was activated, but at the same time during the delay period a continuous sound would be emitted by a sensor sounder or or a wall sounder strobes strobe would flash while not making a noise.
If they locate the device and it was false they would walkie talkie a member of staff near the control panel to silence the alarm. If the timer runs out the sound pattern will change from a continuous tone to a warble tone but will further delay the alarm receiving centre by 4 minutes if they took a bit longer to reset the device or notify the silence. If there was a fire the person at the control panel would just press the U2 button which is a user programmable button to notify the ARC and to make the sounder tone change.
So as a summary of events the below would happen in a sequence:
Callpoint or sensor activated
Pager activated (staff on their way to panel to find investigate, continuous sound pattern and strobes only active started)
False- device is reset and someone at contol panel resets alarm condition. REAL- someone at control panel presses the U2 button to change sound pattern and notify ARC (warble tone) !!!FULL EVACUATION!!!
If more than 2 smoke detectors activate the alarm just goes into delay perion but if 1 smoke and 1 heat activate then a full alarm is initiated. If more than 2 callpoints and a detector are activated then a full alarm is initiated but if 2 callpoints activate then only a delay is active for staff to investigate.
If the school needed to do a system test or practice evacuation you would simply phone the ARC saying that you are going to test the fire alarms so they ignore the condition. You would have to ring them after saying that you have finished testing so the system is active again.
It sounds complicated but this fucntion wouldnt be available if it wasnt safe. Just you would have to make your own fire acion notices noting your evacuation procedures.
Sounds complicated but it actually isn't that hard to understand and it saves fines to the building for the fire brigade call-out
What is the model of your fire alarm system??? I will be able to tell you if it is possible to do this.
If you need any more help just ask.
:)
-
Did you set up that configuration yourself? If so you are a useful chap to know.
Not many engineers would be able to set up that complex a cause and effect tree and less still be able to set up a test schedule to verify its operation!
On the first stage alarm, when a call point is operated you say a single tone is generated and a pager call radiated- is that a single sounder in the vicinity of the origin of the call or just an alert at the control panel? Does the person operating the call point get an indication to show that something is happening?
The system seems to rely on a radio link as well as the pagers if the change from single alert tone to evacuate has to be done at the panel. That seems to me a big weakness if this is the case.
-
I am intrigued why when 2 SDs actuate, the system still only goes to delayed mode.
Is that right and if so, what was the rationale behind that?
Most, in fact I think all, delayed systems I have encountered would go to full evacuation if 2 SDs were tripped.
-
What is the model of your fire alarm system??? I will be able to tell you if it is possible to do this.
If you need any more help just ask.
:)
O.K. Brownguyrav 2007, lets see what you are made of :). Please assume it is an Ampac FireFinder control panel running V4 software. Please confirm which function styles you would use in the config. Include, if possible, a config to also provide a class-change signal by connecting an input to the 'door switch' terminals
-
O.K. Brownguyrav 2007, lets see what you are made of :). Please assume it is an Ampac FireFinder control panel running V4 software. Please confirm which function styles you would use in the config. Include, if possible, a config to also provide a class-change signal by connecting an input to the 'door switch' terminals
Pah! My mum could do that!