FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Paul2886 on September 01, 2007, 09:55:22 PM
-
I often come across care homes where the zones are vast and follow no firm logical pattern. This may be where the home has been extended or additional detector heads have been fitted and just linked at a convenient point to the existing system. It is vital for care staff to ascertain the cause of any alarm at an early stage owing to the potential risk to the residents. To alter a system to ensure appropriate fire zoning would logistically be very difficult and of course be very costly. I know of homes that have a ground, first and second floors covered but only one zone. What do you other FRA's think the answer may be to this fairly common problem
-
I had a system in a care home over 5 floors with the most bizzare zoning i have ever seen. Zones extended all the way through each floor,so if there was an activation on i.e zone 1 then certain rooms over five floors would have to be searched.
It also had no afd in the corridors.
-
Surely BS 5839 lays down limits on the area to be covered by any one zone and usually restricts zones to only being on one level of the building? (I don't have a copy to hand so cannot check the precise wording.) But I do recall when assisting my boss to write this standard in its early days, that it was considered that any one zone should be searchable in 90 or 120seconds?
-
Hi John and yes I appreciate that standards regarding zoning are set in BS5839 but my point was about how other fire risk assessors view this problem when the standards are not met in care homes where early detection is vital. Do you look thoroughly at reducing the risk of fire and enhancing fire containment, because to alter an existing sytem may not be an option owing to the logistics and upheaval
-
The site i mentioned was removed and replaced with a radio system becuase of the zoning.
-
But back to my point of could you justify requiring an upgrade of the zoning system on a fire risk assessment and if not what options are available, if any, to compensate
-
The control measures through the outcomes of the FRA should protect Relevant Persons. Therefore, if it is decided that the premises require detection and warning to a set standrad then the information contained within that standard should be utilised. If the current system does not afford proper protection to the releavnt persons then it should be recommended that an upgrade be undertaken.
-
i have a few care homes that when i have done an inspection on the fire system come out with a list of non compliances as long as my arm.
I recommend an upgrade on the fact it is not a complaint system to the current standard and has some major non compliances.
Then someone else comes along and tells the customer that the system will work if needed regardless of all the items i have found.
They never upgrade as they have been told it's okay .
This site had battery operated smoke alarms in bedrooms,zones all over the place,multi core cable serving all zones and sounder circuit,panel as old as the hills with no mains indication etc etc.
but it is okay........
-
Hi Graeme, Totally agree with your remarks. I have highlighted shortfalls on a number of occasions only to be told that the 'qualified' person has said things are ok. The problem with this is that somebody loses credibility in the eyes of the client and that person is often the one that may cost them money. Yes that's us.
-
All anybody carrying out any sort of inspection of compliance or assessment of risk can do is to advise of any shortcomings. If the responsible person decides to disregard the information/advice they are given then it is entirely their choice. Obviously they run the risk of being punished if they are 'caught' or if something goes wrong.
When it does go wrong, the responsible person will be desperately looking to 'shift' the blame and as long as you have advised them of the shortcomings they can't say 'you didn't tell me about the non-compliance/risk so it is your fault.
-
i agree with you always Wiz but it does make us look like fools or trying to make money in the customers eyes after they get the okay from the very people i asked the customer to go back to after my initial visit.
I have a very different opinion to what is an acceptable fire alarm system to someone looking at it from a non technical view.
for example the site i have mentioned.
yes if someone operates an mcp the sounders will go but what happens if Bob The Builder "accidentally" cuts the multicore cable as it's in his way of some work needed or mr Spark cuts the multicore cable and strips it out because being ELV 24v it does not register on his inductance tester..
result-no fire alarm system.
It gets frustrating beacuse the site had a visit before me that saw there was a fire panel on the wall,detectors and call points with the customers say so that they work.
The detectors are about 20 years old,call points are modified hammer type(by series resistor) with no hammers and panel is from the Ark.
The customer gave my list daggers as the last person said every thing was ok. This was when i told them to take the list back to them and get their advice.
To date this carehome is still in the same condition and they think it's okay to phone once a year usually after an unwanted alarm from a 20 yo detector to have a service done with no contract.
-
Graeme, I have experienced the situation regarding your comments a number of times regarding care homes and detection systems. Another twist to this is the complaints from the owners claiming the CSCI inspectors are insisting that the recommendations I made have to be complied with. In the days when care homes were inspected annually by the FA it was, in most cases, just to test the fire alarm at a call-point and if it worked a tick was given. I am always in the business of giving the best advice regarding fire alarm systems but still occasionally sustituted by another risk assessor that 'doesn't find problems'. At the end of the day what's the point of having automatic detection if staff are unable to use the time given by an activated head owing to a poorly zoned premises
-
I have been in exactly your position Graeme, so I understand your frustration. Your customer is putting themselves in a position that they may come to seriously regret. The other advice won't absolve them from ultimate responsibility.
You have done everything expected of you and you can't do any more, based on the way these things work these days.
What are your own suggestions as to how this sort of dilemma could be solved?
-
I'm not knocking electrical contractors in the main but a lot of this mis-zoning is due to a contractor getting a contract in relation to an extension and just adding on to the nearest or most conveinient point - lost count how often this has been the case!
-
That's exactly my point then along comes Mr 'bad guy' the fire risk assessor and highlights the problem. New build care homes, in my opinion, should be addressable sytems to ensure a fast response to a problem without the long winded search for an activated head or call point
-
I have been in exactly your position Graeme, so I understand your frustration. Your customer is putting themselves in a position that they may come to seriously regret. The other advice won't absolve them from ultimate responsibility.
You have done everything expected of you and you can't do any more, based on the way these things work these days.
What are your own suggestions as to how this sort of dilemma could be solved?
I will try Wiz-here goes.
I feel that the stage we are at now with fire systems is that the engineer who signs is the engineer who is the person who carries the can if something goes wrong.
In theory this should only produce good engineers who if have any sense will never sign off any job he/she is not 100% happy with or in the case of existing systems highlight every possible flaw in the site.
As this huge responsibility now falls onto a single engineer not a business then the engineers should be given more respect for the knowledge of a fire system they have,in most cases more than a risk assessor does.
What he recommends should not be overridden by someone looking at the system for the view that "it will work in a fire if needed" but an engineer view of "that won't work if this happens" etc.
Yes there may be afd on this site but this does not take into consideration that they are 20 years old,ten years past their recommended working life.
Most probably will work but in my experience as in B+B's and carehomes, some don't,some become more sensitive causing unwanted alarms,some become less sensitive and most this age are ionisation which due to it's sealed chamber cannot be cleaned fully to remove dust build up.
and the call points if there is a fire-will the person be prepared to loose a finger as there are no hammers to break the glass?
And as mentioned with Sparks. We (fire engineers) have to take numerous courses etc to make us competant in our jobs.
We are not allowed to undertake any electrical work unless we are a member of etc etc and qualified.
This is meant to go for fire now but i am yet to see it happen and i have yet to go to an install that has been done correctly and is fault free and ready to commission by an electrical contractor.
In a nut shell when a fire engineer tells you your system is a bag of spanners then take him seriously as he is not trying to rip you off but save you neck and sparks on site-don't laugh when you are asked to produce as fitted drawings with cable routes as this will save you hours when you come to fix all your mistakes and realise that your job cannot be signed off as a fully compliant system unless you produce an installation certificate,as fitted drwings etc to the commission engineer.
sorry for rant but these things are far too common in my every day life.
-
Good points well made Graeme.
But where does the source of the problem lie?
Every field has its cowboys out to make a fast buck.
Most of us dont like to pay more than we need to for safety systems and are always looking for a bargain.
Like everything else fire alarms are getting more and more technical and the realm of the specialist engineer. Few of us have the specialist knowledge to see through the bull if someone wants to pull the wool over our eyes.
Buildings are becoming more complex and incorporating an increasing number of complex systems- and traditional approaches are being overtaken by engineered solutions.
Many of these installations are equally or more complex than the fire alarm systems- ventilation, sprinklers, fixed installations etc. And all need to work in concert in a co-ordinated way to ensure the building remains safe to use.
But its my experience that often the sprinkler installer does not understand or think about how his product relates to the ventilation system and vice versa.
And heres the nub- most enforcers - whether fire service or building control- are jacks of all trades of varying levels of skill and experience who have been left way behind by the technology and do not have the insight to really understand what they are looking at. And as a former fire officer - gamekeeper turned poacher if you like- I class myself amongst them. And with the downskilling of most fire safety enforcement departments and further propsed deregulation of Building Control which I believe is taking place throughout the UK things are ominous for the future.
The engineers need to be more co-ordinated and the enforcers more competent in my opinion.
-
Well, thank you all for your interesting replies to my original comments. I am new to this site and impressed by the levels of knowledge and experience of the replying users
-
The engineers need to be more co-ordinated and the enforcers more competent in my opinion.
Kurnal-totally agree
-
Graeme,
I agree with professor Kurnal that the points you made were valid and fully explain why we engineers often have to defensively explain that 'you shouldn't shoot the messenger'.
Just because we are offering to solve the problems we have found, doesn't mean the problems don't exist. In fact we could be putting ourselves in a position of potentially defrauding the customer if the problems didn't exist.
Furthermore, unless the person providing contrary advice is technically able to understand the ramifications that the problems may cause, and, more importantly, is willing to stand up in a court of law to justify their advice to ignore the problems found, then their own advice should not be accepted by any customer.
-
True Wiz but in most cases the customer will always believe the person who is going to cost them the least money.
-
Very late join in Paulm2886...
If a substantial number of residents require assistance to leave, then the responsible person should understand that an L1 system is required, fully addressable to enable a rapid response, and probably requiring repeat panels.
When training I film and time the response for investigation and evacuation, few homes achieve anything satisfactory without the system to provide the precise information for a confident staff to instigate a functional tested fire plan.
Mitch.
-
Hi Mitch, Yes I totally agree with your comments as I also spend a lot of time in care homes.
Whilst an addressable system would improve things how can you tell an owner to rip out his old system to install a new one. It just won't happen although I have had some success in this area. New builds are a different story and I think that professional advice should be sought from a competant fire RA prior to the installation of an AFA system in any care home.
Too many care home have a totally inadequate zoning system, and your point and mine; what's the point of a FA system if the staff have difficulty in using the time given by an activated smoke head by having to conduct a long winded search?
-
As long as the responsible person can prove they have a tested fire plan in place...
-
regradless of wether the fire alarm system they have is a shambles?
This is what i am coming across more and more now.
systems that are badly installed,outdated etc are ok to someone who looks at them from a risk assessment point of view not a technical one.
The systems that i have been advising customers to be upgraded not only have very old afd which could cause unwanted alarms or not work but have spurred off wiring from sounder and zone circuits etc etc
If you take the other persons view of it will work if needed which most customers will go for instead of my view that what if a worker cuts though a spurred off cable for the zone wiring during some alterations?
result - no detection on the cut off cable and no fault condtion at the panel.same goes for the sounder circuits.
this has already been proved to be the case at a job last week where i found half of the 1st floor not working because someone had cut a cable.
It was an electrician who tested the twin and earth cable with an inductance tester,assumed it was dead as 24 volts does not register on this tester and cut it. No fault on panel so sparky thinks everything is okay.
This was never highlighted to the user as i found he did his weekly test via the evacuate button on the control panel.
If this was a properlly installed system with fire resistant cable then this would have never happened.
but the owner has been told the system is okay.