FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: William 29 on October 12, 2007, 05:01:44 PM
-
Can anyone give current recommended guidance on the above. I am aware of what BS 5339 says in clause 21.1.7 in that it recommends heat detection within bedrroms provided that persons do not have mobility imparements. It also states that the objective of these dtectors is not to warn the person in the room but to warn others in the hotel before the integrity of the door to the bedroom is threatened by fire.
Is this still the case given that the RRFSO is for the protection of ALL revelant persons? (under the WP Regs the FSO's would not normally able to enforce anything unless staff where sleeping on the premises) Is the BS saying that any smoke within the bedroom would not reach a level so that the occupant could escape by the time the heat detector has operated? Or have I missed something?
-
The BS was written to meet the needs and expectation of the time. The term relevant person was not an issue before 1/10/2006.
The old BS struck a balance between protection of escape routes and avoidance of false alarms caused by steam, smoking, aerosols.
There are numerous multi sensor detectors on the market that include smoke, heat and CO sensors that can give high sensitivity without false alarms- the technology has really advanced.
At the same time there is no body of evidence that I am aware of that shows that a smoke detector makes a significant difference to life safety if a fire occurs in the occupied room but common sense says it should.
We now also have general smoking bans so it is possible to clearly identify smoking and non smoking rooms.
As the BS still represents best practice Brigades cannot specifically enforce an upgrade specifically. But my opinion - and I do a lot of risk assessments- is that I cannot justify recommending continued use of heat detectors in rooms where new technology has provided a better solution. Failure to do this would go against the principles of prevention.
-
A good subject following recent events!
The requirement of the Fire Safety Order is to provide a suitable means of giving warning in the event of fire "to the extent that is necessary" as identified by the risk assessment. The responsible person must safeguard the safety of relevant persons, so, if there is no detection in the individual room, how is this achieved?
Smoke alarms actuate the alarm earlier therefore giving early warniong and potentially allowing the occupants to escape. By having a heat detector, I would assume that you are prepared to sacrifice the occupants to warn others ...... not acceptable.
The fire safety guide to risk assesment for sleeping accomodation clearly states that if the premises is being used as a hotel, then an L1 system should be in place.
The Fire Authority can get the system upgraded ...... by use of an enforcement notice if necessary. This can be reinforced by the appeal made by Sparrow Hawk Hotel in Lancashire against their notice, which they lost and the judge made reference to the guidance documents.
-
William
An interesting point and one which will perhaps have to wait until an appeal or prosecution before the courts settle this one.
The use of heat detectors in hotels bedrooms has been discussed before and I for one feel uneasy in sacrificing two guests due to a management system - in the main designed to reduce UwFS!!
I like your 'all relevant persons' angle and will float it pass colleagues next week.
-
Thanks guys interesting points! I guess there is really no definative black and white on this one yet. I have been involved with 2 hotels recently where the issue has come up. One is a 7 bed guest house in Blackpool with current old style heat detection the other is a large 54 bed hotel with no detection in any bedrooms, althought the fire cert from approx 10 years ago shows detection!
-
A good subject following recent events!
The fire safety guide to risk assesment for sleeping accomodation clearly states that if the premises is being used as a hotel, then an L1 system should be in place.
.
B/Man
Where does it say L1 for hotels in the guide? Have I missed it?
The table on page 55 states that for: Hotels, motels, hostels, large bed and breakfast and boarding house type accommodation:- L2 system
-
Definately L2
Conqueror!
-
Yes. L2 it is. But are these guides fit for purpose anyway?
I am getting more and more frustrated by code hugging inspecting officers some of whom do not even bother to read the risk assessment, and just measure the building against the pictures in the guides. Grrrr. Take figure 45 on page 93. Have a good look at the ground floor non sleeping area plan. Why all the fire doors and self closers? crazy. But I have been shown this diagram this week by an IO wanting my client to comply and he tells me that if we appeal the magistrates are using the guide as an ACOP.
I note that the key to the table on page 55 introduces another ambiguity- it says that a Grade D LD3 system should have detectors in escape routes (including rooms that open onto escape routes). This is completely different to the definition of LD3 in BS5839 part 6.
-
kurnal
I would agree with your sentiments entirely about the Guides and th RRO................this legislation is flawed, ill thought-out and cannot compair to the FPA in away shape ot form. The guides are dificult to access for me as a professional, heaven knows what its like for the RP. I would be exremely interested to meet the person who wrote these Guides, as i'm sure an interesting discussion would ensue.
Conqueror.
-
I seem to recall that hotel rooms required heat detection to avoid residents regularly finishing up in the car park in the early hours of the morning due to the once-widespread habit of smoking in bedrooms. (A procedure, I understand, once practised by a certain residential educational establishment). If we can now avoid this scenario whilst providing sufficient warning of fire to every occupant it should be considered reasonable to do so.
It could be concluded from this and similar threads that, just like risk assessments, the guides are in need of 'review'.
-
Conqueror,
Some, not all, of the Guides were written by my former colleagues at Building Research (BRE). But I have heard reports that considerable delay occurred after they left BRE due to others putting their oar(s) in from elsewhere. (There was, I believe, 'stakeholder' consultation.) . I therefore infer that if the Guides are sometimes less than clear this may not be due to the original authors' intentions! All complaints to CLG, I believe!
-
Humble aplogies ..... it is L2 .......
My eyes are going!!
-
I seem to recall that hotel rooms required heat detection to avoid residents regularly finishing up in the car park in the early hours of the morning due to the once-widespread habit of smoking in bedrooms. (A procedure, I understand, once practised by a certain residential educational establishment). If we can now avoid this scenario whilst providing sufficient warning of fire to every occupant it should be considered reasonable to do so.
It could be concluded from this and similar threads that, just like risk assessments, the guides are in need of 'review'.
How are we avoiding this scenario, not through no smoking legislation as hotel rooms are exempt - see below
"There are very limited exemptions from the smokefree law, as set out in the Smoke-free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations. These regulations include exemptions for bedrooms in hotels, and for care homes, hospices and prisons. In most cases, exemptions do not apply to the entirety of premises, but to "designated rooms", that must meet requirements specified in the regulations. The law also includes a limited exemption for performers, which applies to the performer only during the performance, where the artistic integrity of a performance makes it appropriate for a person who is taking part to smoke"
Whilst operational I seem to recall that steam from showers seemed to be the main cause of unwanted fire signals in hotel rooms.
-
The 'scenario' is frequent unnecessary evacuation, Dave - not smoking in hotel bedrooms!
-
I am as confused as anyone with the IO's and the continued ignoring of the risk assessments, why ask for a risk assessment if the judgement of the audit falls back on the guidance and or theTechnical Annexes. If you work to PAS 79 for example and the R/A meets that criteria surely it should have some credence. I too have every sympathy with RP's who do their level best to conform and are met with the walk through, the building footprint and the miss-interpritation of the guideance. Bring back fire certificates! First post, maybe last post.
-
Lambie - stay with us - it gets better.
PAS 79 isnt a proper BS its just a book - I'm not knocking it (can't be bothered to read it all).
I agree that a lot of FPOs (are they called IOs now?) dont really get the concept of risk assessment, it will take a few years for all this to settle down.
-
Thanks Wee Brian understand PAS 79 is not BS also is a lot to get through, however at least it helps those who know of it. I can only think what exists to assist the less aware. Thanks I will hang on for enlightenment.
-
William 29
Take a look back in time on these pages to page 11, scroll down to HD in hotel bedrooms and see post no 4, very interesting histoty lesson on this matter from our old grandmaster Mr T
Lambie, dont let things grind you down, I can sense you are frustrated with certain inspecting officers (IO's) as you call them, just please dont forget there are many competent ones out there who do care, and are doing their level best to get with it and switch over to the new culture of fire risk assessments we all now find ourselves involved with, (difficult as it may appear to many), and allow the person with the responsibilities the opportunity to conduct their own risk assessments with or without competent assistance and then justify/stand or fall by their decisions, and ultimately be presented with whatever decisions the enforcing authorities decide to place upon them, from no action/informal action or formal enforcement action, a decision which should be decided following consultaion between the IO and his line manager,but I guess there are many (IO's) who cant manage/won't accept the change (maybe old dinausars)and prefer to stay with prescription and hope they get away with it.
One thing is consistently clear with all the guides available north of the border is the sentence" Enforcing Authorities should not seek to compel the benchmarks contained within these guides on a prescriptive basis.
Prescription is not compatible with fire safety risk assessment and all premises will be different, with each risk assessment being site specific and decisions in respect of fire safety standards should at all times be based on judgement of risk and be justifiable, both from a compliance and an enforcement perspective.
This is a message that needs to get accross to many IO's in my opinion.
-
Two things, one the relevant person ideal is the correct one. As stated above, heat detection is recommended in BS 5839 as it was designed not to protect the room occupants, the RR(FS)O with the definition of a Relevant person nulifies that and heat should therefore never appear again as it will not protect the occupant.
Second, fire certificates never saved a person life and were invaluable to the code huggers who required stuff from the guides available at the time. The consideration should be of people and how they move and escape where necessary. I have never seen a fire certificate that reduced travel distance because the occupants had a variety of vulnerabilities such as moving with a zimmer frame.
-
But the person in the room should not need warning as the fire will alert him before the detector does....but this is old ground. My old friend Toddy explained this many moons ago and it is one of the few times that I agree with him.
The reason that the old BS5839 L3 standard was changed, and detectors were recommended in corridors and rooms off corridors was nothing to do with the safety of the person in the room.
It was to warn everyone that the corridor was likely to be smoke logged before it actually became smoke logged. The relevant person in the room has not been ignored........he doesn't need a smoke detector.
I have been shot down in flames before on this one but I don't have a detector in my bedroom .....it is not needed....in my opinion....but apparently many on here do have them.
Perhaps CLG could produce a new guide with pictures of canaries in bedrooms.....oh now I'm just being silly!!
-
How many people have died as a result of smoking in bed or faulty electric blankets? Surely a smoke detector would have helped save them?
-
I am not sure how Phil B's comment of having no detection in bedrooms would hold up as best advice within the FRA? VERY brave in my view to put your name on that one when it goes against all current and past guidance, including the new guides.
If it were to go pear shaped then how would this advice of no detection within bedrooms be justified in court following a fire death or injury? I still hold to my view that under the RRFSO all relevant persons need to be considered and as such early warning within the bedrooms is required.
-
How many people have died as a result of smoking in bed or faulty electric blankets? Surely a smoke detector would have helped save them?
How many in hotels Kurnal??? The deaths you speak of usually occur in the home and in HMOs. Would a smoke detector of woken them from a drunken slumber?
I would be interested to hear from a poster on here that has attended a fatality in a hotel in the situation you describe.
-
I am not sure how Phil B's comment of having no detection in bedrooms would hold up as best advice within the FRA? VERY brave in my view to put your name on that one when it goes against all current and past guidance, including the new guides.
If it were to go pear shaped then how would this advice of no detection within bedrooms be justified in court following a fire death or injury? I still hold to my view that under the RRFSO all relevant persons need to be considered and as such early warning within the bedrooms is required.
Of course all relevant persons need to be considered!
I have never said detection in hotel bedrooms is not needed, but I beleive they should be heat detectors not smoke for the reasons given earlier.
The standard for hotels (Lilac Guide) was L2 with heat detection in bedrooms and that has served us well and reduced fire deaths in hotels.
Increased smoke detection may result in increased false alarms and therefore complaceny and reduced effectiveness.
-
I thought everyone realised that detection in a bedroom of a hotel isn't there to protect the occupant of the room it's to protect everyone else!
Yes the presence of the detector will detect a fire occuring and sound the alarm and hopefully rouse the person in the room of origin...but that is not necessarily its main purpose.
Whilst smoke detectors are usually quick to react some of you perhaps are of the opinion that they react in split seconds - well I'm afraid they dont - it all depends on the characteristics of the fire - i.e; is it a smouldering fire / flaming fire? etc etc
I'm afraid in the real world in something like a single room in a hotel or bedsit you have to assume the occupant is most likely to perish in the room of origin unless they are extremely lucky.
Do you have detectors in your bedroom at home?... No...where do you have it? On your escape routes!
The reason being that in your own home the risk room is seperate from your sleeping area (or should be) in a single hotel bedroom or bedsit containing a kitchenette it is not. (i.e. If you find the room on fire your home is the lounge yes your escape route may become blocked but you could shelter in bedroom and call fire service).
In a bedsit or hotel room by the time the room has caught fire or become heavily smoke logged there may be no where to escape to or shelter to await help.
Even in bedsits which have a single point stand alone detector has been installed with a heat detector linked to the building alarm system the single point detector has activated by the occupant has been overcome by smoke.
If you are like me who could sleep through a Nuclear Wall or an opera singer singing at full belt down your lug holes then it's unlikely a detector/alarm will wake you quickly - regardless of where it is located.
Add to that the introduction of alcohol where you really are out for the count and even slower to react then it could well be curtains
-
Is there any evidence to prove that having a fire detector in your bedroom improve your chances of surviving a fire in the room?
Is there any evidence that a smoke detectors offer earlier warning of fire than a heat detector?
Are hotel guests relevant persons?
Is the fire safety order not based on driving down risk as far as is reasonably practicable?
Do the principles of prevention require the responsible person to adapt to technical progress?
If fireboots give you blisters is the best solution to wear carpet slippers to incidents?
Is the best way of managing nuisance calls to ignore the safety of a group of relevant persons for the greater common good?
Is it time we reviewed BS5839 in view of advances in detector technology and the smoking legislation?
-
Is there any evidence to prove that having a fire detector in your bedroom improve your chances of surviving a fire in the room? NO
Is there any evidence that a smoke detectors offer earlier warning of fire than a heat detector? PARTLY BUT IT COULD BE CONTENCIOUS
Are hotel guests relevant persons? YES
Is the fire safety order not based on driving down risk as far as is reasonably practicable? YES IT IS BASED ( NOT YES ITS NOT BASED)
Do the principles of prevention require the responsible person to adapt to technical progress? YES
If fireboots give you blisters is the best solution to wear carpet slippers to incidents? NO I MUCH PREFER USE OF HIGH HEELS OR STILLETTOS
Is the best way of managing nuisance calls to ignore the safety of a group of relevant persons for the greater common good? DEPENDS THATS A BIT OF A BARBED QUESTION TISK TISK
Is it time we reviewed BS5839 in view of advances in detector technology and the smoking legislation? YES PLEASE
But seriously... some intresting comments / questions Kurnal.
Come on this is the day of the mighty fire risk assessment. IMHO any risk assessors out there whom cant answer a simple question about why AFD is required in bedrooms and most importantly be able to understand why it is needed and whom it protects - shouldnt, dare I say it, really be doing risk assessments.
-
Yes I really would be interested in the answers to questions 1 and 2 and am sure some research must have been done on this. If not then its time it was.
I was trying to recollect what the outcome of the ODPM commissioned research report into residential sprinklers was in respect of survivability of a fire in the room of origin, I think the outcome was dissapointing- was it 40% chance of survival with sprinklers or have I been dreaming again?.
I fully sympathise with the origins of the argument but think its time to move it forward.
-
I DO understand the reasoning as to the detection in bedrooms protecting other persons in the hotel and not the occupant of the bedroom. My very simple point was at the time this argument was used the RRFSO was not it force and the all relevant persons issue was not there. I feel that smoke detection within the room would provide more protection to the occupant than heat or no detection at all.
I also agree with Kurnal's eariler comment about advances in detection and the BS should be reviewd in light of this and the introduction of the RRFSO. It will be interesting to see what they come up with........
-
My very simple point was at the time this argument was used the RRFSO was not it force and the all relevant persons issue was not there. I feel that smoke detection within the room would provide more protection to the occupant than heat or no detection at all.
William at the time this arguement was used the 71 Act was in force and the safety of hotel guests was considered and they haven't been dying in their rooms. What has now changed?
-
The law
-
So are you suggesting that Fire Certicates didn't cater for the safety of the person in the room??? You've lost me there William.
With the new technology and the smoking ban I can obviously see the point in fitting smoke detection in bedrooms when new systems are installed. They must of course be the correct type to reduce the risk of false alarms by steam etc.
What I am against is FRS issuing notices for existing sytems to be upgraded and heat detectors being replaced with smoke detectors.
I cannot see the justification for this when these existing systems were required under the 71 Act for the safety of all persons who resorted to the premises including the person in the room.
-
What I am against is FRS issuing notices for existing sytems to be upgraded and heat detectors being replaced with smoke detectors
I totally agree with you on this point Phil. A notice would be inappropriate.
But everybody please put your risk assessment hat on and consider the following.
You assess two almost identical hotels, part of a national chain. One has heat detectors in the bedrooms. The other has smoke detectors.
All other things being equal is there any significant difference in the level of safety for guests in the bedrooms?
And as a risk assessor are you satisified with the residual level of risk in the one wth heat detectors or would you recommend installation of smokes at some time in the future? Would you even comment on it?
Its not a test, I am just interested in hearing opinions.
-
Personally I am satisfied with the residual risk. Money could be much better spent fitting smoke seals and intumescent strips. I do not have smoke detectors in my bedroom, its not that I'm reckless, I don't think they're necessary. and I would not mention it in the assessment...then again I might just to explain my reasoning to a jackbooted inspector.
But if the jackbooted inspector challenged me I would hug onto my lilac guide and new hotel guide and ask where it says they should be smoke detectors!
I do however agree that the standard should be amended for new installations.
-
Surely 5839-1;2002 isnt that out of date,
It recognises that AFD should be located in sleeping risks, says so in commentary in clause 4.1
Clause 21.1.8 talks about choice of detection and what it depends on
Clause 21.1.8 also says
It is generally accepted that occupants in a room of fire origin are likely to be aware of a fire before it is detected by any form of fire detector, unless they are asleep, even if occupants are asleep the risk to occupants of typically sized bedrooms might not be such as to warrant smoke detection within the bedrooms, except in the case of dormitory accommodation or rooms intended for mobility-impaired disabled people who require additional time to escape from a fire in their bedroom.
-
the whole issue here is not about us it is about the term relevant person and what an RP has to do to protect them. Different people, different scenarios, different minds. I have a piece of video that demonstrates the Christmas tree fire, room untenable in 20 seconds. As above most commercial detectors may not have operated by then and i agree that not many people have Christmas trees in their bedrooms. However, the point is a SD may have woken someone whereas a HD would not have. I did my best M'lud.
-
So we need to upgrade every alarm system in every hotel in the land - in case the mad trees get us - your not the guy who wrote the animals guide are you????
-
No thankfully not that mad, and no we don't have to do what is suggested just as a good risk assessor consider it.
-
I had an incident many years ago where an old fellow in a local authority care home died in a fire within his room and was believed to have fallen asleep in his armchair whilst smoking. [This is not an argument for smoke (rather than heat) detection but just to make the point that there can be some instances where effective early detection within the room could be beneficial]
-
But Ken a think you'll agree a care home is an entirely different scenario.
-
Can anybdy explain why smoking causes so many fires and deaths in the home yet so few in hotels, even when smoking was generally allowed in hotel rooms?
I would not have thought there was such a difference in terms of habits, furnishings, alcohol etc between what you do at home and when in a hotel.
http://www.firesafercigarettes.org.uk/news
-
My opinion only of course....because often the people dying in house fires are not the typical hotel customer.
There are usually other socio economic factors. Not that I'm saying that all fire fatalities are poor, thick or drunk.....but often they are....or old and infirm......or very young ...and living in house with dodgy electrics and a praffin heater.......etc, etc.
Your average hotel client is not like that.
-
Smoke or heat alarms in hotel bedrooms should be fitted with a snooze function...
-
I'm sure you're right, Phil, and people tend to behave differently at home (to some extent) where the environment is familiar and lack of previous fire may tend to reduce the appreciation of risk.
-
Check out a previous thread at http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=786 which I believe is relevant to this subject. Its good to read Toddies wise words not for you Phil.
-
Excellent link TW please all posters to this debate read this....good old Toddddy I rarely agreed with him but I did on this point.....say what you want about the old chap but he does know his stuff (about fire alarms).
Where is dear Mr Todddd these days I do miss the banter...come on Colllin come out of hiding! I bet he knows some animal jokes!
http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=786
-
Hi folks,
May I take this in a slightly different direction and apply the same question to keyworker/student accommodation?
Basically what I have are a couple of new developments where I have 11 blocks each of 4 floors, two flats to each floor and a single central staircase. The flats are made up of common corridor, lounge/kitchen diner, 4 ensuite bedrooms. The initiatl proposal was to have SDs in the common areas (except kitchen which would be HD) and HD in the bedrooms. The BCO has come back and said that he wants SD in the bedrooms as well! I should probably add that the alarms themselves will only initially sound in the flat where the activation occured, in the central accommodation office and at the monitoring station. Obviously a second activation, etc will alert the whole block!
Would the reasoning expressed by Mr Todd and Phil regarding HD in the bedrooms still follow or is the BCO right in insisting on SD?
All opinions most welcome!
-
Geoff
The fact that this is a new development puts an entirely different slant on this. There are modern systems out there that can provide smoke detection in the rooms without the high false alarms......it all comes down to correct system design and choice of appropriate smoke detector heads.
If we agree that some form of detection is needed in the room, and I assume we do, and that that detection is primarily to warn the occupants of the other rooms that the corridor may soon be compromised........fitting smoke detection MAY also save the person in the room and I would recommend it's provision.
This is entirely different scenario from FRS serving notices to have existing systems using HDs to be upgraded to smoke......in my opinion.
-
Phil,
Many thanks for that! That was the tack I was going to take with the developer and I just wanted to be clear on what I was going to say before I go in and have to listen to her incredibly shrill voice for two hours! LOL!
Cheers
Geoff