FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Davo on August 04, 2008, 10:02:06 AM
-
Following the Profs comments on another thread, I would agree that in nearly all cases it is impossible to identify detectors.
We have the following types in manufacturers bumpf
Ionisation Smoke
Optical Smoke
Optical
Rate of Rise Heat
Fixed Temp Heat 56/64/84 degrees (Protec)
Fixed Temp Heat 60/65/75 to EN54 Grades 1-3 (Apollo), also Ranges 1 & 2 80/100 degrees (series60)
Dual Rate of rise/fixed
I have recently seen some new HDs fitted in our premises marked with a 90 label in the centre but no obvious manufacturers label!
I have also seen some with a yellow or a red spot in the centre. I assume these are colour coded but agin no obvious ID
If the Prof is having difficulty I have no chance unless manufacturers give me a clue!!
-
If you just take out the detector head out of the base and look on the rear of it it will tell you what it is. Just make sure you know how to reset the fire panel and speak to the owner first.
-
would the '90' not be apollo's series 90?
-
Apollo , ions have dark red led , and the optical are more lighter in colour
-
would the '90' not be apollo's series 90?
It is more likely that it indicates that the detector is a 90 degree C heat detector
-
It is difficult these days to identify different types of heads.
Perhaps a "universal" ID marking system would be handy
-
Coloured dots on AFD are usually part of the servicing system with some contractors to identify which quarter they were tested on so that all in a building are checked within the 12 month cycle
-
Apollo use 'coloured dots' to aid identification of various models in a range. These are normally placed centrally on the part of the detector that hangs down the furtherest from the ceiling and these Apollo dots/labels normally have a 'metallised' finish.
Most fire alarm engineers can immediately identify manufacturer/range from the appearance of the detector and the actual range version from the 'coloured dot' / colour of LED / markings on case. Failing that they do what Thomas Brookes suggested above and unplug them and read the information from the label on the detector base!
-
Theres rate of rise and fixed temperature detectors and also detectors with combinations of the two, where theres both a fixed temperature and rate of rise element in a detector does the temperature rating alter the rate of rise settings?
I know there are general rules such as "do not use rate of rise in a room where temperature fluctuations regularly occur" such as kitchens, , and furthermore that EN54-5 covers also response times for heat detectors, bringing in another variable- speed of response expressed as a class eg A1. Faster detectors are needed where there is a higher ceiling. Now in practical terms is the 60, 65, 75 variable really all about speed of response rather than the temperature?
Where will we find universal guidance recommending factors to consider in selecting say a 60 degree unit over a 65 degree unit?
I know high temperature units are usually recommended for kitchens and boiler rooms- say 80 or 85 degrees.
But in all honesty I could not recognise one from the other and dont have time to pull them down and look during a fire risk assessment.
Thank goodness for analogue- cos I cant access the engineer settings to worry about what state an analogue detector is set to- or perhaps I should?
-
http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/editpics/202-1.pdf
see page 10
-
Hi Thomas
Its all a question of what level of knowledge is required to carry out a fire risk assessment with a reasonable degree of competence. Everyone will have their own ideas and lets not lose sight of the fact that the Fire Safety Order defines the "General Fire precautions" and places the duty on the Responsible Person (RP) to ccarry out the assessment, and to engage competent assistance if necessary. The intention of the Law is that the RP dhould be able to carry out an assessment in most cases without specialist knowledge or assistance.
The field of knowledge necessary to be absolutely competent in all areas is too broad- we each have our own strengths and weaknesses. The HSE assist us by defining the term "competent person" to some extent and guides us that to be competent it is essential to recognise the limits of your own competewnce and not to try to step outside the boundaries. The IFE recognise this also be defining different disciplines in their register of assessors. In the same way if you go into hospital with a dodgy knee a heart murmer and a hearing disorder you will see three different specialists.
I agree with you that many of us do not have sufficient all round knowledge to be a specialist in all areas. But there is a role for the GP in the health service and a key need for a similar level in fire safety- someone with a general knowledge of all systems and how they should alll work together in concert under the heading of general fire precautions.
These practicioners should have sufficient knowledge to identify where weaknesses in one area can impact on another - eg sprinklers, ventilation, fire loading, ignition sources, fire detection and alarm, emergency procedures etc to the extent of recognising a problem but not necessarily designing the solution - instead seaking specialist support within that discipline. I see nothing wrong with that.
I do not follow your logic in the need to identify individual heat detector characteristics by removing them during an assessment. Even fire alarm specialists tend to concentrate on one or two different manufacturers. If it is an essential element of an assessment it follows that it should also be carried out on analogue addressable systems- and can only then be determined by knowing the engineering password, the software of the system and the presentation of the configuration data- and I have seen many specialist engineers scratching their heads on that one.
-
It would be difficult to know everything in massive depth, there is too much to know, we work on everyone having a suitable core of knowledge, but each assessor specialising to a massive depth in a different area so we always have someone in the office for special jobs or if we get stuck. The important thing is being able to recognise an unusual situation and admit you require subject specialist help rather than guess or bluff it.
I think regular visitors to the site can guess the area I specialise in....
-
Because there are so many different detector makes out there its nearly impossible to get a list of what detectors are what temp.
And although I apriciate that lots of you are not happy with taking detectors down to have a look what type they are or do not have the time during a risk assessment (not sure what "dont have enough time" means, as a risk assessment should take as long as it should take, Ie one may take an hour another may take all day.). Any way another way around this if you are not competent in fire alarms is for you to do a list of what temp detector should be in the different rooms and contain that within your report for the customers fire alarm maintenance company to check next time they are there.
This is an area that troubles me greatly, and recently I emailed the IFE about this asking why they do not insist on the people of their Fire Risk Assessment Register have greater competency with fire alarms, Extinguishers, Emergency lighting sprinklers fixed systems etc. They did not even respond.
Surely under the RRFSO to carry out any fire assessments you should be a competent person in the field you are working, am I the only one who feels that Fire Alarms, extinguishers, emerg lighting etc etc are all part of a fire risk assessment and indepth knowledge is required to be doing the job.
Well congratulations thats great . Im obviously not competent on fire alarms thank you.
Im so sorry for not knowing every last model from every last manufacturer out there. Perhaps I'm incompetent and have the time to go and look at every detector in say a hospital where they have hundreds of them. Im sure the hospital trust would love to pay me the time to go have a look at them.
Would you care to enlighten us on how qualified you are and how many courses, experience would be required to do what you suggest
Are you saying on this forum the IFE's register of assessors is no good? Can you confirm that please ? is that what you are saying? Can you also then private message me with you contact details so the I can ask the IFE can respond.
Can you answer Kurnals response that you cant tell with combined detectors? or sorry should kurnal be spending less time on here and getting off more detectors to check?
Why on earth in the name of sanity would it be hard for all manufacturers to come up with a UNIVERSAL system of identification and save us all alot of time and hassle or sitting on fire alarm engineer courses as thomas implies?
-
Even if I wanted to take every head down to check it, no client would pay for the time it would take to do so!
Which is why we always ask as part of an FRA for a schedule of devices to be held on site, a print off of addresses from a system makes it easy to get an overview of coverage, interfaces and device types around a site.
-
I went on ADT website, guess what, no pictures or catalogue or technical brochure
davo
getting more and more confused
Hi Davo- if you have a piccy I have an ADT system designers handbook that may just match up- no promises but worth a try
-
try all manufacturers web sites and down load the liertature with all the pics you want with most makes.
it's easy for engineers to sit and tell you how easy it is to tell what is what but each to their own,so the sites should help.
http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/
http://www.hochikieurope.com/
http://www.systemsensor.com/
http://www.gent.co.uk/gent.php
http://www.cooper-ls.com/pdf_menfire.html
-
try all manufacturers web sites and down load the liertature with all the pics you want with most makes.
it's easy for engineers to sit and tell you how easy it is to tell what is what but each to their own,so the sites should help.
http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/
http://www.hochikieurope.com/
http://www.systemsensor.com/
http://www.gent.co.uk/gent.php
http://www.cooper-ls.com/pdf_menfire.html
Thank you Greame well said.
How silly to say that if you cant identify a detector you arent competent to d a risk assessment as Thomas said - but his comment has strangely been deleted! I wonder if he is feeling a bit silly
-
I do not feel silly at all, just did not want to get in to a slagging match, as always this is my personal opinion I still feel that a high level of knowledge on fire detection is required when carrrying out a fire risk assessment, same as I feel that indepth knowledge on emergency lighting, fire doors fire stopping etc etc are required.
When you assess a building how do you come to the end conclusion of if the buildings fire alarm system is suitable and sufficient.
I have seen some really poor assessments and I am very sorry to say some from ex FF and many just either say "automatic fire alarm system installed" or something like " Fire Alarm should comply with British standards or worse current regulations".
It depends how much help to the client you want the assessment to be.
A recent example, a four storey building ground and first floor used as a nursery, basement storeage top floor office. The block had just been renovated new electrics, fire alarm plaster, fire doorsetc etc. Local Fire officer (risk manager i think they are now called) called round checked the paperwork and building out and told them everythings ok apart from no fire risk assessment.
When I assessed the building there were over 20 reasons why the fire alarm did not conform to BS5839-1-2002 L2 (thats the spec that building control wanted it to) some of the issues are : No detection within 1.5m of any of the four lift openings, 2 x doors leading outside do not have call points, detectors only 30cm away from the wall, no as fitted drawings, no void detection, no zone map, sound level to low in staff room, security door locks not wired to fire alarm system, no emergency light near fire panel, detectors to close to aircon unit outlet, no design/installation or commissioning certificates, no loft detection there were loads of minor ones as well but you get the idea.
Now I can gaurentee that if someone looked at that building who does not have indepth fire system knowledge they would have signed that up as the fire alarm being suitable and sufficient, and I find this time after time after time with fire alarm systems.
I would like to know from a FF exactly how much knowledge gives you enough competence to carry out a fire risk assessment, esspecially the knowledge on fire systems, as for being just an engineer "I wish" It would have saved me ten years of study and hard work.
The Government guide books on the RRFSO state Competent person is:
Quote "A person with enough training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable them properly to assist in undertaking the preventive and protective measures". So, I can understand from the fire services perspective how much training, experience or knowledge on fire detection is enough, again my personal opinion but every course on fire detection I have ever done, knowing the difference between smoke and heat detectors siting of them and how they detect is really basic knowledge level.
-
When I assessed the building there were over 20 reasons why the fire alarm did not conform to BS5839-1-2002 L2 (thats the spec that building control wanted it to) some of the issues are : No detection within 1.5m of any of the four lift openings, 2 x doors leading outside do not have call points, detectors only 30cm away from the wall, no as fitted drawings, no void detection, no zone map, sound level to low in staff room, security door locks not wired to fire alarm system, no emergency light near fire panel, detectors to close to aircon unit outlet, no design/installation or commissioning certificates, no loft detection there were loads of minor ones as well but you get the idea.
Now I can gaurentee that if someone looked at that building who does not have indepth fire system knowledge they would have signed that up as the fire alarm being suitable and sufficient, and I find this time after time after time with fire alarm systems.
Yes some of those are very significant and it begs the question as to how the building could have been approved and completion certificate issued without sight of comissioning certs.
I too find time and time again that the risk assessment carried out by the Responsible Person (rather than a consultant) inevitably starts from an assumption that the building and its systems were suitable and sufficient and things like layout, provision of means of escape, travel distances, exit capacities, fire alarm systems, escape lighting are already installed and therefore must be to a satisfactory standard. Now that would be ok in a brand new purpose built building- but even then would depend on the building control agencies being diligent and doing their job properly, which sadly too often is not the case, as you describe.
I would raise the variations in the risk assessment report and suggest that my client chases all parties involved to put it right- from architect to contractor and the building control - theres a role for no win no fee litigation here.
-
Some times I am not sure building control even look at the buildings fire alarm systems, I have been involved in quite a few cases as the expert witness involving BS5839-1.
One not to long ago involved a multi million pound extension on a factory where the fire alarm was a total discrace, the faults went into dozens of pages. The electrical contractors fortunately saw sence before court and agreed to put right the whole system right at a cost of many thousands of pounds.
Building control admited that they only looked at the certificates the sparkys issued and not the work, then in a phone conversation with the electrical contractors Managing Director he admitted that the company did not even own a current copy of BS5839-1-2002. You would be horrified if I gave the name of the company (sorry I would not give the name so don't ask) but this company turns over several million pounds a year and are a very large electrical contractors.
-
quite a common story regards Sparkies botching fire alarms ....
see it all the time
-
So if they belong to one or both of the two big trade associations , why were they not reported and action taken .
-
Not sure about other bodies but NIC will only accept a complaint after the customer has contacted the electrician to sort problem out, and they will not accept it off a third party.
In all the cases I have been involved with the sparkys have agreed to sort out the problems.
-
Thomas I saw your post on another thread about how you felt about my reaction to my comments on this thread. As such I would like to clarify what I meant which was all done tongue in cheek I might add.
You are quite right that a risk assessor should be fully conversant with the standards and categories of fire alarm system to be classed as competent. However as you will appreciate heat and smoke detectors now look identical and it is neither practical or feasible as an inspecting officer or indeed an asessort to get up ladders to remove detector heads to establish what type of detector they are. I use the example of a hospital where there can be thousands of detector heads to plough through.
That doesnt make me incompetent, as I know the distances , type, category and ammount of detectors that should be present in any given building it just highlights the fact that detectors should be marked by a universal system so at a glance everyone can tell what they are.
In the olden days you could easily distinguish between a heat and smoke detector just by looking at them. Then if you wanted to know if the heat was RoR or FT head you might have to consult schematics or consult the fire alarm engineer.
This again doesnt make me an incompetent risk assessor. However you seemed to suggest that by not being able to distinguish what type of detector head it was by looking at it meant you were incompetent. That is not true and I would respectfully point out that the IFE wouldnt bother replying to you if that was your argument. People reading this thread might assume from your comments that the IFE were incompetent and unprofessional which is not the case. Hence why I reacted why I did. I admit, as my wife gently told me after i asked her to read it, that the tone of what I put did come across as aggresive and innappropriate. But hopefully you now see what I meant, and why in a sense i sneared at it.
I do however fully agree that a competent risk assessor must know what should be installed and where, and be able to identify a non compliant system or when something is amiss as you describe in your later post.
We all seem to agree that a universal marking system is required now with modern heads otherwise this problem will continue. On older systems the problem does not exist as the heads can be distinguished easily but as I say you cant someone is competent just because on modern systems they look at a head and cant tell what it is.
I wouldnt have time to get off each head and look at it. Id be amazed if any client would pay an assessor the time do this when the fire alarm engineer already knows whats there - so the assessor would liaise with the fire alarm engineer on big sites or consult plan drawings of the installed fire precautions.
-
Clevelandfire, Thanks for you reply.
I agree it would be great if all the detector manufactures used a set of markings that we all understood but, unfortunately it will never happen. In my original statement I was not saying everyone must take down every detector, but some one had asked for ways to tell different detectors and taking one down is a surefire way of knowing exactly whats is installed. In most buildings there will be mostly smoke detectors, so in worst case you may need to take down an odd detector here or there if you need to know at what temp the detector will activate. The better way would have been for the fire alarm installer to have left as fitted drawings and a detector list, but as we all know it does not happen very often.
As for the IFE, I have never said they are not competent and would never do so as I do not know enough about them to come to that sort of conclusion. I have my own personal opinions on IFE but I would like to keep them that way, I only stated that I had asked why they do not insist on a high level of working knowledge of fire detection systems for people on their fire risk assessors register and was never given an answer.
-
Morning Thomas - I would agree that as fitted should be left with the customer (and should be as part of the handover).The problem is sometimes the customer isn't necessarily the occupier - it certainly would make my job a lot easier if it was the case that they were left on site.
To be honest,we mount a fully marked up zone plan next to the FAP.
If everyone followed Apollo's method then ID-ing detectors would be easy.
-
Clevelandfire, Thanks for you reply.
I agree it would be great if all the detector manufactures used a set of markings that we all understood but, unfortunately it will never happen. In my original statement I was not saying everyone must take down every detector, but some one had asked for ways to tell different detectors and taking one down is a surefire way of knowing exactly whats is installed. In most buildings there will be mostly smoke detectors, so in worst case you may need to take down an odd detector here or there if you need to know at what temp the detector will activate. The better way would have been for the fire alarm installer to have left as fitted drawings and a detector list, but as we all know it does not happen very often.
As for the IFE, I have never said they are not competent and would never do so as I do not know enough about them to come to that sort of conclusion. I have my own personal opinions on IFE but I would like to keep them that way, I only stated that I had asked why they do not insist on a high level of working knowledge of fire detection systems for people on their fire risk assessors register and was never given an answer.
Whoops i read your original post again Thomas and now realise I have totally got the wrong end of the stick of what you were saying.
Here is me preaching on about what how I get annoyed when people dont read what I put properly and yet I dont seem to be able to read other people properly. What an idiot I am.
Thomas I unreservedly apologise to you and hope i haven't put you off from using this site.
-
A standard system of being able to visually identify the 'type' of any fire detector without having to remove it and/or consult manuals, is such an obviously sensible idea it is a wonder it hasn't already been agreed by all equipment manufacturers.
In my opinion, reliance on site records or 'as fitted' drawings still leaves potential problems. In non-addressable systems, in particular, it would be very easy to inadvertantly 'swop' a smoke and a heat without anyone realising, creating a potential serious situation.
-
I would agree with your particular comments in relation to the conventional side ,you stand half a chance if you look at the chamber say Apollo or Hochiki and some others , but on some systems the head looks the same and you make it a smoke or heat by using a dil switch on the rear of the head , so in a corridor you have no choice but take the head out and look for yourself.
-
Galeon / Wiz
Totally agree with you and perhaps something that does need to be pushed for is a universal system of identification
-
Does nobody else ask to see the Design and Completion Certs for Fire Alarms and Emergency Lighting? By doing this you are assuring yourself that the system fitted is the correct system for the premises.
To carry out a Fire Risk Assessment you do not have to be in possetion of all the information required to install EL and AFD but you do have to have the knowledge as to whether the system installed is suitable.
-
Novascot, see my post from the 10th Aug on this thread. Often even the certificates arnt worth the paper they are written on, How ever they are a very good place to start. They may also give you some legal cover as long as you state that you have used them as evedence that the alarm is suitable.
I must admit that I have found over the years the better and more detailed the certificates usually the better the installation, But not always.
-
but on some systems the head looks the same and you make it a smoke or heat by using a dil switch on the rear of the head , so in a corridor you have no choice but take the head out and look for yourself.
and even than you would have to know the dil switch arrangement
-
On the few times I've seen commissioning certs (by large companies too) very few detail anything of use such as category of system, variations, sound level test results, as installed drawings.
I find an address print off & walking around with my neck craned ceiling wards still the best method of checking a system!
-
On the few times I've seen commissioning certs (by large companies too) very few detail anything of use such as category of system, variations, sound level test results, as installed drawings.
I find an address print off & walking around with my neck craned ceiling wards still the best method of checking a system!
AnthonyB, all the user/purchaser/enforcing authority or insurer is interested in is getting a commissioning certificate that looks like and is set out like the model commissioning certificate shown in BS5839 part 1 2002 (which actually raises all sorts of copyright issues). These people often think that any certificate that differs from the model is not vaild (even where it contains more info).
The model certificate does not ask for the system category to be listed nor the sound level test results to be recorded. In fact, many important elements affecting numerous test and inspections on large quantities of equipment are covered by a yes or no against the words The entrire system has been inspected and tested in accordance with the recommendations of 39.2C of BS5839-1:2002
As installed drawings are the responisbility of the installer and not the commissioner. The model certificate asks for confirmation that 'as fitted' drawings (amongst other documents) have been provided to the user. Invariably the answer will be no because these won't be completed and handed over to the user by the installer until many weeks after the commissioning was carried out.
The customer sees the commissioning as being a job that gets the system operational and all the equipment tested before the system is put in use but before other building works are complete. The BS sees commissioning as a final overall check of the system once everything else has been done. The two views never meet.
My biggest problem with the model certificate is that it doesn't ask for the actual quantities and types of equipment actually inspected and tested at the time of commissioning to be listed.
There have been many times that my commissioning certificate has been used as if it included equipment that I never tested because it wasn't installed at the time of commissioning but that was installed subsequently. The customer would never know this.
I've even also noted variation from the standards on my certificate to then find that the installer rectifies the mistake and then tells the customer that my certificate is wrong and I don't know what I am doing because the mistake I listed doesn't exisist, which of course is true when the customer is shown around!
No-one would want to pay the sort of costs for the numerous visits that might be required to provide pre-commission inspections etc to get parts of the system up and running as soon required and to highlight any problems that could be rectified before final commissioning.
The commissioning certification part of BS is a total and absolute dogs dinner! Woof!
-
as per Wiz
when i sat the IFE advanced commisisoning course the tutor told us that it is up to the commissioning engineer to check the entire installation. Even opening up joint boxes and inspection terminations in detectors etc.
The standards say that it is not generally up to the comm engineer to inspect the whole install.
I would agree otherwise what is the point of having design and install certs ? Surely if the designer and installer sign off their part as complaint then there should be no need to double check it.
still...i have yet to see a design and install certificate from any job other then the ones i have been invloved from design to hand over.
-
Why not expand the small section shown under variations to a full page of A4 now that makes sense it would give either a long list or not at all . (Lots of blank pages would be bouncing around then)
Same old story if you supply and commission to a contractor and they are wrong , your invoice always seems to be late / lost etc etc.
Last design cert that I asked to see was a P1 L2 , work that one out.
-
....
when i sat the IFE advanced commisisoning course the tutor told us that it is up to the commissioning engineer to check the entire installation. Even opening up joint boxes and inspection terminations in detectors etc.
So how can Graeme compete by commissioning to IFE requirements, when others just follow the letter of BS and would have a customer who was more than happy with that (in fact, that is all they want!)
......Surely if the designer and installer sign off their part as complaint then there should be no need to double check it.......
This is generally how BS thinks it should be. It assumes that the designer has his design right. It assumes that the installer has his installation right. These two 'certificate' their own parts as being 'spot on' and should take responsibility for what they have done.
However then BS goes and spoils it all by asking the commissioning engineer to do a certain amount of double-checking of the others and includes this in a section containing the requirement to check compliance of about 50 different recommendations within one clause on the model certificate!
Most importantly the designer and installer don't realise he has to do this because the 'model' certificate doesn't make this crystal clear unless you understand that is what is included in the phrase 'in accordance with recommendations of 39.2c.
This is why designers and installers hate a good commissioning engineer!
still...i have yet to see a design and install certificate from any job other then the ones i have been invloved from design to hand over.
How many times have I asked an installer at commissioning to confirm the category of the system and he says he doesn't know. I ask him what category is listed in the specification and he says it doesn't indicate any category. But BS doesn't recommend that the installer and commissioner have sight of any certificate before commencing commissioning. It doesn't even confirm what category he should check the system complies with!
It is quite obvious to me that 'commissioning' needs to be broken up into two parts.
The first part is to ensure the installed equipment functions correctly and could even be carried out in stages. It may be completed before the painters have finished and the floors are laid ( as the builder wants) The certificate for this should include a precise list of the type and location of every bit of equipment that has undergone this 'testing' commissioning. This commissioning could also include reports of design and installation compliance and allow the designer to either 'rectify' the problem or issue a proper variation.
The second part would only be carried out once the building is fully ready for occupation and design and installation and 'first stage commissioning certificates, and all drawings and users documentation are available. The commissioning engineer should then go through all the documentation and carry out further inspections and tests and only then issue a final commissioning certificate. (this is similar but not quite the same as an 'acceptance' certificate') hopefully this final commissioning certificate could confirm that there are no 'variations' whatsoever other than pre-agreed variations
The system currently used does not fit in with how projects are run. Buildings and projects are only finally completed hours before handover to the customer (so that payment can be released) and many of the elements of fire alarm commissioning have been completed days or weeks before (at the insistance of the commissioner's customer) and has probably been altered/damaged since the system was 'commissioned'.
-
another thing Wiz that really annoys me is when you do a commision for a large project.
You get handed the as fit drawings by the spark which are in tatters with numerous scored out routes etc and are really hard to read.
They then get handed over to the main contractor for an OEM manual and the maintenance company never sees them again.The amounts of site as you have mentioned that i have commnisioned that are now where near ready and is pointless.
it should be when the job is finished,so dust caps can be taken off and left off. Dba testing when the rooms are furnished.
-
Graeme, tattered drawings! unfinished dusty sites! echoing SPL readings! I so understand and agree with what you are saying. You could almost think that we both commissioned the same projects! Or we were the same person! Oh I haven't got back on to that subject again, have I?
Seriously, unless you've had to do it, it must be hard for others to imagine that something as simply sounding as 'fire alarm commissioning' is so diificult to do properly in reality.
Annoyingly, when 'problems' are discovered months later, the question is always asked 'well, what idiot did the commissioning on this system?'
The certificate that you originally issued just can't tell the whole story, and especially not about the 'changes' that were made in the weeks, days, minutes after your commissioning was completed!
One day I'll come up with a solution. I have the ideas but not the time to put them into practice!
-
In reply to your question..why are there so many types of detector and why do they look different...its just the same as asking...why is there more than one make and model of a car ?!!
You dont need to know what every single device is...you aint trying to redesign the fire system.
If you have any questions about the fire alarm..ask the company who maintain it.
All you need to know is that when it is tested on an inspection does it work or not ?..that will be answered on the engineers paperwork and they will advise you of any faults when they complete their testing..thats what you pay them for !!!
I get in my car..turn the engine on..and it moves...i dont need to inspect every valve and engine part to know that the car drives ok when im in it.
-
I agree with Davo, its a must.
Smoke Monkey, back to your example of not needing to know anything about your car to drive it I agree. However if you were putting together a legal report on the safety of the vehicle you would need to know the in's and outs of every safety feature or lack of them on that vehicle.