FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Benzerari on October 22, 2008, 01:37:52 PM
-
In a student accommodation, all rooms have heat detectors except the one in ground floor, for disabled students, they have smoke detectors. The disabled rooms are just a bit wider, they have got exactly what ordinary rooms have. So in what basis these disabled rooms should be covered with SD instead of HD?
And what recommendation and/or legislation are stating that?
Thank you
-
BS5839 pt1 :2002 21.1.8 3) note 2 (page48)
(just so happens I was reading that this morning for a new design at a health club/hotel and I left it open on my desk)
-
BS5839 pt1 :2002 21.1.8 3) note 2 (page48)
(just so happens I was reading that this morning for a new design at a health club/hotel and I left it open on my desk)
many thanks GregC, I found it:
(Note 2: ..... for mobility-impaired disabled people who require additional time to escape from a fire in their bedroom.)
So, it's a matter of time to escape then, since SDs are more sensitive then HDs, but this may causes false alarms too thought!
-
You can never discover these bits only once they happen :)
-
BS5839 pt1 :2002 21.1.8 3) note 2 (page48)
(just so happens I was reading that this morning for a new design at a health club/hotel and I left it open on my desk)
many thanks GregC, I found it:
(Note 2: ..... for mobility-impaired disabled people who require additional time to escape from a fire in their bedroom.)
So, it's a matter of time to escape then, since SDs are more sensitive then HDs, but this may causes false alarms too thought!
But what about false alarms did BS think about?
-
IT was also the party line for certification of hotels under the FP Act and its about trying to give disabed people equivalence with able bodied.
-
IT was also the party line for certification of hotels under the FP Act and its about trying to give disabed people equivalence with able bodied.
Fairly clair Colin, and thanks for that, but curing evil by evil, you will get evil. Which is false alarms, which costs billions too.
-
A copious amount of so called unwanted false alarms , can be assigned to bad housekeeping and general stupid actions by people .
Lack of proper maintenance also contributes to this.
-
A copious amount of so called unwanted false alarms , can be assigned to bad housekeeping and general stupid actions by people .
Lack of proper maintenance also contributes to this.
You see Gal; :)
If false alarms have been taken seriously into consideration, probably BS recommendations will have major changes!
-
IT was also the party line for certification of hotels under the FP Act and its about trying to give disabed people equivalence with able bodied.
Fairly clair Colin, and thanks for that, but curing evil by evil, you will get evil. Which is false alarms, which costs billions too.
All risk assessment involves a balance. On one scale is the cost , time and trouble of adopting a measure. In the other is the risk if the measure is not adopted. Failing to give the earliest possible warning of a fire to a person who may not be able to escape from the said fire without assistance is a risk that outweighs the cost time and trouble of providing the warning. That was the thinking of Central Government (who are not evil, just frequently quite stupid, but not, as it happens, on this occasion) and remained the view of those responsible for BS 5839-1.
-
IT was also the party line for certification of hotels under the FP Act and its about trying to give disabed people equivalence with able bodied.
Fairly clair Colin, and thanks for that, but curing evil by evil, you will get evil. Which is false alarms, which costs billions too.
All risk assessment involves a balance. On one scale is the cost , time and trouble of adopting a measure. In the other is the risk if the measure is not adopted. Failing to give the earliest possible warning of a fire to a person who may not be able to escape from the said fire without assistance is a risk that outweighs the cost time and trouble of providing the warning. That was the thinking of Central Government (who are not evil, just frequently quite stupid, but not, as it happens, on this occasion) and remained the view of those responsible for BS 5839-1.
Yes indeed, you are absolutely right, you see how limited humans we are, we just do our best, in a given space and time, and our decisions, may be proven wrong afterwards, by any one else living in a different space and time...etc
Finally, no one else is to blame, since we just decide according to our available (and actual) knowledge, in our space and time... :)
-
A copious amount of so called unwanted false alarms , can be assigned to bad housekeeping and general stupid actions by people .
Lack of proper maintenance also contributes to this.
You see Gal; :)
If false alarms have been taken seriously into consideration, probably BS recommendations will have major changes!
Benz ,
I don't agree , its an outside influence , which is not a constant , you cant factor this , no different if you don't check your car for oil , and the engine blows up , do you go back to say Ford and say there is no oil in my car 3 years later. What the person should do is say looks like I got an oil leak , fix it engine don't blow.
It is common sense , which should be offered free on the NHS and forcibly injected to some of the population who don't seem to have any about them.
-
A copious amount of so called unwanted false alarms , can be assigned to bad housekeeping and general stupid actions by people .
Lack of proper maintenance also contributes to this.
You see Gal; :)
If false alarms have been taken seriously into consideration, probably BS recommendations will have major changes!
Benz ,
I don't agree , its an outside influence , which is not a constant , you cant factor this , no different if you don't check your car for oil , and the engine blows up , do you go back to say Ford and say there is no oil in my car 3 years later. What the person should do is say looks like I got an oil leak , fix it engine don't blow.
It is common sense , which should be offered free on the NHS and forcibly injected to some of the population who don't seem to have any about them.
Humans in general, try to cope with outside influences, and to overcome them, but in the limit of (there is no travel backward through time and try to correct, what have been damaged in the past), there is no proof uptill now, that travel backward through time is approved, even 'Albert Einstein' certainly hoped to see it real one day! :)
Unfortunately it's impossible in our human dimension, probably in a different dimention :)
Finally that's what proves that, BS as it is now, is not the final thoughts and findings, in any given space and time, and will never be... :)
Things keep changing and progressing mate :)
-
. Failing to give the earliest possible warning of a fire to a person who may not be able to escape from the said fire without assistance is a risk that outweighs the cost time and trouble of providing the warning. That was the thinking of Central Government (who are not evil, just frequently quite stupid, but not, as it happens, on this occasion) and remained the view of those responsible for BS 5839-1.
Colin be careful. Some of us may percieve a possible chink in your highly polished armour in respect of previous discussions over the the provision of smoke detectors Vs heat detectors in hotel bedrooms. You have always been very clear that the detector in a room is there to protect the escape routes and not the occupant of the room and that a heat detector in rooms will achieve this objective in tandem with the fire resisting door, without creating unwanted signals.
Are you suggesting that the intention of the smoke detector in the disabled room is to alert the occupant of the room in the incipient stages of the fire in order to maximise the time available to make their own escape, or is it to alert others with responsibility to go and assist the disabled person in the event of the fire in their room?
-
Are you suggesting that the intention of the smoke detector in the disabled room is to alert the occupant of the room in the incipient stages of the fire in order to maximize the time available to make their own escape, or is it to alert others with responsibility to go and assist the disabled person in the event of the fire in their room?
I think this is clearly explained by (Note 2...) Mentioned by CregC earlier in page 48 of BS5839 part 1, the paragraph doesn't state any thing about your second bit (....to alert others with responsibility to go and assist the disabled person in the event of the fire in their room), but probably in a different paragraphs... etc and in that case what is it?
-
Kurnal, it is a combination of the two, with the intent of giving equivalent safety to disabled persons and able bodied people. As you rightly say, I have always been clear that the detector in the bedroom is intended to warn those beyond the room of origin. However, a mobility impaired person needs extra warning to compensate for their lack of mobility plus the possible need for early assistance.
-
Kurnal, it is a combination of the two, with the intent of giving equivalent safety to disabled persons and able bodied people. As you rightly say, I have always been clear that the detector in the bedroom is intended to warn those beyond the room of origin. However, a mobility impaired person needs extra warning to compensate for their lack of mobility plus the possible need for early assistance.
But what paragraph is stating both, or at least the second bit?...
-
The standard is peppered with references to this effect.
-
The standard is peppered with references to this effect.
mmmmmhhhhhhh;
Just to say, I haven't understood, I am still confused, as usual (http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr87/BenzFerari/icon_scratch1.gif)
-
If you can be specific as to the point of confusion, I will try to de-confuse you.
-
Are you suggesting that the intention of the smoke detector in the disabled room is to alert the occupant of the room in the incipient stages of the fire in order to maximize the time available to make their own escape, or is it to alert others with responsibility to go and assist the disabled person in the event of the fire in their room?
I think this is clearly explained by (Note 2...) Mentioned by CregC earlier in page 48 of BS5839 part 1, the paragraph doesn't state any thing about your second bit (....to alert others with responsibility to go and assist the disabled person in the event of the fire in their room), but probably in a different paragraphs... etc and in that case what is it?
Colin the confusion is in the above...
-
The distinction is academic. The intention in BS 5839-1 is to compensate for a mobility impaired person' disability, moving their level of safety towards that afforded to their able bodied peers. Earlier warning of a fire in their bedroom achieves this.
-
1- A person with impaired mobility may take much longer to physically remove themselves to a place of safety in the event of a fire in their room. Totally agree.
2- Providing a smoke detector in their room is likely to alert them to a fire situation as quickly as possible. maximising their opportunity to escape. I agree. So we put smoke detection in those hotel rooms designated for use by disabled people. Great.
3- The other bedrooms have heat detectors. The heat detector will not operate before conditions in the room have become untenable. So fully ambulant people- who only have the benefit of being able to move more quickly when required- have to rely on their senses to wake them before conditions become untenable in the event of a fire in their room.
4- It seems to me that taking a time line approach, time to detection is more likely to be a critical factor than time to respond if the fire is in your bedroom. And the able bodied guests are at a disadvantage here.
OK so statistics show that nobody is dying as a result of fires in hotel bedrooms but the logic appears flawed to me. We are not comparing apples with apples.
-
Totally agree Prof
If I remember my research correctly of a few years ago (not having it at home, I'm not that sad)
Smoke detects in 37 secs, Heat 2m15 secs ( average for the brand I was reading the data sheets for)
Nose detects in under 30 secs in the source room, sooooooooooo the odds are you will wake in your hotel room before the HD goes off.
BS metal bin with paper test
davo
-
Totally agree Prof
If I remember my research correctly of a few years ago (not having it at home, I'm not that sad)
Smoke detects in 37 secs, Heat 2m15 secs ( average for the brand I was reading the data sheets for)
Nose detects in under 30 secs in the source room, sooooooooooo the odds are you will wake in your hotel room before the HD goes off.
BS metal bin with paper test
davo
What do you mean by that Davo?
-
I cannot see the flaw in the logic I am afraid. The Home Office didn't either when they wrote the purple guide, and the BSI commitee didn't when BS 5839-1 was written, but it could be we are all wrong. The more time you buy for a disabled person to escape, or be assisted with escape, the more you move them towards equivalence with able bodied people. All disabled fire safety boils down to creating equivalence for disabled people, which is a worthy objective. The extent of the benefit may be in question, but the fact that it is a benefit is somewhat indisputable. Other than wave a magic wand to give them back their mobility, I cannot see what else, in terms of timelines, we can do, and to perform such a miracle would take a Principal Officer, and they are all too busy doing other miracles.