FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Rocha on November 14, 2008, 01:52:41 PM
-
Could someone kindly point me to the right place where it states that smoke detection is required to bedrooms. It has been a long week and cant find it!!!
Rocha
-
There isnt any
-
However,some authorities are shying away from the idea of letting the person in the room burn/die of smoke inhalation while keeping the escape routes clear (ie - heat detector).
-
BS 5839 part 1 2002 +A2 clearly states that HD should be fitted in bedrooms of commercial premises. There is no recommendation anywhere in the BS that places SD in bedrooms.
-
And to add to Jokars comment, the BS actually explains that the intention of detecting bedrooms is NOT to protect the person in the room of origin.
-
And to add to Jokars comment, the BS actually explains that the intention of detecting bedrooms is NOT to protect the person in the room of origin.
which is where that old chestnut rises again-the FSO requires protection of all 'relevant' persons.
-
They are not unprotected. It is simply that there is no need for AFd in their room to protect them. I wonder how many I/os have afd in their bedrooms at home. A case of do what I say not as I do that is totally devoid of any risk based considerations.
-
I have a detector in my bedroom. Admittedly the main reason for this detector is that I have my 2 year old son in the next room, and I have no desire to die in my sleep and sentence a helpless infant to a similar fate. The quicker I am awake the better position I am in to help.
Xan, re: FSO
Enforcement of Order
26. —(1) Every enforcing authority must enforce the provisions of this Order and any regulations made under it in relation to premises for which it is the enforcing authority and for that purpose, except where a fire inspector or other person authorised by the Secretary of State is the enforcing authority, may appoint inspectors.
(2) In performing the duty imposed by paragraph (1), the enforcing authority must have regard to such guidance as the Secretary of State may give it.
Could that be the CLG guidance? If so then it states quite clearly that BS5839 is an acceptable standard. I would rather have SD installed, but I would not try enforce it.
-
I have a detector in my bedroom. Admittedly the main reason for this detector is that I have my 2 year old son in the next room, and I have no desire to die in my sleep and sentence a helpless infant to a similar fate. The quicker I am awake the better position I am in to help.
Xan, re: FSO
Enforcement of Order
26. —(1) Every enforcing authority must enforce the provisions of this Order and any regulations made under it in relation to premises for which it is the enforcing authority and for that purpose, except where a fire inspector or other person authorised by the Secretary of State is the enforcing authority, may appoint inspectors.
(2) In performing the duty imposed by paragraph (1), the enforcing authority must have regard to such guidance as the Secretary of State may give it.
Could that be the CLG guidance? If so then it states quite clearly that BS5839 is an acceptable standard. I would rather have SD installed, but I would not try enforce it.
Surely then the detector in your bedroom is installed as an audible alarm rather than as a detector to detect a fire in the actual bedroom?To be fair I would mount one in my bedroom for that reason also if I didn't have a part 1 system installed.
-
Thanks to a my local building control I have a full BS5839-1-2002 L1 system in my house.
It was a trade off between replacing all the ground floor windows or putting a fire alarm through out.
-
Could someone kindly point me to the right place where it states that smoke detection is required to bedrooms. It has been a long week and cant find it!!!
Rocha
Rocha. I can point you to the right place which strongly suggests that you should have smoke detection in bedrooms particularily in your own home and especially if you have children. Your conscience.
-
In my opinion, (and I shall limit this response to sleeping accommodation in commercial premises - hotels etc), I interperet the requirement as HD in bedrooms with SD in the MoE, as already discussed in this thread, BS 5839 Part 1; refers to discounting the room of origin, however I have often wondered, (and lets remain in a hotel purpose group), that the rationale behind this was partly influenced by the fact that people were permitted to smoke in the hotel bedroom, the potential for false alarms and wasting FRS attendance resources etc.
More recently, post smoking ban in public places, most hotels are completley smoke free environments including the bedrooms, this could be the opportunity to amend the BS 5839 Part 1; to include SD in bedrooms
-
They are not unprotected. It is simply that there is no need for AFd in their room to protect them. I wonder how many I/os have afd in their bedrooms at home. A case of do what I say not as I do that is totally devoid of any risk based considerations.
Now Mr Todd I really must protest
Of course we I/Os dont have AFD in all our bedrooms at home, it all boils down to whom has control over the premises.
At home I have control over my own destiny (on the say so of Mrs Retty of course) If I decide not to install smoke detection at home then I take that decision at my own risk.
CivvyFSO however takes the view that he wants additional AFD to safeguard his family. And who would blame him.
The bottom line is that in our own homes we are free to do as we please, and accept any risks we impose on ourselves. We take our chances.
Also I note that there is no legislation requiring me to install AFD in my own single domestic dwelling. So the argument really is a non starter.
It is in premises where we dont have any control that additional safe guards are required. Those safeguards are designed to protect the MOE / other persons not the occupant in the room of origin.
And of course based on your argument Mr Todd you and your merry band of risk assessors would also be guilty of recommending measures to your clients that you yourselves do not have at home.
-
I have a detector in my bedroom. Admittedly the main reason for this detector is that I have my 2 year old son in the next room, and I have no desire to die in my sleep and sentence a helpless infant to a similar fate. The quicker I am awake the better position I am in to help.
Surely then the detector in your bedroom is installed as an audible alarm rather than as a detector to detect a fire in the actual bedroom?To be fair I would mount one in my bedroom for that reason also if I didn't have a part 1 system installed.
No, if there is a fire in my room I do not want to take any risk that I may die in it leaving my 2 year old to await his fate. The unlikeliness of a fire in my bedroom (The only electrical equipment is a baby monitor) would mean that if it was only my life that counted on it I would possibly not bother. As Retty said, I am happy to take my chances, but when other persons lives rely on me then I will adjust my standards accordingly.
-
What confuses me (well most things do, but this in particular), if HD in hotel bedrooms isn't for the occupant, and according to Sir Colin of Toddshire, such detection is not for the punter in the room and never is/has been - why then does BS5839 -1 2002+A2 2008 state in 8.1.2. page 17
"Alternatively, there might be a need to give enhanced early warning to occupants of certain rooms, such as disabled people, of a fire in their room. In this case, smoke or combustion gas detectors within the rooms are necessary; heat detectors will not respond quickly enough"
So surely despite what has been stated, the BS does refer to the detecion warnig the person in the room.
of origin
It states (paraphrasing) "if there's a NEED ...for early warning....for the punter in the room....use smoke detection"
I reckon there is now a need to protect all relevant persons (and has been since Oct 06) and not just disabled persons. As a result, I would be tempted to quote this part of the BS to support SD over HD every time.
If I have missed or intepreted someting incorrectly, I more than willing to be corrected (and I am sure someone will!!)
-
I see where you are coming from Messy but alas I dont think thats the intended interpretation of 8.1.2
I took it purely and simply to be aimed at vulnerable groups such as less abled persons.
Again this argument boils down to the level of control someone has in a given space. You could argue for instance that a hotel guest is in control of their own hotel bedroom.
Thus if they decide to do something silly such as fall asleep with a cigarette in their hand it's their own fault.
Fixtures and fittings in the bedroom which are out of the guest's control but which may be sources of ignition or fuel should be adequately controlled by good management to lessen the chance of a fire occuring - i.e electrical items PAT tested for instance, correct standards of furnishings in smoking rooms etc etc.
Would I like to be afford everyone the earliest opportunity of a fire occuring? Yes.
Could I enforce that Heat detection be changed to smoke detection in a hotel bedroom? No. I really don't think it is enforceable.
-
21.1.7 also says "In view of their lack of sensitivity, heat detectors are not suitable for the protection of areas where warning
of the presence of smoke is required or where a small fire would cause unacceptable damage."
-
My county has always had a policy of SD in bedrooms etc,so we don't have an issue of loads of bedrooms with HD anyway.Regardless of what it says in the BS,the question is,does HD give a person enough warning to wake up and get out of a fire?If not,then is SD better?If it is,is it reasonable to enforce?
5839 does not say that HD is king,only that in a typical sized bedroom the risk 'might not' warrant SD.Therefore,there may be a case where 'it might' warrant SD,and there we can have the debate.I can understand that ,in areas that have lots of bedrooms with existing HD,enforcing a change might not be reasonable under the circumstances,but is there a strong argument not to fit SD as standard in new build bedrooms,given the change in smoking laws etc?
I have lots of SD in my house,makes me sleep that little bit better,irrational or not.
-
I see little in the BS which specifies nothing but heat detection in a bedroom. If all rooms are none smoking rooms then smoke detection it is for me. If guests require smoking rooms then put them in a room with heat detection and warn them that they may not receive sufficient warning in the event of a fire in the room. If people must smoke they don't really care much about their health anyway.
That will be my FRA.
-
At whose cost? The simple thought of changing HD heads to SD heads is not that simple. It may involve a new panel and all sorts of things that will not fir ALARP. It is easy for enforcers they do not have to think about cost, they just state do it, but what about proportionality?
-
1. Heat detectors in bedrooms had not the first thing to do with smoking in bedrooms. Trust me that is not relevant.
2. Mr Retty , Protest away but like MRs retty, who as a woman can multi task, try to think risk at the same time as you are protesting. I had never put you down as a "control" freak, but the issue is nothing to do with control it is about risk. You are not entirely free to do as you please in your home, as if you take your smoke alarms away, you will commit an offence under the building act, and be sent to the salt mines as a punisment, or worse still be sent to work in LFEPA. You are right, there is no legislation to require you to put AFD in your bedroom, same as there is no legislation requiring smoke detectors in bedrooms rather than heat detectors. And at last we agree. The AFd is for others, not the person in the room of origin. Heat detectors eat that objective many times over, so why on earth would you want smoke detectors.
3. Messey. What am I to do with you. I do my best to sort out your confusions, but it is a labour born only of desparation sometimes. If you had paid attention to the mind correction of your equality and diversity people,, of which there are 9989 in LFEPA, you would know that the one thing that really does matter in the crazy world in which we live is to try to give disabled people equivalence to able bodied people. In my humble opinion, this is infinitely more important than demeaning women by calling them "dear" as we do in scotland. It really is ever so simple. If you are in a hotel, and there is a fire in your room, you will jump out of bed raise the alarm and make pumps 45 (asuming it is only a small fire). Someone who needs to use a wheelchair cant do that. So to help them, we compensate by giving even earlier warning to give them the same chance as the you have. That is also what the Home Office recommended in the purple guide for exactly the same reason. The HMIs at the time actually understood what they were doing, unlike the new incumbents, not least because they asked for and sponsored the work that led to detectors in bedrooms, and had the research findings as did we when we wrote BS 5839-1 1988 and the later 2002 version. I am sorry if you think there is an anomaly in what I drafted, but I was trying to give disabled persons an enhanced standard of fire safety. You are also misinterpreting the BS by selectively choosing some bits without reading it in context. Read the whole thing, and you will find we point out the role of the L2 system in a sleeping risk in the text and in Annex A.
And there is one thing that is being missed: People at home die in bedrooms of fire origin, because they dont have PAT testing, regular room inspections, avoidance of portable heaters and electric blankets, and they smoke in bed. None of this is applicable to hotels, and guess what???? Well, surprise surprise NOBODY dies in the room of fire origin in UK hotels whatever type of detector is installed. OH sorry, I tell a lie. You lost one in London a year or two ago. He set fire to his clothes and even the greatest fire brigade in the whole of.... London couldnt save him. Oh and guess what? He had a smoke detector in his bedroom. If you want to save lives from fire, go down to Brixton and install smoke alarms in their homes, which is where people die, and stop worrying about people who demonstrably never die anyway.
-
Thanks (as ever) for the background. I do understand the background & rationale to HD or SD in such bedrooms. I also accept that there is a low rate of fire deaths in hotels. But:
I am a west Londoner so wouldn't be seen dead in Brixton (or anywhere souf of the river) unless I really had to go there.
I accept that those with mobility issues would have a slower evac time than someone as fit, healthy, active and bloody good looking as a me. But call me old fashioned, if given a choice, I too would like to have as earlier warning as possible of a fire in my room. We are both relevant persons as defined by the FSO. However in a fire or smoke in my room (however rare it might be) - I fry, whilst the disabled person is awoken.
So what makes a disabled person more relevant than me?
I might ask that at the next equal ops course!
-
Following the principles of prevention, logic would lead most of us to consider that if we put a smoke detector in our bedroom we may be a little safer than if we rely soley on the inhalation of smoke, coughing smell of burning and low level noises caused by combustion waking us up. BS5839 also leads us towards this conclusion by suggesting that as a non ambulant person takes longer to self evacuate they should have the earliest warning of fire to ensure they enjoy the same level of safety as ambulant persons. Maybe.
On the other hand persons are not dying in hotel bedrooms and there have never been any studies to determine whether in fact the smoke detector would be effective in saving lives in case of fire- comparing the time taken to wake somebody if a detector is fitted or not.
I tend to take a flexible approach myself and sometimes recommend smoke detectors and sometimes dont- depending on other factors. Sometimes where there are excessive travel distances, substandard doors, bedrooms opening into staircases- the smoke detector in these cases can enhance the protection to the escape routes.
If the recommendation is simply for the protection of the ambulant relevant person in the room then I may suggest a stand alone domestic Grade F to supplement the heat detector.
New build is easy - but in existing buildings the blanket exchange of heat detectors to smoke detectors often is not easy or wise- the wiring tends to place them just outside the bathroom door.
-
The good people of Brixton deserve your attention Messey, however confused of west london you might be. You are not more relevant than a disabled person. You are still missing the point. We dont give you a wheelchair either, much as you might find it as much fun to drive as a red HGV. We reserve the wheelchair for mobility impaired people so they can have mobility approaching yours. We cannot do anything about good looks, so I suppose that compared to you they are still disadvantaged. We give disabled people a nice toilet of their own, with loads of space that you do not have in the bogs at LFEPA HQ. That is to make the toilet as easy to use as you find the grotty stalls in your toilet. We give disabled people a refuge and allow them to use the fire-fighting lift in the building, but alas Messey these facilities are not there for your fun and enjoyment. They are there to make it as easy for disabled people to get out of the building as you do, but alas you will need to trundle down the stairs in the Nat west tower when the fire alarm goes off. We give deaf and hard of hearing people a vibrating pad for their beds to alert them to the fire alarm signal. No, Messey, much as you could no doubt think up all sorts of uses for vibrating devices, sorry but you cannot have one, even if you do need it for reasons as diverse as a tendency to sleep through alarms as a result of alcohol abuse. Are you following a pattern here? So, we give disabled people a smoke detector in an attempt to care for them and their safety, such as to make them almost as safe as you. You do not need the detector because despite your use of emotive language you are not going to fry ever. You will die after a long and useful life, helping the people of brixton I hope, of old age and insanity brought about as a result of industrial mind-numbing.
Does this help your confusion at all?
-
So, we give disabled people a smoke detector in an attempt to care for them and their safety, such as to make them almost as safe as you.
I wish you would make up your mind. I thought the detection was not there to protect the person in the room of origin. Are we protecting the escape route or the people?
So if smoke detection is ok for the disabled persons room then why is heat ok for my room? Why am I and my family put in a position where a nice slow smouldering fire can carry on producing CO and all the other nasty stuff in our room without alerting us when SD would pick it up nice and quick?
PAT testing, smoking bans and regular room inspections may take place in the sort of places that can afford your services, and in the places you can afford to stay in, but there are some ropey old buildings out there that people pay to sleep in.
There may not be deaths attributed to heat detection in hotel bedrooms yet, but what is the justification for not suggesting fitting SD when it is acknowledged above that it improves safety?
-
So, we give disabled people a smoke detector in an attempt to care for them and their safety, such as to make them almost as safe as you.
I wish you would make up your mind. I thought the detection was not there to protect the person in the room of origin. Are we protecting the escape route or the people?
So if smoke detection is ok for the disabled persons room then why is heat ok for my room? Why am I and my family put in a position where a nice slow smouldering fire can carry on producing CO and all the other nasty stuff in our room without alerting us when SD would pick it up nice and quick?
PAT testing, smoking bans and regular room inspections may take place in the sort of places that can afford your services, and in the places you can afford to stay in, but there are some ropey old buildings out there that people pay to sleep in.
There may not be deaths attributed to heat detection in hotel bedrooms yet, but what is the justification for not suggesting fitting SD when it is acknowledged above that it improves safety?
There is a significant differential between the risk of false alarms occurring from the ensuite bathrooms in relation to smoke detection locations (particularly where a direct upgrade of heat detector to smoke detector has occurred) over the numbers of actual fires in hotel rooms.This (in my opinion) justifies not installing smoke detection as normal practice.
Fires in general occur in rooms/areas of the home that are not used for sleeping (aside from fires where an accelerant has been used to set a fire in sleeping areas making detection somewhat irrelevant) so why should a hotel be any different?
-
On a point of accuracy, if you put an ionisation smoke detector in the bedroom if might be 20 minutes into this slow smoudering fire before it operated. And heres the rub: you get so many false alarms from sd that there is complacency and the actual standard of fire safety will be lower for everyone. Then the fire brigade will complain. Then they will want staff alarms and investigation of alarm signals and it will all go horribly wrong one day because I/os in effect put everyone at risk trying to protect people who are not at risk. And when it goes all horribly wrong, as it will, some of us will be standing outside the court waiting for the expert witness work to tell the judge why it was all caused by over zealous and ill informed enforcement. You read it here first. Quotations for the expert witness evidence on request. Meantime the messeys might like to ask for advice from HQ policy.
-
SIGH I thought i had made it clear, but then the home office thought they had too but everyone thought they knew better than the Inspectorate. We are using afd to protect the escape route and not people in rooms who do not need protection. But we are risk assessing the need for protection and positively discriminating in favour of disabled people, who are people espcially at risk and are required by the FSO to be identified as such in the FRA, to ensure that they are adequately protected, taking into account their reduced mobility. The FBU always said that the words "where necessary" would be misunderstood. I always thought they meant by the public. But then maybe they knew their own members better than I did.
-
This argument keeps resurfacing. And no doubt will continue to do so. I believe the reason for this is not necessarily the issue itself, more a lack of clarity on the status of the Guidance Documents, BS5839 and the principle of ALARP.
If the Guidance for existing buildings had the status of an Approved Code of Practice it would be easy. The benchmark standard would be defined- but would take us towards prescription rather than risk assessment.
The duty is to reduce the level of risk from fire to a level that is as low as is reasonably practicable. In determining what that level is, we have to recognise that Society accepts a level of residual risk- this is usually identified and monitored through Government statistics of injuries and deaths through fire. The guidance documents and British Standards et al are all designed to sustain this benchmark level of acceptable residual risk.
Its similar in other areas of Health and Safety Law- take for example manual Handling Regulations where the Code of Practice includes a "filter" or in respect of workplace noise levels where action levels are set, ventilation, dust etc etc.
Currently in most existing hotels and other sleeping accommodation in which the layout and means of escape etc are provided in accordance with the benchmark guidance, it is considered that the BS5839 part 1 2002 represents the benchmark standard for fire detection and alarm systems.Since the Sleeping Accommodation Guidance Document reinforces 5839 as the benchmark, then it is actually telling us that relevant persons are adequately protected with heat detection in the room. Could they be made safer? Undoubtedly we could go further in driving down the level of risk by retrospectively providing additional smoke detection in bedrooms.
But how much safer would they be? And would the cost to the Nation justify the benefit? And does the Nation want to pay for this unquantified benefit? So far the National Guidance indicates not.
I must admit that the lack of research and statistics to quantify the benefit of doing this would make it very difficult to justify or to enforce.
-
Just to let you good folk have the SP
As you will know I was required to put smoke seals on all my doors (all thro the hotel) and some 40 odd
bedrooms which all had HD's
Did I not like this !!!!!!!
Apart from the costs and practical problems I could not get the reasons round me head
Anyway I protested long and loud and guess what
The local fire office no longer required smoke seals on any of the doors but wants me to install SD's in all the hotel bedrooms.
We are a completely non smoking hotel but that does not stop the blighters.
Socks on the HD's EVERY week my friend without fail
-
Mr Retty , Protest away but like MRs retty, who as a woman can multi task, try to think risk at the same time as you are protesting. I had never put you down as a "control" freak, but the issue is nothing to do with control it is about risk. You are not entirely free to do as you please in your home, as if you take your smoke alarms away, you will commit an offence under the building act, and be sent to the salt mines as a punisment, or worse still be sent to work in LFEPA. You are right, there is no legislation to require you to put AFD in your bedroom, same as there is no legislation requiring smoke detectors in bedrooms rather than heat detectors. And at last we agree. The AFd is for others, not the person in the room of origin. Heat detectors eat that objective many times over, so why on earth would you want smoke detectors.
Mr Todd esquire.
I totally accept your reasoning behind HD in hotel rooms and have never disagreed that AFD is installed to protect MOE and not the person in the room.
You questioned why jack booted IO's like me go round telling people to install x,y and z but dont practice what we preach and have such precautions at home.
I gave you the reasons why this is the case. It does come back to control. Control is something you have to consider as part of a risk assessment.
I am master of my own destiny at home. If i choose not to PAT test Mrs Retty, or leave the chip pan on whilst having a bath, or juggle petrol whilst lighting fireworks then it is purely at my own risk. Converseley however if I live in a block of flats and getting up to similar shanniagans then there needs to be precautions to protect other residents from my foolish antics. And thats the crooks of the matter.
You are quite correct - people aren't dying in hotel bedrooms another fact I'm willing to accept, just goes to show that fire safety works in my opinion
More people are dying at home. But until you educate people in private dwellings about trying to live their live safely you arent going to change anything. This is exactly why those big red things with flashy lights are going round installing free smoke detectors and doing HFSC for private dwellings (unless of course you want us jack booted so and so's to have powers to inspect private dwellings too - if so can I have your address?)
I dont advocate that heat detection should be changed to smoke detection. But what I am asking you to accept is that the element of control someone has over a certain space does have a direct bearing on the provisions required.
-
Disabled people may not be able to react to a fire in their room in the way an able bodied person could.
You must get things in proportion guys or the whole system gets stupid.
How many of us drive our cars wearing crash helmets?
The codes, standards and guides give us a benchmark as to what is considered reasonable, if we just adopt the "protect everybody form every concievable risk however remote" then you just look like a bunch of arm waving idiots.
-
Meantime the messeys might like to ask for advice from HQ policy.
Colin: I have done exactly that, and as of today's date, I haven't received any formal reply.
However, I was told (unofficially) that a certain highly respected Scottish fire consultant - now operating from his Surrey mansion- has approached the Sec of State for a determination on the subject.
If this is true, it's likely that my bosses will sit on their hands and await that determination.
On a serious note, thanks very much for continuing to provide the background to this policy. I might not agree with it, but such info makes it easier to work with and explain to others.
-
Messy, what do you want a policy for? The BS is explicit, the RP does an FRA and uses the BS as a base standard. Relevant persons are protected by the detection and warning system and all the others FS measures that make up an FRA package. Why are people making such a fuss? The room in the main will have electrics tested, furniture to the current standard, a fire door and evacuation notice an evacuation procedure in place and the only other hazrads may be those brought in by the user. That is their risk and it is down to those people to consider that.
Surely an FRA is suitable and sufficient if it allows a detection and warning system that is to the recommendations in the BS. And it is not the only protective measure in an FRA.
-
It really is ever so simple. If you are in a hotel, and there is a fire in your room, you will jump out of bed raise the alarm and make pumps 45 (asuming it is only a small fire).
Assuming that is, that you haven't been overcome by somke as the heat detector hasn't detected the souldering fire?
Someone who needs to use a wheelchair cant do that. So to help them, we compensate by giving even earlier warning to give them the same chance as the you have.
So we discriminate against able bodied people? Surely all relevant persons are entitled to the same level of detection and warning and it is the responsibility of the responsible person to ensure that all persons can be evacuated therefore requiring "suitable numbers of persons to impliment the emergency procedures"
Well, surprise surprise NOBODY dies in the room of fire origin in UK hotels whatever type of detector is installed. OH sorry, I tell a lie. You lost one in London a year or two ago. He set fire to his clothes and even the greatest fire brigade in the whole of.... London couldnt save him. Oh and guess what? He had a smoke detector in his bedroom.
I think there is a minor difference between the person actually setting fire to himself, which would most likely result in the death of that individual and being in a room of origin, clearly two distinct facts I would suggest and, wasn't there a fatal fire in Blackpool ...... with the person in a bedroom of origin? (I apologise in advance if this is incorrect!!)
This is a discussion that will keep resurfacing as mentioned, but surely we must be guided by the requirements of law .... "the premises equipped, to the extent that is necessary....." and "to safeguard the safety of relevant persons"
Surely we must ensure that relevant persons are given the earliest warning of fire in order for them to be provided the greatest chance of escape ... or do we allow relevant persons to be sacrificed because the British Standard says we can have heat detectors in bedrooms?
-
1. Doctor Retty, We are straying off topic, but while I acknowldge the difference between imposed risk and voluntarily accpeted risk- I was taught that as a student 33 years ago actually and have been practising the principles continuously ever since without delving off to other career activities. My point is that some correspondents with a clear lack of experience or understanding of the underlying principles are on the basis of nothing objective but merely their subjective opinion are suggesting that HMG guidance, substantial research and the views of specialsit stakeholders who drafted the guidance are all wrong and that there is some risk that all these bodies (and indeed you and I Dr R) are missing and is so serious that all this guidance is to be set aside. I was just curious if the risk is so awful, why they arent bothered that their loved ones are exposed to it.
2. Baldy, a)your assumption about my assumption is correct and is shown to be correct by years and years of experience. b)Yes we treat disabled people differently and rightly so. So what. c) yes I know the difference between someone setting fire to their clothes and someone exposed to a fire while they are asleep. I was merely being magnanimous to messey and accepting that it is not quite true to say that no one dies in the room of origin, and then I went on to show that to the extent it was not true the single case between 2001 and 2006 inclusive was irrelevant, which I am glad you too perceive. d) if someone did die in bedroom of origin in blackpool or anywhere esle for that matter it was not in the 5 year period 2001-2006, for whch the data is as I have already indicated.e) No we dont need to give the earliest possible warning if it is not reasonably practicable to do so (ie if the risk does not justify the cost time and trouble). If you want the earliest possible warning, you had better install a high sensitivity aspirating system in every sngle room because that will operate even earlier than a point detector. No, Messey, thats not reasonably practicable either.
3) Brian, arm waving has been rife since the legislation changed.
4) Messey, why dont you pick up the phone and ask the head of fire safety policy. You do have phones in your new super duper HQ dont you? Also, could you advise us as to whether all fire resisting doorsets in the building have intumescent strips and smoke seals?
-
(ie if the risk does not justify the cost time and trouble).
Have you got any suggestions for an estimated difference in cost between HD and optical SD in a new build? The last time I looked it was quite similar, if anything HD seems slightly more expensive.
Then have you got any nice calculations for the difference in the level of tenability in a room by the time a HD activates compared to a SD?
-
The local fire office no longer required smoke seals on any of the doors but wants me to install SD's in all the hotel bedrooms.
There is really no explaining to you or pleasing you is there?
We are a completely non smoking hotel but that does not stop the blighters.
Socks on the HD's EVERY week my friend without fail
At least your clientelle are conscientious enough to want to avoid giving you problems with unwanted fire signals. Should help you when your SD is installed...
-
The local fire office no longer required smoke seals on any of the doors but wants me to install SD's in all the hotel bedrooms.
There is really no explaining to you or pleasing you is there?
We are a completely non smoking hotel but that does not stop the blighters.
Socks on the HD's EVERY week my friend without fail
At least your clientelle are conscientious enough to want to avoid giving you problems with unwanted fire signals. Should help you when your SD is installed...
I think in quote (i) David was highlighting how he could have spent money installing seals that were deemed so critical at one time for them to become not so.
I have had a customer (residential home) who had to have an automatic door closure fitted at the top of a single staircase (imagine an H on it's side where the vertical is the rising staircase from ground to first floor and closing fire doors exist at either side of the ground floor ends) the after their NIFA inspection,only to be told the following year that it wasn't really necessary - this from the same brigade sub!
-
I think in quote (i) David was highlighting how he could have spent money installing seals that were deemed so critical at one time for them to become not so.
If I remember the situation was that he required the strips because he has HD in the rooms. Now, in the absence of strips & seals, the FRS (for whatever reason) seem to have decided that SD is more appropriate. I think that if he had installed the seals when required then he wouldn't be faced with the requirement to install SD.
-
Am I going mad here, the detection and warning system is fitted at build or alteration or after an FRA. FSO have little to do with either as
a. Building Regulations are the sole property of the BCO or AI ( Holroyd 1972, Bickerdike Allen 1994)
b. Part 2 of the Order is the duty of the RP
FSO's are enforcers only not to do fire safety. They audit an FRA and comment on the findings. How anyone could decide that a warning and detection system installed to BS 5839 part 2002 +A2 in not suitable and sufficient is beyond my small brain.
People get over it. Until the S of S states otherwise HD will be put in hotel bedrooms.
-
Colin we do have phones in our lovely new HQ, and a terrific restaurant which specialises in poor accoustics & cold sausages.
As for phoning for advice, what for? I get all the help I need here. Often overnight.
It's far more efficient than waiting for a committee to be formed, and then a round of meetings before I get to find the answer to my question is that: I should have gone through my line manager/manageress and not contacted them direct!
-
You are correct in assumption that domestic h/alarm is somewhat more expensive than an optical smoke, but a lot more than the default ion smoke alarms often fitted in private new build.
(ie if the risk does not justify the cost time and trouble).
Have you got any suggestions for an estimated difference in cost between HD and optical SD in a new build? The last time I looked it was quite similar, if anything HD seems slightly more expensive.
Then have you got any nice calculations for the difference in the level of tenability in a room by the time a HD activates compared to a SD?
-
1. Doctor Retty, We are straying off topic, but while I acknowldge the difference between imposed risk and voluntarily accpeted risk- I was taught that as a student 33 years ago actually and have been practising the principles continuously ever since without delving off to other career activities. My point is that some correspondents with a clear lack of experience or understanding of the underlying principles are on the basis of nothing objective but merely their subjective opinion are suggesting that HMG guidance, substantial research and the views of specialsit stakeholders who drafted the guidance are all wrong and that there is some risk that all these bodies (and indeed you and I Dr R) are missing and is so serious that all this guidance is to be set aside. I was just curious if the risk is so awful, why they arent bothered that their loved ones are exposed to it.
Professor Todd
Point taken, I see where you are coming from.
I am pleased that determination has been sought from the S of S on this matter. I think it will make everyone's life much easier.
Whenever the Police get new legislation they immediately go for test cases / determinations as soon as they can because it helps to establish the boundaries of that legislation, it can help clear up grey areas, and it helps to establish at what level and how stringently they need to enforce it.
Grey areas are open to interpretation and debate. We could all sit here and argue 'til kingdom come about this subject.
Some may be pleased with the result of determination when it comes, some may not. But the point is that the decision will be made out of our hands. So if that decision is wrong and something catastrophic happens as a result it's certinly not the RP / consultant / RA or Insp Officers at fault.
-
Excellent point well made!
As for Mr Todds somewhat sarcastic response ...... I think you'll find that most disabled people do not like or want to be treated differently ...... I know this as a fact as I have a disabled family member.
I respect the views put within the post but that doesn't mean to say I agree with them, but thats what makes us different.
-
Messey, Surely you can just explain that the way your F&RS works your line manager is busy standing by a fire hydrant and is neither skilled in, has any apptitude for, and certainly no interest in fire safety. Or lie to them and say he is on a harrassment course for 9 weeks. That sounds quite believable. I like cold sausages, provided they come with soggy beans. Can I drop by for something to eat. (We are feeding one of your number at our Xmas party soon.)
First Minister Retty, Why is it so many people believe its all about protecting rear ends, instead of the practise of professional judgement. Dont bother to reply, I think I know the answer. And I didnt say a determination had been sought-that was Messey, and he lives in a world where fire safety policy is just a rumour spread in the canteen and apparently not well disseminated because of the poor acoustics therein.
Baldy, That wasnt me being sarcastic. You will know when I am being sarcastic. Disabled people are a group especially at risk who need to be identified as such and have adequate fire precautions, so they have an equivalent standard of safety. Being politically correct about them is to their detriment as far as safety is concerned. Thats why BS 5588-8 is being withdrawn, as disabled pressure wanted them to be dealt with by BS 9999, so they could have a crap standard same as everyone else, and the requirements for their safety could be lost in a jungle of waffle. They may live (or die) to regret it.
Jokar, No you are not going mad, the world in which you live is. Personally, I frequently regret ever becoming part of it. I should have been a vet.
-
I can't believe you've invited any of 'ours' to your Xmas dinner without asking me (I'd bring the cold sausages).
What is this anyway? Somekind of Xmas truce with the enemy?? ::)
-
No, messey i made a resolution to invite ALL the decent fire safety people in your service to break bread with us this year. I had 50% of them at our company's 25th anniversary party, and I am having the other 50% to our xmas party. Both of the guys are very bright, competent and thoroughly good eggs, merely poor in their choice of employer.
-
No, messey i made a resolution to invite ALL the decent fire safety people in your service to break bread with us this year. I had 50% of them at our company's 25th anniversary party, and I am having the other 50% to our xmas party. Both of the guys are very bright, competent and thoroughly good eggs, merely poor in their choice of employer.
You haven't told them that they are limited to one chipolata,a razer cut slice of turkey and a sprout (members of official bodies get a stuffing ball).