FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Wiz on March 25, 2009, 05:25:02 PM
-
Are British Standards worth the paper they are written on? The obvious answer is 'no', because for their cost they should be written on gold leaf!
More seriously, many people use BS5839 part 1 as their 'bible' for everything to do with fire alarm systems, but is their reliance on this document misplaced?
Whilst accepting that BS5839 part 1 is just a set of recommendations, then just how useful are they to anyone?
It seems that there are any number of recommendations, approvals and guidances that have equal weight as BS. If there are so may 'competing' documents, and they offer conflicting recommendations then which recommendation is most correct?
As an example of this problem I offer the following extracts from BS5839-1:2002+A2:2008:
20.2.h) Manual call points should be fixed at a height of 1.4m above finished floor level..........
Note 6 The figure of 1.4m is arbitary........A minor difference (e.g. less than 200mm) in mounting height (e.g. to align with the mounting height of light switches) need not be regarded as significant, nor need it be recorded as a variation.
Note 7 Guidance in support of national building regulations (e.g. in England and wales, Approved Document M [3] under the Building Regulations) recommends that switches and controls be mounted no higher than 1.2m above floor level, so that they are accessible for disabled people.
If the guidance of the national building documents is equally as important as the recommendations of BS then surely 1200mm is the only acceptable mounting height? If so why doesn't BS recognise this and amend it's recommendations?
If the guidance of the national building document is not as important as recommendations of BS then why even mention the 'guidance' within the BS?
If the 1200mm or lower mounting height only comes into play if it is likely that a significant number of disabled persons may need to operate the manual call point, then why not say so?
Obviously, there are those who will say that the DDA says that everything has to be suitable for use by disabled persons. If this is so, why doesn't BS say so? The guidance of the national building document certainly seems to infer this is the case.
The whole thing is a mess.
What we need is just one set of recommendations so that everybody is singing from the same hymnsheet.
Obviously, no-one on any of the various committees want to be the ones to go. But surely it's got to happen so that we get some consistancy to theses recommendations, approvals and guidelines.
Looking at the above example it seems that BS is the one trying to pull in all directions at once, so maybe they should be the first to disappear!
-
Yes Dr Wiz it seems to be a growing problem. In support of your argument I would cite BS9251 for residential and domestic sprinklers. As soon as this was published the BASA immediately produced its supplementary guidance to add the bits that should have been included in the BS but werent, and to correct the water flow requirements based on the actual sprinkler heads available in the UK. As you say, from the point of view of the end user or specifier who do you believe when two organisations of this standing give conflicting information?
-
Totally agree with your comments, as you rightly say British Standard Codes of practice are recommendations and are not statutory unlike the Building Regulations.
Unfortunately the British Standards are not clearly defined and as such they will always take the easy option by declaring “Compliance with a British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from legal obligations”. In other words always check the small print :)
-
Dr Wiz
To add further confusion to DDA, a new BS8300 has been published- there is an extra 80+ pages for your consideration!
And yes, existing pages have been altered also so you need toi read all of it
davo
-
Unfortunately the British Standards are not clearly defined and as such they will always take the easy option by declaring “Compliance with a British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from legal obligations”.
What if it is deemed to satisfy? Different hymn sheets again?
-
Unfortunately the British Standards are not clearly defined and as such they will always take the easy option by declaring “Compliance with a British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from legal obligations”.
What if it is deemed to satisfy? Different hymn sheets again?
For sure there are too many standards, too many committees and sub committees of people who write them……….. In an ideal world it would be great to have a British Standard Code of practice that encompassed all the relevant means of compliance. But you know it will never ever happen :)
-
Reminds me of a someone who contacted this site last year when she had trouble getting a conversion from house to a three storey B&B past BC. BC would not accept single door protection and cited ABD 2.
If there was a similar three storey B&B next door a fire risk assessment using Fire Safety Risk Assessment in Sleeping Accommodation would accept single door as adequate.
This is Local and National Government guidance in conflict.
Dispair or what?
PS. People like her won't be able to do that any more as the Fire Net Forum does not exist to the outsider.
-
I am encouraged by the number, and by the content of the replies so far, to suggest that there is a real problem here.
If we can get enough support I propose that we highlight this problem at Govenment ministerial level. Maybe we could even start (if they still exist) one of those on-line petitions at No .10.
To get any action we would obviously need sufficient support for our on-line petition. To get this support, it would take a large number of us to spread the word (by email etc.) to everyone in the industry.
Can anyone who supports the idea of 'one set of standards/recommendations/guidance' please make themselves known by posting on this thread.
Once I can properly gauge the level of support for the idea then we can move on with our petition.
-
I agree.... there are also requirements in part M - strobes in WC's that isn't mentioned in 5839... and the fact that some of the requirements of 7273 pt 4 take precident over 5839.....??!!
The whole system is a bit of a nightmare.... with too many guides by too many quangos....
We have a spec sitting here telling us our system needs to comply with 5588..... where do you start....!?
-
Count me in, Im fed up with beating up electrical contractors with BS5839 and then having my engineers beat me with it when a dose of common sense would suit everyone but common sense isn't included in any BS I have come across to date.
-
I'm in! A BS in common sense would be just common sense!
We are drowning under poor conflicting guidance. Even more ridicuously expensive BS documents are not the way forward.
Get rid of RRO & risk assessment and give the power & responsibility to the Fire Service would be a good start.
-
Was that John Dragon or John Dinosaur posting? ;)
Hey dont rock the boat john too much, you just put me out of business :D
-
As I understand it British Standards are written by a committee of unpaid people (sixish) in the trade who have an interest in writing British Standards who are unconnected with the British Standards Institute. (The British Standards Institute get the standards written for free). They get together at intervals and produce drafts which are circulated to others in the trade that are interested. Anyone can read a draft and put forward suggestions. The committee can accept or reject suggestions.
I recently met someone (not in fire alarms) who was on a BSI committee and his experience was that the trade are apathetic to commenting on drafts and making valuable suggestions.
The problem I have with the way British Standards are written is that the drafts are not easily available and unless you know someone then you find out that a new standard is published maybe when it is too late to comment. I just stumbled upon one that I was interested in by searching on the internet one day.
I suppose that if you want to make a difference or you don't agree with a certain part of a standard then you have to get involved at draft stage
-
As I understand it British Standards are written by a committee of unpaid people (sixish) in the trade who have an interest in writing British Standards who are unconnected with the British Standards Institute. (The British Standards Institute get the standards written for free). They get together at intervals and produce drafts which are circulated to others in the trade that are interested. Anyone can read a draft and put forward suggestions. The committee can accept or reject suggestions.
I recently met someone (not in fire alarms) who was on a BSI committee and his experience was that the trade are apathetic to commenting on drafts and making valuable suggestions.
The problem I have with the way British Standards are written is that the drafts are not easily available and unless you know someone then you find out that a new standard is published maybe when it is too late to comment. I just stumbled upon one that I was interested in by searching on the internet one day.
I suppose that if you want to make a difference or you don't agree with a certain part of a standard then you have to get involved at draft stage
Good input though, but I think, it's the other side which may not be open enough, to receive comments and suggestions from all involved people of the field, including engineers... , what I might be sure about is that, the giant companies are the main players, it’s their decisions that count first and last.
-
On a point of accuracy, committee FSH/12/1, which is responsible for BS 5839-1 has far more than six members. The trade are actually in the minority on the committee but do have full and proper representation.
Other members include IFE, CFOA, CLG, IET, NSI,ECA, NICEIC, BCMA etc etc. On a further point of accuracy, a BS cannot be brought to market unless it has been available to entire public for a period of months so that they can comment. All comments, regardless of who they are from must be properly considered and committee response documented.
-
All of these professional bodies and with their abundance of expertise and experience there are such problems. I can only guess that they don't take their representation duties very seriously. Maybe it's time for the thinking man to have a go?
-
The trade are actually in the minority on the committee but do have full and proper representation.
Other members include IFE, CFOA, CLG, IET, NSI,ECA, NICEIC, BCMA etc etc.
When you say the trade are in a minority then surely the people who are in the majority are still the trade in that they must have a connection with the standard they are writing. Surely these (IFE, CFOA, CLG, IET, NSI,ECA, NICEIC, BCMA) are all trade and between the lot of them they should be able to produce a standard which is common sense, especially when they aren't normally writing it from scratch and they are normally just trying to tweak and improve a previous standard?
Once again we really need to get involved at draft stage if we want to make a difference.
-
Maybe the numbers of people involved is the problem, an old adage says, “The camel is a horse designed by a committee", and "Too many cooks spoil the broth" there is a lot of truth in these old sayings. If one or maybe two technical experts wrote the BS and on completion it was put out for consultation to a wider audience. The draft could be reworked taking into account the comments received, at least we would know who to blame. ::)
-
Guys, I think we are getting off track here.
The accuracy or relevance of the standards is not the issue at this point (that is something that can be addressed if and when the main aim is achieved!)
The main aim now is reduce the various confusing/conflicting standards/recommendations/guidances into one songsheet from which everyone can sing the same song.
i.e. One set of rules that everyone refer to.
Please post here if you agree or disagree with the above.
Please start a new thread for any discussion on the make-up of BSI committees.
-
As long as it has a healthy dose of common sense I would prefer one standard.
-
Guys, I think we are getting off track here.
The accuracy or relevance of the standards is not the issue at this point (that is something that can be addressed if and when the main aim is achieved!)
The main aim now is reduce the various confusing/conflicting standards/recommendations/guidances into one songsheet from which everyone can sing the same song.
i.e. One set of rules that everyone refer to.
Please post here if you agree or disagree with the above.
Please start a new thread for any discussion on the make-up of BSI committees.
But the make up of the committee could well be part of the problem Wiz. Why with such representation is there this problem? The F & Rescue Services, which is represented by CFOA, has Fire Safety guidance which differs from the BS which differs from Building Control guidance. Surely someone has raised this very matter somewhere?
-
The main aim now is reduce the various confusing/conflicting standards/recommendations/guidances into one songsheet from which everyone can sing the same song.
Except if others like you had access to and commented on the drafts when they are produced and those that produced the conflicting standards either sat on the committees or also commented on the drafts thern eventually (hopefully) you would get one songsheet.
The trouble with British Standards is that as far as I am aware they aim to revise a standard every five years. So it's a long time to live with a crap standard. Unless they issue ammendments mid term which cost a fortune.
-
Do we need National standards at all? In the single market how can National standards support open market trading conditions, especially when there are substantial differences between some BS and EN.
The disease that Dr Wiz has diagnosed goes further than the BSI though, its inherent in Government- look at Fire Safety Law. Why oh why only six months after the Fire Safety Order came into force did the Government see fit to produce further conflicting fire safety Regulations for building sites under the umbrella of the CDM Regs 2007?
And why did the people who wrote the Guidance Document for Fire Risk Assessment in sleeping accommodation decide to define their own meaning for LD3 when compared to to BS5839 part 6?
And why did the BSI committee responsible for BS9251 not use flow rate calculations based on those sprinkler heads that are actually available on the market rather than hoping that the Industry would produce new type heads to meet the BS spec?
I am coming to the conclusion that many of these standards are becoming far too technical, if we need British Standards at all then perhaps they should set out functional requirements rather than technical standards?
The highway code sets out the standards for safe driving on the road. Much as he yearns to learn the noble art, Toddy will not find details of how to double declutch within it.
-
My neighbour had a chimney fire last night, and I did notice that the crew who attended were not double declutching-proof if any were needed that things have changed a lot since you drove one Kurnal. I did heroically however lead the appliance up the private drive in which we live, and managed to lecture the OIC on road widths for fire appliances in AD B , in response to his question as to whether the appliance could get up the drive. Possibly the shorter answer would have been that, since its private land, I do sometimes drive down from the neighbours house after several Taliskers, to date without any mishap, so it should be no problem for a fire appliance.
-
CT
You drive to your neighbours?
Truly one or both of you have been well remunerated for your labours ::) ::)
davo
-
Good advice from Mr T , If I cant drive there it aint worth going' : ;)
-
I feel sorry for the fire crew. If it's not bad enough turning out to a chimney fire (I have never met anyone who actually enjoys these type of jobs), they also get Sir Todd of Colinshire lecturing them on ADB and vehicle access.
Colin, in return for all the useful advice you have given us all in the past, and just in case you are in this position again, I think the answer the crew were looking for was either: "Yes" or "No".
-
I have just started sitting on some of the BSI Committees FSH/12/1 installation and testing FSH/12/2 fire detectors and FSH/12/3 control and indicating equipment, so have seen from the both sides of the fence a little (first meeting was in Jan, which I pointed out Mr T was missing).
Anyhow I can assure you when changes are being looked at they are normally debated to death and then debated a bit more, and dont forget also that a lot of issue are also part of europene standards as well and unfortunately we (the UK) do not always have the final say or sometimes a compromise has to be reached with many countrys etc.
At the Committee meeting for FSH/12/3 in Jan there were 14 people debating about 20 different points from BS EN 54 and I can assure you from a new boy on the committee at the end of it my head was hurting!!.
The other side of this is that anyone can write to the BSI about the standards and points in them, which assuming are a valid point will get looked into.
-
In principle I agree with you Wiz.
I find, for example, the issue of HMG issuing conflicting guidance simply ludicrous - The classic example being ADB allowing different exit widths to those given in the current Fire Safety guidance to name but one.
Of course discrepencies like that need to be addressed (and frankly should never have occurred in the first place).
On the other hand however things aren't quite so simple...
This forum is a prime example of how much we can all disagree on certain subjects. Ask a question here and you often get 10 different opinions from 10 different people.
Relate that to the BS committees who have the unenviable task of trawling through correspondance from interested parties making comment on draft standards during a consultation process.
Think of how many replies they must get, and what is involved in trying to sift through them all and make sense of them. Think of a committe pouring over other guidance to see how it compares with theirs.
You can never please all of the people all of the time. Whilst I agree a certain level of consistency would be helpful we must be careful not to create "over standardisation" (standardization). Otherwise we are simply heading back to prescription without any flexibility to deal with individual situations and premises.
What I'd like to see is that suites of documents issued by the same author (such as HMG for instance) all tie up with one another and that there is no "internal" conflict between the guides in that sense.
-
Davo, Dont you start, its enough that the neighbours take great pleasure winding me up that I sometimes drive between the two houses. I can now claim legitamately that I was merely doing 7(2)(d)s. The truth is simpler, namely that I live in the country with no light pollution and the lane is so dark I walk into bushes otherwise. Plus if the Princess is making a royal visit, she worries about her shoes on the unmade lane and insists on a royal motorcade.
Messey: Typical fire safety officer- you just want black and white training, with no underpinning education that would allow informed decision making. I think the OIC felt enriched by our chat as we walked up the lane. Even if he didnt, he would not have been rude enough to say so as Surrey F&RS are really cool, their fire safety officers never shout at people but are always mild mannered and helpful, and they rarely if ever chew gum. Your best hope for your erstwhile employer is that, on regionalisation, it becomes Surrey's eastern command.
-
If I did not have to buy so many British Standards and up dates I could nearly single handedly end the recession in this country.
Why is it that BS7671 is about half the price of BS5839-1 and BS7671 has hundreds of pages and a proper cover etc.
I know its not because they pay people on the technical committees any money (unless theres a secret claim form I dont know about), because as far as I see all the BSI supply is a room, tea & coffee and a few biscuits.