FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: colin todd on September 12, 2010, 08:19:24 PM
-
I know that this landmark determination was discussed elesewhere, but it has come to my notice that people are finding it difficult to locate the determination on the CLG website. It has even been rumoured that there are those who would rather you did NOT know about it, though, personally, I think that this is just scurrilous mischief.
So, to help and remind people about it, here is what Sir Ken, a man who is very WISE on such matters actually said in his sound and sage advice to the Secretary of State:
"I have concluded that in this case, the use of heat detectors in the hotel bedroom provides a suitable technical solution to demonstrate compliance with the FSO, and I am advising the Secretary of State accordingly."
Sensible chap or what?
Now do remember that this determination only applies to that one hotel (and thousands of others just exactly the same as it of course). I am currently dealing with an old listed building where shortfalls in MoE and structural fire precautions justifies using smoke detectors in bedrooms, but that is what risk assessment is all about.
Anyhow, just in case there is any truth that some people would rather forget about this determination, do be sure to tell all your friends and make sure everyone knows about it, as it is important that they do.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/hotelfiredetection
To help everyone find it, here is the link:
NOTE TO MODERATOR: Is it ok for me to post this on other topics, such as fire risk assessment?
-
NOTE TO MODERATOR: Is it ok for me to post this on other topics, such as fire risk assessment?
Colin thank you, I think your point comes across sufficiently loud and clear.
As for posting the identical message on other threads, personally, I think that this is just scurrilous mischief.
-
Good oh. Does that mean I can go ahead, Big Al? I would not want to breach protocol or incur the wrath of one as great as you.
PS How do I set up a poll on whether that jolly good egg, Sir K was right? I for one will lead the voting with a resounding YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
-
I too think Sir Ken was right. So it's also a yes from me.
The detector in the bedroom is protect the MOE, not the occupant of the room. Studies have shown that even with smoke detection in the room of origin the occupant will still expire.
There will of course be the odd exception here or there.
-
Itseems to me that the odd exceptions are those nice FRS chaps who do not understand how the standard was written and what the FA is for. ( With somwe exceptions of course).
-
Colin it's almost as if Oooor Ken has sat in on your lectures and gained almost infinite wisdom.
Now as one of those FRS chaps (exception, exceptional or otherwise) but certainly open minded, some things seem pretty clear to me.
In an existing situation where heat detectors are in place in bedrooms intended for the fit and able and where the MOE is relatively well protected, I cannot see any reason why a FRS would want to challenge it.
In a hotel without any detection (yes they still exist) then the recommendation from the FRS might well be for smoke rather than heat, as we do have an interest in all the folk in the hotel (even those in the room of origin)..
Where the duty holder or RP still wishes for heat then unless there are separation or MOE issues which have not been fully considered in an FRA, I really don't see that challenging it would be helpful as the solution could be seen as being reasonable in the circumstances.
Reasonable measures in a given set of circumstances are all that are required after all.
It also seems to be another determination where the DH/RP has done their homework and the FRS has clutched at straws and relied on its assumed high status.
-
This dispute seems, to me, to have been a request for a determination on the type of detection suitable for rooms used by persons with limited mobility. Am I correct? Or did it go off on a tangent to include all persons in all rooms?
"This conclusion has been reached on the basis that the rooms will continue to be used for sleeping accommodation be people who do not have mobility of other relevant special needs"
Is the request for determination available anywhere?
-
NT,
CLG website. And it was for rooms other than those used as dormitory accommodation and those where the disabled sleep as they require smoke anyway.
-
those where the disabled sleep as they require smoke anyway.
Now I'm confused ??? (easy done)
Sir Ken's conclusion was "This conclusion has been reached on the basis that the rooms will continue to be used for sleeping accommodation be people who do not have mobility of other relevant special needs" (Wee bit of spelling and grammar issues in the last bit)
-
those where the disabled sleep as they require smoke anyway.
Now I'm confused ??? (easy done)
Sir Ken's conclusion was "This conclusion has been reached on the basis that the rooms will continue to be used for sleeping accommodation be people who do not have mobility of other relevant special needs" (Wee bit of spelling and grammar issues in the last bit)
Ah. A eurika moment cometh. After finding my way round the spelling I can now read it.
-
The Determination came about as consequence of an appeal against an enforcement notice, it being the practice of the company concerned to appeal against any notice served upon it.
The RA (conducted by assosciates of a group which will not be named in the way actors only refer to the scottish play) for the premise was not current, having been conducted under previous legislation and specified that the occupants of a bedroom involved in fire would be lost.
The FRA's view was that the FSOwas introduced to protect all "relevant persons" and this should therefore include the occupants of the room (mobility was not a specific issue).
Point 30 of the determination
"It is therefore my view that the choice of heat detector over smoke detectors in this particular case has been carried out in accordance with avaliable guidance related to the particular hotel. In conforming to the British Standard, the responsible person has evaluated the risk in the hotel and concluded that the provision of heat detectors is as low as reasonably practical and that the risk presented in the hotel are those envisaged in these documents.
rightly makes reference to available guidance.
However, during informal discussions with CLG post determination there was a suggestion that the available guidance may need to be revisited in order to address this specific issue. It was also made clear that in hindsight the matter should not have gone to determination but should have been dealt with by the courts.
-
At least heat detection in bedrooms is better than none - the hotel I was in last week in London (part of an international chain where all the hotels are independently owned) still had it's original 70's FP Act conventional system with smokes to corridors only & nothing in rooms (although I had a 6" bell inside my room which kept me happy).
Doors were all rebated type with no strips or seals and decades of warping that meant they were anything but tight fitting - however escape signage had been upgraded...to excess so that once I left my room I could literally go up, down, left or right!
I'd be more worried about the above hotel than one with good FD30S doors and a system that included heats to rooms (where the risk should be low with smoking banned and appliances PAT tested)
-
However, during informal discussions with CLG post determination there was a suggestion that the available guidance may need to be revisited in order to address this specific issue. It was also made clear that in hindsight the matter should not have gone to determination but should have been dealt with by the courts.
Thats an interesting observation. I have always been surprised at the determination process being used as this should only be used where both sides accept that there is a case of non compliance but there is disagreement over the technical solution to be adopted to remedy it. Clearly in this case there was no such agreement in respect of non compliance.
However the courts could not get involved unless an enforcement notice was served. I wonder why the Authority did not take this approach? They obviously felt convinced they could make it stick?
I await the reviewed guidance with interest, though BS5839 was updated as recently as 2008 so is not scheduled for further review for some time.
To me the biggest problem here is the lack of any credible empirical evidence or learned research to show, one way or the other, the benefit or otherwise of installing smoke detectors in rooms used for sleeping accommodation. My personal gut feeling is that in the event of a fire in the room there must be an increased chance of surviving that fire if a smoke detector is installed. But I have looked for research data on this without success. For me the issue is this. Whilst we have measures of tenability, and could calculate how quickly a room would become untenable and compare this time with the time to detection for both heat and smoke detectors, there is no evidence on the likelihood that, in the absense of detectors, a person would be awakened as a result of the fire - ie by the smell of smoke, temperature rise et al. At least none that I have been able to find. But like many of you I have attended fires where the fire stimuli awoke person sleeping when the detectors failed to operate because it was the "wrong" type of smoke.
The other thing that has always struck me as inconsistent is that BS5839 part 1 and the research documents that underpin it are clear that there is a balance to be drawn between unwanted alarms and life safety, and that the role of the heat detectors is for the protection of the means of escape. But then BS5839 goes on to recommend smoke detection in rooms designated for use by disabled people. I have always thought this inconsistent but assumed that this is so that the managers can attend the room in the early stages of a fire to render assistance. However this is speculation because the underlying reason for this was not explained in detail. If a smoke detector is a compensation for a disability exactly how is that position arrived at? What is the compensation? Earlier detection of fire? or making management aware earlier to they can assist? Evidence to me which tends to support the argument for smoke detection in general....but in the absence of empirical evidence its hard to move this argument forward.
But I agree with you Colin, Sir Ken did us all a service in at least drawing a line in the sand. Prior to his determination we had huge inconsistencies amongst Fire Authorities.
-
Demon: If it is appropriate to comment, please do try to get the facts straight rather than spread misinformation. To correct you:
1 It is not the practice of the group involved to appeal all enforcement notices. This is sheer rubbish.
2 The fire risk assessment in place at the time in question was carried out by the RP under the FSO.
3. The RA did not specify that occupants of the room would be lost.
4 In accordance with Home Office guidance under the FP Act (and it was for the Home Office that research on the subject was carried out by the Fire Research Station)-guidance that was current the day before the FSO was introduced- disabled bedrooms were fitted with SD to compensate for their disability.
5. I imagine the informal discussion to which you refer was the all pals together meeting from which invited members of the public who were not F&RS were (strangely) excluded temporarily. Nothing like transparency and openess eh?
Anyway, just remember the good words of Sir Ken, namely that the heat detectors in the case in question satisfied the FSO. Not that they just satisfied guidance. Not that they just satisfied BS 5839-1. THAT THEY SATISFIED THE FSO!!! I am with Sir Ken all the way. Yep, he definitely got it right.
-
A further thought. As many will know, as well as being a huge fan of Sir Ken, I am also a huge fan of London Fire Brigade, which I have always regarded as the greatest fire brigade in.......... London. I still remember the day when their head of fire safety policy, one of the true gentlemen of the fire safety world and now a leading fire safety consultant, issued guidance to stop their officers demanding smoke detectors in all hotel bedrooms and advising that heat detectors were fine. To the best of my knowledge, this policy has never been reversed. Further evidence if any is needed that Sir Ken was right.
-
Mr Todd, the issue of heat or smoke detectors in sleeping rooms wil always be a contentious one, but you seem to have a problem with a Fire Authority daring to challenge it. I can almost hear you shouting 'How very dare they?' I also understand that the issue should not have gone to determination in the first place, but resolved through other means.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you will at the earliest opportunity, but surely a smoke detector provides earlier warning of fire than heat, especially the newer modern ones?
I still struggle to understand how a heat detector in a sleeping room ultimately contributes to safeguarding the safety of relevant persons, such as the occupants. What happens in the case of a smouldering fire - the alarm is raised when smoke enters the escape routes, possibly by which time the occupant is overcome.
I do wonder how, in the big corporate world, a large hotel chain could possibly be prepared to find themselves in a position where a fire occurs in a room which resuts in a fatality and they have an alarm system which may, had certain components been changed, have resulted in a different outcome.
I'm sure you'll agree that it would be an interesting case?
Until then, there will continue to be the difference of opinion between Fire Authorities and RP's.
-
Colin, it is interesting though the number of persons who have indicated on the poll that Sir ken was wrong! I wonder how many are serving fire safety officers or consultants? :'(
-
..........I still struggle to understand how a heat detector in a sleeping room ultimately contributes to safeguarding the safety of relevant persons, such as the occupants. What happens in the case of a smouldering fire - the alarm is raised when smoke enters the escape routes, possibly by which time the occupant is overcome...........
Is it important to safeguard the safety of persons in every conceivable context no matter the cost?
I sell the equipment, so as far as I'm concerned detectors in the room, under the bed, and even under the duvet will only mean more money for me! But I wouldn't be so happy if I owned a large hotel and had the initial cost and on-going maintenance costs of a 500 device fire alarm system. Obviously, if more people were dying in hotel bedroom fires than in road traffic accidents each year then I might feel differently
-
One of the issues here is that alluded to by Wiz, in that it is not just a simple swap the head over and job done. Sometimes it may well mean revisiting the whole system and the cost of that can be anything. The simple fact is HD work and ALARP applies to the FSO.
-
Baldy, It is interesting that you have appointed yourself to speak for the UK fire and rescue service, but luckily it is not an official appointment. There are many F&RS, including the greatest in the whole of London, who have no contention with RPs over this matter and are happy with HD in bedrooms. It also satisfies ADB, so a section of CLG must also be happy.
You only struggle to understand this (as you put it) because of inadequate education in fire safety, in the sense that clearly no one has sat down and explained to you the extensive Government sponsored research on this subject over a period of years, culminating in findings that were perfectly well disseminated at the time and led to a national committee of experts deciding that either heat detectors or smoke detectors could be used, and the HM Fire Service Inspectorate actually recommending that smoke detectors were NOT used, but that the preferred choice was heat detectors. This was in the interests of fire safety by avoiding complacency and the risks arising therefrom, from measures to protect people who never die anyway.
Now of course this was when there was an HMFSI, which was populated by a decent bunch of fire brigadey type people who knew what they were doing and had substantial expertise in fire safety. (I was chatting a few weeks ago to one they pensioned off. He was fishing at the time. I think there was room on the river bank for some of the incumbents at CLG. Perhaps some of them could do the tax payer a favour and join him. )
In recognition that you are not a bad man, Baldy, just let down by fire safety education, it is with great pleasure that I offer you a copy of my book on BS 5839-1, which explains all this in much greater detail than is possible here, at half price if you buy it with your own dosh, or at double the list price if you wish your F&RS to pay for it.
Informative message ends. Available for further fire calls.
-
Willie, As a believer in equality and diversity, I never discriminate against minorities on the basis of race, colour, religion, sexuality, height, weight, hair colour or even membership of the fire and rescue service. Thus, although your question is interesting, it is not politically correct!!!
-
Wizzy, your point is well made about people dying. Can any of the dissenters tell me how many lives of people would have been saved if every hotel in the UK that has heat detection had changed to smoke detection during the last 5 years for which official statistics are available??????????????????????????
-
Colin is ther a money back guarantee of satisfaction if I shell out my hard earned cash on your wee book? Would I find the answers I seek?
You see I fear I would not and would probably read a lot about pyrolisis of timber door frames etc and cool non bouyant smoke in the escape routes but little about whats going on in the room itself. As I am an acknowledged admirer of all things Scottish you will appreciate my care in choosing my purchases very carefully.
-
Kurnal, You would learn how to spell the word pyrolisis (sic). Surely this alone would make the purchase worthwhile.
-
Gents
Lets face it, we all know of hotels with no detection, no staff after midnight etc etc.
davo
-
Baldy, It is interesting that you have appointed yourself to speak for the UK fire and rescue service
Not at all Mr Todd, just speaking for myself and merely an observation, not a criticism.
In recognition that you are not a bad man, Baldy, just let down by fire safety education, it is with great pleasure that I offer you a copy of my book on BS 5839-1, which explains all this in much greater detail than is possible here, at half price if you buy it with your own dosh, or at double the list price if you wish your F&RS to pay for it.
Thankyou for your kind offer, but I do have a copy. Clearly I need to revisit and re-educate myself on the relevant sections. I shall remove it from the loft and dust it down. ;D
-
Kurnal, You would learn how to spell the word pyrolisis (sic). Surely this alone would make the purchase worthwhile.
Maybe if you were such an authority on spelling then you would have corrected the spelling of 'buoyancy' too?
On this subject, many FRS' would probably like to get SD in hotel bedrooms, the simple fact is that most of us know better than to challenge accepted guidance/standards. In the blame game, should someone die in a hotel room where SD might have meant they lived, the FRS has a clean conscience. Even moreso since a FRS has tried.
All the guff about false alarms etc.... So long as the alarms don't make it far enough to mobilise an appliance the the FRS won't care. If people ignore the fire alarm, then what is new there? The person most at risk from a fire in a hotel bedroom is the person in the room of origin. SD gives them earlier warning, so it increases their chance of survival. Everyone else is protected by passive measures AND an alarm going off that people can react to as they see fit.
However, it will only take the one fire where some family is killed and the media get wind of a British Standard that pretty much says that you are expendable when you stop in a hotel. In the case of the Daily Star vs. Colin Todd who would your money be on?
-
My money is on Colin Todd I think......................I thought we had put this one to bed on here before but for the record and for those who have not read this by the great Mr Todd and no we are not related nor is he paying me (he couldn't afford it!) here it is.........In the case in question my personal view is the determination was correct, very poor argument by the FRS. Having said that each hotel has to be taken on merit with all factors taken in to account, the clue is in the wording fire RISK assessment.
Now can we move on?????
"The early days of the FP Act and research carried out on behalf of the Home Office in the mid 1980s. When the FP Act was first introduced the chance that you would die from fire if you spent one night in a hotel was approx 10 times that if you spent one night at home. The Act, the designation order and the early guidance was not intended to protect the individual in the room of origin, but only to protect the means of escape for others. ( Thus the person could kill himself if he wanted, same as at home, but not kill anyone else.) Early guidance from the Home Office was that you did not need ANY AFD for this purpose, but all you needed was a break glass manual system. This alone was very effective in reducing fire deaths dramatically-see 1970s fire stats and you will note a step change in fatalities. In practice, as time progressed, people were using AFD in hotels, BUT (and this is really important, Messey) the goal had not changed-the objective was still as set out above. To meet '' the objective'', AFD was put in the corridors only. ( There are still hotels with only the manual systems or only the AFD in corrdiors even today). It was assumed that the AFD in the corridors would operate early enough to allow those beyond the room of origin to escape. Then, around the mid 1980s, the Home Offcie began to ask the question as to whether everyone was sure that the above practice did indeed meet the objective. Specifically, they wanted to know whether the detectors in the corridors would operate early enough to allow escape of those beyond the room of origin before the corridor was smoke logged.
So FRS were contracted to carry out very elegant research work, using a full scale mock up of a corridor with rooms of at Cardington. They set fires in a room and observed conditions in the corridor, with detectors 15m apart. In general, they found the set up was often ok and people were given early enough warning. However, under certain circumstances, which included no intumescent strips on the doors but just old BS 459-3 doors (which are not used now anyway!!!) they could smoke log the corridor before an alarm was given. Further research showed that this depended on the size of the gap around the door. Sods law was that a 3mm gap was worst case, and further work showed that the problem was caused not so much by the hot buoyant gases from the fire but from the pyrolisis of the timber at the head of the door, which resulted in relatively cool, heavy tarry smoke entering the corridor and not having enough bouancy to operate detectors 15m apart.
In truth, this was all very interesting but there was no anecdotal evidence whatsoever of this causing fatalities in hotels, and in any case bedroom doors all have intumescent strips. So, many took the view that it was all very interesting, but so what (including an ex senior fire safety man from your brigade).
There were, however, 3 options in dealing with the theoretical problem. One was to rely on the intumescent strips. (Counter argument was that they might not be fitted.) Two was to ensure that a detector was always fitted in the corridor close to the bedroom door, as the problem only arose in a lengthy corridor with the detectors 15m apart. (Counter argument, makes for an awful lot of detectors in corridors, so might as well go for third option.) Third option was to put detectors in rooms. BIG POINT HERE: These detectors were NEVER intended to protect the person in the room of origin but to protect everyone else to a much better standard.
Ultimately, it was the 3rd option that was selected. WHY? Because the research showed that even a heat detector in the room would buy about 9 minutes (in the particular research set up) over and above smokes in the corridor alone.
It was purely this work that led to the invention of the Cat L3 system. It does not protect the individual in the room but ensures warning before the common escape routes are threatened. Thus BS 5839-1 was revised to say (as it still does today), these detectors can be of any type, heat, smoke or CO. Moreover, since the only objective is to warn others before a whacking great fire occurs in the room to the extent that a 30 min FR door is burning away, the detectors can even just be heat detectors on the wall near the door.
Home Office policy was to agree that any detector will do the job , but heat should be chosen because of the need for false alarms (except for disabled rooms and dormitories).This was perfectly logical advice that really still stands today.
Problem was that a lot of fire authorities (including yours) got the entirely wrong end of the stick and though that this new call for detectors in bedrooms was because the objective had changed and we were now protecting the individual in the room of origin. This was not correct and it was some years before the penny dropped and, in the case of your brigade, a chap (who is now a very well respected consultant but was in your fire safety policy group at the time) issued a guidance note telling the I/Os to stop demanding smoke detectors in bedrooms.
To this day, it remains a mess, Messy, in the sense that a lot of this was lost on new I/Os throughout the country. Many still think the detectors are to protect the occupant. Some accept heat without question. Some accept heat and recommend smoke. Some demand smoke because they don’t understand the background.
What about the poor guy in the room of origin? The record shows he doesn’t die anyway. In a study carried out in fires over a 5 year period prior to introducing detectors in bedrooms, not a single soul died from fire in any star rated hotel in the UK. Those who died in non-star rated accommodation were mostly in hostel-like properties, and those who died in the room of origin were committing suicide or were out of it on drugs or alcohol in the main.
So those who do require s/d in bedrooms are trying to save the lives of those who never die anyway---to the detriment of the safety of others, which is compromised by the tendency to ignore alarms because of the rate of false alarms, to introduce staff alarms to delay signals from s/d (so might as well have hd) etc etc.
Ignore hype from people about sophisticated systems ignoring phenomena that cause false alarms, as, in the case of the average system, it is bunkum. In a recently opened hotel, there were 50 false alarms in the first week as a result of steam from en suite showers and kettles."
-
Colin,
Demontim is to be congratulated for making public the improper, behind-closed doors dealings of the DCLG. I think what he is trying to tell us is this: the DCLG were backed into a corner to agree the determination because of guidance and a national standard. Demontim has now revealed that because this did not suit their mates in certain FRSs, to whom DCLG are obviously too close, they are now trying behind the scenes to have the guidance changed so that their determination would be wrong in future cases. Were it not for Demontim acting as a whistleblower to tell the public about this scandalous behaviour none of us - not even you - would be any the WISEr. Demontim has revealed what many suspected - the determination process is not fair and open. Even if you win a determination there will be post determination shenanigans to get the determination reversed. It just shows that people are better to stick to the courts as DCLG are obviously not impartial.
-
We would all agree that since the extensive research, sponsored by HMG, was undertaken on the HD vs SD issue, the world has changed. We now have a smoking ban, technology has advanced and of course we generally have greater knowledge about fire behaviour. So clearly we would not accept heat detection in bedrooms of new-build hotels.
But conversely in most existing hotels it would be overburdensome to ask the hotel to change every heat detector to a smoke detector or multi sensor head, as Wiz points out.
We know that a smoke detector is quicker to react than a heat detector, but as Colin has already said, back in the days when smoking was permitted in bedrooms, if smoke detection were fitted there would be continual false alarm issues, leading to complacency amongst staff and guests a like. That in itself can pose a greater risk.
In new builds we would expect to see SD in hotel bedrooms, existing hotels with HD would be asked to consider changing to SD or MSD during any planned major refurbishments if practicable.
If you still don't buy the argument then here is something to consider: Asking for all exisiting HD to be changed for SD would be a bit like asking for all cars over 10 years old to be modified so that they meet current crash safety standards. It might make the cars safer...but is it reasonable?
Remember ALARP - isn't it the corner stone of risk assessment?
-
I've changed my mind! There should be smoke detectors in all hotel bedrooms.
I really don't want the Daily Star coming after me if ever an occupant of a hotel room dies from a fire that started therein.
In my new opinion not only should there be smoke detectors in every hotel bedroom but all occupants should wear hi-viz vests and safety helmets whilst in the room and they should only be let in after they have been through a security check that ensures they have no means of ignition about their person.
Sorry to seem to be so flippant. But I'm also just covering my a**e in case of something happening that the statistics show is very unlikely. Furthermore my new stance won't cost me a penny, someone else will bear the costs.
-
Stuff it.........I've changed my mind as well and need to cover my a..e... sprinkler the lot, new and exsisting hotels.....that'll do it. Ops....or will it cool the smoke??? People will get wet as well I don't know anymore ...ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
-
Daily Star? oh no. Im with Wiz...
What I meant to say is hotels new or existing MUST have:-
- Sprinklers fitted everywhere
- Category L1 alarm system (complete with 15 standalone smoke detectors per bedroom)
- Minimum 360 min fire resistance surrounding all rooms
- 10 minute fire patrols by staff
- On site private fire service
- Atleast 8 seperate means of escape from every part of the hotel.
- Canaries in all rooms
- Non combustible decor, furnishings,etc (i.e; beds and matresses made from asbestos)
I think I may have gone too far with the last one!
-
10 minute fire patrols by staff?
Cutbacks already.
-
Daily Star? oh no. Im with Wiz...
What I meant to say is hotels new or existing MUST have:-
- Sprinklers fitted everywhere
- Category L1 alarm system (complete with 15 standalone smoke detectors per bedroom)
- Minimum 360 min fire resistance surrounding all rooms
- 10 minute fire patrols by staff
- On site private fire service
- Atleast 8 seperate means of escape from every part of the hotel.
- Canaries in all rooms
- Non combustible decor, furnishings,etc (i.e; beds and matresses made from asbestos)
I think I may have gone too far with the last one!
See what difference a bit of media attention made? I can smell the fear already.
I think it is fear anyway.
-
"Sir Ken Knight considers that heat detectors in bedroom of a hotel meet the FSO" - and not smoke detectors?
-
Err yep...
-
"Sir Ken Knight considers that heat detectors in bedroom of a hotel meet the FSO" - and not smoke detectors?
I would guess coming from the Artcle 13 (1) (a)angle?
Fire-fighting and fire detection
13.—(l) Where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on
there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of
relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that—
(a) the premises are, to the extent that it is appropriate, equipped with appropriate firefighting
equipment and with fire detectors and alarms;
-
Err yep...
Err yep meaning yes to "not smoke detectors" or yes to smoke detectors are also appropriate?
-
Yes in the case presented considering all the evidence heat detection was considered to satisfy the requirements of the Fire Safety Order but may not in every case.
-
My money is on Colin Todd I think......................
You are clearly underestimating the power of the media. Look at the recent deaths that turned out to be not due to M-Cat or whatever it was called. Had it not been reported in the way it was, do you think it would have still been made illegal?
"Let them burn"
Our investigation into the recent deaths of a young family in a Verybighotelchain Hotel has uncovered some shocking facts. Apparently fire law basically says that you are expendable, and concerns itself more with protecting other persons in the Hotel. Should you have a fire in your room you are not protected by any sort of fire detector, there would typically be a heat detector, but this is not for your benefit. If you are unlucky enough to have a fire in your room, then by the time the heat detector has activated you will more than likely be dead. A smoke detector would activate before you were dead, but this is not a requirement under present fire law.
A Consultant known only as CT to his friend stated "It is better this way, and I have wrote a book on it. It is available in all good bookshops.". A fire service recently challenged this view, and their request to have smoke detection fitted to a hotel instead of heat detection was overturned by the Secretary of State. A fire service representative said "Told you so"
Now any factual errors within that can be clearly ignored, as the media and Joe Public will not know nor care.
-
Kurnal, You would learn how to spell the word pyrolisis (sic). Surely this alone would make the purchase worthwhile.
Well I never did! My Hat! I am indebted to William 29 for his post 27 in which he cut and pasted Mr Toods account of the history of the development of the L3 alarm system. Just goes to show that people who live in grass houses should not throw stoned.
Personally I agree with everything Colin says about this except that I think it is appropriate to keep standards and policies under review and reconsider them in view of technical progress and legislative changes.
I think there is some merit on both sides of the argument but there is a lack of evidence to justify a move either way at present. I would love to see a study carried out on the liklihood of persons being woken by the fire stimuli- smoke, heat, noise etc compared to the time to detection of heat and smoke detectors and the relative tenabilities of the room at the time of detection. Then if a case was proven we could look at cost and benefit and consider if a change was justified either for new build or retrospectively.
One thing is clear though. Any reviews of policy should be open, impartial and inclusive.
-
No one is saying new builds shouldnt have smoke detection. All that Kenneth Knighty and his hangers on have said is that in this particular scenario the determination was granted upon simple well publicised facts.I would seriously question the competence of any assessor or inspector who recommended a big hotel swap their heat detection for smoke detection simply because they thought more research was needed on the benefits of smokes against heat. Look at the research and guidance already out there. Lets put the whole thing in perspective. Just because a certain scottish assessor known as the best risk assessor in the whole of.... CS Todd's tea room.......... decided to make this public, and we know why he's domne tht, doesnt make sir kenny boy wrong . How many times do we have to debate this issue. Research may be needed but that doesnt change the current situation on which the determination was based, which is what this thread is about. Technical changes? hello? new hotels wont be allowed heat detection? ALARP? Hello? Earth to firenet?
-
I have to agree with Cleavelands comments.
The question of heat or smoke detection will always be there and, no doubt, debated until the preverbial cows come home.
Credit should be given to the fire Authority for actually taking this to determination while many others sat in the side lines waiting for the outcome. An answer was given by the powers that be .... heat detection is satisfactory for the premises in question, not every hotel in the land.
I think the point has been missed, or I've missed it, that the FSO requires the risk assesment to identify the general fire precautions that need to be taken ......... doesn't that include an appropriate detection and alarm system which will give the relevant persons adequate warning in order to evacuate the building??
;D
-
Baldy, I am horrified that my sweat and labours have been relegated to the dusty loft of Baldy Towers, the mortgage of which is paid for by the same poor taxpayers as you want to pay, directly or indirectly, for the change of pefectly good detectors. In any case, is your dust laden, loft copy SIGNED by the author?? I think not. My offer stands. You will not get a better deal anywhere. I am prepared to throw in a signed photograph. There is no point in haggling because this is my best offer.
Wullie, your money is safe. Your Scots education has stood you in good stead in the gambling field. Do you happen to know the numbers for tomorrow night's lottery, so I can retire from this unprofessionally practised profession? If so, according to statistics THEY would rather you did not know, you have more chance of hastening my departure thereby than anyone dying from fire in the bedroom of fire origin anywhere in the UK in the next 12 months.
Midland. As someone whose career began in veterinary medicine, I abhor the idea of sacrificing canaries. I have three miscreant cats to whom I constantly lecture on the wrongs of depleting the bird world, though as they are Burmese they speak not a word of English and look at me with the lack of understanding exhibited by some of those who would try to undermine the advice given by the good and WISE Sir Ken to the Secretary of State that IN ONE PARTICULAR Hotel (similar to thousands of others), heat detectors satisfied the FSO.
-
Honest Civil Servant (is there such a thing?), I see your point, and you are right, we all owe Demon our congratulations for his whistle blowing. We had no idea that this was going on until he made it public. Gosh how embarrassing for the CLG!!! Even so, it would be wrong to make the generalization you expound. Determinations under the Building Regulations have always, in my opinion, been totally fair. We have also seen a Determination from (Sir) Brian Fraser in Scotland, which, whether you agree with it or not, was very clearly straight down the middle in its endeavours to be fair.
Civvy, I will be immune from the effects of the Daily Star, since, remember, Sir Ken Knight, was ad idem with my views, and given the high regard in which we all (certianly I) hold someone of his stature, a waif or stray such as myself can only have his heart warmed to be judged in the right.
Clevey, You say we know why I chose to air the subject. Could you please enlighten us all, as even I don't know. I just happened to be bored one evening as there was not much on TV, and thought I would liven Firenet up a little bit with healthy debate. What other motive could I possibly have????
-
Colin I for one am pleased this topic was raised for debate in this open, fair and and public arena. Were it not for this forum we would never have an opportunity to air our views on this.
In return I am happy to offer you a gesture of goodwill. If you would like to send me a complimentary signed copy of your wee book I would be happy to read it free of charge, and should I agree with the content will enhance its value by signing my name in the front, alongside yours.
-
Kurnal, thank you for your kind offer. However, given the length of your name, particularly now you are changing it to MACKurnatowski, and the prominence that my name would need to be given alongside yours, there would not be room on thepage, as the book is A5 size.
-
Wullie, your money is safe. Your Scots education has stood you in good stead in the gambling field. Do you happen to know the numbers for tomorrow night's lottery, so I can retire from this unprofessionally practised profession? If so, according to statistics THEY would rather you did not know, you have more chance of hastening my departure thereby than anyone dying from fire in the bedroom of fire origin anywhere in the UK in the next 12 months.
For the record its William "Wullie" seems to make reference to sheep implying Welsh origin!!?
-
Per Wikipedia
Oor Wullie is a Scottish comic strip published in the D.C. Thomson newspaper, The Sunday Post. It features a boy named William, known as Wullie (Oor Wullie is Our Willie in Scots). His trademarks are spiky hair, dungarees and an upturned bucket, which he often uses as a seat.
Only people from the posh parts of Edinburgh are called William.
-
Mr Todd, why would I want a signed copy of your book? the one I have stored in the loft is perfectly adequate, but thanks for the offer.
I cannot help but wonder what words you would be using to describe Sir Ken had he decided that the Fire Authority was right (not that that would happen in your world!) and that heat detectors were not adequate?
I very much doubt that wise would be one of them!
;D
-
Baldy, so that when you are chief officer of what will by then be the national fire brigade, and you write your memoirs, you can say something like this. " I remember that old duffer, Colin Todd, a signed copy of whose wee book still has pride of place on the mantleshelf of my nuclear powered fire. I was too narrow minded and set in fire brigade dogma then to listen to him. I just wish I could tell him he was right all along, but sadly he has gone forever. In those days, I could not read between lines and thought that sarcasm was the lowest form of wit, but now I realize that it is the highest form of intelligence" Then, you can pop down to the masonic lodge and toast me with a large lagavulin and ponder carefully why Demontim blew the whistle on his chums and whether he is actually a double agent or just naive.
-
A lovely passage Mr Todd, but you've avoided the question in my last post.
;D
-
Rephrase the question, Oh hairless one, and I will do my best to enlighten you as I always do, though some falls on stony ground because its not what certain fireman want to hear.
-
Go on Col dont worry about the feelings of the one firemen you might offend....we always love to hear your opinions seeing as though you are the greatest fire risk assessor in...your own living room
-
It's a simple question really ......
You say Sir Ken is 'wise' and you can't praise him enough.
What words would you be using to describe your beloved Sir Ken if he had decided that heat detectors were not suitable?
-
Doesn't apply because he didn't!!! Simple (and I am not taking sides)
-
Baldy, why would Sir Ken have done anything as mindless as that, given the case put for the status quo??? It's a bit like saying how would I describe the Pope if he declared that religion was irrelevant in the modern world. As jokar says, it is a kind of non-question.
Remember to read the determination, Bald, and circulate it to everyone you know, as they say there are those who would rather people did not know about it.
-
WELL HERE IT IS!!!! THE RESULTS OF THE WAS HE RIGHT WAS HE WRONG POLL.
1. Over 50% of firenet voters believe the Determination was right.
2 Less than 1 in 3 voters think it was wrong.
3. But interestingly, 8% of voters dont trust the determination process, so I will have a new poll on that subject.
-
WELL HERE IT IS!!!! THE RESULTS OF THE WAS HE RIGHT WAS HE WRONG POLL.
1. Over 50% of firenet voters believe the Determination was right.
That was not one of the questions.
Do the results show that 50% of those who responded have in the past been recommending the installation of heat detection in hotel bedrooms and, because there has been so much debate as to whether it was right or wrong, can now go PHEW.
Of course the determination did not say that smoke detection in bedrooms is wrong.
-
3. But interestingly, 8% of voters dont trust the determination process, so I will have a new poll on that subject.
More interestingly, the same amount of voters simply didn't care.
-
Ah Civvy, it is such a shame isn't it. Bad things are what happens when good people don't care.