FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: David Rooney on February 01, 2013, 04:56:18 PM
-
Apparently Kent are no longer going to send pumps to any building - with a few exceptions - with automatically signalled alarms.
Extract from the KF&RS official email ....
"From 2 April 2012, all calls from automatic fire alarms will be challenged by the Service’s 999 staff. During the day (6am to 6pm), unless the incident can be confirmed to be an actual fire or signs of fire, an engine will not be sent. However, for a further year (to April 2013), a fire engine will be sent to calls to automatic fire alarms received at night (6pm to 6 am), where a procedure has not been introduced to confirm a fire. This is to allow those responsible for managing premises extra time to make any required changes to their procedures."
What actually constitutes a "procedure" to confirm the fire?
Presumably they want a human voice on a phone telling them their feet are hot but is any other automated means acceptable ... eg. a double knock system - signal only sent when two detectors have gone into alarm?
We are looking after a Club where the Steward lives above (three stories) and there is poor phone signal strength. If a fire were to take out the phone line there may be no way the Steward could contact the brigade directly and could be trapped.
-
There are a number of brigades who appear to be introducing a similar policy to this,although Kent appears to have been the most up front about this.
What is a procedure to confirm a fire? Very good question, pass. The best people to ask would be Kent, although I would be surprised if you get a straight answer. I suspect at the end of the day it would be a phone call, either the Brigade or the ARC would phone the place to check whether there or not there is a fire. or they would receive a call via the 999 system.
With regard to the Club, the reply could well be, if the steward could be trapped it is obvious that the means of escape from the accomodation is inadequate.
-
Most Brigades now want, other than Scotland, confirmation of a fire to attend. The cost of attending for false alarms, staffing, fuel etc is a driver for this as well as the chance that a proper incident will occur elsewhere whilst the applanace is unavailable.
London already includes call filtering as noted from the Kent details above and in the safety plan, LSP5 that reduces appliances and closes stations is also going to charge for calls to false alarms from 1 April in line with the Localism Act 2011
-
Thanks Mike ... the Club has an L2 Category system but the place is 200 years old and I suspect zero effective compartmentation.
I'm sure the alarms will operate early enough to satisfy Standards but in reality it's still a single staircase and the guy would have a family to wake up and get out and they are concerned that there is a chance they won't be able to call the brigade directly.
I have emailed Kent (two weeks ago now) asking what constitutes "confirmation" and not had a reply ....
Is this going to be another policy where we have to wait for someone to get killed before we famously "learn the lesson and will put a policy in place to never let it happen again ...." I wonder ......?
-
Thanks Mike I was also worried about the issue of MOE from the Stewards flat!
You should phone the fire brigade once you have safely escape the building.
With regard to brigades not attending AFAs. If you call the fire service and say "my fire alarm is going off" the likely response you will get it "Is there are a fire?" A fire alarm activating doesn't mean there is a fire.
From what I understand most "call challenge brigades" will respond to sleeping risks without call challenging those properties (could be wrong)
It is not unreasoanble these days for an RP to have trained bods to SAFELY investigate AFAs and confirm if a real fire is in progress .
And in the case of the steward or other tenant if the fire alarm goes off evacuate, look for signs of fire on evacuating or from outside once activated.
-
My understanding is that some brigades have restricted attendance to sleeping risk to sheltered and care accomodation only.
Yes I suspect that the policy will stay until there is a major c***up and then watch everyone hit the floor when the s**t flies.
My personal feeling about not responding to automatic fire alarms is mixed. I can see the economic arguement but I believe it is a smokescreen. If you eliminate the responses to AFAs then you reduce the turnouts from a station which will enable you to justify downgrading or closing a station.
It tars the whole field of automatic systems with the same brush so it does matter if you have a properly maintained alarm system that only goes off when there is a fire or a faulty system that is always going off.
Finally what is the point of having an alarm receiving centre for an L type system? if there is anyone on site when the alarm goes off then they can call the fire brigade, if no one is on site what does it matter? let the place burn.
-
Well as has been said before I'm sure, it does make a mockery of the whole third party accreditation fiasco which as far as I can see is still a pointless moneymaking exercise.
If the schemes haven't improved the quality of designs and alarm systems and reduced false alarms (which they obviously haven't otherwise we wouldn't still be in this situation after nearly 10 years) and the scheme and by association the registered companies and auditing UKAS accredited companies (that are charging the fees) are essentially not trusted by the brigades then what's the point of me paying out £1000s of pounds in fees to the NSI?
And if the schemes haven't achieved their objective after this period then even more obviously there is something wrong and they should be changed.
There seems to be absolutely no benefit of remaining a member.
If the Brigades and ARCs simply said "no BAFE certificate - no Redcare connection - no Response" I could understand it and there would at least be some accountability of the "Approved Maintainer" and the RP and perhaps systems would improve or troublesome systems would be struck off and ignored by the ARC.
Either way it's a win win for the Brigades apart from the fact they'll get called out less and thereby cutting their own throats.....
-
In the world of H&S the terms savable life is used by Brigades so perhaps you are correct when you say what is the point of having an ARC receive a signal. 5839 in its new guise when it comes out this year will still say that a 999 or 112 call has to be made regardless of the ARC signal so seek and search have a role to play.
The interesting part is that fire safety officers are still enforcing for detection and warning systems even for Brigades that call filter without knowing what is going on and some RAs have no idea where Brigades are with the Localism Act and Uwfs.
-
The interesting part is that fire safety officers are still enforcing for detection and warning systems even for Brigades that call filter without knowing what is going on
Why wouldn't they?
People - don't mix up life safety systems with property protection systems.
If a property requires a life safety system it requires a life safety system end of, thats got nothing to do with ARC and call filtering. Its there to ensure people are alerted to a fire in progress (and then evacuate)
Property protection measures aren't enforced by fire authority, but I take the point that if you are going to recommend a property protection system linked to an ARC then you need to have a little think on what it will achieve.
-
Property protection measures aren't enforced by fire authority, but I take the point that if you are going to recommend a property protection system linked to an ARC then you need to have a little think on what it will achieve.
But unless someone defines what is acceptable as "confirmation" of a fire we are all stuck as the only method of confirmation that appears to be presently acceptable is a phone call which as you say ... for Property Protection there is likely to be no one around at an early enough stage that it might make a difference.
It's fine saying "let it burn" but if its a national treasure and the insurance won't pay then eventually someone's got to get sued .... and who will that be??
-
Property protection measures aren't enforced by fire authority, but I take the point that if you are going to recommend a property protection system linked to an ARC then you need to have a little think on what it will achieve.
But unless someone defines what is acceptable as "confirmation" of a fire we are all stuck as the only method of confirmation that appears to be presently acceptable is a phone call which as you say ... for Property Protection there is likely to be no one around at an early enough stage that it might make a difference.
It's fine saying "let it burn" but if its a national treasure and the insurance won't pay then eventually someone's got to get sued .... and who will that be??
It seems that where 'confirmation' is a call from site then for the ultimate property protection you will need either:
- Night Watchman on patrol out of hours (a la the old days before widespread AFD & monitoring)
- Automatic supression linked to monitoring by a security company that would dispatch a mobile patrol
-
Just seems to me that no one in authority is prepared to make a decision and have buried their heads in the sand ........
-
If a fire crew are chasing a false alarm they cannot rescue someone from a real incident.
-
I saw this coming years ago folks were there would be issues in relation to blitz fire detection in buildings. In NI anyway, and maybe elsewhere in the UK, some Building Control Inspectors interpret where it says in the Regs:-
Means of escape
A building shall be so designed and constructed that in the event of a fire there is—
(a)where appropriate, adequate means of automatic detection;
(b)adequate means of giving warning; and
(c)adequate means of escape, which can be safely and effectively used at all material times.
as meaning, regardless of the "where appropriate" bit, whack it in everywhere.
As and example I have seen full AFD in a small stable block. The owner said that Building Control made her install it.
This requirement to install such a system in such a premises was obviously made with due regard to nothing other than someone seeing the words "means of automatic detection" in the Regulations without giving consideration to the whether it would be appropriate or not to install.
So I'm afraid the Fire & Rescue Service is reaping the sowings of others.
I think it should also be said that the Fire Service do not get turned out to false alarms. They get turned out a report of a fire which in some cases is an automatic report, be it to the occupiers or otherwise. It is only a false alarm, or unwanted call, when no fire is found. But the technology which many occupiers were required to install by the authorities is indicating a fire, not a false alarm, and they respond accordingly by calling the fire service.
Did they not see it coming?
I'm certainly not saying that there is no place for AFD. Clearly there is in certain high risk premises, but a more considered approach to determining where detection is appropriate should be the order of the day.
Perhaps the Regulations should say that AFD should not be installed other than when it would be considered appropriate for a specific risk.
-
You tell a sad but true tale, I don't think I've been in any new build in recent years that hasn't been L1 - not P1/M, not engineered solution, but traditional benchmark built building but with L1.
-
The alarm industry is also responsible to an extent. For example I was in a small self contained office building single storey for which the installed category M/ L5 system was perfectly adequate to cover a single inner room sitution. The SP203 alarm engineers had recorded it as "not compliant with BS5839 - no detection in escape routes" .
The whole thing is a mess and I have some sympathy with Kents position. There is little or no benefit in using an ARCs at present which is a shame. But lets not forget the main reason for having an alarm and detection system- its main purpose is to alert relevant persons who may be at immediate risk from fire in the building.
I think that for occupied buildings with life risk present it is reasonable to expect a back up call and for unoccupied buildings for the ARC to alert the responsible person and that they should have some pre planned response before calling the Fire service.
If systems were capable of double knock then this would be a benefit.
One problem with the back up call is the call challenge policy for care homes, call challenging can tie up one of only two staff on duty for up to 5 minutes in my experience, when they should be helping people at the scene of the fire.
-
Kurnal, so you want a single lone female at 2am to go into a building to check if there is a fire???? I wonder if the great heros of the British Fire Service would take such an action.
And you dont mean double knock you mean coincidence operation.
And you are old enough to remember the days when enforcing authorities considered that AFD had no role in life safety- it was purely for property protection, so it is anomalous that you now discount its value in property protection.
And with regard to care homes, the new edition of BS 5839-1 will recommend againsy any investigation of fire alarm signals in care homes, regardless of what bizarre policies might be adopted by fire and rescue authorities in some areas of ENGLAND.
-
As always Colin my intent is good but my presentational skills lack the razor sharp precision to satisfy your good self. However
A lone female is at no greater risk than a lone male would be from a fire at 2am.
The historic great heros of the fire service would not have been called out to investigate an alarm generated by an L1 detection and alarm system in an unoccupied building.
Staff will always have to investigate alarms in care homes, to determine whether there is a fire, whether persons are at risk, who is at greatest risk and, should it be necessary, what are the priorities and logistics for evacuation. Granted that the timing of the call to the fire service may change as a result of changes to BS5839 (but compliance with this is not mandatory). Will Service Users and staff be safer as a result?
I am familiar with the events that followed the Rosepark fire. I would also like us to consider that many 40 bed care homes have only 2 staff at night. Is it better for them both to quickly investigate as a team and gather good intelligence to inform their decision or for one of them to investigate whilst the other is held on the phone for up to 5 minutes going through the inevitable call challenge process? Please discuss.
As the timing of a call to the fire service is a procedural matter it needs to be in other guidance in addition to BS5839 which is of course the technical standard for the design, installation, maintenance and testing of fire alarms. It needs also to be included in the National Guidance issued under the Fire Safety Order and other sister legislation elsewhere, and perhaps guidance issued under the Care Standards Act.
-
Rather than worry about what the fire service will do or not in care facilities perhaps there should be some concentration on the care required and the numbers of staff required to do that 24/7. It is the RP responsibility to provide care, training and management for the staff in all aspects of the work they can be asked to carry out. Reliance on reactive organisations will always lead to difficulties and the passing on of information to others in the early hours of the mrornong or indeed at any time is a time consuming process.
BS 5839 part 1 can state whatever it likes but Acts of Parliament will always take precedence.
-
The primary role of care staff is to care for Service Users. The recommended minimum staffing ratios for this role is set out in the guidance to the Care Standards Act.
I dont disagree Jokar with what you say with regard to staffing levels and the Fire Safety Order but I dont think it is realistic to expect the Responsible Person to appoint additional staff over and above these levels in case there is a fire.
At a time when everybodys budget is under pressure all stake holders are looking to shift the burden of responsibility from one stakeholder to another, you see this with all council services, government services and the NHS, social housing providers etc etc. Its like a game of tag.
-
I cant speak for all brigades but you might find that many won't call challenge care homes, or anything else where there is a sleeping risk. They might send fewer appliances, or an AFA response vehicle however.
-
Why is there an expectation then that the RP will ensure that there is a cogent evacuation plan in place that includes people with disabilities. That this is builit in the structural protection provided within the premises and the detection and warning system that is installed.
Why is a care home any different from any other premises?
The structure should be in place to support the detection and warning system and the evacuation strategy of any premises type. The RP is responsible for that and has a duty of care for employees and residents in all premises. That evacuation plan should not rely on the local fire station or its personnel. Sods law would dictate that they may not be available at any given time due to other calls or duties.
I really dont care whether FRS attend AFAs or not, I have attended too many to think that any of them will be a fire. Attending a fire call is something else and all that is expected is that an FRA will get called to a fire rather than relying on a passed signal that may or may not indicate a fire. In accprdance with 5839 that call has to be made regardless of the AFA passing.
However, if that is what the public expect or want then they have to get the funding correct for the FRS.
-
Kurnal, as retters says, they should not be challenging calls to care homes, so the matter of the 5 minute delay does not arise. let me change the question, would the heros of the British Fire Service send a PERSON alone to investigate a fire in a building?
Of course buildings should stand alone but PHE assumes that someone comes to deal with the fire.
-
Of course buildings should stand alone but PHE assumes that someone comes to deal with the fire.
Which they will, when someone tells them there is a fire!!!!
I think the problem may well be that although we talk of a British Fire Service we are actually dealing with a number of local Fire and Rescue Services all of which have their own little God who is busily trying to get brownie points with Dave and his cronies (or the relevent Sir Humphrey!). To add to the problem there are also three parliaments each with its own variation of the legislation, each version is, of course, better than the other two.
This brinkmanship will continue until someone drops a real goulie.
-
This brinkmanship will continue until someone drops a real goulie.
.....and each will blame someone else.
-
Michael, the point is that, by the time people frig about investigating, it will be fine every time there is a false alarm but not so clever when there is a fire about which they can tell the F&RS! ( 9 minutes in the case of the Rosepark fire). By that time, intervention in extinguishment of the fire ( they do still put out fires in England, dont they????) may well be too late.
-
Michael, the point is that, by the time people frig about investigating, it will be fine every time there is a false alarm but not so clever when there is a fire about which they can tell the F&RS! ( 9 minutes in the case of the Rosepark fire).
If it takes someone 9 minutes to investigate whether an alarm is genuine then something is wrong with their procedures, especially in a sleeping context. It may need smaller zones or addressable detectors, or a repeater panel in the sleep-over person's bedroom, but they should know where the alarm is immediately.
-
To add to the debate let's look at what is actually posted on the Kent website.
http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/your_business/latest_business_news/change_to_afa_policy.aspx (http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/your_business/latest_business_news/change_to_afa_policy.aspx)
Changing how we respond to automatic fire alarms (AFAs)
What’s changed?
From 2 April 2012, all calls from automatic fire alarms will be challenged by the Service’s 999 staff. During the day (6am to 6pm), unless the incident can be confirmed to be an actual fire or signs of fire, an engine will not be sent.
However, for a further year (to April 2013), a fire engine will be sent to calls to automatic fire alarms received at night (6pm to 6am), where a procedure has not been introduced to confirm a fire. This is to allow those responsible for managing premises extra time to make any required changes to their procedures.
This change will apply to all calls whether they are made from the affected building, through a call handling organisation or some other method.
We will ask sheltered accommodation to let us know if the call is a false alarm. If this is not possible then the fire service will attend. This is in response to feedback during our consultation. However we will expect these organisations to investigate false alarms and take any actions necessary to reduce them in future.
Why?
False alarms account for a third of all calls we attend – 98 per cent of these calls are triggered by things like dust or poorly maintained systems. This disrupts your building or business and diverts firefighters from genuine emergencies.
Your alarm, and the safety of those who use your premises, is your responsibility. Following this change, you need to be clear what you will do
Make your plans now to deal with your alarm if it goes off
How you will check to see if there is a fire?
If your alarm goes off because of a fire, tell the fire service when you call 999
Have you revised your fire risk assessment to take account of the changes?
Is your alarm system properly designed, installed, maintained and tested?
If your system makes false alarms do you investigate the cause and take steps to make sure they are not repeated?
Further advice
Download our guide "Your responsibilities if you have an automatic fire alarm" in PDF format
Speak to your fire alarm installation or maintenance company.
Reduction of false alarms - how you can help
Contact your local KFRS fire safety office for advice
Information on evacuation procedures
-
Where does the 98% dust and bad maintenance come from. Is it just one of these "facts" that everyone "knows" like 98% of LFB fire safety officers chew gum?
-
All over Britain fire crews are attending AFAs. On arrival they check to see if there is actually a fire. DCLG statistics collated via the incident recording system (IRS) show that 98% of them are coded as an 8 or 9. That's false alarm good intent electric ie a failure of the system or false alarm good intent mechanical. That is the head had been activated by the ingress of a non fire related substance. Like thrips, dust, aerosol sprays etc etc. Also, activation of break glass call points are coded as a 6.
This data is a matter of public record and is available free to all.
Where is your empirical evidence to show this is not the case Colin? :-\
-
All over Britain fire crews are attending AFAs. On arrival they check to see if there is actually a fire. DCLG statistics collated via the incident recording system (IRS) show that 98% of them are coded as an 8 or 9. That's false alarm good intent electric ie a failure of the system or false alarm good intent mechanical. That is the head had been activated by the ingress of a non fire related substance. Like thrips, dust, aerosol sprays etc etc. Also, activation of break glass call points are coded as a 6.
This data is a matter of public record and is available free to all.
Where is your empirical evidence to show this is not the case Colin? :-\
Where is the data available from Sam?
-
To add to the debate let's look at what is actually posted on the Kent website.
http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/your_business/latest_business_news/change_to_afa_policy.aspx (http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/your_business/latest_business_news/change_to_afa_policy.aspx)
Changing how we respond to automatic fire alarms (AFAs)
What’s changed?
From 2 April 2012, all calls from automatic fire alarms will be challenged by the Service’s 999 staff. During the day (6am to 6pm), unless the incident can be confirmed to be an actual fire or signs of fire, an engine will not be sent.
However, for a further year (to April 2013), a fire engine will be sent to calls to automatic fire alarms received at night (6pm to 6am), where a procedure has not been introduced to confirm a fire. This is to allow those responsible for managing premises extra time to make any required changes to their procedures.
This change will apply to all calls whether they are made from the affected building, through a call handling organisation or some other method.
We will ask sheltered accommodation to let us know if the call is a false alarm. If this is not possible then the fire service will attend. This is in response to feedback during our consultation. However we will expect these organisations to investigate false alarms and take any actions necessary to reduce them in future.
Why?
False alarms account for a third of all calls we attend – 98 per cent of these calls are triggered by things like dust or poorly maintained systems. This disrupts your building or business and diverts firefighters from genuine emergencies.
Your alarm, and the safety of those who use your premises, is your responsibility. Following this change, you need to be clear what you will do
Make your plans now to deal with your alarm if it goes off
How you will check to see if there is a fire?
If your alarm goes off because of a fire, tell the fire service when you call 999
Have you revised your fire risk assessment to take account of the changes?
Is your alarm system properly designed, installed, maintained and tested?
If your system makes false alarms do you investigate the cause and take steps to make sure they are not repeated?
Further advice
Download our guide "Your responsibilities if you have an automatic fire alarm" in PDF format
Speak to your fire alarm installation or maintenance company.
Reduction of false alarms - how you can help
Contact your local KFRS fire safety office for advice
Information on evacuation procedures
U nder Kents guide -
What is an automatic fire alarm system?
For example:
• a simple office or shop premises may just need a
basic manual break glass system connected to alarm
sounders.
• a hotel or boarding house where people sleep will
usually always require a system with smoke detectors
• more complex premises such as hospitals or shopping
centres will generally need a more complex system
that will provide very early fire detection as an element
of the fire strategy for the building.
AFA systems vary in complexity depending on factors
such as the type and construction of the building, its
use, and the type of people using the premises.
Does it mean that a simple office of shop premises can remove any AFD initially required by BC? If so, why could they not have left it out in the first place? It was obviously a waste of money.
-
Colin
I am not disagreeing with you.
It strikes me it is good propaganda to go on about the costs of responding to AFAs but it neglects the main problem which are the Alarm systems which are not properly maintained and are constantly going off. There used to be guidance about the number of unwanted alarms that could tolerated from a system and that the brigades could take action if this tolerence level was exceeded. Most of the bad systems could be easily identified even just from the reaction of the crews, 'oh no not there again!'
It is a blanket solution which whilst it sounds good sweeps the problem under the carpet rather than dealing with it.
-
Where is the data available from Sam?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-statistics)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incident-recording-system-for-fire-and-rescue-authorities (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incident-recording-system-for-fire-and-rescue-authorities)
The data is available in report format or as an Excel spreadsheet so you can do your own crunching.
Some FRS also collect data over and above that required by the DCLG in the IRS. I believe Kent does this. Personally I can't see how anyone can argue with so much overwhelming evidence. The FRS efficiently fought hoax callers in very many areas by using the campaign slogan " A fire engine can't be in two places at once.... don't hoax us!" Obviously the same argument also apples to electrical or mechanical false alarms to fire, along with accidental and deliberate activations of break glass call points.
How would.... God forbid....any of the defenders of the status quo feel if their family was injured or lost in a fire because a fire crew were somewhere else searching for a spurious alarm signal?
Now I am not a professional fire risk assessor, nor am I a fire alarm engineer, but I say those of you who are, should stop beating about the bush and get your act together to stop unwanted activations of fire alarm systems distracting fire crews from their main life critical role.... and lowering occupant's of buildings perception to a fire alarm.. by over exposure.
So go on create safe systems that work, identify to the occupants where there really is a problem and call the FRS when they are needed ....and ....don't rely on them to prop up the confidence in unsound ones. There very soon will not be enough spare fire appliances around.
-
Well said.
-
.....
Now I am not a professional fire risk assessor, nor am I a fire alarm engineer, but I say those of you who are, should stop beating about the bush and get your act together to stop unwanted activations of fire alarm systems distracting fire crews from their main life critical role.... and lowering occupant's of buildings perception to a fire alarm.. by over exposure.
...........
My experience of 'false' alarms as a fire alarm engineer were that the overwhelmingly greatest proportion of them were caused by circumstances outside the influence of any system designer/installer/maintainer.
I accept that the systems we worked on were well designed, installed and maintained and that this might not be the case generally, however the rise in general expertise and knowledge of BS5839-1 over the past decade suggests to me that there surely can't be that many 'rogue' systems out there these days. Obviously the 'false alarm' statistics may appear to prove me wrong, but is the 'false alarm' information always recorded correctly?
I just know that no fire alarm detection system can handle too much vandalism, abuse and misuse without it giving a 'false alarm'. I remember that in the systems which we maintained, over half of automatic smoke detector operations were caused by people spraying aerosols into the sensing chamber and from smoke from bonfires drifting in through open windows. (this was after the problem of activation by thrips was solved by the detector manufacturers).
I believe we have to accept a certain level of 'false alarms' from such highly-sensitive detection equipment and just pay for the resources we need to deal with the result.
-
...caused by people spraying aerosols into the sensing chamber and from smoke from bonfires drifting in through open windows
Exactly the type of activation that can be checked by a responsible person before calling the FRS, is it not? :-\
-
Perhaps we are looking at it from the wrong way up. Perhaps it is not an FRS problem in totality but also a business continuity and loss of profit for the organisation involved.
From a commercial perspective surely it is more sensible for the management to invistigate instances such as those Wiz mentions in house before passing a signal to an FRS. The cost of the non business continuity and people standing in the street awaiting an attnedance and during an attendance is more than dealing with the issues that occur.
If it is a fire then say so and the FRS will attend.
-
IRS data on false alarms is not worth the electrons that are troubled to transmit it. it needs a proper study by people who know what they are talking about. Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.
-
Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.
Probably since the time they were asked to send that information back. Roughly open window and bonfire in locality, smoke from bonfire. No fire, broken MCP, malicious activation. Smoke head gone off, no sign of fire, panel resets equipment fault. No problem, lets get the pump available again.
-
IRS data on false alarms is not worth the electrons that are troubled to transmit it. it needs a proper study by people who know what they are talking about. Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.
Perhaps there should be a accredited/registered/certified fire alarm engineer on each appliance?
-
Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.
Probably since the time they were asked to send that information back. Roughly open window and bonfire in locality, smoke from bonfire. No fire, broken MCP, malicious activation. Smoke head gone off, no sign of fire, panel resets equipment fault. No problem, lets get the pump available again.
I don't think it is that straightforward, Mike.
In your example, 'smoke head gone off, no sign of fire, panel resets; equipment fault' I would argue that since the panel resets that there would be a very good chance that there is nothing wrong with equipment and that the detector operated to some, probably transient, fire smoke-like stimulus i.e. cigarette smoke, dust, talculm powder etc. etc. Which is not an equipment fault.
I don't think that it would be possible for firemen to ascertain the absolute cause of all 'false alarms' so I believe that we should continue to make whatever technical and environmental improvements are available to reduce the level of false alarms, whilst paying for the resources we need to attend every alarm activation efficiently.
It would be a shame to waste the advantages provided by today's highly sensitive and reliable fire detection systems just to save money. There must be better ways of saving some money so we can pay for enough fire crews to deal with both false alarms and real fires.
-
IRS data on false alarms is not worth the electrons that are troubled to transmit it. it needs a proper study by people who know what they are talking about. Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.
Perhaps there should be a accredited/registered/certified fire alarm engineer on each appliance?
An electrician who I trained to be a fire alarm engineer some years ago finally realised his dream and was accepted as a full-time fireman and left my employment.
He subsequently told me that he had been quickly elevated to the role of fire alarm expert on his watch and was expected to deal with anything related to a fire alarm system. He said the rest of his watch's level of knowledge about fire alarm systems was shockingly low. This is not a dig at firemen; I presume they must have lots to learn about and that a good knowledge of fire alarm systems is probably low on their list of priorities. But maybe they need a bit more training in this area.
-
IRS data on false alarms is not worth the electrons that are troubled to transmit it. it needs a proper study by people who know what they are talking about. Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.
Perhaps there should be a accredited/registered/certified fire alarm engineer on each appliance?
An electrician who I trained to be a fire alarm engineer some years ago finally realised his dream and was accepted as a full-time fireman and left my employment.
He subsequently told me that he had been quickly elevated to the role of fire alarm expert on his watch and was expected to deal with anything related to a fire alarm system. He said the rest of his watch's level of knowledge about fire alarm systems was shockingly low. This is not a dig at firemen; I presume they must have lots to learn about and that a good knowledge of fire alarm systems is probably low on their list of priorities. But maybe they need a bit more training in this area.
In my time Wiz firefighters were instructed not to touch operating fire alarms other than, I think, to silence them. An engineer had to be called to reset. Just in case the OiC shut the system down. Fair policy I thought.
And firefighters who had other skills were very handy in the job. Taking fire surrounds out and punching holes in braces, knocking off electrical circuits, those with experience with handling animals particularily large ones. Those now with their degrees just want to shoot straight to Chief and beyond.
-
Notwithstanding what actually causes the actuation, if a fire crew attend the activation of an AFA ... and there is no fire... it is a false alarm! So bracket the two (electrical and mechanical ...best guess) together and you get the total number of false alarms. Deduct this from the number of times there is a fire to which the crew have been called to by the sounding of an AFA and you have the percentage. It's not rocket science.
Alarm with no fire = false alarm. ::) The argument that fire crews are not qualified fire alarm engineers or even qualified electricians is spurious and distracting.
Crews in my FRS are instructed to not re set alarms, they are to ask the responsible person to do it. .... because ....they are not qualified fire alarm engineers.
-
Fire detection technology has vastly improved in the last 20 years and in my experience the majority of "false alarms" are down to human actions and poor system management by building occupiers that have no respect for their fire detection system and certainly don't want to pay for a company to do any more than sign a "certificate" to satisfy an insurance agent let alone pay for a day of cleaning detectors.
Unfortunately the fire alarm industry as a whole is still probably one of the worst regulated bastions of society and there is still nothing in place to prevent Joe Blogs the local plumber from installing an AFA in a care home and getting it linked to an ARC.
You can tell people they are responsible for using "competent" trades as much as you like. Lots of them still don't care.
Everything is aimed at taking people to court after the fact, when the dodgy installer has banked the money and gone out of business.
As long a there is a bit of paper in a file with "I have commissioned the fire alarm and it complies with BS 5836 .... Honest guv" no one gives a monkeys uncle and no one in authority looking at the piece of paper has a clue what it actually means or whether the system installed actually meets current EN54 / BS5839 / CPD etc requirements.
Until the thing doesn't work 6 months later and there is the obligatory outcry of "I told you so" and "lets have another enquiry".
If the people in authority grew a pair 15 years ago and only allowed BAFE and equally approved companies to register AFAs with ARCs - similar to security systems and NACOSS then at least there would have been accountability and sanctions against RPs and FA Companies that didn't sort out the problems.
None of the cheap rubbish generally imported to wholesalers and installed by sparkies, fire extinguisher companies and every other wannabe fire alarm engineer would have got connected to an ARC and so the "vast rate of false alarm" calls would never have been an issue and could have been managed.
The false alarm issues today aren't all down to the equipment they're down to the disgraceful regulation of this industry by the enforcing authorities that have stood back and allowed non compliant systems to be installed by idiots and connected to Redcare for years.
And none of this actually addresses the original question!
-
I have just been sent details of some Siemens detectors that are guaranteed not to cause false alarms so confident are they that they will give £500 cash back if they fault?
They appear to be multi sensors and work on a number of settings, depending on the environment.
I do not suppose that the cash back would apply if the panel faulted.
Any body have any experience of them?
see link
http://www.industry.siemens.co.uk/buildingtechnologies/uk/en/fire-safety-products/cerberus-pro/Documents/033_CerberusPRO_IP3_0-92257_ASAtechnology%20flyer.pdf
-
I have just been sent details of some Siemens detectors that are guaranteed not to cause false alarms so confident are they that they will give £500 cash back if they fault?
They appear to be multi sensors and work on a number of settings, depending on the environment.
I do not suppose that the cash back would apply if the panel faulted.
Any body have any experience of them?
see link
http://www.industry.siemens.co.uk/buildingtechnologies/uk/en/fire-safety-products/cerberus-pro/Documents/033_CerberusPRO_IP3_0-92257_ASAtechnology%20flyer.pdf
Yes they are very good detectors but will only work with a Siemens panel and the system will cost you silly money and the customer will be tied to Siemens and their call out charges for the life of the system.
They've been advertising that claim for years ....
I've always used Hochiki or Apollo and can say that the systems we have installed have produced no more false alarms than this Siemens system that we maintain for a big client.
In fact we just ripped the Siemens out and replaced with Hochiki due to the extortionate charges to replace a call point that went wrong.
-
Samuel, you seem to be changing your statistics. You were claiming that you knew the causes of a defined percentage of false alarms, and now you are telling us what percentage of fire alarm signals are false alarms. You are right that is not rocket science, but fire fighters are about as good at determining the cause of the false alarms as they are at rocket science.
-
Colin .......the statistics speak for themselves.
What are you afraid of?
-
Re David Rooney response
I was also told the detector heads can be fitted to other systems, can you confirm if this is right or wrong?
-
Not as far as I'm aware .... they use Siemens protocol so I don't see how.
-
The police don't attend every burglar alarm going off do they?
In my experience for what its worth, I found the majority of UWFS were down to poor management of the systems. The systems themselves providing they were maintained were fine. I agree that the system fault stop was awful as it said nothing. At one stage we were identifying UWFs caused by management fault which accounted for a very high percentage of calls i.e. alarm testing without informing anyone or workman not informing anyone what they were up to.
A well maintained and managed system would generate a minimal number of calls per year which fire services could deal with , but when such a large number of the calls attended are avoidable thats is not sustainable, particularly in this cash straitened times, although I would argue even if we were wading in money they are still an unnecessary burden.
(sticks on tin hat now)
-
Notwithstanding what actually causes the actuation, if a fire crew attend the activation of an AFA ... and there is no fire... it is a false alarm! So bracket the two (electrical and mechanical ...best guess) together and you get the total number of false alarms. Deduct this from the number of times there is a fire to which the crew have been called to by the sounding of an AFA and you have the percentage. It's not rocket science.
Alarm with no fire = false alarm. ::) The argument that fire crews are not qualified fire alarm engineers or even qualified electricians is spurious and distracting.
Crews in my FRS are instructed to not re set alarms, they are to ask the responsible person to do it. .... because ....they are not qualified fire alarm engineers.
Alarm with no fire = false alarm
And therein lies the problem!
Too many 'false alarms' are attributed to the equipment/installation where, in fact, it is performing exactly how it is meant to.
If no-one can ascertain which of those 'false alarms' could be avoided by proper and sensible use of the system, then there will be no way of reducing the level of false alarms.
Over the past 20 years I believe the manufacturers have increased the reliability of equipment, I also believe the standard of installation has improved a fair amount. I base this on the knowledge that the number of systems installed has increased dramatically in the past 20 years, but the level of false alarms hasn't. I put this down to better British standards and a better awareness of those British Standards.
Unfortunately, the users of the systems are just as 'unknowing/uncaring' as they ever were, and still create / or allow preventable 'false alarms'.
Don't just always blame the equipment or installation. There is definitely another side to the problem that needs to be addressed.
-
To quote myself Wiz
Now I am not a professional fire risk assessor, nor am I a fire alarm engineer, but I say those of you who are, should stop beating about the bush and get your act together to stop unwanted activations of fire alarm systems
I agree it is not all the fault of the engineers. The engineer and the risk assessor and the RP must act together to reduce unwanted FA's And that is why FRS like Kent are challenging AFA calls and asking people to check to see if there is actually a fire before they respond with the publicly provided fire crew, ...........to get back to the original point of the thread.
-
Well seeing as everything tends to legally be the responsibility of the RP what seems to be failing predominantly is the provision of information and the enforcement.
-
Brilliantly put Wiz
-
Interesting to look at the CFOA document from 2010. 'CFOA Protocol for the Reduction of False Alarms and Unwanted Fire Signals' which whilst it does put in place a procedure for call filtering only recommends no operational response if the caller confirms it is a false or unwanted alarm, and states
"It is important to note that call filtering is an effective way of achieving a step reduction in the number of UwFS attended. However if it is not carried out in accordance with the guidance above it may delay emergency attendance in the event of fire increasing the risk of property damage, injury and fatality."
It also states "FRS control operators must be careful not to recommend the inveatigationof an alarm during an emergency call. If investigation was possible it should have already been carried out as part of their existing procedures before the emergency cll was made."
-
If investigation was possible it should have already been carried out as part of their existing procedures before the emergency cll was made."
Exactly the point and manifestly what is not happening. As proven by the DCLG stats.
-
Interesting to look at the CFOA document from 2010. 'CFOA Protocol for the Reduction of False Alarms and Unwanted Fire Signals' which whilst it does put in place a procedure for call filtering only recommends no operational response if the caller confirms it is a false or unwanted alarm, and states
"It is important to note that call filtering is an effective way of achieving a step reduction in the number of UwFS attended. However if it is not carried out in accordance with the guidance above it may delay emergency attendance in the event of fire increasing the risk of property damage, injury and fatality."
It also states "FRS control operators must be careful not to recommend the inveatigationof an alarm during an emergency call. If investigation was possible it should have already been carried out as part of their existing procedures before the emergency cll was made."
But what happens when they dont do that?
-
CFOA acknowledge that they cant get FRS to buy into the policy so they are doing a new one.
-
So the CFOA cannot get its own members to agree to work its own policies! This is a recipe for chaos if ever I saw one.
-
As an aside do any of you feel that these policies will give rise to the increase in industrial fire brigades?
-
Yes I can see it giving an opportunity for some security firms to provide fire teams or small industrial fire brigades for the premises they cover.
This will of course have nothing to do with these firms getting the kudos for being competent to provide fire brigades to the Fire Authorities.
-
Michae: Yes, that is the position. CFOA are impotent to do anything much of value in terms of fire safety policy sadly, notwithstanding the perceived insights and all the errors it contains.
-
So I take it as no one is prepared to trust the equipment there is no method acceptable to anyone of "confirming" an alarm other than ringing the emergency services when flames are licking the callers behind ?
-
Coincidence operation is one method but may not be great as it could depend on significant fire spread unless you double up on detectors.
-
As said Colin we do have certain heritage buildings where early attendance is essential but they are not manned 24 hour.
Coincidence detection is one route and is better than nothing, but we still haven't had a response from anyone saying they would accept this method and turn out.....
-
I thought merseyside were going to accept that, but they called it the wrong name.