FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: stevew on March 10, 2015, 07:11:47 PM
-
Advised by a client today that his overnight policy (see below) is normal in the hotel industry.
One employee on site who will respond to the FAP and immediately silence the alarm.
He will place an emergency call to the fire service and then investigate the cause of the alarm.
There are in my opinion many scenarios with this approach that concern me.
Is he correct regarding the industry standard?
-
A one person response is perhaps not ideal, and in many parts of the UK, the fire service will not turn out until a fire is confirmed.
Other than that, the policy is fine ::) ::)
-
Is it an addressable alarm? With a zoned alarm silencing the alarm disables all of the zone involved- not a great idea with a single member of staff. If more detectors operate the alarm will not re-sound till reset. Why not set up a staff alarm to avoid disturbing the guests prior to the investigation? A timed delay of say 3 minutes or so will allow an investigation but with the assurance that if another detector operates or the staff member gets hurt the alarm will sound.
-
Thanks for the response.
Fortunately the fire service response you refer to Messy has not Ben adopted in the FA area concerned.
Your comments Kurnel give me some room to discuss further with the client. It does however encourage me to suggest that the staff member does not investigate but places the emergency call and then monitors the evacuation of the guests.
Providing the fire safety systems are well managed and maintained with false alarms rare then I see no reason why the FA should not respond to the call without waiting for confirmation of a fire. I have always liked the phrase ' I can smell smoke'
-
All valid points but even one false alarm at 3 in the morning is usually enough to have a whole bunch of riled guests queuing up for their money back before breakfast is served and a very upset hotel manager.
With the advances in AFD together with lower costs there isn't any excuse for hotels not to have addressable systems and a delayed evacuation / search period.
-
Didn't something like this happen at Summerland?
The benefit of only one person on site/investigating is that he/she cant silence it again if it triggers again.
-
It strikes me that we get it all wrong with hotels and fire alarms. A point that hit me very hard twice in the last couple of weeks at about 4am in the morning standing in the car parks in Edinburgh and in Milton Keynes.
With hotels built to current Building Regs standards and addressable alarms why don't they all program the system to incorporate a verification delay and double knock, if they desire for additional life safety they could program a local cause and effect to ensure a localised warning is given if a smoke detector in a bedroom triggers.
-
It strikes me that we get it all wrong with hotels and fire alarms. A point that hit me very hard twice in the last couple of weeks at about 4am in the morning standing in the car parks in Edinburgh and in Milton Keynes.
With hotels built to current Building Regs standards and addressable alarms why don't they all program the system to incorporate a verification delay and double knock, if they desire for additional life safety they could program a local cause and effect to ensure a localised warning is given if a smoke detector in a bedroom triggers.
I couldn't agree more Kurnal - but I guess its the cost in terms of infrastructure, testing, maintenance and additional staff required on nights - plus their training requirements.
Not a huge expense for the Hiltons, Dorchesters and Ritzs of the world, but maybe for the budget end, it could be the difference between profit or loss.
On the other hand, I am not sure I would ever go back to a hotel where I have stood in a car park at 4am, regardless of how lovely Edinburgh and MK are at that time of the morning. So there are surely good commercial reasons for not upsetting your punters
-
Another aspect to remember is the disabled guests, no major problem if they are on the ground floor and can self evacuate but a bigger problem if they are on upper floors and require assistance.
-
Didn't something like this happen at Summerland?
The benefit of only one person on site/investigating is that he/she cant silence it again if it triggers again.
Summerland wasn't a hotel, but a leisure centre without sleeping accommodation.
A disused kiosk was set alight outside the building; several people used a hose-reel on the outside fire, not realising that the fire had penetrated the exterior wall. The alarm was not activated until the fire broke out of the hollow wall construction into the building with considerable violence - and promptly destroyed the fire alarm system wiring - so if the alarm did sound it was only for a few seconds.
The 'fire team' had never had proper training.
The management didn't think to remove the disused kiosk.
The external wall was changed from reinforced concrete to a coated steel sheet without reference back to the Fire Brigade....
and quite a few other failings in design and management of the building all added up to 50 deaths.
-
sorry cant have been summerland then. I remember a case where a security bod kept cancelling an alarm - not realising the building was on fire.
-
That sounds a bit like New Look, they kept resetting the alarm despite the store being ablaze.
-
Advised by a client today that his overnight policy (see below) is normal in the hotel industry.
One employee on site who will respond to the FAP and immediately silence the alarm.
He will place an emergency call to the fire service and then investigate the cause of the alarm.
There are in my opinion many scenarios with this approach that concern me.
Is he correct regarding the industry standard?
It concerns me too. Here goes-
You've silenced the alarm, not reset and called the fire service. Why?
If you have silenced the alarm, you must think that there isn't a fire - You don't need the fire service.
If you call the fire service you must think there is a fire so you don't silence the alarm.
When you investigate after silencing the alarm, you find a fire how do you then sound the alarm?
-
I'm with you regarding this case, DD. Your logic is sound.
I wouldn't say that it's not an ideal worth pursuing that all hotels should have investigation periods but a hotel manager cannot just adopt an ad hoc two stage process without first having a competent person ensure that safety is maintained at the appropriate level.
An alarm system with a proper built in investigation period will automatically lapse into stage two (giving the evacuation signal) after some predetermined time but a silenced single stage alarm won't. What if the person investigating gets distracted by trying to extinguish the fire or by assisting a mobility impaired person who heard the initial sounding of the alarm, or what if they succumb to the fire. Nobody gets an alarm signal then.
And we don't know anything about the construction of the building. It could be a purpose built concrete block but also it could be a converted Victorian house without lobbies to a single staircase protected by upgraded panelled doors. There might be 200 bedrooms or there might be five. It could be 5 star or it might be hostel type accommodation. All these things make a difference.
As for this "ad hoc" process being an industry standard, I don't think so. It may be adopted many places and it may be absolutely safe and justifiable in all those places but it cannot be standard practice without having a number of qualifying conditions attached, as alluded to above.
-
As soon as I hear someone say that something is 'standard practice' the alarm bells start ringing. It frequently means that someone bluffing based on what they want to do and what some of their mates think. Unless of course it is down in writing from a reasonable source.
-
Advised by a client today that his overnight policy (see below) is normal in the hotel industry.
One employee on site who will respond to the FAP and immediately silence the alarm.
He will place an emergency call to the fire service and then investigate the cause of the alarm.
There are in my opinion many scenarios with this approach that concern me.
Is he correct regarding the industry standard?
It concerns me too. Here goes-
You've silenced the alarm, not reset and called the fire service. Why?
Because first priority is always to shut the alarm up!
If you have silenced the alarm, you must think that there isn't a fire - You don't need the fire service.
No, I just wanted to shut the alarm up. I call the brigade because that's what I'm told to do to cover my BSide. Now I might go and have a look
If you call the fire service you must think there is a fire so you don't silence the alarm.
Ok got that
When you investigate after silencing the alarm, you find a fire how do you then sound the alarm?
I haven't been trained in how to re-sound the alarm. It's a crappy old panel!! If it were an addressable panel I could operate a call point ;D
Generally speaking... in a non addressable system a call point in the same zone that is showing fire condition won't re-sound the alarm .... a call point operated in a different zone should.
-
Hi
Just to be clear, are we saying that when the alarm is silenced, it will not re-sound unless a device in another zone operates (or the system re-sound button is pressed)? That is my understanding anyway and I think it is a requirement of 5839-1 that an actuation in a new zone re-sounds the alarm.
But what about addressable systems - are they generally configured in the same way or are they all programmed to re-sound the alarm after silencing, if any device - including those in the same zone - sends a fire signal to the CIE?
Thanks :)
-
Can be programmed either way. But as you are in Scotland, I would not worry to much as the SFRS attend all calls to AFAs.
-
Hi
Just to be clear, are we saying that when the alarm is silenced, it will not re-sound unless a device in another zone operates (or the system re-sound button is pressed)? That is my understanding anyway and I think it is a requirement of 5839-1 that an actuation in a new zone re-sounds the alarm.
But what about addressable systems - are they generally configured in the same way or are they all programmed to re-sound the alarm after silencing, if any device - including those in the same zone - sends a fire signal to the CIE?
Thanks :)
On a non addressable system generally yes, when the alarm is silenced, it will not re-sound unless a device in another zone operates (or the system re-sound button is pressed).
Addressable systems as Mr CT suggests, often have an option to allow alarms to resound either from a device in the same zone or from devices in other zones.
-
In my experience words like industry standard or accepted practice translates to; the fire service have never challenged it.
I think most of us agree that an investigation period, in a purpose built hotel would be acceptable but there would need to be assurances that further activations of detector heads or after a reasonable time period the alarm will re sound.
Unfortunately I have come across this scenario with care homes employing progressive horizontal evacuation and only one member of staff on site over night. Every industry is running lean on staff in an effort to keep costs down, the implications are often not thought through.
-
And to make matters worse having silenced the alarm EN54-2 does not require the panel to give an audible alarm to remind staff it has been left in silence mode as the old 5839-4 used to require. Tried to raise this with several organisations including the FIA but have been told everybody knows about this and it's not a problem. I disagree and it was a significant factor in the Oldfield Bank Altrincham Fire - the fire alarm engineer was prosecuted as the fault buzzer was found to be defective despite his recent service.
-
Thanks for that Kurnal
I am involved with a significant fire alarm renewal project and was not aware of the change in the guidance. I can't see how that is an improvement either and will revisit our proposals tomorrow.
-
Thanks Messy. I think this is more of an issue with conventional panels rather than addressable ones and may not affect all manufacturers products. I encountered it in a care home when following a breakdown a new CTec panel was installed in a hurry after the old panel failed. When demonstrating the new panel to staff during a fire drill I noticed that on pressing the silence button no buzzer sounded but the fire and zone LEDs just changed to a flashing mode rather than continuous. In this particular case the panel was poorly sited at the best of times in a small lobby off the main entrance,off the staffs normal route. Normal staff procedure at night is to silence the alarm to minimise disruption whilst the alarm is investigated, leaving a staff member at the panel in radio contact with the investigation team. However if they become distracted by wandering service users etc or leave the panel for any reason without a full reset - maybe to confirm there is no fire, there is an increased risk the silence mode may be overlooked.
When I queried it with the alarm engineers they like me assumed the panel was faulty and referred it to the manufacturers who investigated and their technical department seemed unaware and took several days of testing to confirm that this was not a fault but a design issue based on EN54. EN54 does not explicitly require an audible warning so the designers have not included one.
The technical officer at the FIA told me that this issue has been well discussed and everybody is aware of it, and no further action is necessary. My experience of manufacturers, engineers, some very senior and experienced consultants and care home staff proves the opposite. Even the manufacturers technical department were not initially aware when it was reported to them as a fault so how can we hope this very significant change will be passed onto end users?
Whilst current guidance for care homes recommends addressable systems be installed, the likelihood is that an old faulty conventional panel will be replaced with the same to minimise downtime and disruption.
The issue needs to be raised throughout the industry so that engineers can brief end users of this significant change on replacement of panels where this is an issue. The FIA could help by surveying manufacturers to ascertain how many products are affected and updating their publicity and training courses accordingly. I could produce a short case history with photos if this would help.
-
The fact that it surprised a good few of us would appear to indicate that it is an issue! Would be interesting to know why a) CEN didn't think it was necessary and b) why if we thought it was necessary in the UK we didn't specify it in BS 5839-1, like we did for the LED zone indicators (which similarly aren't a requirement under EN54, so I understand).
Mr Todd's bound to know the history...
-
What surprised us Fishcake????
-
Fishy and I were referring to the difference between EN54-2 and BS5839-4 in respect of the audible alarm when the panel is in silence mode. EN54-2 does not specify that the panel should emit an audible alarm in silence mode so newer panels designed only to EN54 may or may not provide this. You may remember we discussed this last year Colin and you did some research on it for me wth your pals in Europe.
-
Yes, I remember all that, Big Al, but I wasnt sure if that was what fishcake was talking about. You cant ask for it in BS 5839-1 because the product standard does not call it up so you will not get it. You cant tell manufacturers how to design a product in an installation code.
-
Yes, I remember all that, Big Al, but I wasnt sure if that was what fishcake was talking about. You cant ask for it in BS 5839-1 because the product standard does not call it up so you will not get it. You cant tell manufacturers how to design a product in an installation code.
I confirm that it was the disappearance of the buzzer functionality that was the concern - seems such a useful thing to have that I was wondering why it was not considered as being necessary? And am I also right in my recollection that the zone indicators are not in the BS EN 54 but are in BS 5839-1?
-
Yes, but they can be added on in a separate panel.