FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: idlefire on April 30, 2016, 10:41:59 AM
-
Does anybody know if is there any truth in the rumour I heard yesterday that BSI is considering dropping the weekly test from 5839-1?
-
That is probably too strong a way of putting it, but there is proposal from someone that it could be reduced to monthly. Only a proposal, which will be subject to consideration in the new revision, on which work is currently underway. Nothing to say how far the proposal might get.
-
Thanks for the clarification Colin.
I recall that when you and I discussed this matter back in 2004 your position was that weekly testing was so critical that it should not be relaxed "under any circumstances".
Are you in a position to share the rationale behind the "proposal" to reduce the BS requirement for weekly testing to monthly testing?
-
Idle Fellow, Not so much so critical as going out on a limb (as one primary authority partner has now done) given that, in 2004, the need for weekly testing had only recently been subject to very close and extensive stakeholder scrutiny and deemed necessary. The proposal comes from the fact that some false alarms to FRS arise from weekly testing, so monthly testing would at least mitigate the effects of the bad management.
-
Shows it up for the humbug that it is.
-
When I buy a BS, I expect it to be compiled by a panel of industry experts with the aim of ensuring - in that case of AFD- that it will operate when required and assist me complying with legislation (and keeping people safe). In other words, by referring to the BS, I will have confidence that the AFD is as resilient and reliable as possible.
Now I am hearing that the weekly tests might (just might) be replaced by monthly tests to cut down on F&RS dashing about on UwFS shouts. Is that what you are saying Colin?
Surely the supporters of this change must be putting forward a more technical rationale than just saving F&RS money! If not, it seems to me that the F&RS seem to be having too much of a say on the BS panel if they are able to influence this change.
-
But hardly anyone responds to automatic calls anymore except from care homes and the highly vulnerable ..... so how can there be so much weekly testing causing so many unwanted shouts ?
Why not just ban redcare from anything but the most vulnerable / high risk buildings??
-
I would of thought that the purpose of the test is to pick up a problems. Weekly may have been fit for purpose 30 years ago but is it still needed. How many modern systems fail the test.
Don't get me wrong, I have no view either way. But give me evidence that systems actually fail the test.
-
That may be true Dave but on the other hand a fire alarm system is an important bit of safety kit. If it crashes completely and the rules are changed it may be a month before the defect is discovered.
-
Agreed ... I would still do a weekly test..... what I would question is:
"the fact that some false alarms to FRS arise from weekly testing, so monthly testing would at least mitigate the effects of the bad management"
I would argue that very few false alarms are due to weekly testing, after all you know you're about to set off the alarms so by definition it isn't false.
The "false alarm statistic" i presume is measured against how many times the engines are deployed, and as they are no longer deployed to the vast majority of redcare activations (therefore it doesn't matter if poor management means you forget to warn the ARC and take the system off line) then I don't see how the the reason for reducing the weekly testing can be down to false alarm management....
-
What faults would not be detected by the CIE that needs operation of the FA to detect, are there many?
-
It's impossible to say Tom. For example one of my clients had a sheltered housing scheme with a Rafiki Sita system. There was a fire but the system completely failed to operate from detectors or the break glass unit that was operated. No fault conditions were indicated. The system was fairly new, the client asked the manufacturer for a report and sent the panel back for investigation but no explanation was ever received other than to say it can't happen. But it did.
I guess that most failures would be due to dire maintenance.
Incidentally The fire alarm in my local Chinese takeaway has been in fire mode for over three years but no panel buzzer is sounding. I tried to explain things to them without any success.m
-
Incidentally The fire alarm in my local Chinese takeaway has been in fire mode for over three years but no panel buzzer is sounding. I tried to explain things to them without any success.
Now that is something I would have paid good money to witness ;D ::)
-
Thanks Kurnal, then is the weekly test more like a stop gap to ensure the system is working and can be heard everywhere and not necessarily a fault checking procedure because all things being equal the fault checking on the CIE should detect any faults when they happen.
-
Just a check to ensure the system works is an input from an outstation (call point) is correctly processed and results in the sounders operating. Audibility is not a factor in the weekly test.
-
Just a check to ensure the system works is an input from an outstation (call point) is correctly processed and results in the sounders operating. Audibility is not a factor in the weekly test.
Sorry I disagree. Audibility is a factor, you carry out the weekly test at the same time each week and ask staff to report is it can't be heard. So indirectly it is.
-
Just a check to ensure the system works is an input from an outstation (call point) is correctly processed and results in the sounders operating. Audibility is not a factor in the weekly test.
Sorry I disagree. Audibility is a factor, you carry out the weekly test at the same time each week and ask staff to report is it can't be heard. So indirectly it is.
"The weekly test should be carried out at approximately the same time each week; occupants should then be instructed that they should report any instance of poor audibility of the fire alarm signal" (BS5839-1:2013, 44.2b)
-
The main purpose of the weekly test is to make sure the system has not died. One way it might die is because of power failure over a weekend.
Davey, the FRS need all the money they can get to help pay your excessively generous pension which you are ekeing out using the amazing (and I use that word correctly) training you no doubt received in the 2nd greatest fire brigade in London. And the proposal didnt come from the FRS, so you are way off beam, like so many of the ENs your colleagues serve.
Suppers, now look here, you know I always tend to agree with you, but the test is not to confirm audibility, as you could run the sounders for only 2 seconds if you wanted. Big Al is right (statistically he had to be some time). We chucked the audibility thing in as a bit of a bonus if anyone happens to notice a problem.
-
Davey, the FRS need all the money they can get to help pay your excessively generous pension which you are ekeing out using the amazing (and I use that word correctly) training you no doubt received in the 2nd greatest fire brigade in London.
Colin: Once again, I was asking a straightforward and reasonable question - but you see this as another excuse for a personal dig at me. I am not sure why, as you know absolutely nothing about me other than the name of my ex - employer. Your comments refer to my pension arrangements - which like your fees -are a private matter. But worst still, you question my competence (ie quality of the training I have undertaken). This is over the mark even for someone with your arrogance.
I have no idea why you act like this. You are a very well respected figure in the fire safety world (even by me!) and it does you a disservice to act in such a manner.
-
Just a check to ensure the system works is an input from an outstation (call point) is correctly processed and results in the sounders operating. Audibility is not a factor in the weekly test.
Sorry I disagree. Audibility is a factor, you carry out the weekly test at the same time each week and ask staff to report is it can't be heard. So indirectly it is.
"The weekly test should be carried out at approximately the same time each week; occupants should then be instructed that they should report any instance of poor audibility of the fire alarm signal" (BS5839-1:2013, 44.2b)
Sorry Colin for disagreeing. Thank you idlefire for quoting the BS.
-
Yes I'm a bit surprised at you Dave for not knowing which clauses included in a BS are intended to be ignored. ;)
I accept my initial comment was a bit generalised, I was intending to make the point that the weekly test does not require a formal full walk through the premises to check all sounders and audibility, many people have this mis perception. Paragraph 44.2b (which I had forgotten about) is very arbitrary and informal and may or may not cover all parts of the building and defects may or may not be reported.
-
Persons appointed to test AFD sytems weekly monthly or if they remember; A management/triaining issue. The tester should know if their system is linked to an auto call/dial to their LAFB. Knowing how to operate and conduct the test and, inform their LAFB or bypass the auto call/dial and, rest it/re-inform LAFB. OK, so more work due to phone calls, but, a saving on turnouts which are unwanted re-actions?
-
The main purpose of the weekly test is to make sure the system has not died.
Forgive my ignorance Colin but, would a quick glance at the panel tell you if the system had "died"?
-
The main purpose of the weekly test is to make sure the system has not died.
Forgive my ignorance Colin but, would a quick glance at the panel tell you if the system had "died"?
I suppose it depends how dead is dead.....
I look at my car most mornings and see the little LED flashing on the door, which indicates the alarm is working. Therefore the battery must be good right?
How disappointed am I when I turn the key to hear the dreaded clicking of a flat battery.
-
Yes I'm a bit surprised at you Dave for not knowing which clauses included in a BS are intended to be ignored. ;)
I accept my initial comment was a bit generalised, I was intending to make the point that the weekly test does not require a formal full walk through the premises to check all sounders and audibility, many people have this mis perception. Paragraph 44.2b (which I had forgotten about) is very arbitrary and informal and may or may not cover all parts of the building and defects may or may not be reported.
Yes, that has always been my failing. But lets not stop at BS5839, let's add BS 9999, ADB and the Government Guides too. It's usually fire engineers who point out "That's a mistake" or "What they meant to say is " usually by way of a mathematical formula.
-
The main purpose of the weekly test is to make sure the system has not died.
Forgive my ignorance Colin but, would a quick glance at the panel tell you if the system had "died"?
Not necessarily ... as the example of the Sita system - and there are other example around including Gent systems ..... any microprocessor controlled system (which is pretty much all of them these days) can potentially stop seeing data eg. a fire condition from an MCP or detector and although the systems should flag a fault condition a few firms are in denial and won't accept their babies could possibly do such a thing .......
-
The fire alarm test for the building I work in is on a Friday, a non work day for me so I have not heard it in years. However, it does work as we have been turned out occasionally.
-
The fire alarm test for the building I work in is on a Friday, a non work day for me so I have not heard it in years. However, it does work as we have been turned out occasionally.
I love customers that test on a Friday and then ring for a call out Friday afternoon when they discover something isn't right ....... ;D
-
Joker/David, what is a Friday?(insert sunbathing smiley here)
-
Idol, you are right that if they look for the green LED it will tell them if it is electrically dead. There is an argument that the weekly test could just be to check the LED but people might not do it. If you were sure they would, you might be ok. However, it is possible as Mickey says for a system to be totally u/s even though it is powered up. It all becomes a matter of probability as to whether that could happen in a fire. The weekly test does offer a degree of comfort I have to say.
Suppers, the audibility thing is really just a bonus, a sort of icing on the cake. The problem is that the BS does not make this clear.
-
Just to add an instance, I did an FRA in a hotel who told me they had been doing the weekly check on the fire alarm. They were doing it correctly a different call point on a different floor every week. It worked fine on the ground floor one week then next week tested from the first floor, silence the panel had died! Major rush to get a new panel installed.
It does happen.
Also I thought that checking the LED on the panel was part of a daily check (unrecorded).