FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: shaunmckeever on September 23, 2005, 05:21:11 PM
-
I have just recently become involved in a halls of residence for a university. The university has over the last couple of years experienced extraordinarily high levels of malicious actuations the fire alarm in one particular area (they have several halls of residence). The university has approached the local fire authority to request permission to blank off all the mcp's from all of their halls of residence, not just the ones affected by malicious calls and the fire authority have sanctioned this. Excuse the pun but I find this very alarming.
There is without any doubt that the university have a problem. Apart from maliciously operating the break-glass call points the students regularly cover the detectors when they are cooking or smoking, regularly leave fire doors wedged open to allow freedom of movement between bedrooms and kitchens and they often set off the alarm by holding a lighter to the heads. Covers were placed over the mcp's but the students propped them open with matchsticks, set the alarm off and then did a runner.
I am sure there must be better solutions than blanking off the mcp's. I feel this is a bad move. Are my concerns justified - is it wise to blank off the mcp's?
-
C.C.T.V.
I have experience of halls of res but have never really had the bother you seem to be having.
The odd glass broken by drunken antics and the usual burned "cooking".
I think it's a bad move.What if there happens to be a real fire and no one can find the mcp?
Especially in a halls where there is smoking (by covering detectors) and alot of drunk students trying to do a Keith Floyd after staggering home from the union.
I had a zone fault once on a system.Checked every room to see if the usual detector had been removed.Everyone was intact.
Eventually found one detector with the insides removed and stuck back up,so the guy could smoke in his room.
-
No it is very unwise actually. There are loads of other solutions.
-
Surely they could impliment a process of local investigation before the brigade is called?
The fitting of plastic covers on the mcp's also works in the majority of cases ,as the fact that it requires a two stage action seems to make them think before doing it.
-
I have just recently become involved in a halls of residence for a university. The university has over the last couple of years experienced extraordinarily high levels of malicious actuations the fire alarm in one particular area (they have several halls of residence). The university has approached the local fire authority to request permission to blank off all the mcp's from all of their halls of residence, not just the ones affected by malicious calls and the fire authority have sanctioned this. Excuse the pun but I find this very alarming.
There is without any doubt that the university have a problem. Apart from maliciously operating the break-glass call points the students regularly cover the detectors when they are cooking or smoking, regularly leave fire doors wedged open to allow freedom of movement between bedrooms and kitchens and they often set off the alarm by holding a lighter to the heads. Covers were placed over the mcp's but the students propped them open with matchsticks, set the alarm off and then did a runner.
I am sure there must be better solutions than blanking off the mcp's. I feel this is a bad move. Are my concerns justified - is it wise to blank off the mcp's?
I wonder if the property and liability insurer have been consulted. I think it is an illegal and immoral decision. I think the correct solution would be to undertake a full evacuation following every activation, investigate every activation and take steps to reduce the false alarms, such as local alarm sounders.
Before anyones asks - illegal because it is a work place due to cleaners and maintenance staff using the area and therefore ought to be provided with suitable means for raising an alarm.
-
Chris, that's just what happens at my son's halls of residence in Brum - they get put out into the street, rain or shine, until the block has been checked by the fire brigade. I can assure you that the occupants are not fond of false alarms and will happily murder anyone found deliberately causing one!
-
But I bet young Master Gough takes forever to evacuate, despite what his old dad says. Ergo, the false alarms are putting Master Gough at risk, and so they should be avoided.
-
If it is always a specific mcp that is being activated then it could be removed (is it the one everyone passes on the way in from the pub?) and put down as a variation.
False alarms = complacency = Boy who cried wolf!
-
There was a nasty fire in a Halls of R in the states a couple of years ago where, following numerous false alarms there was a real incuident and nobody reacted. - Result lots of dead students.
-
My wee boy goes to a university that we advised long ago never to install smoke detectors in student rooms. With their heart in the right place, but still I think incorrectly they did put s/d in all student bedrooms. Result? Loadsa alarms. Then after about 70 of these, they had a fire. Oh dear. The students did evacuate but then all re-entered after hanging around for a bit as that was what they ALWAYS did. Except that this time there was a fire. The FRS were somewhat upset, and understandably so, but thats the sort of danger false alarms create.
-
mebbe some1 can integrate their personal card access system/ biometric system to a sealed MCP so tat all alarm are identifiable.
this should be an inventive step to reduce nuisance. but heck, it's no more patentable.
-
mebbe some1 can integrate their personal card access system/ biometric system to a sealed MCP so tat all alarm are identifiable.
this should be an inventive step to reduce nuisance. but heck, it's no more patentable.
I think if employers started using biometic data for this purpose, employees would be unhappy. The use of personal data is strictly governed by the data protection act.
-
mebbe some1 can integrate their personal card access system/ biometric system to a sealed MCP so tat all alarm are identifiable.
this should be an inventive step to reduce nuisance. but heck, it's no more patentable.
and what about the bloke some student has sneaked in overnight and he discovers a fire first and can't operate the mcp?
-
Hi shaunmckeever
I have received some information that some universities fine the students a fixed penalty.
Has any one heard of a university calling in the police and they issue a fixed penalty to the guilty offenders?
Is it not that the malicious activation of a fire alarm is a criminal offence?
Regards Davio1960
-
Hi shaunmckeever
I have received some information that some universities fine the students a fixed penalty.
Has any one heard of a university calling in the police and they issue a fixed penalty to the guilty offenders?
Is it not that the malicious activation of a fire alarm is a criminal offence?
Regards Davio1960
Yep I used to work for one such university that did this.
One guy was caught on CCTV maliciously breaking a call point and was threatened with police action. Maliciously breaking a call point is criminal damage.
The Police were happy to prosecute but it was eventually sorted out in house as it was felt for some bizzare reason that the University might get bad press if ithe story got out to the media!
In simple terms I think that removing the call points is an extremely bad move to put it mildly. As many people have already pointed out your insurance company will not like this one bit.
Did the fire authority in question state in writing that this was acceptable? If they havent you had better get on the phone to them now and request written confirmation!
-
It is acceptable to remove a device which is causing nuisance if no other solution is feasible.It is listed as a variation (and nit a deviation which is a bad word!!).Too many false alarms = complacency= boy who cried wolf!
-
Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service receives over 1,600 calls a year to student accommodation, most of which are false alarms. The majority of false alarms are due to a lack of information about fire safety measures on campus.
Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service worked in partnership with Liverpool University, Hope University College, Liverpool John Moores University and Allerton Community Fire Station personnel to produce a leaflet warning students of the dangers of fire and alerting them to fire safety procedures.
The Student Fire Safety Guide briefly explains fire safety measures, how to avoid setting off fire alarms unnecessarily, and the consequences of setting off alarms. The Guide includes some tips on fire safety off campus.
The results were a 40% reduction.
-
Hi shaunmckeever
I have received some information that some universities fine the students a fixed penalty.
Has any one heard of a university calling in the police and they issue a fixed penalty to the guilty offenders?
Is it not that the malicious activation of a fire alarm is a criminal offence?
Regards Davio1960
It is indeed a criminal offence under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act of 1974. It's an offence to mess about with any safety equipment.
-
mebbe some1 can integrate their personal card access system/ biometric system to a sealed MCP so tat all alarm are identifiable.
this should be an inventive step to reduce nuisance. but heck, it's no more patentable.
I think if employers started using biometic data for this purpose, employees would be unhappy. The use of personal data is strictly governed by the data protection act.
we can still use card access.
-
mebbe some1 can integrate their personal card access system/ biometric system to a sealed MCP so tat all alarm are identifiable.
this should be an inventive step to reduce nuisance. but heck, it's no more patentable.
and what about the bloke some student has sneaked in overnight and he discovers a fire first and can't operate the mcp?
surely you can expect him/ her to kick up a din enough to wake up somebody else., viz "Other Cues".
and if he is the only person, then all the more he could just walk away from it.
-
mebbe some1 can integrate their personal card access system/ biometric system to a sealed MCP so tat all alarm are identifiable.
this should be an inventive step to reduce nuisance. but heck, it's no more patentable.
and what about the bloke some student has sneaked in overnight and he discovers a fire first and can't operate the mcp?
surely you can expect him/ her to kick up a din enough to wake up somebody else., viz "Other Cues".
and if he is the only person, then all the more he could just walk away from it.
Firstly, it is unacceptable to walk away from the fire, the fire alarm system activation in many buildings summons the fire service.
Secondly, kicking up a din may or may not result in someone else activating a call point, I am not sure I would open my door if there were a din outside, pressing a call point ensures that an alarm will sound in 3 seconds. Any delay would be unacceptable. Some people might not be able to kick up a din.
-
surely you can expect him/ her to kick up a din enough to wake up somebody else., viz "Other Cues".
and if he is the only person, then all the more he could just walk away from it.
it would have to be a very loud din to wake the whole halls up.
-
Thanks guys
Lots of different replies and lots of ideas.
I have a number of observations which may help the thought processes a bit further:-
1. It is not the same call point. There are several Halls on the same site and the call point can be any one of them although as far as I can ascertain it is normally a call point just inside one of the main entrance doors. But the university has several other sites and the letter issued by the fire authority gives the university carte blanche to remove mcp's from all of its sites irrespective of whether there is a problem.
2. Keeping occupants standing around in the freezing cold in the middle of the night does not work becuase it is not normally the occupants of the building who are the culprits.
3. Disciplinary measures have been taken against culprit when they are caught but the process is long winded (3 months to get a disciplinary board together!) and then the punishment is negilgible (£50 fine). This is one area I am working on.
4. Covert cameras have been installed but perhaps not enough of them.
5. The fire brigade have put it in writing and I have a copy of the letter. I have contacted them directly to discuss the issue. Their fire engineering department has at the momnet supported their officer who issued the letter. I will be meeting them in the near future.
6. The insurance company have 'reluctantly' accepted the fire authority's decision.
7. No previous fire risk assessment was written which adequately considered the risk of removing all mcp's so not sure how the fire brigade formed their decision.
-
Shaun-i would recommend that you advertise the fact you have cctv and make it visible.
Covert won't stop them if they can't see them.Preventitive is better.
-
perhaps some dummy cameras would help
-
In my opinion, if detection were provided thoughout why not have a double-knock type system as used in night-clubs. Also if there were a fire and full detection was provided, wouldnt the detection pick up any fire prior to someone activating a call point (break glass) and alternatively do without mcp's?
-
Not necessarily. People are better fire detectors than any automatic detector.
-
and what about the bloke some student has sneaked in overnight and he discovers a fire first and can't operate the mcp?
surely you can expect him/ her to kick up a din enough to wake up somebody else., viz "Other Cues".
and if he is the only person, then all the more he could just walk away from it.
Firstly, it is unacceptable to walk away from the fire, the fire alarm system activation in many buildings summons the fire service.
Secondly, kicking up a din may or may not result in someone else activating a call point, I am not sure I would open my door if there were a din outside, pressing a call point ensures that an alarm will sound in 3 seconds. Any delay would be unacceptable. Some people might not be able to kick up a din.
unacceptable? only on paper.. the 1st rule is still life safety and everything else is secondary. besides, the ground rule is "not take personal risk". if the fire is severe enough, there will be enough heat & smoke & flame to advertise the location over long distance.
next, it is difficult to influence the choice of occupants. even if there is an alarm, some Occupants may not want to evacuate. Guylene Proulx has suggested that when false alarm is >1.4 times / year, people tends to ignore them.
but unfortunately for you, most people will evacuate. In fact, if you look at fire fatalities, most people died with a distinct behavior of being in groups then isolated individuals (social affiliation), case example : triangle shirt factory in NY city.
-
Not necessarily. People are better fire detectors than any automatic detector.
Not when there intoxicated students
-
if the fire is severe enough, there will be enough heat & smoke & flame to advertise the location over long distance.
It would be my preference (and I believe all of the sane world would be with me on this one) to want everyone evacuated and in a place of safety BEFORE the fire is big enough to be advertising it's location over a "long distance".
-
Firstly, it is unacceptable to walk away from the fire, the fire alarm system activation in many buildings summons the fire service.
unacceptable? only on paper.. the 1st rule is still life safety and everything else is secondary. besides, the ground rule is "not take personal risk".
I presume you are misunderstanding me. My point is that it is unacceptable to walk away without activating a call point. The Fire and Rescuse Service need to be summoned to protect life as well as property. The fire alarm system must be activated immediatly to ensure that all students are alerted to the presence of a fire.
____________________________________________________________
I am absolutely amazed, shocked and saddened that people are considering taking away the sole means of raising an alarm where vulnerable people sleep. I think it is entirly inconsistent with the Fire Precautions Workplace Regs (the duty to provide means of alarm, which is in addition to the need for an assessment of risk), the Health and Safety at Work Act and morals.
-
Not necessarily. People are better fire detectors than any automatic detector.
Not when there intoxicated students
maybe but if i was really drunk and saw a fire i would break the glass and then crawl really fast out of the building.
It is a big enough temptation for some people who are sober,when there is no fire.
-
hi Chris, actually apart from the MCP which raise an alarm automatically, we do have (in singapore) provision for manual alarm. What this does is a gong with a rotating alarm that you turn in cyclic motion and that generates a noise when the striker hits the gong repeatedly.
almost like the water gong for sprinklers.
-
Manual alarms such as the rotary gong, triangle & air horn are still available and used in the UK, but in specific circumstances.
Construction sites and camping and caravanning sites are the most common.
They can suit very small premises as well, although self contained single station MCP/sounder stations are also available.
There is also the oldest manual alarm of all - the shout of 'fire!' (but not in a crowded theatre...)
-
there are many better solutions we are at this time fitting STI alarmed covers to all call points these usually have the desired effect!
-
Thought I would keep you all up-to-date with progress.
I visited site with a fire officer and then sat down with him. He agreed at the time that on reflection it was not a good idea to have the MCPs blanked off.
My proposals to him were:-
1. the call point adjacent to the exit should continue to be blanked off but the call points in the flat corridors should be reinstated. It is the MCP just inside the front door that appears to be maliciously operated most often. Security doors prevent unauthorised access into the building and then again into the individual flats so the only persons who should be able to operate the MCPs are the occupants of the flats.
2. The MCPs will be fitted with a cover that requires breaking a seal before being lifted. This should act as a psychological deterrent (it is not difficult to break the seal).
3. Covert cameras continue to be used.
4. The university will take a more severe approach rather than the previous measly £50 fine
I asked the fire officer if he would provide me with a letter so that I may persuade the University to reinstate the MCPs. Unfortunately after returning to base and discussing this with his senior officers the Brigade concerned have decided to stick to their original decision. So now the Halls of Residence will on occasions have the following situation particularly party time
1. Fire doors to kitchens and bedrooms wedged open by students
2. Covered detectors to prevent accidental operation when cooking/smoking/burning candles
3. Some students under the influence of alcohol and drugs
4. No means of rasing the alarm other than using a mobile phone if they have one
5. Exit routes obstructed
The brigade concerned referred to me to clause 1.9 in ADB!
By the way bedrooms and kitchens are fitted with heat detectors and common areas are fitted with SD.
I must be missing a trick somewhere!
Just for info the brigade concerned is not London.
-
3. Some students under the influence of alcohol and drugs
.
i refuse to believe this bit.
wedging open doors etc maybe.
-
Shaun
depending on what category the fire system is but HD is acceptable in bedrooms for L2 and 3
-
Shaun
depending on what category the fire system is but HD is acceptable in bedrooms for L2 and 3
Protecting the fir escape/corridor outside the room etc....but the rest stinks to high heaven!
-
The threat of expulsion (being sent down) might not be unreasonable in these circumstances and could be an effective deterrent.
-
.but the rest stinks to high heaven!
well it is student accomodation.The last one i was in certainly did.
-
Graham, Heat might even do for L1.
-
The brigade concerned referred to me to clause 1.9 in ADB!
Clause 1.9 then refers you to clause 1.30, which refers you to BS 5839, which can only be complied with by providing call points.
-
Graham, Heat might even do for L1.
colin,can you tell me in what circumstances?
thanks.
-
The BS is not specific, but notes that detectors other than those in escape routes do not always need to be smoke.
-
The BS is not specific, but notes that detectors other than those in escape routes do not always need to be smoke.
It is quite specific that manual call points are needed. I thought that was the subject of this thread?
-
Christopher, Graeme raised a subsidiary issue. I was trying to help him with it.
-
Christopher, Graeme raised a subsidiary issue. I was trying to help him with it.
Ah, gottcha, you were replying to him, not me. ;)
-
Thanks Colin
i have usually went by smoke in rooms of sleep in an L1