FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Portable Firefighting Equipment => Topic started by: jokar on January 14, 2014, 08:06:03 AM
-
Hi,
has anyone any information on the above extinguisher? I believe they have a 15 year lifespan but have no labels on them; they are either foam or dry powder.
-
Check out http://www.servicefreefireextinguisher.co.uk/ and http://www.safelincs.co.uk/britannia-fireworld-service-free-fire-extinguishers/ Its not 15 years its 10 years.
-
They have a 20 year life with extended service at 10 years
They do:
- a 6 litre foam which they are going down the Euro route of marking it specifically suitable for direct use on electrical equipment, and are understood to be considering trying for a Class F rating in the future
- a 6 kilo ABC Powder
- a 4 kilo Super BC Powder (poor man's Monnex!)
Manufacturers site http://www.britannia-fire.co.uk/product/britannia-p50
Manufacturers brochure: http://www.britannia-fire.co.uk/images/pdf/brochures/Britannia%20A4%202012_single_lr.pdf
There is a lot of discussion about this in LinkedIn, some healthy, some not so as there are two individuals who hate anyone who doesn't automatically dismiss it out of hand as 'illegal'
A big upset is that it doesn't 'fit' with BS5306-3 or BS5306-8 (although neither did the very first Wet Chemicals) and not unreasonably that many users may simply 'fit & forget'. There are fair arguments on each side and only time will tell.
-
While browsing on another issue I found that 'Blue Watch' the subsidiary of the Chief Fire Officers Association is selling the P50 via their website and SafeLincs - could this be considered an endorsement? Has anybody any news as to whether or not the P50 is being discussed in any 5306 committees as I'm still a bit reluctant to recommend this before any update on this.
http://www.bluewatchshop.co.uk/fire-extinguishers/
-
We have just bought four P50 foam extinguishers as a trial in very remote, low risk and rarely occupied sites where servicing is expensive and disruptive.
It is intended to test one unit after two years, and another after three to see how they fair before we adopt them as policy on smaller sites. OK, not the most scientific approach, but it might be useful data when risk assessing this change
-
Looking at the online information, it says that an annual inspection by trained personnel or an appointed distributor (giving third party qualification) is necessary.
If this is the case I cant see where the financial saving come from.
-
One of the distributors pushing this range includes training the user to do the annual user check during commissioning as part of the purchase fee to overcome this statement.
The manufacturer's intent was always for the user or their representative to do the annual check as oppose to a fire protection company.
-
Not this old chestnut again. ::) The P50 is basically a plastic extinguisher (yes kevlar is a plastic) with 2 gauges...big deal. Does that really mean it need not be inspected by someone competent? Nonsense.
If I was risk assessing a site where P50's were installed and the user wasn't having them maintained by a competent person, it'd be a cold day in Hell before I didn't raise it as an issue.
-
The arguments over P50 and trading by fire services continues unabated , as this press release from IFEDA yesterday reveals:
IFEDA condemns article which it considers has dangerous implications
The Independent Fire Engineering & Distributors Association (IFEDA) a trade association representing quality approved and individually owed fire safety companies across the UK has strongly condemned an article which has recently been published by the Fire Industry Association (FIA), and fears public safety could be put at risk.
The article which appears in the FIA?s latest newsletter and on their website promotes both the dangerous possibility of non-maintained fire extinguishers, and the widely condemned practice of publically funded fire brigades operating arm?s length trading companies.
Graham Ferris General Manager of IFEDA commented: ?I cannot believe that after so many years of hard work in bringing about improvement to the quality standards of fire safety maintenance that any organisation would be as irresponsible as to endorse this type of cavalier approach. All major and trusted institutions within the UK including British Standards, Lloyds, BAFE, BRE and all leading insurance companies, have not only endorsed but also insisted on fire protection equipment receiving annual maintenance from a competent person.?
The article also highlights and gives support to the practice of some fire brigades trading with arm?s length companies supplying both fire safety products and services directly to end-users. As brigades are the publically funded bodies bestowed with enormous powers of enforcement under fire safety laws, IFEDA considers this practice not only as unfair competition but also believes that it raises serious ethical questions.
Colin Payne, IFEDA National Chairman, did not hide his anger when he stated: ?The practice of publically funded fire brigades competing against private companies is just wrong. The majority of these private companies are run by people who have worked long and hard to establish quality approved services to their customers. They have paid their taxes and business rates and it?s a real kick in the teeth to now find the organisations to whom part of their tax money has gone are now actually competing against them, this cannot be right.?
Payne went on to add: ?The recent article contains not only technically incorrect claims; it is also in my estimation morally wrong. To give support to fire brigade trading is indefensible, they cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher.?
IFEDA urges all companies involved in the fire protection industry within the United Kingdom to make their feelings known to the publishers of the article.
IFEDA believe it is important to have a united body fighting and representing the needs of the fire safety industry, protecting customers, and end users of fire safety equipment.
IFEDA can contacted on: 0844 225 1800, email: info@ifeda.org or visit: www.ifeda.org.
The FIA article referred to is available here:
http://www.fia.uk.com/news/fire-service-to-sell-revolutionary-self-maintained-extinguisher.html
-
Best you check out Essex Fire Services web site.
-
Hi Bruce do you mean this one? Is there any particular aspect you wish to refer to?
http://www.essex-fire.gov.uk/news/Service_signs_deal_to_sell_fire_extinguishers/
As an interested bystander it's interesting to note that commercial sales are to be directed to someone with an Essex fire email address, I thought this was supposed to be an arms length trading relationship?
-
Yes Kurnal that's the one, sits uncomfortably with me being an enforcing authority selling these products, it was always the case that when an I.O. Was asked for advice no particular company etc. would be given.
As for the arms length issue clearly some "arms lengths" are not as long as they should be me thinks.
-
Yes I had an issue with them when their trading arm tried to pinch one of my training customers up in Yorkshire. Their sales pitch was that they were part of the fire brigade (without mentioning which) and any profits were ploughed back into community initiatives (without mentioning which community).
-
It gets better (worse I should say) they are now trying to contact hospitals in the county and offer advice from the supplier of the extinguishers that they are now selling. I'm sure plenty of risk assessors on this site would love to be recommended to RP's by their local fire service.
-
I see the draft of BS5306-3 has proposed removing the restriction on classing plastic bodied extinguishers as beyond the scope of the standard. This then makes an allowance for these 'non-metal' (i.e. plastic) extinguishers. Unfortunately the servicing procedures detailed in the standard cannot be performed on these extinguishers because the pressure retaining cylinder cannot be inspected because it has a cover. So my response to the draft has been that they should not be serviceable under the standard.
-
I have also been discussing the P50 recently, even today actually. This is my view:
There is a periodic investigation to determine if the extinguisher has been used or not rather than a full inspection, but this is carried out by a user/owner and not a qualified fire extinguisher engineer. There is a difference and the engineer will inspect many other things rather than simply check that the gauge still works and it feels heavy-ish when you pick it up.
The point is that all we hear these days are 'competency, competency, competency' and here we are willing to put an extinguisher in place for 10 years at the hands and competency of a user or owner of a building. It doesn't make sense.
I serviced a school last year and the caretaker had re-tagged an half empty fire extinguisher. He didn't think he had done anything wrong, it still had water in it after all and the gauge was only just in the red! And this wasn't the only one.
Fire alarms suffer from exactly the same, according to the log book, one particular shop that we service do test a different call point every month. But without a key because they hadn't got one!
On both of these occasions our annual or 6 monthly visits highlighted and corrected these problems, so what happens if we leave them un-serviced for 10 whole years.
I believe the standards now state that engineers should carry out a basic service on plastic / non-metal types of extinguishers such as the P50, but the market place and end users don't seem to realise this.
-
If sold into the proper environment with the correct training given the principle works fine - I've several large companies that have invested properly in the P50 with the correct checks and annual inspection, with used equipment correctly identified and a defective item identified and replaced free under warranty.
Most people servicing extinguishers don't do it properly and I have little confidence anymore in the industry - it was bad enough with the odd rogue extinguisher company but now lots of FM companies, fire alarm and intruder engineers and others have added it to their services and pay lip service to a proper job. Almost every site visit reveals shoddy work.
BS5306 does allow plastic bodied extinguishers (it would have ended up in an expensive loosing court case if not) but suggests the same service regime - note the standard committee has a lot of the trade on it and so find more and more changes to increase extinguisher numbers - fortunately it's not law and in line with the risk based nature of current legislation an alternative approach can be used as long as it's justified in line with the risks
-
Most people servicing extinguishers don't do it properly and I have little confidence anymore in the industry - it was bad enough with the odd rogue extinguisher company but now lots of FM companies, fire alarm and intruder engineers and others have added it to their services and pay lip service to a proper job. Almost every site visit reveals shoddy work.
Shall we throw the baby out with the bath water or shall we just appoint a service company that knows what they are doing? Be assured that there are companies out there that do a proper job to British Standards. Maybe you should survey some sites in our neck of the woods. ;)
BS5306 does allow plastic bodied extinguishers (it would have ended up in an expensive loosing court case if not) but suggests the same service regime - note the standard committee has a lot of the trade on it and so find more and more changes to increase extinguisher numbers - fortunately it's not law and in line with the risk based nature of current legislation an alternative approach can be used as long as it's justified in line with the risks
Yes, as I mentioned further up in this thread back in 2017; the 2017 version of BS5306-3 now makes allowance for non-metal bodied extinguisher, which is all well and good, but the requirement for service engineers to be able to check the body of the extinguisher remains unchanged; and you can't do that with these extinguishers due to the cover. Therefore, anyone servicing to BS5306-3 cannot rightly issue certification to the fact. Don't get me started on the 10 year extended service dates on these extinguishers; that's for primary sealed powders only, so thats not to BS5306-3 either. Yes, British Standards are not law; the law states that your fire fighting equipment must be maintained to a 'suitable system of maintenance' only. The accepted 'suitable system of maintenance' here in the UK are the British Standards; would you be happy to say to a client that its fine to ignore certain parts of the standard because it suits? Shall we now recommend that fire alarm systems are fine to be serviced every 2 years because the British Standards are not legal documents? Where do you draw the line? Be aware that in the absence of any other 'suitable systems of maintenance' insurance companies will cling to British Standards; so beware those that are not adhering to them.
-
Funny bringing up fire alarms - plenty of places including nationals only service once a year and seem to get away with it and as we all know Sainsburys only do monthly call point tests.
Unless there's a massive court case they loose the P50 is here to stay as there are now significant numbers in service with large organisations and several fire services sell them via trading arms.
The number of firms correctly servicing extinguishers (including yours) seems to drop every year as more and more organisations start offering servicing and not doing it properly - but there is no sanction so it won't change soon, it would be great for standards to be pulled up across the board.