Fire compartments in respect of fire aalrm sounders

[Wiz]

Since the other BS recommendations relating to minimum sound pressure, automatically ensures that there should be enough alarm warning sounders in all areas of the building,

This is what I was trying to convay earlier in the thread but now I am beginning to question if the clause was to ensure the loss of a sounder (through fault or malice) outside the "fire compartment" so that it did not affect the audibility inside the "fire compartment"

I don't think so GregC. The recommendation talks about 'at least' one. So one would be sufficient for the recommendation. Surely, it would need 'more than' one to meet your possible interpretation.

[kurnal]

In fact half of the Firenet population might all be rounded up and imprisoned 'for failure to understand the authority's 'official jobsworth' representative's own interpretation of the multitude of daily-issued confusing laws, recommendations and guidance documents'

I quite agree. Lets get a few of them locked up - I suggest we start with that Davidrh fellow who had the audacity to ask some awkward questions and started rocking the boat. Then we will put Benz in solitary with only a slide rule for company so he can go nano on anon anon anon. Cleveland could have a cell with a bucket to save him going outside, cat could have a flap on the door and Sgt Houston would have a proper job to do instead of hounding pensioners for breaching the rules on PC.

[colin todd]

Kurnal, your view of standards is uncharacteristically pompous. It is your JOB to use common sense to interpret guidance- BS 5839-1 makes it clear that it is intended to be used by competent persons, not supermarket shelf packers for whom every detail needs to be set out in tablets of stone. It is also your job to spend time and  money keeping up to date if you are selling sevices. If you went to a private doctor you would expect them to have spent time and  money keeping up to date with technology and gudiance, rather than relying on guidance notes they used in the NHS 20 years ago before they retired and set themselves up as consultants.

[colin todd]

Wiz, you are probably correct in that, in this day and age, when people still seem totally incapable of appying common sense to simple points of principles, the rec. could be removed to make life easy for the would be experts simply to follow more definitive recs blindly without any understanding of the principles. Greg, No this was not at all the intention. The intention was as described in my earlier postings , and is something of a hang over from the earlier version of BS 5839-1, which was written more like a text book, rather than in what is known as practice specification format.

[David Rooney]

Ah Wiz! Do you not see that is is but a fiendish plot by those who write the standards to ensure a regular and steady income for themselves as expert witnesses when the meaning is tested in court.

Otherwise you are absolutely right. Some overpaid barrister whose only interest is winning the case for their client irresepective of the rights and wrongs will latch upon such wording and confusion inherent in all of the standards, guidance and legislation and will exploit those of us who have to stand on our own to feet and work for a living trying to understand the mess, We have to determine  what is a reasonable and appropriate standard for that particular installation or situation.  

We have to work at the front end and apply forsight - whereas this will then be tested and examined by those who have the benefit of hindsight and all the time in the world to examine our decisions in minutae at our expense.

Meanwhile the BSI, ISO et al think they are doing the world a service by churning out endless and overpriced standards and guidance that are in fact full of holes, errors, confusion and mistakes and incapaple of clear interpretation.

Trouble is few can afford to buy them all, none of us who have to go out there and earn an honest crust by actually doing some work at the sharp end can afford the time to absorb and understand all the  ramifications - and market forces and clients pockets are always a further limiting factor.

I dont think I have ever seen a fire alarm installation that conforms to BS5839 part 1 in total never mind the interpretations that could be placed upon it.
I continue to rely my naive belief in common sense and my (not insubstantial) gut feelings, together with a smattering of experience to do my job and hopefully hit the benchmark standard to keep me out of jail.

Spot on....

[GregC]

If you think the fire standards are a rip off you should look at the mess the Intruder industry is in, no sooner have you purchased a set of standards to comply with the inspectorates requirements than a circular is issued to say they have been replaced or are due for replacement.

It is important to keep up with standards and practises but there has to be some (wiz forgive me) Common sense applied, I have walked away from jobs where the customer doesnt want to comply yet other contractors, certified to SP203 have carried out non compliant works.

Latest job, electrical contracor doesnt want to install containment, wants us to throw the cables in above false cielings and he will sort out fixings at a later date, our response is no we cant do that, we have a site meeting on Monday to discuss why we are now delaying the project, rock and hard place springs to mind.