BS9999 two official typos for you

[Davo]

I went to a seminar by David Smith yesterday.
He was a major player in BS9999 and is working on amendments

In the meantime, I thought I would give you two 100% official typos for you to amend


page 83  17.6.1 Note 4
850 should be divided by 4.6 rather tha 4.4. This gives 184 and 368


page 96  19.4.4
table references should be 14 and 15 rather than 15 and 16



The seminar was useful in that I now lean towards Sir Colin's views even more (I hate the thought of discounting up to 30% on travel distances, door and stairway widths due to two clear benefits such as AFD L rather than M which would be an acceptable minimum standard in say a B2 risk profile)
(Also Table 27 ventilation still goes straight over my head)

davo

[nearlythere]

I went to a seminar by David Smith yesterday.
He was a major player in BS9999 and is working on amendments

In the meantime, I thought I would give you two 100% official typos for you to amend


page 83  17.6.1 Note 4
850 should be divided by 4.6 rather tha 4.4. This gives 184 and 368


page 96  19.4.4
table references should be 14 and 15 rather than 15 and 16



The seminar was useful in that I now lean towards Sir Colin's views even more (I hate the thought of discounting up to 30% on travel distances, door and stairway widths due to two clear benefits such as AFD L rather than M which would be an acceptable minimum standard in say a B2 risk profile)
(Also Table 27 ventilation still goes straight over my head)

davo

Davo. Are you sums right? 850 divided by 4.4 is 193.

[afterburner]

Thanks Davo

the first of the tiny red pen ammendments in 9999!

[nearlythere]

nearlythere

the 4.4 in the book is a typo
it should be 4.6


davo

Sorry D. Misread your post.
You are good at sums.

[Ricardo]

I think some of the following is strange reading,/grammar but as usual it may just be me thats being thick

page 64, 16.5.2, re door fastenings, "should either not be-----, or be fitted only with---

page 65, 16.5.6,  re final exits, d) " there is a space for a wheelchair user to move so they----

page 69, 17.3.1, re minimum number of escape routes, d) is this correct, or is it just me as usual not understanding the 50% bit?

page 83, again, so is it as said above that 4.6 is used as opposed to 4.4,  but note 4 refers to B2 risk profile which says 4.1

and finally

page 90, 18.7 bottom of page 18.7 re external escape stairs, last few words "meet the following recommendations" now turn the page I would expect to see some recommendations, but it just starts with another sentence followed by " the following measures are incorporated.

[colin todd]

Davo, I like the EVEN more bit. I know now the rozzers are in good hands. Consider yourself in good company on ventilation as the word on the streets is that a leading course provider could not explain it at one of their courses. Do the Bridewells have windows?

[wee brian]

What! they can't even explain time equivalency!!!!

Pehaps we should have rules about the competency of people who train competent people....

[afterburner]

Here's a difference on the way things are considered.

Our cells (about 4000). have windows (Glazed areas to let in daylight). All have ventilation facilities. No ventilation faclities will let anyone out. (As Davo says our clients might regard the window as possibly converting the cell into an unauthorised departure lounge).  However the amount of daylight and ventilation is subject to the European Court of Human Rights decisions on 'humane' conditions. The rulings from the ECHR are always adhered to. 

[colin todd]

This question was asked by many at BSI seminars. Apparently you just tell the beak that it was done by clever people so the rest of us dont need to know. The justifictaion was actually TAKEN OUT so people could not challenge it or exceed it. I expect the beak will be happy with that (NOT).

[kurnal]

BS9999:2008 is not intended to cover premises  occupied by persons of occupancy characteristic  D - which it describes as hospitals and residential care facilities. Such premises are dealt with under other documentation and are outside the scope of the code.

Then tantalisingly it states that under some circumstances residential care facilities may be considered as occupancy characteristic Cii. Since most residential care homes accommodate persons with a  broad range of needs, I wonder if anyone can  confirm what the committee had in mind? 

[colin todd]

Kurnal, they are not clear themselves. This is one of 9989483 known anomalies. What is written on the point you raise simply does not make sense. It shows a lack of field knowledge on the part of the committe in respect of res care.