Local sounders in hotel rooms....

[Allen Higginson]

Errrr I'm a biker.... salsa.?.......moi.....!!! 

Sorry,Glam Rock is more your thing on a Friday right enuff!

[David Rooney]

oh yes.... can't beat a bit of glitter.........!!

Anyway... what about the question !!!!!

[Wiz]

I think the only outstanding question (not the original question)(or the question about sexuality) is whether a delay before voice evac is acceptable in a hotel?

Is this the question, David?

[David Rooney]

Yes I think we should leave sexuality issues firmly in the closet.... amongst the frilly shirts and shawaddywaddy outfit...... and ask youself....

"would i want to be woken straight away if there were a fire in my hotel room, or is it acceptable to leave me in slumber for 5 minutes to possibly wake up dead.......?"

 

[Allen Higginson]

"If some people have skeletons in the closet and homosexuals come out of the closet,does that mean that homosexuals are scared of skeletons?" - Jimmy Carr.

[kurnal]

"would i want to be woken straight away if there were a fire in my hotel room, or is it acceptable to leave me in slumber for 5 minutes to possibly wake up dead.......?"

 

Is that not the same as asking whether you agree with the current BS5839 part 1 that continues to recommends that heat detectors in hotel bedrooms are ok.
The outcome of the two scenarios is identical.

[Wiz]

Prof. K, surely the heat detector in hotel bedroom scenario has arisen historically because of the number of unwanted alarms due to guests smoking and the problem of steam from the bathroom. It was obviously seen as the lesser of two evils. One being the risk that a heat detector wouldn't operate quickly enough to ensure the safety of the person sleeping in the room. The second being the evacuation of a hotel for unwanted alarms is costly for the hotel and leads to lack of confidence in fire detection systems by the public. Do you think the former is a greater risk and real problem than the latter? In all events I'm sure a solution for the smoking/steam in bedroom scenario will soon be resolved by technological advances. In fact, haven't Apollo recently announced a new smoke detection technique that would do this?

Curious Dave, the reason for the delay in voice evac. is obviously for the same reasons given above. Presumably someone with the appropriate knowledge has approved the delay as a Variation. If we are talking about a modern well-built hotel, good fire doors, plenty of fire escape routes etc. etc. with the delay only relating to detectors in rooms of good fire resistance (but not of those on fire escape routes) then I think I would be happy staying at the hotel of your scenario. At least the detector in my own room would provide an immediate local warning, although I'd want the room sounder wiring to be monitored!

[Allen Higginson]

Prof. K, surely the heat detector in hotel bedroom scenario has arisen historically because of the number of unwanted alarms due to guests smoking and the problem of steam from the bathroom. It was obviously seen as the lesser of two evils. One being the risk that a heat detector wouldn't operate quickly enough to ensure the safety of the person sleeping in the room. The second being the evacuation of a hotel for unwanted alarms is costly for the hotel and leads to lack of confidence in fire detection systems by the public. Do you think the former is a greater risk and real problem than the latter? In all events I'm sure a solution for the smoking/steam in bedroom scenario will soon be resolved by technological advances. In fact, haven't Apollo recently announced a new smoke detection technique that would do this?

Curious Dave, the reason for the delay in voice evac. is obviously for the same reasons given above. Presumably someone with the appropriate knowledge has approved the delay as a Variation. If we are talking about a modern well-built hotel, good fire doors, plenty of fire escape routes etc. etc. with the delay only relating to detectors in rooms of good fire resistance (but not hose on fire escape routes) then I think I would be happy staying at the hotel. At least the detector in my own room would provide an immediate local warning, although I'd want the room sounder wiring to be monitored!

I thought that the heat or a smoke detector in rooms leading onto escape corridors was purely for the protection of the escape route for L3 and not for actual protection of that room (ie - once the heat gets as far as the doorframe and assuming of course that the door is 30 minute).

[Wiz]

I thought that the heat or a smoke detector in rooms leading onto escape corridors was purely for the protection of the escape route for L3 and not for actual protection of that room (ie - once the heat gets as far as the doorframe and assuming of course that the door is 30 minute).

Buzz, a detector in a room leading on to an escape route could equally be part of L1 systems and that might be the case in the scenario we have been discussing.

Detectors in rooms leading on to escape routes in L3 systems do have a special dispensation regarding potential siting of that detector. Is it this you are thinking of?

[Allen Higginson]

In the L1 system the aim is the earliest possible means of raising the alarm to achieve the longest time to escape - this in my opinion then includes the person in the bedroom which would mean that a smoke detector would have to be used to achieve this.
You're right though,I was referring to the mounting of a detector on the doorframe of the room for the L3.

[Wiz]

Buzz, please don't think that I am purposely 'picking' on all your posts for any silly reason,  but I would argue that the obvious purpose of any fire detection system (no matter the category!) is, as you state, the aim of the earliest possible means of raising the alarm to achieve the longest time to escape

I would agree that this would be best achieved by a smoke detector in a bedroom, but it has become a fairly common practice to sometimes use heat detectors because of the high unwanted alarms risk from smoke detectors in hotel bedrooms. The BS recommendations infer that the appropriate type of detector always is that which provides the best sensitivity butwith regard to the unwanted alarm risk, so this means heat detectors can sometimes be used. as an alternative to smoke. The BS recommendations indicate that the only place that heat detectors can't be used in place of smoke detection in any circumstances is on escape routes.

Furthermore, and I'm really not being pedantic, but it is above not on the doorframe for the L3 dispensation. Sorry to pick up on one word but it could mean a lot of difference in a court of law, m'lud

[Allen Higginson]

Too thick skinned fer that Wiz (and it is a forum after all).
The use of the heat detector in the room does not give adequate life protection of occupant of said room if they are asleep (which,after staying in so many hotel rooms,are all they are good for!) and I personally hate to see a heat in the room for that reason.Nice smokie in the middle of the room works for me.

[Wiz]

I understand the basis for your preference. The point I am making is that your preference is not necessarily a recommendation of BS. So the unknowing shouldn't be surprised to find a heat detector in their hotel bedroom and they can't say 'this doesn't comply with BS!'

[messy]

The issue of HD and detection in Hotel rooms has been discussed at great length here and it seems there's still much unease about it.

However, the example I gave of local sounders in a large London Hotel, related to Hotel suites - flats within the building. The aim of the local sounders would be to operate if a detector head operated anywhere in the suite (including the MOE hallways) and not just in the room where the punter is sleeping.

It's this type of accommodation which I believe is unsuitable for delayed actuation as an actuation involving the suite's escape route would delay the alarm. Surely that goes against the design principles of both L3 and L2 (the coverage which may be found elsewhere in the Hotel).?

[Allen Higginson]

I understand the basis for your preference. The point I am making is that your preference is not necessarily a recommendation of BS. So the unknowing shouldn't be surprised to find a heat detector in their hotel bedroom and they can't say 'this doesn't comply with BS!'

Wiz - fair enough,I am mixing what I see as better practice with what is acceptible but I still maintain that if an L1 system is specified then heat detectors do not give an adequate early warning to meet what is the aim of that category.
Reminds of the anecdote regarding the smoke detector and sprinkler salesmen at a conference in a hotel..
Both were debating the merits and effectiveness of their own product so,to settle it,the guy with the smoke detector makes the sprinkler guy an offer.
"Tell you what,lets both of us go to out rooms and you mount your sprinkler head in the room and I'll put up my smoke detector.Then set a fire in the wastepaper bin beside the bed.Only when our own devices activate can either of us leave the room"!
That's far better than my own anecdote regarding a hotel room,a bottle of Bush and cheese sandwich btw!