L5 Category

[David Rooney]

customers don't see it that way. They do not wan't to pay for a fire alarm system in the first place without the cost of a RA too.

Things were much better when the Fire Officer did them and told the customer what coverage he needed insted of now where no one wants to take the responsibility.

Exactly that.

Our BAFE inspectors have said that we should not mention the words "Risk Assessment" in our quotes other than to tell the customer it's their resposibility as we are not qualified to carry out such assessments.

But the customer generally says "I need a fire alarm system" and look to us to tell them what they need.

As you say Graeme, far better when the customer got told by the fire authority (who they generally trusted and listened to) as to what they needed. Now the customers don't want to pay for an assessment, but expect the fire installer to decide the appropriate level of coverage.

[kurnal]

But Dave lets not overlook one small detail.
The client (Responsible Person) has an absolute duty in Law to carry  out a fire risk assessment and to record the prescribed information if more than five persons are employed or a licence is in force.
The risk assessment cannot be considered suitable and sufficient if it does not identify and consider the appropriate means for detection and warning of fire.
If the client cannot do this for themselves they are not competent to carry out the risk assessment and have an absolute legal duty to seek competent advice.

So theres nothing wrong wth the system, its just that the client is unwilling to do what they are legally obliged to do and wants to slope shoulders.

[David Rooney]

But Dave lets not overlook one small detail.
The client (Responsible Person) has an absolute duty in Law to carry  out a fire risk assessment and to record the prescribed information if more than five persons are employed or a licence is in force.
The risk assessment cannot be considered suitable and sufficient if it does not identify and consider the appropriate means for detection and warning of fire.
If the client cannot do this for themselves they are not competent to carry out the risk assessment and have an absolute legal duty to seek competent advice.

So theres nothing wrong wth the system, its just that the client is unwilling to do what they are legally obliged to do and wants to slope shoulders.

That's all true, but my point is that the vast majority of customers (small to medium business owners generally, including a lot of private hotels) either don't understand the RRFSO and its implications, don't want to pay someone else to do an RA, don't want to do it themselves, and don't know what information is required anyway, despite the guides they also haven't heard of !

Yes they have a legal duty but they don't believe it (generally) when they are told by a lowly fire alarm installer rather than an independent authority figure like the Brigade.

I've still never had an enquiry through from a "small to medium" end user that has stated they have a RA available and that they have concluded the level of detection required for their building....

[Wiz]

No all L5 systems would need to be designed by those with extensive 'fire engineering' experience.

For example a premises that otherwise needed only manual call points but also a had a fire door electromagnetically held open and automatically closed upon detection of smoke by detectors installed either side of it would be designated L5/M

However, I understand the point being made is that those who don't understand the requirements of categories are trying to hide behind the L5 designation. But since the L5 category is designed to satisfy a specific fire safety objective other than that of a category L1, L2, L3 or L4 system then I don't see how they are getting away with it.

I have noticed recently that almost every premises insurance policy I have seen includes a requirement for at least a L2 system. Whilst I don't agree with the insurance companies just 'guessing' a category as they appear to be doing, the simple fact is that anyone not doing what their insurance policy requires, despite the findings of any FRA, is likely to be uninsured.

I think the first step these days for anyone being asked to design a fire alarm is to ask what the insurance company has asked for. In fact, in the future, I see a role of a professional FRA is possibly going to be as an 'argument' to reduce the insurance companies requirements when the FRA reveals the category demanded by the insurance company is OTT!

With respect to the 'good old days' of fire officers deciding what was to be installed am I the only one who came across numerous poorly designed systems? However, I would agree that maybe the Fire Service should take on this responsibility once again but they should then be able to charge a commercial rate for doing so and have departments of properly trained personnel to do the work to an agreed national standard.

[kurnal]

You cant please everybody. Half of industry wants to manage the risk they create and not to have public servants on behalf of the nanny state poking their noses in and telling them what to do.

The other half are too busy trying to make a living and havn't got time to make fire safety or any other health and safety matter a priority until it  bites them on the bum.  

The new fire safety order was written with the first group in mind. The second group need a robust enforcement regime to make sure that they give fire safety the consideration it deserves - always on a risk appropriate basis of course. Lancashire fire service seem to be at the forefront in recognising this and taking people on. Are they right? Depends what society wants.

[Sherpa]

For me one the main problems is the designation L 5 (life), this suggests to the customers they have a system designed with life safety as the key design parameters.

However the reality is a L5 category system can be well short of a life safety criteria, with other design constraints such as the cost or just fire engineering ignorance been the overriding factors.

Unfortunatley with the RRO putting responsibility back in the hands of the customers, they will cut corners. With no overriding enforcing authority they will try and put in the least amount of fire detection possible.

[Dragonmaster]

For me one the main problems is the designation L 5 (life), this suggests to the customers they have a system designed with life safety as the key design parameters.

However the reality is a L5 category system can be well short of a life safety criteria, with other design constraints such as the cost or just fire engineering ignorance been the overriding factors.

Unfortunatley with the RRO putting responsibility back in the hands of the customers, they will cut corners. With no overriding enforcing authority they will try and put in the least amount of fire detection possible.

Surely general fire precautions are just that - the minimum standards. When i'm auditting, as long as the AFD provides a minimum level of protection, that's all i'm concerned about. I've got a sleeping risk coming on line that will consist of a 1 hours FR room, with a door direct to a place of safety and surrounded by AFD i.e. a designed L5 system. No problem.

[Izan FSO]

Surely general fire precautions are just that - the minimum standards. When i'm auditting, as long as the AFD provides a minimum level of protection, that's all i'm concerned about. I've got a sleeping risk coming on line that will consist of a 1 hours FR room, with a door direct to a place of safety and surrounded by AFD i.e. a designed L5 system. No problem.

GFP are not "minimum standards" they are what is appropriate for the risk. if the premises is providing sleeping then the "minimum standard" is L2

[Dragonmaster]

Surely general fire precautions are just that - the minimum standards. When i'm auditting, as long as the AFD provides a minimum level of protection, that's all i'm concerned about. I've got a sleeping risk coming on line that will consist of a 1 hours FR room, with a door direct to a place of safety and surrounded by AFD i.e. a designed L5 system. No problem.

GFP are not "minimum standards" they are what is appropriate for the risk. if the premises is providing sleeping then the "minimum standard" is L2

I agree that the normative standard for sleeping is L2 - BUT - in your words Izan, it's what is appropriate for the risk, you can't have it both ways. Surely by 'demanding' an L2 (or better) in every sleeping premises, that's not risk assessment, and we're heading back to the good old days of code hugging?

What about the small sleeping premises in the guide where the recommendation is not for L2 but one of the LD standards - risk assessment!

[afterburner]

L5 is not well short of life safety criteria.
In prisons the system has to be designed in such a way that the detection meets the required needs but the actual placement of detectors etc cannot meet the design criteria in the Standard. Some engineering principles are used, system components are mixed and matched and the effect is to create an amalgam of components which provide coverage equal to L1 standards. however the variances in what is placed where denies the simple L1 category application. Following the Standard L5 / M is the correct standard for prisons.

[nearlythere]

Surely general fire precautions are just that - the minimum standards. When i'm auditting, as long as the AFD provides a minimum level of protection, that's all i'm concerned about. I've got a sleeping risk coming on line that will consist of a 1 hours FR room, with a door direct to a place of safety and surrounded by AFD i.e. a designed L5 system. No problem.

GFP are not "minimum standards" they are what is appropriate for the risk. if the premises is providing sleeping then the "minimum standard" is L2

I agree that the normative standard for sleeping is L2 - BUT - in your words Izan, it's what is appropriate for the risk, you can't have it both ways. Surely by 'demanding' an L2 (or better) in every sleeping premises, that's not risk assessment, and we're heading back to the good old days of code hugging?

What about the small sleeping premises in the guide where the recommendation is not for L2 but one of the LD standards - risk assessment!

Agree with DM. Code is minimum standard. Anything above that is overprovision.

[kurnal]

L5 is not well short of life safety criteria.
In prisons the system has to be designed in such a way that the detection meets the required needs but the actual placement of detectors etc cannot meet the design criteria in the Standard. Some engineering principles are used, system components are mixed and matched and the effect is to create an amalgam of components which provide coverage equal to L1 standards. however the variances in what is placed where denies the simple L1 category application. Following the Standard L5 / M is the correct standard for prisons.

Hi afterburner

I am interested in fire safety in prisons and am starting a file on it.

In England I believe the latest guidance was published in 1991- please correct me If I have missed something more recent.

I understand ( from rumour and speculation only)  that a current review of standards in the custody suites of police establishments is moving towards proper fire doors with seals and the use of the cell  exhaust  ventilation  system ramped up in a fire situation with no inlet air , presumably to create a negative pressure in the cell of origin to protect the corridor outside. In the past they have allowed for some inlet air if only through leakage paths round the old pattern security doors.

They appear to be moving towards air sampling systems. I wondered if this is the sort of solution you were alluding to?

[afterburner]

Kurnal, replied direct to your e-mail

[kurnal]

Thanks Afterburner. Will be in touch.