Replacing Part 1 fire detectors.

[Tom Sutton]

“The office in which I work has 14 smoke detectors and 2 heat detectors which are wired up to our fire alarm system.  We have a maintenance contract and have 3 routine visits to check our system is working properly. We have now been told that all our detectors need to be replaced as they are probably over 10 years old. When the alarm system is tested the detectors all work.  When one did go wrong we had it replaced. We have been informed that due to the age of the detectors the service company cannot guarantee that our detectors would work in the event of a fire and this could affect our insurance policy cover.”


I receive the above enquiry and I am aware it is recommended domestic smoke detectors should be replaced every ten years but does a part 1 system detectors need to be replaced as suggested.

[AnthonyB]

I believe many models do have this service life although it is very rare to see a firm use this or get the OK - I often see very old smokes in use, both ion & opt, and are under a quarterly contract with a variety of different firms big & small, yet none mention head age in their reports

[Galeon]

Most manufacturers quote this in relation to service life , 10 years being in ideal environment.
I do tell our clients this, as I am only passing on the manufacturers statement .

You either wish to take up their advice or not its quite simple, what does annoy me is scare tactics ie no insurance cover , so what happens if a detector fails during the period of the inspection visits , and why have 3 visits ?

You could get them to change say 3 or four on each visit so its no a big outlay.

As Antony has detailed , some jobs we have are 15 year old and they work fine , if you are getting false alarms then thats another story .

I don't think anyone is having you over , its the way its been explained to you thats half the battle nowadays.

[Davo]

TW

If memory serves, one (Closed protocol) manufacturer suggest 14 years as a life span

(I'm at home, no access!)
davo

[Allen Higginson]

Heres Apollos guide for general maintence on detectors - I (as said before) tell the clients that it as per manufacturers recommendations.Over and above this you could only really start to badger them if the false alarms start happening.
I have Series 90 detectors on a site dated 93 and still within their analogue values.

http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/editpics/207-1.pdf

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks guys for all your contributions and I used your replies to answer the enquiry. My roll is trying to give guidance to Joe public when I can, when I can’t I know a person who can.

Personally for my own edification the manufacturers giving this sort of advice is like a poacher writing the rule book for gamekeepers surely if it is that important why has it not been included in the appropriate standards. Keep it simple but Buzz mentioned analogue values could this not indicate that a detector head needs replacing instead of setting time limits or is that to simplistic? I also fully accept the false alarm comment.

[David Rooney]

I don't think you can rely on A values alone. I've had detectors that look fine on the screen but don't activate for love nor money.

And what about conventional (sorry non pc) detectors?

Like everything electronic they can work forever or fail after 10 minutes.

Practical testing is key and in "the old days" before manufacturers started building delays into their systems to avoid false alarms engineers would have a good idea whether detectors reacted a bit too quick or too slow to the test gas - not the most scientific approach but reasonable.

These days it can be a bit harder to judge.

I suppose the older a device is the higher the risk of failure, but then in the real world how many failures do you get amongst the hundreds of thousands of detectors out there?

[Wiz]

I believe the manufacturer's recommended service life for detectors is based on their calculation of the likelihood of failure of detectors of a certain age between prescribed service visits (where faulty ones would be identified and replaced). I.e something like 1 in a 1000 ten year old detectors likely to fail within a 12 month period whereas 10 in a 1000 likely to fail within a 12 month period at fifteen years old. They obviously consider the low amount to be an acceptable risk and the higher amount an unacceptable risk.

An acceptable solution to the 'problem' of 'old' detectors might be more frequent service visits.

TW argues that if detector life was important, it would be mentioned in the BS. Well, I think it is. Doesn't the BS mention following equipment manufacturer's recommendations? The BS doesn't give a definitive 'lifespan' for any equipment because each manufacturer's equipment could be of different quality. Very much like between Kia and Bentley cars! In saying that, I suppose the BS for the manufacturing of detectors could include some minimum 'lifespan' requirements, thereby providing some consistancy of quality. But I'm not sure that they do. It probably only expects that the product will be 'fit for purpose'

Galeon mentioned the identification of 'faulty' detectors by their increased unwanted alarm rate. But that is surely not the real problem. A detector becoming over-sensitive is less of a problem than one becoming under-sensitive!

The ability to monitor the analogue value of detectors on addressable systems is probably the greatest advantage that these systems have over non-addressable. However, the analogue value doesn't tell you everything and the regular testing of a detector to a smoke-like stimulus is of utmost importance.

Like everything in this world, ignoring advice from 'those who should know best' doesn't put you in a strong position when it comes to the crunch. If the equipment manufacturer says it should be replaced after 10 years it is a brave/stupid man who ignores that advice! And I'm willing to bet my magic wand that the insurance company would always use such 'failure to follow manufacturer's advice' as a reason not to pay an insurance claim. In my experience they always look for a reason why they should not pay, rather than a reason why they should!

[Thomas Brookes]

I agree with Wiz,

We always tell the customers that we recommend changing at whatever the manufactures say & if they do not want to we get them to sign we have recommended it under the manufactures advice. (To cover our arse, so to speak)

Sometime they will ask why I have put that on the sheet & I always say that it’s because if it all goes wrong and the building burns down and the detectors fail, and we are stood in court together I can prove to the judge I made you aware that your detectors might not work as they should do and he will let me go home to my family and it’s you he finds new accommodation for.

[Galeon]

The crux is that they worked on the day you tested them ,end of story .

[Wiz]

The crux is that they worked on the day you tested them ,end of story .

I agree with this argument from the point of view that you can't automatically be held responsible for something failing to operate the day after you had tested it and found it to work correctly.

However, it is not a valid argument when the equipment is past the manufacturers recommended maximum lifespan and you have not brought this fact to the Responsible Person's attention

[Galeon]

That's exactly what I meant , have a mot done and get an advisory that your tyres are legal but on their way out . Keep driving on them a month later , your car passed the mot on the day , and now you are liable for 3 points per boot.

[spanner]

Sometime they will ask why I have put that on the sheet & I always say that it’s because if it all goes wrong and the building burns down and the detectors fail, and we are stood in court together I can prove to the judge I made you aware that your detectors might not work as they should do and he will let me go home to my family and it’s you he finds new accommodation for.

  It’s true and to the point with a hint of cheak. I like it alot!