I think that in reality although you have obviously spent a long time reading regulations it is you who is struggling 'principles'.
David, what Kurnal is referring to is fire alarm 'engineers' and designers fitting/specifying fire alarms to the common areas of flats despite them not being needed. If the building is built to ensure that people are safe in their flat in the event of a fire in a different flat, then why do we feel the need to raise an alarm whereby people may then end up leaving their flat and walking through smoke, thus putting themselves at more risk than really necessary?
I have been biting my tongue to some degree with regards your constant drivel. You have shown your lack of knowledge with regards fire safety relatively recently. Whereas I don't expect every member of this forum to know about fire safety, so to question whether Kurnal understands 'principles' seems a little wrong. If you don't know the principles behind stay put policy then in my opinion you are incapable of designing a suitable fire alarm system for someone, which means that someone else does the design work, leaving you simply as a glorified electrician with a bee in your bonnet about the pronunciation of something. Alternatively, if you are designing such systems with no knowledge of fire safety then you are quite possibly a liability.
What you should consider prior to questioning other person's knowledge of 'principles' is that fire safety is much more than fire alarms. Any inspector or consultant is expected to have an idea of fire growth, means of escape, compartmentation, fire stopping, sprinkler/suppression systems, evacuation procedures, training requirements, signage, dangerous substances, legislative requirements, benchmark standards & best practice, human behaviour, fire alarms, emergency lighting, maintenance requirements, fire service access requirements, arson prevention, smoke control systems, fire fighting equipment, structural precautions and many other things I have probably forgotten to list.
