HD in Hotel bedrooms

[Allen Higginson]

Here's where I stick my head above the wall to get it shot at! As I am only familiar with 5839 can I sumise that if the decision is made on the basis that the chance of a false alarm exceeds that of someone being involved in a room fire,and that you are aiming to protect the escape corridor then a heat detector inside the room door would fulfil this in the same way as a smoke detector does in a L3 system.That is,the doorway leading on to the corridor is protected thus giving a protected barrier (or am I just talking out my ar..emmm,hat!)

[Graeme]

ar..emmm,hat!)

REM hat!!!
think you are losing your religion Al

[steve walker]

....  Is it therefore reasonable to argue that as fires do not start in hotel bedrooms then none of them require detection ? ..

Fred,

I dont think anyone has said that fires dont start in hotel bedrooms, just that they havent killed many occupiers. We need to consider the effect of a fire in an unoccupied bedroom or other room adjoining an escape route.

False alarms can be kept to a minimum with heat detection or a smoke detector and a silent staff alarm.

Steve

[colin todd]

BUzzy Bee, You have got it in one. Quite right. Frederick, Good to see you on the Board again! Interesting point, but what about the point in the RRO that measures to protect the many override measures to protect the individual. I could argue that SD in rooms puts the rest at risk because of false alarms..............

[steve walker]

Hotels are very keen to reduce the amount of false alarms. Apart from anything else, their customers dont like it.

Sleeping occupants could be rapidly alerted by a mains/battery domestic type smoke detector/alarm. The corridor would probably still need to be protected by a heat detector (in the room) or silent staff alarm.

I have heard that some hotels are going for the American NFPA hotel standard in order to attract American customers. I am not familiar with this standard. Does it require SD or HD in the bedrooms? I think that it does ask for sprinklers.

[messy]

There are a number of US owned Hotels in central London that use this American standard including sprinklers.

This is a very brave policy when you consider the damage that the midnight drunken corridor antics of certain stag/rugby/type groups, (including firefighter's beanos) may cause.

The corridor sprinklers are very low and extremely 'accessible'. In fact in one Hotel, they are situated by the wall, away from the centre line of the corridor, to allow a reasonable headroom within the corridor.

[Graeme]

The last hotel i was at in LA had m.o smoke alarms in each room,with an equivent grade A system for escape routes.

Why follow that concept?
I think it is substandard.

What if you get some plonker remove the smoke alarm or damage it. No fault condition for the next occupant,or they may get lucky and the cleaning staff notice it hanging from the ceiling.

[colin todd]

Messey, Even your outfit must know about concealed heads.

[messy]

Messey, Even your outfit must know about concealed heads.

These low sprinklers were'nt our idea. They were apparently installed as a result of the Fire Safety Policy of this US Hotel group.

Of course I've heard of concealed heads but rarely see them (mind you, that's the point isn't it!?)

[fred]

We all seem to be focussed on 'protective' measures - detectors of one sort or another and sprinklers - perhaps we should be opening our minds a little and give consideration to 'preventive' measures outside the traditional list of options - like RCD's which if I'm not mistaken should eliminate the potential for ignition by electrical faults.

Electrical engineers observations would be most welcome ....

[Allen Higginson]

I'm all for prevention but the one factor that you can't allow for is the "person" in the room. Certainly in a lot of the newer hotels the power to the lights and sockets is linked to the keycard being inserted inside the door,thus (in theory) ruling out heating appliances being left on. What it doesn't cover is the smoker or the one who likes perfumed candles burning in their room.

[wee brian]

The reason some US hotels use sprinklers is because Civil Servants from the states are not allowed to stay in hotels that don't have them.

Bizarely not all US Hotels have them. Classic stuff. the result is that the more expensive hotels have them but the cheap ones don't.

[colin todd]

You are correct, Brian, but I never understood the logic. Everyone knows that civil servants are expendable. Frederick, I rather like RCD's. They are not the answer to all fires of electrical origin, but they help. They do tend to nuisance trip though, which is why a lot of electrical engineers are still against them. This is mainly because they are set at 30mA, which is appropriate for shock protection. I do not believe you need them set that low if it were just for fire protection. One of my few successes in life was, back in the 1970s. persuading the IEE to require RCDs on ceiling heating systems. I arranged some test work, which showed that an RCD would prevent a fire if the happy wee DIY man put a nail through the ceiling and into the cable, and it would save him from electrocution. (The success was short-lived because ceiling heating had its day very quickly anyway when people realized they were paying to heat the Milky Way and got huge bills as a result!)