Heat or Smoke detection in hotels?

[PhilB]

Did you or anyone ask why that policy was made? It was not what was recommended in the Home Office guide.

[CivvyFSO]

Or would optical detectors not reduce the risk of UFS?

I admit, HD would be the best option for management of UFS, but are we then saying the person in the room is expendable?

How about combined smoke and heat, with an alarm in the room only if smoke det is activated (with an option to silence it), full alarm if heat det is activated. That would be nice. I shall now run off and patent that idea.

And I do have smoke det in my bedroom. Main reason being my newborn son is in the next bedroom, and I do not want to be killed by smoke, leaving my son to be killed after that has happened. If you can guarantee that smoke will wake me, instead of rendering me unconcious and then dead, then I shall remove it at your professional advice.

[PhilB]

No Civvy leave it there and put one in your toilet as well I bet Pip has!! I know you were jesting but sprinklers are definately the best option.

If the person is in such a deep sleep or so drunk that smoke won't wake them then they probably won't awaken anyway no matter how many gongs, bells and whistles are used.

[CivvyFSO]

DefinItely?

Indeed. Buy the drunkard as much time as possible. Lobby EVERYTHING!!!

Although, realistically, that "drunkard" could be any one of us!

[fred]

If the person is in such a deep sleep or so drunk that smoke won't wake them then they probably won't awaken anyway no matter how many gongs, bells and whistles are used.

Quite so Phil - you are probably also aware of the little snippet in Schedule 1 Part 3 of the RRO - Principles of Prevention where it specifes that one of the principles is :-

"g) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures"

Do you think this means "let him burn!"

[kurnal]

I think its high time the policy on the use of heat detectors in hotel bedrooms was reviewed.

I fully understand the alternative arguments about the risk of unwanted signals but in these days of multi sensor detectors, possible delays of up to 6 minutes for verification of alarms by staff, analogue addressable systems, BMS and system supervisor terminals there are so many ways to avoid the unwanted signals. And if an engineer sites a detector so close to the bathroom that steam is a problem then they are not complying with BS5839, as the designer and installer has a duty to take this into account.

I have been working on one system this week with multi sensor heads that even the test aerosol will not set off the optical element of the alarm without switching the system into commissioning mode.

I would ask the following question- what is the relative time to detection for a smoke versus a heat detector. Now we can adjust the threshold of detection we should provide the earliest warning possible without causing unwanted signals. I have last week specced a new hotel with Gent S Quad multi sensor detectors throughout all bedrooms  and corridors in total confidence.

[PhilB]

I quite agree Kurnal that there are nice new systems out there that can cope with steam, cigarette smoke etc. and eliminate these unwanted signals. But are FRS recommending them or requiring them in enforcement notices?

I doubt it so the RP will go for the cheaper version and the unwanted signals increase. Don't tell me you've got a smoke detector in your room too Kurnal!!!!!!

[kurnal]

no it would be a nuisance when I smoke in bed.

But that happens less than it used to.

[jokar]

Why not have CO detectors on the rooms?  As regards what would an IO recommend, that may be easy, a system to BS 5839 Part 1 2002 L2.  It then gives the engineer the alternatives to make a decision or not on the risk involved.

[TallyHo]

I definitely have a SD in every bedroom, but not the toilet (although I have been known to nod off there in the past).  If there is a fire in my or my kid’s bedrooms I want to know about it straight away and not wait until the smoke has reached the SD on the landing.  There are just as many electrical appliances in bedrooms these days as what there are in living rooms, so why not.  I suppose you could relate not having one to a traffic policeman not wearing a seat belt in his own car cos he is a safe driver.

I have never been able to get my head round writing off the occupant/s (there could well be a family in there) of a hotel room for the sake of unwanted false alarms.  I thought we were in the business of saving lives; not writing them off because we don’t want to tip the local FRS out of their cot’s in the middle of the night.

Where on earth is the logic behind this “the purpose of the detection is not to warn the person in the room. It is to warn others before the escape routes are compromised”

You are being extremely presumptuous saying person; I would say that most hotel rooms are occupied by more than just one person.

I think we need to stop being choosy about whose life we save and whose we write off.  Surely in this day and age we can try to save em all.

[kurnal]

Davey
The research done in the past would indicate two  factors
1- false alarms caused by areosols, steam, smoking etc in hotel rooms would cause many nuisance unwanted alarms. The more alarms that occur the less people take any notice of them and so when there is a real fire many people will ignore it assuming its just another flase alarm. This is actually a powerful argument- that more people would be placed at risk as a result of the extra detection. But I believe it no longer needs to be the case with more modern types of fire detection systems and monitoring equipment.

2- If I recall correctly tests carried out at the time of the research indicated that the chances of surviving a fire in a room were not very high and that the choice of detector whether heat or smoke had little bearing on this. Obviously this depends on the character of the fire to a great extent and the technology available at the time.  The old ionisation detectors were not very good with smouldering fires and obviously the heat detector based on rate of rise would not be very quick to respond in this case.

Modern multi sensor detectors incorporating rate of rise and fixed heat detection, optical  obscuration and and scatter and perhaps a carbon monoxide sensor should overcome all of these reservations in my opinion.

[fred]

Where on earth is the logic behind this “the purpose of the detection is not to warn the person in the room. It is to warn others before the escape routes are compromised”

That was FPA logic - preserve the means of escape - not the people in the building - as opposed to the RRO where an assessment of the risk to relevant persons has to be made.

Similar but different ....

[PhilB]

That was FPA logic - preserve the means of escape - not the people in the building - as opposed to the RRO where an assessment of the risk to relevant persons has to be made.

Similar but different ....

No Fred it was about saving the people in the building, the logic was that persons in the room should be aware so there was no need for detection.

The old L3/L2 was about protecting escape routes so is the new L2/L3. However the old one was found to be ineffective as escape routes could be compromised before the alarm was raised. That was why they changed it and put detection in rooms off corridors. Not to warn persons in the room but to warn everyone that the escape routes may soon be compromised.

Yes it would be marvellous to have smoke detection everywhere if it did not cause unwanted fire signals that, as Kurnal correctly points out, can reduce the effectiveness of persons response to alarms.

Davy I can understand the need for a smoke detector in your kids room, that is a totally different situation, I would question the need for one in your room however.

I cannot believe that so many of you have detectors all over your houses but if it makes you feel safe carry on.

[wee brian]

Most hotels that are built these days have smoke detectors in the rooms. They only use heat detectors in the rooms where smoking is allowed.

seems fair enough to me. But I dont think making older hotels upgrade would be reasonable.

[Wiz]

Just a few comments regarding points made in various previous posts;

The position of an automatic detector in a hotel bedroom is often strongly influenced by the owners of the building who do not want an 'ugly' detector in the the middle of their beautifully designed hotel room. They don't want it at all, but if they have to have it they don't want it too much on show!
In fact BS5839 allows the location of a smoke detector on the wall above the entrance door in hotel bedrooms because of this. And could it not be construed that the choice of this 'unusual' position is proving that the detector's purpose is to warn the occupant of the room of smoke leaking in from the corridor and proving that it is assumed than an occupant of a bedroom should be somehow aware of a fire in their own room but would need warning of fires from elsewhere?

With respect to the suggestions of fire alarm systems that warn the occupants of a possible false alarm condition in their own room without neccesarily giving a 'full evacuation' alarm immediately, this sort of facility is available as standard on addressable and even some non-addressable systems but the use of any such 'delay' is often veteod by the Fire Service as being a potentially dangerous delay that 'could cost lives'