Smoke Cloak Security devices

[ST1878]

Does anyone have any knowledge or experience with "Smoke cloak" security devices being fitted within banks as anti robbery systems to be used while the premises are occupied?

To save time, I know there is no current legislation covering this (apart from the RRO of course), and I am also aware that such devices are covered by BS 7939:1999 which precludes use in occupied premises.

I have discovered a number of premises that have already done this, and the installer is saying that this practice is common in London, Manchester and now Merseyside.

[messy]

I have come across these several time whilst operational in London. Tescos (petrol stations) and Carphone warehouse use them as a matter of routine as do many high value premises

What is it you want to know??

[The Colonel]

Came across a number of shops etc when an inspecting officer with a FRS, we then passed the info onto the operational crews and to our mobilising control. My understanding in the notification was that the system was an anti theft device outside normal working hours and would not have been very happy with the use of such devices during normal opening hours. The effects on persons who have medical problems, phobias or other illness's could be devastating and one which might give the insurance industry a heart attack.

Surely the use of these deterants during normal opening hours can not have been clearly thought through, if they have been then I can only assume that these companies care more for thier stock and profit line than customers. How do they warn those entering that they may be the subject of such a drastic measure.

Also what about the poor operational guys and girls who are faced with confronting would be thieves looking to escape and having to "rescue" innocent shoppers. I would suggest that the first time that innocent shoppers are involved that the men in funny wigs would be very busy.

[ST1878]

Thanks Messy, Colonel

Messy, What I want to know is, has anyone accepted their use in publicly occupied buildings, which would be in direct contravention of the BS? If they have, how has this been catered for under the premises' FRA as they are using something for which it was not meant for, and cannot be described as "Fire Engineering" as it is not part of the fire precautions arrangements?

Colonel, I am with you on this. Altough it is claimed that the smoke produced is non toxic and non injurious to people with asthma etc, nothing is said about the panic induced by suddenly reducing visibility to zero in a area occupied by the general public, that for them in the majority of cases, only has one way in/out which they now cannot see. Is this not why BS7939 precludes its use in publiclly occupied areas?

It would appear that yes, the organisation may be more concerned with asset/staff protection over customer care, and hasn't thought this through very well, but as a long serving FSI maybe I am just very sceptical. I would be extremely interested to see their FRA.

Anyone else care to comment?

[afterburner]

If this device is indeed intended for use during occupied periods, it will only be a matter of time before the criminals turn up with small hand held Thermal Imaging Cameras. They get their job done and exit leaving staff and customers floundering in the smoke. Every security measure is always subject to avoidance, and this cloaking device is realtively easy to overcome with a little TIC.

[ST1878]

Afterburner

That is exactly my point. This device is not intended for use during daytime/occupied hours, but is now being sold and provided to do exactly that. Therefore how can its use be justified in the FRA? I do not believe that it can.

As for the thermal imaging camera, and I thought I was sceptical.

Thanks ST1878

[AFD]

Prior to the RRfsO I used to recommend the following when it was brought to my attention ;

Any system should conform to the following recommendations ;

1.   The system should be  installed in accordance with British Standard 7939: 1999: 'Smoke and Security Devices, Code of Practice for Manufacture, Installation and Maintenance'. The system if installed in accordance with the above standard should have sufficient safeguards to prevent accidental discharge of smoke whilst the premises are occupied and are suitable, in most cases, for single occupied buildings.
2.   The Installation of smoke security devices should be undertaken only be individuals who have successfully undergone a formal training course including a written test.  Detailed records of trained individuals should be maintained by the company so that independent verification can be undertaken if required.
3.   The Smoke security devices should be configured so that they can only be activated automatically when the alarm panel is set.
4.   The device should be fitted with a means of isolating the smoke security device from the alarm panel to allow for the independent testing of the smoke security device and the alarm system.  Access to this facility should be restricted to an engineer.
5.   Systems should not be configured to form a 'man trap', i.e. they should not activate after a person has passed so as to prevent exit or escape.
6.   Smoke generators should not be installed to cover escape routes and staircases of areas of the building that are still occupied.
7.   The smoke generator should not be operable when the premises are occupied or if the area is required for means of escape.
8.   Smoke generators should be configured so that they can actuate only when the alarm system is set in the area being protected.
9.   There should be visual and audible indications that the smoke generator has activated. These indications, should be provided adjacent to the fire indicator panel where one is installed. In all other cases the indications should be adjacent to the normal entry point to the building.
10.   The installer should inform the fire service and alarm receiving centre of the installation, prior to smoke generator being commissioned. A full test firing, generated by an alarm condition, should be undertaken as part of the installation and commissioning procedure.
11.   Prior to the installation, consultation between the installers of the smoke security systems and fire authority is essential, plans and full specifications of the system should be deposited with the fire authority.
12.   Installers of systems will notify the fire brigade of existing and new installations within *****(brigade location), stating the type and system details.

hope it helps, may need updating to include FRA etc.

[Chris Houston]

They are common in industries where there are high value, easily transportable stock - petrol stations, electronic wholesalers and presumably banks.  

As an employee of an insurer we would often recommend them for such applications.  The issue of a thermal imaging camera is not one I would worry about as our thieves tend not to be that smart and often would not realise the system was in place, for banks etc, they form only one of many layers of security.

[afterburner]

Chris, I can assure you that thieves do indeed tend to be that smart. All the electronic crime we are all so careful about nowadays comes from thieves. They may use some clever tricks, but thet're stealing. As for the TIC's, they're easy to come by. Almost every fire engine carries them and how secure are they? If the criminal fraternity can access awesome firepower with apparent ease, coming into possession of a TIC is child's play.

slight sideways step to assessing risk once one of these systems operates, what if the early response units is an armed police unit? who are faced with unknown people milling about in smoke and deciding what to do next......

I know I'm dwelling on worst case scenarios but we live in a world of 'if it can go wrong .......

[nearlythere]

Came across a number of shops etc when an inspecting officer with a FRS, we then passed the info onto the operational crews and to our mobilising control. My understanding in the notification was that the system was an anti theft device outside normal working hours and would not have been very happy with the use of such devices during normal opening hours. The effects on persons who have medical problems, phobias or other illness's could be devastating and one which might give the insurance industry a heart attack.

Surely the use of these deterants during normal opening hours can not have been clearly thought through, if they have been then I can only assume that these companies care more for thier stock and profit line than customers. How do they warn those entering that they may be the subject of such a drastic measure.

Also what about the poor operational guys and girls who are faced with confronting would be thieves looking to escape and having to "rescue" innocent shoppers. I would suggest that the first time that innocent shoppers are involved that the men in funny wigs would be very busy.

Would the human rightists not argue that burglars are entitled to an adequate means of escape also? What would happen of one got injured because he could not see where the escape door was. Wouldn't matter a heck to me but to a human rights boffin, who knows.
Would a risk assessment have to cater for the possibility of illegal tresspassing.

[kurnal]

The occupiers liability act 1957 aand 1973? covers the duty to consider the safety of your premises and take into account both authorised and unauthorised persons who may be there, and case law has resulted in the duty to consider how attractive your premises may be to children as a play area, and to install appropriate safeguards in accordance to risk- liklihood and consequences.

Thankfully under the fire safety order the risk assessment only has to consider authorised persons.

[wee brian]

Bit confused here. If the thing goes off when there isnt a fire then whats it got to do with us?

As kurnal says there are health and safety issues and burglers to have some rights (you musnt go out of your way to kill them).

The only fire safety issues are
They shouldn't operate when there is a fire and
If they go off during a burglary they could trigger the fire detection.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with wee brian, the whole drive of Fire Safety legislation is to ensure adequate means of escape in case of fire. If there is no fire then the people are not in danger from fire and the whole thing falls under health and safety.

The only other fire issue I would be concerned about is a means of warning the fire crews that a smoke security system has operated, so if they are called out because a passerby has seen smoke issuing they don't go charging in and add to the confusion.

[Pip]

I agree with wee brian, the whole drive of Fire Safety legislation is to ensure adequate means of escape in case of fire. If there is no fire then the people are not in danger from fire and the whole thing falls under health and safety.

The only other fire issue I would be concerned about is a means of warning the fire crews that a smoke security system has operated, so if they are called out because a passerby has seen smoke issuing they don't go charging in and add to the confusion.

I think our 'turnout' system may contain that info and put it on the 'tip out' sheet,plus there is normally a sticker on the door of the premises.

[ST1878]

Now we are coming down to it.

BS 7939 states that the Fire Authority must be consulted if it is to be fitted in premises with AFD, and also so that operational crews can be alerted to the presence of such a system. In this case there was no notification received.

Also as AFD is present, I suggest it is a matter for the Fire Risk Assessment to address, as it will directly affect the AFD system.

However, how the Risk Assessment deals with this is another matter. The BS talks about "double knock" to avoid AFA's, but then we are back to square one as the BS does not allow for its use during occupied periods.