Fire alarm zoning in care homes

[Graeme]

I have been in exactly your position Graeme, so I understand your frustration. Your customer is putting themselves in a position that they may come to seriously regret. The other advice won't absolve them from ultimate responsibility.

You have done everything expected of you and you can't do any more, based on the way these things work these days.

What are your own suggestions as to how this sort of dilemma could be solved?

I will try Wiz-here goes.


I feel that the stage we are at now with fire systems is that the engineer who signs is the engineer who is the person who carries the can if something goes wrong.

In theory this should only produce good engineers who if have any sense will never sign off any job he/she is not 100% happy with or in the case of existing systems highlight every possible flaw in the site.

As this huge responsibility now falls onto a single engineer not a business then the engineers should be given more respect for the knowledge of a fire system they have,in most cases more than a risk assessor does.

What he recommends should not be overridden by someone looking at the system for the view that "it will work in a fire if needed" but an engineer view of "that won't work if this happens" etc.


Yes there may be  afd on this site but this does not take into consideration that they are 20 years old,ten years past their recommended working life.
Most probably will work but in my experience as in B+B's and carehomes, some don't,some become more sensitive causing unwanted alarms,some become less sensitive and most this age are ionisation which due to it's sealed chamber cannot be cleaned fully to remove dust build up.

and the call points if there is a fire-will the person be prepared to loose a finger as there are no hammers to break the glass?

And as mentioned with Sparks. We (fire engineers) have to take numerous courses etc to make us competant in our jobs.
We are not allowed to undertake any electrical work unless we are a member of etc etc and qualified.

This is meant to go for fire now but i am yet to see it happen and i have yet to go to an install that has been done correctly and is fault free and ready to commission by an electrical contractor.

In a nut shell when a fire engineer tells you your system is a bag of spanners then take him seriously as he is not trying to rip you off but save you neck and sparks on site-don't laugh when you are asked to produce as fitted drawings with cable routes as this will save you hours when you come to fix all your mistakes and realise that your job cannot be signed off as a fully compliant system unless you produce an installation certificate,as fitted drwings etc to the commission engineer.

sorry for rant but these things are far too common in my every day life.

[kurnal]

Good points well made Graeme.
But where does the source of the problem lie?

Every field has its cowboys out to make a fast buck.
Most of us dont like to pay more than we need to for safety systems and are always looking for a bargain.

Like everything else fire alarms are getting more and more technical and the realm of the specialist engineer. Few of us have the specialist knowledge to see through the bull if someone wants to pull the wool over our eyes.

Buildings are becoming more complex and incorporating an increasing number of complex systems- and traditional approaches are being overtaken by engineered solutions.

Many of these installations are equally or more complex than the fire alarm systems- ventilation, sprinklers, fixed installations etc. And all need to work in concert in a co-ordinated way to ensure the building remains safe to use.

But its my experience that often the sprinkler installer does not understand or think about how his product relates to the ventilation system and vice versa.

And heres the nub- most enforcers - whether fire service or building control- are jacks of all trades of varying levels of skill and experience who have been left way behind by the technology and do not have the insight to really understand what they are looking at. And as a former fire officer - gamekeeper turned poacher if you like- I class myself amongst them. And with the downskilling of most fire safety enforcement departments and further propsed deregulation of Building Control  which I believe is taking place throughout the UK things are ominous for the future.

The engineers need to be more co-ordinated and the enforcers more competent in my opinion.

[Paul2886]

Well, thank you all for your interesting replies to my original comments. I am new to this site and impressed by the levels of knowledge and experience of the replying users

[Graeme]

The engineers need to be more co-ordinated and the enforcers more competent in my opinion.

Kurnal-totally agree

[Wiz]

Graeme,
I agree with professor Kurnal that the points you made were valid and fully explain why we engineers often have to defensively explain that 'you shouldn't shoot the messenger'.

Just because we are offering to solve the problems we have found, doesn't mean the problems don't exist. In fact we could be putting ourselves in a position of potentially defrauding the customer if the problems didn't exist.

Furthermore, unless the person providing contrary advice is technically able to understand the ramifications that the problems may cause, and, more importantly, is willing to stand up in a court of law to justify their advice to ignore the problems found, then their own advice should not be accepted by any customer.

[Graeme]

True Wiz but in most cases the customer will always believe the person who is going to cost them the least money.

[Redone]

Very late join in Paulm2886...

If a substantial number of residents require assistance to leave, then the responsible person should understand that an L1 system is required, fully addressable to enable a rapid response, and probably requiring repeat panels.

When training I film and time the response for investigation and evacuation, few homes achieve anything satisfactory without the system to provide the precise information for a confident staff to instigate a functional tested fire plan.

Mitch.

[Paul2886]

Hi Mitch, Yes I totally agree with your comments as I also spend a lot of time in care homes.
Whilst an addressable system would improve things how can you tell an owner to rip out his old system to install a new one. It just won't happen although I have had some success in this area. New builds are a different story and I think that professional advice should be sought from a competant fire RA prior to the installation of an AFA system in any care home.
Too many care home have a totally inadequate zoning system, and your point and mine; what's the point of a FA system if the staff have difficulty in using the time given by an activated smoke head by having to conduct a long winded search?

[Redone]

As long as the responsible person can prove they have a tested fire plan in place...

[Graeme]

regradless of wether the fire alarm system they have is a shambles?

This is what i am coming across more and more now.

systems that are badly installed,outdated etc are ok  to someone who looks at them from a risk assessment point of view not a technical one.

The systems that i have been advising customers to be upgraded not only have very old afd which could cause unwanted alarms or not work but have spurred off wiring from sounder and zone circuits etc etc

If you take the other persons view of it will work if needed which most customers will go for instead of my view that what if a worker cuts though a spurred off cable for the zone wiring during some alterations?

result - no detection on the cut off cable and no fault condtion at the panel.same goes for the sounder circuits.


this has already been proved to be the case at a job last week where i found half of the 1st floor not working because someone had cut a cable.
It was an electrician who tested the twin and earth cable with an inductance tester,assumed it was dead as 24 volts does not register on this tester and cut it. No fault on panel so sparky thinks everything is okay.
 
This was never highlighted to the user as i found he did his weekly test via the evacuate button on the control panel.

If this was a properlly installed system with fire resistant cable then this would have never happened.

but the owner has been told the system is okay.