Heat or smoke detection in hotel bedrooms opinion please

[wee brian]

Lambie - stay with us - it gets better.

PAS 79 isnt a proper BS its just a book - I'm not knocking it (can't be bothered to read it all).

I agree that a lot of FPOs (are they called IOs now?) dont really get the concept of risk assessment, it will take a few years for all this to settle down.

[lambie]

Thanks Wee Brian understand PAS 79 is not BS also is a lot to get through, however at least it helps those who know of it.  I can only think what exists to assist  the less aware.  Thanks I will hang on for enlightenment.

[Ricardo]

William 29

Take a look back in time on these pages to page 11, scroll down to HD in hotel bedrooms and see post no 4, very interesting histoty lesson on this matter from our old grandmaster Mr T

Lambie, dont let things grind you down, I can sense you are frustrated with certain inspecting officers (IO's) as you call them, just please dont forget there are many competent ones out there who do care, and are doing their level best to get with it and switch over to the new culture of fire risk assessments we all now find ourselves involved with, (difficult as it may appear to many), and allow the person with the responsibilities the opportunity to conduct their own risk assessments with or without competent assistance and then justify/stand or fall by their decisions, and ultimately be presented with whatever decisions the enforcing authorities decide to place upon them, from no action/informal action or formal enforcement action, a decision which should be decided following consultaion between the IO and his line manager,but I guess there are many (IO's) who cant manage/won't  accept the change (maybe old dinausars)and prefer to stay with prescription and hope they get away with it.

One thing is consistently clear with all the guides available north of the border is the sentence" Enforcing Authorities should not seek to compel the benchmarks contained within these guides on a prescriptive basis.
 
Prescription is not compatible with fire safety risk assessment and all premises will be different, with each risk assessment being site specific and decisions in respect of fire safety standards should at all times be based on judgement of risk and be justifiable, both from a compliance and an enforcement perspective.

This is a message that needs to get accross to many IO's in my opinion.

[jokar]

Two things, one the relevant person ideal is the correct one.  As stated above, heat detection is recommended in BS 5839 as it was designed not to protect the room occupants, the RR(FS)O with the definition of a Relevant person nulifies that and heat should therefore never appear again as it will not protect the occupant.
Second, fire certificates never saved a person life and were invaluable to the code huggers who required stuff from the guides available at the time.  The consideration should be of people and how they move and escape where necessary.  I have never seen a fire certificate that reduced travel distance because the occupants had a variety of vulnerabilities such as moving with a zimmer frame.

[PhilB]

But the person in the room should not need warning as the fire will alert him before the detector does....but this is old ground. My old friend Toddy explained this many moons ago and it is one of the few times that I agree with him.

The reason that the old  BS5839 L3 standard was changed, and detectors were recommended in corridors and rooms off corridors was nothing to do with the safety of the person in the room.

It was to warn everyone that the corridor was likely to be smoke logged before it actually became smoke logged. The relevant person in the room has not been ignored........he doesn't need a smoke detector.

I have been shot down in flames before on this one but I don't have a detector in my bedroom .....it is not needed....in my opinion....but apparently many on here do have them.

Perhaps CLG could produce a new guide with pictures of canaries in bedrooms.....oh now I'm just being silly!!

[kurnal]

How many people have died as a result of smoking in bed or faulty electric blankets? Surely a smoke detector would have helped save them?

[William 29]

I am not sure how Phil B's comment of having no detection in bedrooms would hold up as best advice within the FRA? VERY brave in my view to put your name on that one when it goes against all current and past guidance, including the new guides.

If it were to go pear shaped then how would this advice of no detection within bedrooms be justified in court following a fire death or injury?  I still hold to my view that under the RRFSO all relevant persons need to be considered and as such early warning within the bedrooms is required.

[PhilB]

How many people have died as a result of smoking in bed or faulty electric blankets? Surely a smoke detector would have helped save them?

How many in hotels Kurnal??? The deaths you speak of usually occur in the home and in HMOs. Would a smoke detector of woken them from a drunken slumber?

I would be interested to hear from a poster on here that has attended a fatality in a hotel in the situation you describe.

[PhilB]

I am not sure how Phil B's comment of having no detection in bedrooms would hold up as best advice within the FRA? VERY brave in my view to put your name on that one when it goes against all current and past guidance, including the new guides.

If it were to go pear shaped then how would this advice of no detection within bedrooms be justified in court following a fire death or injury?  I still hold to my view that under the RRFSO all relevant persons need to be considered and as such early warning within the bedrooms is required.

Of course all relevant persons need to be considered!

I have never said detection in hotel bedrooms is not needed, but I beleive they should be heat detectors not smoke for the reasons given earlier.

The standard for hotels (Lilac Guide) was L2 with heat detection in bedrooms and that has served us well and reduced fire deaths in hotels.

Increased smoke detection may result in increased false alarms and therefore complaceny and reduced effectiveness.

[Midland Retty]

I thought everyone realised that detection in a bedroom of a hotel isn't there to protect the occupant of the room it's to protect everyone else!

Yes the presence of the detector will detect a fire occuring and sound the alarm and hopefully rouse the person in the room of origin...but that is not necessarily its main purpose.

Whilst smoke detectors are usually quick to react some of you perhaps are of the opinion  that they react in split seconds - well I'm afraid they dont - it all depends on the characteristics of the fire - i.e; is it a smouldering fire / flaming fire? etc etc

I'm afraid in the real world in something like a single room in a hotel  or bedsit you have to assume the occupant is most likely to perish in the room of origin unless they are extremely lucky.

Do you have detectors in your bedroom at home?... No...where do you have it? On your escape routes!

The reason being that in your own home the risk room is seperate from your sleeping area (or should be) in a single hotel bedroom or bedsit containing a kitchenette it is not. (i.e. If you find the room on fire your home is the lounge yes your escape route may become blocked but you could shelter in bedroom and call fire service).

In a bedsit or hotel room by the time the room has caught fire or become heavily smoke logged there may be no where to escape to or shelter to await help.

Even in bedsits which have a single point stand alone detector has been installed with a heat detector linked to the building alarm system the single point detector has activated by the occupant has been overcome by smoke.

If you are like me who could sleep through a Nuclear Wall or an opera singer singing at full belt down your lug holes then it's unlikely a detector/alarm will wake you quickly - regardless of where it is located.

Add to that the introduction of alcohol where you really are out for the count and even slower to react then it could well be curtains

[kurnal]

Is there any evidence to prove that having a fire detector in your bedroom improve your chances of surviving  a fire in the room?

Is there any evidence that a smoke detectors offer earlier warning of fire than a heat detector?

Are hotel guests relevant persons?

Is the fire safety order not based on driving down risk as far as is reasonably practicable?

Do the principles of prevention require the responsible person to adapt to technical progress?

If fireboots give you blisters is the best solution to wear carpet slippers to incidents?

Is the best way of managing nuisance calls to ignore the safety of a group of relevant persons for the greater common good?

Is it time we reviewed BS5839 in view of advances in detector technology and the smoking legislation?

[Midland Retty]

Is there any evidence to prove that having a fire detector in your bedroom improve your chances of surviving  a fire in the room?  NO

Is there any evidence that a smoke detectors offer earlier warning of fire than a heat detector? PARTLY BUT IT COULD BE CONTENCIOUS

Are hotel guests relevant persons? YES

Is the fire safety order not based on driving down risk as far as is reasonably practicable?  YES IT IS BASED ( NOT YES ITS NOT BASED)

Do the principles of prevention require the responsible person to adapt to technical progress? YES

If fireboots give you blisters is the best solution to wear carpet slippers to incidents? NO I MUCH PREFER USE OF HIGH HEELS OR STILLETTOS

Is the best way of managing nuisance calls to ignore the safety of a group of relevant persons for the greater common good? DEPENDS THATS A BIT OF A BARBED QUESTION TISK TISK

Is it time we reviewed BS5839 in view of advances in detector technology and the smoking legislation? YES PLEASE

But seriously... some intresting comments / questions Kurnal.

Come on this is the day of the mighty fire risk assessment. IMHO any risk assessors out there whom cant answer a simple question about why AFD is required in bedrooms and most importantly be able to understand why it is needed and whom it protects - shouldnt, dare I say it, really be doing risk assessments.

[kurnal]

Yes I really would be interested in the answers to questions 1 and 2 and am sure some research must have been done on this.  If not then its time it was.

I was trying to recollect what the outcome of the ODPM commissioned research report into residential sprinklers was in respect of   survivability of a fire in the room of origin, I think the outcome was dissapointing- was it 40% chance of survival with sprinklers or have I been dreaming again?.

I fully sympathise with the origins of the argument but think its time to move it forward.

[William 29]

I DO understand the reasoning as to the detection in bedrooms protecting other persons in the hotel and not the occupant of the bedroom.  My very simple point was at the time this argument was used the RRFSO was not it force and the all relevant persons issue was not there.  I feel that smoke detection within the room would provide more protection to the occupant than heat or no detection at all.

I also agree with Kurnal's eariler comment about advances in detection and the BS should be reviewd in light of this and the introduction of the RRFSO.  It will be interesting to see what they come up with........

[PhilB]

My very simple point was at the time this argument was used the RRFSO was not it force and the all relevant persons issue was not there.  I feel that smoke detection within the room would provide more protection to the occupant than heat or no detection at all.

William at the time this arguement was used the 71 Act was in force and the safety of hotel guests was considered and they haven't been dying in their rooms. What has now changed?