Upgrading detecction systems

[goreilly]

My question is simple, when hotels are upgrading detection systems to BS5839 L2 standard (or equivalent), how are they being advised to reduce the risk of having no detection in the bedrooms whilst waiting for the new upgrade?

[John Dragon]

Our local fire service have been advising hotel owners to install battery smokes as a stopgap measure.

On a slightly different note, anyone got any ideas on the size of premises (hotel) that should have an addressable system fitted as opposed to non-addressable?

[kurnal]

I suppose it depends where you are starting from. Do they have detection - is it to L4 or L3?
I would take a view that if it has been without detection in bedrooms for donkeys years and the owner has placed an order for an upgrade then i would be prepared to wait a bit longer till the upgrade is complete.
If on the other hand the whole thing has collapsed then I may suggest radio linked domestic detectors as a stop gap to keep trading wwhile the thing is fixed.

The provision of smoke alarms in rooms to augment an L4 system would not really achieve what we are looking for- protection of escape routes by giving warning of fires in rooms adjoining.

[goreilly]

Thanks for the replies. The Hotel(s) in question have a mixture of no detection or at best detection in just the common areas. To overcome the problem you mention Kurnal there is an option to recommend a 'night watch' every 30 mins!

The problem of course is that if the RP has recognised the risk posed by a lack of detection, what have they done (within the realms of reasonability) to reduce the risk to an acceptable level now. I don't think it would be acceptable in a court of law to say I had planned to get full detection installed in 4 months.

[PhilB]

Thanks for the replies. The Hotel(s) in question have a mixture of no detection or at best detection in just the common areas. To overcome the problem you mention Kurnal there is an option to recommend a 'night watch' every 30 mins!

The problem of course is that if the RP has recognised the risk posed by a lack of detection, what have they done (within the realms of reasonability) to reduce the risk to an acceptable level now. I don't think it would be acceptable in a court of law to say I had planned to get full detection installed in 4 months.

I take your point Goreilly but surely battery operated SDs would be a cheaper and more effective option. 30 minutes is a long time, especially if the fire starts 29 minutes before the next inspection is due.