FAS servicing online ????

[Benzerari]

Hi BS5839 experts:

I would like to know; if we achieve to monitor and control the fire alarm system on line, would it be acceptable by BS5839 to do the servicing online instead of sending engineer to site?  

The tests can be done by increasing the analogue value of each detector just from the office, till it triggers? And once it is triggered, the software should be able to record the test with the input address, time and date.

All I want to know is: is that acceptable by BS5839, if yes that would save us a fortune...........................

Thank you very much for your help

Benzerari

[CivvyFSO]

I would say a quite simple "no".

BS5839 does make allowances for some facilities that may be monitored automatically, but there are too many parts of the test that need someone physically there.

i.e.
Testing the mechanism of all manual call points.
Simulating smoke/heat/CO entering the detectors. (Not just simulating a signal.)
Checking call points are not obstructed/New doors haven't been created without adjacent call points etc etc etc

I suppose that it does say any deviations from the standards set should be justified by risk assessment, so if you can risk assess out the need for call points to be working, and the need for smoke/heat/CO to activate the detectors then you might be ok.

[Graeme]

as Civvy mentioned a function smoke/heat test is required.

also how would you test the batteries,if a sounder was not working,a beacon not flashing? etc

and also if there have been any structural changes to the site.

[Allen Higginson]

Hi BS5839 experts:

I would like to know; if we achieve to monitor and control the fire alarm system on line, would it be acceptable by BS5839 to do the servicing online instead of sending engineer to site?  

The tests can be done by increasing the analogue value of each detector just from the office, till it triggers? And once it is triggered, the software should be able to record the test with the input address, time and date.

All I want to know is: is that acceptable by BS5839, if yes that would save us a fortune...........................

Thank you very much for your help

Benzerari

It is a nice idea but unfortunately nothing confirms that it's working better than a site visit.
I've seen to many systems lately that the configuration is uploaded/downloaded into the panel and,provided it all tally's up okay the "commissioning" engineer signs off. Then when the service guy comes alongf and picks holes in it (wrong text, cause and effect not right etc.) he's the worst in the world!
Best I seen was a MCP that the customer was confused about when they done their weekly test - it came up as "Ask Dave" on the screen.Turns out that they weren't sure what the device text was to be and left it in the configuration as a reminder to find out what it was.

[monkeh]

nothing beats going to site to see first hand the detector covered with a plastic bag, the sounder stuffed with an old sock, and the call point with the glass turned round because someone's broken it, just begging to slice open the finger of some poor sod unlucky enough to spot a fire.

[Allen Higginson]

nothing beats going to site to see first hand the detector covered with a plastic bag, the sounder stuffed with an old sock, and the call point with the glass turned round because someone's broken it, just begging to slice open the finger of some poor sod unlucky enough to spot a fire.

What are you doing visiting my sites??

[Graeme]

getting his sock back

[Benzerari]

Testing the mechanism of all manual call points.
Simulating smoke/heat/CO entering the detectors. (Not just simulating a signal.)
Checking call points are not obstructed/New doors haven't been created without adjacent call points etc etc etc

That's make sense, that an engineer has to be physically on site to check all of that I do agree...

[Benzerari]

as Civvy mentioned a function smoke/heat test is required.

also how would you test the batteries, if a sounder was not working, a beacon not flashing? etc

and also if there have been any structural changes to the site.

for the batteries level, it can be monitored by software, it is feasible…, but when setting alarm off, that would necessitate a physical presence of an engineer, to check that and see if the beacons did flash….I do agree with that, especially if any new alterations has taken place since the first install…..

[Benzerari]

nothing beats going to site to see first hand the detector covered with a plastic bag, the sounder stuffed with an old sock, and the call point with the glass turned round because someone's broken it, just begging to slice open the finger of some poor sod unlucky enough to spot a fire.

Also, I do agree that because of that, a physical presence of an engineer is a must

[Benzerari]

Probably the idea can be beneficial for fault findings instead and more particularly for the customers who are hundreds of miles far away from the alarm company, in this case it is better to see on line and in real time the system status, so you can send an engineer to site with the right spare parts, tools....and so fourth, but if it is programming issue that can be done from the office... I used to see programmes and/or settings being changed due to a misuse by the tenants......

The idea still just a scratch

[Graeme]

as Civvy mentioned a function smoke/heat test is required.

also how would you test the batteries, if a sounder was not working, a beacon not flashing? etc

and also if there have been any structural changes to the site.

for the batteries level, it can be monitored by software, it is feasible…, but when setting alarm off, that would necessitate a physical presence of an engineer, to check that and see if the beacons did flash….I do agree with that, especially if any new alterations has taken place since the first install…..

the panel can tell you charging voltage and battery voltage. It can't tell you what date it was installed nor if it will pass a full load simulation.

the remote interrogation of the panel is ideal for customers miles away who may need an event log taken,password changed etc but  if a customer asked me to remotely isolate a device i would still be wary,unless i was there myself.

[Benzerari]

as Civvy mentioned a function smoke/heat test is required.

also how would you test the batteries, if a sounder was not working, a beacon not flashing? etc

and also if there have been any structural changes to the site.

for the batteries level, it can be monitored by software, it is feasible…, but when setting alarm off, that would necessitate a physical presence of an engineer, to check that and see if the beacons did flash….I do agree with that, especially if any new alterations has taken place since the first install…..

the panel can tell you charging voltage and battery voltage. It can't tell you what date it was installed nor if it will pass a full load simulation..

The monitoring process of the batteries level as well as the mains power supply including earth fault....can be done with analogue addressable systems, the monitoring can be done on line and in real time  just need to know the protocol of communication of the system.... it is just a programming issue..... The panel has to be linked to a phone line through a compatible modem.... etc

the remote interrogation of the panel is ideal for customers miles away who may need an event log taken, password changed etc but  if a customer asked me to remotely isolate a device I would still be wary, unless i was there myself.

That is right! I do agree with that,   that is why the idea still just a scratch, but it is not impossible, it could be beneficial in some how..... =)

[CivvyFSO]

I can see how many aspects of a system could be monitored remotely, but there are many items on the service schedule that seem to require someone to actually be there. I would imagine (if you wanted to achieve this) one of the main cost savings could be in wages. You might be able to get relatively unskilled people to perform the remaining functions, or at least make the actual physical part of the service much quicker.

[Benzerari]

I can see how many aspects of a system could be monitored remotely, but there are many items on the service schedule that seem to require someone to actually be there. I would imagine (if you wanted to achieve this) one of the main cost savings could be in wages. You might be able to get relatively unskilled people to perform the remaining functions, or at least make the actual physical part of the service much quicker.

In some how it could be a pretty small 'yes', but I am not looking at all, to increase 'unemployment rate' or reduce the fire alarm engineer’s income. The fire alarm engineers still well wanted in this country. Also, employment agencies are eagerly seeking fire alarm engineers, and above that 'fire industry' is the second growing sector in UK, after IT, probably in few years it will be the first we never know... so no worry at all about that, as long as the law is strongly backing this industry… but, probably the servicing in the future may change a little bit, it may require more skilled fire alarm engineers in both IT and electronics so they can do part of the service from home through ‘dial in’ connections and the rest when they turn up to site…

All I am trying to do is, using what the technology is providing to us, 'IP communication' can be used in fire alarm systems too,  to monitor our customers sites, probably it can give a good reputation to the company i.e. just imagine when you inform the customer located hundreds of miles far away from you, that his system is faulty and you give him the details of that by phone, and more particularly how can you deal with, and once the customer check his system he can just confirm what you said... and probably you can get the purchase of the job quickly...

It still just a pretty scratch project…