Legislation

[Mark]

Its a bit quiet here lately?

The Building Regulations 1992, Approved Document B
"UK Building Regulations require all new homes to be fitted with a smoke alarm on each floor and that they should be interconnected so that detection of smoke by any one unit operates the alarm in all of them"

If its statistically proven that interconnected smoke alarms save lives and injury, are there initiatives to expand this into existing properties?

Happy New Year

Mark

[wee brian]

Interconnection is definitely better, but it's very inconvenient in an existing home and the difference in performance would not justify the disruption.

Most local authorities and housing trusts use self contained smoke alarms with a built in 10 year battery. These batteries don't fit into toys or radios so they tend not to get nicked by the tenants.

I know that some social landlords do upgrade to mains/interlinked alarms when they carry out major refurbs of their properties - this seems a sensible approach where the property is being rewired.

You could talk to the social landlords in your area and see what they do.

[Mark]

I presume you mean by disruption the trunking and extra wiring, but I,m not sure what you mean by "the difference in performance would not justify the disruption"?

Thanks

Mark

[AnthonyB]

I've always preferred interlinks for speed of alarm - the first detector to go off downstairs may not wake the occupants and the smoke spread would have to get to the top of the stairs & the landing upstairs before triggering a detector that could wake sleeping occupants - the time delay & spread of smoke between the two may be significant.

All my detectors are linked and I have them in bedrooms as well, not primarily as detectors as the risks are low (no moking, open fires, electric blankets, minimal electric kit, etc), but primarily as sounders to wake people up

[wee brian]

Thats what I mean by the difference in performance. Interlinking will improve the effectiveness of the alarms but not enough to justify running alle the cables etc.

Remember that there are more health risks in a dwelling than just fire safety and a social landlord will need to adress all of them with a limited budget.

[Mark]

I understand. I read in a specifiers mag it is about £230 for a couple of hard wired alarms per property!!

But what about RF alarms. Even Dave Bevs FBU like the idea of wireless to the extent of offering £10,000 to come up with a solution. The problem im to believe is that they too are expensive and can be unreliable?

[cstodd@btconnect.com]

RF interconnection already exists and is covered in BS 5839-6.

[dave bev]

wee b - dont agree with your comments re justification, but you have an opinion and has stimulated debate. i think ant's idea of using them primarily as sounders has merit in a variety of circumstances. fbu policy is that where firefighters are fitting they should fit at least one per storey and they should be capable of being interlinked, with advice being given on how to do this.
it would be great if they could be wireless/rf but im not aware of any f&rs that have investigated this option to any great extent

[wee brian]

As always nobody likes talking about money and safety in the same sentance. Tough - that's life. If you have got only £10k to spend do you fit standard alarms in 1000 houses or linked alarms in 500?

[Mark]

If it were just cost and you could interlink 850 for !0k does the proposition look more favourable?

[Mark]

Dave

I don't think f&rs would fit Rf or third wire interlinked systems as they have to be hard wired. But could f&rs have some influence along with other stakeholders in the fitting of interlinked alarms especially if they were cost effective enough and have the significant impact that the FBU say they have quote, The National Document Section 2.

[colin todd]

BS 5839-6 provides definitive advice as to when SAs SHOULD always be interlinked and when its just a ''preferable'' that they should be. Those who fail to comply risk liability. With regard to F&RS, they need to think about their liability too. And could they PLEASE STOP installing ionization chamber detectors. To do so has always contravened BS 5839-6 and lumbers the householder with endless false alarms to the dteriment of fire safety when people are driven to disable the devices.

[dave bev]

wee b, i do understand your argument and its a valid view to hold

mark, f&r's are fitting alarms that have the capacity to be hard wired, not all of course but some

colin, i dont think posting on here will influence f&rs's (unfortunately at times !!)

i think the issue needs to be included in any training that f&rs's provide to their staff when 'designing suitable systems' - i believe more thought needs to be given on the design and suitability of systems in any given circumstances - too easy to go around plonking any type of alarm wherever it appears to be the correct place, with not enough thought given to the type of alarm that should be fitted (colins point i assume) the suitability of the alarm inc ability to warn occupants (taking into account their personal circumstances/living arrangements etc)

f & rs's MUST start to accept that there is more to home fire safety checks/visits  than sticking alarms up, they need to be more professional in terms of system design and suitability (taking a leaf out of industries practicies, skills, knowledge and expertise - they often 'harp' on about learning the lessons of the commercial world when it suits)- ANYONE LISTENING - I THOUGHT NOT! (see colin, i told you!) but then again i am a submersive influence intent on destroying all the good work done by fire authorities the last few years!!

please note: no smoke alarms were hurt during the making of this message and every attempt has been made to protect the identity of anyone who resembles the above remarks!

dave bev

[AnthonyB]

With regard to F&RS, they need to think about their liability too. And could they PLEASE STOP installing ionization chamber detectors. To do so has always contravened BS 5839-6 and lumbers the householder with endless false alarms to the dteriment of fire safety when people are driven to disable the devices.

Although this is probably cynical, perhaps it is something to do with the fact that there has traditionally always been a wide gulf in price between ionisation & photoelectric detectors. Also when the DS in question are a bulk donation from a manufacturer they always seem to give way the (cheaper) ion type.

I would say that most Domestic DS bought by householders are of the cheap ionisation type & presumably a large amount of those provided by LA's & FRS's too and could explain why numbers of fatal fires with DS fitted but US seems to crop up in the news a lot as I have encountered several people who admit to disabling their DS due to cooking and other unwanted signals.

For situations where hardwired alarms are not required the 10 yr sealed photoelectric seems the best choice, but as most consumers will look at price and not be prepared to withstand a technical bombardment of the pros & cons of the two types, how can we change things?

Of course if the EU set ever new regulations on the use of ionising radiation sources in products for the environment and safety and phase out ion detection we might not be discussing this in 10 years time. After all they got rid of Halon and we all thought that was the space age agent of the future....

[colin todd]

Davey, Its softly softly catchee monkey. Plonking smoke alarms on ceilings was the right thing at one time. The thing was to get the SAs in and save lives, never mind the quality feel the width. Its time to move things forward and introduce a bit of finesse.