How to identify the different types of detector

[Graeme]

try all manufacturers web sites and down load the liertature with all the pics you want with most makes.

it's easy for engineers to sit and tell you how easy it is to tell what is what but each to their own,so the sites should help.

http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/

http://www.hochikieurope.com/

http://www.systemsensor.com/

http://www.gent.co.uk/gent.php

http://www.cooper-ls.com/pdf_menfire.html

[Clevelandfire]

try all manufacturers web sites and down load the liertature with all the pics you want with most makes.

it's easy for engineers to sit and tell you how easy it is to tell what is what but each to their own,so the sites should help.

http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/

http://www.hochikieurope.com/

http://www.systemsensor.com/

http://www.gent.co.uk/gent.php

http://www.cooper-ls.com/pdf_menfire.html

Thank you Greame well said.

How silly to say that if you cant identify a detector you arent competent to d a risk assessment as Thomas said - but his comment has strangely been deleted! I wonder if he is feeling a bit silly

[Thomas Brookes]

I do not feel silly at all, just did not want to get in to a slagging match, as always this is my personal opinion I still feel that a high level of knowledge on fire detection is required when carrrying out a fire risk assessment, same as I feel that indepth knowledge on emergency lighting, fire doors fire stopping etc etc are required.

When you assess a building how do you come to the end conclusion of if the buildings fire alarm system is suitable and sufficient.
I have seen some really poor assessments and I am very sorry to say some from ex FF and many just either say "automatic fire alarm system installed" or something like " Fire Alarm should comply with British standards or worse current regulations".
It depends how much help to the client you want the assessment to be.

A recent example, a four storey building ground and first floor used as a nursery, basement storeage top floor office. The block had just been renovated new electrics, fire alarm plaster, fire doorsetc etc. Local Fire officer (risk manager i think they are now called) called round checked the paperwork and building out and told them everythings ok apart from no fire risk assessment.
When I assessed the building there were over 20 reasons why the fire alarm did not  conform to BS5839-1-2002 L2 (thats the spec that building control wanted it to) some of the issues are : No detection within 1.5m of any of the four lift openings, 2 x doors leading outside do not have call points, detectors only 30cm away from the wall, no as fitted drawings, no void detection, no zone map, sound level to low in staff room, security door locks not wired to fire alarm system, no emergency light near fire panel, detectors to close to aircon unit outlet, no design/installation or commissioning certificates, no loft detection there were loads of minor ones as well but you get the idea.

Now I can gaurentee that if someone looked at that building who does not have indepth fire system knowledge they would have signed that up as the fire alarm being suitable and sufficient, and I find this time after time after time with fire alarm systems.


I would like to know from a FF exactly how much knowledge gives you enough competence to carry out a fire risk assessment, esspecially the knowledge on fire systems, as for being just an engineer "I wish" It would have saved me ten years of study and hard work.

The Government guide books on the RRFSO state Competent person is:
Quote "A person with enough training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable them properly to assist in undertaking the preventive and protective measures". So, I can understand from the fire services perspective how much training, experience or knowledge on fire detection is enough, again my personal opinion but every course on fire detection I have ever done, knowing the difference between smoke and heat detectors siting of them and how they detect is really basic knowledge level.

[kurnal]

When I assessed the building there were over 20 reasons why the fire alarm did not  conform to BS5839-1-2002 L2 (thats the spec that building control wanted it to) some of the issues are : No detection within 1.5m of any of the four lift openings, 2 x doors leading outside do not have call points, detectors only 30cm away from the wall, no as fitted drawings, no void detection, no zone map, sound level to low in staff room, security door locks not wired to fire alarm system, no emergency light near fire panel, detectors to close to aircon unit outlet, no design/installation or commissioning certificates, no loft detection there were loads of minor ones as well but you get the idea.

Now I can gaurentee that if someone looked at that building who does not have indepth fire system knowledge they would have signed that up as the fire alarm being suitable and sufficient, and I find this time after time after time with fire alarm systems.

Yes some of those are very significant  and it begs the question as to how the building could have been approved and completion certificate issued  without sight of comissioning certs.

I too find time and time again that the risk assessment carried out by the Responsible Person (rather than a consultant) inevitably starts from an assumption that the building and its systems were suitable and sufficient and things like layout, provision of means of escape, travel distances, exit capacities, fire alarm systems, escape lighting are already installed and therefore must be to a satisfactory standard. Now that would be ok in a brand new purpose built building- but even then would depend on the building control agencies being diligent and doing their job properly, which sadly too often is not the case, as you describe.

I would raise the variations in the risk assessment report and suggest that my client chases all parties involved to put it right- from architect to contractor and the building control - theres a role for no win no fee litigation here.

[Thomas Brookes]

Some times I am not sure building control even look at the buildings fire alarm systems, I have been involved in quite a few cases as the expert witness involving BS5839-1.
One not to long ago involved a multi million pound extension on a factory where the fire alarm was a total discrace, the faults went into dozens of pages. The electrical contractors fortunately saw sence before court and agreed to put right the whole system right at a cost of many thousands of pounds.
Building control admited that they only looked at the certificates the sparkys issued and not the work, then in a phone conversation with the electrical contractors Managing Director he admitted that the company did not even own a current copy of BS5839-1-2002. You would be horrified if I gave the name of the company (sorry I would not give the name so don't ask) but this company turns over several million pounds a year and are a very large electrical contractors.

[Graeme]

quite a common story regards Sparkies botching fire alarms ....

see it all the time

[Galeon]

So if they belong to one or both of the two big trade associations , why were they not reported and action taken .

[Thomas Brookes]

Not sure about other bodies but NIC will only accept a complaint after the customer has contacted the electrician to sort problem out, and they will not accept it off a third party.

In all the cases I have been involved with the sparkys have agreed to sort out the problems.

[Clevelandfire]

Thomas I saw your post on another thread about how you felt about my reaction to my comments on this thread. As such I would like to clarify what I meant which was all done tongue in cheek I might add.

You are quite right that a risk assessor should be fully conversant with the standards and categories of fire alarm system to be classed as competent. However as you will appreciate heat and smoke detectors now look identical and it is neither practical or feasible as an inspecting officer or indeed an asessort to get up ladders to remove detector heads to establish what type of detector they are. I use the example of a hospital where there can be thousands of detector heads to plough through.

That doesnt make me incompetent, as I know the distances , type, category and ammount of detectors that should be present in any given building it just highlights the fact that detectors should be marked by a universal system so at a glance everyone can tell what they are.

In the olden days you could easily distinguish between a heat and smoke detector just by looking at them. Then if you wanted to know if the heat was RoR or FT head you might have to consult schematics or consult the fire alarm engineer.

This again doesnt make me an incompetent risk assessor. However you seemed to suggest that by not being able to distinguish what type of detector head it was by looking at it meant you were incompetent. That is not true and I would respectfully point out that the IFE wouldnt bother replying to you if that was your argument. People reading this thread might assume from your comments that the IFE were incompetent and unprofessional which is not the case. Hence why I reacted why I did. I admit, as my wife gently told me after i asked her to read it, that the tone of what I put did come across as aggresive and innappropriate. But hopefully you now see what I meant, and why in a sense i sneared at it.

I do however fully agree that a competent risk assessor must know what should be installed and where, and be able to identify a non compliant system or when something is amiss as you describe in your later post.

We all seem to agree that a universal marking system is required now with modern heads otherwise this problem will continue. On older systems the problem does not exist as the heads can be distinguished easily but as I say you cant someone is competent just because on modern systems they look at a head and cant tell what it is.

I wouldnt have time to get off each head and look at it. Id be amazed if any client would pay an assessor the time do this when the fire alarm engineer already knows whats there - so the assessor would liaise with the fire alarm engineer on big sites or consult plan drawings of the installed fire precautions.

[Thomas Brookes]

Clevelandfire, Thanks for you reply.
I agree it would be great if all the detector manufactures used a set of markings that we all understood but, unfortunately it will never happen. In my original statement I was not saying everyone must take down every detector, but some one had asked for ways to tell different detectors and taking one down is a surefire way of knowing exactly whats is installed. In most buildings there will be mostly smoke detectors, so in worst case you may need to take down an odd detector here or there if you need to know at what temp the detector will activate. The better way would have been for the fire alarm installer to have left as fitted drawings and a detector list, but as we all know it does not happen very often.


As for the IFE, I have never said they are not competent and would never do so as I do not know enough about them to come to that sort of conclusion. I have my own personal opinions on IFE but I would like to keep them that way, I only stated that I had asked why they do not insist on a high level of working knowledge of fire detection systems for people on their fire risk assessors register and was never given an answer.

[Allen Higginson]

Morning Thomas - I would agree that as fitted should be left with the customer (and should be as part of the handover).The problem is sometimes the customer isn't necessarily the occupier - it certainly would make my job a lot easier if it was the case that they were left on site.
To be honest,we mount a fully marked up zone plan next to the FAP.
If everyone followed Apollo's method then ID-ing detectors would be easy.

[Clevelandfire]

Clevelandfire, Thanks for you reply.
I agree it would be great if all the detector manufactures used a set of markings that we all understood but, unfortunately it will never happen. In my original statement I was not saying everyone must take down every detector, but some one had asked for ways to tell different detectors and taking one down is a surefire way of knowing exactly whats is installed. In most buildings there will be mostly smoke detectors, so in worst case you may need to take down an odd detector here or there if you need to know at what temp the detector will activate. The better way would have been for the fire alarm installer to have left as fitted drawings and a detector list, but as we all know it does not happen very often.


As for the IFE, I have never said they are not competent and would never do so as I do not know enough about them to come to that sort of conclusion. I have my own personal opinions on IFE but I would like to keep them that way, I only stated that I had asked why they do not insist on a high level of working knowledge of fire detection systems for people on their fire risk assessors register and was never given an answer.

Whoops i read your original post again Thomas and now realise I have totally got the wrong end of the stick of what you were saying.

Here is me preaching on about what how I get annoyed when people dont read what I put properly and yet I dont seem to be able to read other people properly. What an idiot I am.

Thomas I unreservedly apologise to you and hope i haven't put you off from using this site.

[Wiz]

A standard system of being able to visually identify the 'type' of any fire detector without having to remove it and/or consult manuals, is such an obviously sensible idea it is a wonder it hasn't already been agreed by all equipment manufacturers.

In my opinion, reliance on site records or 'as fitted' drawings still leaves potential problems. In non-addressable systems, in particular, it would be very easy to inadvertantly 'swop' a smoke and a heat without anyone realising, creating a potential serious situation.

[Galeon]

I would agree with your particular comments in relation to the conventional side ,you stand half a chance if you look at the chamber say Apollo or Hochiki and some others , but on some systems the head looks the same and you make it a smoke or heat by using a dil switch on the rear of the head , so in a corridor you have no choice but take the head out and look for yourself.

[Midland Retty]

Galeon / Wiz

Totally agree with you and perhaps something that does need to be pushed for is a universal system of identification