ACCREDITED FIRE ALARM ENGINEER CAPABILITY

[AFD]

Should an accredited fire alarm service engineer, be able to identify detection zones that are incorrect, and rectify them during routine servicing. 

The key part of my question is should they have the knowldge to identify a zone problem ?

and should they pick it up during a routine service contract ( 6 monthly service etc.) ?

[Allen Higginson]

He should be able to notice when a zone isn't what it should be,but as far as rectifying the problem during a normal service/maintenance visit I'd have to say unlikely unless it's handy to ammend the configuration (and he/she feeling in a good mood).If it's a physical issue (ie - wrongly cabled,isolators wrong etc.) then thats a seperate issue altogether.

[Galeon]

Depends on who you get to do the job in the first place , any decent (engineer) technician and thats another story , should be able to service and maintain the system as per the requirements of the manufacturer and relevant British Standards .

However if the company applies the same mentality as I have seen in some garages , then you will end up with a lad who is still learning , now here's the crux , is the client still paying full belt in the money stakes.

I leave room for more comment.

[AFD]

Do the modules ( FPA ? )that qualify someone as an service engineer, cover these items ?

Would they be expected to identify, and be able to rectify a problem with zones ?

I am not talking about payment ( that is a different issue ) , but about if they are able to, and should point this out during routine servicing, and are they qualified to deal with it ?

Is there someone from an accrediting organisation who can answer this, please ?

[Allen Higginson]

Depends on who you get to do the job in the first place , any decent (engineer) technician and thats another story , should be able to service and maintain the system as per the requirements of the manufacturer and relevant British Standards .

However if the company applies the same mentality as I have seen in some garages , then you will end up with a lad who is still learning , now here's the crux , is the client still paying full belt in the money stakes.

I leave room for more comment.

Well,I seen an ad recently for a fire alarm service engineer with an OTE £20,000 (including call out) with a van - don't mean to be funny but if thats what you are looking for then a fully qualified Solo test gas sprayer and MCP key installer you are going to get!!
So yes,there are companies happy to send young guys/gals out to do the boring and routine maintenance jobs that the rest of us just wish the odd time turn up something to stretch the grey matter!
If it is the first inspection of a new contract then a special inspection should be carried out by someone with competancy to note major areas of non-compliance (which would be someone who knows what to look for) - after this has been done and the client is made aware then it is test/service & report what is on site.
However,the definitions of "major areas of non-compliance" does not specifically relate to design issues (which includes zoning) unless you can use number 9 - changes in the use, layout and construction of the protected premises that may impact on the effectiveness of the system.This may cover zonal discrepancies

[Galeon]

Should an accredited fire alarm service engineer, be able to identify detection zones that are incorrect, and rectify them during routine servicing. 

The key part of my question is should they have the knowledge to identify a zone problem ?

and should they pick it up during a routine service contract ( 6 monthly service etc.) ?

If your man is carrying out routine testing to the system he should ensure that the specific device operates the correct zone . There is no argument with that one.
All he needs to do is advise the customer ant defects arising from service , including the above.
Then it gets straightened out .

Now if its a case that you (possibly) the client ? already have knowledge that this matter was pre existing before the next firm took over , and they have missed it , which they shouldn't as % testing covers every zone thats another matter.

Ergo if you aint getting the service you expect , and compliance , change to another company.

If there were some small changes ie software zones and it was on a site we took over , then sure we would do it there and then , but if its conventional more in depth then you would expect an additional cost .

The question also needs addressing , who mullered it in the first place , and were they accredited , and can you redress the situation with them.

[Wiz]

I would strongly argue that it is not the job of an engineer carrying out 'routine service' to establish if any devices are located in the 'wrong' fire zones.

BS only asks that devices are tested for correct operation on service visits and not that they operate the correct fire zone on the control panel.

The allocation of devices to fire zones were originally the responsibility of the system designer, they should have been checked by the original system commissioning engineer (or for subsequent modifications by the modification commissioning engineer) and, possibly, as has been previously noted, by the service company on their first 'special inspection' visit.

A service engineer carrying out routine service is doing so to a system that has to be accepted as being complete and perfect from a design and installation point of view, otherwise he would have to carry out a full system commissioning on every visit!! The only other thing that he should do is look at changes to the structure or use of the building that has affected the proper operation of the system originally installed.

[GregC]

In theory the engineer is there to test the system to make sure its operational and serves its purpose, nice bit of grey as to where the operation and design requirements differ, you cant expect an engineer or glorified cleaner as I call them, to have in depth knowledge of specific sites, especially large 400+ device sites, it is as much as they can do to fill out the paperwork correctly

However to differentiate them from being called glorified cleaners they should have the pride and intelligence to go that extra step and identify where problems exist, its not down to them the preach code to end users, that their managers job 

[AFD]

BS 5839 states that during routine servicing ;

""The fire alarm functions of the control and indicating equipment should be checked by the operation of
at least one detector or manual call point on each circuit.

The cause and effect programme should be confirmed as being correct.""

Don't you think both of those, relate to, if a detector activates, it should provide the correct information at the panel ?

Whats the point of it, activating and actioning something in the wrong zone.  Aren't they supposed to check the zone plan.

Other contributers seem to indicate that the service engineers don't know very much about BS5839, yet the list of items covered by routine servicing, indicates checks on design and positioning.  I think they might be right, they get in and out ASAP.

I have looked at many sysyems installed, designed and serviced by accredited contractors and none of them comply with the BS.  But the engineers never mention it on servicing. 

If you ask the same company to come in and certify it as a certain category, they will come in and point out additional work and items in the wrong position, all to get extra money.  Yet their engineers have been servicing it for years and the faults found are part of the routine service, look at the list.

If you say change companies, they have and it is not any different.  The industry is very poor.

[Allen Higginson]

Your original post was "Should an accredited fire alarm service engineer, be able to identify detection zones that are incorrect".From this I assume most took this to refer to actual zone design,as opposed to incorrect indication on the CIE in relation to the zones as indicated on the zone chart.
If that is the case then the engineer should be highlighting that as it should be pretty obvious.
It is unfortunate however that you live in an area where it appears all of the companies seem to be non-compliant to the standard,but if the customer wants to get their installation maintained on the cheap by a company charging little more than their hourly cost price (in the hope of picking up "extras") then good luck to them!

[Wiz]

BS 5839 states that during routine servicing ;

""The fire alarm functions of the control and indicating equipment should be checked by the operation of
at least one detector or manual call point on each circuit.

The cause and effect programme should be confirmed as being correct.""

Don't you think both of those, relate to, if a detector activates, it should provide the correct information at the panel ?

...........................

AFD, those items from the BS are still not categorically and clearly recommending that a service engineer checks that a detector is located in the 'correct' zone. If they were meant to, I believe it would clearly say such. By the time that servicing is carried out on a system, the implication of the recommendations of BS are that this type of thing has already been correctly designed by the designer and that the actual installation has been checked by the commissioner.

The BS recommendation of the testing of a device per circuit is really only testing that each panel circuit does what it is meant to do, and not that every detection device is in the 'correct' fire zone

The recommendation for checking 'cause and effect' relates to only to programmable systems and is really only in respect of checking that those variable programmable functions have not altered. I accept that zone allocations are programmable on some panels, and it could therefore be argued that these should be checked on such a panel as a C&E, but you still wouldn't have to check them on a non-programmable panel and I think the BS is more concerned about output relays etc. functioning when they should rather than zone indicators not working (which in the whole scheme of things is a minor problem).

I accept that a good fire alarm engineer should be perfectly capable of being able to check the installation of devices to the correct zone allocations, but BS clearly doesn't ask a service engineer to do this.

Obviously, I am only considering BS recommendations. If the customer has specifically asked for this (or anything else) as part of the servicing routine, then it should be carried out.

Most companies provide, and most customers want, 'Servicing to BS recommendations'. Why do something over and above the precise requirements of BS? If you want to be competitive, it is no good doing more than the contracted requirements. You won't get paid any extra, and you won't be thanked for doing it. You'll just be wasting your time.

Service engineers are there to check that the components of the system are working in the manner they are intended to, and not there to continually re-check things that should have been correct from the beginning and, theoretically, cannot be accidentally changed (unless someone has subsequently made a cock-up!)

[Galeon]

BS 5839 states that during routine servicing ;

""The fire alarm functions of the control and indicating equipment should be checked by the operation of
at least one detector or manual call point on each circuit.

The cause and effect programme should be confirmed as being correct.""

Don't you think both of those, relate to, if a detector activates, it should provide the correct information at the panel ?

Whats the point of it, activating and actioning something in the wrong zone.  Aren't they supposed to check the zone plan.

Other contributers seem to indicate that the service engineers don't know very much about BS5839, yet the list of items covered by routine servicing, indicates checks on design and positioning.  I think they might be right, they get in and out ASAP.

I have looked at many sysyems installed, designed and serviced by accredited contractors and none of them comply with the BS.  But the engineers never mention it on servicing.  

If you ask the same company to come in and certify it as a certain category, they will come in and point out additional work and items in the wrong position, all to get extra money.  Yet their engineers have been servicing it for years and the faults found are part of the routine service, look at the list.

If you say change companies, they have and it is not any different.  The industry is very poor.

I wouldnt totally agree with that , but until you trade test the individual and get away from the company certification mentality , you are going nowhere.
We as a trade or no better or worse than any other industry.
If you don't teach your kids to eat with cutlery , years later their grandchildren will be using their hands .
You can see by the comments here there are loads of what I call 'Old School' , so they are about .

[spanner]

I would say that it is the engineer’s responsibility. If all installations were done to BS5839 everything would be perfect and servicing eould be simples, we would not need to bother checking anything more than if the device triggers the system as we would be safe in the knowledge that everything is correct.
But we all know this is far from the truth. I have been to sites that have been operational for years and there are discrepancies with the system from the commissioning stage.
I know I can’t be the only one to mutter the phrase "how the hell did this system get signed off?"

In my opinion there are your standard bell ringing engineers and there are good engineers who take the extra time to check all of the little things that would otherwise get over looked, such as this zone number lark.
I believe part of checking a device for correct operation would include checking device text and zone number as this could be changed accidentally or not been set up correctly since day dot, which could lead to confusion or death if there was to be a real fire event.

It is the engineers responsibility to check a system for defects and at the end of the day the engineer puts his name on the bottom of the docket, so that makes him part liable.

It may not always be possible to check these things on a normal service, and in that case it should be documented, and maybe subjected to the client that a special visit is in order to check the system in more detail especially if there is any suspicions that there may be a problem.

Just out of interest, what has all this come from... What was the situation on site that inspired this thread?
   

[Allen Higginson]

I would say that it is the engineer’s responsibility. If all installations were done to BS5839 everything would be perfect and servicing eould be simples, we would not need to bother checking anything more than if the device triggers the system as we would be safe in the knowledge that everything is correct.
But we all know this is far from the truth. I have been to sites that have been operational for years and there are discrepancies with the system from the commissioning stage.
This would be picked up on a special visit,provided all relevant documentation was available
I know I can’t be the only one to mutter the phrase "how the hell did this system get signed off?"

In my opinion there are your standard bell ringing engineers and there are good engineers who take the extra time to check all of the little things that would otherwise get over looked, such as this zone number lark.
I believe part of checking a device for correct operation would include checking device text and zone number as this could be changed accidentally or not been set up correctly since day dot, which could lead to confusion or death if there was to be a real fire event.

It is the engineers responsibility to check a system for defects and at the end of the day the engineer puts his name on the bottom of the docket, so that makes him part liable.
Not necessarily if you read 45 & 46 of Part 1 on what is expected to be carried out over the course of the year.

It may not always be possible to check these things on a normal service, and in that case it should be documented, and maybe subjected to the client that a special visit is in order to check the system in more detail especially if there is any suspicions that there may be a problem.

Just out of interest, what has all this come from... What was the situation on site that inspired this thread?
   

[Wiz]

I would say that it is the engineer’s responsibility. If all installations were done to BS5839 everything would be perfect and servicing eould be simples, we would not need to bother checking anything more than if the device triggers the system as we would be safe in the knowledge that everything is correct.
As previously stated, if the 'service' agreed upon is per BS5839 part 1, a check of a device triggering is all you can expect to get.

But we all know this is far from the truth. I have been to sites that have been operational for years and there are discrepancies with the system from the commissioning stage.
I know I can’t be the only one to mutter the phrase "how the hell did this system get signed off?"
It is not the service engineer's responsibility to find 'discrepencies' from the original installation/commissioning if all you have asked him to carry out is servicing to BS5839 recommendations

In my opinion there are your standard bell ringing engineers and there are good engineers who take the extra time to check all of the little things that would otherwise get over looked, such as this zone number lark.
I believe part of checking a device for correct operation would include checking device text and zone number as this could be changed accidentally or not been set up correctly since day dot, which could lead to confusion or death if there was to be a real fire event.
The above might be true, but what you believe you should get and what it recommends in BS is different. If you expect something more than BS recommends you need to specify it so the service provider can allow in his costs for doing so.

It is the engineers responsibility to check a system for defects and at the end of the day the engineer puts his name on the bottom of the docket, so that makes him part liable.
It is not the responsibility of the engineer carrying out a BS5839 service routine to check that detectors indicate in the correct fire zone on the control panel, so he would not be liable if they didn't

It may not always be possible to check these things on a normal service, and in that case it should be documented, and maybe subjected to the client that a special visit is in order to check the system in more detail especially if there is any suspicions that there may be a problem.
BS5839 recommends a 'special' initial inspection visit when employing a new service company, but customers don't want to pay for it.


Just out of interest, what has all this come from... What was the situation on site that inspired this thread?