Dorgard

[stevew]

davaleric

What should have a bearing on your decision should be contained in the premises FRA.   It is then down to you to decide whether or not their use is reasonable.

In other words it is down to the FA to either accept or reject.  In rejecting, the FA should give their reasons in writing.   Before that the FA  should view the RA, which amongst other things would give some indication as to the level of fire management in place.   This should include written evidence of the RA case for fitting the units.  

Unfortunately what makes the owners case generally  weak is that the risk assessment has not addressed the matter, leaving the FA  IO only to reject the case without 'a shot being fired'.

In this and similar circumstance owners create their own problems.    
With professional advice a case may be made.      

Oh by the way I would not support the use of dorguard devices on doors enclosing a sigle staircase in res care premises.

[johndoe]

davaleric


In other words it is down to the FA to either accept or reject.  In rejecting, the FA should give their reasons in writing.   .

the FA do not have the right to accept or reject .
if they dont like it serve an enforcement notice and then they should appeal against the notice and then the person in the wig decides not the FA

Give Me strength

[stevew]

johndoe

I am concerned if my comments sap your strength so readily.

My response to davaleric was addressed to a serving IO who would i am certain understands that rejection may instigate an enforcement notice.  However it is not as black and white as that.  
Was he acting as an advisor to the CSCI under their enforcement regulations?
Therefore no grounds for enforcement notice or
In accordance with the FP Wk Place Regs?
In which case would their use deem to compromise the safety of staff?

I thought the idea of moving away from the prescriptive approach was to encourage two way conversation between the responsible person and the FA.   The sighting of an appropriate RA would be a start.

History come April 2006.

[johndoe]

I thought the idea was that let the RP who are doing it get on with it and the FA seek out those higher risk premises that are not.  Res care is a high risk premises and even if under CCSI the FA only offers advice.
My point was that the FA have no power come 2006 to accept or reject they have power to enforce and then the law takes it course. I Thought moving away from prescription was to allow self regulation ( wether that is good or bad is another debate). Too many IO`s think they have this power was my point
If the FA does not like RA then enforce and see what the judge says.
Oh by the way remond me what happened the last time your fA went to court on an enforcement notice appeal?

[stevew]

Johndoe

I agree that the objective is for the RP to do their own thing.  Of the FA's that I deal with inspection programmes are varied.  My point is that under CSCI regulations the FA have no powers of enforcement.

I assumed that my comment on rejecting the RA in writing would be interpreted by an IO as an enforcement notice.

Im certain that we are on the same team perhaps my use of laymans terms of accept or reject.   Its just that in dealing with clients its a comment I generally use before explaining the legal position.    

Out of interest Im still regularly in contact with IO's from several brigades who insists on issuing enforcement notices under the FPWK Regs where clearly it is not appropriate.  Perhaps we should'nt blame the IO's but point the finger at poor management.  Unfortunatly RP listen to the uniform (occasionally to their detriment) rather than the advisor sat on their side of the table.
 
Communication is the word with prosecution the last resort.

I am not employed by a FA  can you explain your last para.

[johndoe]

Sorry I was confusing you with another steve w who works for a large metro FA which lost an appeal against an enforcement notice.

[AFDS]

I am looking to install a Dorgard on my premises, i understand the basic principals of how it works but do they need to be installed by a qualified electrician in order to for it to comply with the BS7273-4C? Can anyone help?

[jokar]

Dorguard is a stand alone device operated on an audio basis.  You can fit them yourself, no wiring involved but make sure that you comply with the appendices at the back of BS7224-4 and that this type of Class B device is allowable in your particular type of premises.  The only other thing is to ensure that when the Fire alarm sounds that the device actually operates and closes the door it is holding open.

[jokar]

Sorry typo there BS 7273-4.

[SidM]

I've been to a warehouse with so much noise from machinery that I was given ear plugs, yet the door at each storey exit had a dorgard on it.  All doors were held open.  How does that work then?

[Wiz]

I've been to a warehouse with so much noise from machinery that I was given ear plugs, yet the door at each storey exit had a dorgard on it.  All doors were held open.  How does that work then?

The noise from the machinery wasn't at the frequency(ies) needed to trigger the dorgard?

[SidM]

I've been to a warehouse with so much noise from machinery that I was given ear plugs, yet the door at each storey exit had a dorgard on it.  All doors were held open.  How does that work then?

The noise from the machinery wasn't at the frequency(ies) needed to trigger the dorgard?

Is that a more than likeley answer or another question?

[Wiz]

I've been to a warehouse with so much noise from machinery that I was given ear plugs, yet the door at each storey exit had a dorgard on it.  All doors were held open.  How does that work then?

The noise from the machinery wasn't at the frequency(ies) needed to trigger the dorgard?

Is that a more than likeley answer or another question?

SidM, it is a guess at the answer put in the format of a question based on the fact that I can't possibly definitely know the answer because I don't have all the facts and knowledge!

The guess I made was on the assumption that the dorgards are in proper working condition and that my understanding is that they are 'tuned' to react to the frequencies of fire alarm sounder warning devices. Since they didn't close (and assuming they are not faulty) it must be assumed that the machinery is not giving out the frequencies required to operate them.

However, I agree it does seem strange. I would have thought that loud machinery operating must create a wide spectrum of harmonics across many frequencies, and based on the many stories of dorgard units operating to the noise created by a simple vacuum cleaner then it is stranger still.

 The effect of general noise on Dorgard units is supported by the fact that I believe they also make a version that has a RF transmitter that should be sited close to sounders and which sends a radio signal to operate nearby 'non-acoustic' Dorgards. In fact, I wonder if maybe they use these wireless signal versions at the site you are talking about precisely because of the noise of the machinery!

Finally, one would assume these devices are tested on a regular basis and that they function correctly whichever version they use. Maybe the warehouse owners can provide the answer.