Sir Ken Knight considers that heat detectors in bedroom of a hotel meet the FSO

[Wiz]

I've changed my mind! There should be smoke detectors in all hotel bedrooms.

I really don't want the Daily Star coming after me if ever an occupant of a hotel room dies from a fire that started therein.

In my new opinion not only should there be smoke detectors in every hotel bedroom but all occupants should wear hi-viz vests and safety helmets whilst in the room and they should only be let in after they have been through a security check that ensures they have no means of ignition about their person.

Sorry to seem to be so flippant. But I'm also just covering my a**e in case of something happening that the statistics show is very unlikely. Furthermore my new stance won't cost me a penny, someone else will bear the costs.

[William 29]

Stuff it.........I've changed my mind as well and need to cover my a..e... sprinkler the lot, new and exsisting hotels.....that'll do it.  Ops....or will it cool the smoke???  People will get wet as well  I don't know anymore ...ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

[Midland Retty]

Daily Star? oh no. Im with Wiz...

What I meant to say is hotels new or existing MUST have:-

- Sprinklers fitted everywhere
- Category L1 alarm system (complete with 15 standalone smoke detectors per bedroom)
- Minimum 360 min fire resistance surrounding all rooms
- 10 minute fire patrols by staff
- On site private fire service
- Atleast 8 seperate means of escape from every part of the hotel.
- Canaries in all rooms
- Non combustible decor, furnishings,etc (i.e; beds and matresses made from asbestos)

I think I may have gone too far with the last one!

[nearlythere]

10 minute fire patrols by staff?

Cutbacks already.

[CivvyFSO]

Daily Star? oh no. Im with Wiz...

What I meant to say is hotels new or existing MUST have:-

- Sprinklers fitted everywhere
- Category L1 alarm system (complete with 15 standalone smoke detectors per bedroom)
- Minimum 360 min fire resistance surrounding all rooms
- 10 minute fire patrols by staff
- On site private fire service
- Atleast 8 seperate means of escape from every part of the hotel.
- Canaries in all rooms
- Non combustible decor, furnishings,etc (i.e; beds and matresses made from asbestos)

I think I may have gone too far with the last one!

See what difference a bit of media attention made? I can smell the fear already.

I think it is fear anyway.

[nearlythere]

"Sir Ken Knight considers that heat detectors in bedroom of a hotel meet the FSO" - and not smoke detectors?

[William 29]

Err yep...

[William 29]

"Sir Ken Knight considers that heat detectors in bedroom of a hotel meet the FSO" - and not smoke detectors?

I would guess coming from the Artcle 13 (1) (a)angle?

Fire-fighting and fire detection
13.—(l) Where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on
there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of
relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that—
(a) the premises are, to the extent that it is appropriate, equipped with appropriate firefighting
equipment and with fire detectors and alarms;

[nearlythere]

Err yep...

Err yep meaning yes to "not smoke detectors" or yes to smoke detectors are also appropriate?

[William 29]

Yes in the case presented considering all the evidence heat detection was considered to satisfy the requirements of the Fire Safety Order but may not in every case.

[CivvyFSO]

My money is on Colin Todd I think......................

You are clearly underestimating the power of the media. Look at the recent deaths that turned out to be not due to M-Cat or whatever it was called. Had it not been reported in the way it was, do you think it would have still been made illegal?

"Let them burn"

Our investigation into the recent deaths of a young family in a Verybighotelchain Hotel has uncovered some shocking facts. Apparently fire law basically says that you are expendable, and concerns itself more with protecting other persons in the Hotel. Should you have a fire in your room you are not protected by any sort of fire detector, there would typically be a heat detector, but this is not for your benefit. If you are unlucky enough to have a fire in your room, then by the time the heat detector has activated you will more than likely be dead. A smoke detector would activate before you were dead, but this is not a requirement under present fire law.

A Consultant known only as CT to his friend stated "It is better this way, and I have wrote a book on it. It is available in all good bookshops.". A fire service recently challenged this view, and their request to have smoke detection fitted to a hotel instead of heat detection was overturned by the Secretary of State. A fire service representative said "Told you so"

Now any factual errors within that can be clearly ignored, as the media and Joe Public will not know nor care.

[kurnal]

Kurnal, You would learn how to spell the word pyrolisis (sic). Surely this alone would make the purchase worthwhile.

Well I never did! My Hat! I am indebted to William 29 for his post 27 in which he cut and pasted Mr Toods account of the history of the development of the L3 alarm system. Just goes to show that people who live in grass houses should not throw stoned.

Personally I agree with everything Colin says about this except that I think it is appropriate  to keep standards and policies under review and reconsider them in view of  technical progress and legislative changes.

I think there is some merit on both sides of the argument but there is a  lack of evidence to justify a move either way at present. I would love to see a study carried out on the liklihood of persons being woken by the fire stimuli- smoke, heat, noise etc compared to the time to detection of heat and smoke detectors and the relative tenabilities of the room at the time of detection. Then if a case was proven we could look at cost and benefit and consider if a change was justified either for new build or retrospectively.

One thing is clear though. Any reviews of policy should be open, impartial and inclusive.

[Clevelandfire 3]

No one is saying new builds shouldnt have smoke detection. All that Kenneth Knighty and his hangers on have said is that in this particular scenario the determination was granted upon simple well publicised facts.I would seriously question the competence of any assessor or inspector who recommended a big hotel swap their heat detection for smoke detection simply because they thought more research was needed on the benefits of smokes against heat. Look at the research and guidance already out there. Lets put the whole thing in perspective. Just because a certain scottish assessor known as the best risk assessor in the whole of.... CS Todd's tea room.......... decided to make this public, and we know why he's domne tht, doesnt make sir kenny boy wrong . How many times do we have to debate this issue. Research may be needed but that doesnt change the current situation on which the determination was based, which is what this thread is about. Technical changes? hello? new hotels wont be allowed heat detection? ALARP? Hello? Earth to firenet?

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I have to agree with Cleavelands comments.

The question of heat or smoke detection will always be there and, no doubt, debated until the preverbial cows come home.

Credit should be given to the fire Authority for actually taking this to determination while many others sat in the side lines waiting for the outcome. An answer was given by the powers that be .... heat detection is satisfactory for the premises in question, not every hotel in the land.

I think the point has been missed, or I've missed it, that the FSO requires the risk assesment to identify the general fire precautions that need to be taken ......... doesn't that include an appropriate detection and alarm system which will give the relevant persons adequate warning in order to evacuate the building??

 

[colin todd]

Baldy, I am horrified that my sweat and labours have been relegated to the dusty loft of Baldy Towers, the mortgage of which is paid for by the same poor taxpayers as you want to pay, directly or indirectly, for the change of pefectly good detectors.  In any case, is your dust laden, loft copy SIGNED by the author?? I think not. My offer stands. You will not get a better deal anywhere.  I am prepared to throw in a signed photograph.  There is no point in haggling because this is my best offer.

Wullie, your money is safe. Your Scots education has stood you in good stead in the gambling field. Do you happen to know the numbers for tomorrow night's lottery, so I can retire from this unprofessionally practised profession? If so, according to statistics THEY would rather you did not know, you have more chance of hastening my departure thereby than anyone dying from fire in the bedroom of fire origin anywhere  in the UK in the next 12 months.

Midland. As someone whose career began in veterinary medicine, I abhor the idea of sacrificing canaries.  I have three miscreant cats to whom I constantly lecture on the wrongs of depleting the bird world, though as they are Burmese they speak not a word of English and look at me with the lack of understanding exhibited by some of those who would try to undermine the advice given by the good and WISE Sir Ken to the Secretary of State that IN ONE PARTICULAR Hotel (similar to thousands of others), heat detectors satisfied the FSO.