Detectomat SRC 3000

[kurnal]

Came across one of these very pretty, very compact addressable, radio linked fire alarm systems in a shop in Exeter yesterday.

It has multi sensor heads/ sounders but these appear to be powered solely by a PP3 battery without backup supply. The whole thing appears to be of German origin yet has no EN54 or DIN badges or anything else for that matter.

The manufacturers and importers websites do not reveal any further details of non compliance with EN54, I found some comments on the fire engineers forum that their fault monitoring and reporting do not conform, does anybody know the full story?

Oh just to add icing to the cake it was connected to the Landlords  rafiki sita 200 system that the landlord said was in permanent fault mode.....

[John Dragon]

When queried, the distributor told me that they were aware that they did not comply and that it did not matter!

They make a big thing of being "approved by the fire brigade"  (please discuss!!!)

One of our customers has had one fitted (instead of the wired addressable we recommended) and they absolutely hate it, they have twice called us out to silence and reset it (shows how often they test it), as they cannot do it themselves!

Takes ages to silence the sounders and often fails to silence all of them.

The certification given by the installers states that it complies with 5839 part 1.

We decided not to use them!

[colin todd]

Kurnal,  you should be american.  It took them a couple of years to discover world war 2.  These have been around for yonks. They are as described above and do not comply with BS 5839-1. People get confused because it is claimed (and probably rightly) that there is compliance with EN 54 (relating to the CIE).

With regard to "approval" of the FRS, yep several have been convinced it is great and there are even documented success stories to prove it (one a bakery as I recall).  One FRS has even promoted presentations on the product to other FRS.  One to whom it promoted asked if the system had been run by a fire alarm specialist and was told siniffily that it had been reviewed by about 8 FRS and so certainly did not need any more review than that.  I remember writing at the time to a chum in the FRS that my old mother used to say that a little education is a dangerous thing, and that my recollection is that she emphasised the word "little". was

[kurnal]

Hi Colin
No the Manufacturers do not make any mention of EN54 in respect of the panel or the detectors as far as I can see. They quote EN54 in respect of the break glass call points.

[AnthonyB]

There were a glut of brigades that loved it, but I believe a couple are not accepting them now they are clued up on the non conformities.

Not come across one yet fortunately, wasn't impressed when given a demo at Firex a few years ago (esp as it didn't work very well!)

[Midland Retty]

I've come across similar products. Whilst I would not advocate them as a viable replacement for more pukka systems, they could be considered useful as an interim measure.

Example being a landlord friend of mine. He keeps battery powered radio linked detectors on standby in case any of his mains powered alarms go down in his HMO portfolio. Thats a sensible idea as far as Im concerned.
Trouble is however that a pack of 8 radio link detectors cost £500

[Big_Fella]

As far as I was aware BS5839 states that all radio linked components should be supplied from at least two independant power supplies (e.g. primary & a secondary battery source).

To comply with the relevent section of EN54 only one supply is required.

Therefore to sign off a BS5839 certificate, the radio linked devices should contain a secondary battery source, or this should be a variation on the certificate??

Would be interested to know what building this is referring to Kurnel, as I'm only a stones throw away from Exeter.

[nearlythere]

Just as a matter of interest does a variation on a certificate make everything suddenly compliant?

[kurnal]

No but it shows that the variation is acknowledged and not a mistake or omission.

The crux of this case though is that the manufacturers do not appear to  make any claims of compliance with EN54 (despite the Construction Products Directive) or BS5839 and the installers do not issue any certificates under BS5839. (Despite using the BAFE logo on everything they are actually only registered with BAFE to maintain fire extinguishers). Interesting though that they did issue a maintenance certificate of their own format stating that their last maintenance was carried out in accordance with  BS5839-1.

[kurnal]

Following questions from me the installers have now provided the client with a full 5839-1 installation and commissioning cert showing L1 protection and no declared variations except for a statement that the system is radio linked. Hmm. That will be interesting when we meet them on site in a couple of weeks time.

Theres editorial in this months fire risk management magazine desribing the installation of one of these systems in an old building and the editorial describes the system as "reliable". Should such publications allow paid for editorial in this way without checking  that products conform to apporpriate standards?

[John Webb]

.........Theres editorial in this months fire risk management magazine desribing the installation of one of these systems in an old building and the editorial describes the system as "reliable". Should such publications allow paid for editorial in this way without checking  that products conform to apporpriate standards?

The installation mentioned above by kurnal is a grade 2 listed farmhouse and the installation is to conform with English Heritage requirements, although it does not say what the why or wherefore of these requirements are. There is no information on the occupational status of this building which may be a private dwelling. So I suspect there is no compulsion to use a system compliant with BS 5839.
From the comments about this maker's equipment in this topic perhaps in a year's time the the adjective 'reliable' may need revision?
I don't have any problem with such items appearing under 'Trade News' as this one does, but I will always be ready with questions if need be. And of course this Forum is always ready to shine a critical spotlight on things!

[colin todd]

If there are not two batteries it IS a variation. If a variation is agreed by ALL interested parties and recorded then the system  complies.  However, who would be stupid enough to agree to one battery-(other than purveyors of one battery systems and those fire and rescue services who chose to endorse it and recommend it to their other fire and rescue service chums- I think I will start endorsing red lorries, I know nothing about them, other than that there is a gear box and engine, but, with that knowledge and a read of sales literature and a presentation by a lorry salesman, that surely qualifes me as an expert). 

[kurnal]

I have been shown a document produced by the UK distributor of these systems which indicates that their intention is to place the system in the marketplace as an equivalent level  to a  BS5839 part 6 grade C system, ie domestic premises and perhaps, subject to the findings of a fire risk assessment, very small commercial settings. Even then the detector isreally grade F. (Thanks Dave)
So it appears that the problem is the installation of the system in commercial premises by extinguisher maintenance companies without any knowledge or fire risk assessments being undertaken. It is marketed on   cost. I have come across two and maybe  three of these companies now, all using the BAFE logo  and name on their marketing and fire alarm certificates but  none of whom is accredited under SP203.

They are acredited to SP104/ST101 for fire extinguishers.I will report them to BAFE- and will wait with interest to see if any action is taken.

[kurnal]

As an update we had a meeting with all parties on site last Monday. Apart from the known issues with the detectomat system I tested the system by operating a call point and found an even bigger concern. It was a full 30 -40 seconds before most of the sounders operated. The detector sounders gradually started one by one. As we know, BS5839-1 recommends a maximum delay of 4 seconds from operating a call point.

The contractors, installers and shop fitters bluffed and blustered but the client was horrified and told them to install a proper system.

What also makes it worse is this system is providing L3 adjacent room protection to the escape from a single staircase office building above.

[colin todd]

Sigh- not 4 seconds big al. 3 seconds. (what am I to do with you).  You should also have tried silencing and finding out what delays occur.

If you have time over xmas, I need something to make metal boxes move under the power of something I am inventing called an engine.  Could you possible invent something, lets call it say a wheel as a working title. If you invent one be sure to tell everyone about it and they can produce motor cars. Lets work together on this as I believe some guy called henry is doing the same in America and we ought to try to be first.