L4

[AnthonyB]

OK, then. No as it is a room, not a circulation space.

[Wiz]

Thanks for all your responses, guys. It seems that the person I was trying to convince has seen the light. He is now wondering why he spent so much money being trained something that appears to be wrong!

[nearlythere]

Thanks for all your responses, guys. It seems that the person I was trying to convince has seen the light. He is now wondering why he spent so much money being trained something that appears to be wrong!

I would be interested to know the type of organisation and the experience of the trainer.
Was the course your convincee was on a FRA one?
I would suggest that if this is the level of instruction being offered there is a competency issue. And this is page one level of a Fire Safety for Idiots guide.

[Wiz]

Thanks for all your responses, guys. It seems that the person I was trying to convince has seen the light. He is now wondering why he spent so much money being trained something that appears to be wrong!

I would be interested to know the type of organisation and the experience of the trainer.
Was the course your convincee was on a FRA one?
I would suggest that if this is the level of instruction being offered there is a competency issue. And this is page one level of a Fire Safety for Idiots guide.

I'll try and find out more info regarding the course he attended. Obviously, he might just have misunderstood what he had been taught!

[AnthonyB]

Did he learn about alarms on a FRA course or a separate specific one? I ask because if it was a fire alarm design course I'd like to know which umbrella organisation it was with as in the New Year I'm shelling out a load (or work are) of money to get separate standalone FA & EL design training beyond that in my existing training in fire safety and don't want to go somewhere that teaches it incorrectly.

[colin todd]

Why do people run on tramlines.  (Have they not seen the cost that laying tramlines has created for the nice people of Edinburgh.)

The question that everyone is rabbitting on about aimlessly is a non question.

To keep people safe from fire, you decide where fire detectors are needed (if indeed anywhere).  Then you decide what to call the system.  What you categorically do NOT do is say I think I need an L4 system so where do I put the detectors.  It is **** about face fire safety.

If the room in question needs a detector it needs a detector.  If it doesnt, then what is all the fuss about.  Call the system what you want, so long as it relfects the need for fire detectors to keep people safe from fire.  I thought that was all that legislative fire safety was about.

[CivvyFSO]

Have you had a bad day or something?

[AnthonyB]

If the room in question needs a detector it needs a detector.  If it doesnt, then what is all the fuss about.  Call the system what you want, so long as it reflects the need for fire detectors to keep people safe from fire.  I thought that was all that legislative fire safety was about.

Which is why L5 exists!

It's true that it is too easy to end up trying to fit the buliding into a detection category instead of fitting the detection to suit the building.

The site I visited today that needs a new system can't be fitted to one category (unless you go OTT to L1) and instead is going to be  L5 with specific locations to suit the varying risks.

[Wiz]

Why do people run on tramlines.  (Have they not seen the cost that laying tramlines has created for the nice people of Edinburgh.)

The question that everyone is rabbitting on about aimlessly is a non question.

To keep people safe from fire, you decide where fire detectors are needed (if indeed anywhere).  Then you decide what to call the system.  What you categorically do NOT do is say I think I need an L4 system so where do I put the detectors.  It is **** about face fire safety.

If the room in question needs a detector it needs a detector.  If it doesnt, then what is all the fuss about.  Call the system what you want, so long as it relfects the need for fire detectors to keep people safe from fire.  I thought that was all that legislative fire safety was about.

Oh Mr C.T.! Whilst perfectly understanding your comments, it is the BS that has created the problem that you decry!

System designers are constantly faced with the instruction to just design a system to L this or P that as per BS5839-1 2002 + A2 2008. The designer then has to interpret the recommendations to provide the recommended coverage whilst trying to ensure he is not accused of 'over-designing' the system at wasted cost to the customer. Worse still are the arguments from those (and everybody is an expert these days - they have been on a 1 day training course!) who say the recommendations have been interpreted wrongly and that 'critically important equipment' has been missed out, putting everybody's lives in mortal danger.

But what I am mostly trying to say is that the category selection invariably comes before the design and that, in fact, is how the BS says it should be!

[CivvyFSO]

Exactly. At design stage the designer will usually say that such-and-such scheme will have a category X system. It is then for the installer, who will have very little training if any on fire safety, to stick the detectors in the right place as dictated by any definitions within the standard.

[Wiz]

Partly with you Civvy, but I feel it is definitely the designers job to confirm in which areas equipment, and what type of equipment is required - not the installers.

Obviously the installer needs to understand the BS recommendations because they have to correctly site the selected equipment within those areas, and also be able to advise the designer of any problems/deficiencies that the designer may not have been aware of at the time of producing the design.

What BS makes clear is that it is the 'interested parties' that determine what catagory of system is required. At that stage it is handed over to the system designer to meet that determination and has even probably not have been party to the category selection.

I took Mr C.T.'s comments to suggest that the designer decided what was required, and then decided what category the system would meet from that!  Surely, that is not right and also not how BS5839-1 describes the process!

[colin todd]

I invented both the L4 and L5 systems.  Most days I wish I hadnt.

Tony, an L4 system with an additional detector is not L5.  It  is L4 with an additional detector.

Wizard, you are misinterpreting what we wrote in the  BS.  It  is really quite simple-  it is the fire safety specialist who is meant to determine where detectors go, based on their knowledge of fire safety which fire alarm designers are not expected to have. Having decided where they are to go, back in 1988 the categories (then known as types) were invented as a shorthand way of communicating this to the designer of the fire alarm system.

I have just drafted a Factfile for FIA, which will explain this in words of one syllable, in the possibly forlorn hope that after 23 years of system categories, people  might get the idea.

[colin todd]

Civvy, thank you for your concern about my day.  Just assume most days are bad days in fire safety these days, especially if one has to deal with the output of enforcing authorities-todays rubbish I have had to deal with is two9 different inspecting officers telling an RP that the FORMAT of the example FRA in PAS 79 is no longer acceptable.

[Wiz]

I invented both the L4 and L5 systems.  Most days I wish I hadnt.

Tony, an L4 system with an additional detector is not L5.  It  is L4 with an additional detector.

Wizard, you are misinterpreting what we wrote in the  BS.  It  is really quite simple-  it is the fire safety specialist who is meant to determine where detectors go, based on their knowledge of fire safety which fire alarm designers are not expected to have. Having decided where they are to go, back in 1988 the categories (then known as types) were invented as a shorthand way of communicating this to the designer of the fire alarm system.

I have just drafted a Factfile for FIA, which will explain this in words of one syllable, in the possibly forlorn hope that after 23 years of system categories, people  might get the idea.

Excellent! Anything that helps anyone to reduce misinterpretation of a BS has got to be useful.

Shame there are so many of us idiots about, and shame BS couldn't be clearer to start with!

I'm undecided about this new guy, the fire safety specialist, joining the party. Will he need to certificate his input?

[colin todd]

Wiz he isnt new.  If you have been taking on the role, I hope your professional indemnity insurance is ok with a high limit, as efficacy insurance may not cut it for you.