Brigade attendance to automatic signalled systems

[nearlythere]

All over Britain fire crews are attending AFAs. On arrival they check to see if there is actually a fire. DCLG statistics collated via the incident recording system (IRS) show that 98% of them are coded as an 8 or 9. That's false alarm good intent electric ie a failure of the system or false alarm good intent mechanical. That is the head had been activated by the ingress of a non fire related substance. Like thrips, dust, aerosol sprays etc etc. Also, activation of break glass call points are coded as a 6.

This data is a matter of public record and is available free to all.

Where is your empirical evidence to show this is not the case Colin? 

Where is the data available from Sam?

[nearlythere]

To add to the debate let's look at what is actually posted on the Kent website.

http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/your_business/latest_business_news/change_to_afa_policy.aspx

Changing how we respond to automatic fire alarms (AFAs)
What’s changed?

From 2 April 2012, all calls from automatic fire alarms will be challenged by the Service’s 999 staff. During the day (6am to 6pm), unless the incident can be confirmed to be an actual fire or signs of fire, an engine will not be sent.

However, for a further year (to April 2013), a fire engine will be sent to calls to automatic fire alarms received at night (6pm to 6am), where a procedure has not been introduced to confirm a fire. This is to allow those responsible for managing premises extra time to make any required changes to their procedures.
This change will apply to all calls whether they are made from the affected building, through a call handling organisation or some other method.
We will ask sheltered accommodation to let us know if the call is a false alarm. If this is not possible then the fire service will attend. This is in response to feedback during our consultation. However we will expect these organisations to investigate false alarms and take any actions necessary to reduce them in future.

Why?

False alarms account for a third of all calls we attend – 98 per cent of these calls are triggered by things like dust or poorly maintained systems. This disrupts your building or business and diverts firefighters from genuine emergencies.

Your alarm, and the safety of those who use your premises, is your responsibility. Following this change, you need to be clear what you will do

Make your plans now to deal with your alarm if it goes off

How you will check to see if there is a fire?
If your alarm goes off because of a fire, tell the fire service when you call 999
Have you revised your fire risk assessment to take account of the changes?
Is your alarm system properly designed, installed, maintained and tested?
If your system makes false alarms do you investigate the cause and take steps to make sure they are not repeated?
Further advice

Download our guide "Your responsibilities if you have an automatic fire alarm" in PDF format
Speak to your fire alarm installation or maintenance company.
Reduction of false alarms - how you can help
Contact your local KFRS fire safety office for advice
Information on evacuation procedures

U nder Kents guide -

What is an automatic fire alarm system?

For example:
• a simple office or shop premises may just need a
basic manual break glass system connected to alarm
sounders.
• a hotel or boarding house where people sleep will
usually always require a system with smoke detectors
• more complex premises such as hospitals or shopping
centres will generally need a more complex system
that will provide very early fire detection as an element
of the fire strategy for the building.
AFA systems vary in complexity depending on factors
such as the type and construction of the building, its
use, and the type of people using the premises.

Does it mean that a simple office of shop premises can remove any AFD initially required by BC? If so, why could they not have left it out in the first place? It was obviously a waste of money.

[Mike Buckley]

Colin

I am not disagreeing with you.

It strikes me it is good propaganda to go on about the costs of responding to AFAs but it neglects the main problem which are the Alarm systems which are not properly maintained and are constantly going off. There used to be guidance about the number of unwanted alarms that could tolerated from a system and that the brigades could take action if this tolerence level was exceeded. Most of the bad systems could be easily identified even just from the reaction of the crews, 'oh no not there again!'

It is a blanket solution which whilst it sounds good sweeps the problem under the carpet rather than dealing with it.

[SamFIRT]

Where is the data available from Sam?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-statistics

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incident-recording-system-for-fire-and-rescue-authorities

The data is available in report format or as an Excel spreadsheet so you can do your own crunching.

Some FRS also collect data over and above that required by the DCLG in the IRS. I believe Kent does this. Personally I can't see how anyone can argue with so much overwhelming evidence. The FRS efficiently fought hoax callers in very many areas by using the campaign slogan " A fire engine can't be in two places at once.... don't hoax us!" Obviously the same argument also apples to electrical or mechanical false alarms to fire, along with accidental and deliberate activations of break glass call points.

How would.... God forbid....any of the defenders of the status quo feel if their family was injured or lost in a fire because a fire crew were somewhere else searching for a spurious alarm signal?

Now I am not a professional fire risk assessor, nor am I a fire alarm engineer, but I say those of you who are, should stop beating about the bush and get your act together to stop unwanted activations of fire alarm systems distracting fire crews from their main life critical role.... and lowering occupant's of buildings perception to a fire alarm.. by over exposure.

So go on create safe systems that work, identify to the occupants where there really is a problem and call the FRS when they are needed ....and ....don't rely on them to prop up the confidence in unsound ones. There very soon will not be enough spare fire appliances around.

[jokar]

Well said.

[Wiz]

.....

Now I am not a professional fire risk assessor, nor am I a fire alarm engineer, but I say those of you who are, should stop beating about the bush and get your act together to stop unwanted activations of fire alarm systems distracting fire crews from their main life critical role.... and lowering occupant's of buildings perception to a fire alarm.. by over exposure.

...........

My experience of 'false' alarms as a fire alarm engineer were that the overwhelmingly greatest proportion of them were caused by circumstances outside the influence of any system designer/installer/maintainer.

 I accept that the systems we worked on were well designed, installed and maintained and that this might not be the case generally, however the rise in general expertise and knowledge of BS5839-1 over the past decade suggests to me that there surely can't be that many 'rogue' systems out there these days. Obviously the 'false alarm' statistics may appear to prove me wrong, but is the 'false alarm' information always recorded correctly?

I just know that no fire alarm detection system can handle too much vandalism, abuse and misuse without it giving a 'false alarm'. I remember that in the systems which we maintained, over half of automatic smoke detector operations were caused by people spraying aerosols into the sensing chamber and from smoke from bonfires drifting in through open windows. (this was after the problem of activation by thrips was solved by the detector manufacturers).

I believe we have to accept a certain level of 'false alarms' from such highly-sensitive detection equipment and just pay for the resources we need to deal with the result.

[SamFIRT]

...caused by people spraying aerosols into the sensing chamber and from smoke from bonfires drifting in through open windows

 Exactly the type of activation that can be checked by a responsible person before calling the FRS, is it not?

[jokar]

Perhaps we are looking at it from the wrong way up.  Perhaps it is not an FRS problem in totality but also a business continuity and loss of profit for the organisation involved.

From a commercial perspective surely it is more sensible for the management to invistigate instances such as those Wiz mentions in house before passing a signal to an FRS.  The cost of the non business continuity and people standing in the street awaiting an attnedance and during an attendance is more than dealing with the issues that occur.

If it is a fire then say so and the FRS will attend.

[colin todd]

IRS data on false alarms is not worth the electrons that are troubled to transmit it.  it needs a proper study by people who know what they are talking about. Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.

[Mike Buckley]

Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.

Probably since the time they were asked to send that information back. Roughly open window and bonfire in locality, smoke from bonfire. No fire, broken MCP, malicious activation. Smoke head gone off, no sign of fire, panel resets equipment fault. No problem, lets get the pump available again.

[nearlythere]

IRS data on false alarms is not worth the electrons that are troubled to transmit it.  it needs a proper study by people who know what they are talking about. Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.

Perhaps there should be a accredited/registered/certified fire alarm engineer on each appliance?

[Wiz]

Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.

Probably since the time they were asked to send that information back. Roughly open window and bonfire in locality, smoke from bonfire. No fire, broken MCP, malicious activation. Smoke head gone off, no sign of fire, panel resets equipment fault. No problem, lets get the pump available again.

I don't think it is that straightforward, Mike.

In your example, 'smoke head gone off, no sign of fire, panel resets; equipment fault' I would argue that since the panel resets that there would be a very good chance that there is nothing wrong with equipment and that the detector operated to some, probably transient, fire smoke-like stimulus i.e. cigarette smoke, dust, talculm powder etc. etc. Which is not an equipment fault.

I don't think that it would be possible for firemen to ascertain the absolute cause of all 'false alarms' so I believe that we should continue to make whatever technical and environmental improvements are available to reduce the level of false alarms, whilst paying for the resources we need to attend every alarm activation efficiently.

It would be a shame to waste the advantages provided by today's highly sensitive and reliable fire detection systems just to save money. There must be better ways of saving some money so we can pay for enough fire crews to deal with both false alarms and real fires.

[Wiz]

IRS data on false alarms is not worth the electrons that are troubled to transmit it.  it needs a proper study by people who know what they are talking about. Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.

Perhaps there should be a accredited/registered/certified fire alarm engineer on each appliance?

An electrician who I trained to be a fire alarm engineer some years ago finally realised his dream and was accepted as a full-time fireman and left my employment.

He subsequently told me that he had been quickly elevated to the role of fire alarm expert on his watch and was expected to deal with anything related to a fire alarm system. He said the rest of his watch's level of knowledge about fire alarm systems was shockingly low. This is not a dig at firemen; I presume they must have lots to learn about and that a good knowledge of fire alarm systems is probably low on their list of priorities. But maybe they need a bit more training in this area.

[nearlythere]

IRS data on false alarms is not worth the electrons that are troubled to transmit it.  it needs a proper study by people who know what they are talking about. Since when is an operational fire crew qualified to determine that a false alarm has been caused by eqipment faults, which in truth are a negligible cause of false alarms.

Perhaps there should be a accredited/registered/certified fire alarm engineer on each appliance?

An electrician who I trained to be a fire alarm engineer some years ago finally realised his dream and was accepted as a full-time fireman and left my employment.

He subsequently told me that he had been quickly elevated to the role of fire alarm expert on his watch and was expected to deal with anything related to a fire alarm system. He said the rest of his watch's level of knowledge about fire alarm systems was shockingly low. This is not a dig at firemen; I presume they must have lots to learn about and that a good knowledge of fire alarm systems is probably low on their list of priorities. But maybe they need a bit more training in this area.

In my time Wiz firefighters were instructed not to touch operating fire alarms other than, I think, to silence them. An engineer had to be called to reset. Just in case the OiC shut the system down. Fair policy I thought.
And firefighters who had other skills were very handy in the job. Taking fire surrounds out and punching holes in braces, knocking off electrical circuits, those with experience with handling animals particularily large ones. Those now with their degrees just want to shoot straight to Chief and beyond.

[SamFIRT]

Notwithstanding what actually causes the actuation, if a fire crew attend the activation of an AFA ... and there is no fire... it is a false alarm! So bracket the two (electrical and mechanical ...best guess)  together and you get the total number of false alarms. Deduct this from the number of times there is a fire to which the crew have been called to by the sounding of an AFA and you have the percentage. It's not rocket science.

Alarm with no fire = false alarm.  The argument that fire crews are not qualified fire alarm engineers or even qualified electricians is spurious and distracting.

Crews in my FRS are instructed to not re set alarms, they are to ask the responsible person to do it. .... because ....they are not qualified fire alarm engineers.