Not testing emergency lighting

[AnthonyB]

Has anyone come across this?

A client wants to abandon monthly and annual EL testing because it's damaging the units and wants to just visually check the LEDs across their portfolio of residential flats and commercial multi occupancies and hopes we can sign it off in an FRA!

Apparently they think it's OK as Leicestershire FRS have said their crews wouldn't need it to be still working for 3 hours....

[Tom Sutton]

Check out https://www.protec.co.uk/product-page/emergency-lighting/product/product/selftest/ it appears all you need to do is visually inspection and record it in the log book.

[AnthonyB]

With self testing units that is true - but not with normal fittings!

[colin todd]

Tony, people have been prosecuted for failing to do this (but evidently not in Leicestershire).

[Dinnertime Dave]

At present a large national retailer is looking at changing its weekly fire alarm testing to monthly. They have provided evidence that shows very few weekly tests failures and have a robust servicing regime. If it can be done with a fire warning system, why can't it be done with escape lighting?

[AnthonyB]

Risk based provisions and servicing are all very well, but I can see it being a slippery slope as it can be used purely to drive down costs - at least in your example it sounds like they've gone to the trouble of proper analysis and justification.

Will British Standards be amended to reflect flexibility more?

[Owain]

At present a large national retailer is looking at changing its weekly fire alarm testing to monthly. They have provided evidence that shows very few weekly tests failures and have a robust servicing regime. If it can be done with a fire warning system, why can't it be done with escape lighting?

I think that alarms are much less likely to fail with a failure being undetected and signalled at the panel. Emergency lights are usually self-contained and may fail without giving any warning, eg I don't think it's possible to monitor fluorescent tubes.

[Dinnertime Dave]

At present a large national retailer is looking at changing its weekly fire alarm testing to monthly. They have provided evidence that shows very few weekly tests failures and have a robust servicing regime. If it can be done with a fire warning system, why can't it be done with escape lighting?

I think that alarms are much less likely to fail with a failure being undetected and signalled at the panel. Emergency lights are usually self-contained and may fail without giving any warning, eg I don't think it's possible to monitor fluorescent tubes.

On the contrary, our new fire stations have LED emergency lighting that sends a message to the premises manager's mobile phone.

[Tom Sutton]

It is important what type of EL system you are talking about, a self testing system or a standard luminaires.

[Owain]

I think that alarms are much less likely to fail with a failure being undetected and signalled at the panel. Emergency lights are usually self-contained and may fail without giving any warning, eg I don't think it's possible to monitor fluorescent tubes.

On the contrary, our new fire stations have LED emergency lighting that sends a message to the premises manager's mobile phone.

That's ususual though. Are the LEDs maintained, or is there some way of testing them without illuminating them?

[Fishy]

At present a large national retailer is looking at changing its weekly fire alarm testing to monthly. They have provided evidence that shows very few weekly tests failures and have a robust servicing regime. If it can be done with a fire warning system, why can't it be done with escape lighting?

Interesting.

As always, if they believe they can explain why the generally accepted 'good practice' guidance doesn't apply to them (e.g. their particular situation offers less risk than that which the luminaries who wrote the BS had in mind) then they can fill their boots.  I'd have to say that I usually regard that as a rather 'brave' presumption for most situations, but it's by no means an impossible one to make, in some special cases.

For my part, and knowing nothing about the particular situation in hand, I'd observe:

-   In a properly designed, installed & maintained system, of course there shouldn't have been many/any failures during the weekly test;

-   Interesting term - "robust servicing regime". Do they mean they exceed the recommendations in BS 5839-1 in some way?  Or are they simply stating that because they scrupulously comply with one part of the standard they don't believe they need to comply with other parts?

[AnthonyB]

It is important what type of EL system you are talking about, a self testing system or a standard luminaires.

If that's aimed at me I refer to a traditional self contained fitting no central automatic or self test function

[Tom Sutton]

It is important what type of EL system you are talking about, a self testing system or a standard luminaires.

If that's aimed at me I refer to a traditional self contained fitting no central automatic or self test function

No AB, I think it is important we make it clear which type of EL we are discussing. I have a question on self test luminaires, that use LED's, how do you record them and it appears the standard doesn't cover them?

https://www.protec.co.uk/product-page/emergency-lighting/product/product/selftest/

[AnthonyB]

With the self testing stuff it usually falls into various types, the ones I've encountered:
- self contained bulkheads with their own testing circuit & status indicators
- self contained bulkheads with their own testing circuit linked into a central control and indicating system
- slave LED's powered by a loop with a central PSU, control and indicating system

With the central indicator type panels I normally ask for a monthly interrogation of the system readout to identify any faults and a record held to prove it's been looked at and say 'all OK' or 'faults to units 12,34, etc'  - thus in the spirit of the testing for traditional fittings.

I also advise that the fittings be walked monthly to identify issues that the testing system cannot - e,g, discoloured or damaged diffusers, etc.

Where the fittings are self testing but not centrally monitored, then they need to be walked not just for the physical damage factors, but to check the status LEDs for any showing a fault.

Obviously it's impractical to try and record an annual test as it's being staggered throughout the year automatically.

The control and indicating equipment requires suitable PPM as well.

[Tom Sutton]

I had an enquirer who checked the self testing luminaires (type S) every month but wanted to know if he should manually record his findings. I perused BS EN 62034:2012 and it appears recording is not necessary but he should check them monthly.

My response was he should check them monthly and record his findings, because the history is useful to the engineers. I would also like to see audible warning as well so faults would be discovered sooner, just a combination of illuminated LED will go unnoticed until his inspection.