Fire Alarm - Weekly Testing

[idlefire]

Does anybody know if is there any truth in the rumour I heard yesterday that BSI is considering dropping the weekly test from 5839-1?

[colin todd]

That is probably too strong a way of putting it, but there is  proposal from someone that it could be reduced to monthly.  Only a proposal, which will be subject to consideration in the new revision, on which work is currently underway.  Nothing to say how far the proposal might get.

[idlefire]

Thanks for the clarification Colin.

I recall that when you and I discussed this matter back in 2004 your position was that weekly testing was so critical that it should not be relaxed "under any circumstances".

Are you in a position to share the rationale behind the "proposal" to reduce the BS requirement for weekly testing to monthly testing?

[colin todd]

 Idle Fellow, Not so much so critical as going out on a limb (as one primary authority partner has now done) given that, in 2004, the need for weekly testing had only recently been subject to very close and extensive stakeholder scrutiny and deemed necessary.  The proposal comes from the fact that some false alarms to FRS arise from weekly testing, so monthly testing would at least mitigate the effects of the bad management.

[kurnal]

Shows it up for the humbug that it is.

[Messy]

When I buy a BS, I expect it to be compiled by a panel of industry experts with the aim of ensuring - in that case of AFD- that it will operate when required and assist me complying with legislation (and keeping people safe). In other words, by referring to the BS, I will have confidence that the AFD is as resilient and reliable as possible.

Now I am hearing that the weekly tests might (just might) be replaced by monthly tests to cut down on F&RS dashing about on UwFS shouts. Is that what you are saying Colin?

Surely the supporters of this change must be putting forward a more technical rationale than just saving F&RS money! If not, it seems to me that the F&RS seem to be having too much of a say on the BS panel if they are able to influence this change.

[David Rooney]

But hardly anyone responds to automatic calls anymore except from care homes and the highly vulnerable ..... so how can there be so much weekly testing causing so many unwanted shouts ?

Why not just ban redcare from anything but the most vulnerable / high risk buildings??

[Dinnertime Dave]

I would of thought that the purpose of the test is to pick up a problems. Weekly may have been fit for purpose 30 years ago but is it still needed. How many modern systems fail the test.

Don't get me wrong, I have no view either way. But give me evidence that systems actually fail the test.

[kurnal]

That may be true Dave but on the other hand a fire alarm system is an important bit of safety kit. If it crashes completely and the rules are changed it may be a month before the defect is discovered.

[David Rooney]

Agreed ... I would still do a weekly test..... what I would question is:

    "the fact that some false alarms to FRS arise from weekly testing, so monthly testing would at least mitigate the effects of the bad management"

I would argue that very few false alarms are due to weekly testing, after all you know you're about to set off the alarms so by definition it isn't false.

The "false alarm statistic" i presume is measured against how many times the engines are deployed, and as they are no longer deployed to the vast majority of redcare activations (therefore it doesn't matter if poor management means you forget to warn the ARC and take the system off line) then I don't see how the the reason for reducing the weekly testing can be down to false alarm management....

[Tom Sutton]

What faults would not be detected by the CIE that needs operation of the FA to detect, are there many?

[kurnal]

It's impossible to say Tom. For example one of my clients had a sheltered housing scheme with a Rafiki Sita system. There was a fire but the system completely failed to operate from detectors or the break glass unit that was operated. No fault conditions were indicated. The system was fairly new, the client asked the manufacturer for a report and sent the panel back for investigation but no explanation was ever received other than to say it can't happen. But it did.
I guess that most  failures would be due to dire maintenance.

Incidentally The fire alarm in my local Chinese takeaway has been in fire mode for over three years but no panel buzzer is sounding. I tried to explain things to them without any success.m

[Messy]

Incidentally The fire alarm in my local Chinese takeaway has been in fire mode for over three years but no panel buzzer is sounding. I tried to explain things to them without any success.

Now that is something I would have paid good money to witness 

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks Kurnal, then is the weekly test more like a stop gap to ensure the system is working and can be heard everywhere and not necessarily a fault checking procedure because all things being equal the fault checking on the CIE should detect any faults when they happen.

[kurnal]

Just a check to ensure the system works is an input from an outstation (call point) is correctly processed and results in the sounders operating. Audibility is not a factor in the weekly test.