Fire Alarm - Weekly Testing

[Dinnertime Dave]

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.

Sorry I disagree. Audibility is a factor, you carry out the weekly test at the same time each week and ask staff to report is it can't be heard. So indirectly it is.

[idlefire]

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.

Sorry I disagree. Audibility is a factor, you carry out the weekly test at the same time each week and ask staff to report is it can't be heard. So indirectly it is.

"The weekly test should be carried out at approximately the same time each week; occupants should then be instructed that they should report any instance of poor audibility of the fire alarm signal" (BS5839-1:2013, 44.2b)

[colin todd]

The main purpose of the weekly test is to make sure the system has not died. One way it might die is because of power failure over a weekend.

Davey, the FRS need all the money they can get to help pay your excessively generous pension which you are ekeing out using the amazing (and I use that word correctly) training you no doubt received in the 2nd greatest fire brigade in London.  And the proposal didnt come from the FRS, so you are way off beam, like so many of the ENs your colleagues serve.

Suppers, now look here, you know I always tend to agree with you, but the test is not to confirm audibility, as you could run the sounders for only 2 seconds if you wanted. Big Al is right (statistically he had to be some time).  We chucked the audibility thing in as a bit of a bonus if anyone happens to notice a problem.

[Messy]

Davey, the FRS need all the money they can get to help pay your excessively generous pension which you are ekeing out using the amazing (and I use that word correctly) training you no doubt received in the 2nd greatest fire brigade in London. 

Colin:  Once again, I was asking a straightforward and reasonable question - but you see this as another excuse for a personal dig at me. I am not sure why, as you know absolutely nothing about me other than the name of my ex - employer. Your comments refer to my pension arrangements - which like your fees -are a private matter. But worst still, you question my competence (ie quality of the training I have undertaken). This is over the mark even for someone with your arrogance.

I have no idea why you act like this. You are a very well respected figure in the fire safety world (even by me!) and it does you a disservice to act in such a manner.

[Dinnertime Dave]

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.

Sorry I disagree. Audibility is a factor, you carry out the weekly test at the same time each week and ask staff to report is it can't be heard. So indirectly it is.

"The weekly test should be carried out at approximately the same time each week; occupants should then be instructed that they should report any instance of poor audibility of the fire alarm signal" (BS5839-1:2013, 44.2b)

Sorry Colin for disagreeing. Thank you idlefire for quoting the BS.

[kurnal]

Yes I'm a bit surprised at you Dave for not knowing which clauses included  in a BS are intended to be ignored.

I accept my initial comment was a bit generalised, I was intending to make the point that the weekly test does not require a formal full walk through the premises to check all sounders and audibility, many people have this mis perception. Paragraph 44.2b (which I had forgotten about) is very arbitrary and informal and may or may not cover all parts of the building and defects may or may not be reported.

[Mr. P]

Persons appointed to test AFD sytems weekly monthly or if they remember; A management/triaining issue. The tester should know if their system is linked to an auto call/dial to their LAFB. Knowing how to operate and conduct the test and, inform their LAFB or bypass the auto call/dial and, rest it/re-inform LAFB. OK, so more work due to phone calls, but, a saving on turnouts which are unwanted re-actions?

[idlefire]

The main purpose of the weekly test is to make sure the system has not died.

Forgive my ignorance Colin but, would a quick glance at the panel tell you if the system had "died"?

[Jim Scott]

The main purpose of the weekly test is to make sure the system has not died.

Forgive my ignorance Colin but, would a quick glance at the panel tell you if the system had "died"?

I suppose it depends how dead is dead.....

I look at my car most mornings and see the little LED flashing on the door, which indicates the alarm is working.  Therefore the battery must be good right?

How disappointed am I when I turn the key to hear the dreaded clicking of a flat battery.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Yes I'm a bit surprised at you Dave for not knowing which clauses included  in a BS are intended to be ignored.

I accept my initial comment was a bit generalised, I was intending to make the point that the weekly test does not require a formal full walk through the premises to check all sounders and audibility, many people have this mis perception. Paragraph 44.2b (which I had forgotten about) is very arbitrary and informal and may or may not cover all parts of the building and defects may or may not be reported.

Yes, that has always been my failing. But lets not stop at BS5839, let's add BS 9999, ADB and the Government  Guides too. It's usually fire engineers who point out "That's a mistake" or "What they meant to say is " usually by way of a mathematical formula.

[David Rooney]

The main purpose of the weekly test is to make sure the system has not died.

Forgive my ignorance Colin but, would a quick glance at the panel tell you if the system had "died"?

Not necessarily ... as the example of the Sita system - and there are other example around including Gent systems ..... any microprocessor controlled system (which is pretty much all of them these days) can potentially stop seeing data eg. a fire condition from an MCP or detector and although the systems should flag a fault condition a few firms are in denial and won't accept their babies could possibly do such a thing .......

[jokar]

The fire alarm test for the building I work in is on a Friday, a non work day for me so I have not heard it in years.  However, it does work as we have been turned out occasionally.

[David Rooney]

The fire alarm test for the building I work in is on a Friday, a non work day for me so I have not heard it in years.  However, it does work as we have been turned out occasionally.

I love customers that test on a Friday and then ring for a call out Friday afternoon when they discover something isn't right ....... 

[Mr. P]

Joker/David, what is a Friday?(insert sunbathing smiley here)

[colin todd]

Idol,  you are right that if they look for the green LED it will tell them if it is electrically dead.  There is an argument that the weekly test could just be to check the LED but people might not do it.  If you were sure they would, you might be ok.  However, it is possible as Mickey says for a system to be totally u/s even though it is powered up.  It all becomes a matter of probability as to whether that could happen in a fire.  The weekly test does offer a degree of comfort I have to say.

Suppers, the audibility thing is really just a bonus, a sort of icing on the cake.  The problem is that the BS does not make this clear.