If you have a building that has electronic realise doors with a keycode pad to exit the building but the doors realise on the activation of the fire alarm, is there still a requirement for an emergency realise breakglass point to be at each exit door in case of the failure of the fire alarm or circuit that would realise the doors? Barney#1

Just looked it up in BS9999:2008. It states @Electronically powered locks should return to the unlocked position either: a) on operation of the fire alarm; or b) on loss of power or system error,; or c) on activation of a manual door release unit (type A) conforming to BS EN 54-11:200+A1:2006 positioned at the door on the side approached by people making thier escape. Where the door provides escape in either direction a unit should be installed on both sides of the door.

BS9999 requires one of the three options. If your alarm system is tied into the door controls they should release when the alarm is activated or when there is a power failure. Otherwise they wil need to be released by pressing the button. These are contained in a break glass box and when activated the glass needs to be replaced. The most common type I believe is the one that is released when the alarm is activated, but if you are changing the system it is usually the manual release type that is used.

There will always be a conflict between security and fire safety, as the two work in opposite directions. As a former fire service officer I want to see devices that fail to "open" and like to see a secondary means. (belt and braces). What if the only one fails?

Chris - Why should there be conflict between fire safety and security - for some years I worked alongside security specialists and fire officers who thought the same but once I got them sat down together they came up with solutions that were satisfactory to both sides. As I said in my posting I never ever saw an alarm activated release fail. These were fitted so that they always failed to 'open' i.e. when the power was switched off or failed, they opened. Having a second means of release is as you say belt and braces but does not take into account risk - I know that in the event of a fire the risk of a fatality can be very high but the likelihood of the door not being released is extremely low in my experience. Do you have a second set of brakes on your car to ensure you stop in case the first set fail? Take care John C

I have never heard of a door release system failing either, the car issue was simply an example of why have two systems when the first one is very very reliable anyway.

My car has a handbrake - does yours?

I have worked alongside security officers myself, and even been responsible for both fire and security at the same time. The conflict arises where security officers are concerned with keeping people out where fire officers need people to be able to get out. I am not criticising security as they have their job to do. Some however have a dislike for panic bolts and other easily opening equipment and would like to see chains on doors even when premises are occupied.

teh-boy, I don't know where you get your info from but on a car the brakes do not fail to the on position ( this may be the case on lorries) they are applied by pressing the footbrake. The handbrake is a mechanical system through cables etc. It is common to have an emergecy release system on the fire escape simply to overcome any unforseen instances where the system has failed to the wrong side. As has been explained when the fire alarm is activated the power to the door controls is isolated so the magnets that hold the door locks is deactivated therefore released (they are electro-magnets that is why they need the power on to operate). There is nom legal requirenment to have any more than one system, to have all three is costly and well over the top. BS9999:2008 is available on the net and although can be quite costly is well worth the read (heavy going I'm afraid, but never the less interesting). One thingg to remeber the RRFSO is not the only piece of legislation that applies to fire safety, BS9999 covers the design, management and use of buildings.

anyone who thinks maglock doors are good security option may be shocked to learn how easy they are to barge open. It's a design feature!

Barney, this type of system if it fails it fails in the open or unlocked position. The power is applied to secure the system so if the power fails the doors are released. Safety Smurf is quite right in that the system can be broken open against the magnet, but who would do that in the normal course of event? Someone who is breaking in might but surly not in normal use. As far as the reasonably practicable argument is comcerned, the legal duty to have such systems is not unreasonable, please remember that to have such a system is both reasonable and practicable as they do not cost the earth and are recognised as good practice therefore using the reasonably practicable argfument does not hold water, ask a fire service inspector.

No, there is no need to have both systems, although they tend to be fitted together. If the power fails the doors will unlock, they are designed that way. In the office I worked had both fitted but the emergency button was never used except as a test. The doors to the fire escape were tested on a reguilar basis by me and they never failed to release. The whole system cost a few hundred pounds and was part of the system when fitted by the building owner (we were tenents) as part of the lease of the office.

All this about doors failing to open surely misses the main point of BGUs My take on BGU door overrides is that they when they are required, the aim is to cover any failure in the fire alarm control equipment or wiring between the control panel and maglock which results in a failure to isolate the power to the maglock despite an alarm condition. A BGU switch will provide a locally sourced power supply (to trip the magnet), free from reliance of the fire alarm control equipment. Have I got this wrong??