Rank: Forum user 
|
I have been asked about the legal aspect of processing the signal from smoke detectors through a delay as is possible with manual call points to give facilities a few minutes to check whether it is a false alarm before the signal goes to the fire control centre.
I have looked to see what information is about but do not have a copy of BS5839 so I cannot check whether there is any information in there.
The facilities manager is looking into whether it is technically possible.
We currently have a 2 minute delay on the MCP's which works well, is it acceptable to increase this to 3 or 4 mins within the legislation?
with thanks
AndyB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
speak to the fire service for advice as its easy to do technicially but an area to consider is what to say to a parent etc. when they ask about what U have done!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
BS5839 is a bit wishy washy when it comes to determining maximum delays and says a time delay (or staff search times as they call it) "should not normally exceed 6 minutes". (whatever 'normally' means!)
I haven't got a copy of the BS in front of me, when when I can, I'll provide details of where that statement is within the BS
I am not sure whether that applies to MCPs though, as the actuation of a MCP usually acts as a second knock and cancels the delay sending the system into full alarm. However, I can see why you wouldn't want this is an educational establishment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with Bob. It is possible to filter out the signal for a period of time but why would you do it? The only reason would be to reduce unwanted fire alarms possibly at the request of the fire service. We have implemented a 4 minute delay in the hospital I work in, and it needs a robust procedure, a lot of training to be in place, along with ownership by our fire response team staff. The fact still remains though, what would you do if you cancelled an activation and later on it proved to be a real fire with casulties, how would you feel.
SBH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
BS 5839 Part 1
19.2.2 Recommendations applicable to staff alarms. Para f)
and for the mcp’s
20.2 Recommendations. Para b) and Note*
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you for your responses I will be discussing the situation with the powers that be on Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
SBH wrote:I agree with Bob. It is possible to filter out the signal for a period of time but why would you do it?
SBH There are several reasons: 1) Loss of production or productive time caused by an evacuation can cost a lot of cash. One site I have dealt with worked it out at almost half a million pounds per evacuation. In Schools, there can be a significant disruption to studying or exams. 2) Safety: Evacuations bring with them a risk of injury. In healthcare, and where people are not familiar with the building, or where there is a sleeping risk, the risk associated with an evacuation can be significant 3) Commercial: Would you stay in a hotel again after being tipped out of bed at 03:00 in the rain? Turnover & profits can be effected by repeated UwFS 4) Lastly, because you can. BS5839 allows staff search delays and this BS is considered a benchmark standard by all enforcement authorities. It is true that a full and detail RA will be needed to justify this approach, and a robust emergency plan operated by fully trained staff will be required. But it is all possible with meticulous planning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.