james.wilson Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 well no you are supposed to restrict access until the alarm is disarmed fully and i would have assumed this was the case. YOu are quite right that if you can cause an alarm condition just by operating the system 'too quickly' that that is a contrevention as access has not been restricted, but is this a common problem, ie do companies actually do this with any safeguard. We always ensure the lock wont realse until disarmed (ie 2 swipes) unless using the built in panel access control as this has no delay securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 ... (ie 2 swipes) ... try to do that with hard APB.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 you should have apb forgive on unset. securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cubit Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 ... We always ensure the lock wont realse until disarmed (ie 2 swipes) unless using the built in panel access control as this has no delay I must restrict my comments to our own, ACT products, we have no delay on our panel (apart from card read duration), valid read and we immediately trigger the disarm signal. We can work on the 2 swipes to open the door but our preference is to monitor the intruder panel for 'disarmed. The door and any other relevant doors therefore remain 'locked' until panel disarmed. This removes any possibility of false alarms. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I Agree securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Simmons Tech Services Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 When i have done this type of access/intruder intergration I have always put a relay in that trips on alarm set/unset. Holding voltage to the lock until the alarm is unset and over rididng the access. Cancels all false alarms that could occur. is this subject not along way of the popular panel main question??????????????? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cubit Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 When i have done this type of access/intruder intergration I have always put a relay in that trips on alarm set/unset. Holding voltage to the lock until the alarm is unset and over rididng the access. Cancels all false alarms that could occur.is this subject not along way of the popular panel main question??????????????? Chris The initial question referred to both Intruder and Access panels. The answers, in the main, have been in response to the further questions from from the originating post. Still, what's wrong with a little deviation now and again?? Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 as im not an access control installer forgive me for the apparently dumb question but surely it is safer to disarm the system after the doors have been opened by the swipe card. what i mean is if joe bloggs the accountant of jb electronic manufacturers (yes its a false name) is on his way to work and gets mugged and beat up by two blokes that steals his wallet, cards and keys (hypothetically) and they know he has been working at that company jb electronics they can gain access to that premises that morning or night and then take whatever they like. i know it probably would never happen in the real world but has this been thought of or not?? and sorry if it sounds really stooopid cjt whatever you may think is safer the regs state different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Simmons Tech Services Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 regs regs regs Once the police give up responding to Alarm activations and we all have to use guarding firms for our response we can do what we bloody want, and believe me it aint along way off. 999 being privatised Most of SSS jobs now are keyholder only(securitas Gaurds) and none of them are up to EN regs of unsetting with prox. They are still code unset. If a customer self insures its premises surley it doesnt need to stick to the regs does it?? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 regs regs regs Once the police give up responding to Alarm activations and we all have to use guarding firms for our response we can do what we bloody want, and believe me it aint along way off. 999 being privatised Most of SSS jobs now are keyholder only(securitas Gaurds) and none of them are up to EN regs of unsetting with prox. They are still code unset. If a customer self insures its premises surley it doesnt need to stick to the regs does it?? Chris Yes or there is no response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.