Bs5839 1988

[luggsey]

We all have a different opinion at some time,mine is to make it clear what I belive is the best approach to reporting on the condition of a BS5839-88 system. Advise that it does not meet the latest standards if in your opinion that is required, if you do however, also advise that this is not a mandatory requriment, simply advice to upgrade the system in your opinion. (Where in the BS does it state that it is retrospective?)

If you want to talk about "butt covering" then talk about risk managment, the likeleyhood of a fire alarm failing and life/property being lost because it was installed to BS5839-88 (Properly and fully to the regs) is in my opinion extremeley remote, therefore a risk managment decision based on the facts would IMO conclude there was very little to gain from upgrading the system. Any loss considered to be caused by a BS5839-88 system failing where a 2002 system would have possibly worked would be one for the lawyers to decide, unless anyone can quote me case law on the subject?

In that case I simply have a different opinion of how I inform customers of the complience or not of their fire alarms, I would never say their 5839-88 system "dosen't comply with the regs" without fully explaining the facts about what is legal and what is not and what is simply considered "butt covering" by those that feel the need and/or simply want the work.

On the T&E cable in the void, well the point I made was valid in that circumstance, a T&E cable will fail before a FP under extreme heat therefore creating the possibility of fire detection (all be it via a fault condition) through failure.

As for my idea of a heat sensitive cable, well someone got there first! Damm, back to work!

Thanks for the info though Bill, I haven't seen one before so I'll take a look.

[esp-protocol]

This thread was about what to tell a client if his fire alarm is wired to BS5839-88 standards, not which sort of cable is best.

Some of the points raised are valid enough, FP is better for fire alarms then T&E, no arguement there.

What I disagree with is a blanket statement of "does not comply and needs rewiring" because it's 15 years old.

As I keep saying, make your client aware there are newer regulations which T&E cable do not comply with if you wish, or simply note on the paperwork it is a BS5839-88 system and leave it at that. It's still in full complience with the law and highly unlikely to be less safe then a newer install if installed correctly. To suggest to a client that their safety/property is at risk due to the wiring being BS5839-88 is simply scare mongering.

No one has said that you just "tell the client it doesn't comply" without explaining and giving a full reason behind the non-compliance that with the client's and all other interested parties' conscent you could even make it an agreed variation.

[esp-protocol]

We all have a different opinion at some time,mine is to make it clear what I belive is the best approach to reporting on the condition of a BS5839-88 system. Advise that it does not meet the latest standards if in your opinion that is required, if you do however, also advise that this is not a mandatory requriment, simply advice to upgrade the system in your opinion. (Where in the BS does it state that it is retrospective?)

If you want to talk about "butt covering" then talk about risk managment, the likeleyhood of a fire alarm failing and life/property being lost because it was installed to BS5839-88 (Properly and fully to the regs) is in my opinion extremeley remote, therefore a risk managment decision based on the facts would IMO conclude there was very little to gain from upgrading the system. Any loss considered to be caused by a BS5839-88 system failing where a 2002 system would have possibly worked would be one for the lawyers to decide, unless anyone can quote me case law on the subject?

In that case I simply have a different opinion of how I inform customers of the complience or not of their fire alarms, I would never say their 5839-88 system "dosen't comply with the regs" without fully explaining the facts about what is legal and what is not and what is simply considered "butt covering" by those that feel the need and/or simply want the work.

Lugs, we all explain the facts to the client with an explanation of why we make the recommendations, otherwise we might be deemed incompetent under the RRFSO, and we would also get pulled by our BAFE inspectors.

The point of telling the client so clearly about the non-conformities is that he is now personally legally liable for fire safety, unlike a couple of years ago when he could hide behind a fire certificate .... if it applied.

Therefore in your clear and concise explanation don't forget to tell him who takes ultimate responsibility.

On the T&E cable in the void, well the point I made was valid in that circumstance, a T&E cable will fail before a FP under extreme heat therefore creating the possibility of fire detection (all be it via a fault condition) through failure.

Sorry but what is the point of the cable failing under fire condiditons, I thought the idea was to avoid cable failure and to evacuate the building??

Who calls the fire brigade because of a fault lamp on their panel??

As for my idea of a heat sensitive cable, well someone got there first! Damm, back to work!

Thanks for the info though Bill, I haven't seen one before so I'll take a look.

Also try Patol, they make a good sysem, been around for years.

.... regarding retrospective bit, phone the NSI or BAFE direct, or ask the FIA trainers. The maintenance section applies retrospectively for the reasons given previously.

[Guest G.J.M]

As Esp puts we are not suggesting that a system should be regarded as non complaint without an explanation to the customer and lets be honest, any monkey could go to an old fire system and say it does not comply.They would then look like they did not know what they were talking about if they did not back that up with facts.

[Bill]

We all have a different opinion at some time,mine is to make it clear what I belive is the best approach to reporting on the condition of a BS5839-88 system. Advise that it does not meet the latest standards if in your opinion that is required, if you do however, also advise that this is not a mandatory requriment, simply advice to upgrade the system in your opinion. (Where in the BS does it state that it is retrospective?)

If you want to talk about "butt covering" then talk about risk managment, the likeleyhood of a fire alarm failing and life/property being lost because it was installed to BS5839-88 (Properly and fully to the regs) is in my opinion extremeley remote, therefore a risk managment decision based on the facts would IMO conclude there was very little to gain from upgrading the system. Any loss considered to be caused by a BS5839-88 system failing where a 2002 system would have possibly worked would be one for the lawyers to decide, unless anyone can quote me case law on the subject?

In that case I simply have a different opinion of how I inform customers of the complience or not of their fire alarms, I would never say their 5839-88 system "dosen't comply with the regs" without fully explaining the facts about what is legal and what is not and what is simply considered "butt covering" by those that feel the need and/or simply want the work.

On the T&E cable in the void, well the point I made was valid in that circumstance, a T&E cable will fail before a FP under extreme heat therefore creating the possibility of fire detection (all be it via a fault condition) through failure.

As for my idea of a heat sensitive cable, well someone got there first! Damm, back to work!

Thanks for the info though Bill, I haven't seen one before so I'll take a look.

Hi

A big part of the point of having standards in the first place is to avoid "differences" of opinion. That said, I'm sure we can all point to clauses in many standards which are as clear as mud. I've long been of the view point that what the fire industry needs is a good reference guide for engineers - somewhat like the "On Site Guide" companion to BS7671.

As regards advising the client - it would be nonsensical simply to state that their system did not comply without also giving valid reasons which can be substantiated. Further, any Defect sheet worth it's name will also categorise the defects found in terms of Manadatory, Advisory, Recommended. It's been mentioned elsewhere, but you take on a legal responsibility once you've maintained a system - and should it not do what you've said it will (and potentially only by implication) the client is well within his rights to come after you if their building burns down - and any solicitor in such a case will be looking to drag the maintenanc eocmpany into court as quickly as possible in any case - either to prove it did work as described, or to prove the maintainer guilty of incomptenence. This is the reason that the fire industry is so anal about getting the customer to sign everything - the customer is then aware of the limitations, non conformances, defects, and other issues, and signs to take the risk back on themselves, having been informed of the extent of those risks (and likelihood).

I don't think that any industry professional would look to classifying Twin and Earth installations as critical defects, though a proper risk assessment would, indeed, provide a guide as to how much of a risk it was on an individual basis. The point remains that it is a non conformance under the 2002 amendment and should be notified every time. I'm not aware of any specific law relating to this, though there is a fair bit of case law out there.

Certainly, twin and earth cable will fail to exhibit intended characteristics before a fire rated cable under fire conditions, but I'm not aware of any formula which predicts in what way it will fail - at best, there are limited odds that your scenario will actually happen - e.g. assumes the rest of the installation is correct (end of lines actually are at the end of the line and not in the panel which will mask a lot of fault conditions, that head removal is not employed and a head hasn't been removed somewhere on that zone, that the cable fails short circuit and not open circuit, that the zone is not already in fault for any number of reasons. These are just a few more reasons why fire rated cable is advisable - because it will allow at least another 30 minutes of system integrity not afforded by twin and earth - and may be the difference between detection working and not, or between bells/sirens activating (and staying activated) and not.

Fault conditions are disitnct and different from fire conditions for a very valid reason - they are not immediately critical to life or property safety in that building - but require attention. They do not (generally) cause evacuation of the building, nor can a fault condition in an otherwise compliant system trigger any bell circuit, hence the "alarm" part of the alarm and detection system just failed its task, hence your installation did NOT perform as required, as advertised, or as expected. Liable. Guilty. No business/career/income - if not worse. Manslaughter is likely if life is lost.

After all, your customer suddenly is not going to see you as the good guy who tried to save him a few quid after you let his building burn down - is he? Extreme, perhaps, but possible, and possible is the risk that needs to be covered after all - from your point and from your customer's. Legal teams will jump all over anything they can get their hands on to shift liability - as will your customer if he thinks he's getting "burned" (sorry) for the fire.

As I said, the reason for noting it is non-compliance, not simply butt covering - though as we've just seen, butt covering can be pretty important - rather than earning a few quid. There are far easier ways to do that, though none of them offer any long term stability or repeat custom. It's not a direction I'd ever want my business to go in, and is why you'll find in time that I disagree strongly with incentiveising engineers via commission and "performance" bonuses driven by financials - such as certain big companies out there do.

On another note......

The Alarmline stuff is pretty useful - it has a multitude of uses where heat detection is desired, is adjustable for trigger temperature, and quite easy to set up and install.

Regards,

[luggsey]

ESP you said:

Personally I would recommend to my client that their old system was obsolete and the wiring out of date and to replace the lot with something that met current standards.... ph34r.gif

Then you say:

Lugs, we all explain the facts to the client with an explanation of why we make the recommendations, otherwise we might be deemed incompetent under the RRFSO, and we would also get pulled by our BAFE inspectors.

Which is what I was saying all along!!!!!!! Now you are saying it.......

Sorry but what is the point of the cable failing under fire condiditons, I thought the idea was to avoid cable failure and to evacuate the building??

Who calls the fire brigade because of a fault lamp on their panel??

Oh dear, I'll explain again. If there was a small fire in a void that did not have fire detection in it, say a cable duct, the early failure of a T&E cable due to heat/flame would possibly give warning of a problem where a FP cable would not.

Who calls the fire brigade because of a fault lamp on their panel??

Well there may well be some investigation of a fault before a fire spreads out of a void leading to earlier detection and evacuation of the building, thus on this imaginary occasion the fitment of a cable that melts and goes into fault condition in a fire may well have been more desireable then a FP style cable that carried on working and let a fire spread.

I included this arguement to show the possibility of a benefit of a non heat resisting detection circuit.

Thing is you seem to assume I am trying to show the benifits of a BS5839-88 system when I have in fact simply been stating that you should not tell a customer a BS5839-88 system "does not comply" and should be replaced unless you make them aware of the full facts, ie. they don't have to. You do now seem to be repeating that as if that's what you do anyway..... A risk assement would show only a tiny extra risk which would not be a viable reason to replace a correctly installed BS5839-88 system. As I said show me the case law to demonstrate the legal need to replace BS5839-88 systems and I would have a different opinion. Otherwise I stick to my statement that BS5839-88 systems do not have to be replaced to remain totally satisfactory and legal, even after 20 years if maintained correctly.

GJM now you are agreeing that you should not simply condem a system and say it dosen't comply with BS5839-2002 without explaining to the client that it is a legal installation and in order to be kept as it is if they are made aware of the tiny risk of a cable failure leading to a failure to detect a fire, (which to be honest I personally have never heard of happening......) that has been my point all through this thread..........but the "facts" are being skewed in favour of condeming legal installations which I find worrying. Trying to scare a customer with a statement like "well you take ultimate responsibility if there is a fire" is in my opinion scare tatics aimed at securing work not in the interests of the customer or their safety.

[Chorlton]

Just to put my 2pence into the mix.

No fire risk assessment (even if carried out by a consultant) will go into such details as to the cable type being FP ot T&E.

Reliance on the system being "maintained" by a competant person/company and being to the correct category for the use of the premises (L1 etc) is all that will be noted.

,

C.

[luggsey]

Just to put my 2pence into the mix.

No fire risk assessment (even if carried out by a consultant) will go into such details as to the cable type being FP ot T&E.

Reliance on the system being "maintained" by a competant person/company and being to the correct category for the use of the premises (L1 etc) is all that will be noted.

,

C.

If a report on a fire alarm (or almost any system or installation) advises changes to the system for reasons of safety then a subsquent risk assesment could include any part of the fire alarm system and it's components mentioned in the report.

[Chorlton]

If a report on a fire alarm (or almost any system or installation) advises changes to the system for reasons of safety then a subsquent risk assesment could include any part of the fire alarm system and it's components mentioned in the report.

I understand your POV.

I'm just saying a FRA won't go into such detail it will merely pass the buck back to the service company withe reference to "alarm is service as per 5839 by XXX" so it's up to said service company to list every non-conformance and not rely on the FRA for any butt covering.

C.

[luggsey]

I understand your POV.

I'm just saying a FRA won't go into such detail it will merely pass the buck back to the service company withe reference to "alarm is service as per 5839 by XXX" so it's up to said service company to list every non-conformance and not rely on the FRA for any butt covering.

C.

I thought you meant any risk assesment, I see what you mean now and I agree, however if the fire alarm "had" non conformances these should really be part of the FRA? Don't you think?