Bs5839 1988

[Bill]

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.

Sorry to disagree. Even fire risk assessments carried out by consultants do include such details where they are available - savvy consultants - e.g. those out to give their customers a service, rather than simply take their money - would look to the fire alarm log book, and maintenance paperwork, including those religiously completed defect sheets, and act on the information therein.

I know of several consulting firms, one of them exclusively using ex fire officers (guys who were issuing fire certificates on a routine basis back in the good old days) - and all of them report on the status of the FD and A system - taking information from the log book, defect sheets, etc as they used to. Most of them are also quite capable of dropping the front of an MCP if needed too, or phoning to ask if any doubt arises - e.g. where two different engineers have said two different things.

Seriously, I'd be pretty pi**ed off if I paid for a risk assessment that missed easily available information of relevance, whether as an employing business, or as an end user.

On a related note - two things my engineers ask every customer on the way through the door, before so much as lifting a screwdriver. (1) Can I see the log book please. (2) Can I see your risk assessment please. If the answer to either is no, I have a potential sales opportunity, and more, the customer has a chance to (1) cover their butt, and (2) cover their butt legally in the case of the FRA - assuming, of course, they have more than five employees on the site and don't have one after all.

They are looking at the log book, which they also advise customers to complete after EVERY incident on the system, and at the FRA to ensure they haven't missed anything themselves - e.g. a head alarming spuriously, detection missing in an area in the building - fire risks that the alarm could deal with.

Our role as a fire system installer and maintainer is to provide a reliable and efficient system which does what the customer needs it to do, and to do that within the parameters of the current Standards. We do that by ensuring compliance with said standard, and reporting in detail to the customer where we find a defect, or non-compliance (among the other tasks necessary to complete our obligation to the cusotmer).

The role of the risk assessor is essentially to take liability away from the customer paying for the assessment - now, I wouldn't feel comfortable completing a risk assessment that I knew had missed items of importance to that risk (and if I haven't included full and frank information about the Fire Alarm, I know I haven't) ,and I'd sure as all hell want to see that guy in court the moment I discovered my risk had NOT been properly mitigated after I had paid him to ensure it had been - more if I could also show (because my fire alarm maintenance company does keep proper records) that I acted on other advice received to reduce my risks under the RRO.

The other side of this coin, of course, is the assumption that the risk assessor does not know that much about the fire alarm - that he isn't technical, or whatever. No excuse - he should have received, sought, or bought, suitable training and familiarity with the BS before ever selling his first assessment - he is lying to his customers otherwise, and basically defrauding them.

Just my tuppence worth by return(adjusted for inflation).

Regards,......

[Chorlton]

Hi Bill

If the customer is aware on any non-conformances the paper work is never available or claimed to have not been provided at the time of the FRA.

A FRA can and does rely on verbal info given and can easily state "no written verification provided".

As you well know 99% of customers are liars until proven otherwise.

Same applies for PAT testing, air con servicing etc etc etc.

As for ex-fire officers , hope you live in a better brigade area than me, LOL !

C.

[Chorlton]

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?

yes and no.

You can't be that good in all disiplines IMO even with 20yrs experiance and 1/2 dozen letters after your name.

A FRA covers far too much therfor reference & reliance has to be taken of "so called" (present company excused) competant persons/companies & in the absence of paperwork (customers hide it) a disclaimer stating "no written evidence provided" is suitable and sufficent.

C.

[luggsey]

yes and no.

You can't be that good in all disiplines IMO even with 20yrs experiance and 1/2 dozen letters after your name.

A FRA covers far too much therfor reference & reliance has to be taken of "so called" (present company excused) competant persons/companies & in the absence of paperwork (customers hide it) a disclaimer stating "no written evidence provided" is suitable and sufficent.

C.

Untill it burns down and someone dies, then the lies get exposed and prison sentances follow!

[esp-protocol]

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.

I don't really see the need for the patronising tone but then......

Well I have to say that personally I haven't come across many self extinguishing fires in my career to date, but there's still time, and obviously you can quote me several examples......

I'm not going to give an "Arthur" reply cos I'm losing the will to live. You said in one of your posts that "We all have a different opinion at some time" therefore try accepting someone elses, and move on.

If you want to recommend to your clients to keep a system that doesn't comply with current regs, and your reasoning is that a pvc cable might burn through and show a fault quicker than a fire proof cable, then good luck to you.

I wouldn't want my company name on a certificate with that recommendation being included in an FRA package

I will simply continue to follow the advice of our BAFE inspectors.....

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.

Actually it's a fact that a lot of customer's are still not aware of.

[luggsey]

If you want to recommend to your clients to keep a system that doesn't comply with current regs, and your reasoning is that a pvc cable might burn through and show a fault quicker than a fire proof cable, then good luck to you.

Now we are at the stage of skewing the facts again, did I say that? No. Is this patronising? yes.

I am listening to opinions mostly and giving my own in return, if you don't want to carry on with the discussion then simply say so.

I'm not going to give an "Arthur" reply cos I'm losing the will to live. You said in one of your posts that "We all have a different opinion at some time" therefore try accepting someone elses, and move on.

Well as I said if you want out, go. I'm not asking you to stay? If you don't want to listen to my opinions and only want your own heard then tuff luck, I'll defend my opinions as long as they are challenged.

I like to understand a reason for statement such as if it's x years old it dosen't comply and it needs upgrading, I want to fully explore the reasons and the thinking behind such a statement, not blindly follow rules set by an independent body.

If you don't want to "question" what you do and why that's your lookout, me I always question everything, like it or lump it it's what I do.

I'm wiring some old Tann TS7501A detectors (my all time fav conventionals) in red T&E (had it in the shed) in my extension tommorow, I wouldn't give it a second thought to use fp even though I have some here as well, good job it's a domestic or I would have to condem it!

[esp-protocol]

Well as I said if you want out, go. I'm not asking you to stay? If you don't want to listen to my opinions and only want your own heard then tuff luck, I'll defend my opinions as long as they are challenged.

Pot, kettle and black come to mind........

Can't actually find the bit where i said you were wrong in any of your opinions, or challenged anything.

Simply stated my own opinions.

I like to understand a reason for statement such as if it's x years old it dosen't comply and it needs upgrading, I want to fully explore the reasons and the thinking behind such a statement, not blindly follow rules set by an independent body.

If you don't want to "question" what you do and why that's your lookout, me I always question everything, like it or lump it it's what I do.

Good for you, the world will sleep easier. I just like to interpret the current BS the best I can, and follow the guidance given by our inspectors. Seems the safest option to me for keeping out of prison.

If you can justify keeping PVC cabling then good luck to you, you might save your clients a small fortune.... or burn the roof down.....!!

[Guest G.J.M]

Lugs-going back to your t+e comments on how it would give early warning of a problem in an unprotected void ,so people could investigate.

sorry but this is nonsense.

in the unlikely event the fault tone is acted upon with as soon as it is going then what is the first thing the RP will do?

search the relevant zone that is in fault if your lucky.He is not going to think to look in a void.

on seeing that there are no detectors missing etc,he may eventaully get round to calling out a company.

they may take a while to get there.

and all this time there is a fire in the void.

The standards have been written by people far more intelligent than us and twin and earth was stopped for a reason. through numerous testing etc it was decided to use fp throughout.

I can't believe in 2007, 5 years after the cop was revised guys are still trying to justify twin and earth installs aginst fp.

lets all go back to short =fire and ionisation detectors everywhere

[Tel]

pvc

[luggsey]

or burn the roof down.....!! smile.gif

See! Scare mongering again!!!!

We all want to follow BS, in my own case much to me previous employers disgust I followed it to the letter. Many is the time I re-commisioned a site if I found detector in/outs the wrong way round on a conventional, a single mistake in a text lable means check it all, even on a service. I always wanted to maintain systems to 100% fully working and configured condition all the time. Otherwise I would make a full list of defects which was in some cases repeated every service for years.....

What I don't like is seeing fully maintained systems being replaced at great cost for no real gain because a customer has been bamboozled by reports of "defects" and non complience with BS when they had a fully legal and 100% working installation. If it was a pile of **** they had then fair enough replacing it may have been in order.

I have not said don't follow guidence from you inspector, simply think about what you report and how a non-technical customer would view it. I really have seen some people ripped off by engineers that have reported systems as "non-compliant" and "defective" simply because they were installed to an earlier version of BS. The latest version of BS is better of course where better cables are used, as I already said no arguement there.

I can't believe in 2007, 5 years after the cop was revised guys are still trying to justify twin and earth installs aginst fp.

If that's suposed to be a quote from me it's as misleading as saying a BS5839-88 fire alarm needs replacing because it's 15 years old. FP is better then T&E, that's about the third time I have stated that in this thread as you know.

Niether have I said a T&E install was "better" then a FP install, all I have questioned is the justifaction of the supposed "need" to replace fully working BS5839-88 systems simply due to a different cable used in the detection circuits that was and still is legal.

As for the fire in the void, well if the fault caused somone to check the area involved before the detection circuits activated that would mean possible earlier detection of a problem. It's pie in the sky stuff to this point, the bloke checking it may have no sense of smell and miss the acrid smell of a T&E burning in the void, he may go to the wrong zone if it was serviced by some of the cowboys that operate everywhere, he may spot a small fire in a area not covered by detection, need I go on?

The thread has lost it's debate value for me now, opinions seem polorised so I won't continue with it unless some freash valid points are raised.

I'm off to wire a detection circuit in red T&E, look at my bend radius and weep!