Bs8243:2010

[james.wilson]

Went to a WW1 training event / seminar yesterday. As you may know we have started using these (in IP mode where possible) as our preferred high risk signalling device. Still using red secure at grade 3 for the low risk stuff. We dont use Grade 2 anything apart from digis.

But the below came up. As you know 8243 calls for the below text to be added. However we have added that with some additional notes as below.

BS8243 2010-11

If an ATS provider is offering Grade 2 or 3 signalling solutions, self certified or otherwise to Grade 2 and 3 you need to consider attributing warnings to your specifications.

An LPS1277 approved dual path solution would not need a warning because it delivers notification of catastrophic failure in minutes, however we recommend that warnings should also apply to Grade 2 and 3 dual path systems to avoid the repercussions of delayed notification of catastrophic faults/attacks:

In BS8243 2010-1 the following warning is given with regard to single path signalling systems:

Any Grade of single path signalling

“Your attention is drawn to the fact that failure or compromise of single path signalling cannot be passed to the police. While the failure persists, subsequent alarms cannot be notified to the alarm receiving centre and passed to the police.”

We have added the below note.

Grade 2 Dual Path

“Your attention is drawn to the fact that failure or compromise of the dual path signalling may not be passed to the Police for up to 24 hours. While the failure persists, subsequent alarms cannot be notified to the alarm receiving centre and passed to the police.”

Grade 3 Dual Path

“Your attention is drawn to the fact that failure or compromise of the dual path signalling may not be passed to the Police for up to 5 hours. While the failure persists, subsequent alarms cannot be notified to the alarm receiving centre and passed to the police.”

We have also started adding the ATS level to the first page ie LPS1277 4plus or 5, depending on pstn or IP mode

[Amps]

Quote

Grade 2 Dual Path

“Your attention is drawn to the fact that failure or compromise of the dual path signalling may not be passed to the Police for up to 24 hours. While the failure persists, subsequent alarms cannot be notified to the alarm receiving centre and passed to the police.”

Grade 3 Dual Path

“Your attention is drawn to the fact that failure or compromise of the dual path signalling may not be passed to the Police for up to 5 hours. While the failure persists, subsequent alarms cannot be notified to the alarm receiving centre and passed to the police.”

So if both paths failed it could take 24 hours for this to be reported? Why is this please?

[breff]

look at this attachment

DualCom GradeShift® Range Specifications LR.pdf

[jimcarter]

Within EN, the reporting time for Grade 2 Systems is 24 hours, so if you can disable the communications, you may not know for up to 24 hours. Not good.

Grade 3 has a reporting time of 5 hours in single path systems. Still not very good.

Dual path Grade 3 has a reporting time of 5 hours on the primary and 24 hours on the secondary. Thats back to 24 hour reporting time if you can disable the communications. Nope, that's not good either.

Even at Grade 4, dual path, the secondary reporting time is 5 hours. Not sure if that's much good for high risk?

Understanding the reporting times and being able to explain the risks involved is valuable information during the specification of a system and advising a client.

The key in the attachment from the last post is the simultaneous failure notification time. 24 hours on Grade 2, 1 hour in Grade 3 (better than the standard but still a long time) and 3 minutes at Grade 4. So, if you were picking a signalling solution for your valuables, how quickly would you like to know the system is in failure?

[Adi]

All the agro and cash spent on these regs, and they still end up with a pile of ...., unbelievable.

[jimcarter]

What you have to remember ADi is that the EN standards are a mixture of views from all countries. They have to accommodate all the interests of all parties involved and that's why they take so long to become a released standard. So, they tend to be the minimum requirement. Then, each country overlays their own requirements and certifications. Hence in the UK we end up with LPS1277 for signalling which enhances the EN standard to what the UK industry needs, from an Insurance perspective.

In other countries there are similar "additional" requirements that have to be tested and certificated to. I'm not going to name them here, but I can if your interested!

Signalling is a very complex topic, and whilst EN is "ok", it's a long way from being perfect as mentioned above. Signalling has been dumbed down too long but there are a lot of people waking up to the fact that there are a lot of systems sold cheap, that don't operate in the way they may have expected.

[MrHappy]

Signalling is a very complex topic

TBH I was lost on

Went to a WW1 training event

I assumed it where something to do with machine gunning the Hun

[Adi]

What you have to remember ADi is that the EN standards are a mixture of views from all countries. They have to accommodate all the interests of all parties involved and that's why they take so long to become a released standard. So, they tend to be the minimum requirement. Then, each country overlays their own requirements and certifications. Hence in the UK we end up with LPS1277 for signalling which enhances the EN standard to what the UK industry needs, from an Insurance perspective.

In other countries there are similar "additional" requirements that have to be tested and certificated to. I'm not going to name them here, but I can if your interested!

Signalling is a very complex topic, and whilst EN is "ok", it's a long way from being perfect as mentioned above. Signalling has been dumbed down too long but there are a lot of people waking up to the fact that there are a lot of systems sold cheap, that don't operate in the way they may have expected.

I appreciate afew countries are involved, but, how in ant country can a report time of upto 24hrs be good for any system/user/insurance firm.

Surely its common sense writing these regs, or atleast it should be, wht cant they start off agree-ing how the regs should work instead of bodging it as they go along.

[james.wilson]

The issue is IMO is that a 24 hour reporting time is ok for low risk systems or low budget systems

The problem arises when specifiers and/or installers dont know this 24 hour time is there and think all dual path systems are the same.

They are not.

I dont quote G2 signalling but a lot... no a hell of a lot do. Because its cheap. There is a reason that its cheap mind. If the industry hadnt moved in this direction (ie mainly G2) then the insurance world may not have demanded LPS1277. As it is they see loads of different signalling devices. How do they know which are any good etc. ie Dualcom and all its versions, Redcare and its versions, Emizon, WW1, Chiron, that risco unit etc etc etc. They cant just say we want redcare anymore. So this allows them to spec something that is independantly verified and certified.

has anyone ever tested these units in failure before deciding on one? Or do many think well im 'insured' and it may never happen so ill go with the cheap one?

I assumed it where something to do with machine gunning the Hun

lol

[Joe Harris]

...then the insurance world may not have demanded LPS1277

Except they aren't yet demanding it.

It is a sad reality that G2 systems are popular due to costs, however the RA should dictate appropriate application and you notice the same industry stalwarts not balking at the vast number of digis with single 24hour test signals (or none at all).

It is a point to consider and best practise is always encouraged. Of course all documentation and information fed back to the end users should be clear, consise and explain the pros and cons of each type of system.

We need to ensure that we don't mix up actual legislation with alternative and currently unsupported legislation.

'J