Now finalised, BSI state double pole isolator local to the panel, for service and commissioning purposes, which is protected from unauthorised or accidentel disconnection via an enclosure or which is lockable. A simple recommendation is to fit readily made mk or crabtree purpose made lockable fused spurs.
Okay. Pretty well as I pointed out. The clarification in A2:2008 is simply the addition of the words enclosure or lockable.
BAFE and LPC both confirm the above stating unswitched fused spurs would be deemed as failure to comply.
Well, that's very interesting, as it is conflicting advice from that which we have been given time and again. We've had NSi, SSAIB, FIA, and BAFE inspectors on various of our customer sites, and not one has indicated a failure on that basis. The advice we have been given remains, that a screw fastening fuse holder on a standard double pole spur IS acceptable on ANY existing installation, and potentially on NEW installations, subject only to the criteria of unauthorised access - e.g. the issue of how many individuals are likely to carry a terminal screwdriver around with them for the purpose of disconnecting a fire alarm system, often times in front of a receptionist, or door security, who may wish to enquire what they're doing.
Morley/Notifier, Kentec, Haes & Advanced all state within their manuals to install local double pole isolators, they all confirm the easy solution is to install mk.
C-Tec state since 2002 all new manuals state lockable double pole switched fused spur.
C-Tec's CFP Manual does NOT state lockable at all, and nor does their XFP manual.
As far as I know (I don't have immediately to hand) none of the DX, ZX, or Horizon manuals state lockable.
Kentec's Syncro manual is even worse, and only states that the panel requires "a 230V supply which must be derived from a separate fused spur, labelled "FIRE ALARM - DO NOT SWITCH OFF".....
Advanced state only that mains wiring must be carried out in accordance with National Standards in the MX-4000 manual.
I don't, therefore, know where you've been getting your information from, or what manuals you've been reading, but it is clearly erroneous. This information is from the downloaded manuals, fresh from their website, as of this minute. They're all panels and manufacturers we use regularly.
FM companies (jack of all trades servicing companies) should become members of BAFE or LPC before making such rash comments on BSi standards
[/QUOTE]
As for the dig, perhaps it would be better informed of you, one, to get your facts correct, and two, not to judge companies you know nothing about. I take extreme exception to this comment, given that it is clearly aimed in this direction, and I'm happy to share a beer with you any time you like, during which I'm also happy to show you a whole album FULL of the systems we've taken over from BAFE, LPC, FIA, and other organisation registered or approved companies. That's why our customers choose us over them. Approval is a matter for us, and the body we choose to approve us, not for someone without any evidenced credentials of their own to browbeat us with, in the absence of actual facts.
As for rash comments, no. As you can see, clearly, I have no issue backing up my comments, and doing the research where there's any doubt. Again, this is why our customers choose us over others.
Perhaps your own "rash" comments about companies and their abilities would be better first considered?
Maybe you can tell me where you've seen our work, and what the problems were that you came across?
Or, perhaps it was some other "jack of all trades servicing company" you meant to comment on? - That, by the way is also a misnomer, as we employ specialists in each discipline, and DO NOT multi-task as a rule.
