commercial fire alarm

[tazz]

Will you please go and get professional advice from the relevent bodies or stick with NACOSS

 

[accordfire]

Will you please go and get professional advice from the relevent bodies or stick with NACOSS

We do get professional advice, whoever you are. Constantly.

Nor are we with Nacoss - which, in fact is the NSi.

Now, fudging the issues you brought up won't solve the issue either.

You were pointed out on your comments, now be man enough to back up the information you gave, and show us specifically where in these manuals it says lockable?

It might be an idea to apoligise too for the comments you made concerning my company.

 

[tazz]

Again I suggest you phone the relivent BSI & BAFE and inquire then we will continue this debate

 

[tazz]

Just checked Ctec, as I wanted to be correct, XFP manual page 6 states feed from a switch fused spur
Current manual rev 3

 

[accordfire]

Again I suggest you phone the relivent BSI & BAFE and inquire then we will continue this debate

Perhaps, my fried, you should read what I wrote above.

You stated clearly, that various manufacturers insists on lockable isolators. I have pointed out to you that none of them say any such thing in their manuals.

You bad mouthed my business, on groundless accusations, without cause, yet whilst also blatantly not evidencing your own qualifications and approvals, if any at all.

You've ignored the fact that I referred to the standard, and have backed up my experience, and further, have pointed out exactly where our information comes from, industry approval and registration bodies we speak to on a daily basis.

You've also ignored the VERY obvious fact, that "having an approval" is NOT, by any means the same as working to the required standard.

And finally, pal, there's no mileage at all in wafting in, making derogatory comments, and then pretending you're holier than thou. It's sad, to be honest.

There's a spirit in here of people helping one and other, and what you've shown today is the anthesis of that - and again, without any intent of backing up your bad mouthing.

So, again, I say to you, back your claims up, tell me where you've seen work of ours that leads you to the conclusion we're "jack of all trade service of FM companies" or shut up.

I was willing to enter into this with you in a spirit of professional friendliness, but clearly, that isn't your intent at all.

So, to be honest, I don't think any of your comments are worth any further comment, since you clearly cannot back up anything you've said, much less your own credentials.

 

[Guest123]

Whilst it is obvious tazz & accordfire are specialists in this area, this device satisfies all manufacturers and ruling bodies reccomendations regarding the isolation & switching of supplies to fire alarm systems.

I use these ALL the time and have never had one issue with any body concerned regarding their use, along with a red lockable enclosure at the supply end of the circuit, usually adjacent to a DB. Although I am led to believe that the lockable enclosure is not 100% needed as long as the circuit supplying said equipment is clearly marked and labelled.

 

[accordfire]

Whilst it is obvious tazz & accordfire are specialists in this area, this device satisfies all manufacturers and ruling bodies reccomendations regarding the isolation & switching of supplies to fire alarm systems. I use these ALL the time and have never had one issue with any body concerned regarding their use, along with a red lockable enclosure at the supply end of the circuit, usually adjacent to a DB. Although I am led to believe that the lockable enclosure is not 100% needed as long as the circuit supplying said equipment is clearly marked and labelled.

Thanks Lenny, and sound advice.

The other fella seems to have chosen to ignore the fact that I haven't actually argued against the use of these devices at all.

It should also be noted, according to the FIA, who I've just come off the phone with in the last hour, that the application, WHERE REQUIRED, of a lockable isolator is not retrospective in most cases, unless there is a proven issue with the disconnection of the supply. That's to say, if a system was originally installed prior to the A2 amendment, it need NOT be upgraded as a matter of course.

For new installations, a risk assessment based choice of equipment is required, and if there is likely to be an issue viz. mains disconnection, tampering, or other interference, then all precautions should be taken to ensure that said disconnection cannot happen (not might not, but cannot) - and to be honest, getting hold of a 3405 test key or equivalent is not hard - about 80p from any supplier.

The advice from the FIA still remains, however, that it is advisory, and not mandatory. I don't know where the other guy thinks he got his informations from, sadly, and he doesn't seem willing to tell us.

I'm gonna let this rest now, as the only way I see it going is downhill, and I don't want that. If the guy wants to PM or email me, I'm happy to discuss further with him.

 

[tazz]

last comment, TELEPHONE BSI WHO WRITE THE BS5839 part 1 and ask for advice.

Concerning myself, btec electrical eng, BSI 2002 certificated, BAFE, LPS1014 credited.
Tech design engineer/consultant LUL & Gov

 

[Guest123]

Gents.....please do not let this descend into a "my CV is bigger than yours" type thread.

You obviously both specialise in this area, and it is good for the forum to have specialists in any area to advise the members and discuss issues with regs & practices etc.

Lets leave the 'egos' at the door and debate as adults.

Thank you.

 

[accordfire]

last comment, TELEPHONE BSI WHO WRITE THE BS5839 part 1 and ask for advice.

BSi Publish it. It's written by many people. And thanks, our membership in BSi allows us to do that any time we need to.

Concerning myself, btec electrical eng, BSI 2002 certificated, BAFE, LPS1014 credited.
Tech design engineer/consultant LUL & Gov

That explains a lot.

I can understand mandatory lockable spurs on LUL, having spent a lot of time working on LUL systems of one sort and another. I can understand it on many Gov properties too.

However, I don't understand why you feel it's ok to denigrate and bad mouth companies you've never had any dealings with, or understanding of. It would have been fine to disagree on the basis that your informations was different, without the need to slate someone off in such a rude manner.

I guess the other difference, as well as (what was) BFPSA design certificated, I also still actively engineer the systems too, for which I am also BFPSA certificated. For the record, we're doing SP203 approval.

I would also like to see the manuals in which it states "lockable" isolators should be used, as none of the copies I have, downloaded, or paper, state that anywhere.

 

[tazz]

Fair point on ego`s, I just wish people would phone the relevent bodys and ask for advice, they are there to help.

 

[accordfire]

Fair point on ego`s, I just wish people would phone the relevent bodys and ask for advice, they are there to help.

Indeed. We do. Often. But that's also a part of what this forum is about, I think - friendly advice, and pointing in the right direction....to regulatory and advisory body helplines where necessary too.

So how involved are you with LUL stuff just now? I gather it is still MICC with everything?

 

[accordfire]

Gents.....please do not let this descend into a "my CV is bigger than yours" type thread.

You obviously both specialise in this area, and it is good for the forum to have specialists in any area to advise the members and discuss issues with regs & practices etc.

Lets leave the 'egos' at the door and debate as adults.

Thank you.

;-)

That reminds me of the guy in front of me this morning at Newies.......

Can I have fifteen lengths of MK oval EGO tube?

Straight faced as you like, the guy behind the counter says "you're gonna need a lot more than that for your ego mate"

 

[tazz]

Bill yes all still micc and junction boxes, wish the lads had more time to do the job properly, spending more time on goverment schools in Kent at this moment. Just found a letter I have been looking for from BSI if you are interested, dont want to start the crap again but think you will find it interesting

 

[tazz]

Please allow me to refer to the recommendations in BS 5839-1: 2002 Fire detection and alarm systems for buildings.
To facilitate local isolation during maintenance, a local double pole isolating switch should be fitted. It should be possible to lock the isolator in both the normal and the isolated positions to prevent unauthorized use.
Please see Clause 25.2 of BS 5839-1 for full information.
A double-pole keyswitch could be suitable.
A fused spur, on its own, would not be suitable as removal of the fuse from the fused spur would only provide single pole disconnection.
A double pole keyswitch in combination with a fused spur where the fuse was held in with a screw would be suitable as the power could only be interrupted by use of a tool (either a key for the keyswitch or a screwdriver to remove the fuse) and double pole isolation could be provided by operation of the keyswitch for maintenance purposes.
I hope my answer is of assistance

 

[accordfire]

Bill yes all still micc and junction boxes, wish the lads had more time to do the job properly, spending more time on goverment schools in Kent at this moment. Just found a letter I have been looking for from BSI if you are interested, dont want to start the crap again but think you will find it interesting

Proper Old School. It's sad, but yet, time, and few seem to have the skills any longer to do Pyro work properly. One of the most frequent call outs we have is poor joint work on MICC - usually where someone's been before us and decided to "bypass" a fault using FP or similar, instead of checking the pots first.

Then you end up with two junction boxes, two lots of (poor) joints - MICC tails wedged into connector block in a Beza box, with FP out the other side. Nasty.

It's another area we get called to look at often - we look after a number of London schools, and it surprises me that they let installers get away with unprotected FP in a lot of cases - the rationale being that if the cable gets damaged, it will generate a fault condition. Completely ignoring the fact that if the cable SHEATH gets damaged the cable loses its fire rating!!!

There was a discussion in another post the past few days - about the "old days" when institutional bodies employed clerks of works - and it seems to be an area that's been cut back on way too far. This was something I came across more and more when I was PMing large contracts.

And yes - always interested. For me it's a GOOD thing to have healthy debate, and the more we do, the more we educate.

Just very protective of my company's reputation


I'm always interested -

 

[tazz]

Maybe I was a bit harse, and appologies had so many bad dealing with FM companies to the value of loosing £58k just this year alone.
As for fp200 it should be protected within fabric of the building or enclosed. It should also be megged and R1/R2 tested as with any electrical insulation,

 

[accordfire]

Maybe I was a bit harse, and appologies had so many bad dealing with FM companies to the value of loosing £58k just this year alone.
As for fp200 it should be protected within fabric of the building or enclosed. It should also be megged and R1/R2 tested as with any electrical insulation,

Thank you - and apologies too if I was harsh.

We're getting a lot of calls from FM companies lately, looking especially for fire compliance. A good thing, IMO.

To be honest, we've found the larger FM companies, some with their own "compliance" divisions to be among the worst.

And totally agreed - but it's there clear as day, FP 200 boldly "P clipped" right down the walls. Fail. One which they just won't pay to rectify.

You raise another interesting point too - I cannot remember the last time I saw a witness test on a "small" fire alarm, or a schedule of tests. We always do.

It really agrees nicely with many of the views on training found here - it applies not just to domestic or commercial electrician's work, but to specialist areas too, such as fire alarms, PAVA and so on.

Sadly, there's way too many six month experts out there now. And equally sadly, it seems to be big companies employing most of them.......

 

[tazz]

weather it be Fire PA or PAVA and disable refuge, all cables should be tested and recorded as such. ie within the O&M manual sectioned tested results. All our building contractor request whitness testing of panel operation, db levels right down to a percentage of text descriptions to verify correct location

 

[UNG]

Proper Old School. It's sad, but yet, time, and few seem to have the skills any longer to do Pyro work properly.

It's one bit of electrical work I miss, there was something satisfying about a pyro job when it was finished. It's a pity it's been superseded on most jobs by the IMO inferior FP and it's derivitives due to cost

 

[Sintra]

Had the privelage of using pyro on the FA & bomb alert systems in our latest project. Loved it.

 

[Guest123]

I love the stuff......as said shame we dont use so much anymore. We have an MI job on the go at the moment though, fire alarm system in a large new hospital.

 

[tazz]

Would be interesting to know which fire alarm manufactures you prefere, also just a tip piro is actually class as enhanced cable so when pricing fp200 (enhanced grade) worth shopping around.

 

[accordfire]

Would be interesting to know which fire alarm manufactures you prefere, also just a tip piro is actually class as enhanced cable so when pricing fp200 (enhanced grade) worth shopping around.

Ah, where to start!

Analogue:

For new install work, up until recently we used a lot of Morley ZX and DX, mostly with Apollo protocol devices.

Lately, we've been persuaded by a lot of factors to go with Advanced/Eurotech more and more - it's very capable kit and doesn't seem to suffer networking issues the way Kentec has in the past. MX-4000 is solid, and MX-5000 looks pretty good. We've had some amazing deals lately on the Eurotech branded kit (essentially MX-4000) using the Nittan protocol - a lot like Hochiki in many ways.

It goes without saying, though that if a particular manufacturer or protocol is specified, we'll use that.

Conventional:

Almost exclusively use C-Tec xFP panels these days, though we have used a lot of Haes stuff too.

Cable:

We tend to stick to FP 200, though more expensive than Fire Tuff, etc, it's the adage of knowing what you're getting. We do try to specify MICC where we can still - though often it's a price thing, given the overhead of labour on MICC, and customers tend to be savvy enough these days to argue the point about enhanced ratings.

It is a sad fact that we're still taking out installations put in with Twin and earth.

Sounders/Warning:

I think we can agree here that loop powered sounders are NOT necessarily a good idea, and should NEVER, EVER, be the only sounders in a system (apart from the non-compliance issues).

We'll use the range here, as with most companies - depending on what's needed. And, key, depending upon in depth audibility/visibility testing.

For PAVA systems, mostly TOA kit, and lately we've used some smaller C-Tec stuff too.

 

[tazz]

Good story on morley-ias and advanced as they were the same directors/company at one time.
Must admit you can`t go wrong with morley good all rounder. advanced/ kentec the same.
not too sure on c-tec panels zones and text not displayed at the same time. VA/PA and disabled refuge you cant go wrong with Baldwin Baxall system cost a bit more, but speak clarity (or RASTA level) are second to none along with their to tech support. Oh yes speaking of Morley the old IAS trident back on the market sold as Global by Portugeese company