Observing fire detection shortfalls on EICRs

[spud1]

Hi all, Do you guys and girls make observations on the fire detection when you do an EICR? If so how do you code it? I've always observed shortfalls in fire detection on an EICR and coded it seperately as 'FIRE' but I was chatting to another sparky the other day who incorporates his fire detection obs into the normal C1, C2, C3, FI coding system. What's your opinion?

 

[UNG]

Hi all, Do you guys and girls make observations on the fire detection when you do an EICR? If so how do you code it? I've always observed shortfalls in fire detection on an EICR and coded it seperately as 'FIRE' but I was chatting to another sparky the other day who incorporates his fire detection obs into the normal C1, C2, C3, FI coding system. What's your opinion?

What is he coding if it's the mains wiring ok anything else is really out of the remit of an EICR other than maybe a comment on the age of the detectors

 

[telectrix]

no code. a comment may be justified, optional as outside of the remit of EICR , unless as he ^^^ sez. problem/s with the wiring.

 

[Darkwood]

As above the EICR is an inspection of the electrical installation in regards to its safety and its compliance either to the time it wa installed if not a safety concern or to modern regulations, unless the BS7671 stipulates in its regulations what you are covering with these extra comments then it can only be done as a separate observational point/ recommendation additional to the EICR and not part of it.

 

[Lister1987]

Any non-compliances with 5839-1 (or -6) can be noted against 560.10.

Being that a fire detection system is a life safety system, any obvious nonconformities that DON'T hinder the system operation I would attract a C2, any that did affect system operation would be a C1, on the basis that if the system isn't to standard or working then you would not be able to Guarantee operation as intended.

SparkyNinja/e5 did an interesting vid on EICRs that encounter fire alarms, worth a watch.

 

[Flanders]

I have mention on EICRs if a mains powered smoke detector is damaged or missing and wrote it down as info on the report. I would only code it if it was electrical unsafe ( if there was exposed live parts for example) as others have said there is no requirement in an EICR to confirm the fire alarm is working correctly. If the property is rented i believe it is requirement that the smoke detector are inspected annually but that would be on a separate report.

 

[Flanders]

Any non-compliances with 5839-1 (or -6) can be noted against 560.10.

Being that a fire detection system is a life safety system, any obvious nonconformities that DON'T hinder the system operation I would attract a C2, any that did affect system operation would be a C1, on the basis that if the system isn't to standard or working then you would not be able to Guarantee operation as intended.

SparkyNinja/e5 did an interesting vid on EICRs that encounter fire alarms, worth a watch.

Not sure you could give it code 1 . As a code 1 constitutes an immediate danger, there will only be a dangerous situation if the building catches of fire and the smoke alarm does not inform the occupier. So that would be a potential danger. You do have a good point about reg 560.10. Though

 

[Lister1987]

Not sure you could give it code 1 . As a code 1 constitutes an immediate danger, there will only be a dangerous situation if the building catches of fire and the smoke alarm does not inform the occupier. So that would be a potential danger. You do have a good point about reg 560.10. Though

I know it doesn't meet the ethos behind C1 (I can see it, I can touch it, it will kill me now) but as a C2 would have the desired effect it's rare a C1 would be issued, such as cover missing from the FCU Spur and so live parts being visible.

 

[UNG]

Any non-compliances with 5839-1 (or -6) can be noted against 560.10.

Being that a fire detection system is a life safety system, any obvious nonconformities that DON'T hinder the system operation I would attract a C2, any that did affect system operation would be a C1, on the basis that if the system isn't to standard or working then you would not be able to Guarantee operation as intended.

SparkyNinja/e5 did an interesting vid on EICRs that encounter fire alarms, worth a watch.

Noted is slightly different to coding a non conformity with BS5839 beyond the wiring how far do you go into BS5839-6 system and beyond the scope of the BS7671 inspection you are employed to do

Do you confirm any radio links are functioning correctly do you check the sound levels at the bed head comply with the requirements while you are there as well

I would like to know how you would handle a commercial EICR with a BS5839-1 system installed
Also how many BS5839-6 systems have you coded with a C1 or C2 while doing EICR's

TBH a lot of these videos are not worth a watch and are not even worth the bandwidth they take up

 

[Lister1987]

Noted is slightly different to coding a non conformity with BS5839 beyond the wiring how far do you go into BS5839-6 system and beyond the scope of the BS7671 inspection you are employed to do

Do you confirm any radio links are functioning correctly do you check the sound levels at the bed head comply with the requirements while you are there as well

I would like to know how you would handle a commercial EICR with a BS5839-1 system installed
Also how many BS5839-6 systems have you coded with a C1 or C2 while doing EICR's

TBH a lot of these videos are not worth a watch and are not even worth the bandwidth they take up

This is where the knowledge of the inspector (and any prior agreements with client) would decide exactly how far one goes.

I wouldn't go deliberately looking for 5839 deviations but any obvious ones that would make me question the efficiency of the system would get a C3 and further noting about getting a service done to correct any deeper issues.

As an electrician you could only code what you could see, if however you also had working and sufficient knowledge of 5839-1 to do what equates to a handover inspection (you're taking over a system from another provider so you do your own inspection noting system makeup etc), but if that person had such knowledge and was ethically switched on enough to include enough in the report to highlight the issue but not so much as to give away a complete service, then I would have no issue with it at all.

 

[loz2754]

Coding for deficiencies in a BS5839 would only be covered by a full inspection and test of the fire detection and alarm system. As such, there is no place for coding C1, C2 or any other code for such a system, other than what is covered by BS7671.

 

[Lister1987]

Coding for deficiencies in a BS5839 would only be covered by a full inspection and test of the fire detection and alarm system. As such, there is no place for coding C1, C2 or any other code for such a system, other than what is covered by BS7671.

Unless you have sufficient knowledge and can back up your coding, even if only as a C3 (to bring it to user attention) with the relevant clauses. Example;

Property has mixed styles of Manual Call Point; both older style with for circular break glass and newer BS EN 54-11, contrary to 5839-1 Clause 20.2a

Property has call points lacking protective cover, contrary to 5839-1 Clause 20.2b

and so on.

Obviously if you don't have knowledge of 5839-1 (and any of the standards in 560.x) then you shouldn't be coding those item, in which case you are working within the limits of your knowledge and understanding. If you were to find such issues then you would strongly recommend that the client seeks the advice of a trained and competent person to undertake a system audit, inspection and maintenance program.

I'm seen 1 where the EICR was done, flagged several C3s for 1838/5266 & 5839 shortcomings then accompanying the EICR was a full diagnostic report of systems, shortcomings and recommendations to improve complaince.

I'm not saying it's for everyone but we should always look to better ourselves, our skillsets and services offered to drive value for money and to seperate us from the beasts....and by beasts imwan DIY Dave and Bodge-it Brenda.

 

[Lister1987]

I would like to know how you would handle a commercial EICR with a BS5839-1 system installed
Also how many BS5839-6 systems have you coded with a C1 or C2 while doing EICR's

TBH a lot of these videos are not worth a watch and are not even worth the bandwidth they take up

In answer to your question; none because I have yet to undertake a single one and so it's all hypothesis until such time I'm competent enough to under such works.

Grade F system (battery only - Fixed or replaceable), if any detectors found to be dead then I would C2.

Grade D System where, mains is present and working bit alarm is past battery expiry date I would C3 if other detectors were on the same level, otherwise if the next functional detector is above/below the current level then I'd C2 as you're losing the early warning that an alarm on the same level provides.

If the same system (Grade D) had faulty mains but working battery, again I would C2 or C3 depending on any 'local' backups.

MIs would also influence the coding as the BS EN standard would dictate exactly how that alarm should perform on mains and/or battery and if that manufacturer can't guarantee if Thier items will work with 1 or the either power sources missing.

With regards to -1 systems, in comparison with -6, I would code along a similar vain, I would also pull on the FSRRO and cite from that as you're then talking statutory duties, as opposed to a non-statutory product standard. You'll find they tend to sit up when you start bringing EAWR/FSRRO into your report as THAT is what most commercial/industrial entities will be familiar with, most tend to have a dedicated SHE manager or department, which if any good, would welcome your forensic analysis of not only BS7671 but also any overlapping 5839/1838/5266 observations.

That's me anyway, probably over the topby some judgements bit I'm satisfied with it.

 

[loz2754]

Unless you have sufficient knowledge and can back up your coding, even if only as a C3 (to bring it to user attention) with the relevant clauses. Example;

Property has mixed styles of Manual Call Point; both older style with for circular break glass and newer BS EN 54-11, contrary to 5839-1 Clause 20.2a

Property has call points lacking protective cover, contrary to 5839-1 Clause 20.2b

and so on.

Obviously if you don't have knowledge of 5839-1 (and any of the standards in 560.x) then you shouldn't be coding those item, in which case you are working within the limits of your knowledge and understanding. If you were to find such issues then you would strongly recommend that the client seeks the advice of a trained and competent person to undertake a system audit, inspection and maintenance program.

I'm seen 1 where the EICR was done, flagged several C3s for 1838/5266 & 5839 shortcomings then accompanying the EICR was a full diagnostic report of systems, shortcomings and recommendations to improve complaince.

I'm not saying it's for everyone but we should always look to better ourselves, our skillsets and services offered to drive value for money and to seperate us from the beasts....and by beasts imwan DIY Dave and Bodge-it Brenda.

Of course I agree that we should always work to better ourselves, but I don't agree that we should be mixing up 2 different standards into 1.
By this I mean BS5839 and BS7671.
If a landlord is responsible for the maintenance of both the fire detection and alarm systems, and at the same property, the general electrical installation, then that landlord should be aware of the need to employ competent people who are skilled in both disciplines. And that such people should also have the full knowledge required, along with the correct forms of certification required for each type of system being inspected and tested.

Which may mean getting 2 different contractors in, ie a fire alarm engineer, and an electrician.

In some cases (though in my experience, not many), both tasks could be accomplished by the same contractor. But as I said before, there will be 2 different, distinct, forms of certification and/or reports, with very little crossover between the 2.

In my opinion....

 

[loz2754]

I should probably have said that I'm referring to BS5839 part 1 in the above post.

If it's a case of a handful of interlinked smoke alarms to BS5839 part 6, I'm quite happy to produce a Fire Alarm Inspection Report from within Easycert.

But note that this too is separate and distinct from an EICR, and is a chargeable extra to the customer on top of the EICR.