Testing emergency lighting

[gnuuser]

recently i had to do an upgrade to an existing system,replacing the emergency lights with led lamp system,exit lamps and replacing the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.
at that time none of the original circuitry needed to be changed.
but i verified that it was still in compliance with the regs and sufficient to handle the new system.
because the new systems required less power extra lighting was installed in the stairways.
all these changes were recorded and submitted to the fire marshal.
for final approval.
after the system communication test was verified with the dispatch center I filed the documents with the proper authorities in the courthouse.
as i said earlier our requirements are different but the three important things are that the installer must be sufficiently qualified and must have all pertinent documentation and follow procedure properly.

 

[westward10]

Sounds like your system is better and more governed than ours, the installation of safety systems in this country is a free for all with an attitude of I can do that with absolutely no knowledge of the necessary standards.

 

[gnuuser]

basically ours is governed more by our own decisions! many do not take the initiative and pay the price later for not covering their backside. I prefer to cover all bases in the matter of emergency systems.
I would actually prefer that there were international standards that had to be followed! this way there would be no question about it.

 

[gnuuser]

I dont see it happening but i would love to see training standardized as well
US.UK. and other countries (not just quick courses but competent skills)
I may not be a UK spark but I do recognize the value of proper training.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The difference between a quality tradesman and a trained monkey.

Unfortunately there obviously aren’t enough trained monkeys about, so they have to put up with us quality tradesmen instead.
The last EM lighting installation I installed, they specified metal adaptable boxes to be used as junction boxes.
Unfortunately there was no provision for earthing the adaptable boxes.
Whilst that may be acceptable on the 28V data side, I do not consider it acceptable on the 230V side.
Me telling the trained monkey resulted in shrugged shoulders, but what else do you expect?

On another occasion I was asked by a trained monkey to fix a non-maintained emergency exit light. In a communal car park.
The fault being that the exit light stays on all the time.

The last time I did a Fire alarm install, one of the trained Monkeys tried to drill through the wall of a bank vault.
This resulted in having to cut off the 1m SDS drill bit flush with the wall, patching the wall and after purchasing a new drill bit, the quality tradesman (me) having to drill a new hole.

To be honest the British Standards for both Fire alarms and EM lighting are not what I consider acceptable.
Then again they are probably written by trained monkeys attempting to safeguard jobs for other trained monkeys.
For instance EM lighting test switches which do not switch off the non-EM lighting. How are you then supposed to verify anything?

 

[Nigel]

Unfortunately there obviously aren’t enough trained monkeys about, so they have to put up with us quality tradesmen instead.
The last EM lighting installation I installed, they specified metal adaptable boxes to be used as junction boxes.
Unfortunately there was no provision for earthing the adaptable boxes.
Whilst that may be acceptable on the 28V data side, I do not consider it acceptable on the 230V side.
Me telling the trained monkey resulted in shrugged shoulders, but what else do you expect?

On another occasion I was asked by a trained monkey to fix a non-maintained emergency exit light. In a communal car park.
The fault being that the exit light stays on all the time.

The last time I did a Fire alarm install, one of the trained Monkeys tried to drill through the wall of a bank vault.
This resulted in having to cut off the 1m SDS drill bit flush with the wall, patching the wall and after purchasing a new drill bit, the quality tradesman (me) having to drill a new hole.

To be honest the British Standards for both Fire alarms and EM lighting are not what I consider acceptable.
Then again they are probably written by trained monkeys attempting to safeguard jobs for other trained monkeys.
For instance EM lighting test switches which do not switch off the non-EM lighting. How are you then supposed to verify anything?

By turning off the OCPD or the other light switch.

The test switch should only isolate the permanant feed. This is how it should be done.

 

[Risteard]

For instance EM lighting test switches which do not switch off the non-EM lighting. How are you then supposed to verify anything?

That's the whole point of them. It's so that you can test them without plunging the place into darkness.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

That's the whole point of them. It's so that you can test them without plunging the place into darkness.

If the EM lighting is up to spec, then it shouldn’t do that.
If it does, then you know there’s something wrong.

 

[Risteard]

If the EM lighting is up to spec, then it shouldn’t do that.
If it does, then you know there’s something wrong.

Not true. The lux levels for emergency lighting are not designed to ensure that you can continue working effectively. They are merely to ensure safe egress from the building.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If it’s enough to ensure safe egress from the building, then it won’t be plunged into darkness.
Can’t have it both ways.
Either the object of monthly testing is to verify the design, in which case all the normal lights will have to be off to check lux levels.
Or it’s simply to check the EM fittings work.
To my mind switching off the normal lights would help in both cases.

 

[Adam W]

It's probably safe to assume that a person deemed "competent to test the emergency lights" will largely work 'working hours', which for much of the year will be during daylight hours, when due to shared natural light it will be hard to plunge a building into darkness and also to obtain an accurate lux reading for just the emergency lighting.

During winter months it will be possible to plunge the building into darkness, however the benefit of getting a more accurate reading of the emergency lighting output might be outweighed by the panic and disruption caused by plunging a large call centre, school or hospital into darkness; I can't see many facilities managers going for that option.

 

[westward10]

Always been a bone of contention this although it is less frequent to see test facilities interrupting the general lighting.
The last sentence of Reg 8.3.3 BS5266:1 states The test device should not interrupt power to any other electrical equipment that could cause a hazard.

 

[Nigel]

If it’s enough to ensure safe egress from the building, then it won’t be plunged into darkness.
Can’t have it both ways.
Either the object of monthly testing is to verify the design, in which case all the normal lights will have to be off to check lux levels.
Or it’s simply to check the EM fittings work.
To my mind switching off the normal lights would help in both cases.

I think you need to look at emergency lighting again. You are miles off.

 

[westward10]

A monthly check is a routine functional test not a duration test generally carried out by a nominated person. Test facility off, does it/they operate then back on and check charge indication, that is it.

 

[Adam W]

A monthly check is a routine functional test not a duration test generally carried out by a nominated person. Test facility off, does it/they operate then back on and check charge indication, that is it.

... Which is in some way a million miles away from flicking a switch and seeing if the lights come on.