Last week our engineers underwent the Destiny pen training and we launched straight into the trial of the new digital engineers forms.  So far it has been a great success and apart from a couple of user errors has lived up our expectations.

Magic Pen

For those of you who are unaware of these ‘magic pens’ I will explain below;

The pen is a normal ball point pen with a twist, it has a camera inside, when the pen is used to write on the special engineers sheets they use software and a matrix of tiny dots to reproduce an image of the written document which is then passed to the engineers phone via bluetooth and emailed straight to our service desk for processing.

Customer Benefits

1. Digital copies of the witten work sheet, whilst still providing the paper copy for evidence meeting statutory requirements
2. Vastly improved speed of transfer of information, i.e. a written report to enable our technical services manager to accurately provide reports and quotations for urgent remedial works
3. Quick invoices for the work carried out, no longer having to wait for the sheet to be returned to the WFP office for processing as this process starts as soon as the data is transfered from the engineers phone

WFP have worked hard to improve the speed of service whilst retaining the quality of the information provided, the use of the magic pens is just another step on the road to our stated goal; ‘To be your trusted professional advisors for Fire & Security’

07 June 2010 – Enforcement notice details wide-ranging fire safety breaches at CLG headquarters

It has been revealed today that the London headquarters of Communities and Local Government – the government department that steers fire safety policy in England and Wales – has been served with an enforcement notice under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

CLG Office SW1

In a damming critique of the building’s fire safety arrangements, an inspector from the enforcing authority, the Crown Premises Inspection Group, states:

“The concepts of ‘responsible’ and ‘competent’ persons, and the duties placed upon those persons under the Order, appear not to be understood within CLG premises”.

The notice, served on 16 February on the then secretary of state for Communities and Local Government, John Denham, details numerous shortcomings in fire safety measures and management at CLG’s Eland House premises in Victoria. It lists alleged breaches of 13 of the 15 Articles of the Fire Safety Order that impose duties on the CLG, as the responsible person, including:

•Introducing a fire load in the atrium which was not considered in the building’s fire engineered design, by installing a cafeteria which, it is said, may lead to “uncontrolled fire spread throughout the building”
•An unsuitable and insufficient fire risk assessment
•Failing to nominate competent persons to help the responsible person discharge his duties
•Failure to adequately maintain the fire alarm system, interconnections between fire safety systems, and smoke vents throughout the building
•Lack of evidence of adequate training and provision of essential fire safety information to staff

In an apparent reference to other CLG premises, the inspector goes on to say: “At present there is a lack of national policy, guidance and ownership of fire safety management across the CLG estate.”

 
The fire engineering at Eland House had been compromised in the atrium

Details of the inspection and the enforcement notice have come to light under a Freedom of Information request made to CLG by an individual linked to the fire safety industry.

“Unacceptable” policy
Other deficiencies found include an “unacceptable” policy that no one should use portable fire extinguishers in the building; the inability of the building to support the phased evacuation strategy; no adequate arrangements to ensure visitors and contractors are accounted for in an evacuation; and shortcomings in the means of escape for the number of people likely to occupy the building.

Although Eland House is categorised as Crown premises, it is still subject to safety legislation including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, and enforcement procedures are similar to those of other premises. However, Crown Immunity means the responsible person cannot actually be prosecuted for offences.

The enforcement notice also reveals that the contracted facilities company, having some control of the premises, was sent a copy of the notice. However, it makes it clear that although the company is considered a ‘nominated competent person’, they had not been provided with sufficient means to undertake this role.

Responding to the revelation of the enforcment notice, a CLG spokesman said:

“Following the remodelling of parts of the interior of Eland House, the Department requested that the Crown Premises Inspection Group (CPIG) audit the facility to review the impact that the changes had on the fire safety of the building. The CPIG made a number of recommendations in the form of a Crown Enforcement Notice which was issued on 16 February 2010. The Department has accepted these recommendations which are now in the process of being fully implemented.”

The enforcement notice is dated 16 February 2010 and relates to a fire safety audit which was carried out on 26 November 2009. Ironically, the Crown Premises Inspection Group comes under the remit of the government’s Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, whose unit is itself based at Eland House.

In January, it was revealed that the Fire Service College – an executive agency of CLG – had not carried out a valid fire risk assessment at the time of the fire which destroyed an appliance bay at its Moreton in Marsh premises.

May 2010

One of the largest fines to date has been issued to the Co-operative Group for having caused ‘a potential death trap’ at one of its premises.

Described as having demonstrated ‘a lamentable approach to fire safety’ His Honour Judge Barnett ordered the Co-operative Group to pay £210,000, including costs in excess of £28,000 – one of the largest fines ever under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for its failings in fire safety.

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority (prosecuting) took into account six breaches of fire safety, which came to light following inspections at the company’s Shirley Road premises in Southampton in September 2007.

Pleading guilty at Southampton Crown Court last month, the Co-operative Group was found to have committed six serious breaches of fire safety law, namely:

· failing to keep the rear emergency exit doors unlocked for use in an emergency

· fitting a lock requiring a security code on an emergency door between the retail and storage areas, which could not be easily opened in an emergency

· obstructing a fire alarm and call-point in the storage area – thus potentially delaying fire alarm activation and early warning to building occupants

· a lack of suitable and sufficient fire safety instruction and training for the store manager

· a fire alarm system that was not regularly tested

· having no means of early detection of fire in the retail area and thus not providing early warning to the occupants of the manager’s office for safe evacuation

In addition, the court heard of three other fire safety offenses which occurred at the company’s premises in Montague Avenue and Bassett Green Road in Southampton, and its Kingston Road store in Portsmouth.
A spokesperson for the Manchester-based Co-operative Group, said that it ‘deeply regrets the breaches’ explaining that as a responsible retailer, the company ‘takes health and safety issues very seriously’.
According to the Co-op, at the time of these incidents, the Group was introducing substantially more stringent health and safety procedures, investing heavily, both in time and money, in all aspects of fire safety.

Commenting on the prosecution, Hampshire’s chief fire officer, John Bonney, said that the fire service strives to work closely with businesses to help them with their duty to comply with the Fire Safety Order but when companies fail to take their responsibilities seriously, the service will consider prosecution.

Hampshire Fire and Rescue has discovered a number of common fire safety failings in premises throughout the county, to include:

· blocked or locked exits

· poorly maintained fire escape staircases

· a lack of staff fire training

· storing combustible materials in boiler rooms

· a lack of fire alarms, emergency lighting and fire doors

· a lack of suitable fire risk assessments

Today (Monday 15th February 2010) Notifier launched the ground breaking digital protocol of automatic detection called OPAL

Notifier's new OPAL digital detection range

The product is a revolution for the Notifier brand and is in fact two protocols in one, the traditional CLIP protocol and the new digital OPAL protocol.

What does this mean for the users?

The new range can be used on the existing Notifier systems as CLIP protocol and in the newer panels can fulfil the potential that the OPAL range has to offer including;

The new protocol will provide up to 318 devices per loop (On the new panel range), increasing the loop loading capacity, built in loop isolators and advanced fault finding capabilities designed to speed up troublesome wiring issues during the ever pressured commissioning stage of the new installation.

The use of intelligent systems in the UK has seen some changes throughout the history of automatic fire detection and alarm systems and now WFP are pleased to be able to offer this new and powerful digital protocol to our customers.

Please call our office and ask how the new digital system can provide a fire detection and alarm solution for you.  0845 481 0307.

Since the RRO (Regulatory Reform Order) Fire Safety 2005 came in to force there has be a very slow rise in prosecutions, although I have noticed that recently the Brigade have really started to exercise their powers.

Having spoken to a few fire officers when they were first starting to police the act, it was clear that they were feeling their way in their new roles,  its worth pointing out that the date on the order was not the date that it actually came in to force as with all things of this nature there was a period of grace.

I have subscriptions to the fire industry blogs and news portals and I have noticed that more often there are are stories about various businesses being fined under the above act.

Today I have read about a Pub chain that was fined £15,000 for the lack of a fire risk assessment, I copied the details and the story is below;

Pub company fined £15,000 in fire safety prosecution
12 February 2010

A pub management company has been convicted of offences under fire safety law following a hearing at North Wiltshire Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday.

Publicana Ltd was fined £15,000 for the offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and was ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs.

The offences came to light after Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service attended an incident at the Little George pub in New Road, Chippenham on 5 October 2008.

After an investigation by officers, charges were brought against Publicana Ltd as the tenants at that time. The company was charged with failing to carry out or record a fire risk assessment, failure to have effective policies for protection and prevention measures, and the failure to provide suitable and sufficient information to the pub’s sub-contracted licensee.

The prosecution is pursuing separate charges against an individual in connection with the case.

“It is rare for a fire and rescue service to undertake prosecutions but, on this occasion, the offences were so severe we felt it was in the public interest to pursue charges,” said group manager Julian Parsons of Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service’s technical fire safety department. “What this case has shown very clearly is that management companies always have a duty to ensure that public safety is not compromised, even if they have sub-contracted someone to act as licensee.”

He added: “Since these offences came to light, the Little George pub has changed management and subsequent inspections have shown that the issues highlighted by this case have been addressed. In addition, Publicana Ltd, which was cooperative throughout the investigation, has introduced stringent new management procedures to ensure that something like this does not happen again in premises it is responsible for.”

For more information about this subject or any others on the site please call or email us.

Paul

I saw this article in the online magazine ‘The Journal’ it was written by Elisabeth Griesedieck
Wednesday 25 November 2009, The Journal Issue 28.

Save these for when you really need them

Regular false fire alarms could lead to fatalities

Records show out of 512 fire call outs in 2008, only 4 were for fires

Once I had read the article I felt moved to post a reply in order to explain that in my view false alarms were caused by the lack of planning and design know how and that even if they had occured they should and could be managed out of the system.

The original article

Less than one percent of all fire call outs to student accommodation at the University of Edinburgh were for “real fires” last year according to statistics released by the university.

Records kept by the University’s Fire Safety Unit show that Lothian Fire and Rescue Services respond to over 300 false fire alarms at the University of Edinburgh per year.

“The recurring fire safety issues associated with students tend to be false alarms, kitchen fires and fires caused by smoking materials,” says Geoff Aird, community safety manager for the local fire brigade.

“And there is always the odd student who thinks it’s fun to set off the alarm in their halls,” Mr Aird added.

When mechanical faults, malicious alarms, and actual fires are included in the count the total calls that the fire brigade responds to at the university average out to 500 per year.

In 2008, only 4 of 512 calls to the brigade constituted real fires. Figures for the final quarter of 2009 will be released in December, however the total calls since January until the end of September is already around 400.

Michael Moore, the university’s fire safety advisor, attributes the high numbers to lax attentiveness on the part of students.

The university undertakes initiatives to raise awareness, which include offering educational programs at the start of each academic year, training for residence hall staff, and distributing posters around campus.

At present Lothian Fire and Rescue service do not charge the university for excessive false alarms, yet it reserves the right to exercise this power.

Fire brigades in England and Wales have already introduced fines for excessive alarms applicable to corporations and individuals with negligent habits or faulty systems.

The fines range from small charges of £120-£250 for individuals to larger penalties in the thousands of pounds for non-compliant corporations.

UK Fire Training, Information, and Consulting lists on its website the hazards of a system with a “reputation of generating false alarms”.

False alarms “undermine occupants trust in and response to alarms” and “place occupants at risk because they may not respond to a real alarm for a real fire.”

These dangers have been felt on university campuses before.

In 2000, a New York university, Seton Hall, witnessed one of the worst dorm fires of the twentieth century when a couch was set ablaze. Students failed to evacuate the building, as the fire followed on a month of false alarms. 3 died and 60 were critically injured, including several firemen.

Natalie MacKay, a student in university accommodation at Kincaid Court, worries that such an event could reoccur here: “There have been times when I haven’t evacuated the block; especially if it’s the fourth alarm that week. I just assume it’s not real.”

Mr Moore’s message is directed toward such responses. He says, “We all must treat these systems with care. Not doing so could cost someone their life.”

The First reply (Not mine)

Madeleine Ranges
Sat 28 Nov 2009
“Michael Moore, the university’s fire safety advisor, attributes the high numbers to lax attentiveness on the part of students.”

What a load. I live in the S. Clerk St. dorms and the fire alarm goes off at least once a week. We received a warning in the mail recently about how we were responsible for one of the false alarms and if we were to do it again we would be responsible for a fee of a couple hundred pounds…as if we set it off on purpose? I know I just LOVE waking my fellow students up at 7:30 in the morning with a false fire alarm. The problem lies in the over-sensitivity of the alarms and very rarely the students.
Also, as far as this is concerned:
“The university undertakes initiatives to raise awareness, which include offering educational programs at the start of each academic year, training for residence hall staff, and distributing posters around campus.”

We were told to be careful around the fire alarms but definitely not warned that the alarms go off due to aerosol deodorant (??) And why not nip the problem in the bud by doing something about the alarms rather than fining the students?

And another thing! My flatmate had a small cooking fire the other night (he just left the pan on the stove with some oil in it a second too long–he was in the kitchen the whole time, just had his back turned..) anyway he managed to put it out but the fire alarm failed to go off in THAT instance.. so what good are these things if all they’re doing is crying wolf?

Thanks for writing this article. These fire alarms are ridiculous!

And my reply

Paul Field

Wed 16 Dec 2009
I have been in the fire industry for over 20 years and in my experience this issue reoccurs in most student accommodation blocks, however if the system had been designed correctly in the first place virtually all of the false alarms can be managed out.
There are fire systems on the market that intelligently manage alarm conditions by comparing the heat and smoke within a room to confirm that there really is a fire, however these detectors cost about 50% more than the basic types which is one reason that they are not widely used, the other reason is ignorance on the part of the designer to the existence or application of these or even the standard types.

Its not always the fire alarm systems fault, contributing factors can be poor ventilation from cooking areas or the wrong choice of detector type by the designer. (making the system appear to be sensitive)

With some concerted effort on the part of the facilities maintenance team in conjunction with a decent fire alarm company the above situation can be changed. There are simple things that could be done immediately such as moving detectors away from the potential source of false alarms, local hush buttons can be installed, or even delays on single activations and if justified, changing smoke detection to heat detection.

If students are setting their own system off there is not much that can be done about that other than education or the installation of CCTV followed by fines etc.
I can understand the frustration in Madeleines comments, but for example if they had changed the detector to heat due to false alarms from dust or other contaminants in her flat then it would not respond to smoke from the cooking.
Of course every system has to be evaluated on its own merits but in my experience there are always solutions to these problems.

If you contact your Local BAFE registered company they should be able to help (BAFE is a third party approval scheme which is a bit like the Gas Safe Register (used to be CORGI)) www.bafe.org.uk or take a look on our website www.w-fp.co.uk

Paul Field

How long is a piece of string?

How long is a piece of string?

A common question to which the answer is dependent upon other factors.

A smoke detector is the same as any other product in the real world, it deteriorates over time and the speed of this is dependent upon two fairly obvious factors;

1. The environment that it is installed within  – In dirty environments it will not last as  long as a clean room

2. Has it been maintained? – Your car requires maintenance to keep it working efficiently and accurately, so does your fire alarm system.

To comply with BS5839 Part 1 2002 +A2, Section 6 point 45.3 subsection (n)  which requires the manufacturers guidance to be followed, the devices should be replaced in accordance with the manufacturers guidance.  I have added an extract below which covers this point.

The Signs

If you start to experience false alarms on your system or the number of calls to site to investigate faults with the devices increase then you may want to ask the question of your maintenance company.

Most, if not all, manufacturers label their devices on the inside or underside of the detectors, for example Apollo Fire Detectors have a series of labels on their products and have produced a guide for reading the date information.

If you have started to experience false alarms this could be due to the age of devices or through contamination of the detector internally, if you allow this to continue, in a very short time this will reduce the effectiveness of the system to evacuate the building as unwanted alarms cause a general mistrust in the systems integrity.

“That blinking fire alarm has gone off again” followed by inaction, which has the same effect as not having a fire detection and alarm system in the first place.

If the age is not found to be the issue then you may need to have the device chamber cleaned, which may require dis-assembly or could be as simple as being blown through with compressed air.  If this is a consideration then please make sure that you consult the services of a qualified and experienced engineer and also note that some devices can not be taken apart and can only be cleaned and re-calibrated by the manufacturer.  When you look at the economics of this you might as well just replace the product that is causing the issue.

The Manufacturers advice

Series 65 Optical Detector

Apollo Fire Detectors (for example) advice is that the product operating life is 10 years based on the operating life of the component manufacturer and that they should be replaced after this time.

The ID range of  Notifier (by Honeywell) products offers a solid and reliable product to the end user, the specifier can be assured that the product will perform and for installers a user friendly addressing system that can be explained over the phone or during the pre-installation visit by the WFP surveyor.

ID 3000 Multiloop networked panel

Key advantages of Notifier (by Honeywell)

1. Long Term - Its tried and tested and is based on a platform of backwards compatibility, in short its here for the long term

2. Easy set up -  It is a solid analogue system using a simple dial address setting

3. Reliable – Backwards compatibility is a key strength of the Notifier product and recently we have upgraded Notifier systems that were installed over fifteen or twenty years ago.

The older range of Notifier systems include;

ID 200, ID 1000, AFP panels

4. The Brand – Solid and good quality

The current ID range consists of the ID50, ID60, ID2000 and the superb ID3000.

The ID50 is the entry level single loop addressable control panel running the SDX-751 optical smoke detector, for greater cause and effect programming the ID60 is available in the single loop market. If you need greater device loading then the multi-loop ID2000 can cost effectively run up to eight loops and for the larger and more complex multiloop sites the ID3000 is available.

There is a Notifier (by honeywell) solution for you,  call us to discuss your exact requirements on

0845 481 0307 or 0800 988 3312

Having been involved in the fire industry for over 20 years now, it has become obvious to me that the level of investment in training is patchy and sometimes a bit hit and miss. From a customers point of view the professional contractor should be well trained as a significant level of trust has been placed in the competency of the company and its engineers.

Hit and Miss Training?

What I mean by the opening statement is that the most obvious training is normally achieved, which is organised by the FIA (Fire Industry Association) or the BSIA (British Security Industry Association), this normally covers the basics of the standards required to comprehend the job at hand but what it does not cover is the key technical differences that can help the engineer solve and resolve a problem accurately and quickly.

The benefits of training are obvious to most who consider these issues, it takes some evaluation of the people involved then some significant time based concerted effort to fill the gaps found.

For the customer the benefits should be;

• better advice
• quicker resolution of problems
• confidence and trust building

Most fire and security companies rely upon site based experiences, however the issue that we see with that is you will inevitably end up with gaps in the knowledge.

Our answer to this is to foster a new learning for life environment within our business and to this end we have created a dedicated training resource centre to facilitate our efforts to keep our people ahead of the game.

WFP Training resource centre

Our new training centre is on the same estate as our office and has been kitted out with a rack of control equipment, which is interchangable depending upon the product that is being learnt, the engineers can create simulated scenarios on the training panels and systems to gain an understanding of linking panels together in a school environment, the cause an effects of a system covering a larger building using the device simulation software.

We also use it to train our engineers on the finer points of PC usage, linking to the WFP server intranet by VPN connection, where we host a significant technical resource database from frequently asked questions to technical drawings of the various site scenarios that we have encountered through the years.

Customer training

For our installing customers we intend to offer product awareness course and installation techniques designed to improve the installation capability of the eletrician adding value to WFP customer proposition, should you require more information about these then please contact us directly in the office 0845 481 0307.

If the customer does not install and is looking for either product awareness or installation training we would be happy to discuss this individually and add this to our offering.

We already do site CPD style seminars for consultants and building services engineers, please speak to Greg Reeves our sales manager for more details about these.

In Summary (to answer my own question)

Yes I think that anecdotal evidence and experience shows that the consistency with training across the industry is patchy and has been a bit hit or miss, one thing that I am certain of is that once an engineer has gone through the training courses most companies don’t actually debrief the engineer and find out if it was any good or if the engineer actually learnt anything!

Paul