[ Focus: False alarms ]


litigation. I guess the judge or the court is going to say what is best practice – best practice will be deemed to be the national policy and therefore, probably, the local force policy will be deemed to be inadequate.’ The Fire Industry Assocation (FIA) and the British Security


Industry Association (BSIA) are also concerned that many fire and rescue services are considering deviating, or have deviated from, the CFOA policy. The two bodies have written to every chief fire officer to tell them that they have strongly recommended that member companies only comply with the CFOA policy. It is the FIA and BSIA’s view that any proposed variances to the policy by individual fire and rescue services must be initiated through a variation to the policy as agreed by CFOA and its partners, which include the FIA and BSIA.


Risks Following a survey carried out by the FIA into the fire and rescue services nationwide, the association found that 12 have moved away from full attendance at automatic fire alarm signals, at least from commercial premises, unless a fire is verified. The cost of full attendance is no longer tenable. Take a brigade with part-time crews; if you have to mobilise them you have to pay their wages, so there is a direct financial implication in false alarms. Too many false alarms from a particular premises and the local brigade may threaten to cease attendance at all. Yet, that approach takes no account of the risk in those premises, and doesn’t give them a chance to put their house in order first. Further controversy comes courtesy of the government’s


Localism Bill, and the proposal that fire and rescue services are to be given the power to charge for attending false alarms. FIA CEO Graham Ellicott comments: ‘If fire and rescue services charge for false alarm attendance, they run the risk that companies will switch off their fire alarm systems to avoid being fined, which could have serious, potentially life- threatening implications.’ False alarm charging could have impact on the ARCs that


are often used by companies to alert the emergency services to a fire alarm. ‘We would go to judicial review on the basis that you can’t charge the monitoring centres for a system that it has absolutely no control over,’ says Steve Kimber. Graham Ellicott adds: ‘If the day comes when charging is


levied for false alarm attendance, who will the bill be sent to? This is not a clear cut issue as many have assumed that it would be the owner of the building, which in itself could lead to serious consequences. However, in the past, bills were sent to the transmitter of the alarm signal – that is the ARC. If that is to be the case again, then given the ARCs’ current view of the ever-changing way that the brigades are treating false alarms, they have to strongly consider whether they want to be involved with the fire sector – especially as the security sector is larger and better regulated.’


Installers Of course, installers have an important role to play in minimising false alarms. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires the ‘Responsible Person’ within a premises to ‘appoint one or more competent persons to assist in undertaking the preventive and protective measures’. Where the protective measures include a fire alarm and fire detection system, a proper service and maintenance


If the day comes when charging is levied for false alarm attendance, who will the bill be sent to?


programme is essential to ensure the system works when it is needed most. British Standards recommend that the number of service visits per annum should be a minimum of twice a year (with the actual number dictated by a suitable and sufficient risk assessment).


BS 5979 is the standard relating to remote cen res


receiving signals from fire and security systems


Yet, what is a competent person? While many FSA


members will be third-party certificated to the highest standards, this is not a universal requirement. Steve Kimber thinks that this could cost contractors dear. ‘You have to make sure that your company, your employees, all your working practices, through sales, design, installation, commission and handover are to the highest standards that you can certificate to so that you do not leave yourself with any exposure.’ Yet, if proof of competency through third-party certification were made mandatory, this would put firms, many of whom do a good job without certification, out of business. Fire detection equipment has got more reliable in recent


years. A casual glance at the statistics suggests that of the 285,000 false alarms last year, 193,000 are attributable to apparatus, yet evidence suggests that if you delve a bit deeper, many of these are due to someone setting off an alarm. Firefighters are not trained in alarm systems. If a panel has registered that a detector or manual call point has gone off, but there is no fire, often firefighters will register that as a system fault and they won’t put down human intervention.


Technology Steve Kimber thinks that fire systems need to move on by using IP and broadband signaling platforms. ‘Once you get in to IP digital signaling, then there is no logical reason that an optical detector or smoke detector in a room cannot have visual confirmation on it. I can put on my cameras at home remotely and look at what is going on in the garden, and that is all over broadband so let’s build the panels and have intelligent detectors on the end.’ Response to fire will always be an emotive subject. After


all, lives are at risk when there is a fire in the building. Which makes it all the more surprising that the CFOA policy has not taken hold nationally. Surely, it is time for the fire sector to learn some lessons from the security industry, where the Association of Chief Police Officers’ policy on response to security alarms is adopted across the country.


What causes false alarms? False alarms from fire detection alarm systems can arise from a variety of causes including:


n Pollutants in the air (dust, aerosols, insects) setting off smoke detectors; n High temperatures setting off heat detectors (such as from activities involving hot work); n Vandalism or malicious acts; n Mistakes occurring in the use of the system; n Faulty equipment or poor system maintenance; and n Fire detectors or red break-glass boxes sited in the wrong place and being accidentally set off.


BS 5838-1:2002 Fire detection and alarm systems for buildings, Code of practice for system design, installation, commissioning and maintenance gives a lot of information to help minimise false alarms. The standard suggests that in well managed environments a rate of one false alarm per 100 detectors should be achievable, whereas in more industrial premises, a rate of 1 per 75 detectors is more realistic.


July 2011 ECA Today 55


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72