Thread Rating:
  • 64 Vote(s) - 3.14 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
BS 5839-1:2017
#21
What most of you seem to forget is the BS is only a set of recommendations and if it has been read right, the most common word that is used is should not must. i.e. detectors should be mounted more than 500mm from an obstruction.
Reply
#22
(20-04-2017, 09:07 AM)MD Martin Wrote:
(19-04-2017, 11:19 PM)Garsec Wrote: Personally I think it's a backwards step, I wanted the rules regarding fire to be stronger and more technical, but as said it's like they haven't been followed do we will chance for what people want rather than what's right or best ? It makes a farce of trying to stop cowboys and have a goes.

As for intruder not having to comply but the battery should ? Absolute farce
Yes you are right! The whole damn thing is a farce and the U turn on the isolator proves it. Jobs for the boys there Will and you cannot convince me to think any other way after this. The whole thing is just made up to put money in a few peoples pockets, from courses that mean sod all to approved companies that have very little or no enforcement. How many companies have lost their BAFE approval because they don't live up to the logo? The guys on here can tell you stories of installations that would make your teeth curl and guess what? No one gives a s**t cause there aint no money in it for them. They will  keep making/changing the rules making sure they are so ambiguous that people can throw in systems and never be able to be pulled up on it. Responsible persons eh! It's a pity those making the rules don't accept some responsibility isn't it?

Here here!

Kin shambles.


... and all them clients that have been told a double pole keyswitch isolator must be installed, glad i didnt jump on the bandwagon with that one.
Reply
#23
(20-04-2017, 12:24 PM)Adi Wrote:
(20-04-2017, 09:07 AM)MD Martin Wrote:
(19-04-2017, 11:19 PM)Garsec Wrote: Personally I think it's a backwards step, I wanted the rules regarding fire to be stronger and more technical, but as said it's like they haven't been followed do we will chance for what people want rather than what's right or best ? It makes a farce of trying to stop cowboys and have a goes.

As for intruder not having to comply but the battery should ? Absolute farce
Yes you are right! The whole damn thing is a farce and the U turn on the isolator proves it. Jobs for the boys there Will and you cannot convince me to think any other way after this. The whole thing is just made up to put money in a few peoples pockets, from courses that mean sod all to approved companies that have very little or no enforcement. How many companies have lost their BAFE approval because they don't live up to the logo? The guys on here can tell you stories of installations that would make your teeth curl and guess what? No one gives a s**t cause there aint no money in it for them. They will  keep making/changing the rules making sure they are so ambiguous that people can throw in systems and never be able to be pulled up on it. Responsible persons eh! It's a pity those making the rules don't accept some responsibility isn't it?

Here here!

Kin shambles.


... and all them clients that have been told a double pole keyswitch isolator must be installed, glad i didnt jump on the bandwagon with that one.

I know of one company that went back to about 12 sites to add the safety isolators because their BAFE inspector instructed them to do so!
Martin Wison
KGM Fire and Security Distribution Ltd.
Maidstone, Kent.
01634 716882
http://www.kgmfireandsecurity.co.uk
Reply
#24
(20-04-2017, 09:07 AM)MD Martin Wrote:
(19-04-2017, 11:19 PM)Garsec Wrote: Personally I think it's a backwards step, I wanted the rules regarding fire to be stronger and more technical, but as said it's like they haven't been followed do we will chance for what people want rather than what's right or best ? It makes a farce of trying to stop cowboys and have a goes.

As for intruder not having to comply but the battery should ? Absolute farce
Yes you are right! The whole damn thing is a farce and the U turn on the isolator proves it. Jobs for the boys there Will and you cannot convince me to think any other way after this. The whole thing is just made up to put money in a few peoples pockets, from courses that mean sod all to approved companies that have very little or no enforcement. How many companies have lost their BAFE approval because they don't live up to the logo? The guys on here can tell you stories of installations that would make your teeth curl and guess what? No one gives a s**t cause there aint no money in it for them. They will  keep making/changing the rules making sure they are so ambiguous that people can throw in systems and never be able to be pulled up on it. Responsible persons eh! It's a pity those making the rules don't accept some responsibility isn't it?

i never saw the need for a double pole isolator i always thought single pole was good enough. is a double pole isolator safer than a single pole? errrr not really if you are talking about a fire alarm panel. maybe this is because i started life as a spark
something is not isolated till its tested and proved to be isolated.

and you need to remember that the standard is not written by one person but a committee and a camel is a horse made by a committee.
the FIA view was to keep the double pole isolator but others disagreed

BAFE is not perfect but its better than nothing unless you want every job no matter how big or small to be inspected by someone else which is going to cost a lot more than BAFE
www.fia.uk.com

Technical Manager FIA

All comments and views are mine own and may not reflect the views of FIA
Reply
#25
One company I worked for (left 6 years ago) are still installing shite and only got BAFE 'to get better jobs' and that's a quote from the ops manager and MD at the time, I got sent on the FIA courses 'because your a geek and are bound to pass so we will then have a competent person' it is a farce, it's more than just the DP saga, it should be tighter and strickter but it just seems like it's being diluted to suit everyone else, I had a commission a couple of months ago wired in LSF and the spark couldn't see the issue.
Any opinions or comments i make, are my veiws and not that of my company or employer.

BAFE SP-201 accredited
LPS 1014 accredited

Reply
#26
Will - does the "special tool" element still apply to the outlets? I would assume so.

MK do a SP version in white where the fuse carrier requires a two pronged tool to open - I will use them I think.
All posts are of my own opinion and knowledge and do not reflect the views of the Company I work for.
Reply
#27
(20-04-2017, 10:50 PM)Graeme Wrote: Will - does the "special tool" element still apply to the outlets? I would assume so.

MK do a SP version in white where the fuse carrier requires a two pronged tool to open - I will use them I think.

Graeme, the double pole isolator comes in white as well as red, looks very neat, made for the job, is inscribed with the text 'Fire alarm do not switch off', is priced well enough at less than £14 so what's not to like? 
I will certainly keep stocking the double pole isolator and recommend that my customers continue to use it as I believe it is the best thing for the job. 

There was a picture on here a while ago with the mains going into the panel using flex and a three pin plug, expect it to be in the recommendations at the next revision, custom and practice now so why not change the rules!
Martin Wison
KGM Fire and Security Distribution Ltd.
Maidstone, Kent.
01634 716882
http://www.kgmfireandsecurity.co.uk
Reply
#28
I'll also use them MK ones i think
Reply
#29
(20-04-2017, 10:50 PM)Graeme Wrote: Will - does the "special tool" element still apply to the outlets? I would assume so.

MK do a SP version in white where the fuse carrier requires a two pronged tool to open - I will use them I think.

yes it does and that MK unit is what i would use as you can take the fuse out and put a padlock through the hole to "lock it off"
www.fia.uk.com

Technical Manager FIA

All comments and views are mine own and may not reflect the views of FIA
Reply
#30
(20-04-2017, 08:01 PM)Garsec Wrote: One company I worked for (left 6 years ago) are still installing shite and only got BAFE 'to get better jobs' and that's a quote from the ops manager and MD at the time, I got sent on the FIA courses 'because your a geek and are bound to pass so we will then have a competent person' it is a farce, it's more than just the DP saga, it should be tighter and strickter but it just seems like it's being diluted to suit everyone else, I had a commission a couple of months ago wired in LSF and the spark couldn't see the issue.

sounds like all persons working on a fire alarm should be qualified Wink2


is it May yet? Undecided
www.fia.uk.com

Technical Manager FIA

All comments and views are mine own and may not reflect the views of FIA
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  BS 5839-6 and communal staircases rtfm 7 1,504 02-10-2019, 08:37 PM
Last Post: AnthonyB
  Pre BS 5839-1 rtfm 5 1,279 08-08-2019, 07:12 PM
Last Post: AnthonyB
  BS 5839-6 maintenance rtfm 22 3,892 20-07-2019, 12:03 AM
Last Post: tc(two cup)
  en54-23 vad and fia 2017 guidance.... alonso 14 9,567 20-04-2017, 12:00 PM
Last Post: caveman
  BS 5839 part 6 LD2 system channelFS 5 4,366 06-01-2017, 01:44 PM
Last Post: ESP
  5839 pt6 tc(two cup) 4 4,138 14-10-2015, 09:22 PM
Last Post: AnthonyB
  EN54-2 significant change from the old 5839-4 kurnal 16 15,162 11-03-2015, 01:52 PM
Last Post: Chris M.
  BS 5839-1 2013 Will Lloyd 42 65,108 09-04-2013, 09:05 AM
Last Post: Will Lloyd
  BS 5839-1 ad2 SFSS 21 19,834 29-03-2013, 03:10 PM
Last Post: MD Martin
  BS 5839-6 Draft for Public Comment Will Lloyd 1 3,987 07-12-2012, 04:12 PM
Last Post: ESP

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)