FireNet Community
June 28, 2017, 02:46:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The registration facility for new forum members has had to be disabled due to the volume of spammers (1 every minute) who seek to spread their worthless pornography and junk pharmaceuticals, or launch DDOS attacks to bring the site down.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: June 27, 2017, 08:12:40 AM 
Started by Fire Monkey - Last post by Fire Monkey
Great thanks for the history and insight to this.

 2 
 on: June 26, 2017, 08:08:24 PM 
Started by Fire Monkey - Last post by AnthonyB
When I first came across these over a year ago I followed it up with the two main UK fire blanket manufacturers.

Basically the Dutch tests were allegedly flawed and so as well as the China fakes some batches of perfectly compliant blankets failed as well.

As a result all blankets sold in Holland must bear this warning and Class F risks have to have an extinguisher (sales of 2 litre wet chemical and ABF agent extinguishers increasing as a result!)

In response to concerns from the UK manufacturers BSI carried out an audit of all kitemarked product using blankets bought independently rather than directly from the manufacturer to randomise the sample batches and submitted them to the full BS EN 1869 fire test.

All passed admirably.

As such a BS EN 1869 kitemarked fire blanket can be safely and effectively used within the design constraints of BS EN 1869 which in effect means risks involving shallow pans of no more than 300mm diameter and/or 3 litres content.

Larger risks require an F rated extinguisher or fixed system as a blanket could fail as they were never intended for bigger fryers under BSEN 1869.

The extinguisher service company putting these silly little stickers on blankets are owned by a manufacturer who has a large Dutch subsidiary. Incidentally they install blankets where there is no risk for them (minimum criteria seems to a be room with fitted cabinets, a sink and a kettle) as well as in areas where based on their own labelling they shouldn't be fitting them in the first place!

If the risk warrants keeping the blanket rather than withdrawing it and it's a kitemarked blanket I just peel the stickers off, otherwise the blanket goes (there are still fakes being imported, eBay is awash with them)

 3 
 on: June 26, 2017, 06:49:52 PM 
Started by Fishy - Last post by nim
This link still works

http://web.archive.org/web/20161114232416/http://www.harleyfacades.co.uk:80/page/grenfell-tower

 4 
 on: June 26, 2017, 05:06:13 PM 
Started by Fire Monkey - Last post by Tom Sutton
The current standard is BS EN 1869:1997 the superseded standard is BS 6575:1985. The old standard is far more comprehensive and has two categories light/heavy. The new has only one type domestic light for use on domestic chip pans or people clothing. I would think it would depend on what they used it on which would decide how effective it was.

 5 
 on: June 26, 2017, 03:01:42 PM 
Started by Fire Monkey - Last post by Fire Monkey
Hi,

I may to provide a fire alarm warning system for people with hearing impairments who work in a very large building. In years gone by I installed a pager system that was combined with visual alerter beacons. This system unfortunately proved un-reliable due to the radio not always delivering the signal. Other issues included staff's resistance to carrying around a pager. There were issues with batteries running out and not being replaced (even with a policy and procedure in place). Even the beacons were problematic as staff moved offices (within the building), used different meeting rooms and welfare facilites and even moved their desks around so they could no longer see the units.

Since then technology appears to have moved on. Does any one have views on systems that send alerts to mobile phones? Whilst I would prefer to send such notification to a work mobile (that does have signal in the building concerned) I could not guarantee the staff concerned would have a work mobile and may only have personal ones. Also the company I work for has quite strict controls on the Apps that it allows us to down load. Can these systems be used as a stand alone solution?

Buddy systems are in place. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans would be completed.

What other alternatives could you recommend? Desk mounted units?

Thanks,

Monkey.


 6 
 on: June 26, 2017, 02:56:11 PM 
Started by Messy - Last post by Messy
Many thanks Fishy

I really appreciate your assistance

 7 
 on: June 26, 2017, 01:41:37 PM 
Started by Fire Monkey - Last post by Fire Monkey
Hello,

I was sent a photo of a sticker on a fire blanket recently that read :

'Following market surveillance The Netherlands Food and Consumer Products Authority has found (October 2014) that fire blankets giving reference to EN 1869:1997 give no guarantee  that a fire blanket is safe because oil or grease fires will not always be extinguished. NAME OF COMPANY therefore advise that fire blankets are not a reliable means to protect against this particular risk.'

May I ask for your views on this statement? I have no information as to if this is only concerning deep fat fryers or just shallow frying. Looking at their website the NFCPA is more of a food standards agency and not a fire specialist manufacturer, tester or other.

Now I understand that fire blankets are designed to stop the air flow to the fire to starve it if oxygen (the old fire triangle again  Wink) and that they should stay in place for at least 30 minutes after use and that they should be used only if safe to do so and the source of heat should be turned off and so on and so on.

Is not the current standard BS EN 1879 and not 1869 and what is the difference? If a company is fitting new blankets should they all comply to the former and not the latter?

Should this fire equipment provider be placing such a statement on its products and can/should we are them to cease this? As this could lead staff to be concerned about then and not use them when required possibly leading to a fire getting out of control.

Thoughts and comments please ladies and gentlespoons.

Monkey.

 8 
 on: June 26, 2017, 07:27:27 AM 
Started by Messy - Last post by Fishy
Looking on Google (e.g. here: http://www.brettmartin.com/~/media/Files/Daylight-Systems-Document-Library/Technical-Documents/BBA-4114i2---GRP.pdf ) this looks like a  combination of specifications - SAB is a rating to the BS roof test ("S" = "Sloped", "AB" indicating relative time to penetration and spread of flame under the old BS 476: Part 3 test).  It looks like the "3" tacked on the end indicates Class 3 to BS 476: Part 7.  This would be relevant to rooflights, where fire performance from both above (the "SAB") and below (the Class "3") are controlled.

BS 476: Part 3 is a test for roofing systems (not individual products or components), whilst BS 476-7 is a product test standard covering spread-of-flame performance.  I'm not sure why someone would be specifying a roofing test for a wall construction?  In any case, in answer to your question Class 3 to BS 476-7 is nowhere near to Class 0 - as a guide, Class 3 is generally reckoned to be about the same level of performance as untreated timber.

Wise to be cautious - generally speaking it's not supportable to convert ratings between reaction-to-fire test standards as they tend to address completely different aspects of fire performance.  About the only comparisons you can draw with confidence are those published in guidance (e.g. the tables comparing BS and BS EN tests in the AD-B).

 9 
 on: June 25, 2017, 08:07:05 AM 
Started by Tadees - Last post by PGtips
Another rule. Never wear a short skirt when up a ladder I guess.

 10 
 on: June 23, 2017, 08:08:18 PM 
Started by Fairway123 - Last post by AnthonyB
The DCLG have issued a lot of guidance on inspection and testing of cladding and what to do if unsatisfactory systems are found - whilst it's aimed at high riser residential, it can form part of a risk based approach to other premises where there may be a lesser life risk (& more of a property risk)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!