Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 15 subscribers
  • Views 443 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

climate change and weekly testing of sprinkler systems

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
hello,

i was wondering, while the world is trying to move in the direction of zero carbon, why do insurance companies still insist on weekly running of large diesel powered engines being run every week on sprinkler systems?

this seems illogical. they won't take the risk if you want to remove the sprinklers, they cannot produce anything in law that says this needs to be done this often, only that this is an industry standard?

i can understand how these industry standards get drawn up, but how to promote change?

thank you
Parents
  • 0
    Ignoring the green or otherwise sidetrack, the question, is how do you decide than a weekly test is good, and once a month is not enough, and once a day or once an hour would be excessive.


    The answer I suspect relates to the simultaneous chance of a pump failure, and also a fire occurring that required the pumps, in the interval between one test and the next. Clearly the longer the interval, the greater the risk.  

    The choice of a week may well date from a time when such engines were more unreliable, and fires more common, a lot of guidance does, but folk are very resistant to any change if it sounds like 'increasing a risk' even when it does not.

    Now I have no idea of the real risk, but I guess asking how often is a failure detected during the test would be a good start to estimating the true risk of adjusting the test interval.


    Things that have to be more reliable, are tested more often, the batteries in some medical kit are monitored continuously for example and issue a low battery warning with several hours remaining.

    Things that are quite safe, like cars, well an annual MOT test is enough, and not even that for cars that are more than 40 years old and not likely to be used much, or farm machinery that does not go much on the public road.

    Mike.
Reply
  • 0
    Ignoring the green or otherwise sidetrack, the question, is how do you decide than a weekly test is good, and once a month is not enough, and once a day or once an hour would be excessive.


    The answer I suspect relates to the simultaneous chance of a pump failure, and also a fire occurring that required the pumps, in the interval between one test and the next. Clearly the longer the interval, the greater the risk.  

    The choice of a week may well date from a time when such engines were more unreliable, and fires more common, a lot of guidance does, but folk are very resistant to any change if it sounds like 'increasing a risk' even when it does not.

    Now I have no idea of the real risk, but I guess asking how often is a failure detected during the test would be a good start to estimating the true risk of adjusting the test interval.


    Things that have to be more reliable, are tested more often, the batteries in some medical kit are monitored continuously for example and issue a low battery warning with several hours remaining.

    Things that are quite safe, like cars, well an annual MOT test is enough, and not even that for cars that are more than 40 years old and not likely to be used much, or farm machinery that does not go much on the public road.

    Mike.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines