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 29 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2098 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

Cables and reaction to fire

lyledunn
Why do you suppose that the MHCLG did not feel it necessary to mandate levels of performance for cables with respect to their reaction to fire as was their prerogative under CPR?

Clearly the current non-prescriptive approach is either working or there is no significant evidence that cables and wiring systems have unduly contributed to the propagation of a fire or resulted in emissions that made a situation untenable when it would not have otherwise been. 

Further, what does it actually mean in the note in 422.2.1 that cables need to satisfy the requirements of the CPR in terms of their reaction to fire? I can find nothing specific in the CPR other than the need for CE marking and the requirements placed on the manufacturers for technical information.
Parents
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    mapj1:

    And the most common case, for false alarms, you may as well remain in place.



     



    I disagree - for life safety you should be encouraged to leave, every time (Get out, Stay Out) - as I alluded to above, if your expectation is that it's a false alarm, you engender an attitude that will inevitably result in real risk, because people don't leave when they should.


    I've put people on disciplinary warnings before now for adopting a "cavalier approach" to drills or false alarms - and I'm deadly serious about it. I accept that most people don't like being told what to do, but need telling for their own good. If nothing else, it shows that people understand risk and demonstrates the correct behaviours in a safety culture. For me, a guy who can't react sensibly to a warning system, is probably not safe to be acting as a designer.


    I fully accept that we also have to design appropriately to minimise the unwanted fire signals - but this can be done in a collaborative approach with clients and users (the improvements in FRS call outs in the NHS estate are an example of this)


    regards


    OMS





Reply
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    mapj1:

    And the most common case, for false alarms, you may as well remain in place.



     



    I disagree - for life safety you should be encouraged to leave, every time (Get out, Stay Out) - as I alluded to above, if your expectation is that it's a false alarm, you engender an attitude that will inevitably result in real risk, because people don't leave when they should.


    I've put people on disciplinary warnings before now for adopting a "cavalier approach" to drills or false alarms - and I'm deadly serious about it. I accept that most people don't like being told what to do, but need telling for their own good. If nothing else, it shows that people understand risk and demonstrates the correct behaviours in a safety culture. For me, a guy who can't react sensibly to a warning system, is probably not safe to be acting as a designer.


    I fully accept that we also have to design appropriately to minimise the unwanted fire signals - but this can be done in a collaborative approach with clients and users (the improvements in FRS call outs in the NHS estate are an example of this)


    regards


    OMS





Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines