46 replies to this topic

[Taco]

anyone know what the codes of practice are re: 6monthly/yearly inspections on intruder systems, and what checks MUST be carried out to conform to standard?

[itesecurity]

Taco, on 22 March 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:

anyone know what the codes of practice are re: 6monthly/yearly inspections on intruder systems, and what checks MUST be carried out to conform to standard?

Check and double check EVERYTHING .

[Taco]

itesecurity, on 24 March 2011 - 05:51 PM, said:

Check and double check EVERYTHING .

yeh, i know that......i was actually looking for what the likes of NACOSS expect you to do

[miaren]

Give up, no one will answer....as that information is of value and not freely available....(members only (SSAIB & NSI))

no offence meant, just as it is.

Edited by miaren, 25 March 2011 - 09:58 PM.

[MrHappy]

Lol,

A model pmv was in 4737. Using you co. Manual to flesh it out




Get on site, flash id badge, check against spec / on site docs, wall test, measure volts current & circuits, bells plus REM signals record in log bog ECT..

(Best I can do off a phone )

[norman]

also full set test where possible, not just toggling o/p's. On larger sites where bi-annuals then document which devices are tested as you may not do 100% per visit, but must do 100% over 12m. Document any changes/shortcomings and advise of no PA's whilst you have the system on test.

[A-G]

Something like this:

The alarm system detailed in this design proposal will be maintained in accordance with the EN 50131-1:2004/PD6662 and DD CLC/TS 50131-7:2003 series. 2 maintenance services will be carried out per year, consisting:

A Test tamper detection
B Test setting & unsetting
C Check entry & exit procedures
D Test power supply & circuits
E Test operation of detectors
F Operation of warning devices
G Test operation of ATE





.

Edited by A-G, 26 March 2011 - 11:21 AM.

[reidy]

This is what we use

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Oxford]

Flash badge
Put in eng mode
Drink tea
Take out of eng
Get siggy
Do one.

[abbz]

just out of curiosity how many actually check tampers on all devices during a routine maintenance.

[steveo44]

reidy, on 26 March 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

This is what we use

Do you really do all those checks for every maintenance reidy?

Check bell delay(if programmed) and shut off times
on every maintenance?

I wonder how many check every tamper circuit/

Edited by steveo44, 26 March 2011 - 08:06 PM.

[reidy]

steveo44, on 26 March 2011 - 08:03 PM, said:

Do you really do all those checks for every maintenance reidy?

Check bell delay(if programmed) and shut off times
on every maintenance?

I wonder how many check every tamper circuit/

That's the form we got from the NSI, so I guess that's what they think we should be doing

[Oxford]

abbz, on 26 March 2011 - 08:03 PM, said:

just out of curiosity how many actually check tampers on all devices during a routine maintenance.

Never checked all tampers but more than often checked some. Bell delay done on full set check.

Why do you ask anyway?

[abbz]

Oxford, on 26 March 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

Never checked all tampers but more than often checked some. Bell delay done on full set check.

Why do you ask anyway?

i asked because every maintenance sheet i have ever seen always has that on it.
if we were to check all tampers we wouldnt get as many calls done and im sure cause more problems then when we started

The same will bell cut off timers.
im sure the majority of engineers never test that feature and just rely on there judgement taking into account the age and condition of the bell in general.

[Oxford]

I concur - checking all tampers could cause more problems.

[9651]

Indeed, i just ping a random sensor. If you start opening all PIR's, that's a guaranteed call out later that night

[hpotter]

depends on size, complexity & risk.

tamper wise, tend to rotate selected each visit. using fsl is an advantage.

[abbz]

hpotter, on 29 March 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:

depends on size, complexity & risk.

tamper wise, tend to rotate selected each visit. using fsl is an advantage.

How is using fsl an advantage ?

the tamper could still be disconnected inside the detector can it not

[mma]

abbz, on 29 March 2011 - 08:46 PM, said:

How is using fsl an advantage ?

the tamper could still be disconnected inside the detector can it not

It could but it should have been checked on commissioning of the system and if its set up for engineer/anti code no one can open a device without you knowing.

[Michael Boty]

OLd enough to remember 9500 lims.Would not advise checking tampers on them each visit !