james.wilson Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 some are released for 'third party certification' ie LPCB and UL labs. But its not mandatory. That is why some specify LPC only equipment etc. securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasdocherty Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 There was a mumble a while ago about banning closed protocol systems, or at least opening them up so as owners of systems could at least order heads etc themselves, and also hold a copy of the software for their own panel. A global/local made some big waves, but to my knowledge, these actions will not be made legal or otherwise for a long time if at all. Pity, as to me, some big companies are technically, in some instances, leaving a client with reduced or no cover, as the hum and haw about how the client needs to sign a new service agreement before they can deal with them, can go on for months before new parts can be sourced, if at all. AWACS UK Website email: advanced warning and communicated systems installation...intergration...innovation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g4vjc Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 There was a mumble a while ago about banning closed protocol systems, or at least opening them up so as owners of systems could at least order heads etc themselves, and also hold a copy of the software for their own panel. A global/local made some big waves, but to my knowledge, these actions will not be made legal or otherwise for a long time if at all. Pity, as to me, some big companies are technically, in some instances, leaving a client with reduced or no cover, as the hum and haw about how the client needs to sign a new service agreement before they can deal with them, can go on for months before new parts can be sourced, if at all. I'm not a fan of closed protocol but owners of any system (open,closed or managed) shouldn't be working on them unless they're appropriately trained, if not then they're asking for trouble. Managed protocols offer the best of both worlds, you are guaranteed that the engineer working on the system is suitably trained and has the support required to work on the system (usually!!) but are not tied into one company. The owners of the system have a choice of many companies capable of working on the system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I'm not a fan of closed protocol but owners of any system (open,closed or managed) shouldn't be working on them unless they're appropriately trained, if not then they're asking for trouble.Managed protocols offer the best of both worlds, you are guaranteed that the engineer working on the system is suitably trained and has the support required to work on the system (usually!!) but are not tied into one company. The owners of the system have a choice of many companies capable of working on the system What's the difference between closed and managed protocols? Fire Member Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 and how does a managed protocol stop the untrained 'handyman' having a go? securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy phillips Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 What's the difference between closed and managed protocols? managed protocol is a closed protocol system with agents i.e you don't have to use the manufacturer you can use one of their agents and how does a managed protocol stop the untrained 'handyman' having a go? its supposed to give the customer an option ok we as the manufacturer might have annoyed you but you can use one of our agents to fix your fault etc...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esp-protocol Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Regardless of managed, closed or open the client (Responsible Person) has a duty to ensure the people working on the system are competent to do the job. This must start I would suggest, by using an established fire alarm company (not joe bloggs electrics and plumbing), perhaps one that is third party acredited, and perhaps the RP should ask specifically for a statement from the company that they consider themselves competent to work on the system. Personally I don't care if joe bloggs buggers up a system. If someone dies I'd hope he gets found out and locked up. But 99.9% the panel goes into a continuous fault condition and the Company eventually gets the hump and employs a proper company to put things right. Therefore decent companies do eventually get the jobs, its just a pity the cowboys tend to get away with the service fees for so long.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy phillips Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Regardless of managed, closed or open the client (Responsible Person) has a duty to ensure the people working on the system are competent to do the job. This must start I would suggest, by using an established fire alarm company (not joe bloggs electrics and plumbing), perhaps one that is third party acredited, and perhaps the RP should ask specifically for a statement from the company that they consider themselves competent to work on the system. Personally I don't care if joe bloggs buggers up a system. If someone dies I'd hope he gets found out and locked up. But 99.9% the panel goes into a continuous fault condition and the Company eventually gets the hump and employs a proper company to put things right. Therefore decent companies do eventually get the jobs, its just a pity the cowboys tend to get away with the service fees for so long.... the responsible person is also responsible for the fire risk assesment, which should stipulate that any fire alarm works are carried out by a third party accredited company, unfortunately well in my eyes the bafe system has dummed this down as people can apply to be accredited for certain disciplines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky999 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I think closed protocol is naff as it is a licence for those manufacturers (not mentioning any particular company) to rip off customers by charging high prices for spares and servicing. I am not knocking the product as all systems whether they are open or closed protocols have good points and bad points. Peter Robinson Freelance M:07889038650 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esp-protocol Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 the responsible person is also responsible for the fire risk assesment, which should stipulate that any fire alarm works are carried out by a third party accredited company, unfortunately well in my eyes the bafe system has dummed this down as people can apply to be accredited for certain disciplines. Thats true.... but then the company is only accredited for the module they have... eg Installation or Design.... because its not made clear on the paperwork the customer just sees a BAFE logo and makes an assumption. Although you can only get Certificates of Conformity if you have the Commissioning module, anyone who gets the Installation module can fob the client off that they can commission or maintain. We blew a major controls company out the water a while ago as they commissioned a major system in a recycling/ incinerator plant but when we checked the NSI website they were only alllowed to maintain, not design or commission. And they won the job on the strength of being third party accredited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.