Taco Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 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? Every day is a school day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itesecurity Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted March 25, 2011 Author Share Posted March 25, 2011 Check and double check EVERYTHING . yeh, i know that......i was actually looking for what the likes of NACOSS expect you to do Every day is a school day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miaren Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHappy Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 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 ) Mr Veritas God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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. Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-G Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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 . . . . PM me for access to the SSAIB members discussion area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reidy Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 This is what we use Hey Ho, Lets Go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Flash badge Put in eng mode Drink tea Take out of eng Get siggy Do one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbz Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 just out of curiosity how many actually check tampers on all devices during a routine maintenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amps Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reidy Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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 Hey Ho, Lets Go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbz Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I concur - checking all tampers could cause more problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9651 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Indeed, i just ping a random sensor. If you start opening all PIR's, that's a guaranteed call out later that night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hpotter Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 depends on size, complexity & risk. tamper wise, tend to rotate selected each visit. using fsl is an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbz Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mma Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boty Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 OLd enough to remember 9500 lims.Would not advise checking tampers on them each visit ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amps Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 OLd enough to remember 9500 lims.Would not advise checking tampers on them each visit ! You waited five years to post this ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAS Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 You waited five years to post this ^^ nah, he`s been waiting for his IP block to clear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Marco Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 OLd enough to remember 9500 lims.Would not advise checking tampers on them each visit ! Yep through a quirk of fate I'm still working 9500/3400 systems..Regularly. I love 'em though. You can crash some of them just by literally just 'manipulating' the relay card but you can still have them reprogrammed in a few minutes. Sadly since they discontinued the LIMs they now get replaced when they extend the buildings. Got to say they have lasted longer on the whole than many newer panels and expanders I have fitted. Quality engineering. I was all posh today though...Crashed and reprogrammed a Galaxy 3.. "They put me in a box with my coat on! I know it doesn't sound much.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 if you were 'posh' you would have it udl. Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Marco Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 if you were 'posh' you would have it udl. udl? I'm living in the eighties normally.. "They put me in a box with my coat on! I know it doesn't sound much.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.