10 minutes ago, PeterJames said:

Things do change,sometimes for better sometimes for worse, and it was already not perfect but it was never unworkable, which was my point.  

If it (EN regs) was never unworkable, why did the UK have to add a PD 6662 to it? Oh that's right it wouldn't work in the UK so we had to change it.

look over the water to the same EN in name our neighbours are using, its a much smaller and simpler document. Which BTW makes a joke out of the word standard.

So your saying that adding PD6662 was what made it workable ?

IMO yes PD6662 was definetly required in the early days, some think its time is (was) coming to an end.

But one issue we have in the uk is should/shall normative/informative. Everywhere else only enforces the normative parts. We don't due to NSI, SSAIB interpretation etc. 

50 minutes ago, PeterJames said:

So your saying that adding PD6662 was what made it workable ?

What I'm saying is we should Never have been forced into using an EN in the first place. Europe dictated we comply with things alien to our shores. BS4737 should have been allowed to evolve with the way the UK work. The EN never worked in the UK and therefore required amendment making it by default a poor document. 

PD 6662 is a sticking plaster to that document. We now have the opportunity to write a proper engineering standard SPECIFICALY for the home market representing what we actually do. If we work over the water we should do as the locals require. It's us and them because Us (Europeans) don't exist other than some dictatorship ideal and no matter how much sugar coating or brainwashing is applied.

Leaving the EU doesn't close the door many including myself like to visit. But it is a visit and when I see my neighbours do something interesting and different I'm happy to adopt their recipes but only if the locals here have the taste.

Well, I wouldn't get too worked up as what we will undoubtedly end up with to keep all sides happy is EUlite, basically trade and access as-was but without the other benefits and at a slightly greater per-capita cost.

 

This will, I am without doubt, include the full retention of the EN as a working UK standard, since it will be the BSIA / NSI / SSIAB / Insurers who call the shots on what's 'approved'.

 

I cannot see the appetite from any side, most especially the manufacturers, for writing a whole new standard just for Little Britain, which would undoubtedly be out of date and out of touch by the time the commissioning of the draft was even approved. There wasn't the energy even in the boom years and presence of several large profitable multinationals to keep the BS updated, so in these times of cutbacks I can't see anyone having the time or patience within a cut-down industry to devote unpaid and unthanked time to help develop it from scratch now.

Edited July 10, 201610 yr by datadiffusion

1 hour ago, alarmcom said:

What I'm saying is we should Never have been forced into using an EN in the first place. Europe dictated we comply with things alien to our shores. BS4737 should have been allowed to evolve with the way the UK work. The EN never worked in the UK and therefore required amendment making it by default a poor document. 

PD 6662 is a sticking plaster to that document. We now have the opportunity to write a proper engineering standard SPECIFICALY for the home market representing what we actually do. If we work over the water we should do as the locals require. It's us and them because Us (Europeans) don't exist other than some dictatorship ideal and no matter how much sugar coating or brainwashing is applied.

Leaving the EU doesn't close the door many including myself like to visit. But it is a visit and when I see my neighbours do something interesting and different I'm happy to adopt their recipes but only if the locals here have the taste.

Why so angry??

Now I see it completely different from you EN50131 was not that far off 4737, The Grading was an improvement, alarm confirmation was an improvement, yes there were many things wrong with 50131 PD6662 made it workable (which again brings me back to my point) but you could say the same about 4737. 50131 did mean that I could employ French German and Polish engineers without having to provide to much training as they were already familiar with 50131 and that the purpose of having a EN standard end of the day.

 

45 minutes ago, PeterJames said:

Why so angry??

 

Think it's a greater Manchester thing?

That's nothing, I'm still waiting for the firebomb to be posted through my letterbox for my post...

3 hours ago, datadiffusion said:

Insurers who call the shots on what's 'approved'.

 

Everybody says its down to the insurance company's, they don't have that much input on the standards they copy and paste from BSIA guidelines, and they nearly always spec grade 4 signalling as its the only thing they know.

 

All the insurance company's i have dealt recently, quote Redcare or dualcom, when asked which redcare or dualcom as there are different versions they just come back with silence.

2 hours ago, Nova-Security said:

 

Everybody says its down to the insurance company's, they don't have that much input on the standards they copy and paste from BSIA guidelines, and they nearly always spec grade 4 signalling as its the only thing they know.

 

All the insurance company's i have dealt recently, quote Redcare or dualcom, when asked which redcare or dualcom as there are different versions they just come back with silence.

Do you remember when insurance companies had never heard of Dual Com? It is true that the grading was supposed to help, insurance companies were supposed to choose the grade but they dont have a scooby in most cases. But thats not really the standards fault is it? 

 

On another note how many times have you gone to quote a Fire Alarm and the customer hasnt had a FRA or worse the FRA doesnt give the grade of system required?