Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Is there a minimum requirement?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    EAST MELBOURNE
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    165
    Reputation
    65

    Default Is there a minimum requirement?

    At the cms I work at I am seeing a lot more "commissionings" done by just letting the cms upload the panel as it is. One bureau even commissions by sending a dialler test only. No walk-testing, nothing. Some are brand new panels with default settings set for zones (ie zone 1 entry/exit zone 2 handover zone 3 instant etc..)

    I realise that times are tough and costs need to be cut, but...

    Maybe the user manuals that come with panels could come with a commissioning checklist from the manufacturers so that the client can at least have something to refer to when system being installed. As it stands, the poor client is left in the dark paying $00's if not $000's of dollars for a piece of equipment that they know very little about, and, for all they know, does nothing.

    1 - check installer's credentials
    2 - is panel located in protected area
    3 - walk test all zones
    4 - test all smoke detectors
    5 - test all duress alarms
    6 - periodic testing
    etc.. etc..

    I'm sure that some of you guys can add to this list and maybe create a checklist for visitors to this site who are looking at installing an alarm (or have an existing alarm) to print out and refer to. (If one doesn't already exist elsewhere on this forum).



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    503
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 50 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    219
    Reputation
    293

    Default

    As far as I concerned unless a full test is done , the technician is an unprofessional idiot , so many tech test a zone and leave , dont test smk detectors report , duress test , or even test for O/C, times may be tough but do it Properly or nick off out of the industry

    bit like going to a mechanic for a new fan belt and he throws it around the air cleaner takes your money and says see how you get on

    The incompendence , immoral , illegal , , unconquerable conduct that goes on is my pet gripe but no one gives a S*** as long as the panel communicated so they can sign off and get their weekly monitoring fee who cares about the rest
    Last edited by Tastech; 27-11-12 at 03:00 PM.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to Tastech For This Useful Post:

    itscrowtime (27-11-12)

  • #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 33 Times in 27 Posts
    Rep Power
    165
    Reputation
    484

    Default

    I still see insurance companies being the only ones who can brak the mould on this, authorities dont want to earn the cash, the cabling governing body doesnt seem to care unless you fill in a TCA 2 form etc etc etc.
    I would like to see insurance companies ask for specific information in relation to the system before deeming the site as insured.

  • #4
    Banned
    watchdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,966
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked 869 Times in 514 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    8320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sixfourzero View Post
    . Some are brand new panels with default settings set for zones (ie zone 1 entry/exit zone 2 handover zone 3 instant etc..)

    .
    They are the default parameters because in 90% of the installations those are the settings that will be required. I think you are trying to make a problem where non exists. I often use the codepad test to confirm the dialling function.

  • #5
    Senior Member
    downunderdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney Metropolitan
    Posts
    2,497
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 601 Times in 422 Posts
    Rep Power
    365
    Reputation
    4649

    Default

    A panel which hasn't sent through a signal from each and every zone is not commissioned. It is as simple as that.

    If you have shitty bureaus who are only interested in programming in a phone number and buggering off, you should fire them. If you don't, you're complicit.

    When you mix lousy installers with ungraded monitoring centres, a terrible bullshit is born and somewhere there is a customer getting ripped off and holding a false sense of security. This industry has been very badly damaged by a culture of cheap, untrained service providers who have no business whatsoever selling life-safety equipment. Nobody would EVER dream of installing a second-hand set of brakepads (to 'cut costs') or letting the customer drive off without having tested them first. How is this any different?

    All the cost-cutting in the world won't come close to damages in a malpractice suit and I for one am happy to stand as an expert witness.

    Our process will not let a technician leave until they have sent through every signal we are expecting and figured out anything we weren't. If they don't have a can of smoke to test the smoke detectors they are coming back. If the signal strength on an antenna isn't what we demand, they are going back. If the system false alarms, they are going back.

    Do they enjoy it? No. Do they respect us for it? Absolutely! The first time they go through our process we often receive a backhanded compliment (usually after being sworn at) but anyone not interested isn't worth chasing in my opinion. There will always be people cheaper than us and they can have them.

    Have we discharged our professional, legal and ethical obligations to customers? Yes. I worry about anyone in the security risk management arena who can't grasp this most basic requirement.

    [Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to be sanctimonious or preachy but geez it annoys me how many in this industry are profiteering from their clients' lack of knowledge]
    Last edited by downunderdan; 28-11-12 at 09:01 PM.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to downunderdan For This Useful Post:

    ds2020 (30-11-12)

  • #6
    Banned
    watchdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,966
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked 869 Times in 514 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    8320

    Default

    I'm going to have to disagree (to an extent). While what you say would be great in an ideal world the fact is we don't live in an ideal world. Sure , test all the basics - zone activation , o&c , reporting but there are a host of things that are not practical to test. Do you test the low battery threshold - no. Do you test that it will auto arm when the time comes - no. Do you test that it does an auto test - no. Do you test the periodic supervision for w/less PIRs - no. These things will show up pretty quickly if they are not right. If the programming is correct , your installation is up to scratch & you use quality gear then you should have confidence in the finished job.To use your brake comparison the mechanic will probably ask you to keep an eye on the fluid level over the next couple of weeks.
    There are plenty of times that I've only tested 80% of the zones back to the CMS simply because a place if full of people & you simply cant get a seal on some of the detectors. I see them seal / unseal at the codepad (so PIR & cabling is ok). I know the panel reports back to base (so dialler/M3 is ok) I have NEVER had a dialler that would report some zones but not others. What else do you want ?

  • #7
    Senior Member
    downunderdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney Metropolitan
    Posts
    2,497
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 601 Times in 422 Posts
    Rep Power
    365
    Reputation
    4649

    Default

    Watchdog,

    Of course I'm not suggesting you need to receive *every* possible combination of signal, especially considering you can't simulate most of them (supervisory, sensor watch, low battery) etc. However it is perfectly reasonable to expect to receive (as relevant) Fire and Burg signals from each and every detector.

    I think you'll find we agree. What amazed me (albeit was no surprise) was the suggestion that some installers can't even be arsed doing that. Similarly that there seems to be a culture of acceptance around the problem. This in turn encourages other installers to cut corners.

  • #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    91
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    201
    Reputation
    25

    Default

    Agrees fully with Dan.

    Our Controlroom takes it one step further. We complete a commissioning details checklist which indicates everything the technician has failed to do or supply and indicates that they must forward or complete the process before we take any responsibility. Just a suggestion.

    We also state a system is not ready to be monitored until the full commissioning details not only have been supplied but entered and to alllow up to 24hrs for this process. We generally of course do it much faster depending on the size of site.

    The classic situation that always cracks me up is when a tech send instructions to check for nightly secures and hasn't even bothered to program the panel to send secures and unsecures.

  • #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 33 Times in 27 Posts
    Rep Power
    165
    Reputation
    484

    Default

    The classic situation that always cracks me up is when a tech send instructions to check for nightly secures and hasn't even bothered to program the panel to send secures and unsecures.[/QUOTE]


    I am wondering what the tech (and this term will be used loosely) checks when he has programmed and tested signals then calls the monitoring station to check what has come through.
    Surely they ask if there was an arming signal , zone 1- whatever and a disarming???

  • #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sydney :P~~~
    Posts
    1,051
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 74 Times in 54 Posts
    Rep Power
    246
    Reputation
    657

    Default

    Absolute lazyness.
    The CMS should NOT take a system online unless all reporting zones have been tested.

    If you have 8 zones, all 8 should be sent through, panel tampers, mains fails and restores, open close, codepad zones EVERYTHING.
    this is the time the CMS data entry operator can verify all events are reporting and not invalid

    If you're using a GPRS device, it should be failed over and ensured that the CMS receive the offline or loss of polling (class dependant of course)

  • #11
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 839 Times in 515 Posts
    Rep Power
    368
    Reputation
    6489

    Default

    This subject annoys the shit out of me. A system is quite simply not commissioned until the system has communicated every zone + restores, O/C on all areas, tampers and duress. And as for a site being full of people and impossible to seal, that's a crock. Mask the detectors if required and use spare magnets to seal reeds. There are some chances that just shouldn't be taken no matter how sure you are that everything's ok. There is no excuse for doing anything less.

  • #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    333
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 58 Times in 55 Posts
    Rep Power
    187
    Reputation
    604

    Default

    I agree with all the criticisms for not testing a new site thoroughly, but I am just wondering if anyone tests the siren tamper switch for a seal/unseal (I don't mean "siren supervision" by disconnecting one side of the horn/siren in the panel).

  • #13
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 839 Times in 515 Posts
    Rep Power
    368
    Reputation
    6489

    Default

    Abosultely. It doesn't take that long.

  • #14
    Banned
    watchdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,966
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked 869 Times in 514 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    8320

    Default

    This is starting to sound like one of those " I'm tougher than you" bidding wars the pollies drag out before every election. " we will lock 'em up for 100 years" " "yeah but we will lock em up for 2oo years". I'll state again - seal/unseal at codepad , the zone I/P is working. Dialler communicates to CMS , dialler ,M3 & reporting programming ok. If you have EVER had a panel that reports some zones but not others then tell me about it & name the panel.
    Those who say ALL reporting functions should be tested may care to describe how they test low battery threshold , wireless supervision , weekly test report , Do you test codepad lockout & swinger shutdown. When you do an initial power up default do you go through the whole panel just to check that all locations HAVE defaulted. Of course not trust that it has done it. 95% of my installs are Bosch & in 17 yrs I have never had one faulty out of the box.

    Bracing myself ---

  • #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    333
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 58 Times in 55 Posts
    Rep Power
    187
    Reputation
    604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alarmman View Post
    I am just wondering if anyone tests the siren tamper switch for a seal/unseal (I don't mean "siren supervision" by disconnecting one side of the horn/siren in the panel).
    Quote Originally Posted by Drift View Post
    Abosultely. It doesn't take that long.
    Out of interest, do you get up on a ladder and unscrew one corner of the siren box, then pull it away from the wall, or do you unscrew the appropriate wire from the zone input terminal? Or do you test it another way?

  • #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    EAST MELBOURNE
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    165
    Reputation
    65

    Default

    As a CMS operator I wanted to see what kind of minimum requirement there was, in other words what would be the minimum set of checks that really should be done on commissioning an alarm.

    And, maybe to create basic checklist that would guide a visitor to this forum who is looking at getting an alarm installed or commissioned a basic idea of what to look for. Also they can gain an understanding of what the installer is doing.

    It just seems to me that, at present, commission alarms seems to be done to a price rather than to a standard. I have spoken to several colleagues who work in other CMS's and the stories are pretty much the same as mine.

    As far as being "complicit" in delivering a substandard service, I find that accusation a little insulting. A bit like accusing the typesetter at News of The World of being complicit in their phone-tapping scandal. As an operator we are paid to do a job, primarily to interpret and, where necessary, report on signals received at the CMS. We do not write policy. We do not choose who becomes a bureau, nor do we enforce rules and regulations. So if you need someone to blame for this type of "complicity", you need to look a lot higher up the security industry hierarchy than us.

    I am not looking to start a slanging match or anything like that. I am just trying to get a little co-operation and some input from professionals in the industry, for my education and for the customers (, and even some technicians/installers that may visit this forum).

  • #17
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 839 Times in 515 Posts
    Rep Power
    368
    Reputation
    6489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alarmman View Post
    Out of interest, do you get up on a ladder and unscrew one corner of the siren box, then pull it away from the wall, or do you unscrew the appropriate wire from the zone input terminal? Or do you test it another way?
    Physically at the siren box.

  • #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 33 Times in 27 Posts
    Rep Power
    165
    Reputation
    484

    Default

    I had a tech once send through some zones on an NX. 12, none over 6. He was adament that all was ok, i made him test the rest, of course zone doubling wasnt enabled so he couldnt figure out why the other 6 wouldnt show on the codepad. Eventually rang tech support, eventually

    This same tech also decided to ensure no panels had Tamper switches on the panel (enabled him to come and go without being held to account), would never test sensors and soon became unemployed after a political shitfight

  • #19
    Senior Member
    downunderdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney Metropolitan
    Posts
    2,497
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 601 Times in 422 Posts
    Rep Power
    365
    Reputation
    4649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sixfourzero View Post
    It just seems to me that, at present, commission alarms seems to be done to a price rather than to a standard. I have spoken to several colleagues who work in other CMS's and the stories are pretty much the same as mine.
    No doubt. There is an abundance of poor work, cheap and nasty or in some cases grossly negligent service delivery posing as "security".

    As far as being "complicit" in delivering a substandard service, I find that accusation a little insulting.
    I was speaking in general terms.

    So if you need someone to blame for this type of "complicity", you need to look a lot higher up the security industry hierarchy than us.
    Not sure about that. I suspect I only need to look up one level of management and/or ownership of your company. That's where corporate philosophy and operational procedures come from every single day.

    There will never be legislation to cover ethics and best practice. Indeed even if there were, there are still people happy to deliver rubbish so long as they're getting paid. Ungraded monitoring centres are a shining example of this. If they were competent they would have no trouble attaining at least a C3 grading. Yet they choose not to and it's these types of choices which encourage inferiority and drive every other bit of hopelessness and incompetence. And yes, I've heard every excuse under the sun why central stations don't try for grading but none of them add up to much. Basically it's like someone telling you what an awesome driver they are, except they never got a licence. When we are approached by people who are that sloppy, or who want us to be so cheap it's not viable, we just say no and they are welcome to go to providers at the bottom of the barrel without dragging us down there with them. The funny thing is, they could actually make so much more money doing it properly yet people are too ingrained in the stale business model they've followed for too many years.

    I am not looking to start a slanging match or anything like that. I am just trying to get a little co-operation and some input from professionals in the industry, for my education and for the customers
    You are clearly one of the good eggs. Might be time to look around...
    Last edited by downunderdan; 29-11-12 at 11:24 PM.

  • #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    322
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 38 Times in 34 Posts
    Rep Power
    165
    Reputation
    579

    Default

    From your initial post I am guessing your strictly referring to bureaus as your own companies technicians should already have procedures and practices in place to ensure they are commissioning lines through properly. The bottom line is - You can not enforce these practices and procedures upon bureaus, you can try but I dont think too many will stick around.

  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •