licensed

Upcoming FIM Expo to feature BS 5839-1:2017 revisions and future of qualifications in fire detection and alarms

FIA seminars The next FIM Expo will take place on Wednesday 4 October at the Glasgow Science Centre. Organised by the Fire Industry Association (FIA), the annual free event features two fire-safety seminars and the latest life-safety products from leading fire detection and alarm manufacturers. One seminar will explore the implications of revisions to BS 5839-1:2017 ( Fire detection and fire alarm systems for buildings Code of practice for design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of systems in non-domestic premises ).

The other looks at the future of qualifications in fire detection and alarms. Both seminars are CPD-accredited and free to attend. The event is relevant to installers or maintainers of fire detection and alarm systems, anyone managing such systems in commercial premises or architects or other professionals specifying fire protection systems to be installed in buildings. We are absolutely delighted to present FIM Expo, said Kat Schabowska, the event coordinator. It s a fantastic place for like-minded individuals to meet, exchange ideas, network, and learn more about new products from a wide range of manufacturers. New products are being released onto the market all the time and this is a great way to come and see them first-hand and discuss how these new products might work for you. View the full exhibitor list here or visit the events section on the FIA website to register.

Wireless intrusion sensors: Adoption still weak in the commercial sector

Analysis Texecom Ricochet wireless external motion sensor IHS Markit estimates that 68 million intruder alarm sensors were sold globally in 2016 of which 41% were wireless, according to the latest intruder alarm and monitoring database. However, just 4% of those wireless intrusion sensors were destined for the large commercial sector. Residential and small-medium business sectors jointly accounted for the remaining 96% of the wireless sensor market.

Wireless benefits Although the use of wireless sensors remains limited in the commercial sector, the popularity of these products is on the rise for several reasons: Wireless sensors carry significantly lower installation costs as the installation process is much simpler and quicker. The lower install cost that comes with wireless sensors allows companies to allocate a greater portion of their security budget to hardware, enabling them to invest in additional or higher-quality sensors, or upgrades for the system, such as integration with video surveillance. Wireless solutions are also more practical in unique installations like remote areas without easy access to the power mains. To overcome range issues, mesh networks, which act as signal repeaters, are used for larger installations. Moreover, as the use of wireless sensors proliferates across commercial applications, consumers may choose to adopt wireless control panels, to allow for easier future addition of extra sensors, as they won t require on-site IT configuration to add to the system. Prices of wireless sensors have also fallen fast , decreasing by 16% since 2012. Battery lifespan of wireless sensors has also improved in recent years, now lasting between one and five years depending on circumstances. Although enhancements have been made, limited lifespan of sensor batteries will put pressure on the security systems manager, necessitating the procurement of software that will allow to easily manage battery statuses. More wireless sensors are available with UL certification , a prerequisite for many professional monitoring and insurance providers.

Wireless misgivings Although wireless sensor technology is making inroads into commercial projects, concerns remain such as encryption, sensor price and ongoing maintenance costs: Despite improvements to encryption for wireless systems, the risk of being hacked is still a common concern among large commercial end users. For example, wireless sensors are susceptible to jamming and signal interference, and if the system s control panel is compromised the entire network of wireless sensors can be rendered useless by disabling the wireless module. Wireless sensors are also more expensive than their wired counterparts . For example IHS Markit found that globally, a wireless PIR sensor costs 30% more than a wired variant on average. The maintenance costs of wireless sensors are also higher, with the requirement to buy and maintain a set of spare batteries for replacement or recharging. Long-term opportunities for vendors and installers Despite the challenges facing wireless security sensors in large-commercial applications today, manufacturers and installers that promote and install wireless sensors will likely reap long-term benefits of the devices: Vendors with strong after-sales service, such as customer service and maintenance, would be able to improve efficiency and speed of s ervice by capitalising on the greater ease with which wireless sensors can be added to the system. This will lead to shorter installation times allowing them to serve more customers in a set period of time. As wireless sensors are adopted on a wider scale, the significance of battery management system solutions will become apparent. Suppliers with the best battery management software, that is easy to use with interactive interface, are likely to seize the best of this opportunity.

Manufacturers of wireless sensors could further improve their products market opportunities by working closely with insurance providers and educating them about the benefits of wireless systems in commercial applications as well as their technological features. Entering into partnership with insurance providers may provide avenues for long-term impact. Free download: The video surveillance report 2017 Sponsored by IDIS The Video Surveillance Report 2017 covers all things video surveillance based on a poll of hundreds of security professionals.

Specifically looking at topics such as open platforms, 4K, low-light cameras, video analytics, warranties and this year due to the growing threat posed, the cybersecurity landscape.

Click here to Download now

Cyber-attack could cost global economy more than costliest natural disaster in US history, says Lloyds

Cyber insurance Hurricane Katrina at peak intensity in the Gulf of Mexico on 28 August 2005 Lloyd s of London has warned that a major cyber-attack could cause problems that cost as much as $120bn ( 92bn) to rectify. To put that into some sort of context, Hurricane Katrina the costliest natural disaster in US history, no less caused $108bn worth of property damage. Lloyds of London, the world s oldest insurer, has published a 56-page report that reveals how the potential cost of cyber-attacks has spiralled in recent years.

A malicious hack that takes down a cloud service provider is cited the most likely scenario, with estimated losses ranging from $15bn to $121bn, with the average being $53bn. This report gives a real sense of the scale of damage a cyber-attack could cause the global economy, said Lloyds CEO Inga Beale. Just like some of the worst natural catastrophes, cyber events can cause a severe impact on businesses and economies, trigger multiple claims and dramatically increase insurers claims costs. Underwriters need to consider cyber cover in this way and ensure that premium calculations keep pace with the cyber-threat reality. With average potential losses of $28.7bn, the next-most likely attack, according to Lloyds research, is the breach of computer operating systems run by a huge number of organisations around the globe. Uninsured gap Many such losses would not be insured. Lloyds has identified an uninsured gap of $45bn in the cloud services setting and $26bn for the latter scenario that makes the prospect of such attacks more alarming still. As for the most vulnerable sectors, financial services tops the rankings in terms of vulnerability, followed by software and technology, hospitality and retail. After that comes healthcare, in which the consequences could be especially grave.

The NHS was hit by a ransomware attack recently. A recent white paper from the US-based Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology (ICIT) concluded that the healthcare sector is the most vulnerable and least equipped to defend against hackers. Last year we published an infographic detailing the rise of healthcare hacks and advice on how to secure data in the healthcare industry. Saudi Aramco, which supplies 10% of the world s oil, suffered what CNN Tech described as the world s worst hack in 2012. Although the total costs attributable to the ensuing chaos and salvage operation have not been estimated indeed, the hack was not reported widely it apparently destroyed 35,000 computers and sent the entire business into near-meltdown. It was only the bottomless oil wealth of the owners that staved off bankruptcy. A recent survey of 257 benchmarked organizations conducted by the Ponemon Institute revealed that the average annual cost in damages from cyberattacks amounted to $7.6m. Cyber insurance is a relatively new form of insurance and is trickier to model than cover for natural catastrophes. However, if cyber-attacks are seen by Lloyds as potentially comparable with natural disasters when it comes to costs, it nevertheless believes that climactic problems pose the biggest long-term risk.

From year to year, risk varies relatively little but climate change in the end will be far larger as a risk, said Trevor Maynard, Lloyd s head of innovation and co-author of the report with cybersecurity firm Cyence. It affects the global economic structure, food, water. It s like trying to turn a supertanker around we can t start in 30 years when things are going bad, we have to start now. Free Download: the Cyber Security Crashcourse This report contains 40 slides packed with insight into the trends shaping the industry and how you can protect yourself. Eric Hansleman from 451 Research presents a rapid-fire overview of cyber security.

Click here to download now

Grenfell fallout: The 10 questions that need answers

Grenfell fallout The Grenfell fire has vindicated many in the fire industry s worst fears about several longstanding problems. Not only that, a drip-drip of revelations is revealing a litany of other shortcomings of the council, firefighting equipment and the government s response, among others that have shocked even fire industry insiders. Here are 10 of the most pressing questions that need satisfactory answers if councils, the government, the construction industry and the fire sector can together prevent similar tragedies happening again.

1. Why is the testing of cladding limited to one type of cladding when several other varieties could be combustible too? More than 200 cladding samples taken from high-rise tower blocks in 54 local authorities since the Grenfell tragedy have failed tests, according to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

However, testing has been limited to aluminium composite material panels those implicated in the Grenfell fire despite the fact that other varieties of cladding may be similarly combustible. Non-ACM cladding systems CEP and Carea are not made of aluminium, but have a near identical construction to the Reynobond ACM panels used on Grenfell Tower. Niall Rowan, COO of the Association for Specialist Fire Protection, told The Independent: If you put this cladding through government testing, it would fail, I would put money on it. They are different materials to the Reynobond but they would all have a similar reaction to fire under the fire test. The government s testing scheme has used a combustibility grade of A2 or higher, requiring that material must at most be of limited combustibility . And yet, noted Rowan, Approved Document B does not require cladding meet this standard. Instead, a lower threshold is set out: class 0 (Euroclass B). These products are all Euroclass B (also known as Class 0), they are not looking to be limited combustibility, and you re going to find them all over the place, on lots of buildings, said Rowan. The Government s gone chasing after cladding and missing the bigger picture they are saying: We want limited combustibility, but the construction industry has been reading building regulations as Euroclass B for years.

This is why we have been pushing for a review of the building regulations for years and why many in the fire sector are very 2. Why was there an apparent deficiency in firefighting equipment? While initial analysis in the wake of the fire focused on cladding, firefighting equipment has come under the spotlight in recent days. A BBC Newsnight investigation uncovered multiple deficiencies, including that a high ladder did not arrive for more than 30 minutes. Also known as an aerial , the ladder would have given firegighters a better chance of extinguishing the blaze had it arrived earlier, a fire expert told the BBC. Low water pressure was also said to hamper efforts to quell the flames, while firefighters reported radio problems. Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, said: I have spoken to aerial appliance operators in London who attended that incident, who think that having that on the first attendance might have made a difference, because it allows you to operate a very powerful water tower from outside the building onto the building. Are cuts to the fire service to blame for the deficiencies in firefighting equipment? Or was it organisational and procedural?

Perhaps the UK s comparatively and deceptively strong fire safety record had simply bred complacency in making sure enough equipment is available. Find out more on the BBC.

3. Is the privatisation of fire-safety research a problem? Stephen Mackenzie, a fire risk consultant who has spoken out on the Grenfell fire regularly in the media, appears to think so. We ve increasingly seen over the past decades, our fire research provision within the UK, which is internationally renowned, becoming increasingly privatised, he told IFSEC Global during a recent interview. Whether it s a research establishment which is now a charitable trust, whether it s a fire service college which is now under the major government support contracts, or the emergency planning college which is under another support service provider 4. Should COBRA have been convened in the wake of the fire as it is following terror attacks? Mackenzie also believes the UK s worst-ever tower block fire warranted the most serious government response. I think we ve seen a comparison between the Grenfell fire and Finsbury Park terrorist attack, he notes.

Immediately following the Finsbury Park attack, Theresa May convened COBRA. That should have been the case on Thursday the day after the fire, or the latter hours of Wednesday. Convene COBRA, get emergency personnel leads in, coordinate with local authority responders, and have a better response and management of media, and to the families and residents concerns. I feel it could have been sharper, more effective, and then the central government may not have received some of the criticism it has. He adds that there are a number of professional bodies in the UK that can facilitate the transition from the emergency services response into the softer response by local authorities and the government. So it might be another line of enquiry for the coroner report, and also the public inquiry.

5. Why do inquiries take so long in England compared to Scotland? The 2009 fire in Lakanal House, southeast London, that caused the deaths of six people has been oft-cited since the Grenfell fire. The inquiry that followed took four years, much to the anguish of grieving relatives. But even if the lengthy process was justified on the grounds of thoroughness and that is debatable the inaction on so many of its recommendations undermined the whole exercise anyway. The swift conclusion to an inquiry into Scotland s very own tower block tragedy the 1999 fire at Charnock Court certainly shows that such inquiries need not drag on interminably.

That Holyrood seemingly took more decisive action than their English counterparts certainly buttresses this point. Stephen Mackenzie points to the conclusions of the 2000 report into Charnock Court inquiry. While this inquiry did not suggest that the majority of external cladding systems in the UK currently in use pose a serious threat to life safety or property in event of fire, they did go on to add, we do not believe it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimising the fire risk. They then go on to make commentary about the inclusion of standards through the British Standards Institute, revision of the Approved Document B, and the title of that report under the reference was The Potential Risk of Fire Spread in Buildings via External Cladding Systems. We have known about this problem and issue in the fire sector, the House of Commons are aware of it. the Prime Minister s office is now aware of it, I imagine, through the national press and their own technical advisors. Holyrood, it seems, took swift action. Let s look at legislation. We did it in Scotland.

When we reviewed our fire safety legislation we also brought in new building regulations, we brought in new technical handbooks. And I believe, if memory services me correct, the most recent release was either in June 2016 or June 2017. By contrast, Approved Document B the guidance framework for construction regulations in England has not been updated since 2006. I am aware that the building regulations are under constant review. But there seems to be a dichotomy in the turnaround time: four years for the Lakanal report, one year for the Scottish Garnock report. Fire legislation report in Scotland was reviewed in 2005 whereas we appear to be limping on with a very outdated and outmoded document.

6. Are green targets, red tape reduction or austerity to blame? Inevitably, the media s focus has varied depending on the political leanings of the publication in question. While the Daily Mail predictably highlighted the prioritisation of green targets as a potential factor, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn even more predictably blamed austerity. Back in 2015, when the FSF called for a review of Approved Document B, then Conservative MP for Canterbury and Whitstable Julian Brazier said: My concern is that, at a time when building regulations are more prescriptive than ever on issues like energy saving, the basic requirement to make the building resilient to fire appears to have been lost sight of. The fact that Grenfell had just undergone 10m worth of refurbishment to enhance the energy efficiency of the building lends credence to these fears.

A leftwing poet, however, asserted that they put panels, pretty panels on the outside so the rich people who lived opposite wouldn t have to look at a horrendous block. Whether you agree with this sentiment, that the fire alarms still didn t function properly following a 10m refurbishment is nothing short of scandalous. Another strand picked up in the Guardian was the Conservative Party s (and to some extent New Labour s) long-held policy of reducing red tape. George Monbiot wrote in the Guardian that: In 2014, the then housing minister (who is now the immigration minister), Brandon Lewis, rejected calls to force construction companies to fit sprinklers in the homes they built on the following grounds: In our commitment to be the first Government to reduce regulation, we have introduced the one in, two out rule for regulation Under that rule, when the Government introduce a regulation, we will identify two existing ones to be removed In other words, though he accepted that sprinklers are an effective way of controlling fires and of protecting lives and property , to oblige builders to introduce them would conflict with the government s deregulatory agenda. Instead, it would be left to the owners of buildings to decide how best to address the fire risk: Those with responsibility for ensuring fire safety in their businesses, in their homes or as landlords, should and must make informed decisions on how best to manage the risks in their own properties, Lewis said. This calls to mind the Financial Times journalist Willem Buiter s famous remark that self-regulation stands in relation to regulation the way self-importance stands in relation to importance . Case after case, across all sectors, demonstrates that self-regulation is no substitute for consistent rules laid down, monitored and enforced by government. Crucial public protections have long been derided in the billionaire press as elf n safety gone mad . It s not hard to see how ruthless businesses can cut costs by cutting corners, and how this gives them an advantage over their more scrupulous competitors.

7. Why were the lessons from Lakanal ignored? Emily Twinch, a housing policy journalist, recently wrote in the New Statesman: I remember sitting through the Lakanal House super inquest, as it was called, four years ago.

It was amazing how many mistakes by so many people were made. It reminded me of the film Sliding Doors. If only someone had done this, or not done that. Senior managers at Southwark Council were warned by staff that Lakanal House needed a fire risk assessment they were ignored. People carrying out fire risk assessments were given little or no training, and then expected to go out and decide if a tower block was fire safe or not Cladding is being bought up again As Ian Wingfield, ward councillor and cabinet member for housing of Southwark Council at the time said: If nothing was done about it in the intervening 10 years it might have moved from medium to high risk in that period. The inquest into that fire found that panels fitted to the outside of the block in 2006-07 burnt quicker than the original materials Another issue experts are likely to look at when investigating here is the fire compartmentalisation of the building. Regulations say buildings should be designed so that if a fire does break out, it doesn t spread to other flats for at least an hour. After the Lakanal House fire, I did a big freedom of information request investigation into what attention fire brigades and councils were placing on fire safety of tower blocks. The results revealed the answer very little.

It gradually improved in the intervening years But when MPs refused to support, for example, an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill last year that would have made homes fit for habitation in the private sector, it was an indication of how little they prioritised tenants, whether private or social, in their homes.

8. Why was the advice to stay put given for the first two hours of the fire? Advice given by the fire service to stay put inside Grenfell Tower as the fire spread was only changed after nearly two hours, the BBC has reported. The policy was only changed at 2:47am, one hour and 53 minutes after the first emergency call. Based on the ill-founded assumption that the fire can be contained as it should be if suitable passive fire protection is in place the advice was fatal to any that followed it once the fire spread rapidly from the room of origin. With the death toll now still uncertain but estimated by police to stay at around 80, the policy has come under serious fire.

9. Why have calls to retrofit 4,000 tower blocks across the country gone unheeded? Coroners, fire safety professionals and organisations and fire and rescue services have repeatedly urged the government to legislate for the mandatory installation of sprinklers in social housing over many years. In February 2013, in his judgement on a 2010 blaze at a 15-storey block in Southampton, coroner Keith Wiseman recommended that sprinklers be fitted to all buildings higher than 30 metres (98 ft). In that fire, at Shirley Towers, firefighters Alan Bannon and James Shears lost their lives. In a letter to Eric Pickles, then communities and local government secretary, and to Sir Ken Knight, then the government s chief fire and rescue adviser, Wiseman said that obvious precautions to prevent the fire occurring were not taken and highlighted the need for sprinklers in high-rise blocks.

The following month, Lakanal coroner Judge Frances Kirkham submitted similar recommendation to Pickles. In a previous report into the Lakanal House fire, Ken Knight had said that the retrofitting of sprinklers in high-rise blocks was not considered practical or economically viable . However, the evidence she heard at the inquest had prompted Kirkham to say that doing so might now be possible at lower cost than had previously been thought to be the case, and with modest disruption to residents . This is apparently backed up by a successful retrofit at a Sheffield Tower block in 2012. A report on the installation demonstrated that it is possible to retrofit sprinklers into occupied, high-rise, social housing without evacuating residents and that these installations can be fast-tracked.

10. Why must it take mass casualties to trigger serious change? It is a fact of human nature that we do not intuit and respond emotionally to risk in an entirely rational way. So it is that 30% of us are, to some extent, nervous about flying, yet few of us worry about hurtling down the motorway at 80mph despite the fact that you are vastly more likely to die in the latter scenario. There was no shortage of plane crashes before 9/11, yet none of those crashes had been seared into people s nightmares.

The numbers of people avoiding flying duly soared in the wake of the disaster. This was despite the fact that security was tightened following 9/11, reducing the risk of further attacks. In his 2008 book Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear, Dan Garder reflected that the thousands of people who eschewed flights in favour of driving in the wake of 9/11 actually increased their risk of dying. By one estimate, it killed 1,500 people, he wrote. On their death certificates, it says they were killed by car crashes. But, really, the ultimate cause of death was misperceived risk. Fire disasters of the magnitude of Grenfell are mercifully rare. It had been eight years since Lakanal and few remembered it. People were still dying in fires but it rarely made the front pages.

Instead, the media was devoting much of its time to the spate of terror attacks and before that, the countless terror attacks that were foiled. Politicians, believe it or not, suffer from the same askew intuition over risk as ordinary people. Faced with an inbox full of warnings about myriad threats, the Prime Minister inevitably prioritised those that seemed most immediate, most viscerally terrifying and which the media and general public seemed most concerned about. Fuelled by the decades-long trend of falling fire deaths, fire safety had fallen down the list of priorities. That is certainly no longer the case. Undoubtedly, so horrific was the Grenfell fire that something will undoubtedly now be done. Whether enough is done, or whether the right things are done, is another matter. But why must it take a tragedy of such proportions before the problems which were flagged time and again by fire organisations are taken seriously? The risk was always there.

While such fires are rare events, any sober analysis would have revealed that Lakanal could readily happen again and that casualties could be far, far worse.

And yet it is only when the industry s worst fears are realised that the momentum for change can truly build.

Close Protection Course Moreton-in-Marsh

Looking for close protection Moreton-in-Marsh ? We are an A1 status training centre, and our close protection course has an over 95% pass rate.

All people looking to get an SIA close protection license must complete and pass a close protection course, from a registered training centre. We are a registered training and have many ex-trainees who now work in the close protection industry.

If you have questions or want to book on the next course please Free Phone : 0800 389 0661

Close Protection Course Moreton-in-Marsh

No close protection course in Moreton-in-Marsh ?

Can’t find a close protection course Moreton-in-Marsh . Then why not think about travelling and get trained by experienced and friendly instructors. Our training centre is based in Liverpool, with great network links via the rail and roads.

Our course runs for 15 days and covers eleven modules, including Conflict Management, Driving Skills and Firearms. If you are serious about completing a close protection course and there are no courses in your area, give us a call on Free Phone : 0800 389 0661. Information about discounted accommodation can be arranged if needed.

Close Protection Course Moreton-in-Marsh

Honeywell at IFSEC 2017 Video

IFSEC 2017 Watch the full interview with Derek Mander, Regional Sales Manager, from Honeywell about the products they are showcasing at IFSEC 2017.

embedded content Leave a Reply Be the First to Comment!

ASFP takes first steps with RIBA-based Work Plan for Fire Protection

Niall Rowan CEO of ASFP, introduced a FIREX panel session about improving passive fire protection, recapping the progress made by the ASFP panel of experts with the development of an overarching Construction Strategy. Since its inception at FIREX in 2016, the panel has convened at a number of meetings and a roundtable to improve collaboration across silos in the construction industry with the aim of engaging fire safety engineers at an earlier stage in the construction process. This has resulted in the first steps being taken to deliver a RIBA-based Work Plan for Fire Protection to combat the fragmentation with regard to best practice in the world of construction, from building contractors to insurers.

The ASFP panel of experts was set up to include stakeholders from across the construction industry and represents the views of the following groups: architects/designers, criminal regulatory lawyers, fire engineers, tier-one contractors, passive fire protection manufacturers, passive fire protection insurers, the PFP trade body, fire service, building control, insurers, building owners. A number of these experts were present at the panel session to discuss the new Work Plan and answer questions from the audience. Present: Paul Bussey architect RIBA committee; Damian Ward Technical Compliance manager; Colin Wells Aviva; Glenn Horton consultant fire engineer; David O Reilly ASFP Ireland; Carl Atkinson Chairman.

7 Work Stages of Fire Management Architect Paul Bussey (AHMM) introduced the Fire Risk Identification, Evaluation, Reduction & Communication Process by RIBA work stages the panel has been working on. This new work plan proposal investigates the possibilities for introducing a sign off process as construction progresses, with all information reaching the end-user to support adequate fire risk management. The RIBA work stages method was chosen to identify each of the stakeholders and to define their roles and responsibilities at each stage, specifying who would contribute, inspect and sign off. Bussey explained: Building regulations do not have a good process throughout architects are trained as general practitioners and cannot be expected to be expert in every field. So we are trying to work with other specialists and bring them in the process at the right time The RIBA work plan methodology is used by UK architects to manage and plan the building design and construction process. Bussey introduced the 7 work stages of fire management that have been added to this: (Stage 0-1) Fire Risk? L,M,H; (Stage 2-3) Fire Design Strategy; (Stage 3-4) Fire Design & CDM; (Stage 3-4) Contractor Fire Plan; (Stage 4-5) Specialist Fire Input; (Stage 6-7) Fire Management. As Bussey explained, Stages 2&3 are the early stages in which big decisions need to be made about risk assessment. As architects progress through the stages, more detailed performance criteria are required and collaboration with technical fire experts and engineers becomes key.

At the early stages obtaining the right information about interfaces between one material and the other is an important aspect of the fire risk assessment, but details about requirements are often lacking. Simplifying the whole process will make it clear at the tendering stage how far the design has been developed. The next hurdle to overcome is the prescriptive stage: here a lot of specialist input is required and the input has to be coherently integrated. In the Fire Management stage the project is handed over to the client who has to start maintaining the building and has to know what exactly has to be maintained. The panel is working towards a document that captures all of this process with details about installation and certification resulting in a manual that can be used to check the process. The aim is to encapsulate key information and identify the role of each of the stakeholders for each of the RIBA work stages. Currently a discussion is underway to see whether inspection sign-off should be a regulatory sign-off as it is in Ireland. Ensuring there is a paper trail of sign-offs is an important part of the improvement proposed. But who exactly is responsible for carrying these out has not yet been established.

David O Reilly explained that the current code of practice in Ireland gives the owner paramount responsibility for appointing competent designers, certifiers and contractors. These assigned certifiers must be registered architects, chartered engineers or chartered surveyors. Colin Wells (Aviva) also pointed out that insurers would like to be involved at the earliest possible stage of design. However, this can often result in a discussion about costs and a discussion about risk needs to be had at this stage to assess whether the building should itself be protected once everyone is out of the building. During the Q&A the question was raised why no one from local government was represented on the panel. However Rowan explained that a representative from a local authority is on the panel but could not attend the session, noting that they are one of the most important stakeholders for sign off. Another point of interest raised was the problem that approved inspectors are paid by the client and that this can cause a conflict of interest. The panel acknowledged this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Professional standards need to be raised and attitudes need to change to ensure standards.

The work stage plan formalises the process. It explains a very complicated system and perhaps a plan of work is also required for refurbishments. But it needs to be simplified into a usable document. Also more complex building will require more complex solutions but ultimately it is important to ensure collaborating on every project is coordinated. The challenge is to get the right people involved at the right time. Visit FIREX International for cutting-edge solutions, essential knowledge and the ability to grow your business by getting direct access to the whole fire safety industry. It is the perfect place to get your product in front of thousands of buyers, across a multitude of featured areas.

From the brand new Drone Zone, the ARC Village, ASFP Passive Protection Zone, the Engineers of Tomorrow competition and more, it s all under one roof so you ll never miss a beat.

Click here to register your place now to join us at London Excel on 20 22 June

Aurora debuts long range facial recognition sensor at IFSEC 2017

IFSEC 2017 launch Facial recognition technology developer Aurora has unveiled at IFSEC 2017 a long range sensor that extends near infrared capabilities to a wider range of distances, making it suitable for more applications. Queue management, surveillance and VIP identification are possible applications with the technological advance. Aurora s specialist biometric imaging and illumination technology is designed to work with the latest versions of the company s deep learning-based facial recognition engines.

With its near IR -based facial recognition, Aurora has logged millions of successful events in applications, including time and attendance, airport passenger management and access control. Now, the company s core technology, FaceSentinel LR, uses high speed global shutter technology and a high brightness near-IR ceramic flash to deliver HDR still frames to Aurora s facial recognition engine. Aurora s head of sales and marketing Gary James says FaceSentinel LR addresses issues common in the operation of facial recognition with visible light CCTV images. This can hinder accuracy in situations where the subject s face is not directly looking at the camera. James says: The sensor is highly compact, with very low power consumption, despite its powerful output and processing ability. This extends the operational range of our IR face recognition capability fivefold, opening up many new applications such as queue monitoring and covert identification. At IFSEC Aurora is also showcasing its FaceSentinel sensor integrated with the Fastlane Glassgate 300 turnstile, operating in both token-free Identification mode that allows registered users access simply by looking at the sensor and Verification mode, which adds a biometric layer to the functionality of any access control system. FaceSentinel uses artificial and infrared light to achieve unparalleled facial recognition speed, accuracy and reliability. Aurora s facial recognition technology is used throughout Heathrow Airport for boarding pass verification as well as within British Airways domestic self-boarding gates.

Integrated Design Limited (IDL) is the designer and manufacturer of Fastlane Turnstiles and Door Detective anti-tailgating products, and has over 30 years of experience and a worldwide on and installation network. At IFSEC International 2017, FaceSentinel and FaceSentinel LR are running on Integrated Design Limited s stand E1550. The company makes turnstiles and door tailgating detection products.

IFSEC International runs between 20-22 June 2017 at London ExCeL. Get your free badge now. Visit Europe s only large-scale security event in 2017 IFSEC International is taking place at Excel London, 20 22 June 2017, here are 5 reasons you should attend: Exclusive hands-on access to over 10,000 brand new security solutions Network with over 27,000 security professionals Discounts of up to 30% exclusively for IFSEC 150 hours of seminars, workshops and keynote speeches A 1-2-1 meetings service to pre-book face to face meetings.

Time is running out, register now to avoid missing out

Watch: How to optimise your network for CCTV and prove it works

Tavcom Theatre at IFSEC 2017 Peter Mason, lead IP tutor at Tavcom Training, is presenting at IFSEC 2017 on the subject: How to optimise your network for CCTV and prove it works. In the video below he previews this presentation, which will take place in the TDSi-sponsored Tavcom Theatre on three separate days see hte times below. View more videos previewing the 2017 presentations at IFSEC 2017 s Tavcom Theatre.

You can check out the schedule for the Tavcom Theatre here. IFSEC International takes place between 20-22 June 2017 at London ExCeL . Get your free badge now. Presentation details: How to optimise your network for CCTV and prove it works / Peter Mason / Tavcom Theatre / 20 June, 11:50-12:20; 21 June, 14:40-15:10; 22 June, 11:50-12:20 embedded content The Tavcom Theatre provides practical advice for professionals working in the security industry both end users and installers on video surveillance, video analytics, CCTV networks, cybersecurity, systems integration, drones and more. Tavcom Training offers technical and non-technical training in a wide range of fields like security management, control room operations, system planning and project management, structured cabling, disaster recovery, counter eavesdropping, PAT testing and covert CCTV. They provide award-winning BTEC-certificated courses to installers, operators, managers and designers of CCTV, network IP, intruder alarm, access control, fire alarm systems and more. The Tavcom Theatre is this year sponsored by integrated access control innovators TDSi. A prime mover in the industry-wide shift to open platforms and software-driven evolution, TDSi is a widely respected provider of readers, controllers, cards, fobs and surveillance solutions. Visit Europe s only large-scale security event in 2017 Taking place in London, 20 22 June 2017, IFSEC International gives you exclusive hands-on access to over 10,000 security solutions, live product demonstrations, and networking with over 27,000 security professionals.

Covering every aspect of security, from access control and video surveillance to smart buildings, cyber, border control and so much more.

Time is running out, register now to avoid missing out

Contact Us Association of Security Consultants

If you would like to know more about joining the Association of Security Consultants, have questions about finding a security specialist, or perhaps would like to make a contribution to the News Page then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Simply complete the Contact Form below and we will be pleased to assist with your enquiry.

Association of Security Consultants:

  • Setting the highest standards for Independent Security Consultants
  • Security Training
  • Specialist Security Services to clients
  • Security events for ASC members
  • Security Networking
  • Registered Independent Security Consultant status