Smoke that wont set off a smoke detector

[david.elsbury]

That's pretty well what I said. But no, you still shouldn't be doing it. What if there were a fire?

 

Uh, then the control measures come into effect?

 

For example, the fire wardens on duty to keep an eye out for fires or smoke raise the alarm and notify the fire service, and initiate an evacuation?

[Ynot]

That's pretty well what I said. But no, you still shouldn't be doing it. What if there were a fire?

 

Uh, then the control measures come into effect?

 

For example, the fire wardens on duty to keep an eye out for fires or smoke raise the alarm and notify the fire service, and initiate an evacuation?

Indeed.

Look - not every venue has smoke detection in place.

My own, for example - a 250 seater run by volunteers.

We have ALWAYS had annual inspections under the old licensing and we have regular discourse with the fire service since that all changed, and they've always been perfectly happy with our process and procedures wrt fire safety.

 

We have NO detectors anywhere in the building.

Until our last FS visit last year they did not even mention installing any. In fact they wouldn't have then if it hadn't been MY question about their recommendations for improvement. And even then they only said they'd suggest we looked at installing detectors under the auditoium. Of course they'd not object if we retrofitted the whole building, but they would in no way have a problem if we didn't. because we demonstrated that we had the whole thing RA'd appropriately.

[Seano]

Uh, then the control measures come into effect?

 

You might be missing a hint of irony and preaching to the choir here - I think someone else needs to try the Hippy's solution. ;)

[Tris]

Had this issue just this week.... our system has a code and it times out after 8 hours re-enabling the zones if not done manually.

 

We were told we could no longer do this :( Apparently all you in theatre land who do isolate zones should not really be doing it!

 

8hrs! You must have typed that wrong, surely? That's the middle of the night when the building is long empty before that re-enables! No wonder he told you that you coudn't do that any longer

 

 

A system I have borrowed and adapted from an old place of work is as follows

 

Isolation by code by SM, when they isolate they write on board beside the panel. Also take the fire alarm lanyard from the panel which has a big red tag on which they wear round their neck and acts as a physical remidner

 

Big red light illuminates on fire panel (backstage) and on SM desk

 

Alarm gives off irritating beep every 3 minutes just to remind everyone

 

SM/Management expected to re-enable when auditorium clear at end of show

 

In case of forgetfulness fire alarm re-enables when burglar alarm set

 

On advice of the fire officer heat detectors added in auditorium and grid which cannot be disabled. Break glasses are never disabled

[dbuckley]

In case of forgetfulness fire alarm re-enables when burglar alarm set

 

That's the obvious sensible addition to many schemes.

[sleah]

Had this issue just this week.... our system has a code and it times out after 8 hours re-enabling the zones if not done manually.

 

We were told we could no longer do this :( Apparently all you in theatre land who do isolate zones should not really be doing it!

 

8hrs! You must have typed that wrong, surely? That's the middle of the night when the building is long empty before that re-enables! No wonder he told you that you coudn't do that any longer

 

 

Nope. 8 hours it is!

Crazy isn't it?

 

When we did isolate the zone for the dress, I simply re-enabled before we finished and locked up. I'm sure it used to be set to 4 hours.... :blink:

We were told we couldn't isolate on the day of the opening night of the show - nail bitter that show was I can tell you!!! Thankfully the smoke didn't set off the alarm, but to be fair there was only a few small puffs used :)

[HolyPhish]

I know of a school where isolation is performed by either pupils or staff and is commonplace however the following additional measures have bene added;

 

Isolation is by a code (as paul has experienced)

 

 

Not gonna lie, I think that procedure may need looking into a little.

 

First thought reading this was: as a student (whether involved or not) I would have that code 2 days (probably less) after it was given to a student.

Second Thought: I would probably have 'sold' it to someone else who would then use it.

Third Thought: School in trouble if there was a fire.

 

I understand why you would do this however I would limit the people who know the code.

 

2p's from a kid who knew too much about his school...

[Stuart91]

First thought reading this was: as a student (whether involved or not) I would have that code 2 days (probably less) after it was given to a student.

Second Thought: I would probably have 'sold' it to someone else who would then use it.

Third Thought: School in trouble if there was a fire.

 

Photocopying account codes were circulated in a similar fashion in my high school. Most of the photocopying (both official and illicit) was done on the code belonging to one of the less popular teachers. He got a nasty surprise when he was presented with the huge bill at the end of term.

[andrew.p.r]

At my venue the alarm is isolatable and resets it's self at 5am & 5 pm.

 

so on an event with a 4am finish gives an hour for any smoke to clear and means the building is occupied 90% of the time the alarm is isolated, however been a university ois monitored by the central security guys at all other times.

[sparksfly01]

Heat Detectors in the areas where smoke machines are used and likely to effect the alarm

[smalljoshua]

Could you clarify that Sparksfly01?

 

Your typo of "and" could drastically change the sentence. If you meant aren't then you're correct in that statement. However if you meant are then I'd be interested in knowing your reasoning.

 

Josh

[sleah]

Could you clarify that Sparksfly01?

 

Your typo of "and" could drastically change the sentence. If you meant aren't then you're correct in that statement. However if you meant are then I'd be interested in knowing your reasoning.

 

Josh

 

It messed with my mind too Josh :blink:

 

I think it should say "Use heat detectors in the areas where smoke machines are used that are likely to affect the alarm (smoke detectors)"

 

Upon re-reading the OP, doing that is very unlikely to be an option, so in fact "Don't use smoke machines in areas where their use will affect the alarm" is a more likely outcome!