In our view Sequad did not comply with DD243

Following on from your Mailbox page in the April edition and Mike Cahalane's view on the NSI's position with respect to the product Sequad, I would like to express the following opinion: I am proud to be approved by an approval body that is prepared to support a potentially contentious view in the overall interest of good false alarm management.

When the Sequad was first presented to our company, we decided not to use the product because, in our view, it did not comply with DD243, based on the distance reference of the detection devices.

  Although Mike may be correct in describing how the original research was conducted, it does not detract from the fact that a high percentage of spatial detectors false alarm because either the case expands and contracts with temperature changes or insects close to the detection device can create the same conditions for a detector to react in an alarm condition, both conditions of which are rarely identifiable by an engineer.

When dealing with so many unknowns, as is the case when designing spatial detectors in a system, and knowing the false alarm rate is so high with such detectors, any engineer worth his salt will design out as many of the risks as possible in the first place. The Sequad is an example of a 'smarty' type solution to beat the required practice of DD243 rather than attempting to conform in the spirit of the requirement.

I will be lining up behind Tom Mullarkey of the NSI to enter the 'non-conformity lobby' and I hope in the interest of the industry, all installers enter the same lobby with us and concentrate on attempting to solve the false alarms and not be obsessed with cutting corners to win orders solely on price. I hope my opinion will be an inspiration to those in the industry who may be persuaded to improve the quality performance of the Industry.