Lift Report

Unlike other safety-relevant installations in buildings, in Germany lifts (including fire brigade lifts) do not fall within the jurisdiction of the technical testing ordinances set up by the individual Federal States (such as the TPrüfVO in North Rhine Westphalia and Hessen, or the SPrüfV in Bavaria) due to differences in the fields of competence set out by the regulatory bodies (Ministries of Construction – Ministries of Occupational Safety). Lifts fall within the jurisdiction of the Lift Ordinance ( AufV) and the Technical Regulations Governing Lifts (TRA). Rules for the inspection of lift installations are set out by TRA 102. These inspections (acceptance testing, main inspection, interim inspection and inspection following a major change) encompass a check of compliance with safety-relevant stipulations for the prevention of crashes and accidents specific to lifts. The specific stipulations for safety-relevant operation as a fire brigade lift do not fall within the scope of the TRA!

Maintenance service providers and experts take their cue from this lack of clarity. Even specialist firms contracted to carry out a complete maintenance ser vice do not as a rule check the operation of fire brigade lifts. Registered experts also refer to the inspection scope of the TRA and at best include an obscure reference under “Notes on the test result” somewhere on page 2 to the effect that function testing of the fire brigade lift did not form part of the inspection.

Why is it that neither maintenance firms nor experts take responsibility for this inspection? First and foremost there are clearly economic factors at play here. Performing a complete check of fire brigade lift operation with all the integrated technical systems (emergency power supply, fire alarm, ventilation system and door control systems to maintain pressure) calls for coordination between different trades, can generally only be carried out when the building is not in use, and consequently comes at a considerable added cost. This also applies to registered experts, as these are now working in competition with each other and the performance of an inspection in accordance with TRA 102 clearly satisfies the requirements of the Lift Ordinance.

The excuse offered up by maintenance firms - that they have no way of knowing all the different actions which are triggered in a building when fire brigade lift operation is activated and so for this reason alone are not in a position to make the necessary checks – is indicative of a worryingly narrow-sighted attitude towards safety. For reasons of economy, maintenance firms which have never been involved in the construction of a fi re brigade lift and so have never needed to get to grips with the basic nuts and bolts of the relevant technology are selected and commissioned to carry out these complex tests on the basis of invitations to tender.

A fire brigade lift is generally the only item of safety equipment not under the supervisory authority of the fire brigade itself to which fire-fighters are required to entrust their safety to in case of fire.

On the basis of the fire safety legislation applicable in the different federal states, such as the Fire Safety and Rescue Act FSHG in North Rhine Westphalia, generally speaking buildings fitted with fire brigade lifts fall under the jurisdiction of the Fire Surveillance Service or the Fire Prevention Inspection Service. The role of these organizations is to highlight fire safety deficiencies and sources of danger. The scope of the Fire Surveillance Service does not encompass the inspection of individual items of safety equipment.

This issue raises the question, starting with the employer’s duty of care to its employees and members of the voluntary fire brigade service, of whether fire brigade lifts should be included in the catalogue of safety equipment facilities for which the Fire Surveillance Service is responsible.

During mandatory regular checks of the now well over 80 fire brigade lifts installed in buildings in the urban district of Düsseldorf, the quota of installations withdrawn from service due to safety deficiencies was around 25 %. A further 50-60 % of the overall compendium of installations classified as “fire bridge lifts” were shown to have faults requiring short-term attention. Given the supra-regional nature of the companies involved, this high deficiency quota may safely assumed to also exist elsewhere.

The root cause of many of the defects discovered is found to be linked to the modification of software modules (Eproms) which have been implemented by contracted maintenance firms responding to customer-specific requests. Modifications carried out to the programming frequently result in the fire brigade function being altered or even deleted. In addition, the complete exchange of control systems or door drive systems is frequently responsible for operating deficiencies. This also raises the issue of liability on the part of specialist firms who have failed to point out to building owners or operators the necessity for repeat acceptance or inspection by the fire brigade following reprogramming or extensive refurbishment of existing systems.

All this results in a situation which is far from satisfactory for fire brigades. Given the high quota of defects discovered in safety systems for fire brigade lifts, it would appear to be only a question of time before a serious incident occurs with the associated repercussions on operational effectiveness (serious delays) or directly on the safety of fire-fighters themselves. The likelihood of such a scenario is growing with every new installation and with every passing day.

The formation of an ad-hoc working group under the direction of the regulatory body involving installers, maintenance firms, registered experts and fire brigades is urgently needed to head off what promises to be a far-reaching safety risk.