How UL Solutions supports confidence in passive fire protection

Product development in today’s built environment is accelerating. Manufacturers must address evolving project needs, support complex designs, and deliver solutions quickly. However, in life safety categories, speed must not compromise confidence, compliance, or performance.

At Siderise®, innovation in passive fire protection is grounded in practice. Each solution is validated through rigorous testing, certification, auditing, and quality control to ensure safer construction in real-world applications.

Why certification matters in life safety applications

This commitment was recently emphasized by Sreenivas Narayanan, Global Partnerships Director at Siderise, who collaborates with UL Solutions to efficiently bring passive fire protection products to market while meeting safety requirements.

He states, “UL Certification has been more than just a compliance step for us; it’s been a key enabler in building credibility across markets where trust and performance matter most. As we expand globally, having a recognized and robust framework helps align stakeholders from consultants to contractors around proven solutions.”

In passive fire protection, all stakeholders require assurance that products have been independently evaluated and meet safety standards. UL Solutions supports manufacturers by testing and certifying products to requirements.

The UL Mark demonstrates compliance and builds credibility. Siderise works with UL Solutions to test and certify products for curtain wall, facade, and perimeter barrier applications, including firestops, spandrel insulation, and barrier systems. Products like the Siderise CW-FS Firestop hold cUL-US and UL-EU certifications, confirming their suitability for demanding conditions.

Why third-party certification matters

These certifications reassure project teams by confirming that Siderise solutions have been independently assessed for fire resistance and safety. UL’s third-party certification extends beyond product testing to include audits of raw materials, batch traceability, process controls, and quality management, ensuring consistency from development to production.

With evolving codes and compliance requirements, manufacturers also need technical guidance from experienced engineers who understand relevant standards, their impact on product development, and how to navigate the certification process effectively.

UL Solutions provided this support to Siderise, identifying relevant standards, evaluating testing pathways, and guiding Siderise through complex requirements. This involvement enabled informed decisions, reduced delays, and supported product development.

Flexible support for product development

Because delays in testing or certification may impact product launches, customer commitments, and market opportunities, UL Solutions supports progress at key stages.

With regional labs, local teams, and flexible testing options, they improved communication, streamlined coordination, and enabled more efficient timelines. Witness testing at third-party labs or customer sites also helps manage costs and accelerate time-to-market while maintaining compliance.

For Siderise, this flexibility enabled ongoing product development without compromising the safety, quality, or standards essential to passive fire protection.

As building design advances, the demand for tested and certified passive fire protection solutions increases. Manufacturers must demonstrate that their products meet modern safety and compliance standards. Through collaboration with UL Solutions, Siderise combines innovation with independent validation

In life safety, speed is important, but advancing with confidence is essential. For moreinformation, please contact Siderise USA:

m: +1 (860) 841-7863

e:Brad.Davis@siderise.com

How Maritime Safety Standards Are Evolving for Marine Battery Systems

Walk through any shipyard in Norway or the Netherlands, and you’ll see something that would have looked strange a decade ago. Battery rooms. Not backup generators, actual compartments sized for a marine battery pack doing real propulsion work, not just running the lights. Ferries, offshore support vessels, tugs, even some cargo ships are leaning on electric power in ways once reserved for research vessels. This wave of maritime electrification is exciting for anyone who cares about emissions. It’s also given regulators a real headache, because a marine battery inside a steel hull does not behave the way a battery pack behaves in your car or your laptop.

Saltwater, constant vibration, humidity, tight compartments with limited airflow- none of that was part of the original design brief for lithium chemistry. So maritime safety regulations have had to catch up, and honestly, they’re still catching up.

Why Evolving Safety Standards Are Essential for Marine Battery Systems

Ten years ago, you’d mostly find a marine battery on a small research vessel or an experimental hybrid tug in Scandinavia. That’s changed fast. Marine battery systems now power entire ferry fleets, back up dynamic positioning on offshore vessels, and serve as backup power on cruise ships; that’s why following marine vessel fire safety procedures is a must. The growth has outpaced the rulebooks, since most of those rules were written with diesel engines and fuel tanks in mind, not lithium cells packed into a hull. Here’s the thing though: a marine battery isn’t unsafe by nature. The real issue is that a fire or thermal event at sea can’t be handled the way it would on land. 

There’s no fire truck two hundred miles offshore. So classification societies like DNV, Lloyd’s Register, and ABS have spent years rewriting their rules, trying to account for what a marine battery goes through at sea: salt fog, nonstop motion, and a crew that might have ten minutes to respond instead of ten hours. These updated classification society requirements dig into everything from cell chemistry testing to compartment ventilation, and they keep getting stricter with each revision. Battery fire safety sits right at the center of almost every one of these changes.

Key Maritime Safety Risks Driving New Marine Battery Standards

Most of the pressure behind updated NFPA battery safety standards traces back to one risk that keeps regulators up at night: thermal runaway. When a lithium-ion cell overheats, whether from physical damage, overcharging, or a bad manufacturing batch, it can set off a chain reaction where heat jumps to neighboring cells. On land, that’s a serious problem. Inside a sealed engine room on a moving ship, it can spiral into something catastrophic within minutes. That’s exactly why battery fire safety has become the biggest force shaping new marine battery rules. Regulators stopped being satisfied years ago with borrowing land-based fire codes and slapping them onto ship designs. 

They want proof that a battery room can contain a fire, vent toxic gases without putting the crew at risk, and give people enough warning to act before things get out of hand. Beyond the 

fire risk itself, there’s the slower stuff too: off-gassing, saltwater corrosion, and mechanical wear from years of wave motion. A marine battery on a working vessel needs to hold up under conditions a warehouse battery never sees, a much higher bar than most people outside the industry realize; that is why they must follow battery energy storage fire safety standards.

Advancements in Fire Protection and Thermal Management Requirements

This is where things get genuinely technical, and where I think the most interesting engineering work is happening. Thermal runaway in lithium-ion batteries prevention used to be a nice-to-have design goal. Now it’s something classification societies actually test for, with real pass-or-fail criteria. Battery compartments need dedicated cooling loops, physical barriers separating individual modules, and gas sensors that trigger automatic ventilation before a fire even starts, exactly what thermal runaway prevention is supposed to accomplish.

Suppression systems have shifted too, and this part surprised me when I first learned about it. Traditional CO2 flooding doesn’t really work against a lithium fire, because it can reignite the moment oxygen returns to the space. So newer standards push shipbuilders toward water mist systems, aerosol suppression, or agents designed to directly pull heat away from the cells. A few classification societies now require a marine battery installation to include a way to flood the compartment with seawater as a last resort, accepting the loss of the pack to save the rest of the ship. Sounds drastic, but naval architects will tell you containment beats losing the whole vessel every time.

Strengthening Marine Battery Safety Through Monitoring and Operational Controls

None of this fire protection engineering means much if nobody notices there’s a problem until it’s too late. That’s why the battery management system has become just as critical as the physical hardware around it. A good one tracks cell voltage, temperature, and current continuously, and can isolate a failing module before trouble spreads to the rest of the pack. Regulators now expect this kind of monitoring to run all the time, not just during charging or discharging.

Operational rules have gotten tighter too, and crews have felt it. They log battery health data, run inspections on a set schedule, and flag any weird voltage or temperature reading right away instead of waiting for the next port call. Maintenance intervals for a marine battery are shorter than they used to be, and quite a few flag states now require independent audits of the battery management system software specifically, not just the hardware. That closes a gap where the software controlling a marine battery could get quietly updated without anyone checking whether the change introduced new risk.

Crew Training and Emergency Preparedness for Marine Battery Incidents

Hardware and software can only carry you so far without a crew that knows what to do when something goes wrong. One thing I find genuinely underrated is how much weight new rules put on training. Crews working near a marine battery installation now need instruction on gas hazards, how to isolate electrical systems safely, and how a lithium fire behaves compared to the fires they might already know.

Emergency drills now include battery-specific scenarios too, catching smoke in a battery room before flames are visible, or reacting to a voltage anomaly mid-charge. Some operators run tabletop sessions with engineers to walk through what happens if the monitoring system flags a critical fault at sea. This kind of preparation matters more than people give it credit for, because a marine battery incident can escalate fast, and the first few minutes of crew response often decide whether it stays a minor scare or turns into something much worse.

Future of Marine Battery Technology

Looking ahead, the technology itself is shifting in ways that should make some of these risks easier to manage, which is a relief. Solid-state marine batteries are getting a lot of buzz right now because they replace the flammable liquid electrolyte in most lithium-ion cells with a solid material far less prone to thermal runaway. They’re not common on commercial vessels yet, but several shipbuilders and battery manufacturers are running pilot programs, and classification societies are already drafting battery certification standards built around this chemistry.

At the same time, marine energy storage systems are becoming more modular, making it easier to isolate a single failing unit without shutting down power to the entire vessel. That modularity, paired with smarter monitoring software and tighter battery certification standards, is probably going to define the next decade of marine energy storage systems and marine battery development.

As maritime electrification keeps pushing into cargo shipping, not just ferries, expect maritime safety regulations to keep tightening right along with it. A marine battery installed five years from now will look and behave differently from one sitting in a ship today.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main causes of marine battery failures at sea? 

Most failures trace back to thermal runaway, usually triggered by overcharging, physical damage, a manufacturing defect, or extended exposure to heat and humidity. 

How is thermal runaway detected and prevented in marine battery systems? 

Detection relies on continuous monitoring through the battery management system, tracking voltage, temperature, and gas off-gassing at the cell level. 

Which international organizations regulate marine battery safety standards? 

The International Maritime Organization sets broad maritime safety regulations, which classification societies such as DNV, Lloyd’s Register, ABS, and Bureau Veritas must follow.

What testing procedures are required before marine batteries are approved for ships?

Testing usually covers thermal abuse scenarios, short-circuit and overcharge simulations, vibration and shock testing meant to mimic real sea conditions, and off-gassing analysis.

How do marine battery safety standards differ between lithium-ion and solid-state batteries?

Lithium-ion marine batteries require extensive thermal management, fire suppression, and ventilation due to their liquid electrolyte and higher fire risk. Solid-state marine batteries are held to newer standards that rely less on fire suppression and more on mechanical integrity, since the solid electrolyte substantially reduces the odds of thermal runaway.

Fire safety compliance for housing providers: Beyond waking watch

Hyfire’s Brett Boyd explains how wireless fire detection is helping housing providers achieve fire safety compliance and reduce reliance on waking watch

For housing providers across the UK, fire safety compliance remains one of the most pressing challenges facing the sector.

As organisations continue to address issues including unsafe cladding, compartmentation failures and inadequate fire stopping, there is increasing pressure to find solutions that not only meet regulatory requirements but can be implemented quickly, cost-effectively and with minimal disruption to residents.

The launch of the Interim Measures Alarm Fund (IMAF) by Homes England in April 2026 is designed to help tackle that challenge, providing funding for housing providers to upgrade fire safety systems in buildings where urgent remedial works are required.

According to Brett Boyd, Regional Sales Manager – South East at Hyfire, the fund represents far more than a financial opportunity. “Compliance is at the centre of it all,” he says. “It’s not just about ticking boxes to access the funding. It’s about making sure systems are actually doing what they’re supposed to do, and that’s protecting people.”

The introduction of IMAF comes at a time when many housing providers are seeking alternatives to temporary fire safety measures while remediation projects are undertaken.

In particular, the industry continues to look for ways to reduce reliance on waking watch arrangements, which can be expensive to maintain over extended periods.

“A big driver behind it has been the need to move away from costly measures like waking watch and towards a more cost-effective and more permanent solution,” says Boyd.

For landlords and building managers, compliance is increasingly about demonstrating that buildings are safe while also providing reassurance to residents.

“Being compliant means housing providers can demonstrate that they are meeting their obligations and can safely step away from things like waking watch, which can be both disruptive and expensive over time,” he explains.

“At the end of the day, compliance gives everyone confidence, from the landlords to the residents. It’s the right level of protection that needs to be in place.”

Delivering fire safety compliance without complexity

While funding provides an opportunity for improvement, implementing compliant fire safety systems can still present practical challenges.

This is particularly true in occupied residential buildings, where traditional hardwired installations can create disruption for residents and significantly extend project timescales.

For Boyd, one of the key advantages of Hyfire’s Taurus system is that compliance has been built into the technology from the outset. “Taurus was developed with real-world challenges in mind, so compliance is built into what we do,” he says.

“Our systems are fully certified and designed to align with the standards that sit behind funding schemes like IMAF.”

However, Boyd is quick to point out that technology alone is only part of the solution.  “One of our big advantages is our network of approved installers,” he explains. “It means organisations aren’t just getting the technology, but also the right expertise to deliver a compliant solution from start to finish.”

That installer network plays an important role in ensuring systems are delivered correctly and in accordance with the latest requirements.

“Installers understand both the technical side and the compliance requirements, which makes the whole process much smoother,” he says.

The flexibility of wireless technology also helps simplify projects that might otherwise be difficult to deliver.

“Because it’s wireless, it gives a lot more flexibility when designing and installing, particularly in buildings where running cables would be difficult or disruptive.” In many cases, speed can be just as important as compliance.

“It’s particularly effective in situations where a fast upgrade is needed,” Boyd adds, revealing that ultimately the goal is straightforward.

“It’s about making compliance more achievable, helping organisations meet funding criteria without overcomplicating the projects that they’re working on.”

Why wireless fire detection is changing the conversation

Wireless fire detection systems have evolved significantly over the last two decades and are increasingly becoming a preferred solution rather than a specialist alternative.

According to Boyd, the technology has transformed the way retrofit projects can be delivered. “Wireless has been a game changer, especially for retrofit projects,” he says.

 “The biggest benefit is the lack of disruption. There’s no need to run cabling through walls and ceilings. Residents can stay in their homes while the system is installed.” For housing providers managing occupied residential buildings, that ability to complete works without requiring residents to relocate can deliver major benefits.

Speed is another important factor. “It’s also much quicker to install, which naturally helps keep costs under control when you look at a whole project,” Boyd explains. “Given the ongoing cost of waking watch, that speed can make a real financial difference.”

One misconception that still occasionally exists within the market is that wireless systems may not offer the same level of reliability as traditional wired installations.

Boyd is keen to challenge that perception. “Modern wireless systems are incredibly robust and perform to the same standards as wired systems,” he says. “There’s no compromise there.” He believes the flexibility of wireless technology is another significant advantage.

“Buildings can change over time and wireless systems can make it easy to adapt without needing major works again in the future.”

Overall, he says, the benefits are clear. “It’s about delivering a safer compliance solution in a way that works for both the building and the people that live in that building.”

Adapting to changing fire safety regulations

As regulations continue to evolve, flexibility is becoming an increasingly valuable feature of fire safety systems. One example is BS 8629, the standard covering evacuation alert systems for use by fire and rescue services in blocks of flats.

For many building owners, the prospect of upgrading systems to meet new requirements can raise concerns about cost and disruption. However, Boyd says this is often not necessary with HyFire systems.

“One of the strengths of Hyfire is how adaptable our system is,” he explains. “If a building needs to meet the requirements of BS 8629, it’s often not a case of ripping everything out and starting again. Instead, we can build on what’s already there.”

In many cases, the process is relatively straightforward. “With proper planning from the outset of a project, it can be as simple as changing out the panel, removing the automatic detectors and doing some basic reprogramming of the system.”

The wireless nature of the technology once again provides a major advantage. “Because it’s wireless, those changes can usually be made without major disruption as well,” Boyd says.

“Residents don’t need to leave their homes.” The approach not only helps simplify compliance but also protects previous investment. “Overall, it’s a pretty straightforward upgrade and it helps protect the original investment in the system as well.”

The future of fire safety compliance

Despite the progress that has been made, Boyd believes housing providers still face considerable challenges. “There’s obviously a lot for housing providers to consider and manage at the moment,” he says.

“Things like compartmentation, unsafe cladding on buildings and substandard fire stopping are major contributing factors and they need to be addressed.” While waking watch remains a common response during remediation works, he believes the industry is increasingly recognising the limitations of the approach.

“While they do provide short-term reassurance, they’re not a sustainable solution and can become very costly over time,” he says. “There’s also the human element to waking watch, where it’s not always as reliable as it should be. Having an automatic detection system can sometimes be a more reliable solution.”

Looking ahead, Boyd sees wireless technology becoming even more prominent across the residential sector. “Where wireless was traditionally always used where cabling couldn’t be installed as a must-have solution, it’s now becoming a go-to solution for a lot of people because the technology has improved over the last two decades.”

Future developments are likely to focus on connectivity and visibility, helping housing providers manage fire safety more effectively across their portfolios. “There’s going to be a bigger focus on smarter, more connected systems that can give housing providers better oversight and control.”

At the same time, resident experience will remain central to decision-making. “When it comes to IMAF, it’s important to note that everything will continue to centre around the residents,” Boyd says.

“The improvements don’t come at a cost of comfort or convenience.” For Hyfire, the long-term objective remains simple.

“We believe in providing the right solution,” he says. “It’s not just about putting something in. It’s the right solution for the right application, solutions that meet the highest standards of safety while still being practical and efficient for the environments that they serve.”

Fire Alarm Monitoring vs Fire Alarm Systems: What’s Changing in Modern Fire Safety?

Here’s a scenario worth sitting with for a second. A fire breaks out in a building on a Sunday night. Nobody’s there. The alarm goes off exactly like it’s supposed to, horns blaring, strobes flashing, doing its job perfectly. It just keeps doing that for hours because there’s no one around to hear it and no automatic way for that alarm to reach anyone who could actually help. That’s the problem fire alarm monitoring was built to solve, and honestly, it’s a distinction a lot of building owners still don’t fully grasp. People say “fire alarm system” and “fire alarm monitoring” like they’re interchangeable. They’re not, not even close. One of them notices the fire. The other one makes sure somebody does something about it. Once you see the gap between those two jobs, a lot of the confusion around fire safety planning starts to make a lot more sense.

Fire Alarm Monitoring vs Fire Alarm Systems: Understanding the Difference

So let’s get the basic definitions out of the way first, because this trips people up more than it should. A fire alarm system detects fire. Full stop, that’s really it. A fire alarm monitoring setup takes what that system detects and gets it in front of a real human being who can call for help, even if the building is completely empty.

FunctionFire Alarm SystemFire Alarm Monitoring
Primary roleDetects smoke, heat, or flameSends the alarm signal to a monitoring center
Response triggerLocal horns and strobes go offA dispatcher calls emergency services
Works with no one on site?Not really, it just alerts whoever’s thereYes, that’s basically the whole point
Typical useRequired in almost every commercial buildingAdded on top for faster, real emergency response

What Is a Fire Alarm System?

The nuts and bolts of a fire alarm system are pretty familiar to most people, even if they’ve never thought about it much. Smoke detectors, heat sensors, those red pull stations by the exit doors, and the control panel tying it all together. Something senses smoke or heat, and boom, the horn goes off, and the strobes start flashing. Depending on the building, it might also trigger the sprinklers or shut down the HVAC so smoke doesn’t spread through the ductwork. What it won’t do, on its own, is call anyone outside the building. That’s not a flaw exactly; it’s just not what it was designed for. It warns the people who are physically there.

What Is Fire Alarm Monitoring?

Monitoring picks up right where detection leaves off. The same signal that trips the horn is also sent to a central monitoring station, staffed around the clock, where a real person reviews it, confirms it’s not a false alarm, and calls the fire department. This is honestly the piece that turns “the building is aware something’s wrong” into “help is actually on the way.” Given how much that matters, it’s a little surprising monitoring still gets treated as optional in some buildings.

How Fire Alarm Monitoring Works in Modern Buildings

The path from a smoke detector tripping to a fire truck pulling up outside isn’t instant; nobody’s claiming that, but in a decent monitored fire alarm system, it’s much faster than most people assume. It kicks off the moment something triggers: a smoke detector, a heat sensor, someone pulling that manual station by the door. That signal hits the building’s fire alarm control panel, and from there it gets pushed out through whatever communication pathway the building uses- could be a phone line, could be cellular, could be internet- over to a central station monitoring facility somewhere else entirely.

From Alarm Activation to Emergency Response

The sequence goes roughly like this. A device triggers, and the panel gets the signal. The panel pushes it out to the monitoring center. An operator verifies it’s real, not a burnt bagel setting off a smoke detector, which usually takes seconds, not minutes. Once it’s verified, the operator calls emergency services with the address and any available zone information.

Fire crews are dispatched, and the operator often tries to reach whoever’s listed as the building contact. Start to finish, that whole chain frequently wraps up in under a minute with modern equipment. That speed is really the whole pitch for emergency fire response through monitoring, versus a standalone alarm that just makes noise and hopes someone’s paying attention.

Monitored vs Unmonitored Fire Alarm Systems: Key Differences

The monitored vs unmonitored fire alarm debate basically comes down to one blunt question. What happens if nobody’s around to hear the alarm go off?

Unmonitored system

An unmonitored system leans entirely on people being present. Think about a warehouse at 2 a.m., an empty retail unit, an office over a long weekend. In those situations, a local alarm could sound for hours without a response because there’s no built-in path to emergency services within the system itself. Without it, you’re relying on someone hearing the alarm, understanding what it means, and calling for help themselves, which, realistically, can take ten or fifteen minutes. Unmonitored systems protect people who happen to be present and paying attention. 

Monitored system

A monitored fire alarm system eliminates that dependency. The signal reaches a monitoring center whether there’s one person in the building or a hundred, or nobody at all. This matters a lot more for properties that sit empty for stretches, multi-tenant buildings where nobody quite feels responsible for noticing the alarm, and bigger facilities where the horn might not even carry to every corner of the place. With monitoring, dispatch can happen inside a minute. Sometimes longer, depending on how things line up. Monitored systems protect the building continuously, whether anyone’s watching or not. That’s really the whole difference between a system that just alerts and one that actually does something.

What’s Changing in Fire Alarm Monitoring Technology?

Fire alarm monitoring technology has come a long way from the copper phone lines that used to run the whole show. Three shifts really stand out here.

Cellular Setups

Cellular fire alarm monitoring has become the go-to swap for landline-based setups. A cellular communicator transmits signals over the same networks your phone uses, so monitoring doesn’t hinge on a physical wire that can be cut, damaged, or just stop working one day. In areas where landline infrastructure is aging out or getting phased out entirely, cellular has more or less become the default choice, not just an alternative.

IP-driven communication

IP-based communication is the other big one. Instead of a dedicated phone line, IP communicators send signals over the building’s existing internet connection. It’s generally faster than old-school phone-line transmission, and it tends to cost less to maintain over time since it’s riding on infrastructure the building already has anyway.

Cloud based 

Cloud-based monitoring platforms are now stacking on top of both of these. Rather than betting everything on a single transmission path, cloud platforms can aggregate signals, deliver remote fire alarm monitoring dashboards to facility managers, and provide redundancy across multiple pathways simultaneously. If one path goes down, another one picks up the slack, which cuts the odds of a total monitoring blackout way down.

Why Traditional Phone-Line Monitoring Is Being Replaced

Landline monitoring was reliable for decades; nobody’s arguing otherwise, but it comes with limitations that are getting harder to shrug off. Phone lines can be cut, accidentally or otherwise, which severs the connection to the monitoring center. Telecom providers have also been steadily retiring copper lines in favor of digital networks, which makes dedicated phone service pricier and, in some places, genuinely hard to even get anymore. On top of that, phone-line transmission is just slower than cellular or IP, adding precious seconds onto a process where seconds actually count.

Why Fire Alarm Monitoring Is Becoming More Critical Than Standalone Alarm Systems

A standalone fire alarm system still earns its keep. It detects fire; it alerts whoever’s around. But that’s also its ceiling, and it’s a pretty low one. The second a building is empty, understaffed, or the alarm just isn’t heard, a standalone system’s usefulness takes a nosedive. Monitoring closes that gap by making the response automatic rather than dependent on someone being in the right spot at the right moment. Nobody has to notice a strobe light or figure out what a particular alarm pattern means. The signal goes straight to people trained to know exactly what to do with it.

That automatic layer also cuts out delays that cost real time during an actual fire. Every extra minute a fire burns unaddressed lets it grow, and honestly, the difference between a two-minute dispatch and a fifteen-minute one can be the difference between a contained incident and a building nobody can save. There’s also an easy-to-overlook benefit. Monitoring centers don’t just watch for fire alarms; they usually keep tabs on system health, too, catching issues like low-battery alerts, communication faults, or tampering before they turn into bigger problems. A standalone system just can’t offer that kind of ongoing oversight. It only does its job the instant smoke or heat actually triggers it, and not a second before.

Fire Alarm Monitoring Compliance and Upgrade Trends

Fire alarm compliance requirements have been tightening specifically around fire monitoring systems and communication pathways, not just the detection hardware itself. Many local and national fire codes now specify acceptable ways to transmit an alarm signal to a monitoring center, and older methods continue to fall outside those specs. One of the clearest trends is the phased move away from analog phone-line communicators. As carriers retire copper infrastructure, a number of jurisdictions have updated their code language to require cellular or IP communication, sometimes as the primary path, sometimes as backup, sometimes both, for new installations and major upgrades. Redundant communication paths are appearing more often in updated code, too.

Instead of relying on a single method, many current standards now call for a primary path plus a backup, often pairing cellular with IP, so that a failure in one doesn’t leave the whole building unmonitored. For owners with older systems, this has meant a wave of communicator upgrades, even when the underlying hardware, sensors, control panels, all of it, still works perfectly fine. It’s a much smaller and less disruptive project than replacing an entire fire alarm system, but it brings the building’s monitoring up to current code and makes the whole setup much more reliable. If you’re managing a commercial property, it’s worth actually checking your current communication pathway against local code updates. Compliance gaps like this tend to surface during an inspection, or worse, during a real emergency when the signal just doesn’t get through.

Final Verdict

To sum up, fire alarm systems and fire alarm monitoring aren’t solving the same problem, even though people talk about them as if they are. One notices the fire. The other makes sure that noticing actually turns into someone showing up to help, even when the building’s empty and nobody’s around to hit the panic button. As monitoring shifts toward cellular, IP, and cloud-based setups, and as fire codes catch up to reflect that shift, pairing solid detection with real monitoring keeps making more and more sense. For any building where being empty, understaffed, or slow to respond carries actual risk, monitoring isn’t really a luxury add-on anymore. It’s the part that makes everything else worth having in the first place.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does fire alarm monitoring work during internet or power outages?

Cellular communicators don’t need internet at all, so a Wi-Fi or broadband outage typically won’t take down monitoring if cellular is the primary or backup path. As for power outages, fire alarm control panels are required to carry battery backup.

Who receives fire alarm alerts from a monitored fire alarm system?

The first stop is a central station monitoring facility, where a trained operator looks at the alert and confirms it’s genuine. Once that’s confirmed, they call local fire and emergency services directly. 

How quickly does a monitoring center respond to a fire alarm signal? 

Most of the time, verification and dispatch occur within a minute of the signal arriving at the monitoring center. Cellular and IP paths are generally faster than the old phone line route, shaving a few extra seconds here and there.

Can existing fire alarm systems be upgraded to include monitoring services? 

Yes, and it happens all the time. In most cases, the existing detection gear, sensors, pull stations, and control panel can remain as they are while a monitoring communicator is added or replaced with a cellular or IP unit. 

What factors affect the cost of fire alarm monitoring services? 

It mostly comes down to the size and complexity of the building’s system, which communication pathway is used, whether there’s a redundant backup path built in, and the monitoring provider’s own service level and response protocols.

Pye-Barker Fire & Safety acquires ResponseTECH to expand life safety services

Pye-Barker Fire & Safety has acquired Maryland-based ResponseTECH, strengthening its security and life safety capabilities while expanding its customer reach across the state

Pye-Barker Fire & Safety has announced the acquisition of ResponseTECH, Inc., a Rockville, Maryland-based provider of security and life safety solutions.

The acquisition will see ResponseTECH join Pye-Barker’s existing Maryland operations, enabling the combined business to deliver a broader range of fire protection, life safety and security services to customers across the region.

ResponseTECH provides integrated security systems, including intrusion and fire alarms, access control, central station monitoring, nurse-call systems and mass emergency notification solutions. The company supports customers from system planning and design through to testing and maintenance, serving commercial, education and senior living sectors.

Avner Skolnik, Owner of ResponseTECH, said: “One thing has always emerged as a driver for me throughout my tenure in business: company culture. It’s about outstanding customer service, honest business practices, long-lasting client relationships and giving back to the community. I see those values every day in Pye-Barker, which is why I’m so energised by this partnership.”

Bart Proctor of Pye-Barker added: “I often say I can tell if a company will be a good cultural fit within five minutes of our first conversation. It was clear that ResponseTECH’s team shares our passion for customer relationships, and that together, we can deliver world-class service to our Maryland communities.”

ResponseTECH’s technicians will continue serving customers throughout Maryland following the acquisition. Legal counsel for Pye-Barker was provided by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Ageing pressurised fire suppression systems white paper released by FirePro UK

New ageing pressurised fire suppression systems white paper examines the risks, costs and regulatory pressures

FirePro UK Ltd has published a new white paper examining the growing operational, compliance and financial challenges associated with ageing pressurised gaseous fire suppression systems.

Authored by Managing Director Tony Hanley, the paper, Considerations for the Extended Lifecycle and/or Replacement of Obsolete or Aged Pressurised Fire Suppression Gas Systems, explores the issues affecting legacy FM200, CO₂ and similar systems as they approach the end of their service lives.

Drawing on more than 40 years of fire engineering experience, Hanley examines factors including hydrostatic test failures, pipework degradation, increasing refill costs, environmental regulations and concerns over long-term reliability.

The paper states: “Older cylinders may often fail the test, making them noncompliant and requiring replacement,” and highlights that enclosure integrity, a critical requirement for gas-based suppression systems, can become increasingly difficult to maintain as buildings are modified and age over time.

The publication also outlines FirePro’s condensed aerosol fire suppression technology as an alternative to conventional pressurised gaseous systems. According to the company, the technology uses a solid-state, non-pressurised generator that chemically interrupts combustion rather than relying on room pressurisation or maintaining a specific gas concentration.

FirePro says this approach removes the need for cylinders, pipework, hydrostatic testing, refills and room integrity testing, while providing a certified 15-year lifecycle and lower ongoing maintenance requirements.

The paper also states that the technology is suited to retrofit projects, older buildings and mission-critical environments where maintaining airtight enclosures may be impractical. It further highlights environmental characteristics including negligible global warming potential (GWP), the absence of PFAS and CFCs, and compliance with BS/EN 15276 safety requirements.

Hanley, who serves as Managing Director of FirePro UK, Vice Chairman of the Fire Industry Association (FIA), and received the FIA Lifetime Achievement Award in 2023, said the white paper is intended to help industry stakeholders make informed decisions as legacy fire suppression systems reach the end of their operational lives.

The white paper is available for facilities managers, insurers, fire engineers and other industry professionals seeking guidance on lifecycle risks, regulatory considerations and replacement options for ageing fire suppression systems.

FirePro UK has also released an accompanying video alongside the publication.

The only FM approved automated monitor system

FM approved automated monitor systems have received dedicated guidance for the first time under FM Data Sheet 4-14. Ryan Fogelman of Fire Rover explains what the new standard means for industrial fire protection, insurers and high-risk facilities

For years, automated monitor fire suppression technology has occupied a unique position within the fire protection industry. While conventional sprinkler systems have long been regarded as the gold standard for property protection, certain occupancies and hazards have continued to present challenges.

Now, a significant development from FM is helping to reshape the conversation. In April 2026, FM published Data Sheet 4-14, Automated Monitor Fire Suppression Systems, marking the first time the organisation has issued dedicated guidance covering FM Approved automated monitor fire suppression systems.

For Fire Rover, the publication is particularly noteworthy because it reflects years of development, testing and industry adoption that have helped establish automated monitor technology as a recognised fire protection solution for some of the most challenging hazards faced by industrial operators.

The hardest part to understand is that an automated monitor is not what you think it is. The automated monitor solution still requires use of a UL/FM approved central station in order to be considered “automatic.”

FM Data Sheet 4-14 signals a new era for automated monitor fire suppression systems

Historically, water monitors have primarily been used as supplementary fire protection equipment. In many facilities they have supported sprinkler systems, assisted firefighting operations or provided additional suppression capabilities in difficult-to reach areas.

FM’s new guidance acknowledges that modern automated monitor systems are fundamentally different from traditional manually operated monitors. Equipped with advanced detection technology, thermal imaging, visual analytics, remote monitoring capabilities and automated targeting, these systems can identify a fire, locate its source and direct suppression streams without human intervention.

The data sheet recognises that while automated monitor systems are typically used as supplementary protection, there are specific applications where they may serve as sole have viewed automated monitor technology as an enhancement to sprinkler protection.

FM’s new guidance now recognises that in certain environments these systems can provide primary protection when designed and installed in accordance with FM’s occupancy-specific guidance and approval requirements.

Waste and recycling facilities drive demand for automated monitor technology

The occupancies identified within FM’s guidance are not typical commercial or industrial environments. Instead, they represent some of the most demanding fire protection challenges in the industry.

Among the applications specifically highlighted are waste fuel-fired facilities, including tipping halls and bunker buildings. These areas frequently contain large volumes of combustible waste materials, constantly changing fuel loads and operational conditions that can make traditional sprinkler protection difficult.

Waste facilities face a unique fire risk profile. Materials are often delivered continuously, stockpiles change throughout the day and fires can develop deep within waste piles before becoming visible. Early detection and rapid suppression are critical to preventing significant losses, operational disruption and environmental impacts.

Automated monitor systems have increasingly been deployed in these environments because they are capable of continuously monitoring large areas and directing high-volume water streams precisely at developing fire events.

FM’s recognition of tipping halls and bunker buildings as suitable applications for automated monitor protection reflects the industry’s growing understanding of how these systems can address hazards that do not always fit conventional models. “

Firestopping InternationalFireandSafetyJournal.com 29 July 2026 But all solutions are not the same. While some automatic systems have shown vulnerabilities during their deployment, especially in “active” locations with a ton of activity, like we see on tipping floors, baling operations and bale storage operations.

In these cases, the only FM Approved Smart monitoring Solution has proven 99.9% effective stopping major or catastrophic losses during events. The Fire Rover solution can work with front line responders to provide experienced firefighting capabilities to the front lines.

Last year Fire Rover agents responded to over 3600 confirmed fires/hotspot and suppressed 473 fires on the front lines. This year they are on pace to suppress over 700 fires. Expanding recognition within storage environments

The FM guidance also recognises applications within pulp and paper operations, particularly or primary protection. This distinction is significant. For many years, facility owners, insurers, engineers and risk managers outdoor storage and storage within non-combustible buildings associated with baled wastepaper.

Fire protection within bale storage environments has long presented challenges. Traditional suppression approaches can face limitations when dealing with large, densely packed storage arrangements.

Automated monitor systems provide an alternative method of applying large volumes of water directly to affected areas while maintaining coverage. For operators managing baled wastepaper, recycling materials and related commodities, the inclusion of these occupancies within FM’s guidance provides additional recognition of automated monitor technology as a viable protection strategy when implemented in accordance with FM recommendations.

The importance of FM approval

One of the most significant aspects of the new data sheet is its emphasis on FM Approved systems. The document repeatedly stresses that automated monitor fire suppression systems are more complex than conventional sprinkler systems and that approval, testing, validation and compliance with manufacturers’ design, installation, operation and maintenance requirements are critical to achieving acceptable levels of reliability and performance.

FM notes that only one FM Approved automated monitor system was commercially available at the time of publication. That solution is Fire Rover. Please reach out to rfogelman@ firerover.com if you are interested in learning more.

This highlights the extensive testing, evaluation and validation required to achieve approval status. For facility owners and insurers, FM Approval provides confidence that systems have undergone rigorous assessment for performance, reliability, functionality and integration.

In an industry where reliability is paramount, third-party validation plays a crucial role in supporting adoption and acceptance. Beyond suppression A defining characteristic of modern automated monitor technology is that it extends beyond simple water delivery. Today’s systems integrate advanced detection capabilities, thermal imaging, visual analytics and automated decision-making.

These capabilities allow facilities to identify developing incidents at a much earlier stage than would be possible through traditional suppression systems alone.

Rather than waiting for a fire to activate a sprinkler head, automated monitor systems continuously observe protected areas, detect abnormal heat signatures or visible flames, verify incidents and initiate suppression activities.

This combination of early detection and targeted suppression can be particularly valuable in environments where fires can grow rapidly or develop within large open areas. The technology’s ability to provide continuous monitoring also delivers operational benefits beyond fire suppression, including improved situational awareness, faster incident verification and enhanced support.

What FM recognition means for the future of automated monitor fire protection

The publication of Data Sheet 4-14 is not occurring in isolation. Automated monitor systems are also referenced within other FM property loss prevention data sheets covering specific hazards and occupancies.

This broader integration demonstrates how the technology is increasingly being recognised as part of a comprehensive risk management strategy.

As FM continues to gain experience with automated monitor systems and as additional applications are evaluated, future guidance will likely continue to evolve. The data sheet itself notes that the range of recognised occupancies may expand as technology develops and additional performance experience is gained.

For Fire Rover and the wider automated monitor sector, FM’s publication represents an important milestone. The new guidance reflects a growing industry recognition that certain hazards require specialised protection strategies beyond traditional approaches.

It acknowledges the role that automated monitor systems can play in addressing those challenges

Blackpool Airport fire service appoints new Senior Airport Fire Officer

Paul Lake brings more than 40 years of aviation firefighting and rescue experience to Blackpool Airport fire service

Blackpool Airport fire service has appointed Paul Lake as Senior Airport Fire Officer. Bringing more than 40 years of aviation firefighting and rescue experience, he joins the airport as it continues to support its long-term growth and operational resilience.

Blackpool Airport has appointed Paul Lake as its new Senior Airport Fire Officer (SAFO), bringing more than four decades of aviation fire and rescue experience gained across military, civilian and international airport operations.

Lake will lead the airport’s fire service, drawing on a career that has spanned operational leadership, firefighter training and international airport fire management in the UK and overseas.

He began his aviation firefighting career at Farnborough Airport before going on to hold senior operational and training roles at Boscombe Down, RAF Leeming, the International Fire Training Centre (IFTC) in Teesside, where he trained aviation firefighters from around the world, the International College of Engineering & Management in Oman and Falck Fire.

Most recently, he served as Chief Fire Officer at King Fahd International Airport in Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest airport by land area, leading a team of 150 firefighters across four fire stations.

Returning to the UK to join Blackpool Airport, Lake said: “After 40 years in the fire service I still love my job and I’m delighted to be back in the UK to take up the position of SAFO at Blackpool Airport.

“It’s an exciting time to join the airport and play a part in its growth masterplan. The team here is fantastic and it was great to see a few familiar faces from my time as an instructor in Teesside.”

Steve Peters, Airport Director, said: “We are very pleased to welcome Paul to Blackpool Airport. His wealth of experience, leadership credentials and international expertise make him an outstanding addition to our team.

“As the airport continues to develop and grow, Paul’s knowledge and commitment will be invaluable in ensuring the highest standards of safety and resilience.”

The appointment reinforces Blackpool Airport’s commitment to maintaining high operational standards while supporting its future growth and development plans.

Ranger Fire and Security acquisitions expand UK footprint with two new businesses

Ranger Fire and Security acquisitions strengthen the group’s presence in the North West and South of England, taking the total number of businesses in the Group to 25

Ranger Fire and Security has strengthened its national presence with the acquisition of two fire and security companies in the South and North West of England, continuing its expansion strategy following a recent majority investment from Inflexion.

The latest Ranger Fire and Security acquisitions see the Group add CIA Fire and Security Ltd, based in Cirencester, and AKD Fire and Security Ltd, headquartered in Cumbria.

The deals increase the number of businesses within the Ranger Group to 25 and bring total employee numbers to more than 500.

The announcement follows Inflexion’s recent majority investment in Ranger Fire and Security, which the company says will support an accelerated acquisition strategy across the UK and Ireland.

CIA Fire and Security, founded in 1982, provides a range of services including fire alarms, intruder alarms, CCTV, fire extinguishers and keyholding services to customers across southern England and nationally.

The business also includes PFS, a fire and security maintenance specialist, and Pioneer Automated Controls, which focuses on gates and barriers. The combined operation is led by Matthew and Sally Harrison.

More than 80 employees will remain with CIA Fire and Security as it joins the Ranger Group. The acquisition strengthens Ranger’s presence in southern England alongside its existing regional businesses, including Fidelity Integrated Systems, Scion Communications Limited, Partnership Fire and Security and Universal Fire and Security.

Meanwhile, AKD Fire and Security provides fire alarms, security systems and access control services, with a strong focus on servicing, maintenance, remedial works and reactive call-outs. Its customer base includes commercial, hospitality, public sector and residential clients.

The acquisition also expands Ranger’s North West presence, creating a stronger geographic link between its Syncro business in the North West and its Secureshield operation in Motherwell.

Mark Bridges, CEO of Ranger Fire and Security, said: “Our two latest acquisitions, CIA Fire and Security and AKD Fire and Security, bring decades of industry experience to the Ranger Group and will help extend our presence across the North West and South of England. With existing Ranger businesses already well-established in both regions, our two new companies will be able to bring their experience and knowledge to the team, helping Ranger meet more of the fire and security needs of local businesses.

“With backing from Inflexion we will continue to step up our acquisition strategy, bringing on board the UK and Ireland’s best fire and security experts to fulfil our mission of becoming the one-stop shop for all customer’s fire and security needs.”

Matthew Harrison, Managing Director of CIA Fire and Security, added: “Becoming part of the Ranger Group marks a significant moment for our team, enabling us to extend our services to new customers across the local region and beyond.

“Working alongside Ranger’s group of industry experts will give us a greater opportunity to cross-sell and we look forward to bringing our own experience and skill set to the Group, including strengthening the business’s service delivery and expanding their fire and security offering.”

The acquisitions form part of Ranger Fire and Security’s strategy to build a national platform by bringing together established regional businesses while maintaining local expertise.

BS 5839-1:2025: Why cyber security is now essential for modern fire alarm systems

Nicholas Whiting, VP Alarm Signalling, AddSecure UK, explains why the updated code of practice reflects the growing need to protect both the physical and digital resilience of modern fire alarm systems

The updated BS 5839-1:2025 code of practice reflects the increasing connectivity of fire alarm systems, introducing stronger guidance on remote access, signalling resilience and system security. As fire alarm technology evolves, cyber security is becoming a core part of protecting life safety and ensuring resilient fire detection.

How BS 5839-1:2025 is reshaping fire alarm best practice

Introduced in 2025, BS 5839-1:2025 replaced the previous 2017 edition, marking a significant evolution in how the fire alarm sector approaches the design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of fire alarm systems in non-domestic buildings. While the standard remains a code of practice rather than a new regulatory requirement, it reflects the growing complexity of connected fire alarm environments and highlights the increasing importance of cyber security alongside fire safety.

As the industry approaches a year since the publication of BS 5839-1:2025, the updated guidance offers valuable lessons on how fire safety and cyber security are becoming increasingly interconnected.

For many years, BS 5839-1 has provided the fire and alarm industry with a framework for good practice. The 2025 revision builds on this by improving fire safety guidance, strengthening detection requirements in higher-risk areas and incorporating lessons learned from major incidents, including Grenfell Tower. The revised code also introduces clearer expectations around documentation, false alarm reduction and protecting vulnerable building occupants.

Key changes for Category L and Category P fire alarm systems

Under BS 5839-1:2025, Category L systems, which prioritise life safety, should use smoke or multi-sensor detectors as the default in sleeping accommodation. Zone plans are now considered essential in multi-zone installations and must be verified for accuracy during maintenance.

For residential care premises, the updated guidance recommends automatic transmission of fire signals to alarm receiving centres, recognising that the absence of remote monitoring is no longer considered acceptable. Meanwhile, Category P systems, designed to protect property, include refreshed guidance on detector positioning around structural obstacles, simplified manual call point distances and enhanced signalling requirements. These include alarm signal transmission within 120 seconds and reporting catastrophic loss of both signalling paths within 31 minutes for dual-path systems.

Why cyber security is now part of fire alarm system design

Perhaps the most significant development within BS 5839-1:2025 is its recognition that fire alarm systems are no longer standalone installations. Modern systems are increasingly integrated into wider building networks, communicate over IP infrastructure and can often be accessed remotely for diagnostics and maintenance.

While these capabilities deliver operational benefits, they also introduce cyber security risks that were largely absent from traditional fire alarm systems. Any system capable of remote access presents the potential for unauthorised interference if appropriate safeguards are not in place.

Historically, engineers were required to attend site to diagnose faults or carry out maintenance. Today’s connected systems allow faster fault identification, earlier notification of issues and, in some cases, remote servicing. However, BS 5839-1:2025 makes it clear that improved functionality must be matched by appropriate security measures.

Although the guidance stops short of mandating specific cyber security controls, it outlines best practice for securing remote access. This includes using secure authentication before connections are established and ensuring equipment used to facilitate remote access is housed within locked cabinets or tamper-resistant enclosures. Whether systems communicate via IP or mobile networks, the revised code reinforces the importance of protecting remote access against unauthorised activity.

Strengthening signalling resilience under BS 5839-1:2025

The updated standard also places greater emphasis on signalling resilience, recognising that reliable communication is fundamental to effective fire protection.

For property protection systems, alarm signals should be transmitted within 120 seconds, while life safety systems are expected to achieve even shorter transmission times due to their higher-risk nature. Dual-path signalling devices must report catastrophic loss of both communication paths within 31 minutes (DP2) for Category P systems, helping ensure faults are detected and escalated promptly.

Dual-path radio systems may be used where they satisfy the reporting requirements for DP2 and DP3. For Category L systems, however, catastrophic failures should be reported within three minutes (DP4), with alarm signals transmitted within 90 seconds. DP3 dual-radio systems should only be used where a documented variation justifies their installation, such as where a fixed IP connection is not technically feasible.

These requirements demonstrate that signalling resilience extends beyond the fire alarm panel itself. As remotely monitored systems become increasingly common, installers are relying more heavily on manufacturers and signalling providers to deliver secure, resilient infrastructure capable of meeting the expectations set out in BS 5839-1:2025.

Training and future resilience

Alongside technological improvements, the revised standard also recognises the importance of ongoing competence. Modern fire alarm systems are active, connected assets that require continual management rather than one-off installation. The guidance recommends that installers invest in continuous professional development to ensure their knowledge evolves alongside increasingly sophisticated systems.

As fire alarm technology continues to become more connected, remotely managed and integrated within wider building management systems, cyber security is no longer a separate consideration. BS 5839-1:2025 demonstrates that protecting connected fire alarm systems now requires both physical and digital resilience. The updated code of practice reflects an industry where fire safety and cyber security are becoming inseparable, requiring manufacturers, installers and building owners to consider both as part of delivering resilient life safety systems.