The professional and technical communities of the alarm and central station industries have long recognized the criticality of supervision.
Why? Because the best time to know that a system is not working is before an emergency happens.
By way of example, a fire alarm control unit (FACU) is unable to successfully transmit its automated test signal as it was programmed to do, and this goes on for weeks, and ultimately months elapse. Despite UL -1981 central station automation software detecting that the system did not check in, a log-only instruction was input on the account, so no action was taken.
What Happens Without Proper Supervision?
Looking at the annual NFPA 72 inspection, testing and maintenance records, nothing is disclosed about the improper suppression that was permanently incorporated onto this account.
Was this something that the subscriber requested? No. Was this something that the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) adopted for the protected premises? Never. Was this something that provided more safety and security for the protected premises? Of course not.
Then why was this permanent log-only instruction input into this account for test-fail indications and was the subscriber ever made aware of it? One thought is it saves time and money by creating much less work and time by the central station and/or the alarm contractor as both entities do not want to be bothered nor do they want to spend time having to service alarm systems that are unable to communicate with the central station.
In other circumstances, a lot of time would need to be spent on having to perform this task, and equipment may need to be replaced as well. My response is straightforward: if you are not willing to ensure that supervision is being enabled and/or monitored, then you should get out of the alarm and/or central station business, because too much is at stake.
The Dangers of No Central Station Supervision
Coming full circle, suppression conduct is foreseeably dangerous and constitutes a reckless disregard to the safety and security of the subscriber and/or the premises. In furtherance to the aforementioned, I have had many forensic cases and claims where an automated test fail signal, or lack thereof was directed to a log only file and this related to a commercial fire alarm system.
Fast-forward to when an actual fire occurred in the premises, expectantly no fire alarm signal was transmitted to the remote supervising station and the premises was ultimately destroyed because there was no communication path that was able to transmit signals to the central station so that they could notify and dispatch fire authorities to the protected premises.
Under the mandatory minimum requirements of NFPA 72, it requires an automated and supervised test signal on all commercial fire alarm systems and this is and/or has been adopted by either the building and/or fire code in every state of the United States.
Therefore, the act of no supervision constitutes a serious fire code violation. To the extent that you are not supervising an automated test signal on any type of system, this act is dangerous and must never be allowed. In other words, allowing this serious deficiency to exist violates statutory duties in your state and grossly violates nationally recognized industry standards and best practices.
Along those same lines, the emergency can be related to a life safety system, a wireless alarm system, a personal emergency response system, or a burglar alarm system. Certainly, it does not matter what type of system is impaired, the focus is that any foreseeable loss of functionality and how that impacts upon the safety and security of the protected premises and/or the subscriber is what really matters.
Besides audible and/or visual warnings, to the extent that they exist, the central station monitoring supervision function and immediately notifying responsible persons so corrective action can be taken must always be instituted.
In other words, supervision can never be dismissed, excluded or ignored. On the other end of the technical spectrum, a perpetrator’s success or not, in being able to successfully circumvent a security system many times relies on the supervision function not being incorporated and/or not being handled properly relating to a burglarious attack on a protected premises.
Why It Matters
Despite the materiality of supervision, some of the industry has eviscerated what was always considered a core fundamental for all monitored alarm systems such as supervision of an AC failure, a low battery or a fail to test indication.
To the extent that the system can be supervised, but it is not supervised, there is no excusable reason not to correct this issue forthwith. At the same time, the service provider must ask themselves, would any reasonable consumer not want their system supervised? Of course not.
Given that, the decision to supervise, or not supervise, any type of alarm system is really not a choice at all because it creates foreseeable danger to the end user and/or their property. Moreover, when the industry represents that it is providing 24-hour 365-day UL-listed central station alarm monitoring, it means just that, and to suppress detection of a loss of functionality that can be supervised creates needless danger and risk.
Subscribers need to be educated on what the system does and/or does not do. To the extent that material information is not disclosed to the end user, there is no way that they can make informed choices, and certainly, subscribers have a right to know, because it could be the difference between life and death.
https://www.securitysales.com/insights/supervision-never-optional-central-station-monitoring/616855/