RISE Fire Research. Commissioned by Firemesh. The conclusion was unambiguous.
The Short Answer
Manual sprinkler inspection fails systematically — not because people are irresponsible, but because the system is designed to fail. A third of Norwegian systems carry out no inspection at all. In 73% of cases where sprinklers fail during a fire, the cause is that the system was switched off — a fault that weekly inspection would almost always have caught.
RISE Fire Research concluded in 2019 that automated digital monitoring is the logical solution. Firemesh is built on that conclusion.
What the Research Actually Says — One Level Deeper
The Problem With 52 Inspections a Year
Weekly inspection sounds manageable. In practice it means that one named individual — with all their other responsibilities — must carry out and log a series of checks on a technical system 52 times a year, without missing once.
And when they miss? Nothing happens. No alarm. No notification. No consequence — until there is a fire.
"Since current practice with manual inspection produces such frequent failures, it may be a good idea to make inspection automatic."
— RISE Fire Research, report A19 20412:1 (2019)
The evidence behind that conclusion:
- 33% of Norwegian sprinkler systems carry out no inspection at all (OFAS, 2003)
- 73% of sprinkler failures in fires are caused by the system being switched off (Frank et al., 2013)
- No national overview exists of which systems are actually complying with requirements
- No sanctions for failure to follow up on deficiencies in Norway
Four Prerequisites RISE Identifies for Automated Inspection
The system must cover the critical checkpoints defined in NS-EN 12845 — not just peripheral data.
Redundancy and self-monitoring are a minimum. A monitoring system that goes offline silently provides false confidence.
Designed for property managers, not engineers. Complexity is a reason not to use it.
Push notification to the responsible person and their deputy — immediately, not on next login.
Manual vs. Automated: What You Actually Get
| Aspect | Manual inspection | Automated inspection |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Weekly (in theory) | Continuous |
| Alert time on fault | Up to 7 days | Seconds |
| Documentation | Log book on premises | Digital, searchable, remotely accessible |
| Human error | High risk | Eliminated for digital checkpoints |
| Insurance integration | None automatic | Can be directly linked |
| Sanctions mechanism | Effectively absent in Norway | Can be tied to insurance conditions |
What Automated Inspection Cannot Replace
Two things always require manual inspection
Third-party inspection — a qualified review of the entire system against NS-EN 12845 by an independent party. This cannot be automated away.
Physical inspection of the backflow preventer — requires hands-on inspection and potential replacement. What automation does is ensure the deadline never slips unnoticed.
Two Additional Functions RISE Highlights as Particularly Valuable
Notification to the insurer
If deficiencies are not remedied within set deadlines, the system should automatically notify the insurance company. This creates a real incentive for building owners to act — something the current Norwegian system entirely lacks.
Direct integration with the ESS database (Finance Norway)
ESS is the database where certified inspectors register inspection reports for sprinkler systems. Direct integration gives insurers and supervisory authorities ongoing visibility into system status — without manual reporting.
Who Benefits From Automated Inspection?
No forgotten inspections. Documentation that stands up at audit and in insurance claims.
Ongoing insight into system condition. Grounds for differentiated pricing based on actual history.
Better data to assess the national picture and target inspection resources effectively.
How Firemesh Is Built on This Research
The functional requirements RISE identified in the 2019 report are directly embedded in the Firemesh system:
- Continuous monitoring of critical checkpoints in NS-EN 12845
- Immediate push alerts to the responsible person and designated deputy
- Digital log accessible to inspectors and insurers at any time
- Automatic deadline tracking for backflow preventer inspections and third-party controls
- Insurance integration — unresolved deficiencies are automatically escalated
- ESS integration with Finance Norway's database
This is not an addition to what regulations require. It is what regulations have always required — delivered in a way that actually works in practice.
→ See how Firemesh works in your buildingFrequently Asked Questions
Does automated inspection satisfy NS-EN 12845?
It depends on which checkpoints the system covers and whether documentation meets the standard's requirements. Firemesh is built specifically around these functional requirements.
Can automated inspection replace the annual third-party inspection?
No. The third-party inspection remains a manual process carried out by a qualified independent party. Automated inspection strengthens what happens between those annual reviews.
What is the single most important benefit?
Detecting that the system has been switched off — the most common cause of sprinkler failure in fires — in seconds rather than up to seven days later.
What is the risk of keeping manual inspection?
The statistics answer this: more than half of all systems have faults, and 73% of sprinkler failures in fires are preventable with better processes. Manual inspection in its current form is not delivering those processes reliably.
What does it cost to do nothing?
Potentially: total loss of a building, loss of life, and voided insurance cover. The cost of inaction is not theoretical — the BASA building fire in Tønsberg (2015) is one documented consequence.
Is Firemesh the only automated inspection system in Norway?
Get in touch for a conversation about what Firemesh offers and how it compares to alternative solutions on the market.
Source: RISE Fire Research, report A19 20412:1 "Requirements for inspection and reliability of sprinkler systems", 2019. Commissioned by Firemesh AS by Andreas Sæter Bøe and Christian Sesseng.
