Scantronic 9651 - Engineer code guard feature

[mel]

(Apologies to those who have seen this post already. I realised that I had posed it on the wrong board.)

 

Hi,

 

I'm looking to purchase an alarm system.

 

Currently my short list of panels are:-

Texecom VERITAS EXCEL

ADE Accenta Mini Gen4

Scantronic 9651

 

I was hedging on towards the 9651 until I read about a 'engineer code guard feature' that doesn't seem to work.

Here is the link where I stumbled across this issue. Sorry it's a bit long, but towards the end of the page they say that it is a software problem although not openly admitted by the manufacturer.

http://www.thesecurityinstaller.co.uk/community/lofiversion/index.php?t24279-0.html

 

I suppose one can always change the default engineers code to avoid that situation.

 

Are you able to confirm that the units supplied by your selves does not have this problem?

 

Are there any other panels you can recommend in the same price range as those listed above?

[Secware_Tech6]

The above issue only arises if a the the engineer code is known, and if user permission to enter engineers is disabled. By default the panel does not do this as you need to enable engineer access before the code will function.

 

But for non EN jobs id recommend the honeywell panel.

 

Support

[mel]

Thanks for a very prompt response.

 

If I understood that thread correctly, I think THAT was the whole problem. An engineer on that same thread experimented with a brand new panel and found that it was not possible to disable engineers access.

 

Is there an advantage of wiring FSL over CC, apart from the obvious of using less wires?

[Secware_Tech6]

on en panels the default is to require a user code to give an engineer permission to access the panel. This can be disabled. If disabled then the panel will do as you describe. If not then it wont. But if your concerned avoid the 9651 for now.

 

FSL is far more secure and allows both alarm and tamper to be sent of a single pair of wires, where as cc requires 2 pairs.

[phlize]

Hello,

I've just bought a Scantronic  9651EN-41 (9651 c/w 9941 rkp) from you and this thread has me worried a bit.

You recommend a Honeywell for non EN jobs - what's an EN job??

Has the software issue been resolved?

Do I need to worry about it anyway?

I haven't yet fitted it - it is to replace a 10 yr old Menvier TSD 402 that has gone on the blink but I notice the wiring of PIRs etc isn't like it used to be  - I guess with the advent of microprocessors the flexible programming of zones is easier rather than defining specific PA, Entry/exit etc. connections.

[Secware_Tech6]

if you dont disable high security engineer access then its not a problem as the engineer code wont work without a valid user code either set or unset. Its a good idea not to disable this feature anyway.

 

My reasoning for honeywell or texecom for most jobs is because they are easier to work on. The texecom manuals are the best out there.

[phlize]

"if you dont disable high security engineer access then its not a problem as the engineer code wont work without a valid user code either set or unset. Its a good idea not to disable this feature anyway.

My reasoning for honeywell or texecom for most jobs is because they are easier to work on. The texecom manuals are the best out there."

 

Many thanks - a further hour or two with the manual and I now understand!!

Yes, the Scantronic manual at 84 pages is a bit daunting!! It doesn't help when they refer to the 'installer' and the 'engineer' as though these have different user profiles when in fact it seems they are one & the same!

I've been through the manual and, interestingly, find that although the index lists ''Guard Code" as being on page 40, page 40 makes no mention of it.

Page 40 does detail the procedure for changing the engineer code, programming command 20, and this is something I would expect installers would normally do. Only on reading the User Guide did I find any mention of having to input the User Code prior to inputting the engineer code - Special functions, Option 3.  - but no mention of Factory default condition!! Not helpful.