PAS-ing
the Buck
Plenty
has been written about PAS 024 in recent months, but Gretsch-Unitas
UK managing director Paul Gerrard believes much of it has been unhelpful
and often inaccurate. Here he explains why...
An
air of confusion has surrounded the industry lately, mainly due to the
amount of misleading comment being made in relation to PAS 024 and the
perceived strengths and weaknesses of the standard.
Let me start by saying that I welcome any standard that improves quality
and reduces risk, but at the moment I do not believe PAS024 is satisfactorily
achieving what it set out to do and is in urgent need of revision.
The standard itself relates to the 'enhanced' security performance requirements
for door assemblies, and the testing process subjects the doorset to
a variety of manual intervention, mechanical loading and hard and soft
body impact tests.
But, in my opinion, the bar has been set too low - allowing far too
many products of a sub-standard level to gain accreditation. Perhaps
the fact that the standard is not as robust as it could be is unsurprising.
After all, the standard was compiled by manufacturers, for manufacturers
with input from Secured By Design.
The result is a standard that, frankly, has become one of convenience,
allowing products of almost any standard to meet the bar. But I must
stress that the standard is not a complete write-off. On the contrary,
the standard is actually strong in many areas, albeit with the notable
exception of locking - which some might say is perhaps the most important
area of all!
One of the main weaknesses with PAS 024 is that the level of testing
doorsets are subjected to is not as rigorous as it might be.
Manual attack testing
Much
of the testing for PAS 024 is rig-based static tests taking place at
approved centres throughout the UK. Whilst this undoubtedly has its
place, it is in many ways only a rudimentary assessment that focuses
on brute force and ignorance rather than any degree of skill.
For my money that means more emphasis needs to be placed on manual attack
test methods that use skill, initiative and an understanding of how
locks work to identify weaknesses - after all, criminals do not read
security standards, they just look to exploit problems where they exist.
As things stand, doorsets tested for PAS 024 are only subjected to very
basic manual scrutiny, using inappropriate tools and practices that
do not reflect modern crime techniques.
This again might not come as a huge surprise to everyone. After all,
those sitting on the standards committee have a vested interest in ensuring
that the standard is as achievable as possible without compromising
manufacturing costs.
And whilst Secured By Design - established by the Association of Chief
Police Officers - may want to improve standards, if the other members
do not there's absolutely nothing they can do about it.
If the quality of the standard was really to be driven up, I believe
PAS 024 should include many of the manual attack methods advocated by
Sold Secure, an organisation which is now wholly owned by the Master
Locksmith Association.
What makes Sold Secure's techniques different is that all attack testing
is carried out by Master Locksmiths using real tools, skill and knowledge
that accurately replicates actual criminal methods - and as an industry
we should be drawing upon that expertise.
After all, the key to any standard is ensuring that specifiers have
full confidence in the products that they are recommending. They need
to have an accurate picture of what products are capable of doing the
job and what aren't, and that means it's imperative that the standards
are tested using the best available methods.
Not all manufacturers are resting on their laurels though. In response
to what we perceive to be inherent weaknesses with PAS 024, Gretsch-Unitas
has ensured that many of our products comply with the Dutch standard
NEN 5098 - viewed by many to be one of the best around.
Certified by the SKG National Institute, products that meet the standard
(which incidentally exceeds PAS 024 loadings by 34%) are easily identifiable
because the institute allows manufacturers to stamp hardware with the
SKG logo.
NEN 5098 is held in such high regard because, unlike in the UK, Dutch
law has required the use of anti-theft doors and windows for some years.
The Dutch Institute grants the SKG mark with the indication of the class
after carrying out rigurous tests - including manual attack tests -
on the complete door and window sets.
The
future
As with all standards though, nothing stays the same for long, and it
looks increasingly likely that PAS 024 could soon be replaced by a new
pan-European standard known as prENs1627-30.
It is hoped that this will create a level playing field across Europe
and we believe that the inclusion of manual attack tests in the European
standard will serve to highlight potential vulnerable areas that will
enable the industry to stay one step ahead of the game.
But, so far, attempts to introduce the new European standard have been
blocked by many manufacturers. It's easy to surmise that this is because
they are concerned that the standard, and the tests methods it draws
upon, will highlight fundamental flaws with their products.
As a company Gretsch-Unitas supports any legislation or guidance that
improves standards and quality. After all, we're justifiably proud of
the time and effort we dedicate to research and development to ensure
that our products are of the very highest order.
But others must also now raise their game and do more to protect the
people who really matter - end users - from sub-standard products that
could ultimately put them and their families at risk.
That means manufacturers must take responsibility for ensuring that
their products are genuinely as good as they possibly can be. They must
realise that standards are only the lowest common denominator that they
must seek to achieve. And when a standard is in place, it is then there
to be surpassed and improved upon.