We'd need several hundred qualified FPEs (or equal) to fall out of the sky in order to do what you say, as desirable a concept as you present. That and a couple thousand more so we contractors can put them on staff so we can evaluate water supplies and perform hydraulic calculations in accordance with the SFPE White Paper (unless the more recent revs have allowed us to calc systems like we've been doing as an industry since there were calcs).
Instead we have FPE-Plumbing Designer ACTING like FPEs despite being only casually familiar with our industry, codes, standards, materials, etc.- i.e., practicing outside their area of competence. And so we don't just call this PE bashing, I'll point out that contractors evaluating water supplies- and that would be all of us performing calcs based on some flow test, ours or someone elses- need to be aware of lowest tank gradient, the importance of correcting for elevation and other corrections needed to move the data correctly from the test to the floor flange. I have a project where my competitor doing an adjacent building on same site off same main is using a flow test result that is 10 PSI higher than mine, with twice the flow. I've become familiar with the site, water supply, and did a more accurate test than they did, I guess that's the price of being able to sleep at night. glc -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Pinigis Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting Very well said John. This is exactly the approach that we take; we look at the building or project holistically and our fire protection engineers direct the architect, mechanical, electrical, structural, telecom, etc. to ensure coordination and compliance. Paul Pinigis, P.E. Life Safety Department Head Hankins and Anderson Consulting Engineers 4880 Sadler Road Suite 300 Glen Allen, VA 23060 v: (804) 285.4171 f: (804) 217.8520 d:(804) 521-7011 http://www.haengineers.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting Simply put "fire protection" is not seamless. Often enough it's a patchwork of pieces and parts assembled without a clear and common objective. We see this everyday with smoke detectors being installed in unsprinklered elevator hoistways because no one told the alarm engineer that sprinklers had been eliminated by the sprinkler engineer, or fire dampers installed in one hour walls in fully sprinklered buildings because no one told the mechanical engineer. The disconnect with the fire service is yet another example, site planning left to the civil engineer without regard to fire protection needs. What we need are MEPF firms, engineering firms that employ and fully utilize fire protection engineers to look at the big picture, assess, plan, design, coordinate and supervise cost effective and efficient fire protection solutions. If as a fire protection engineer you're simply designing fire alarm or sprinkler systems you are not working to your full potential ! There are firms that provide life safety analysis to provide passive fire protection solutions, often coined working for the "dark side" they nonetheless do what others are not, looking at the big picture. High rise sprinklers in Chicago or San Diego anyone ? So how does the active fire protection community counter this claim, perhaps by long term planning, synergistic value driven engineering. It goes all the way back to codes and standards, how many cycles did it take to recognize sprinklers in fully sprinklered buildings for notification survivability on fire alarm systems ? One stop shopping ladies and gentlemen, one stop shopping. Sincerely John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: another fire - this will be interesting Ron said "(I suspect the savings in mains, hydrants, fire stations, apparatus and firefighters is way more than a wash in fully sprinklered, planned communities than the cost of sprinklering schools)." Were these savings realized? Last I read which was a long time ago there was very little saved on the reduction in the list you provided. They never actually followed through in reducing mains and limiting stations etc. I will certainly say in the macro scale these saving are not being fully realized. Hell we still have fully paid stations in many departments that average < 1 call a day and plenty more that are < 2. As a pay-per-call volunteer I saw more fire than many paid guys in these parts. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [email protected] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 2:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: another fire - this will be interesting Good point so far overlooked. There's also the dubious "saved foundation" success that may have not been worth the risk of going into harm's way. And no one has brought up the environmental advantages of sprinklers--less smoke, less destroyed building materials to dispose of, less dirty water to process and, of course, less water used overall. And the Scottsdale less public money spent on firefighting infrastructure (I suspect the savings in mains, hydrants, fire stations, apparatus and firefighters is way more than a wash in fully sprinklered, planned communities than the cost of sprinklering schools). On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Dave <[email protected]> wrote: > Since we are offering up various thoughts and theories on the general application of sprinklers ..... Regardless of how much egress time is allegedly available or occupant ability to respond or even construction materials & methods - there still is a fire in a building - Presuming we get everyone out safely and that eliminates the 'life safety need for sprinklers' will we then NOT call the fire department to respond?? > > Once there's a fire in a building there is another completely real > life hazard in play - the responding emergency personnel. Some may enter the building and be very close to harm's way and others may respond and have ancillary functions - traffic control, EMS, crowds etc. Regardless of the specifics we can generally agree that a fire in a non-sprinklered building will be larger than the same fire in a sprinklered building. It's not always the fire but medical emergencies or trips & falls that create the threat of harm. The larger the fire the greater its duration and intensity - all of which increase exposure and life safety risk to responders. > > Personally I don't get behind the non-combustible and limited or low > fuel load argument as a valid application of sprinkler omission. Maybe thats just my narrow focus or perhaps its because I've been to alot bigger fires in non-sprinklered buildings than sprinklered buildings. The closer you get to the gun - the bigger the bullet. > > Thanks & Happy New Year > Dave P. > Fireman first and always. > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: > [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY: This email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, nor is it, unless specifically stated, intended to be relied upon by any person or persons other than the individual or entity named above and no warranties or representations are made or intended to persons or entities not named above. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, return this message to the address above and delete all copies. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
