The forum's candor and perspective are sincerely appreciated,
though
you might have difficulty believing I sincerely mean that. For
instance,
I sincerely respect those who fund the Sprinkler Academy.
Which is a weird reference that came to mind, because I see the
Sprinkler
Academy responded before this letter went out.
Regarding "NFPA could and should champion better data collection on
sprinkler system
performance"... what was referred to was...
NFPA asking better questions on its NFIRS (or sequel) existing data
collection system.
One of the secrets to better statistical understanding is simply....
asking better questions.
NFIRS could ask better questions regarding sprinkler system performance,
as well
as ask better questions regarding other parameters from the fire scene.
In fact, NFPA
could make submittal of such data ridiculously easy for the FF and these
data could be
posted via the Net and available for ... at least the NFPA membership to
see as it
updates instantaneously. Who knows, maybe John Hall could get some
summer
interns who can figure out a way to Tweet the data in, and we all could
listen in. Maybe
it would be an interesting enough site that NFPA could sell
advertizements in the margins
because they were getting so many hits. If it improves the fire safety
of our communities,
without collateral damage from the adverts, I am for the consensus
process sharing
more of its valuable information so that we all learn faster.
NFIRS was in place when I was riding backstep. I didn't save any lives. In
fact,
I am pretty sure I didn't do anyone any good while I was in that world, but
it certainly
made me humble and appreciative of the people that do. And it made me
appreciate
the kick in the butt I deserve for not communicating clearly and wasting
people's time.
But while I was not very good as a firefighter, that does NOT mean that
there are
NO fire departments out there qualified to evaluate sprinkler systems. That
statement,
while perhaps true in its attempt to brush a particular hue across an
enormous canvas,
does not encompass the many exceptional, remarkable and outstanding
individual
departments that excel at: sprinklers, fire prevention, cause and origin, in
addition
to good old fashioned manual suppression. Sure, there are a lot of
departments
that are resting on their civil salary laurels, but just as sure, there are
plenty that
are taking fire prevention to building associations, developers and city
planners.
That takes real cojones, or ovaries, to do one's job so well, that you
reduce the
need for your own job function, and you do it anyway because it helps
society.
To say "no" fire departments have qualified individuals to speak on
cause-and-origin
or fire sprinkler performance, when firefighters have seen and breathed more
smoke
and had more black snot come out of their noses (days after a fire) --- than
any of us
every wiped off our kids noses... to say that there are no fire departments
out there
qualified to evaluate the smoking remains of what they themselves were
burning in
and were the few who intimately knew the scene before overhauling and
turning
the pile of ashes over to the investigators. There are plenty of men and
women fighting
structure fires who have forgotten more about fire and ignition than
most of us could dream up in one of our half-baked explanations for an
overpaid and
demoralized litigation, cause-and-origin investigation.
There has been a lot of BS and ten-dollar words that pass for what is called
expert witness testimony
in fire tort. I don't provide expert witness testimony. That is one world
I prefer to stay far, far away -- from except for reading handed-down
decisions and notes from
depositions. but for those individuals that do monetarily leverage
themselves with this system,
they should be required to reveal who pays them (as if it is not painfully
obvious from some
of their tortured explanations) and how much the motivation is. In fact,
the courts should
Tweet these stats. One could also consider rendering fuller disclosure, and
Tweet the
monthly nut of the testifying witnesses... to provide an additional insight
as to the real world
backpressure experienced on the wallet of those sworn to tell the truth, the
whole truth and
nothing but the truth. That or just hire independent panel of experts,
rather than a jury that is
usually so far over their head with the presented evidence, that they vote
on who makes them
feel good.
Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire
What is NCIS and CSI? I don't watch TV, I prefer that other reality:
reading.
P.S. to answer "why do BFV fail so quickly?" the plated butterfly valves
might be experiencing
a "completed" circuit where the axial rod of the blocking plate inserts into
the dissimilar metal
(cast iron?) housing. Perhaps after years of service, at this axial-rod
point-of-contact ...
the plating first rubs off, exposes the underlying substrate metal and
completes the
circuit for galvanic corrosion to start. That or, perhaps the pressures
against the relatively
thin wafer of the BFV creates hairline fractures (same as the hairline
fractures in
21 foot sticks of galvanized pipe) which become the conduit for completing
the galvanic circuit.
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.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)
