I admire your passion for life safety but as Greg pointed out, buildings that were built under previous less restrictive standards aren’t burning down; and what about next code cycle should the codes become more restrictive than they are today. The code development process is constantly evolving; and I’ve learned that sometimes we even rethink what we changed in one code cycle only to return to the old requirement in the next code cycle. Maintain your passion but move on my friend. It’s like trying to find a corner in a round room.
> On Apr 2, 2015, at 5:55 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Thanks for the response. > > I'm not saying the AHJ would turn it down. More along the lines of, 2002 > says yada yada but 2013 say yada yada. Well AHJ is on 2002 and that method > is cheaper anyways so that is the method that is chosen 9 times out of 10. > > But at the end of the day all I think is it was changed in 2013 for a reason, > is it right to ignore that. Because I'm sure that same decision is made > everyday with everyone competing for jobs. But is it really the right > thing...safety should be number 1 priority right. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Apr 2, 2015, at 5:47 PM, Galen Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I recommend you submit to the AHJ an alternate means & methods proposal in >> accordance Fire Code 104.9 and include the current NFPA standard. Your >> proposal would clearly explain why the requirements of the new standard are >> superior to the existing standard. I can’t imagine any AHJ denying your >> request on the basis of superior prescriptive standard. On the outside >> chance they do not approve your request, then simply appeal up the >> chain-of-command. >> >> >> >>> On Apr 2, 2015, at 5:11 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> I'm sorry for my grammar and autocorrect as this is coming from my phone. >>> >>> How does the forum feel about ignoring the more stringent requirements of >>> the most current NFPA standards all because the AHJ hasn't adopted the >>> latest year? As the standards have evolved with each new addition, they >>> typically try to clarify murky wording of past standards, expand on topics, >>> or add/change requirements based on the latest and greatest tests. So >>> should we be purposely designing and installing and inferior product that >>> more times than not is less safe just because the AHJ hasn't adopted the >>> latest design guidelines. I've heard sometimes the AHJ doesn't adopt the >>> new standard simply due to the financial impact of republishing their >>> amendments and not merely because they don't agree. To me it seems >>> morally/ethically wrong but I may just be on my high horse today. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
