I had been thinking about a similar issue, but in the reverse. Is there any evidence that Light Hazard and Ordinary Hazard pipe schedule systems (with the appropriate water supply requirements per NFPA 13) do not provide adequate protection to their occupancies? If there isn't, why do we limit their application? There might be situations, such as complex attics, where a PS system may be more economical that a hydraulically calculated one. Why are we limited to 5000 sqft, yada, yada, yada?
Sent from my iPad > On Apr 2, 2015, at 8:11 PM, <[email protected]> <[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
