Mark:
More than what needs to stop, is that good judgment needs to start. The FM isright, in that approved plans are no guarantee that the jurisdiction won't come back in and make a new decision. It just is not good for business, doing business this way. The onus is however, now (and always has been) to prove rationally how your concealed space is non-complying. On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:19 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I have this exact situation with a Fire Marshal in Washoe County Nevada > right now and have experienced item by item the bias of a lone authority > you describe. I find your rant to be both informative and strangely > comforting. > > We submitted plans sealed by a Fire Protection Engineer registered in her > state at her requirement. She reviewed and approved the plans, and her > inspectors inspected and approved the installation. Six months later she > now contends that the "concealed space", by her "interpretation", isn't > truly a concealed space and should have sprinklers installed. > This needs to stop! > > Mark at Aero > 602 820-7894 > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 30, 2015, at 5:07 PM, "å... ...." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2x4 trusses are a different combustible than the kraft paper. > > Put a match to the kraft paper when vertical, and a fire will likely > grow. > > Put a match to almost any 2x4 and almost always -- not a problem. > > > > That is why 2x4's are allowed in combustible construction, while paper > with > > del H,c > 1,000 BTU/sq. ft was not intended, generally, to be allowed > > there. However, kraft paper in the horizontal direction, with blown in > > insulation over it, won't burn even if it has a heat of combustion > greater > > than 1,000 BTU/lb. There is not enough oxygen. > > > > > > This is a compelling question. The answer to the question involves, if > > one allows such thing, rational thinking that extends beyond the pure > > prescriptions and solicits a solution that may not have been originally > > conceived, but nonetheless a solution in compliance with the intent of > the > > Standard. The Standard is -- to protect to a reasonable degree: life, > > property and the environment. The word "reasonable" is left undefined, > so > > that "what is reasonable" may be interpreted by us, using judgment, > > subject to the risk tolerance level at each time and situation of > > application. A small risk such as we discuss here, may not be tolerable > in > > the MCCA of Boston, but it might well be tolerable in Westwood, CA. > > > > > > I think better decisions are made by "we", we being large samples of > > stakeholders with moderate-to-in-depth knowledge of the subject. It is > > realized that there may be prescriptive purists that reason kraft paper > > should be removed barring del Hc testing. While the AHJ is the final > > decision, that does not mean we have acquired the best judgment. There > is > > a danger in allowing one individual to make important decisions for > several > > reasons: > > > > 1. the individual may hold an "unreasonable" view in a particular > subject > > (where "reasonable" iz determined from the opinions of a crowd of > > knowledgeable and interested persons, including the building users-- whom > > normally are externalized to the risks we "experts" impose on them) > > 2. the individual may be under the influence of coin, > > 4. the individual may have allegiance to friends > > 5. the individual may be risk averse, being close to retirement. > > 6. the individual may be risk friendly, being close to death. > > 7. the truth may be too messy to be neatly packaged, and an overly > > simplified decision ensues, > > > > > > I believe most difficult-to-package questions are solved better using > group > > think and open voting, not just because the open debate lifts the > curtain > > enshrouding the Wizards-of-Oz, exposing weaknesses in expert[2] and > novice > > opinions alike, but because open group think is proven to be a highly (if > > not the most) accurate method [1] of assessing sticky risk assessments > > where prescribed, answers are all-but-impossible to achieve and where > > probably *not *everyone will be satisfied with the answer. Also, the > very > > process of an open-debate-and-decision process can sharpen the judgment > of > > curious future decision makers whom are cutting-their-teeth in risk > > assessment and mitigation. > > > > We benefit from open debate; a good critic is a terrible thing to waste. > > > > > > Scot Deal > > Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering > > [email protected] > > > > > > [1] Tetlock, P., Gardner, D,, "Superforecasting: the Art and Science of > > Prediction. 29 Sept 2015. > > [2] Voeten,E.; Dart Throwing Chimps and Op-Eds, http://goo.gl/OA4GDm > > 2nd-to-last and last paragraph. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Amo a los que puede sonreír a sus problemas, que puede tomar fuerzas de sus angustias, y crecer valiente entre reflejo. Es el negocio de las mentes pequeñas a disminuir, pero cuyo corazón está firme, y cuya conciencia aprueba su conducta, continuarán sus principios hasta la muerte - da vinci Scot Deal MSc Fire Protection Engineer/BSc Chemical Engineering Chartered Engineer EU Schengen Chartered Chemical Engineer, Engineers Australia Licensed Fire Protection Engineer, Oman & UAE Chemical Engineer, Alberta, CA FPE/PE USA gsm: +420 728 639 184 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
