Re: Improving the process

[Bruce Verhei]

Roland

ICC certification process.  It may be better than nothing. I don’t do well in 
hard chairs. Last one I took was 2 x 2 hour sessions. It took me about 1:30 for 
each, including re-check of first answers. You need to know nothing about how 
fire behavior, contribution of contents and structure, containment, detection 
and control or suppression, how people tend to act, or more advanced ideas as 
cueing, 

You do need moderate reading class comprehension skills, and some ability to 
follow the outline formats used in code and standard land.

But people do fail, and some need to study to pass, so I guess it’s better than 
nothing. I guess I studied too. Mine was just a couple hours at home a week on 
a the couch. That’s all the time though. How else do you keep current? 

Best.

Bruce Verhei 


> On Sep 28, 2018, at 07:31, Roland Huggins  wrote:
> 
> BULLSEYE.  IF I could make Mark KING for the day, my advice would be:
> 
> IF engineering doc's identified the design basis for all portions of the 
> building, identified the available water supply, and whether said water 
> supply was  adequate (aka does the building need a pump) then get the hell 
> out of the way.  Well also ID if they have specials requirements such as the 
> sprinklers being used with glass for a rated portion and the glass assembly 
> is way beyond the listing.  If memory serves, this is effectively what the 
> SFPE white paper says (give or take a bit)
> 
> The Owner’s Certification is a good start.  It BTW now includes identifying 
> the water supply as of the newly released 2019 ed.  Unfortunately, this 
> certificate is not being applied.  If we could work with the AHJ community 
> and get it applied ACROSS THE BOARD, though it will be a painful transition, 
> it would be worth it.  Individually this can’t be accomplished since it’s one 
> more thing to do (aka a pain) and the owners / GC won’t rehire individuals 
> that cause pain.
> 
> IF AHJ’s had to show competency would be a huge step forward.  ICC has 
> certification programs for AHJs.  The Code program is heavily used by 
> building code officials but the sprinkler program is virtually extinct, 
> almost zero AHJ’s.  The AHJ is our safety net to catch the bad installations. 
>  There are some goods one (such as on our Forum) but overall a huge hole in 
> the net.  The ICC is considering dropping this program.  I told them unless 
> it becomes a code requirement (similar to the NICET III on contractors), 
> nothing will change.
> 
> I’d sure appreciate some private input on starting a push for actually 
> requiring submittal of the Owner’s Certificate (yea, I Know it is already 
> identified in chapter 23 for submittal).  Contractor’s: tell me should we 
> push it.  AHJ’s: tell me how to reach the masses within your clan.
> 
> Roland
> 
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
> Dallas, TX
> http://www.firesprinkler.org
> 
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2018, at 6:56 AM, Mark.Phelps  wrote:
>> 
>> John, 
>> I agree with you at least 99% with a small reservation for the unique 
>> situations where things like a retail occupancy (think auto parts store) has 
>> 12 feet of rack storage for tires. Someone in the system needs to be 
>> responsible (and be financially responsible, E) for the outcome. And by 
>> “in the system”, I mean designers, installers, plan reviewers, inspectors,  
>> and AHJ’s. Present company excluded, there are scads of “AHJ’s” across our 
>> great country who are the least qualified in this group of five. I will 
>> suggest that a grand solution to the situation could be recognized by the 
>> following changes. 
>> 1) NFPA 13 should be restricted in its scope to the actual title of the 
>> Pamplet “Installation of a Sprinkler System”. Emphasis on INSTALLATION!
>> 2) A new NFPA standard should be established for the DESIGN of a Sprinkler 
>> System. Call it NFPA 64,000, and limit it to the design basis only but also 
>> establish the bulk of the content as Prescriptive Design, (if this, then 
>> this) and clearly define the line between Prescriptive Design and 
>> Engineering Design. 
>> 3) Go to the schools that offer FPE degrees and improve the curriculum to 
>> include Sprinkler System Design  and passive fire protection design for a 
>> broad array of applications and occupancies. 
>> 4) AHJ’s must be regulated to avoid having unqualified, or under-qualified 
>> individuals “reviewing and approving” the work of highly qualified Designers 
>> and Engineers.
>> Could any or all of this be implemented, or are we all just too closed 
>> minded to “ the way we’ve always done it”?
>> 
>> Mark at Aero
>> 602 820-7894
>> 
>>> On Sep 28, 2018, at 3:27 AM, John Drucker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It’s a joke, most AHJs know that the NICET techs are doing the heavy lift 
>>> and the PE swoops in at the 11th hour affixes the signature and seal and 
>>> collects their $ 500. Lets just stop this charade 

Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: FPE / SFPE

[Ron Greenman]

I have difficulty being offered but I like the idea of Roland buying me a
drink. If need be then I’ll rise to the appropriate level of indignation.
Scott’s easy. I know I can get him to buy me a drink. See you all soon.

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:15 AM Scott Futrell  wrote:

> Hmmm...Hello Ray. Long time no see.
>
> I would encourage you to join and become involved. There are many many
> offerings from SFPE for FPE's in engineering. We aren't poaching others,
> but as has been pointed out there aren't enough FPE's as it is.  If others
> are going to specify 'fire protection systems' regardless of sprinkler,
> pump, explosion suppression, fire alarm, performance-based design, special
> hazard, doors, windows, exposure protection, etc. then it wouldn't it be a
> great thing for the Society of Fire Protection Engineers to offer
> education, and they do.  There are a variety of FPE classes in Nashville in
> October, and more across the country after that.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood your post, but if not, please check out the website
> and volunteer.
>
> I'm done Roland.
>
> Scott
>
> Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
> Cell: (612) 759-5556
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Schmid,
> Raymond P (Ray) CIV USARMY CESPK (US)
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 12:56 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: FPE / SFPE
>
> I'm with Roland on this one.  I always thought SFPE, among other things,
> was supposed to PROMOTE the field of fire protection engineering, not
> encourage other disciplines to poach our clients.  Remember, there is more
> to the field of FPE than sprinklers and fire pumps.
>
> Ain't no way I'm paying for a membership when they let this sh** go on.
>
>
> Ray Schmid, PE
> Fire Protection Engineer
> DVA Regional Technical Support Branch
> U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento
> (602) 230-6882
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland
> Huggins
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:21 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: FPE / SFPE
>
> The issue of unqualified engineers is an old song and dance that I don’t
> want to resurrect but this is a different nuance.  I hope it doesn’t flare
> into a drawn out discussion but one reply on this thread then if you wish
> to discuss further, it’ll have to be over drinks.
>
> I never said they didn’t OFFER training.  I said they blissfully ACCEPT
> engineers practicing outside their field of expertise with no
> repercussions.  This all stemmed from the development of the SFPE white
> paper on whether sprinkler design was engineering (which I was actively
> involved with).  How can one insist that an engineer be the only one that
> can do something while the other hand ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 90+ %  of the
> involved engineers are practicing outside their field of expertise?  This
> spun me up.  Now combine that with the sprinkler contractors in a state
> attempting to report unqualified engineers to the Board of Registration and
> the local SFPE chapter saying lets not flood the Board with every possible
> complaint so we’ll help pare it down (GREAT IDEA and effort).  When I was
> told that the National SFPE organization told them to cease and desist such
> activities, I lost it.  And they lost my membership.
>
> If you’re still offended, I’ll buy you two drinks to help overcome your
> misguided offense.  If you have something that counters the subject of my
> statement, I’d love to hear it.  IF you simple want to debate it, let’s do
> it off forum please.
>
> FYI for the Forum - Scott and I are buds and have known each other a long
> time.
>
> Roland
>
>
> Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
>
> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
>
> Dallas, TX
>
> Blockedhttp://www.firesprinkler.org http://www.firesprinkler.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Scott Futrell   > wrote:
>
> Note that I changed the subject.
> I believe I’m offended now, my friend.
> SFPE’s Sprinkler Design for Engineers Class is specifically
> targeting the engineers that aren’t FPE’s. It is a thirty-two hour class
> that is written and taught by incredibly talented individuals (Mr. Denhardt
> and Mr. Scandaliato that most of you know well, to name two) and has been
> available for over 15 years now. The class content is based upon the
> current edition of NFPA 13 and NFPA 20 and goes from writing
> specifications; to taking flow tests; teaching them hydraulic calculations,
> by hand; working with pump specifications; spending a great deal of time on
> hazard classification and why it isn’t just pick it out of the Annex; and
> presenting new technologies direct from manufacturers at every class.
> I can’t do much about hiring 

RE: Improving the process

[Steele, Andrew]

I would suggest that the best way forward for universal application would be 
for AFSA (or anyone) to submit code change proposal for the ICC Building Code.  
The proposal would be to add a specific code requirement for the Owner 
Certificate.   This would fit nicely into ICC Building Code section (F)903.3, 
which currently says  “Installation Requirements. Automatic sprinkler systems 
shall be designed and installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1 thorough 
903.3.8.  (which mostly refer into NFPA #13).

Andrew Steele



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:32 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Improving the process

BULLSEYE.  IF I could make Mark KING for the day, my advice would be:

IF engineering doc's identified the design basis for all portions of the 
building, identified the available water supply, and whether said water supply 
was  adequate (aka does the building need a pump) then get the hell out of the 
way.  Well also ID if they have specials requirements such as the sprinklers 
being used with glass for a rated portion and the glass assembly is way beyond 
the listing.  If memory serves, this is effectively what the SFPE white paper 
says (give or take a bit)

The Owner’s Certification is a good start.  It BTW now includes identifying the 
water supply as of the newly released 2019 ed.  Unfortunately, this certificate 
is not being applied.  If we could work with the AHJ community and get it 
applied ACROSS THE BOARD, though it will be a painful transition, it would be 
worth it.  Individually this can’t be accomplished since it’s one more thing to 
do (aka a pain) and the owners / GC won’t rehire individuals that cause pain.

IF AHJ’s had to show competency would be a huge step forward.  ICC has 
certification programs for AHJs.  The Code program is heavily used by building 
code officials but the sprinkler program is virtually extinct, almost zero 
AHJ’s.  The AHJ is our safety net to catch the bad installations.  There are 
some goods one (such as on our Forum) but overall a huge hole in the net.  The 
ICC is considering dropping this program.  I told them unless it becomes a code 
requirement (similar to the NICET III on contractors), nothing will change.

I’d sure appreciate some private input on starting a push for actually 
requiring submittal of the Owner’s Certificate (yea, I Know it is already 
identified in chapter 23 for submittal).  Contractor’s: tell me should we push 
it.  AHJ’s: tell me how to reach the masses within your clan.

Roland

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives




On Sep 28, 2018, at 6:56 AM, Mark.Phelps 
mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>> wrote:

John,
I agree with you at least 99% with a small reservation for the unique 
situations where things like a retail occupancy (think auto parts store) has 12 
feet of rack storage for tires. Someone in the system needs to be responsible 
(and be financially responsible, E) for the outcome. And by “in the system”, 
I mean designers, installers, plan reviewers, inspectors,  and AHJ’s. Present 
company excluded, there are scads of “AHJ’s” across our great country who are 
the least qualified in this group of five. I will suggest that a grand solution 
to the situation could be recognized by the following changes.
1) NFPA 13 should be restricted in its scope to the actual title of the Pamplet 
“Installation of a Sprinkler System”. Emphasis on INSTALLATION!
2) A new NFPA standard should be established for the DESIGN of a Sprinkler 
System. Call it NFPA 64,000, and limit it to the design basis only but also 
establish the bulk of the content as Prescriptive Design, (if this, then this) 
and clearly define the line between Prescriptive Design and Engineering Design.
3) Go to the schools that offer FPE degrees and improve the curriculum to 
include Sprinkler System Design  and passive fire protection design for a broad 
array of applications and occupancies.
4) AHJ’s must be regulated to avoid having unqualified, or under-qualified 
individuals “reviewing and approving” the work of highly qualified Designers 
and Engineers.
Could any or all of this be implemented, or are we all just too closed minded 
to “ the way we’ve always done it”?

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

On Sep 28, 2018, at 3:27 AM, John Drucker 
mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net>> wrote:
It’s a joke, most AHJs know that the NICET techs are doing the heavy lift and 
the PE swoops in at the 11th hour affixes the signature and seal and collects 
their $ 500. Lets just stop this charade and recognize the NICET techs. The 
principal engineer/architect of record simply review for conformance, ie how 
the sprinkler system plays nicely with the building, correct code references, 
issues the review letter avoiding the paid 

RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: FPE / SFPE

[Scott Futrell]

Hmmm...Hello Ray. Long time no see.

I would encourage you to join and become involved. There are many many 
offerings from SFPE for FPE's in engineering. We aren't poaching others, but as 
has been pointed out there aren't enough FPE's as it is.  If others are going 
to specify 'fire protection systems' regardless of sprinkler, pump, explosion 
suppression, fire alarm, performance-based design, special hazard, doors, 
windows, exposure protection, etc. then it wouldn't it be a great thing for the 
Society of Fire Protection Engineers to offer education, and they do.  There 
are a variety of FPE classes in Nashville in October, and more across the 
country after that.

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but if not, please check out the website and 
volunteer.

I'm done Roland.

Scott
 
Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Schmid, Raymond P (Ray) CIV USARMY CESPK (US)
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 12:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: FPE / SFPE

I'm with Roland on this one.  I always thought SFPE, among other things, was 
supposed to PROMOTE the field of fire protection engineering, not encourage 
other disciplines to poach our clients.  Remember, there is more to the field 
of FPE than sprinklers and fire pumps.

Ain't no way I'm paying for a membership when they let this sh** go on.


Ray Schmid, PE
Fire Protection Engineer
DVA Regional Technical Support Branch
U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento
(602) 230-6882

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: FPE / SFPE

The issue of unqualified engineers is an old song and dance that I don’t want 
to resurrect but this is a different nuance.  I hope it doesn’t flare into a 
drawn out discussion but one reply on this thread then if you wish to discuss 
further, it’ll have to be over drinks.  

I never said they didn’t OFFER training.  I said they blissfully ACCEPT 
engineers practicing outside their field of expertise with no repercussions.  
This all stemmed from the development of the SFPE white paper on whether 
sprinkler design was engineering (which I was actively involved with).  How can 
one insist that an engineer be the only one that can do something while the 
other hand ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 90+ %  of the involved engineers are practicing 
outside their field of expertise?  This spun me up.  Now combine that with the 
sprinkler contractors in a state attempting to report unqualified engineers to 
the Board of Registration and the local SFPE chapter saying lets not flood the 
Board with every possible complaint so we’ll help pare it down (GREAT IDEA and 
effort).  When I was told that the National SFPE organization told them to 
cease and desist such activities, I lost it.  And they lost my membership.

If you’re still offended, I’ll buy you two drinks to help overcome your 
misguided offense.  If you have something that counters the subject of my 
statement, I’d love to hear it.  IF you simple want to debate it, let’s do it 
off forum please.  

FYI for the Forum - Scott and I are buds and have known each other a long time.

Roland


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

Blockedhttp://www.firesprinkler.org http://www.firesprinkler.org/> 




Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives





On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Scott Futrell mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com> > wrote:

Note that I changed the subject.
I believe I’m offended now, my friend.
SFPE’s Sprinkler Design for Engineers Class is specifically targeting 
the engineers that aren’t FPE’s. It is a thirty-two hour class that is written 
and taught by incredibly talented individuals (Mr. Denhardt and Mr. Scandaliato 
that most of you know well, to name two) and has been available for over 15 
years now. The class content is based upon the current edition of NFPA 13 and 
NFPA 20 and goes from writing specifications; to taking flow tests; teaching 
them hydraulic calculations, by hand; working with pump specifications; 
spending a great deal of time on hazard classification and why it isn’t just 
pick it out of the Annex; and presenting new technologies direct from 
manufacturers at every class.
I can’t do much about hiring FPE’s, but can tell you that there are 
openings for about 300 FPE’s so there aren’t that many around to start with.
This class is open to, and attended by PE’s, sprinkler designers, and 
AHJ’s, and again, the class teaches them what they should be specifying and 
reviewing and how to do it.
 
Scott Futrell, PE, FSFPE, SET, CWBSD
 
Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556
   

RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: FPE / SFPE

[Schmid, Raymond P (Ray) CIV USARMY CESPK (US)]

I'm with Roland on this one.  I always thought SFPE, among other things, was 
supposed to PROMOTE the field of fire protection engineering, not encourage 
other disciplines to poach our clients.  Remember, there is more to the field 
of FPE than sprinklers and fire pumps.

Ain't no way I'm paying for a membership when they let this sh** go on.


Ray Schmid, PE
Fire Protection Engineer
DVA Regional Technical Support Branch
U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento
(602) 230-6882

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: FPE / SFPE

The issue of unqualified engineers is an old song and dance that I don’t want 
to resurrect but this is a different nuance.  I hope it doesn’t flare into a 
drawn out discussion but one reply on this thread then if you wish to discuss 
further, it’ll have to be over drinks.  

I never said they didn’t OFFER training.  I said they blissfully ACCEPT 
engineers practicing outside their field of expertise with no repercussions.  
This all stemmed from the development of the SFPE white paper on whether 
sprinkler design was engineering (which I was actively involved with).  How can 
one insist that an engineer be the only one that can do something while the 
other hand ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 90+ %  of the involved engineers are practicing 
outside their field of expertise?  This spun me up.  Now combine that with the 
sprinkler contractors in a state attempting to report unqualified engineers to 
the Board of Registration and the local SFPE chapter saying lets not flood the 
Board with every possible complaint so we’ll help pare it down (GREAT IDEA and 
effort).  When I was told that the National SFPE organization told them to 
cease and desist such activities, I lost it.  And they lost my membership.

If you’re still offended, I’ll buy you two drinks to help overcome your 
misguided offense.  If you have something that counters the subject of my 
statement, I’d love to hear it.  IF you simple want to debate it, let’s do it 
off forum please.  

FYI for the Forum - Scott and I are buds and have known each other a long time.

Roland


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

Blockedhttp://www.firesprinkler.org http://www.firesprinkler.org/> 




Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives





On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Scott Futrell mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com> > wrote:

Note that I changed the subject.
I believe I’m offended now, my friend.
SFPE’s Sprinkler Design for Engineers Class is specifically targeting 
the engineers that aren’t FPE’s. It is a thirty-two hour class that is written 
and taught by incredibly talented individuals (Mr. Denhardt and Mr. Scandaliato 
that most of you know well, to name two) and has been available for over 15 
years now. The class content is based upon the current edition of NFPA 13 and 
NFPA 20 and goes from writing specifications; to taking flow tests; teaching 
them hydraulic calculations, by hand; working with pump specifications; 
spending a great deal of time on hazard classification and why it isn’t just 
pick it out of the Annex; and presenting new technologies direct from 
manufacturers at every class.
I can’t do much about hiring FPE’s, but can tell you that there are 
openings for about 300 FPE’s so there aren’t that many around to start with.
This class is open to, and attended by PE’s, sprinkler designers, and 
AHJ’s, and again, the class teaches them what they should be specifying and 
reviewing and how to do it.
 
Scott Futrell, PE, FSFPE, SET, CWBSD
 
Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556
 
From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland 
Huggins
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:33 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
 
Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows.
 
And the SFPE blissfully (and intentionally) ignores this well known 
fact.  That’s why I dropped my membership with them over a decade ago.
 
 
Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
Blockedhttp://www.firesprinkler.org 
http://www.firesprinkler.org/> 
 
Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
 

 



On Sep 25, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> > wrote:
 
Unfortunately out here, no one hires independent FPEs to 
prepare specs. They are all part of larger firms and quite a few of their 
engineers are plumbers with a copy of 13. 

Todd G Williams, PE

 

RE: FPE / SFPE

[Mark Eckard]

Yep, lets be offended and raise the drink minimum (just not high enough to
hurt Monday morning.) gotta be awake for presentations on Monday morning.



Thank You



*Mark E. Eckard SET*

*Fire Protection Services, LLC*

2126 US Hwy. 41 North

Perry, GA 31069

Office: 478-987-7319 (Perry) or (770) 702-0965 (Metro Atlanta)

Mobile: 478-244-6653

SYL-216



*From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
Behalf Of *John Drucker
*Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2018 6:23 AM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org;
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* Re: FPE / SFPE



It’s a joke, most AHJs know that the NICET techs are doing the heavy lift
and the PE swoops in at the 11th hour affixes the signature and seal and
collects their $ 500. Lets just stop this charade and recognize the NICET
techs. The principal engineer/architect of record simply review for
conformance, ie how the sprinkler system plays nicely with the building,
correct code references, issues the review letter avoiding the paid by the
page deal that’s going on.



John Drucker
--

*From:* Sprinklerforum  on
behalf of Steve Leyton 
*Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:29:49 PM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* RE: FPE / SFPE



I’m offended too – Sunday night.   Though I’m presenting Monday so two
drinks is the limit.



*From:* Sprinklerforum [
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
] *On Behalf Of *Pete Schwab
*Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:28 PM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* RE: FPE / SFPE



I’m offended. See you Saturday night





*From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
Behalf Of *Roland Huggins
*Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:21 PM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* Re: FPE / SFPE



The issue of unqualified engineers is an old song and dance that I don’t
want to resurrect but this is a different nuance.  I hope it doesn’t flare
into a drawn out discussion but one reply on this thread then if you wish
to discuss further, it’ll have to be over drinks.



I never said they didn’t OFFER training.  I said they blissfully ACCEPT
engineers practicing outside their field of expertise with no
repercussions.  This all stemmed from the development of the SFPE white
paper on whether sprinkler design was engineering (which I was actively
involved with).  How can one insist that an engineer be the only one that
can do something while the other hand ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 90+ %  of the
involved engineers are practicing outside their field of expertise?  This
spun me up.  Now combine that with the sprinkler contractors in a state
attempting to report unqualified engineers to the Board of Registration and
the local SFPE chapter saying lets not flood the Board with every possible
complaint so we’ll help pare it down (GREAT IDEA and effort).  When I was
told that the National SFPE organization told them to cease and desist such
activities, I lost it.  And they lost my membership.



If you’re still offended, I’ll buy you two drinks to help overcome your
misguided offense.  If you have something that counters the subject of my
statement, I’d love to hear it.  IF you simple want to debate it, let’s do
it off forum please.



FYI for the Forum - Scott and I are buds and have known each other a long
time.



Roland



Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

http://www.firesprinkler.org



Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives







On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Scott Futrell  wrote:



Note that I changed the subject.

I believe I’m offended now, my friend.

SFPE’s Sprinkler Design for Engineers Class is specifically targeting the
engineers that aren’t FPE’s. It is a thirty-two hour class that is written
and taught by incredibly talented individuals (Mr. Denhardt and Mr.
Scandaliato that most of you know well, to name two) and has been available
for over 15 years now. The class content is based upon the current edition
of NFPA 13 and NFPA 20 and goes from writing specifications; to taking flow
tests; teaching them hydraulic calculations, by hand; working with pump
specifications; spending a great deal of time on hazard classification and
why it isn’t just pick it out of the Annex; and presenting new technologies
direct from manufacturers at every class.

I can’t do much about hiring FPE’s, but can tell you that there are
openings for about 300 FPE’s so there aren’t that many around to start with.

This class is open to, and attended by PE’s, sprinkler designers, and
AHJ’s, and again, the class teaches them what they should be specifying and
reviewing and how to do it.



Scott Futrell, PE, FSFPE, SET, CWBSD



Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2

Cell: (612) 759-5556



*From:* Sprinklerforum [
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
] *On Behalf Of *Roland
Huggins
*Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:33 AM
*To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
*Subject:* Re: Exposure protection of large windows.



And the 

SFPE

[Roland Huggins]

For the record, the SFPE does a lot of great stuff.  I thoroughly enjoyed 
participating in developing the original book on Performance based design for 
buildings as well as other activities long ago.  Without them, there would be 
no registration for FPE’s.  As Scott already stated, they offer training on 
sprinklers (and a host of other fire protection aspects).  I wish the best for 
them but…. I simply can’t accept ignoring my little issue (let’s selfishly call 
it protecting the FPE turf though it is a necessary step in King Mark’s plan)

Roland

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives




___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Improving the process

[Roland Huggins]

BULLSEYE.  IF I could make Mark KING for the day, my advice would be:

IF engineering doc's identified the design basis for all portions of the 
building, identified the available water supply, and whether said water supply 
was  adequate (aka does the building need a pump) then get the hell out of the 
way.  Well also ID if they have specials requirements such as the sprinklers 
being used with glass for a rated portion and the glass assembly is way beyond 
the listing.  If memory serves, this is effectively what the SFPE white paper 
says (give or take a bit)

The Owner’s Certification is a good start.  It BTW now includes identifying the 
water supply as of the newly released 2019 ed.  Unfortunately, this certificate 
is not being applied.  If we could work with the AHJ community and get it 
applied ACROSS THE BOARD, though it will be a painful transition, it would be 
worth it.  Individually this can’t be accomplished since it’s one more thing to 
do (aka a pain) and the owners / GC won’t rehire individuals that cause pain.

IF AHJ’s had to show competency would be a huge step forward.  ICC has 
certification programs for AHJs.  The Code program is heavily used by building 
code officials but the sprinkler program is virtually extinct, almost zero 
AHJ’s.  The AHJ is our safety net to catch the bad installations.  There are 
some goods one (such as on our Forum) but overall a huge hole in the net.  The 
ICC is considering dropping this program.  I told them unless it becomes a code 
requirement (similar to the NICET III on contractors), nothing will change.

I’d sure appreciate some private input on starting a push for actually 
requiring submittal of the Owner’s Certificate (yea, I Know it is already 
identified in chapter 23 for submittal).  Contractor’s: tell me should we push 
it.  AHJ’s: tell me how to reach the masses within your clan.

Roland

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org 

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives




> On Sep 28, 2018, at 6:56 AM, Mark.Phelps  wrote:
> 
> John, 
> I agree with you at least 99% with a small reservation for the unique 
> situations where things like a retail occupancy (think auto parts store) has 
> 12 feet of rack storage for tires. Someone in the system needs to be 
> responsible (and be financially responsible, E) for the outcome. And by “in 
> the system”, I mean designers, installers, plan reviewers, inspectors,  and 
> AHJ’s. Present company excluded, there are scads of “AHJ’s” across our great 
> country who are the least qualified in this group of five. I will suggest 
> that a grand solution to the situation could be recognized by the following 
> changes. 
> 1) NFPA 13 should be restricted in its scope to the actual title of the 
> Pamplet “Installation of a Sprinkler System”. Emphasis on INSTALLATION!
> 2) A new NFPA standard should be established for the DESIGN of a Sprinkler 
> System. Call it NFPA 64,000, and limit it to the design basis only but also 
> establish the bulk of the content as Prescriptive Design, (if this, then 
> this) and clearly define the line between Prescriptive Design and Engineering 
> Design. 
> 3) Go to the schools that offer FPE degrees and improve the curriculum to 
> include Sprinkler System Design  and passive fire protection design for a 
> broad array of applications and occupancies. 
> 4) AHJ’s must be regulated to avoid having unqualified, or under-qualified 
> individuals “reviewing and approving” the work of highly qualified Designers 
> and Engineers.
> Could any or all of this be implemented, or are we all just too closed minded 
> to “ the way we’ve always done it”?
> 
> Mark at Aero
> 602 820-7894
> 
> On Sep 28, 2018, at 3:27 AM, John Drucker  > wrote:
> 
>> It’s a joke, most AHJs know that the NICET techs are doing the heavy lift 
>> and the PE swoops in at the 11th hour affixes the signature and seal and 
>> collects their $ 500. Lets just stop this charade and recognize the NICET 
>> techs. The principal engineer/architect of record simply review for 
>> conformance, ie how the sprinkler system plays nicely with the building, 
>> correct code references, issues the review letter avoiding the paid by the 
>> page deal that’s going on.
>> 
>> John Drucker
>> From: Sprinklerforum > > on behalf of Steve 
>> Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:29:49 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
>> 
>> Subject: RE: FPE / SFPE
>>  
>> I’m offended too – Sunday night.   Though I’m presenting Monday so two 
>> drinks is the limit.
>>  
>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org 
>> ] On Behalf Of Pete 
>> Schwab
>> Sent: Thursday, 

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: FPE / SFPE

[Mark . Phelps]

John,
I agree with you at least 99% with a small reservation for the unique 
situations where things like a retail occupancy (think auto parts store) has 12 
feet of rack storage for tires. Someone in the system needs to be responsible 
(and be financially responsible, E) for the outcome. And by “in the system”, 
I mean designers, installers, plan reviewers, inspectors,  and AHJ’s. Present 
company excluded, there are scads of “AHJ’s” across our great country who are 
the least qualified in this group of five. I will suggest that a grand solution 
to the situation could be recognized by the following changes.
1) NFPA 13 should be restricted in its scope to the actual title of the Pamplet 
“Installation of a Sprinkler System”. Emphasis on INSTALLATION!
2) A new NFPA standard should be established for the DESIGN of a Sprinkler 
System. Call it NFPA 64,000, and limit it to the design basis only but also 
establish the bulk of the content as Prescriptive Design, (if this, then this) 
and clearly define the line between Prescriptive Design and Engineering Design.
3) Go to the schools that offer FPE degrees and improve the curriculum to 
include Sprinkler System Design  and passive fire protection design for a broad 
array of applications and occupancies.
4) AHJ’s must be regulated to avoid having unqualified, or under-qualified 
individuals “reviewing and approving” the work of highly qualified Designers 
and Engineers.
Could any or all of this be implemented, or are we all just too closed minded 
to “ the way we’ve always done it”?

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

On Sep 28, 2018, at 3:27 AM, John Drucker 
mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net>> wrote:

It’s a joke, most AHJs know that the NICET techs are doing the heavy lift and 
the PE swoops in at the 11th hour affixes the signature and seal and collects 
their $ 500. Lets just stop this charade and recognize the NICET techs. The 
principal engineer/architect of record simply review for conformance, ie how 
the sprinkler system plays nicely with the building, correct code references, 
issues the review letter avoiding the paid by the page deal that’s going on.

John Drucker

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:29:49 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: FPE / SFPE

I’m offended too – Sunday night.   Though I’m presenting Monday so two drinks 
is the limit.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Pete Schwab
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:28 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: FPE / SFPE

I’m offended. See you Saturday night


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:21 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: FPE / SFPE

The issue of unqualified engineers is an old song and dance that I don’t want 
to resurrect but this is a different nuance.  I hope it doesn’t flare into a 
drawn out discussion but one reply on this thread then if you wish to discuss 
further, it’ll have to be over drinks.

I never said they didn’t OFFER training.  I said they blissfully ACCEPT 
engineers practicing outside their field of expertise with no repercussions.  
This all stemmed from the development of the SFPE white paper on whether 
sprinkler design was engineering (which I was actively involved with).  How can 
one insist that an engineer be the only one that can do something while the 
other hand ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 90+ %  of the involved engineers are practicing 
outside their field of expertise?  This spun me up.  Now combine that with the 
sprinkler contractors in a state attempting to report unqualified engineers to 
the Board of Registration and the local SFPE chapter saying lets not flood the 
Board with every possible complaint so we’ll help pare it down (GREAT IDEA and 
effort).  When I was told that the National SFPE organization told them to 
cease and desist such activities, I lost it.  And they lost my membership.

If you’re still offended, I’ll buy you two drinks to help overcome your 
misguided offense.  If you have something that counters the subject of my 
statement, I’d love to hear it.  IF you simple want to debate it, let’s do it 
off forum please.

FYI for the Forum - Scott and I are buds and have known each other a long time.

Roland

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX

RE: FPE / SFPE

[gmc]

I agree Mr. Drucker. As long as the project fits nicely in NFPA 13,14,20
etc, let the Nicet IV techs handle it. Let Engineers handle the issues that
need Engineering.  However, Hold ANYONE accountable for poor work be it
Engineers or Nicet guys. 

 

My only comment Roland.

 

Greg

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On
Behalf Of John Drucker
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 5:23 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org;
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: FPE / SFPE

 

It's a joke, most AHJs know that the NICET techs are doing the heavy lift
and the PE swoops in at the 11th hour affixes the signature and seal and
collects their $ 500. Lets just stop this charade and recognize the NICET
techs. The principal engineer/architect of record simply review for
conformance, ie how the sprinkler system plays nicely with the building,
correct code references, issues the review letter avoiding the paid by the
page deal that's going on.

 

John Drucker

  _  

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > on behalf of Steve
Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> >
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:29:49 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: RE: FPE / SFPE 

 

I'm offended too - Sunday night.   Though I'm presenting Monday so two
drinks is the limit.

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org]
On Behalf Of Pete Schwab
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: RE: FPE / SFPE

 

I'm offended. See you Saturday night

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > On Behalf Of
Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
 
Subject: Re: FPE / SFPE

 

The issue of unqualified engineers is an old song and dance that I don't
want to resurrect but this is a different nuance.  I hope it doesn't flare
into a drawn out discussion but one reply on this thread then if you wish to
discuss further, it'll have to be over drinks.  

 

I never said they didn't OFFER training.  I said they blissfully ACCEPT
engineers practicing outside their field of expertise with no repercussions.
This all stemmed from the development of the SFPE white paper on whether
sprinkler design was engineering (which I was actively involved with).  How
can one insist that an engineer be the only one that can do something while
the other hand ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 90+ %  of the involved engineers are
practicing outside their field of expertise?  This spun me up.  Now combine
that with the sprinkler contractors in a state attempting to report
unqualified engineers to the Board of Registration and the local SFPE
chapter saying lets not flood the Board with every possible complaint so
we'll help pare it down (GREAT IDEA and effort).  When I was told that the
National SFPE organization told them to cease and desist such activities, I
lost it.  And they lost my membership.

 

If you're still offended, I'll buy you two drinks to help overcome your
misguided offense.  If you have something that counters the subject of my
statement, I'd love to hear it.  IF you simple want to debate it, let's do
it off forum please.  

 

FYI for the Forum - Scott and I are buds and have known each other a long
time.

 

Roland

 

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering

American Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Dallas, TX

http://www.firesprinkler.org  

 

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives

 

 

 

On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Scott Futrell mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com> > wrote:

 

Note that I changed the subject.

I believe I'm offended now, my friend.

SFPE's Sprinkler Design for Engineers Class is specifically targeting the
engineers that aren't FPE's. It is a thirty-two hour class that is written
and taught by incredibly talented individuals (Mr. Denhardt and Mr.
Scandaliato that most of you know well, to name two) and has been available
for over 15 years now. The class content is based upon the current edition
of NFPA 13 and NFPA 20 and goes from writing specifications; to taking flow
tests; teaching them hydraulic calculations, by hand; working with pump
specifications; spending a great deal of time on hazard classification and
why it isn't just pick it out of the Annex; and presenting new technologies
direct from manufacturers at every class.

I can't do much about hiring FPE's, but can tell you that there are openings
for about 300 FPE's so there aren't that many around to start with.

This class is open to, and attended by PE's, sprinkler designers, and AHJ's,
and again, the class teaches them what they should be specifying and
reviewing and how to do it.

 

Scott Futrell, PE, FSFPE, SET, CWBSD

 

Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2

Cell: (612) 759-5556

 

From: 

Re: FPE / SFPE

[John Drucker]

It’s a joke, most AHJs know that the NICET techs are doing the heavy lift and 
the PE swoops in at the 11th hour affixes the signature and seal and collects 
their $ 500. Lets just stop this charade and recognize the NICET techs. The 
principal engineer/architect of record simply review for conformance, ie how 
the sprinkler system plays nicely with the building, correct code references, 
issues the review letter avoiding the paid by the page deal that’s going on.

John Drucker

From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Steve Leyton 
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:29:49 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: FPE / SFPE

I’m offended too – Sunday night.   Though I’m presenting Monday so two drinks 
is the limit.

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Pete Schwab
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:28 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: FPE / SFPE

I’m offended. See you Saturday night


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:21 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: FPE / SFPE

The issue of unqualified engineers is an old song and dance that I don’t want 
to resurrect but this is a different nuance.  I hope it doesn’t flare into a 
drawn out discussion but one reply on this thread then if you wish to discuss 
further, it’ll have to be over drinks.

I never said they didn’t OFFER training.  I said they blissfully ACCEPT 
engineers practicing outside their field of expertise with no repercussions.  
This all stemmed from the development of the SFPE white paper on whether 
sprinkler design was engineering (which I was actively involved with).  How can 
one insist that an engineer be the only one that can do something while the 
other hand ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 90+ %  of the involved engineers are practicing 
outside their field of expertise?  This spun me up.  Now combine that with the 
sprinkler contractors in a state attempting to report unqualified engineers to 
the Board of Registration and the local SFPE chapter saying lets not flood the 
Board with every possible complaint so we’ll help pare it down (GREAT IDEA and 
effort).  When I was told that the National SFPE organization told them to 
cease and desist such activities, I lost it.  And they lost my membership.

If you’re still offended, I’ll buy you two drinks to help overcome your 
misguided offense.  If you have something that counters the subject of my 
statement, I’d love to hear it.  IF you simple want to debate it, let’s do it 
off forum please.

FYI for the Forum - Scott and I are buds and have known each other a long time.

Roland

Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives



On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Scott Futrell 
mailto:sco...@ffcdi.com>> wrote:

Note that I changed the subject.
I believe I’m offended now, my friend.
SFPE’s Sprinkler Design for Engineers Class is specifically targeting the 
engineers that aren’t FPE’s. It is a thirty-two hour class that is written and 
taught by incredibly talented individuals (Mr. Denhardt and Mr. Scandaliato 
that most of you know well, to name two) and has been available for over 15 
years now. The class content is based upon the current edition of NFPA 13 and 
NFPA 20 and goes from writing specifications; to taking flow tests; teaching 
them hydraulic calculations, by hand; working with pump specifications; 
spending a great deal of time on hazard classification and why it isn’t just 
pick it out of the Annex; and presenting new technologies direct from 
manufacturers at every class.
I can’t do much about hiring FPE’s, but can tell you that there are openings 
for about 300 FPE’s so there aren’t that many around to start with.
This class is open to, and attended by PE’s, sprinkler designers, and AHJ’s, 
and again, the class teaches them what they should be specifying and reviewing 
and how to do it.

Scott Futrell, PE, FSFPE, SET, CWBSD

Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2
Cell: (612) 759-5556

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:33 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Exposure protection of large windows.

And the SFPE blissfully (and intentionally) ignores this well known fact.  
That’s why I dropped my membership with them over a decade ago.


Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org

Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives




On Sep 25, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Steve Leyton 
mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com>> wrote:

Unfortunately out here, no one hires independent FPEs to prepare specs. They 
are all part of larger firms and