John I agree with you. The AHJ has to have the knowledge that something is not right. I can't tell you how many times I go to a sight and the contractor doesn't have a set of plans on premise.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Do you look up? Todd youre dead on, its everyone and heres why. The property owner who's unreasonable deadlines rush the work The architect who changes the building layout and doesn't tell the engineer whos plans were based on an outdated background or whos background is missing details or simply incorrect. The engineer who shows piping passing through structural members, ductwork, shafts or hoistways, or worse adds a note that the contractor shall adjust for field conditions and furnish and install a code compliant system. The contractor who bids the job so low theres no room to do the right thing so he or she takes shortcuts to make up that profit that every business must have to stay afloat. Compound that with a tight schedule that the contractor cant keep up with missing milestones before other trades move in ahead of him. The mechanic who wants to do the right thing but is told to get it done period. He or she asks questions but is told to "figure it out that's what I pay you for". Then there are those that could care less about fire protection or simply never been properly trained so its just a paycheck and hell "cant see it from my house." The ahj whos understaffed, underpaid, undereducated or too proud to ask questions. Deadlines are deadlines and city hall demands answers especially when property owners right or wrong start making phone calls. The ahj is the collection point for all of the above. But the ahj can make a difference by establishing a no nonsense policy from the beginning where plans on napkins and hydraulic calculations using homebrew spreadsheets wouldn't be accepted. The AHJ can set that policy at the beginning such that no permit is issued until things are right and field change documentation is expected prior to or at the time of the hydro. The AHJ can do this such that the message travels up through the chain of command before a project starts and not after its gone beyond the point of no return. In the end its not about fire protection but rather management. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Former Senior Project Manager, WTC, NYC 1993-2001 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Do you look up? The complaint here is not about the engineering, but the installation. We are talking about what is physically in the building. You're a PE, Jeff; how many times has an installer changed your drawings? My guess is a lot. I know in my situation, I am rarely asked to certify an installation once it is complete. I don't hold up anybody's money and I don't hold up the CO. Then the last eyes for seeing the job was done right is the AHJ. If it is not caught there, that's how it remains. The fault may well be with the specifying engineer (if there is one), but it may lie elsewhere. At 10:07 PM 4/2/2008, you wrote: >Sorry for the late reply to Mark's comments, I've been travelling all day. > > I saw this and felt compelled to repeat my previous thoughts on > this issue. Mark's comments bring me to a statement that I have > made on here before, and I will likely again, the next time this comes up. > > You cannot just complain about this PE issue. Turn them > in!! There is no other way. Their regulating Boards can do > nothing without a complaint, and for that matter thay will NOT even > know about it, unless WE speak up and do something about it. > > Yes, that's right, an engineer telling you to turn in a fellow > engineer. I will not defend anyone that claims this or anything > else as an area of expertise when they are not actually qualified. > > Turn them in! And don't get fed up if nothing happens right > away. Their investigations may take a while. > > Again, rather than seeing all of these complaints about inept > specifying engineers, let's all do something different now, or it > will only get worse. > > Gather your facts, file the complaint, and turn them in. > > > Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, MSFPE (Professional Member) > Corporate Engineer > Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation > St. Charles, MO 63301 > >Mark Sornsin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I "look up" at work that is incorrect, I always wonder if there was >an engineer of record involved on the project. Then I wonder how much >money they were paid to be the "engineer of record." Then I wonder how >much time they actually spent on their "performance spec" that included >no performance criteria outside of references to code. > >Obviously, mine is a cynical perspective of my colleagues in the >engineering world. I certainly understand the reality that there aren't >enough skilled engineers to be involved on all sprinkler projects. To >say the typical "performance spec" is criminal may be excessive (maybe >they couldn't get enough fee to do the project justice...?) But I do >know that all engineers who rely on their blanket statement about >systems "meeting code" (but don't have the ability to verify compliance) >to are teed-up nicely to lose the litigation battle should a fire ever >occur. As Chris has reminded us, there seem to be an inordinate number >of screwed up systems out there, so it's really a wonder why more >engineers aren't brought to task through litigation. Sometime I wonder >if it is because of the ironic fact that "everyone" knows the mechanical >engineer is not the expert - it's the sprinkler contractor. So >engineers are forgotten when problems arise...??? > >Don't mean to tangent into another PE-bashing thread, but it just peeves >me that there are "professionals" getting paid for being lazy fools. > >Mark A. Sornsin, PE >Fire Protection Engineer >Ulteig Engineers, Inc. >Fargo, ND >701.280.8591 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris >Cahill >Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:29 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Do you look up? > >I imagine, like me, you all (ya'll for some of you) on the very rare >occasions you are not working look around at sprinkler systems where you >live, shop and play. > > > >It's a very rare occasion I don't see something that appears deficient. >For >example, in a grocery store the one head on the back side of the main is >missing over HPS and a mess of piping creating a ceiling without heads >under >them, at a Home Depot 190 psi on the wet side of an auxiliary dry valve, >or >the local high school with sidewall heads about 15-20' down from the >peak of >the very large skylight. This is all in the last two days as an example >but >see similar all the time. > > > >The sad part is I'm not really trying. What if I had the plans and >calcs, >how much more would there be? Or really looked at the whole building >instead of a casual look at where I happen to be? Or the scary part >what if >I actually considered the hazard vs. the design? > > > >I also realize two issues - most times what I see probably won't cause >the >system to fail in a fire IF that is the only thing wrong. There is a >"probably" and an "if " in the last sentence which means there are cases >that will fail, just not many IMHO. And second we make mistakes too. > > > >The heads at the peak - just because an AHJ didn't call it a deficiency >doesn't mean it's OK. Certainly it is possible there is a documented >and >proactively approved alternate method out there on this but I strongly >doubt >it. Now I'm sure the missing head has a perfectly rational explanation >of >how it got like that. The W.O. is there and it must be plugged or the >system is off. It's not a TI thing long after the original >construction; >this is a very new building. Can't rationalize how you get 190 psi by >accident or approval. > > > >MN is more regulated than most (but not all) areas. Do you see this >stuff >too? What if anything can you really do about it? > > > >Chris Cahill, P.E. > >Fire Protection Engineer > >Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. > > > >763-658-4483 > >763-658-4921 fax > > > >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Mail: P.O. Box 69 > >Waverly, MN 55390 > > > >Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW > >Waverly, MN 55390 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >To Unsubscribe, send an email >to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
