Re: Fire Side Chat -- Fire Alarm Code Issue

["Norm Mugford" <1alarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mr Colombo

It would only be fair to make you aware of who the person
is that is challenging your informative writings.

Mr. Robert L. Bass is the apparent owner of BassHomeAlarms in Sarasota, Fl.
A "DIY" internet only sales outlet. He does not install or service
equipment.
He is not a licensed Fire Alarm or Burglar Alarm Contractor.

I could go on about his misgivings, but, I will hold my comments.

Norm Mugford
Vice-Chairman
Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board
Department of Business & Professional Regulation
Florida Fire Alarm Contractor License EF 0001097


<securitymission@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1114543763.431719.131420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Your comments are well taken.  After I resigned from the other magazine
> in the fall of 2000, I went back to the field. I ended up forming a new
> low-voltage company for a large electrical contractor in Canton, Ohio,
> a union shop with 125 commercial and residential electricians and
> teledata technicians. I did small to large projects, and as you can
> well imagine, our electrical side drug in a lot of very big projects
> for me to engineer for architects we partnered with, as well as bid
> along side other project managers. Right now they are busy doing the
> largest hopsital job in the state of Ohio.
>
> All of this is to say that where we are located, the county building
> department requires 120VAC smoke alarms in all new homes without
> exception. You can add system smoke detectors if you wish, as a
> homeowner, but you will install the 120 VAC smoke alarms first and they
> must comply with Chapter 11, 72. There is no choice. Because we did the
> structural cabling system as well as home automation, intercom, simple
> security, along with home video surveillance in many cases, we already
> were into the client for a good bit of money. Our residential division
> did the smoke alarms and CO detection systems but it was my job to tie
> them into the home automation or security panel. It was my job to
> assist the client in any way I could to 1) provide life safety
> protection and 2) to help protect his property.
>
> Yes, I could have taken the hardnose point of view and said no, you
> will have to install smoke detectors along side what you already have,
> but that did not seem right to me. Of course I would always mention it.
>  Some did indeed elect to do it. Most did not.  Again, these folks did
> not have a choice in the matter and, even though 72 will allow me to
> install one or two system smoke detectors anywhere I wish, simply
> because the intent of Chapter 11 was met by the smoke alarms, it did
> not seem ethical.
>
> Believe me, if the county building dept. did not require 120VAC smoke
> alarms, I would have insisted on the real deal, which is system-type
> smoke detectors.  The issue of the relay is an add-on, so long as 1)
> the smoke alarms fulfill the intent and conditions of code, and 2) as
> long as the relay cannot in any way interfere with the proper operation
> of the smoke alarms, which is all part of code.
>
> Here is what one AHJ said about this:
>
> "I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Even if the
> burglar alarm panel failed to report, the [smoke alarm] system is
> designed only as a local alarm in the house. The [smoke alarm] system
> will still do that, so the intent of the code has been met."
>
> I hope I've explained myself well enough as to why I came up with this
> and have tried to provide this help to our readers.  The bottom line
> is, smoke alarms equal life safety whereas our unlisted relay and
> monitoring equals property protection.
>