Re: Ion vs Photo smoke detectors

["FIRETEK" <firetech(change-the-ch-to-k)@telus.net>]

"Allan Waghalter" <awaghalter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_B38h.16948$B31.3832@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I agree with what has been said.  I attended a "Firelight Academy" last
week
> and the instructor (Bob) emphasized that Ion detectors were frequently
> mis-used because they were cheaper.  In this church/school environment I
> feel that the choice was made on price.

What's even more interesting Allan, is that when I do inspections on
buildings, I frequently come across the exact same thing.  Recommending that
the customer upgrade to photo-electrics is the only option open.
Unfortunately the cost involved is sometimes prohibitive.  What amazes me is
that the units are passed during the Verification.  When you read through
the standards we use (CAN/ULC-S524 for instance), the requirement for using
the correct detector is clear.  How this passes the Verification is
sometimes beyond me.  The same thing goes for stand-by battery requirements.
I can't tell you how many systems I've been in to where the customer has
added devices (like sprinkler tampers on a retrofitted back-flow preventer)
where I've had to "red flag" the panel.  What's more, it's been tagged
"deficiency free" by a number of ASTTBC registered fire prevention
technicians who obviously don't know enough to perform a battery calculation
simply based on the amp-meter readings.  I've also had an opportunity to
work with some ASTTBC techs and have been told by the majority that this
aspect wasn't even covered in their training!  And don't get me started on
the number of non-compliant smokes I've seen installed (where they're not
cross-listed to the FACP).  Sort of makes you want to tear your hair out.
How does one tell the manager of a Strata that their system won't pass
muster after it's been "inspected" annually for years (and they have the
paperwork to prove it)?