Re: Ion vs Photo smoke detectors

["Allan Waghalter" <awaghalter@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In this case, I monitor this particular system... which is only two years
old.  The installing company does the inspections.  I talked to the owner
when I first noticed the presence of the ion detector and he indicated that
this is their standard install!  They are outside the Houston City Limits,
but in the County.  The County fire Marshall is very sharp here and must
have approved the installation.  I can't tell you publicly what they told
the school to do over the weekend to prevent the detectors from activating
from the furnace clearing out the dust from the long summer.

"FIRETEK" <firetech(change-the-ch-to-k)@telus.net> wrote in message
news:CT48h.11909$_Z2.11086@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Allan Waghalter" <awaghalter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:_B38h.16948$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)?
>
>