Professional Engineers Misleading Field Technicians
Professional Engineers Misleading Field Technicians
(OP)
For those here that are Licensed PE's this could be a delicate thread. Please be gentle and share your thoughts in a professional manner.
With that said here is what I have to share.
A book published by the NFPA called Fire Protection Systems/Inspection,Test and Maintenance Third Edition written by Wayne Carson, PE and Richard Klinker, PE totally contradicts what the NFPA 25 Handbook requires. If so why published the book.
Throughout this book the word SHALL is replaced by Should.
To my understanding, in the late 80's a book called NFPA 13A or better know as Recommended Practice for the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Sprinkler Systems was the book that ruled the industry. On 2002 the first edition of NFPA 25 was first published which indicated the minimum requirements. Hello anybody reading? Minimum Requirements and no longer Recommended Practice using the word SHALL instead of Should.
My questions are as follows:
Does the NFPA still revise books before published?
Are these Engineers qualified to write a book about a topic not covered under their degree of practice?
How far is the NFPA willing to go in order to sell another book?
For Example Page 45.
Water flow detecting devices, including the associated alarm circuits, should be tested through the inspector's test connection and should result in an audible alarm on the premises within 5 minutes after flow begins and continuing until flow stops.
Can anybody tell me what is wrong with this picture?
Another Example on Page 56.
Sprinklers manufactured before 1920 SHOULD be replaced.
Then again what the hell is wrong with this picture?
I think it is wrong and should come to a stop since this book can land in the hands of any end user and make them believe that because is written by a PE is above the code.
With that said here is what I have to share.
A book published by the NFPA called Fire Protection Systems/Inspection,Test and Maintenance Third Edition written by Wayne Carson, PE and Richard Klinker, PE totally contradicts what the NFPA 25 Handbook requires. If so why published the book.
Throughout this book the word SHALL is replaced by Should.
To my understanding, in the late 80's a book called NFPA 13A or better know as Recommended Practice for the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Sprinkler Systems was the book that ruled the industry. On 2002 the first edition of NFPA 25 was first published which indicated the minimum requirements. Hello anybody reading? Minimum Requirements and no longer Recommended Practice using the word SHALL instead of Should.
My questions are as follows:
Does the NFPA still revise books before published?
Are these Engineers qualified to write a book about a topic not covered under their degree of practice?
How far is the NFPA willing to go in order to sell another book?
For Example Page 45.
Water flow detecting devices, including the associated alarm circuits, should be tested through the inspector's test connection and should result in an audible alarm on the premises within 5 minutes after flow begins and continuing until flow stops.
Can anybody tell me what is wrong with this picture?
Another Example on Page 56.
Sprinklers manufactured before 1920 SHOULD be replaced.
Then again what the hell is wrong with this picture?
I think it is wrong and should come to a stop since this book can land in the hands of any end user and make them believe that because is written by a PE is above the code.
Talk To Other Members