Help me make sense of this… will the fire door inspector inspect the entire door, but not the functionality of the hold open device? Without operating the alarm, how does the inspector confirm that the hold open device releases? Seems like a shame to have a fully inspected fire door that possibly won’t shut when called into service. I guess it’s like you say, you’re going to count on the alarm guys to confirm that.
When is this to go into action…you would think training would have been held last year in time for the inspector need to be there.
What is the referance of State code that will be used?
Well, mabe we should all look at this picture and start inspections.
This appears to be a classroom setting in a Commercial setting with a pair of doors equipped with panic devices and surface mounted vertical rod devices.
Equal to or similar to P700 series by Sargent.
It would be assummed that since these open up in a corridor in a public building, that these are 1-hour rated doors.
It looks like they have attached hardware on the bottom to manually hold the doors open.
I blew up the picture and there is no floor surface mounted strike, nor recessed floor strike for the bottom chasis of the vertical rod device. Hmmmmmmmm
Wonder why?:)
I know a lot of the old warehouses have “fire doors” that are more like tin covered barn doors mounted on a sloping horizontal track. You can roll the doors open and shut, since they are counterbalanced by a stack of weights hung from a chain around a couple pullies. In the middle of the chain is a fusible link of some sort of lead alloy. When that link melts, the door comes racing down the track to slam shut. I’d hate to be in the way when that happens. You’d get hurt pretty badly. The tests of those doors are sometimes destructive. I’ve seen pieces fall off the door, or the door totally blast the stop blocks/hooks off the wall.
We used discount the fire link let close with the counter weight, The magnect device was energized to see if it closed , Panic bars 9 newtons If i remember right Aprox 2 to 3 lbs
While the information presented may indeed be beneficial, I would use EXTREME caution when offering any ancillary service involving specific equipment or assemblies installed for life and safety. Here in NY State, fire marshalls perform these inspections. I would NOT want to be the person whose sticker is on a fire door assembly which fails in service, for whatever reason. Nor would I want to be the person whose name is on the sticker when the fire marshall comes in after I have left and rejects the fire door assembly for ANY reason.
It is not enough that we have some education in the specific subject matter. What matters is whether the law requires some special credential for your opinion to count. We all know that inspectors should NOT be quiting code of any type. Yet here we have a discussion on this specific subject, pertaining to one of the single most important assemblies in any building: that being the functionality of a fire-rated assembly.
I can see Joe’s point about the code? Do we or do we not quote code? If we do, than to avoid ligation, we would need to quote code on every and every type of inspection that we do that has some form of code.
Even my state (Hillbilly Heaven) does not allow me to call out code on a sewer system. The state makes it clear, only the regulatory authorities (state and local) can fail a system. The explanation I got from the state, during the recent orientation, is to keep us nonregulatory inspectors from being sued. Myself, I do not have a problem with that.
Code can only be quoted by the AHJ who applies it for, until he quotes it, the wording of the code is still “suggestive” and open to interpretation. As IRC says (R104.1) “The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions.” Thus, it is actually a violation of code for anyone other than an AHJ to interpret it.
When someone other than an AHJ quotes code, they are doing little more than predicting someone else’s interpretation…and are very likely to be mistaken.
Bottom line…according to the code books, it’s not “code” until the AHJ says so.
Spoke to the local Fire Inspector this morning, an explained the new standard. He thought we were absolutely nuts. Unless there is a change in configuration, or the installation of a new assembly, the assembly is not inspected.
Also spoke to an insurance carrier today. Rest assured that, in the event some one gets hurt and our name is associated with such an “inspection”, the unfortunate inspector will NOT be indemnified.
Even IF the carrier agreed to defend and indemnify you, a wrongful death suit will be in the MULTIPLE millions of dollars. There could also be possible criminal charges levied for this type of activity.
Lots to think about…:shock:
like we can’t get sued now… life of the self employed
Darren,
Currently we get sued for stuff like leaky roofs, defective heating systems, failed water heaters, termites, mold, etc.
Picture yourself named in a wrongful death lawsuit.
Picture yourself sued for $150 mil.
Picture yourself with your E&O carrier walking away.
Picture your E&O carrier testifying that the reason they walked is because a fire door inspection is not part of a standard and recognized SOP.
Picture the medical examiner testifying how the victims died.
Picture the fire inspector explaining how the fire spread.
Picture the building inspector stating that you had no business inspecting and blessing the fire door.
Picture the district attorney explaining the criminal charges to the grand jury.
Now picture the $50 or $100 extra you charged for this inspection.
Picture your family living on welfare, because your bank accounts and assets have been stripped.
Picture your wife childrens faces when they possibly visit you in prison.
Whether we believe we are truly qualified or not is NOT the issue. The PERCEPTION and MARKETING is what counts. Go ahead… Put your name as the last professional hired to inspect the assembly.
You’ll be WISHING it was just a mold suit.
This is total insanity, IMO
Enough for me, in finalizing my decision on inspecting fire doors.
Right up there with inspecting fire extinguishers.:roll:
What next?
People obviously are able to get insurance for that. Every town has a fire extinguisher company. I guess they can get sued, much as the sprinkler fitters could get sued. That’s what insurance is for. Some people are scared of their own shadows and see the boogie man around every corner. It confounds me why, in The Land of Opportunity, someone would care to poo-poo a money making opportunity like this. Get the right insurance, the proper training, charge properly, and jump in with both feet. There’s no reason not to. The Lilly-livered folk are probably better suited for the safety of ringing a time clock somewhere. I have more money making ideas in a year’s time than I’ll ever get to explore, and here you have a guy handing you a winner, with an associated training system to make it work, on a silver platter.
Perhaps, but I think it’s fair to say that there’s a hell of a lot of people who don’t live in places like that. Regular Americans, you might call them. 
If this was the case of getting sued we would never leave the home . The owner of the building also has to be liable . Example you check the door today and tomorrow someone disconnected the link to move stuff out of the room Trust me this happens you can not be blamed.
You check fire the fire ex and someone pulled the seal 30 min after and used it
these inspections are mostly observe and document Nothing more
Did these type of inspection for both the fire dept and the company i used to work for many years . I feel there is always this fear of being sued for everything under sun And what if"s run rampant
All companies Must keep records on these items and i can bet if you checked the local motel or movie theater it would be hard press not to see something not right
That is why they call a inspection to try keep things in order . After a major fire i find it hard to believe that a inspector get blamed after something he inspected 6 months ago if it was operational when inspected.
How long have you been an inspector, Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson, hopefully you’re savvy enough to not fall for this…
[quote=“Marc_D.Shunk, post:59, topic:34943”]
Mr. Wilson, hopefully you’re savvy enough to not fall for this…