Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree with Jon. This isn’t ours to deal with. Have your crews do their regular job and observe physical distance as necessary for their safety and call it a day.
Yes.
its a log. Â From time in industry in working on equipment, not my preference, however, generally meets requirements
I was fortunate to run into an Edwards technician. They are documenting these detectors when they find them as a deficiency and indicating the same on the cover page of the fire alarm report.
I have engaged a few service providers and they knew nothing of it.
How are you treating this when you inspect a building that has these detectors with accompanying reports indicating “this system is fully functional?”
Believe she got them here: https://www.firehallbookstore.com/product/firefighter-bear/
We were trying to implement the “Travelling Sparky” program but encountered the same issues. Our Educator sourced the bears and we are carrying the program out with them instead.
Many of the alarms have a alarm memory feature that will allow the identification of the unit that started everything going off as long as power hasn’t been removed etc.
See attached image. Each unit is different, so often the instructions are needed to determine the flash pattern of the LED’s on the alarm.
This particular example is from a Kidde unit.
Assuming the dry hydrant has been installed to meet the requirements of OBC 3.2.5, the only provision I can see is:
6.6.1.1. Private and public water supplies for fire protection installations shall be maintained to provide the required flow under fire conditions.
It doesn’t give much to go on. Given the lack of direction, it would be interesting to see the outcome if an order was issued to comply with the form and requirements in NFPA 1142 was appealed.
Perhaps a change that should be requested to the fire code to provide requirements pertaining to the maintenance of dry hydrants.
The choice exists to inspect test and maintain to NFPA 25, or 6.4.2.1 to 6.4.2.6 and 6.2.3. If the fire protection company is indicating they are maintaining to NFPA 25, they are required to perform hydrostatic testing on the hose. If they are maintaining to the prescriptive requirements of the fire code, hydrostatic testing is not required.
Most of our buildings are maintained to Fire Code requirements
See 3(5) of the Provincial Parks Act. Effectively, this act states that a Provincial Park is not part of the municipality. In my interpretation, it wouldn’t be required to follow municipal by-laws.
That said, we have a great relationship with our local parks and have found them more stringent then we are with implementing and enforcing burn restrictions and bans.