• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Smoke detectors unnecessary?

Fire extinguishers need to be maintained. They should have a sticker or a tag with the last inspection date. A functional vintage fire extinguisher that does not have this tag is not considered functional. These extinguishers should not be displayed in a manner that would cause someone to think that they are functional. If someone came upon an old copper fire extinguisher of the soda acid type that has not been removed from service, it will not have an inspection tag. Furthermore, it should not be used because it will become a pressurized vessel that has a history of failing in a bad way. Other antique fire extinguishers had dangerous chemicals as the extinguishing agent. There is a good change that it is carbon tetrachloride. Once again, it is my opinion that non-functional (not meeting current testing standards) fire extinguishers should not be displayed in a manner that would create confusion in the untrained person. Any display of a normally encountered safety device should make it obvious to the untrained person that it is for display purposes and not intended for use.
 
Having considered the fire extinguisher problem, I think you have two separate situations.

On the one hand, the smokes, in the case of the banquet hall example, are benign and not life saving devices. In other words, smoke can be detected by the conscience occupants. Whether or not the detectors are operable, smoke can be detected. You do t smell smoke, then look around or wait for the smokies. You just get out.

Extinguishers are different. They will be actively used to fight the threat therefore need to be obviously functional. Grabbing a replica can be life threatening. A dormant or decorative smoke detector, in the banquet hall example, is not life threatening.

If you are willing to stare at a smoke detector while being overcome by smoke inhalation, then you are being auto-darwinated and nothing can help you.

Brent
 
Please understand that I do not disagree that the smoke alarm in the banquet hall serves little to no purpose without being connected to some sort of alarm system. For the purpose of the initial post, it isn't even there.

My point was to answer your initial question of why one would be required to work if it was there. I quoted an IPMC code which may not even have been adopt by the AHJ. My argument remains that it shall be operational or removed based on IPMC 704.1. Would I really enforce this? Probably not, but I believe that is what the book says.
 
MikeC said:
Please understand that I do not disagree that the smoke alarm in the banquet hall serves little to no purpose without being connected to some sort of alarm system. For the purpose of the initial post, it isn't even there.My point was to answer your initial question of why one would be required to work if it was there. I quoted an IPMC code which may not even have been adopt by the AHJ. My argument remains that it shall be operational or removed based on IPMC 704.1. Would I really enforce this? Probably not, but I believe that is what the book says.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to have the discussion. It proves things that appear carved in stone may very well not be.

Brent.
 
Agree to disagree if you must.. I'm a firm believer that if it's there, maintain it or remove it..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top