ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Don,

As to this situation, I suppose that it could be argued that if the Top of the window was incapable of opening, that it would be in compliance as is? (but not if the window was changed)

You brought up a good point about the Fire Safety Ladders access. I'll bet that many people don't think about that.

Bill

You know, I'm looking at the drawing I just posted and realized that the scenario on the right with the point of attachment at the corner of the house would not even be acceptable in my area. The point of attachment (in my area) has to be below and within 10 inches of the service head!


Bill

Bill,
You're right about the access for fire ladders not being though about by very many people. I have submitted code proposals for the last 2 code cycles to make the 3' apply to all windows not just those that are designed to be opened. The CMP does not agree with me and have rejected my proposals. It is hard enough to put fire service ladders in place to effect a rescue without having to worry about overhead lines, especially since most fire service ladders are metal. As always the NFPA seems to require a "body count" before acting.

As far as the handbook goes, it does make sense as the opinions in there are not written in a way that would comply with the rules for making a "formal interpretation". I agree that the inforamtion in them is helpful in understanding the code, and I prefer the McGraw-Hill handbook over the NFPA one, but neither one is a legal interpretation. That is left to the local AHJ or a request for a formal interpretation.

Don(resqcapt19)

Don,

I have always heard that the comments in the Handbook are not an official interpretation, but I don't understand exactly why. I can understand why a Handbook published by someone other than the NFPA would not have official interpretations in it, but why not the NFPA version? I am trying to grasp what makes the comments "not official" if they are made by the same people that write the code? (or is that not true?)
Is it that they are not complete in some way, or might taken out of context?

Sorry for all the questions, I hope that you don't mind.

Bill

Bill,
I think that a formal interpretation requires the involvement of the CMP that covers the section of the code(I'm not sure about this, maybe Joe T. and tell us for sure how an interpretation works). The people that write the Handbook are not the people that wrote the code, the code making panel members write the code. The panel members are not employees of the NFPA, but the authors of the handbook often are. The statement in the handbook even says it is not an offical interpretation because the writing of the opinions in the handbook do not follow the rules in the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects as would be required for a Formal Interpretation.
In my opinion the best place to find out what the CMP is trying to say is to look at the Report on Proposals and the Report on Comments for when the section in question was added or changed. Even panel statements on rejected proposals for the section in question will often give an insight to what the CMP thinks the code section actually means.

Don,

Thanks, I think that makes things a little clearer. I guess that I was looking at the NFPA as more of an authority where it's role and position may be closer to that of an organizer and publisher. I would have to think that most of it's content has to generally follow the intent of the CMPs and that errors or something misleading in illustrations (especially) would have been picked up before publication or soon after.

Maybe they should call it a guidebook, that would fit better I think.

Bill