All the manufacturers are in the proverbial scum category. If I developed a product that I believed would have the impact on safety that they proposed their product had - but did not even have it available to the marketplace I certainly don't believe they would let me have it put into NEC as a required item - with a post publication date before you need to comply with it. Then on top of that there was still a lot of controversy over whether or not they do what they claim they will do. NEC is a safety code not a marketing place, if you want to develop a product that provides a new approach to safety you need to develop it then submit it, not say " we almost have it, please put it in the upcoming code, we have invested a lot in this already and don't want to wait another three years for the next code", and spend a lot of money lobbying to make sure it get in there.
And there are many with the opinion that the glowing connection is something that is worth trying to detect and shut down when it happens, but AFCI doesn't guarantee it can do that, most other features of the AFCI can be accompished with the already existing at the time GFCI technology. All those miswiring incidents that seem to be the biggest complaint would have given same troubles to a GFCI protected circuit.
So now I am not going to be the SINGLE supporter of AFCI's and try to convince anyone otherwise. I will however address your response in the only way I know how to do.
You state that "I certainly don't believe they would let me have it put into NEC as a required item"- My response to that is, do you really think the manufacturers dominate the CMP process? Have you actually ever been to an NFPA CMP meeting to listen to the debates back and forth and the consensus that has to take place? I mean that with all due respect mind you but I have been to them and have listed to both sides of the fights that take place (I say fights but it's just good debate really). The demand for AFCI's originally came from people like Mr. Joe Engle, who now seems to be the one referred to as the ANTI- Combination AFCI guy. In reality we still believes in the merit of AFCI's but only in terms of Branch and Feeder models which have made a comeback in specific uses in the 2014 NEC. He can mark that up as a small victory I guess but never the less he supports AFCI's since he has a hand in the original patents on much of it, at least I am told anyway.
If you read UL 1699 in it's entirely you will see that the products do exactly as they are defined to do, it is the public and perception of what they WISH they could do that fuels the debate over the AFCI Technology. The fact that a Glowing Connection is not covered in the UL 1699 standard can attest to that fact. Now, as for the arcing conditions that are covered by the UL 1699, the documented evidence in the CPSC data that shows how AFCI's have detected faulty luminaires that came into the US and sold nationwide and so on should be a good testament to their ability to function as defined.
The problem comes from "when they function less than expected" on specific, isolated incidents that have sometimes become a myth no less pronounced than Bigfoot. We have no substantial proof that Bigfoot exists....but we do have proof that AFCI's do function at the least in the scope of their testing criteria.
next let me address this comment "NEC is a safety code not a marketing place, if you want to develop a product that provides a new approach to safety you need to develop it then submit it" - I believe you need to point the finger at the CPSC versus the manufacturers. All the manufacturers did was produce a product that the safety community demanded and in America is it called "enterprise". The prevention of known arcing conditions that take place in extension cords, wiring in walls and so on is a step in the effort to maintain a safer house for all who live in it....that was established back in the early 90's when the original study was done to determine how to achieve a way to detect conditions that a standard OCPD could not detect....AFCI's do this as defined under the scope of UL 1699. Now, you want it to cover "glowing connections" and Mr. Engle says that placing a GFCI component in the AFCI does this, based on his independent study....ok then add it but be ready to understand that costs are associated with it.
Take a look at the 2001 UL study on Glowing Connections and notice the test specifics which were based on improperly terminated conductors on devices in the first place among other things. The manufacturers never claimed to cover Glowing Connections and again UL 1699 does not mandate for them. Now, I am FIRMLY in the camp that believes the GFCI add merit but thats a fight that needs to be taken to UL 1699 and not placed on the shoulders of manufacturers. You can call it tight, scum or frugal on their part but when you produce millions of devices a year to a standard like UL 1699 then thats the benchmark....mike building a home using the minimum code requirements, sure you can build above code but few do.....it's simply a cost issue and cost dictates everything. Now, make UL change the UL 1699 standard and you force the manufacturers to comply is the BETTER approach versus again vilifying the manufacturer for simply meeting the standard.
lastly I will address again the CMP....While I am not on one and do plan on being on one in a few months...I have again attended NFPA meetings and do not feel in the least that manufacturers get any more of a shake in the system than IAEI Members or Home Builders....to me the field is level and you have to substantiate your point.
Again....it is not a matter of being Pro-AFCI, it is a matter of supporting the belief that they do some good, do what the scope of the product intends them to do and if they come up with an even better one later I am a willing and able customer. But safety is costly and it is every changing, embrace what we have today and look for what tomorrow may bring is my approach.
Just my thoughts on it....
