Inspector requring less

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Inspector requring less

Bob ,Jim why all this bad air between you two ???Bob i have read your posts and responses for awhile and Respect what you have to say.Jim you have put posts up just to stir the pot.That`s OK to a degree.Lets not get away from what we all come here for to learn from each other....When this site changed it was a bit stuff shirted but now we have a forum.A place to go to put it out there right or wrong.we are all big boys with big shoulders I have posted and have been ridiculed about it but hey that`s what we have here a place to go and vent.So what if we post something dumb Hey we are all big boys..I thank Mike holt for this place ALLEN
 
Re: Inspector requring less

Allen thanks for the kind words. :)

As you say we are here to learn and my assumption is we are here to learn to do things within the NEC.

IMO we should not be advocating violating the code.

IMO some posts (not just Jim's) advocate violating the code, I have little patience for that

Call it a character flaw, but that is the way my head is wired. :D

Bob
 
Re: Inspector requring less

Sorry Bob if i offended you somehow.Some of us here have been pulling wires for 20 years and know things are not perfect all the time.
Yes i do stir the pot,but only for fun.
 
Re: Inspector requring less

Pierre is correct about what drives the determination for what is required on the smoke detectors. The original post wasn't clear about access etc.

Bottom line ... if it's accessible it requires interconnect w/ battery backup as Pierre code cite shows. Otherwise battery only at all typical required locations.

Yes it would be great if they were all interconnected but we cannot force them to tear out ceilings. It is the field inspectors call if he feels something can be accessed reasonably. It is also his risk if he's wrong !


Glen DAvis
IRC Residential Combination Inspector # 1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top