On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 10 Nov 2004 21:08:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

We're on the verge of losing a lot of the covered moorage in our area. As a
result of some of the fires you can see at this link:

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/fire/pho...MarineMenu.htm

the city wants to revise the fire code and require moorage owners to either
1) install high capacity waterlines, standpipes, sprinklers, and controls

or

2) remove the coverings and leave the moorages fully exposed.

I have heard that several property owners have compared the costs and decided
that tearing off the roofing is preferable to investing in sprinklers and
plumbing.

Most of our covered moorages have no firewalls between slips, or even between
every several slips. Once a fire gets going, the heat from one boat is trapped
by the overhead to catch adjoining vessels afire all the soooner. If two or
three get fully engulfed, it's almost impossible to contain with land-based
fire units.

Um, no, that's not how it works.

How fire spreads is from close exposure to IR and direct heat
radiation from the fire. The only way to eliminate the possibility of
boats close to the fire catching on fire is to spray water on the
adjacent boats cooling the surface thus reducing the possibility of
the fire spreading. Anybody who has ever sat in front of a fire place
knows how IR heading works.

It may be cheaper to remove the roof, but it ain't gonna do squat.
And your insurance company will probably tell you that if you care to
ask.

I would suggest that you get a State or Local Fire Marshall in there
to show you that the first choice is the best choice. Removing the
roof is meaningless if the dockage space is open except for the roof.
I know what you are thinking, that heat rises and thus removed the
heat will escape from the adjacent docks, but it's not true.

The most cost effective choice is not always the best choice.

Good luck.

Later,

Tom


If the roof and supporting lumber catch fire, and the fire spreads
along the roof, and pieces of burning lumber, etc. fall on the boats
below, wouldn't that be potentially more risky than *not* having that
roof?

(NB. That is probably a multi-run on sentence. Please disregard the
grammar and go for *content* as some of our illustrious authors say!)

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:49:28 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 10 Nov 2004 21:08:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

We're on the verge of losing a lot of the covered moorage in our area. As a
result of some of the fires you can see at this link:

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/fire/pho...MarineMenu.htm

the city wants to revise the fire code and require moorage owners to either
1) install high capacity waterlines, standpipes, sprinklers, and controls

or

2) remove the coverings and leave the moorages fully exposed.

I have heard that several property owners have compared the costs and decided
that tearing off the roofing is preferable to investing in sprinklers and
plumbing.

Most of our covered moorages have no firewalls between slips, or even between
every several slips. Once a fire gets going, the heat from one boat is trapped
by the overhead to catch adjoining vessels afire all the soooner. If two or
three get fully engulfed, it's almost impossible to contain with land-based
fire units.

Um, no, that's not how it works.

How fire spreads is from close exposure to IR and direct heat
radiation from the fire. The only way to eliminate the possibility of
boats close to the fire catching on fire is to spray water on the
adjacent boats cooling the surface thus reducing the possibility of
the fire spreading. Anybody who has ever sat in front of a fire place
knows how IR heading works.

It may be cheaper to remove the roof, but it ain't gonna do squat.
And your insurance company will probably tell you that if you care to
ask.

I would suggest that you get a State or Local Fire Marshall in there
to show you that the first choice is the best choice. Removing the
roof is meaningless if the dockage space is open except for the roof.
I know what you are thinking, that heat rises and thus removed the
heat will escape from the adjacent docks, but it's not true.

The most cost effective choice is not always the best choice.

If the roof and supporting lumber catch fire, and the fire spreads
along the roof, and pieces of burning lumber, etc. fall on the boats
below, wouldn't that be potentially more risky than *not* having that
roof?

(NB. That is probably a multi-run on sentence. Please disregard the
grammar and go for *content* as some of our illustrious authors say!)

Anything is possible, but if it's hot enough to travel, it's hot
enough to vent itself. And again, a hi pressure sprinkler system will
stop or delay a fire long enough for more efficient means of puttage
outtage (how's that for grammar?) to arrive.

I stand by what I said - removing the roof isn't the best option even
if it is the cheapest.

Later,

Tom