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.

With winter upon us, people will be leaving electric heaters running to prevent
freeze-up. That's a very common cause of fire in these facilities. Think twice
before paying extra for "covered" moorage, unless there's a good sprinkler
system in place.

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

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

Maybe not, but the critical aspect is that the experts in our local fire
department have stated that the covered moorages increase the fire risk and
promote the more rapid spreading of fires in a marina. Even if the fire
department is incorrect, that's who the city government is going to listen to.

When a boat catches fire in open moorage, more often than not the fire is put
out without involving a lot of other boats. As you will see by this excerpt
from the SFD website, the average loss in an "uncovered" boat fire is under
$50,000. Average loss in a covered moorage fire has been well over $3mm.
Obviously, there are not any sprinklers in an open moorage.

If the Fire Department somehow incorrect by suggesting that structures (such as
covered moorage) where boats are stored need to be opened up or sprinkled?

Excerpt:

The Fire Department’s proposed requirement for fire sprinklers in covered
moorage is in response to a number of large loss fires occurring at Seattle
marinas in recent years. In the five-year period from 1999 through 2003 there
were at least 36 fires occurring at marinas in Seattle, accounting for more
than $20 million in property loss. Five of the 36 fires occurred involved
covered moorage, and resulted in a average property loss of over $3.5 million
each. Fire officials indicate that the actual losses, including required
environmental clean-up, may be much higher. The average property loss for
marina-related fires not involving covered moorage was just under $50,000.

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 10 Nov 2004 22:19:41 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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

Maybe not, but the critical aspect is that the experts in our local fire
department have stated that the covered moorages increase the fire risk and
promote the more rapid spreading of fires in a marina. Even if the fire
department is incorrect, that's who the city government is going to listen to.

~~ snippage ~~

I didn't understand the original post that way. The original post
presented it as an option and they chose removing the roof as the most
cost effective. My point is that removing the roof is irrelevant for
a number of reasons and that installing hi pressure sprinklers is the
only way to seriously decrease the risk of catastrophic fire.

Now that I have a clearer picture, thanks to you, I suspect that the
real reason they want the roofs removed is to make it easier to fight
the fire after it starts.

I rather stop the fire at the ignition point. :)

Thanks for clearing that up for me though.

Later,

Tom

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

Gould 0738 wrote:

I don't know anything of "cover" mooring Chuckles so can't comment,
however thanks for the pics they're great, I remember you posting a few
over the years, but a lump like that is nice.

Knowing you, you probably have a huge library related to most things
boating, the new heater, the new engine, general scenes on your cruises,
boats you've been on or seen etc etc, maybe one day you'll post a link??
You'd be surprised what interests us nosey non yanks, once you've taken
out the ones Mrs Chuck took of you in the shower of course, I mean we do
have standards to maintain:-))

Thanks again

K

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.

With winter upon us, people will be leaving electric heaters running to prevent
freeze-up. That's a very common cause of fire in these facilities. Think twice
before paying extra for "covered" moorage, unless there's a good sprinkler
system in place.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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.

It 'could' if the roof was low enough and there was heat being trapped, but
not likely with one open side to the water.


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.

We had one in our marina where the dock lines melted through, and the boat
on fire drifted across to the opposing slips.


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.

I personally don't think the sprinkler lines would do much for boat fires,
(too many confined spaces within the boats thmeselves) but the high
capacity lines nearby would certainly be a good idea.




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

Good luck.

Later,

Tom

"P.Fritz" wrote in message ...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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.

It 'could' if the roof was low enough and there was heat being trapped, but
not likely with one open side to the water.

Did you ever stop to think about the roof material itself? If the roof
material directly above the fire is made of combustible materials, it
can certainly catch on fire. As the fire spreads, it could drop those
materials that are on fire, onto adjacent boats. A boat may be several
slips away from the actual fire, and still have this happen. Even if
the roof material isn't combustible, it can still be hot enough to
melt, and drip onto combustible material.


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 a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=fire%20place" onmouseover="window.status='fire place'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"fire place/a
knows how IR heading works.

We had one in our marina where the dock lines melted through, and the boat
on fire drifted across to the opposing slips.


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.

I personally don't think the sprinkler lines would do much for boat fires,
(too many confined spaces within the boats thmeselves) but the high
capacity lines nearby would certainly be a good idea.




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

Good luck.

Later,

Tom