# Jersey apartments?



## steveray (Jan 22, 2015)

Looked new enough to be sprinklered....Any clues?  Maybe passive protection is in order.....


----------



## cda (Jan 22, 2015)

It burned during building, so they thought they had thier fire quota, for the duration of the building


----------



## steveray (Jan 22, 2015)

2000 code should have had sprinklers....no?


----------



## cda (Jan 22, 2015)

it's Jersey  hay

Plus if sprinkled, more than likely the attic area was not, so if it started in the attic, very good fuel source up there.


----------



## cda (Jan 22, 2015)

We arrived on scene, and we encountered the sprinkler system going off and smoke conditions on the first floor," Jacobson said. "I sent in crews to check what was going on; we had heavy fire on the ceiling."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/us/new-jersey-apartment-fire/index.html

but more than likely not in the attic area


----------



## steveray (Jan 22, 2015)

Love that 13R


----------



## JBI (Jan 22, 2015)

Anyone else seeing 5 stories? I thought 13R was limited to 4?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 22, 2015)

> "The fire conditions were getting worse. It was in the floors and it just traveled,"


Lack of fire blocking and draft stopping maybe


----------



## steveray (Jan 22, 2015)

JBI....I thought all the news said 4...Maybe architectural dormers?

MT.....Most likely....Again see post #6....


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jan 22, 2015)

We had at least 3 similar fires in apartment buildings in the Richmond area about 8 to 12 years ago.  These fires started outside and got into the unsprinklered attics.  The draftstopping was probably inadequate, and the trusses went up like kindling wood.  Amazingly the residents escaped, but the buildings had to be razed and rebuilt.

I tried to get a state amendment requiring sprinklers in attics of apartment buildings, but was shot down because the sprinkler requirement was supposedly for life safety, and the life safety committee thought that adding sprinklers in the attics would only be for property protection.


----------



## Msradell (Jan 22, 2015)

Here's an interesting follow-up story in the newspaper about the fire Fire Started by Maintenance Workers .  The fire was started by maintenance workers who fought the fire themselves for 15 minutes before calling the fire department!  In addition they were no firewalls in the attics.  Some other interesting information also.


----------



## cda (Jan 22, 2015)

love apartment maintenance, they do a burn up job.

Guess they were kept on to do some make readys


----------



## steveray (Jan 23, 2015)

Man dies in sprinklered apartment fire......

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20150123/new-haven-apartment-fire-kills-resident


----------



## conarb (Jan 23, 2015)

New Jersey Fire

I thought I'd seen this fire posted before but can't find it so am posting this:





			
				\ said:
			
		

> The building's sprinklers were working, but the lightweight, wooden structure fueled the flames and made fighting the fire difficult, the fire chief said.The building complied with construction and fire codes, the fire chief said, but he added: "If it was made out of cinder block and concrete, we wouldn't have this problem."
> 
> In 2000, a fire started at the same location where a five-story condominium complex was under construction, destroying nine homes and damaging several others. The cause was never determined, although investigators ruled out arson.


The problem here is the fire chief's statement "If it was made out of cinder block and concrete, we wouldn't have this problem."  The problem is "lightweight" construction, the usage of lightweight roof and floor trusses and I joists, we don't know from the reports but the usage of other manufactured products like OSB and styrene foams also greatly contribute to fast moving fires.  

If the fire service had spent 1/10th the money fighting lightweight construction that they spent promoting sprinklers we wouldn't be having these problems and they would have had "good" builders on their side, but the course taken had the money of the sprinkler industry behind it; furthermore, it was a lot easier to get the NAHB (a tract/production builder association)  to acquiesce to sprinklers than to get them to give up their cheap building materials.


----------



## cda (Jan 23, 2015)

What came first the camel or the egg?


----------



## RFDACM02 (Apr 7, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> If the fire service had spent 1/10th the money fighting lightweight construction that they spent promoting sprinklers we wouldn't be having these problems and they would have had "good" builders on their side, but the course taken had the money of the sprinkler industry behind it; furthermore, it was a lot easier to get the NAHB (a tract/production builder association)  to acquiesce to sprinklers than to get them to give up their cheap building materials.


The issue is Life Safety not property protection. Sprinklers in this regard are for the occupants, it's just the secondary benefit of property protection is so significant that they can be used to protect lightweight construction materials. Safer construction materials will benefit firefighters and property owners, but are far less likely to reduce fire injuries and deaths. While structural weakening and damage can and does kill firefighters, FD's are also looking to prevent fires from harming civilians. Sprinklers are the right answer to reduce fire losses of both types (lives and property). But, alas, there are no silver bullets, nothing will be 100% effective. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of good.


----------

