# Fire Safety Curtain System Hand Crank Winch Questions



## Smatticus (Jan 24, 2019)

A post by JR Clancy on Facebook about NFPA 80 and the requirement to keep a fire safety curtain in the closed position at all possible times has spurred much discussion. There have been some, in my opinion, unnecessarily heated and judgemental reactions regarding the, again in my opinion, unrealistic expectation that this be done if you have an unpowered hand crank winch system.

Please see this YouTube video for context. We timed the raising of our fire curtain by hand cranking using 3 operators taking turns. It took 12 minutes 25 seconds, which included a few brief pauses. The total average speed was 1.6 ft/min for a 20 foot proscenium opening.

Based on the above, and a review of ANSI 1.22-2016 Fire Safety Curtain Systems, I have some questions:

Does ANSI 1.22-2016 not permit hand crank winches? It does not say this explicitly but it seems to be implied... It says an unpowered system is allowed for proscenium openings less than 925 square feet. It says that non-emergency operation must be possible with 1 person in 3 minutes. Based on real-world use, the expectation that 1 person can hand crank a curtain in 3 minutes seems pretty unreasonable. The expectation that this also be done nearly every day compounds the issue. Is the standard therefore implying that if a system is unpowered it must be, for example a 1:1 hand-line based system where 1 person can actually operate the curtain in under 3 minutes?
How has NFPA 80 and ANSI 1.22 evolved on issues related to hand cranked systems over time? What are the grandfathering rules when it comes to compliance with the expectations concerning these issues?
What are the compliance expectations related to hand crank systems and keeping the fire safety curtain closed as much as possible if your venue is not even required to have a fire safety curtain in the first place? (Per industry building and life safety codes) I'm assuming if your venue has a fire safety curtain which it is not required to have, then all aspects of the standards applying to it must be adhered to.
Fire safety curtain systems with grandfathered asbestos curtains are still out there but this does not seem to be addressed in ANSI 1.22. I do not know if it is addressed in NFPA 80. Should it be recommended to keep an asbestos fire safety curtain in the closed position as much as possible when doing so puts it at much greater risk of being disturbed and thus creating an asbestos fiber hazard?
Let's keep the discussion of these questions civil please. For the most part I think we are all trying to do our best to keep our venues as safe as we possibly can. Based on what ANSI 1.22 says in Appendix note B.11.12., I don't personally believe we are putting our venues and occupants at some tremendous risk if we aren't keeping our fire safety curtains down as much as we possibly can. I am not advocating that people don't do that. If you are able to do it (because you don't have a hand crank winch system), definitely do it. @BillConnerFASTC I would be particularly interested to hear what you have to say regarding these questions and issues.


----------



## Smatticus (Jan 24, 2019)

One further question related to NFPA 80 specifically (I haven't had a chance to review it yet)...

Many buildings have fire doors which are held open by electromagnets. In an emergency the magnet shuts off and the fire door closes. Why is a fire safety curtain, which is also an automated emergency fire control device, not treated similarly to such fire doors? When does NFPA say it's okay for a fire door to have an automated emergency trigger versus just needing to be kept closed basically at all times? Is the requirement to keep the fire safety curtain closed as much as possible a carry-over from ANSI 1.22 or is there some other reason why it is in NFPA 80?


----------



## derekleffew (Jan 24, 2019)

Smatticus said:


> Is the requirement to keep the fire safety curtain closed as much as possible a carry-over from ANSI 1.22 or is there some other reason why it is in NFPA 80?


I don't think it's a carry-over, as NFPA 101, 13.4.5.7.6.3. (G) predates ANSI 1.22 by ten years or more. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. See also the ten year-old poll: https://www.controlbooth.com/threads/poll-operation-of-fire-curtain.12159/ and https://www.controlbooth.com/threads/fire-curtain-code-question.12140 .


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Jan 24, 2019)

A few responses and thoughts, since I had a major hand in NFPA 80 - which preceded the ANSI E1.22 standard - and some hand in the ANSI standard. And all the language in NFPA 101 on this subject is largely mine. The requirement for closing during non-production times was added in 1988 edition of LSC- by yours truly. The justification: since the majority in existence did not work - this according to a large number of stage equipment contractors and a large number of consultants. Jay Glerum was one of the most vocal and adamant in reporting very few would actually close. Also, while there was little or no reports of a fire curtain having been effective in a real fire, it was seen as effective in preventing people from falling off the stage. In reported stage fires (NFPA's database) the only injuries were to fire service in 5 of 26 fires reported. 20%. (and property damage averaged less than $10,000)

Safety is not necessarily convenient or easy. In terms of hand winch, motorize it. Safety is also not necessarily inexpensive.

NFPA 80 (the law in many jurisdictions) requires straight lift curtains 850 sq ft and larger to be motorized. It requires all other than straight lift - including braille curtains -to be motorized regardless of size.

ANSI E 1.22 is not law - its a standard published by an industry association which follows the rules of ANSI in writing it.

Fire curtains are custom assembled on the job site assemblies and no where near as well tested and reliable as a door and closer.

Now, while I have worked a lot on making fire curtain regulations make sense, and not be a fireman a diesel electric locomotive just for the benefit of the contractors who make and install them, I have an opinion. They are archaic and the requirements for them should be deleted. There is virtually no record in the modern era of theatres - since the electric light bulb early in the last century - of fire curtains having played a role in life safety. A few anecdotal reports of property savings, but none fully vetted in my opinion. Since lighting has been a principal ignition source of theatre fires - especially while the theatre occupied - the advent of LED lighting is lessening that risk once again, just as the light bulb diminished it from open fla and open arc light sources.

Second indulgence - my opinion above being no.1 - NFPA awarded me their Special Achievement Award 10+ years ago for my work with NFPA on fire curtains. I rarely mention that but thought it might add some credibility. (Not that my skeptical, iconoclastic personality believes it should, but some will make the inference that it does.)


----------



## Smatticus (Jan 24, 2019)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> The justification: since the majority in existence did not work - this according to a large number of stage equipment contractors and a large number of consultants. Jay Glerum was one of the most vocal and adamant in reporting very few would actually close.



Were there requirements existing at the time regarding testing and inspection? It seems like this issue would spur more stringent testing and inspection requirements rather than necessarily the stipulation that curtains be closed every day.


BillConnerFASTC said:


> Also, while there was little or no reports of a fire curtain having been effective in a real fire, it was seen as effective in preventing people from falling off the stage. In reported stage fires (NFPA's database) the only injuries were to fire service in 5 of 26 fires reported. 20%. (and property damage averaged less than $10,000)



Were all of those injuries due to people falling off the stage? That's understandable for venues where there is an immediate drop-off downstage of the proscenium, but how much help is it for stages with large aprons out in front of the proscenium? A removable railing system like those used for orchestra pits would more directly address the issue of a fall hazard at the front of the stage. I get it; if you have a fire curtain, why not let it double as a railing but man, that's really overkill for a railing.


BillConnerFASTC said:


> Safety is not necessarily convenient or easy. In terms of hand winch, motorize it. Safety is also not necessarily inexpensive.



I completely agree. But there is also a tinge of hypocrisy in how we talk about fire curtains with regard to safety if it can also be said that there is virtually no record of them having played a role in life safety (your words). Given that, when other safety-related items are competing for money, ones that maybe do have a significant record of playing a role in life safety, it's not a surprise that upgrading a hand winch would not be a significant priority. Really, it's not a surprise that _any_ other significant facility expense would be prioritized before the upgrading of a hand winch. The question is, why was the hand winch considered acceptable in the first place?


BillConnerFASTC said:


> NFPA 80 (the law in many jurisdictions) requires straight lift curtains 850 sq ft and larger to be motorized. It requires all other than straight lift - including braille curtains -to be motorized regardless of size.



How long has this been the case? Does NFPA 80 have any specific requirements for the type of system if it is NOT motorized? What happens if a contractor ignores the requirements and installs a hand winch anyway? Also, if NFPA 80 is more stringent, shouldn't ANSI 1.22 be brought into compliance with NFPA 80?


BillConnerFASTC said:


> ...and not be a fireman a diesel electric locomotive just for the benefit of the contractors who make and install them...



I'm really not sure what you meant there... 


BillConnerFASTC said:


> They are archaic and the requirements for them should be deleted. There is virtually no record in the modern era of theatres - since the electric light bulb early in the last century - of fire curtains having played a role in life safety.



Wow, so, that would undo a lot of work that you've done in the past. Thank you for your contributions in that regard, by the way. What forces are keeping the fire safety curtain a thing then? If the only acceptable alternative to a fire curtain is a deluge system it seems that would be a significant force for keeping curtains around right there.


----------



## Smatticus (Jan 24, 2019)

derekleffew said:


> I don't think it's a carry-over, as NFPA 101, 13.4.5.7.6.3. (G) predates ANSI 1.22 by ten years or more. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. See also the ten year-old poll: https://www.controlbooth.com/threads/poll-operation-of-fire-curtain.12159/ and https://www.controlbooth.com/threads/fire-curtain-code-question.12140 .



@derekleffew Could you clarify how NFPA 101 and NFPA 80 are related to one another?


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Jan 24, 2019)

Smatticus said:


> I'm really not sure what you meant there...



Just that sometimes codes and standards outlive their usefulness or necessity or reason for being , but are kept around for political and financial interest of a few.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Jan 24, 2019)

Smatticus said:


> @derekleffew Could you clarify how NFPA 101 and NFPA 80 are related to one another?


If i may, 101 is a code. 80 is a standard. Codes generally contain administrative provisions and scoping - what and how many are needed when and where. Standards are just that - if a sprinkler system or a fire curtain is required, how does it have to be built or how does it have to perform. Therefore, for 80 to ba law, it has to be referenced by a code. So 101 says when a fire curtain is required and 80 says how it is built, what materials, how it works.

Somewhere I wrote an article on this years ago. I'll see if i can find it. ...
PDF download here: https://www.controlbooth.com/resources/codes-vs-standards-optional-or-mandatory.8/ .


----------



## MNicolai (Jan 24, 2019)

Smatticus said:


> Were there requirements existing at the time regarding testing and inspection? It seems like this issue would spur more stringent testing and inspection requirements rather than necessarily the stipulation that curtains be closed every day.



The issue is enforcement. Whereas AHJ's know exactly how to walk a building and look at last-tested dates on fire extinguishers and verify that nothing is obstructing the fire exits, most AHJ's have little understanding and awareness of fire curtains so when it comes to how the world actually works, there is no way to ensure that just because more stringent testing requirements are put in place that anyone will actually abide by them. This is the "human factor". Forcing people through general industry practice by your average stagehand to operate their curtains more frequently is one of the only ways to make somewhat certain they are ever exercised.


> What forces are keeping the fire safety curtain a thing then? If the only acceptable alternative to a fire curtain is a deluge system it seems that would be a significant force for keeping curtains around right there.



Institutional momentum. I've polled some other theater consultants on this and there doesn't seem to be any consensus or distinct interest in pursuing a change to this regulation.

The introduction of LED's reduces the chance of a fixture catching a curtain on fire, but increases the amount of electronics in the air and the chance of an individual fixture sparking up on its own and the smoke that's generated by fixtures could be more toxic. Those of us who are pampered with fixtures by ETC and the like may scoff at that as a legitimate risk, but there are at least a couple videos out there of China LED fixtures igniting and requiring the show to be stopped.

Deluge systems aren't the only alternative. If you don't want your theater to get flooded when something inevitably fails with your deluge system or user error results in an accidental release, you can elect to use a smoke control system instead. The cost is generally prohibitive though for the average project. If you go with the prescriptive method under NFPA, you'll spend more on a higher capacity system than if you have someone design a system under the performance method. However, there are very few MEP consultants who can perform the required CFD (computational fluid dynamics) analysis for the performance method to minimize the amount of investment required in the smoke control system, and they'll charge for that service accordingly.


----------



## Van (Jan 24, 2019)

Or you could have your hand crank system upgraded to a braille winch system and get a whole new fire curtain and smoke pocket while you're at it. 

I know a guy...


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Jan 24, 2019)

Smatticus - some responses. 

There is a general requirement required systems be maintained. So, yes.

Yes, all were injured when they fell off the stage. Lees burdensome to require using something you have than requiring another system.

Yes, just what i posted. Straight lift under 850 sq ft. Manual counterweight is acceptable and covered.

I wouldn't say deleting the requirement would "undo" anything. I would like to think it would partially be as a result of my research and efforts. Things change. Technology changes. Attitudes change. Codes and standards have to change. 

Related is some movement towards no longer requiring hose cabinets on stage. They were always for occupant fire fighting, not for the fire service. The idea that building occupants should do anything but get out is outdated. 101 has dropped the requirement. I need to work on IBC now. I mean really, does anyone expect the hs band director to fight a stage fire? 

Anothet point on deleting the requirement. Besides fire curtains and deluge systems, you can use doors. I've done one or two with rolling metal fire doors. Comparable cost, always motorized. There are other listed devices. Horizontal coiling doors with motors and batteries. (Wan door is one). You can also use mechanical smoke protection, big exhaust fans in brief. So lots of choices. And the code permits you to design other ways to provide a 20 minute barrier between stage and auditorium. I've thought about a plywood wall coated with intumescent paint. 

Therefore the code change would be to remove the requirement for proscenium opening protection, not the removal of the fire curtain option for thus requirement. Make sense?


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Jan 24, 2019)

To Mike's LED response, I think a 100 - 750 watt quartz fixtures represent a significantly greater hazard of ignition than the 50 120 watt LEDs that replaces them. No proof. Just a theory. I can put my hand on an LED after its been on for a long show. No way with the quartz unit.


----------



## MNicolai (Jan 24, 2019)

@BillConnerFASTC,

I wholeheartedly agree. Those were concerns though raised by the crowd and one of the panel members when I brought this up as a question to a panel session on proscenium openings this last year at USITT. @KacyC was a member of that panel and may have valuable input to contribute to this topic, though she wasn't the one who had concerns about LED fixtures blowing smoke.

It seems at least for the moment that there is no visible champion pushing for elimination or reduction of proscenium opening requirements. I know in previous revision cycles moving the needle has required firms like Arup to contribute a massive amount of effort for fire/smoke propagation studies. Without anyone beating the drum on this and putting a study together to examine it in depth, I'm not sure we'll see any significant changes in the near future.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Jan 24, 2019)

You never know. When you look at the changes that I have been a part of over last 30 years, it isn't as difficult as you suggest. And a lot of FPEs share my view to lack of value.


----------



## techieman33 (Jan 24, 2019)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> To Mike's LED response, I think a 100 - 750 watt quartz fixtures represent a significantly greater hazard of ignition than the 50 120 watt LEDs that replaces them. No proof. Just a theory. I can put my hand on an LED after its been on for a long show. No way with the quartz unit.



I couldn't disagree more. The odds of a standard quartz fixture catching on fire are minuscule. There is a slim chance that it could set something on fire while it's on, but as long as the staff is paying attention that shouldn't happen. And if it does it'll be while the building is occupied, and it should be able to be quickly taken care of. It's not something that will just spontaneously combust by itself. An LED fixture on the other hand has lots of electronic components in it, and a lot will be of questionable quality. Even reputable companies have bad runs. And with a lot of LED fixtures these days being left powered on 24/7 they could catch fire while the building is unoccupied and do incredible amounts of damage. We've all seen components in moving lights fail and at the very least let some smoke out. How many of us have seen a standard quartz fixture on fire or set something else on fire when it wasn't intentional? And then of course you have all the new battery powered LED fixtures that are packed full of Li-Ion batteries that have the potential to explode. How many of them are left plugged in all the time, constantly feeding those batteries a small trickle charge? Pretty much a surefire way to insure that at some point in time those batteries will fail. And I don't know that it will be caught like on a phone or laptop where the user can see the physical signs that a battery is expanding. I'm not sure they will be able to apply enough pressure to show signs of problems while sitting in a very rigid enclosure.


----------



## MNicolai (Jan 25, 2019)

@techieman33 I believe that's the purpose of products going through the UL/etc listing process. If the industry concludes that DMX LED fixtures are somehow more dangerous than your average PC or desk lamp, it begs the question whether all architectural LED fixtures should also be treated with the same level of caution. Architectural lighting fixtures with 24/7 power connections and integral battery packs are already a very common product and are simply a side-step from exit signs and bug-eye lights that also have batteries built into them and have been that way for years.

China-grade movers and things and $35 generic fixtures with batteries that aren't engineered properly do exist, but I think you'd be hard pressed to use those as a benchmark for setting industry standards when many insurance providers and organizations have requirements for using listed products already.

In terms of risk factor, I would tend to think that in most circumstances any particular single fixture catching fire gives time for an orderly response or evacuation and in many circumstances won't be close enough to cause anything else to catch fire. With tungsten and Sharpy-like fixtures, the risk of catching a curtain on fire could be a much higher risk category because of the likelihood of swift flame and smoke propagation. The nature of ignition in this case means flame and smoke propagation could be much faster for this type of fire load. Unlike with LED fixtures, where in a fly tower you're not likely to have flammable goods directly above the fixture making your greatest risk dripping molten plastic so long as your fixtures aren't in direct contact with a soft good.


----------



## techieman33 (Jan 25, 2019)

MNicolai said:


> @techieman33 I believe that's the purpose of products going through the UL/etc listing process. If the industry concludes that DMX LED fixtures are somehow more dangerous than your average PC or desk lamp, it begs the question whether all architectural LED fixtures should also be treated with the same level of caution. Architectural lighting fixtures with 24/7 power connections and integral battery packs are already a very common product and are simply a side-step from exit signs and bug-eye lights that also have batteries built into them and have been that way for years.
> 
> China-grade movers and things and $35 generic fixtures with batteries that aren't engineered properly do exist, but I think you'd be hard pressed to use those as a benchmark for setting industry standards when many insurance providers and organizations have requirements for using listed products already.
> 
> In terms of risk factor, I would tend to think that in most circumstances any particular single fixture catching fire gives time for an orderly response or evacuation and in many circumstances won't be close enough to cause anything else to catch fire. With tungsten and Sharpy-like fixtures, the risk of catching a curtain on fire could be a much higher risk category because of the likelihood of swift flame and smoke propagation. The nature of ignition in this case means flame and smoke propagation could be much faster for this type of fire load. Unlike with LED fixtures, where in a fly tower you're not likely to have flammable goods directly above the fixture making your greatest risk dripping molten plastic so long as your fixtures aren't in direct contact with a soft good.



The chance of an LED fixture catching on fire is still extremely low, I'm just saying I think it's a much higher probability than a quartz fixture. As for the batteries. Sure there have been batteries in exit lights for decades, but they've always been lead acid, and to a lesser extent NiCD or NiMH. And I wouldn't be surprised if most exit lights still had them. Worst case with those is they might eventually leak. It could be ugly to look at, but it's probably not going to cause any serious damage. Li-Ion batteries on the other hand can do some serious damage. Even the "good ones." They have gotten better about designing them to vent "safely" especially the round cells like the 18650 or 21700's used in cars, flashlights, vape pens, etc. But the LiPo batteries in things like phones and thinner laptops still have problems, especially if they're constantly getting power.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Jan 25, 2019)

I'm not suggesting the quartz fixture spontaneously combusts as some suggest an LED will, but the normal fixture operating fixture has been the ignition source of a number of small incipient fires. I've been on stage for at least three, and have researched others. I don't believe LEDs will ever ignite a curtain or drop like a quartz does. 

It's interesting that a manufacturer is considering using the UL architectural listing for all their LED stage and studio fixtures instead if the stage and studio listing, which permits much higher temps.

Fewer circuits, much lower power, smaller feeders all lower the fire risk. Getting rid of hot light fixtures will make the biggest difference.


----------



## KacyC (Feb 1, 2019)

While I’ve never seen an incandescent fixture suddenly burst into flames, I have certainly seen gel smoke and melt before my eyes with a bad burner placement and electrical shorts that create sparks. The latter is my larger concern - electrical fires. Certainly less dangerous than the gas-burner days, but still a source of potential danger especially in older buildings. Our connections are regularly stressed by frequent connections, and what is the average maintenance on these?
The other “common” incandescent fixture-caused fire is the light by the curtain, which is a much lower risk with LEDs.

@MNicolai, I confess I don’t remember that specific part of the discussion, but I hazily recall discussion that LEDs don’t eliminate the electrical fire risk.

@BillConnerFASTC, is your argument that the fire curtain didn’t make a difference because closing off the proscenium altogether doesn’t matter, so therefore means to “preserve” a fire line at the proscenium are unnecessary, what ever they are? Does that mean that smoke vents (and sprinklers) would be required for all facilities, with perhaps smoke evac as an alternative when smoke vents can’t be accommodated?
Do we have data on fires in occupied theatres and smoke inhalation for the audience? Are statistics similar for Europe?

BTW, I believe that China requires a fire curtain *and* soaker system.

There have been changes to the fire curtain requirements even very recently (IIRC, fusible links is one example), so change is certainly possible when there’s evidence to support it.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 1, 2019)

Have to separate life safety - occupants - and property loss.

I can't find much at all of fires in occupied by an audience performing arts theatres, the type that might have a fire curtain, in this country. The three I've been in and several other contemporary (post WW II) I know we'll were unoccupied, or technicians. And the FC didn't close but ignore that. 

I'm not sure FC were ever effective or warranted. Vents and sprinklers have been in my research. But the change from flames and arc sources, dramatic reduction in combustibles on stage, and the effectiveness of sprinklers have made them even less necessary. 

And where are the bodies? 

And what about the clear lack of many functioning for many decades. Not missed.

And would the ones we do in US really hold up? Looking at Frankfurt Opera house fire in 80s, seeing the metal man doors in proscenium destroyed by the negative pressure on stage, buckled inward.

As far as UK and Europe - they are not keen and perhaps a little afraid of fire sprinklers , so hard to compare.

And where are the bodies?

Irksome to me we pay so much attention to these and so little to the falls and cost of those hazards in the aisles and on stage. 

I'm not sure my rambling really answered your question.


----------



## venuetech (Feb 2, 2019)

I had an arson use old programs to build a fire within some architectural plywood display cases, in the unoccupied balcony foyer. 
The fire opened two sprinkler heads and was quickly contained with minimal damage. 

I have also had incandescent fixtures get knocked out of focus and burn holes into treated curtains.


----------



## TimMc (Feb 7, 2019)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> Have to separate life safety - occupants - and property loss.
> 
> I can't find much at all of fires in occupied by an audience performing arts theatres, the type that might have a fire curtain, in this country. The three I've been in and several other contemporary (post WW II) I know we'll were unoccupied, or technicians. And the FC didn't close but ignore that.
> 
> ...



So in a nutshell, Bill, the big Johns-Manville Libby Montana guillotine is one of those things that sounded like a really good idea a century ago but, in practicality, has yet to save a life.

I agree.

The primary reason people no longer die in theater fires is that theaters are less combustible - the construction, soft goods, materials in general; sources of ignition greatly reduced by better Code application; auditoriums are designed for faster egress and are less combustible as well, plus smoking is not allowed. Mostly though it's that fire of any significance is a rare thing. Collectively we've learned a lot from each fire and hopefully we've applied it sufficiently to honor those who died enjoying or providing entertainment. That Iroquois Theater fires no longer happen is not an accident (pun intended).

While we've done better in formal performance spaces, the lessons have not always transferred - Feb 20 will be the 16th anniversary of The Station nightclub fire in West Warwick, RI. One hundred people died and another 230 or so were injured. The 42nd anniversary of the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire is May 28; 165 people died and over 200 were injured.

So I'm all for taking the fire curtain money and putting it toward better audience egress and particularly for evacuation of back stage areas. Let's keep the fires from starting and spreading with Code compliance and best practices, to give us time to get the hell out.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Feb 7, 2019)

venuetech said:


> I have also had incandescent fixtures get knocked out of focus and burn holes into treated curtains.


Sounds like your treated curtains did what they were supposed to do: burn in the area exposed to intense heat from your fixtures, but not continue to burn to spread the fire.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 7, 2019)

Tom Andrews said:


> Sounds like your treated curtains did what they were supposed to do: burn in the area exposed to intense heat from your fixtures, but not continue to burn to spread the fire.


I was on a college faculty, one year old space by reputable designers and contractors, including new curtains, and in midst of dance tech rehearsal. Leg caught on a high side on top of boom. Smoke and flames. I went up Tallescope with Matt knife and dropped it. Carried outside. Burst into flames.

Many years later at code meetings, the top engineer at one of the legacy code organizations declared flame retardant treatments to be one of the greatest frauds on the American people.

Take it for what it is worth but I don't give much credit to flame retardants. YMMV.


----------



## TimMc (Feb 7, 2019)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> I was on a college faculty, one year old space by reputable designers and contractors, including new curtains, and in midst of dance tech rehearsal. Leg caught on a high side on top of boom. Smoke and flames. I went up Tallescope with Matt knife and dropped it. Carried outside. Burst into flames.
> 
> Many years later at code meetings, the top engineer at one of the legacy code organizations declared flame retardant treatments to be one of the greatest frauds on the American people.
> 
> Take it for what it is worth but I don't give much credit to flame retardants. YMMV.



Had an event where the Secret Service decided a TV light in the wing caused glare that prevented the agent on the other side of the stage from having a clear view. The first agent simply swung the light to face directly into the leg. I reached up to turn off the light and the agent had "a very good grip" on my arm. "We don't flip switches while XXXXXX is on stage." The leg smoldered for several minutes until another SS agent decided it was okay to unplug the power to the light. The leg self-extinguished, as it was supposed to. After we regained control of the stage we brought in the legs and had our local fire marshal declared it to be extinguished.

The venue found out that you can't bill the Secret Service for this type of damage.


----------



## KacyC (Feb 9, 2019)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> Many years later at code meetings, the top engineer at one of the legacy code organizations declared flame retardant treatments to be one of the greatest frauds on the American people.
> 
> Take it for what it is worth but I don't give much credit to flame retardants. YMMV.



Makes sense. Same sort of argument on flame retardants in consumer furniture - with studies now showing that they also introduce more harmful chemicals in the air for fire fighters to breathe (and possibly home owners as well).


----------



## Smatticus (Feb 17, 2019)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> Yes, just what i posted. Straight lift under 850 sq ft. Manual counterweight is acceptable and covered.



I know you are not referring to ANSI here because ANSI 1.22 says less than 925 square feet can be un-powered, but I'm still really confused by statements in ANSI 1.22 that seem contradictory or paradoxical as they relate to hand-cranked winches. The idea that non-emergency operation "shall not require more than 3 minutes" doesn't jive with a hand-cranked system... so are they technically no longer allowed or at least no longer recommended? Does NFPA make any distinctions about how a manual counterweight system is to be reset? Hand-line vs hand-crank, etc?


BillConnerFASTC said:


> Another point on deleting the requirement. Besides fire curtains and deluge systems, you can use doors. I've done one or two with rolling metal fire doors. Comparable cost, always motorized. There are other listed devices. Horizontal coiling doors with motors and batteries. (Wan door is one). You can also use mechanical smoke protection, big exhaust fans in brief. So lots of choices. And the code permits you to design other ways to provide a 20 minute barrier between stage and auditorium. I've thought about a plywood wall coated with intumescent paint.
> 
> Therefore the code change would be to remove the requirement for proscenium opening protection, not the removal of the fire curtain option for thus requirement. Make sense?



This mostly makes sense. It seems there needs to be some means of protecting an audience from a fire or smoke situation on stage long enough for emergency egress to occur. Or are you suggesting even that might not be necessary in modern theaters due to other factors that make fires less likely to occur and spread in the first place? Such protection can be achieved various ways as you have described, one of which is a fire safety curtain or door.

Fire safety curtains or doors can provide another life safety protection as a "railing" to prevent falls off the front of the stage... but the value of this depends very much I think on a particular theater's architecture. If there's a large apron downstage of the fire safety curtain then there is still potentially a fall hazard present. Or if the elevation change from the stage to the audience is exceptionally shallow for some reason such a railing may not be required in the first place. And of course, an actual railing system on the front of the stage could serve the same function. I'm actually curious what codes and standards have to say about the fall hazard at the front of a stage in particular as this is somewhat of a separate issue from fire protection. When is the elevation between stage edge and front row high enough to require a safety railing?

As has been stated, fire safety curtains or doors provide other advantages that are quite secondary to life safety, such as protection of property, security, possibly more efficient heating and cooling during off-periods, etc. Given those advantages, and the added benefit of helping ensure the curtain is always working properly, I am certainly for lowering the curtain on a routine basis provided you have the means of doing so practically. If you have one, you might as well use it for all of its advantages.


MNicolai said:


> @BillConnerFASTC
> It seems at least for the moment that there is no visible champion pushing for elimination or reduction of proscenium opening requirements. I know in previous revision cycles moving the needle has required firms like Arup to contribute a massive amount of effort for fire/smoke propagation studies. Without anyone beating the drum on this and putting a study together to examine it in depth, I'm not sure we'll see any significant changes in the near future.



Sounds like this could be an interesting and valuable project for a Graduate or Doctoral thesis in fluid dynamics at a research school.


venuetech said:


> I have also had incandescent fixtures get knocked out of focus and burn holes into treated curtains.




BillConnerFASTC said:


> I was on a college faculty, one year old space by reputable designers and contractors, including new curtains, and in midst of dance tech rehearsal. Leg caught on a high side on top of boom. Smoke and flames. I went up Tallescope with Matt knife and dropped it. Carried outside. Burst into flames.
> 
> Many years later at code meetings, the top engineer at one of the legacy code organizations declared flame retardant treatments to be one of the greatest frauds on the American people.
> 
> Take it for what it is worth but I don't give much credit to flame retardants. YMMV.



That sounds rather terrifying. Thank you for enlightening me on the term "Tallescope," I've seen those things before but never knew what they were called. There are some rather interesting videos on YouTube illustrating different techniques for rescuing a worker from a Tallescope.

I have also had Altman 360Q's burn holes into legs. I'm guessing the flame retardant treatment on the curtains is what kept them from developing into actual flames... they just smoldered a little. I don't know how valuable they are in residential applications, but in theater draperies placed in close proximity to exceptionally hot lighting fixtures flame retardants seem like a good idea.


Van said:


> Or you could have your hand crank system upgraded to a braille winch system and get a whole new fire curtain and smoke pocket while you're at it.



I think a conversation with our facilities planning and operations people is definitely in order. I believe our proscenium opening is right between that 850 and 925 square feet specified by NFPA and ANSI so a conversion to motorized would definitely be a good idea. Does the phrase "braille winch system" not refer to a manual hand crank system? Everywhere I see the phrase "braille winch" it's in relation to a hand-crank winch. A braille-style curtain would not be used in our space, our existing is a straight lift. Even though it is presently grandfathered in, a replacement of the asbestos curtain would be preferred if we were going to be lowering the curtain on a near daily basis.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 17, 2019)

Smatticus- some comments.
NFPA 80 is law in many jurisdictions. ANSI 1.22 is not, to the best of my knowledge, law anyplace. If I looked through my notes I might find why these differ. I'll wager I was a part of the discussion in committee but blanking on it now.

Generally hand crank are for braille and iirc only straight lift under the size noted are allowed non-motorized, so not usually cranked. The concern is of course if it takes too long, the regular closing will be deterred.

Keep in mind egress requirements should provide a 200 second egress (a number pulled from a newspaper article on a theatre fire in Scottland iirc where everyone got out safely) so the question will the fire grow so fast as to endanger people in 200 seconds. Or 10 minutes if you want a 3:1 safety factor. And the requirement use to be 5 minutes for an asbestos curtain. Now 20 - how convenient for manufacturers who just happen to test for that. If 5 minutes never cost a life in 80 or so years, why raise it as hazard decreases.

The only place protection of occupants from the dall hazard is in law is the Life Safety Code, which simply requires a "written plan" on how people will be protected from the hazard. OSHA does not have the blanket exception building and fire codes do, so employees still have to be protected. And yes, the fire curtain is not ideal, but not bad for folks walking in the dark.

I loved the tallescope. Steady, light enough to lift onto platforms. Pulled off the market in US because too easy to misuse. So genies with interlocked outriggers.

I think a braille winch can be hand crank or motorized, its just a winch for brail curtains which don't work with counterweight. 

Thoughtful comments. Thanks.


----------



## derekleffew (Feb 17, 2019)

Smatticus said:


> Thank you for enlightening me on the term "Tallescope," I've seen those things before but never knew what they were called.


Pretty sure the name comes from the UK, and interestingly, they were never called that in the US until after Upright Scaffold stopped making them. Most Americans who have used the device, and who aren't pedantists like @BillConnerFASTC would call it a "cherry picker."


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 17, 2019)

I was pretty sure thevone i used in college - in USA - was labeled Tallescope. Some gor sale in US on Ebay https://www.ebay.com/itm/Up-Right-S...er-50512-Stairs-/181008320873?redirect=mobile

Model name and number at ad.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 17, 2019)

Link to a label https://photos.app.goo.gl/dmzrW3BK3UyduAN46


----------



## Smatticus (Feb 18, 2019)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> Link to a label https://photos.app.goo.gl/dmzrW3BK3UyduAN46



So, the name doesn't just come from the UK after Upright stopped making them... I've never worked at a venue that has one so haven't really heard them being called "cherry-pickers" either.


BillConnerFASTC said:


> Smatticus- some comments.
> NFPA 80 is law in many jurisdictions. ANSI 1.22 is not, to the best of my knowledge, law anyplace. If I looked through my notes I might find why these differ. I'll wager I was a part of the discussion in committee but blanking on it now.



I'll find out if this is the case in our jurisdiction, hopefully a good starting point for a conversation with our facilities health and safety about upgrading our fire curtain winch.


----------

