I received a notice from TSSA this morning concerning Majestic m/n FSDV22, FSDV30
and FSDV32 direct vented fireplaces.
They are now deemed illegal in Ontario. All approvals have been revoked. Any of these fireplaces, natural gas or propane are to be disconnected and use terminated. Something about the glass shattering due to the pressure relief damper not being able to handle a large delayed ignition.
Anyone else get this notice?
Nope never got this letter yet are you a majestic dealer?
Nevermind I just found they went bankrupt in 2008
If I understand the problem correctly, the fireplace glass may shatter because of sudden pressure caused by igniting built-up gas if the ignition is delayed a few seconds after turning on the fireplace. That is, there's a "whoosh" when the fireplace turns on, and it might cause enough pressure for the glass to break. I presume the problem is because of a problem damper, weak glass, or an ignition system that takes too long to light the flames, or all of the above.
If that's the only problem, it sounds like the only danger is when you first turn on the fireplace, and there's no danger once the fireplace is lit.
I don't want to minimize that danger, but as an adult, now that you know the danger, why don't you just stand back when you flip on the wall switch to light the fireplace?
If you have small children around that don't understand the danger, then obviously you would want to shut off the gas unless you were present to light the fireplace.
Anyway, since the company is bankrupt and you are stuck with the fireplace, why not just use it cautiously?
Disclaimer: I know I'll get jumped on about the safety issue, especially from people who would make a living selling and installing you a new fireplace. I also caution you about the safety issue. I'm just saying, that as an adult without young children, I might be personally willing to continue to use the fireplace carefully, despite what the government tells me to do in my own home.
Disclaimer2: If I'm wrong about my assumptions about the problem, all bets are off of course. And disclaimer3, never take advice from someone you don't know on the Internet! ;-)
As a gas fitter, TSSA makes it my responsibility to shut these down if and when I see them.
25 years from now, if I have 15 minutes between jobs, which leads to a chance encounter with a worn out thermopile, I'm still the last guy on it if it smashes the glass a week or a year afterwards.
No, I wasn't a dealer, I just work on all kinds of equipment, fireplaces included.
But, if I'm still working in 25 years, maybe I deserve it anyway...
Received the notice yesterday and we had a meeting about it at the shop this morning. There is going to be some upset customers out there.
Ouch! I'll certainly never hire any serviceman for my fireplace if I know there's anything wrong with it that I'm willing to put up with.
Originally Posted by gruntly
The fact that the government (or some agency of it) has the right to come into my home and shut off my appliances is pretty scary. Advice about the possible safety concerns I'd certainly appreciate, and I'd be willing to sign off that I'd been informed. Forcibly shutting stuff off I wouldn't appreciate... and likely neither would the serviceman after how I reacted.
Well, that's the way it is up here. Red tag, shut'em off, inform the authority. Sorry customer, I am no longer involved. Deal with the government.
Originally Posted by Charles4
Are you not concerned that you would lose not only that customer FOREVER, but many of his friends and neighbours? Certainly any tech that tried that on me, would likely be shoved/booted out my front door before he had a chance to sabotage my possessions. Good luck collecting any money for the service call, too.
Originally Posted by gruntly
Shrugging it off as, "I'm just here from the industry to help you, so I'm wrecking your stuff for your own good", is rather irresponsible to the customer. You're supposed to be working for the paying CUSTOMER, not some government or industry agency that is accountable to no one. (At least if it was an elected official making up such stupid rules, they would be accountable and I could vote against them.)
Wow... I still can't get over that you think you have (any may even have... which is scarier) the right to sabotage someone's stuff in their own home, without even consulting the homeowner about it.
What next? The knife police that come around to dull all my kitchen knives in case I cut myself? The food police that come around to confiscate any canned goods that have past their "best before date"? Insane....
If the PAYING CUSTOMER gets hurt from a product such as the one in question, mr. homeowner will be right there suing the tech who let the faulty product stay in service. there comes a point that the contractor has to look out for himself.
I shut down a bowling alley on the weekend of a big tournament, because of their dangerous furnaces. They weren't happy. My wife's boss was scheduled to bowl that weekend. Didn't make her happy. I did my job.
Tagging and locking out equipment is supposedly not done indescriminantly but only in cases where the offending appliance has been deemed "dangerous" by ANSI stds. The Red Tag and lock out are done to protect homeowners from themselves. Consulting the homeowner would result in a LOT of dangerous appliances being left in service to injure people and damage property. Yes, the State has that right. Your local fire marshal, Authority Having Jurisdiction and in some areas trained technicians do. In some states, plumbers have the legal right to shut down a building with hazardous DWV piping. Now, as for the technician's legal authority, this is a grey area. However, having worked on this issue for a major fireplace mfr.'s legal team, I can assure you if a technician finds an installation that meets the definition of "dangerous" yet fails to tag out/ lock out or document informing the client, he takes on a HUGE liability. Basically, a Tag Out/ Lock Out or TOLO is to protect the occupants from injury and to legally protect the technician and his employer.
Your attitude Charles just gives merit to this principle because you clearly do not get it. I'd rather lose one client's business than his life. FYI, the technician can take you to small claims court and collect for the service call because he did what he was supposed to do--inspect the system for problems and hazards. Lesser hazards may be reported to the client and written warnings documented. But we're talking serious issues, which you don't seem to care about. Think about why you call a professional technician in the first place: to inspect and service the unit. Would you want a car mechanic to change your oil even if he saw your brake line cut or steering linkage separating? To do so would imply the car was fit to drive, which it is not.
The cost of losing the customer is better than the liability if something happens. Its never happen to me but I have seen what happens when a technician cuts a customer a break and something goes wrong. I would never want to be in that situation.
Sabotage? To what end is it sabotage?
Originally Posted by Charles4
Although the responsibility towards my family and myself concerning my own liabilities sits in the back of my mind at all times, I have to consider why I am there to begin with. I won't use any outside analogies... You don't have any outdated food, do you?... I am there to fix, repair, whatever. If it is deemed unrepairable by me, the fuels supplier, the authority or the government whom empowers that authority, I am obliged to do what is necessary to comply with the people who sprang me a piece of paper that represents the adage that I have earned the equivalent to the minimum required amount of knowledge to do this job. Any information added to that knowledge is a bonus to my customers.
Once I have completed my task, through the scope of my responsibilities, the customer can do whatever he/she pleases.. call another contractor (God help them if they cross the line to restart the equipment without rectifying the situation) or restart/repair it themselves. As I said, once I walk away, along with the proper procedures in place, my liabilities become limited, protecting my family and myself.
Your statement mentioned my rights, or what you think should be my limited rights. I have the right to protect myself, physically or legally, at any given time. Just because someone calls me to work on their behalf, and any and all employers do that (to a contractor, customers are employers, too), I still have the right to protect myself. Doesn't matter what I do for a living or for pleasure.
Hearthman's avatar says it all.
Go ahead. Help yourself to another rusty, dented can of tuna. :CU: