I think there are many fine text on the subject of fire investigation that assist us in doing a better job then we have in the past. I try to read and use them all. Does that in and of itself make them authoritative because I refer to them, or because you refer to them or whoever? I don't really know the answer to that. I think when 921 calls itself an authoritative standard of care for fire investigators then I will believe it is what it says it is. It's really that simple to me. You folks have been gnashing at the teeth about 921 for years. It's a good read (well not really) I use it. Why can't it be that simple? As for the other well-known text on the subject some are better reads, I refer to them. Are they authoritative? I guess the best answer I have for that is they are what they are and I try to use them as they are/were intended to be used. As far as the fire prevention codes in Kansas I suspect they are but I do not think they call themselves a guide. An NFPA Standard does not call itself a guide. Are they authoritative? I think so because someone made them that way by their very definition. If the State of Kansas called me tomorrow and said hey Dave NFPA 921 is now been passed into law as an authoritative standard and you must follow it step by step word for word then I would say it just became authoritative. I really don't know why you keep dredging the issue up. Seems silly to me. I don't really know what motive, if any, you have for doing so. Most good fire investigators today try to conduct their investigations using the methodology outlined in 921 and other text. If this is true have the text not served the purpose for which they were intended? And if in fact you all decide that it/they are authoritative what does that really mean to the investigator that uses them and tries/succeeds in doing a good job. What is it you are trying to accomplish here that isn’t already being accomplished?

Dave


Dave