As an Electrical Engineer I do not conduct fire investigations. I do cause analysis. I determine if an electrical system or device caused, or did not cause, a fire.

In the past I had insurance companies call me and say "We are certain this was an electrical fire and want you to go look at it by yourself". Which I happily did. Today I would never conduct a scene examination without a "Fire Investigator" present for all the reasons cited.

I have been attacked (even on this board) for not citing 921 as an authorative document. It is not a guide for electrical engineering and failure mode analysis. Read 14.5. I have been conducting failure analysis for fire, shock and safety of military, industrial and consumer products for over 20 years. I dare say there are few, if any, UL engineers that have ever heard of 921. Does that mean they are incompetent to evaluate the electrical products surrounding you right now for fire causation? However, their's is some of the best suited training around for electrical fire causation. So no, 921 or 1033 are not authoratative to my profession. Conversly, I believe that NFPA 70 is not an authoratative document for CFI's either. Does that mean I feel EE's working with fires should not be very familiar with 921? Of course they should. Just like I feel that CFI's should be familiar with 70.

I work for the fire investigator as a technical consultant. I do not call the fire. Neither do the chemists that analyze the debris samples. They do not need to call 921 or 1003 authoritative either.

To say an electrical event had the potential to cause a fire has to be coupled with a first fuel ignigted (outside the event), location within the area of origin, etc. These parameters are not defined by the EE, but by the CFI. A CFI accepts, or heaven forbid , rejects my findings to make their call.

Disclaimer, my opionion, as well as my spelling, is mine alone. Any concurrence will be undertaken at your own peril. The beatings will continue until all have abandoned ship.