Posted On: August 25, 2009, 8:08 pm CDT

Posted By: John D. Smith

William: You must have a lot of free time on your hands to write such a missive on a 9 month old, long forgotten article.

However, I love your ignorance. Please elucidate about the mandatory "code mandated" egress in the following common shutter types:

Roll Down---Uh, you need the optional crank at every window. Even with the crank, it would take about 2 minutes to crank up in a dark room, with no lights. Fat chance.

Accordions--These lock from the outside---so how do you open from the inside?

Corrugated Storm Panels--these wingnut at the bottom. What is the egress you speak of? The one company that makes an egress panel sells an optional Ensurescape nifty product but you would have to retrofit EVERY home with storm panels with this product, which obviously isn't going to happen.

Plywood--These bolt on all 4 sides. Uh, what is the egress again, WILLIAM?

Clearly the FBC shutter market is just concerned about their own longevity, not about safety. Your industry doesn't sell safety---they sell expensive hard to put up shutters that the public hates using. Seriously, if homeowners were buying FBC shutters, you'd be too busy to post on forgotten websites.

That is why there is all this talk about "product approval" and "national consensus standards." What you fail to inform the public is that it is YOUR STANDARDS. How do your products do in hurricanes? Do they perform like Storm Stoppers? How come your industry NEVER talks about FBC products' performance during major hurricanes? In other words, these alleged standards are promulgated by people in the FBC industry, and only exist to move their interests forward. The public is not told that the shutters they buy deny them a way out. They have to find out the hard way in an emergency.

Regarding the mitigation inspection forms, you say that they are up to the interpretation of the mitigation inspectors. Inspection companies that have approved Storm Stoppers are following the form, not selectively interpreting it as you seem interested in doing. The form asks for proof of large missile impact testing and Storm Stoppers has that.

It is interesting that you interpret it towards your interests, but not a surprise. Again, if the public were educated, they would wonder why the form asks for proof of meeting the Missile Level C test is there as an option, if FBC approval is mandatory. Isn't the mitigation form redundant for asking for FBC approval and then as you say, asking for FBC approval AGAIN via the missile level C option? If what you are saying is true, Section 8 of the form really reads like this:

Homeowner needs proof of passing the Large Missile Impact test to one of the following:

1. FBC approval
2. Miami Dade approval
3. Missile Level C FBC approval

As you articulated, that is redundant. I have more respect for the Florida Office of Insurance people that created the form than you do. Your interpretation of the form is rather cockeyed but it is consistent with your line of work. Politicians rarely tell the truth and the same goes for people in the FBC approval industry.

I sincerely hope you aren't in a home protected by one of the above lack-of-egress shutter types (i.e. roll down, accordion, corrugated storm panel or plywood) when a fire breaks out. I just saw a house fire 2 weeks ago and it was extremely frightening. I can only imagine how scary it would be for the occupant to try and escape from the windows only to find one of these 4 shutter types blocking their way. Google HURRICANE SHUTTER TRAGEDIES and you will read more about these deaths. You can also visit the IHPA's website at www.innhpa.com.

Anyways, i'm sure you will be looking for work in the near future. I mean, the FBC industry is sooooo busy with such a waiting list of consumers for your unsafe, expensive and hard to use products, yet you have all this time on your hands. That doesn't make much sense but nor does the truth of the FBC product approval agenda.