I like this question emcannic.

Loaded & slippery all at the same time! My answer is that it's not a perfect world. Each inspector has his expectations of how he wants things done. I do my best to make sure to satisfy the inspector, the code and the safety of the potential passengers.

And yes it's a chicken sh*t answer...

Well that question apparently flopped. If and when Mr. Krieger happens across this topic, (and if he responds) just maybe it'll be better understood by those of us who are State licensed, and actually signing off on State Compliance Reports, the what's and how this annual testing is to be performed.

Elmcannic,

I understood your question. You said it yourself! Three different answers from three different people.

Many states require state licensing. But not all states nor all inspectors do things the same way!

This is what makes your question slippery.

I think I'll take the high road with this and chalk it up to frustration!
"just maybe it'll be better understood by those of us who are State licensed, and actually signing off on State Compliance Reports"

I know here (not Cal) if it is the monthly testing all the inspectors are looking for is to capture the car from phase 1 keyswitch, make sure buzzer and lights are working, then on phase 2 make sure doors are working per code, and make a 1 floor run. If it is an acceptance test it is checked out fully from each smoke head and each condition of operation.

Thanks guys, and I do appreciate your responses.
So what one inspector says is that on the annual test, not only do all smoke heads need testing ( and I'm sure he'd add the shunt trip too) but on either traction or hydro these items should be checked to be sure Phase 1 Fire stays latched;
Earthquake operation
Derailment operation
Loss of main 3 phase incoming power
Battery lowering operation
Probably generator back up switch over too.
I mean it sounds as if it's an new construction turnover.
The other inspector seems to think it should be tested similar to like Boa's description, which is quite simple and honestly like what I've been lead to believe is an exceptable way except I do pull the mainline on the last smoke to see if the unit recovers yet on Phase 1 when powered back up.
And the PACE class instructor agrees more with inspector #1 (on an annual!).
Go figure. My point is, being licensed, there is s tremendous liability it seems to me on each mechanic to perform this test "properly" in accordance with a State regulations. I'm liable here if something isn't right, and as they say, "Ignorance is no excuse of the law". Guess I'll have to press deeper to get closer to the bottom this and ask the local authority (the State) just "What" are we to be testing on the annual inspection. Or as some would suggest, " Buy a code book ya dope!"
Sorry to take up so much "Technical" space for this.

Elmcannic,

Elevator world has a field hand book for testing at elevator books.com. You may find it useful...

As a QEI Inspector I would like to give you my two cents worth. The biggest problem here is do you have the Building test the Smoke Sensors on Phase I. Phase II is not a problem. The Inspectors Guide stipulates that sensors are to be tested annually, and witnessed by an inspector. The problem here is you usually cannot do this with just a Mechanic. Other people need to be organized and involved to reset the smokes. Not to mention the disruption of the entire Building, unless of course your performing the test on overtime, which now begs the question of who pays the bill, who organizes the whole thing etc; This is one of those catch 22 questions. As a Mechanic you just do what the Inspector says. We all have our way of doing things.

Thanks guys for the responses,
This is sort of what I was looking for in the way of dialogue in the original post. Guess I'll take the Lazy Man's way and call "The State" this week and see what their response is, then come up for air and post what I've learned.

Thanks again.

Why do you feel calling the State you work in and asking questions on code is the "lazy mans way"?

We'll certainly there are other ways to satisfy my curiosity. Digging into a text and wading through the sections and sub-sections would be a good learn. But to simply call the State and let them tell me is by far easier, hence the lazy way, but I'll be sure to tell him or her that our phone conversation is being monitored for quality purposes...HA! The Hand Book you mention would be of value to no doubt other code related items rather than someone's "interpretation", but at this point, there are no other issues code-wise I find myself twisted up in.
But hey... By not wading through a boatload of text, I just might get yet another service or two in tomorrow! It's looking brighter already!!

OK
Here's the long and short if it per my conversation with the " Senior" at the State Division Office this morning regarding annual fire recall testing in California;
The wording that may appear "...fire and 'OTHER' emergency conditions..." is per the 1996 through 98 code and has since been removed to avoid confusion (really?). The current wording (2004) simply says "... under emergency fire conditions" (or fire emergency). In a nutshell, the Senior states the test requires testing of all recalling devices, and removing 3 phase power to insure the FE input latches and the car remains on Phase 1 when power is restored. THATS IT. No battery lowering test, no EQ or seismic testing etc.
if I had an "That Was Easy" button, I'd've pressed it at least twice.

Now,
If I still had that "Easy Button", I'd smash it with a "finish" hammer because I've had it with the State (of California) and the varying opinions and interpretations of the same dam code regarding fire testing and battery lowering. This Inspector says one thing, the Senior at the Division level says "No, don't have to do it that way" (on the annual), and now I've been hacked again by yet another Inspector who says the exact opposite of what the Senior said. Can you say "conundrum"?
One way or another I'm gonna push this stupid annual testing code on group 3 and 4 to get an answer that everyone can understand and be able to comply with (at least in our company branch). Upon further investigation, even the service supervisors and repair department supers are at odd's with the what's, how's and who's as to complete these tests when written up. Is it only me who's all twisted up in this game of State codes? What the heck? It's turned into "a can of worms". I've written the "Senior" who gave me the simple answer a few months back, but haven't heard back, and honestly...probably won't. Maybe this has to be pushed further up to Sacramento to get resolution I don't know. One part of me says, "Screw it" if no one else gives a rats why should I, but it really shouldn't be this difficult.
OK... I'm done for now.
Have a good evening fellas.

Washington state is no better at the interpretation game. Whenever I am forced to go through one of the technical specialists or supervisors for clarification, I try and email them the gist of our phone conversation. Let's them get a chance to chew on it a bit, and when they still agree, I print that mofo for onsite inspectors viewing pleasure.