Printed from the blog of Lori Greene, AHC/CDC, CCPR, FDAI
Email:, Blog: or

Jan 08 2016

FF: Double-L

Category: Egress,Fixed-it FridayLori @ 10:14 am Comments (13)

Today’s Fixed-it Friday photo was posted on the Truck Floor Training Facebook page by Brandon Stroud, a firefighter from Anderson, South Carolina.  I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  🙂  🙁

Double L

13 Responses to “FF: Double-L”

  1. Fred Collier says:

    They should put a ratchet and socket in a red box with Break Glass in case of emergency on the box.
    At least they didn’t waste a Schlage Lock on the door.

  2. L. Johnson says:

    Well they won’t be kicking that door in again!

  3. Alan Itzkowitz says:

    Wouldn’t it have cost less to repair and reinforce the jamb???

  4. David Scott Kenyon says:

    I like Fred Collier’s comment above -exposed bolt heads are easily circumvented. If this is truly a secure door – why the inexpensive cylindrical lock (no longer functioning due to missing strike) ? Cheap wood frame – residential type. The Owner could have invested in a better pad lock. A couple of kicks and that baby will also be history. Another attempt to solve a problem with little money – never seems to work correctly. By the way who is the keeper of the padlock key?

  5. Mojo says:

    Remove 4 bolts and you are in.

  6. Mojo says:

    Oops, 4 nuts.

  7. Rich says:

    That looks like an American LOTO (lock out/tag out) padlock or similar. Maybe they are just following a safety protocol to protect people from what is on the other side of the door. Or trying to keep the flying pig in.

  8. JBange says:

    Cut the wrench jokes. This is on the inside of the door. Note the t-turn on the knob.

  9. John Payson says:

    Nothing indicates whether that is a door to habitable space rather than a non-habitable equipment closet. The design would seem suitable (though it could perhaps be improved through use of carriage bolts) for lock-out/tag-out scenarios, especially if there is no habitable space beyond. In many lock-out/tag-out scenarios, it is necessary that multiple people be independently able to lock something and know that it can’t be used unless either (1) every lock has been removed by the person who installed it, or (2) the locks are deliberately destroyed by someone willing to accept the consequences of doing so. The brackets shown have space to attach many padlocks independently, and could thus be useful for that purpose.

    • Lori says:

      True – we don’t know the whole story about this door, but the “new” security method is on the egress side of the door (the turn-button side of the lockset). There could be another exit from this space so maybe this door doesn’t have to allow for free egress. But if this door is a required egress door, even if it is an egress door from a non-habitable equipment closet, my interpretation of the codes is that it has to meet the requirements for free egress.

      – Lori

  10. Rich says:

    I wasn’t being serious about the LO/TO comment, but I suppose they could be digging a big hole outside that door.

  11. John Payson says:

    The locks would be inappropriate if the picture was of the *inside* of the closet, but I was envisioning it as the *outside* of a closet which would be too small to stand inside. Is there a term to distinguish between areas whose contents can only be accessed with the door open, from areas like crawlspaces which a person may fully enter but which would not generally be regarded as habitable?

    I would tend to doubt the latch hardware with the push-button release was ever functional at that location, since it’s generally only appropriate for rooms that have only a single exit, and using padlocks to secure an exit from the inside generally only makes sense if the person installing the lock can leave via another exit. It would seem more likely that the door was re-purposed from somewhere without regard for the kind of knob installed thereon.

Leave a Reply