Simultaneous Elevator Recall Activation

Elevator Lobby

I recently received a good question through the comment section regarding one of our elevator recall blogs. The question was:

Is it proper to use one addressable fire input into an elevator recall point then parallel out of this point into another separate elevator controller recall input?

A: If separate controllers handle cars in the same lobby as an activated smoke detector, then that would be advisable. This may be the case in a high rise situation where one controller is associated with the ‘east bank’ of cars in a lobby and another controller handles the ‘west bank’ of the same lobby. However, if the separate controllers’ cars are not in a common lobby, then that would not be a good practice. Until smoke is present in the actual elevator lobby, hoistway or machine room of a bank of elevator cars, the elevators remain a valuable egress option for many and there is no code related reason to remove that as an option.  In fact, unnecessary recall of an elevator bank during a fire alarm evacuation would actually escalate an already dangerous situation by inducing panic, slowing egress and channeling all occupants into the egress stairwells.  Additionally, persons that have limited mobility would be left without a viable egress option. Sometimes erring on the side of caution is not the best solution.

As a Platinum Distributor of Gamewell – FCI products, Affiliated Fire Systems has the equipment, expertise and support you need to install, test, inspect and service your fire alarm and emergency voice system. If you have any questions regarding your life safety needs, contact us via our ‘Contact Us’ page on our website, or email me directly at

About Gene Rowe

Gene Rowe serves as the Director of Business Development for Affiliated Customer Service. He brings twenty three years of fire alarm and emergency voice systems experience to the table with both an operational and marketing viewpoint. A US Army veteran, NICET certified, an executive board member of the IL-AFAA and a member of the NFPA, he began his career establishing operational expertise as a technician, developed graphic skills with CAD design as a general engineer, gained a ‘big picture’ mindset by moving to project management and finally a marketing perspective directing business development efforts. By interfacing with a broad range of diverse organizations such as the AFAA, CAA, AIA, CEA and the IFIA, he combines concerns of the owner, designer of record, contractor, distributor and approving authority to bring a unique perspective to Affiliated.

An avid marathon runner, he resides in west suburban Chicago with his wife and two sons. He's served the community as a Cub Scout Leader, as well as coaching multiple levels of travel and park district basketball and baseball teams. Professionally, he serves as the Treasurer and is on the Board of Directors for the Illinois chapter of the Automatic Fire Alarm Association (IL-AFAA).


  1. Hello Gene,
    I have read some of the blogs about Mineral Insulated (MI) Cable being installed in conduit, pertaining to UL2196. Before the de-listing of manufactures cables from UL, Pyrotenax was able to say it was okay to put in conduit, even though you really do not want to. However since the delisting, we have not re-tested in conduit, so it is not allowed. So MI is free air and not installed in conduit.
    Prior to the delisting we marketed MI, MC, RHW-2 and CI cables under the Raychem and Pyrotenax brands. Today as you know, we only market MI cable, due to the high failure rate at UL of the Polymer Insulated cables.
    I would be happy to answer any questions you may have related fire rated cables. Have a great day!
    Mark Hall
    Pentair Pyrotenax/Raychem


  1. […] Mark Hall and Ben Piper of Pentair Pyrotenax/Raychem, a manufacturer of mineral insulated (MI) cable, recently posted important information in our comments section regarding the installation of MI cable in Chicago and per UL standards. […]

Send us a Comment