• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

defining the 'work area'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ben is just razzing me. That is all. I know who and what Ben is talking about. It has little to any relevance to this forum and this thread.

Ben, I already had looked at Chapter 5 and looked it over. I didn't bother to discuss that end of the topic because I agreed with the person who gave the correction. You do realize that I have original IBC 2006 from ICC prior to the publishing of the commentary version. That was not available for purchase at the time.

It was part of a set of books purchased. Also, it never really defined A & B of each type.

It should have been and indicated in footnotes to the Tables with some sort of brief commentary.
 
RickAstoria said:
Not true. Not really. Ok, it is presumed that any building designer or licensed architect or engineer would be able to understand the code. However, it would also be expected that every person is intelligent enough to understand the code. However, it is not expected of an RDP to be an expert of the code and is not expected to properly interpret the code otherwise ALL architects would A) Have to pass the Plan Reviewer exams as part of the architectural licensing exam in addition to the ARE and then have the ability to submit without plan review. If it was really and truly expected by law, then why would you have to have your plans reviewed. It is customarily expected by clients that you have a better grasp of the code then the client. Otherwise, why did they hire you? If you want to be qualified then you need to not only pass plan reviewer exams for BOTH residential and commercial level plan review, you need to also maintain continuing education like a certified plan reviewer in addition to the exams and continuing education required for architectural. If you want that status than maybe the state law should require all architects to pass the Plan Reviewer exams for both Residential and Commercial level (whatever they want to call it), but also ARE & state exam(s) and also maintain continuing education in code updates as well as normal continuing education (no double dipping).Are you up for that?
Click to expand...
But in the end...after the reviewer has made his review and ALL is said and done...who is responsible...no matter what the BO approves or does not approve? If the DP misses a handrail extension and the BO misses that the DP missed the handrail extension...who's responsible for that omission when it is built incorrectly in the field?
 
"Ben is just razzing me. That is all. I know who and what Ben is talking about. It has little to any relevance to this forum and this thread."

My Point perzactly!

Private jokes and joans should be limited to private messages and not posted in such a manner that regular members are left wondering what they missed!

Bill
 
rooster said:
But in the end...after the reviewer has made his review and ALL is said and done...who is responsible...no matter what the BO approves or does not approve? If the DP misses a handrail extension and the BO misses that the DP missed the handrail extension...who's responsible for that omission when it is built incorrectly in the field?
Click to expand...
Sure. Due diligence and E&O. The DP (whether licensed or not) would be the target of lawsuits because the states surely has indemnification by statutes while the DP's weewee is flapping in the wind to get shot off. So, unlucky you, the DP. Life isn't always fair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top