Inconsistency in 9.8.7.2 and A-9.8.7.2 (continuity of handrails)

[Inspector Gadget]

So ...

One of our inspectors noticed a bit of an issue with NBC2015. One of the new changes is the requirement that handrails be continuous throughout a flight of stairs, with the allowance that in a single-family dwelling, a handrail can terminate at a newel post at the top or bottom-most stair.

However, the notes show images that indicate a termination and change of direction at a newel post is acceptable at a mid-flight landing.

If other shops have encountered this, how have you interpreted the inconsistency?

 

[tmurray]

I think you may be misinterpreting the term "flight". It sounds like you are interpreting it to include stairs and landings between one storey and the next above or below, hence the use of "mid-flight landing" in your original post.

The answer to this issue lies in a new definition added in the 2015 code. The term "flight" is now defined to mean a series of steps in between landings. In the illustrations you are referencing, there are two flights with the landing serve as the top of the lower flight and the bottom of the upper flight.

The illustration in A-9.8.7.2 shows handrails are terminating at landings in single dwelling unit or house with a secondary suite, but one is continuous through the landing in other occupancies. This is consistent with 9.8.7.2(2).

 

[Inspector Gadget]

The answer to this issue lies in a new definition added in the 2015 code. The term "flight" is now defined to mean a series of steps in between landings. In the illustrations you are referencing, there are two flights with the landing serve as the top of the lower flight and the bottom of the upper flight.

Lesson: read the freaking definitions for changes as well as the rest of the Code. Problem solved.