• 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

NFPA 101 just what is it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
permitguy said:
Nope. I just enforce the code.R312.2.1 Window sills.

In dwelling units, where the opening of an operable window is located more than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or surface below, the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be a minimum of 24 inches (610 mm) above the fininshed floor of the room in which the window is located. Operable sections of windows shall not permit openings that allow passage of a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere where such openings are located within 24 inches (610 mm) of the finished floor.

Exceptions:

1. Windows whose openings will not allow a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere to pass through the opening when the opening is in its largest opened position.

2. Openings that are provided with window fall prevention devices that comply with ASTM F 2090.

3. Windows that are provided with window opening control devices that comply with Section R312.2.2.

Nope, but I don't see people coming and going through windows with the frequency I see people descending and ascending stairways.
Click to expand...
Which code do you reference?
 
permitguy said:
Nope, but I don't see people coming and going through windows with the frequency I see people descending and ascending stairways.
Click to expand...
But you can't tell the difference between a stair and a ladder.
 
I will say we took a patient down a spiral staircase once. I was shorted than my partner. He got the lower position, the patient was in a chair and had the upper postion. I don't how we did not end up at the bottom, in a pile. Right then I figured a spiral staircase were a bad idea.
 
brudgers said:
Arguing with Texbo is like playing chess with a pigeon. At some point, he'll knock over all the pieces,

strut around with his chest out,

and poop on everything.
Click to expand...
Translation: The very best argument I could come up with is "since it violates the stair provisions, it isn't a stair", so I'll create a diversion with a worn out old insult involving poop, and I'll start talking about laundry chutes. Then maybe everyone will forget how ignorant my earlier post was.
 
imhotep said:
You say it passes muster and I respectfully disagree. The 2006 IRC provision you cite falls under SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS. The case at hand unquestionably has a means of egress provided. The question arises from the fact that the element (ladder-duck-spiral stair looking thingy) does not comply with the requirements for a means of egress. Take away the means of egress provided and there is clearly no discussion. I'll stick with the requirement for a guard at the upper level and leave it at that. If a designer proposes the thingy in an open to the public building then I would go to the mattresses, but in a residence? Is a guard required at a 2nd story operable window with a sill located at 18" off the floor? Hmmmm......
Click to expand...
Apples to oranges. A window isn't a stair. So let me ask you an apples to apples question. If the residence has one complying stair, with complying rails and guards, would you allow a second complying stair to be installed with no rails or guards whatsoever? Of course you wouldn't. So why would you allow a second one with noncomplying treads and risers?

Also, your statement about not allowing such a violation in a commercial building, but allowing it in a dwelling shows that you acknowledge it as a violation, but you're willing to arbitrarily overlook it; that's a dangerous policy.
 
texasbo said:
Apples to oranges. A window isn't a stair. So let me ask you an apples to apples question. If the residence has one complying stair, with complying rails and guards, would you allow a second complying stair to be installed with no rails or guards whatsoever? Of course you wouldn't. So why would you allow a second one with noncomplying treads and risers?Also, your statement about not allowing such a violation in a commercial building, but allowing it in a dwelling shows that you acknowledge it as a violation, but you're willing to arbitrarily overlook it; that's a dangerous policy.
Click to expand...
Apples to apples. I'd require a guard be installed at the opening at the upper level and a guard be placed along the open side of the non-stair when it is 30" above the floor.

You call it a violation and, with the required guards, I call it a thingy. Without the guards it is a violation. With the guards it is folly.

There is a fundamental difference between a public facility and a single family residence. Knowing how and when to draw lines is a code professionals duty. To not acknowledge the difference between a home and a public facility is poor policy.
 
imhotep said:
There is a fundamental difference between a public facility and a single family residence. Knowing how and when to draw lines is a code professionals duty. To not acknowledge the difference between a home and a public facility is poor policy.
Click to expand...
I agree completely; in fact, I think knowing how and when to draw the line is one of the most important duties. Judgement is a critical skill required in our profession. It is also one of the most difficult. In my opinion, allowing a clear and obvious code violation by calling it a "thingy" in a home, while admitting that you would not allow it in another building, falls way on the wrong side of that line we must draw.
 
texasbo said:
I agree completely; in fact, I think knowing how and when to draw the line is one of the most important duties. Judgement is a critical skill required in our profession. It is also one of the most difficult. In my opinion, allowing a clear and obvious code violation by calling it a "thingy" in a home, while admitting that you would not allow it in another building, falls way on the wrong side of that line we must draw.
Click to expand...
Install the guards and the folly is in compliance. Just because you call it a 'clear and obvious violation' does not make it so. If one should like to act capriciously then they could require complete engineering and design documents on every single element that goes into the folly. One could assert authority by forcing the applicant to prove that the guards will resist lateral forces and that all vertical forces are transferred to the foundation. That all the materials that comprise the folly comply with all applicable code provisions. Demand a written explanation of the rationale for the folly, and perhaps kneel before Zod. No...that would be over the top.

Given a residential client who insisted on constructing a folly (read was willing to spend perhaps unlimited resources with little likelihood of success) I would not ask the AHJ to condone it, just permit or deny it. I would not be relying on the opinion of an inspector, plan reviewer or even the Building Official. I would first make sure that it complies with the applicable provisions of the adopted code, and then appeal the final determination. It seems unlikely in the extreme that the developer of a commercial or public building project would be interested in doing what it would take to assert and demonstrate compliance for little or no benefit. I would expect the AHJ to know and respect the difference between a house and another building that would fall under the IBC and not the IRC. I would expect to have to answer for types of construction and materials, shafts and opening protectives, design requirements, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Can I install a fire-pole in a residence? How about a slide?
 
Installing a guard around a code violation does not make it disappear. Would you let them build a guard around the entire house and then say the code doesn't apply to said house?

I hate to break this to some of you, but if you're uncomfortable having to sometimes tell people "no", you chose the wrong profession. If you spend more time trying to justify non-compliance than you do enforcing compliance, then you should switch to the other side and be a rogue design professional or contractor. You can still contribute here and drive code enforcement professionals crazy, but at least your drivel will be in context that way.
 
permitguy said:
Installing a guard around a code violation does not make it disappear. Would you let them build a guard around the entire house and then say the code doesn't apply to said house?
Click to expand...
Not to belabor the point, but fire-poles, climbing walls, ropes, ships ladders and slides are not covered by the code, and are thereby compliant, and less of a risk than a slightly non-compliant stair?

Believe me I fully understand your position that there is no allowance in the code for a non-compliant stair, even if it is in addition to a compliant MOE stair...I just don't agree with that interpretation of that intent, or that the intent for MOE is somehow not met.
 
permitguy said:
Installing a guard around a code violation does not make it disappear. Would you let them build a guard around the entire house and then say the code doesn't apply to said house?I hate to break this to some of you, but if you're uncomfortable having to sometimes tell people "no", you chose the wrong profession. If you spend more time trying to justify non-compliance than you do enforcing compliance, then you should switch to the other side and be a rogue design professional or contractor. You can still contribute here and drive code enforcement professionals crazy, but at least your drivel will be in context that way.
Click to expand...
What violation? Why would you think that placing a guard around a house addresses the point at hand? There is a non-complying floor opening and walking surface connecting the upper and lower levels. I assume we agree it is not a spiral stair because it does not meet the requirements for a spiral stair. It is not a means of egress, but there is a means of egress provided elsewhere. What violation? Require guards per R312 and what violation remains?

I would comment on your parting counsel, but I think I should rather just toss poo.
 
The idea that stairs are only required to meet the code spelled out in R311 if the stairs are part of the MOE implies that the hazards associated with stairs are only present during a rush to exit. After all, the MOE is only paramount when there is a reason to get the Hell out of a building. So if the second story is on fire, a code compliant set of stairs is a great asset but if you're merely taking the dirty Genes to the laundry all bets are off?

The side of this discussion that says "Well hey, we've got a compliant MOE so we can have a jacked-up set of stairs and call it anything but stairs" misses the point of stairs. Stairs are a part of a MOE whether there is one or twenty. Ladders, slides, poles and free-falls are all OK and you can do as you see fit with them but stairs are stairs. If there are stairs, the stairs will be constructed following the code as written in R311 and will be considered as part of the MOE. Granted the code requires but one MOE but the code doesn't doesn't allow additional MOE without any regard to R311.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE said:
Ladders, slides, poles and free-falls are all OK and you can do as you see fit with them but stairs are stairs. If there are stairs, the stairs will be constructed following the code as written in R311 and will be considered as part of the MOE.
Click to expand...
What would you do with a set of stair stepped book shelves 24 inches deep by 24" wide that step up 16" alongside a MOE stair wall? Would you call those a stair or a book case even if you could walk up them and reach the second floor? Or are we just stirring the pot a bit to keep a dead thread going?

There are two general sides to this issue...Both make valid arguments (and ridiculous ones too, myself included), but neither is changing their position. Time to move on.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
What would you do with a set of stair stepped book shelves 24 inches deep by 24" wide that step up 16" alongside a MOE stair wall? Would you call those a stair or a book case even if you could walk up them and reach the second floor? Or are we just stirring the pot a bit to keep a dead thread going?There are two general sides to this issue...Both make valid arguments (and ridiculous ones too, myself included), but neither is changing their position. Time to move on.
Click to expand...
I'm not allowed to voice an opinion? Yes there are two sides and one is correct.
 
I have solved it. I knew there was a prescriptive way around this little hot topic. Simply build a 48" deep window well at the bottom of the stair case and then it is compliant:

R310.2.1 Ladder and steps. Window wells with a vertical depth greater than 44 inches shall be equipped with a permanently affixed ladder or steps usable with the window in the fully open position. Ladders or steps required by this section shall not be required to comply with Sections 311.5 and 311.6.

"Where there is a code, there is a way." John Rutter
 
ICE said:
I'm not allowed to voice an opinion? Yes there are two sides and one is correct.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are allowed to voice an opinion, and we don't agree. I am okay with that...I think you are too.

Welcome back to the fray tiger.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
I have solved it. I knew there was a prescriptive way around this little hot topic. Simply build a 48" deep window well at the bottom of the stair case and then it is compliant:R310.2.1 Ladder and steps. Window wells with a vertical depth greater than 44 inches shall be equipped with a permanently affixed ladder or steps usable with the window in the fully open position. Ladders or steps required by this section shall not be required to comply with Sections 311.5 and 311.6.

"Where there is a code, there is a way." John Rutter
Click to expand...
Well now you are being https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INykEdJSIDs&feature=related

And just so that you know, post #23 was me stirring the pot.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
Are you saying I am being goofy, or I am being an AJAX stair fixer? ;) It's Friday somewhere.
Click to expand...
If Goofy built stairs, he could take lessons from your side of this thread.
 
BSSTG said:
I just hope no one ever breaks their neck on this thing.
Click to expand...
I agree it can not be approved as a stair. Fail it as a set of stairs but mention it would be cute as a spiral plant stand. Tell the owner you will be back in a couple of days for a re-inspection. Then on your re-inspection document with photos the existance of a spiral plant stand and move on.
 
Geez! I'm really itchin to hear back from ICC on this. Of course that won't answer the original question, but that's ok, it will be informative.

Yea MT, when I look at stairs I am mindful that some folks like a couple of martinis from time to time like me. And I've busted my carcass on my own stairs because the last step at the bottom is only about 5' since I added concrete there. In fact, these stairs as originally constructed did not have a legal handrail which caused my sister to fall and get banged up. Bear in mind this happened before I had ever looked at any code book besides the NEC so I didn't know the difference. I learned pretty quick when my sister fell though. They were quickly fixed.

BSSTG
 
texasbo said:
Translation: The very best argument I could come up with is "since it violates the stair provisions, it isn't a stair", so I'll create a diversion with a worn out old insult involving poop, and I'll start talking about laundry chutes. Then maybe everyone will forget how ignorant my earlier post was.
Click to expand...
Suck in that chest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top