• 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

"Ship's ladder"

I

Inspector Gadget

Registered User
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
795
Location
New Brunswick
I have an odd request from a designer of a house. The owners want - for some reason - to have a "ship's ladder" to access a basement *in addition* to a code-compliant set of stairs.

Obviously, ship's ladders do not conform to 9.8.4, but what would the thought be if they are used in addition to a legal access?
 
Whether you can add something like a door or stairs that doesn't comply with code when otherwise without it the building is fully compliant is always an interesting issue. A long time ago (though in age of ICC) in addition to a bunch of proposals about assembly, I submitted one that was to permit just such things - like a ladder or small door - when the building otherwise met code. I never had so many building officials contact me in support of it, going on for years. It did fail but interesting.

There's a restaurant chain that has spiral stairs to nowhere in their decore. Cleary not permitted because if you go up it, you don't have a compliant MOE. Same could apply in your case - no compliant MOE from any tread. Not saying that's right or fair, simply an observation.
 
My issue is that it does not meet the exception for omitting guards. It may sound like common sense, but the only reason I don't need guards right in front of my flight of stairs is because there is an exception in 9.8.8.1.(1). Now, the exceptions are not exhaustive, so you can certainly have your own interpretation. My view is that all the other exceptions are code controlled amenities in the building. Allowing the guards to be omitted to access an amenity that is not code controlled may be a dangerous precedent to set.
 
bill1952 said:
Whether you can add something like a door or stairs that doesn't comply with code when otherwise without it the building is fully compliant is always an interesting issue. A long time ago (though in age of ICC) in addition to a bunch of proposals about assembly, I submitted one that was to permit just such things - like a ladder or small door - when the building otherwise met code. I never had so many building officials contact me in support of it, going on for years. It did fail but interesting.

There's a restaurant chain that has spiral stairs to nowhere in their decore. Cleary not permitted because if you go up it, you don't have a compliant MOE. Same could apply in your case - no compliant MOE from any tread. Not saying that's right or fair, simply an observation.
Click to expand...
Bill, I appreciate your comment and could certainly see it being useful with certain things. My concern goes back to how do we signal to the public that something may potentially be unsafe as it does not meet code requirements.

A good example would be comparing a convenience door to an exit door. In an emergency, I will gravitate to the signed exit door. Is the other door a convenience door that also leads outside, or access to a broom closet? I don't know and I don't want to find out. How we delineate amenities designed by the code and those simply provided for convenience is key in my mind.
 
tmurray said:
My issue is that it does not meet the exception for omitting guards. It may sound like common sense, but the only reason I don't need guards right in front of my flight of stairs is because there is an exception in 9.8.8.1.(1). Now, the exceptions are not exhaustive, so you can certainly have your own interpretation. My view is that all the other exceptions are code controlled amenities in the building. Allowing the guards to be omitted to access an amenity that is not code controlled may be a dangerous precedent to set.
Click to expand...
That's essentially my view.

I've nixed ladders to lofts for obvious reasons. I don't see any wiggle room for an exception here, either.
 
When a kid gets hurt falling down the ships ladder, and the lawyers start looking around for who to blame, the approval or denial by the building department will be important.
 
Its the kind of thing you wish they had the sense to install after final inspection has passed.
 
tmurray said:
My concern goes back to how do we signal to the public that something may potentially be unsafe as it does not meet code requirements.
Click to expand...
Fair point. The example I recall had no required exit signage - an office or studio iirc.

As far as ladders, spiral stairs, ships ladders, and some guards - I solved it by getting exceptions to use these in assembly and in particular stages. Iirc, 7 exceptions to guards in IBC - 5 and often a 6th are for assembly.
 
bill1952 said:
Fair point. The example I recall had no required exit signage - an office or studio iirc.

As far as ladders, spiral stairs, ships ladders, and some guards - I solved it by getting exceptions to use these in assembly and in particular stages. Iirc, 7 exceptions to guards in IBC - 5 and often a 6th are for assembly.
Click to expand...
In Canadian Codes, spiral stairs are permitted in some circumstances, incl. non-residential buildings. They can't be used as an exit, but can be used as a means of egress for three or fewer building occupants in Part 9 buildings.
 
I see no issue. The IRC permits the proposed condition. See the second sentence in red underline.

R311.7.12 Ship's Ladders​

Ship's ladders shall not be used as an element of a means of egress. Ship's ladders shall be permitted provided that a required means of egress stairway or ramp serves the same space at each adjoining level or where a means of egress is not required. The clear width at and below the handrails shall be not less than 20 inches (508 mm).​
Exception: Ship's ladders are allowed to be used as an element of a means of egress for lofts, mezzanines and similar areas of 200 gross square feet (18.6 m2) or less that do not provide exclusive access to a kitchen or bathroom.​
 
classicT said:
I see no issue. The IRC permits the proposed condition. See the second sentence in red underline.

R311.7.12 Ship's Ladders​

Ship's ladders shall not be used as an element of a means of egress. Ship's ladders shall be permitted provided that a required means of egress stairway or ramp serves the same space at each adjoining level or where a means of egress is not required. The clear width at and below the handrails shall be not less than 20 inches (508 mm).​
Exception: Ship's ladders are allowed to be used as an element of a means of egress for lofts, mezzanines and similar areas of 200 gross square feet (18.6 m2) or less that do not provide exclusive access to a kitchen or bathroom.​
Click to expand...
Pssst.
This is the "Canada" forum.
Different codes.
 
classicT said:
I see no issue. The IRC permits the proposed condition. See the second sentence in red underline.

R311.7.12 Ship's Ladders​

Ship's ladders shall not be used as an element of a means of egress. Ship's ladders shall be permitted provided that a required means of egress stairway or ramp serves the same space at each adjoining level or where a means of egress is not required. The clear width at and below the handrails shall be not less than 20 inches (508 mm).​
Exception: Ship's ladders are allowed to be used as an element of a means of egress for lofts, mezzanines and similar areas of 200 gross square feet (18.6 m2) or less that do not provide exclusive access to a kitchen or bathroom.​
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't see that you're a northern neighbor. Not sure if you can use ICC as an alternate means.
 
classicT said:
Sorry, didn't see that you're a northern neighbor. Not sure if you can use ICC as an alternate means.
Click to expand...
Potentially. The code does allow alternative solutions. We would need an "expert" to review the allowances in the IRC and compare it to the level of safety established in the code.

The logical method used in the past is looking at the source of emergency room visits. However, I'm not sure if the visit reason would be broken down enough to separate what kind of ladder was the source of the accident.
 
Spiral stairs were prohibited in the BCBC at the last code edition. Curved yes, spiral no. I recall the explanatory material detailing the number of accidents by stair type.
 
Not applicable to Canadian code, but here is an article about alternative stairs in the IRC. Limited number of free views per month, so not sure if everyone can access it.
www.finehomebuilding.com

Safety Regulations for Irregular Stairs - Fine Homebuilding

Building codes address the hazards of using ship's ladders, alternating tread devices, and more. Find regulations for irregular stairs, here.
www.finehomebuilding.com www.finehomebuilding.com
 
tmurray said:
Spiral stairs are now permitted by the national code.
Click to expand...
Our office allowed an "alternative solutions" for residential spiral stairs under NBC 2010, using NBC 2015 as the guide before it was adopted. We took the position that as long as the *entire* build conformed to NBC 2015 (ie: build your regular stairs with longer runs than NBC 2010 required) that using NBC 2015 would be reasonable.
So if BCBC doesn't allow spirals, that may be a solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top