Tea anyone?

[RJJ]

We still would need the NHAB to have seats and a voice. It should not be the present configuration. With out them to represent the builders I believe we would loose control in the opposite direction. We need to bring like minds together first to agree that changes is needed.

 

[Jobsaver]

I like what I'm seeing in the generated discussions to date. Much truth in the "special interest" examples and not just NFPA. In studying other countries I find we lack the common sense approach in standard/regulatory application on the population (Sweeden and Europe for example) we can learn much from them regarding "life safety"....... just my humble opinion. The IRC and NAHB association should at minimum, be criminal.

Can you give a couple of examples? Also, who is ahj in countries like Sweden and Europe? Thanks.

 

[FM William Burns]

Typically best practices and regional allowance to modify national codes to suite regional needs based on many different factors. Research both and you'll see (use UK for Eroupe).

 

[Yankee]

Typically best practices and regional allowance to modify national codes to suite regional needs based on many different factors. Research both and you'll see (use UK for Eroupe).

"Regional modifications" might make sense, but two scenarios elude me. . . what about around the edges of the regions? Wouldn't "either/or" modified codes work just fine? How many arguments will you get on that? Also as "regions" get smaller and smaller (like, what about if each town is a "region"?) then we would be back where we started, which is inconsistent local reading of code requirements. Not such a good idea in my opinion.

 

[Jobsaver]

In my state of Arkansas, the state first modifys and then adopts the IRC, IBC, and IRC, as the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code, volumns 1-3. Effectively, we are already practicing regional modification.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The codes should only apply to Basic structural requirements concerning framing (load path to foundation and structual integrity of the framing; bracing, etc.); and Basic installation requirements for installation of electrical, plumbing, and mechanical requirements (protection of the installation, correct slope, and support of installed distribution systems).

If they want requirements above this it should be per manufacturer's installation instructions; with a signed statement of compliance of those instructions by the contractor; with heavy fines for non-compliance. My idea of heavy fines is forfeiture of the total payment for the job contracted. Having to do the work for free; and, then reinstalling at the contractors expense; should interest them in training their employees and hiring a knowledgeable supervisor to see that the work is done correctly.

We don't have enough knowledgeable code inspectors to do the job; and, that problem is not even being addressed or considered.

Hey, I've gone Platinum with 1,000 posts. I hope some of those posts were useful.

Uncle Bob

 

[RJJ]

UB: Problem is they are off in all types of directions. Soon we will need a hand truck just to lug them around.