Metal Stairs

[kurt]

If nothing else, this thread shows how far away from being a profession we really are.

I don't expect every inspector to report every defect exactly the same way (sure would be nice, though), but when inspectors insist on making up their own rules to imagine they're providing useful information to their customers, it's depressing.

One might also want to reread Logic 101, and understand that extrapolating dangers from one real condition to an entirely unrelated condition doesn't make any sense at all.

IOW, how does the lack of safety glazing in a door imply any meaning or bearing whatsoever on a completely different (and completely adequate) stair tread opening?

Proof positive that lots and lots of inspectors fail @ reading, understanding, applying, and communicating basic information in a logical manner.

We'll know that we've (at least) made the first baby steps to being a profession when we practitioners stop misinterpreting the codes to make ourselves appear "smarter" or more concerned.

This thread shows we've got a long way to go.

[chicago]

Kurt I hope I am misinterpreting the above thread as a subtle jab at me.

The whole reason for asking the question was to gain knowledge to back up what what I thought,and if there were facts to back it up.

Sorry if I am wrong in assuming this is a safe place to go for information as I now realize it may not be.

What a shame, if this keeps people from actively participating out of fear they will have to be subjected to public humiliation at the expense of a few with superiority complexes.Any way my question which I will once again repeat,was regarding Chicago code only.

Here is the link which I will have time to research later today.No innuendos there : http://www.amlegal.com/library/

This may be a good link for all as my only goal is to help people,and refuse to apologize for lack of agenda.

[randynavarro]

Please keep sharing information here Bob.

It is helpful for all.

To quote Les from another thread, "Don't take Kurt M. too seriously".

I've never met Kurt, but look forward to it one day. Heck, I think he would be great to go cow-tipping with.

[mthomas1]

Here's all the "Help" I get form Firefox:

"Character Encoding - allows you to manually change the character encoding on a web page. Firefox usually does this automatically."

Are other's having problems displaying my posts?

[mthomas1]

The complaint keeps being made that standards are being capriciously invented or incorrectly applied, but no one has cited any standard or method of measurement other than 311.5.3.3. “Open risers are permitted, provided that the opening between threads does not permit the passage of a 4-inch diameter (102mm) sphere…â€

[Bob White]

Michael --

Are you composing your posts on a text editor or word processor, and then copying them onto TIJ for positng?

If so, your editor is hosing the works. Your apostrophes and quotation marks are coming up as gobbledegook.

[mthomas1]

How does this look:

The complaint keeps being made that standards are being capriciously invented or incorrectly applied, but no one has cited any standard or method of measurement other than 311.5.3.3. â€Å“Open risers are permitted, provided that the opening between threads does not permit the passage of a 4-inch diameter (102mm) sphere…â€

[Bob White]

Originally posted by mthomas1

How does this look:

The complaint keeps being made that standards are being capriciously invented or incorrectly applied, but no one has cited any standard or method of measurement other than 311.5.3.3. â€Å“Open risers are permitted, provided that the opening between threads does not permit the passage of a 4-inch diameter (102mm) sphere…â€

[hausdok]

He's not going to see that. When I click over to unicode, it displays the same post correctly. When I switch back to auto-select, western-european, which is what most folks use in North America, it comes up gobbledygook again. I've got a FF browser on my box - just don't ever use it because TIJ displays full-screen in IE. Maybe I'll try and play with it a little bit and figure out how to adjust that.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[mthomas1]

OK, looks like some browser's default settings some can't properly render text block copied over from MS Wood 2007 and served out from the TIJ site- BOTH posts look fine at my end in FireFox 2.0.0.3, and no one at any other site is reporting the same problem.

I'll copy to a text file to strip control character before posting here in the future.

[mthomas1]

Bob, that looks fine at my end, is it still messed up at yours? That second copy was exported from MS word as a text file to strip MS word control characters...

[kurt]

It's still barely readable.

[kurt]

Originally posted by chicago

Kurt I hope I am misinterpreting the above thread as a subtle jab at me.

The whole reason for asking the question was to gain knowledge to back up what what I thought,and if there were facts to back it up.

Sorry if I am wrong in assuming this is a safe place to go for information as I now realize it may not be.

What a shame, if this keeps people from actively participating out of fear they will have to be subjected to public humiliation at the expense of a few with superiority complexes.Any way my question which I will once again repeat,was regarding Chicago code only.

Here is the link which I will have time to research later today.No innuendos there : http://www.amlegal.com/library/

This may be a good link for all as my only goal is to help people,and refuse to apologize for lack of agenda.

It had nothing to do w/you. You asked a decent question, it was answered, and then the topic descended into the personal code interpretations, which I find amazingly dense.

Then, the conversation took the usual offramp to near theological implications of relevant safety standards in the IRC, and pious meanderings about duty, honor, and God knows what.

If folks think I have a superiority complex, fine. I do what I do, have for >25 years, understand the immensely complex nature of what we do, and have very strong opinions about it.

When folks that have been toying in the business for a couple years start w/the pious safety stuff, I glaze over, and am not averse to telling them they are full of it, and I'm not particularly gentle about it.

Anyone that would be humiliated on an internet forum might not be well suited for home inspection. As a start, it's the internet, ephemera if there ever was. Second, if one can't stand the heat of a simple internet exchange, what are they going to do when they're getting roasted by a competent litigant?

I've been "humiliated" dozens of times all over the internet, on nearly every forum I've ever participated in, although humiliation isn't really the right word.

Put more succinctly, I look forward to being humbled in my opinions; it's a great way to learn.

Amlegal publishes the municipal code for Chicago; civil stuff, tentant landlord stuff, etc. It's essentially useless to us.

The Chicago "Building Code" is a scattershot affair spread all over the map. Major component parts are @ the DOB website, big chunks are @ the DCAP (Dept. of Construction And Permits), fuel gas codes are over @ Peoples Gas, and then there's the near endless amendments of the various unions that contradict & confuse everything else, and they're being constantly rewritten & changed to reflect whatever political axe needs grinding, or to position the City in favorable light for the never ending array of lawsuits.

It's very hard tracking down anything. If you find something, I'm all ears.

[hausdok]

Huh,

Kewl! That means that I've learned one hell of a lotta stuff over the past 11 years. Now, if I could just learn to keep my opinions to myself.....

OT - OF!!!

M.

[kurt]

Mr. O', if you keep your opinions to yourself, what good are ye?

[chicago]

Kurt I realize that we do not quote local code but was interested in this one particular instance due to the fact much has been made with regard to safety of decks and porches in our local area.

You live and work around here so you Know about the famous porch collapse on wrightwood ave.

I was just looking for info,and a few of the forum members were nice enough to provide a few links .

Unfortunately I was confused as to why this would degrade to comments about inspectors making up there own rules,as I doubt any one here has that sort of intention.

I for one appreciate your experience,but you also must realize that making certain kinds of comments turns away potential contributers to this forum.Even you must see that many view what is posted with a much smaller percentage posting.

The reason may have something to do with the attitude of public humiliation that that sometimes exists when newer posters appear.

Often this is used to make a point such as my assoc is better than yours.or your report is a piece of cr-p.

Why is it that someone is only worthy to become an inspector if the are subject to hazing.This is the last time I will express this type of opinion,but hope it is food for thought.

Kurt believe it or not I find to be you a fountain of Knowledge but if I had a thin skin would not be posting.

Most people do have a thin skin so we never get to hear from them on this site.

What a shame.

Download Attachment: kurt.jpg

69.1 KB

Bet you are the only one here who Knows what my toy in the picture is.

[mthomas1]

I keep hearing complaints about "personal code interpretations".

I keep noting that I'm (AFAIK) interpreting open riser provisions according to the code, and testing for compliance according to the code.

I keep asking for an alternative interpretation of the code, or for suggestions for an alternative method of testing for compliance.

I don't get answers, but rather complaints about ignorant arrogant upstarts.

I haven't been a HI for twenty five years, but I've been on the planet a good bit longer than that.

And in my experience when you keep asking ask a question, and, you don't get an answer but rather an argument from authority, chances are what you've got is an "authority" with no answer to the question you are asking.

I'd like is my question answered.

Does the IRC allows a opening smaller than 4 inches?

Is attempting to pass a 4" sphere through the riser opening is an incorrect test?

If not, what - exactly - is my error?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[mthomas1]

That last post was composed in Notepad. Was it legible?

[hausdok]

Yes,

That one is perfectly fine on my monitor.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[kurt]

Looked fine to me.

I'm studying the IRC as we speak, prepping for the test; I know what the Chicago codes say today about decks & porches. I don't know if the IRC allows an opening <4". I can't imagine why not.

Attempting to pass a 4" ball through the opening is a fine test.

My aggravation was in the initial "bucking the book" approach to a simple tread opening explanation. I'll readily admit I get bent when there's something simple, and folks work @ complicating it.

It seemed like you were complicating something simple. I got bent. I'm not complicated. I can be a pain in the ass though.

[chicago]

Thank you Kurt.Did you see my pic,and please for the love of will you share what you found out about Chi-Town code.P.S

I am doing a final walkthrough next week at that site.

[kurt]

It's an old teak windsurfer universal base, probably about 1979-80 vintage.

Go here.....

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webp ... -536887755

After you get there, there's 3 other links that will take you to porch & deck stuff.

Steel construction is covered under "Steel Construction 22(13-148)" of the Chicago Building Code, which used to be over @ DCAP, but now I can't find it there.

I'm looking........