Exactly 
Confused. The product only meets “Impact approval” based on TWO things. The product itself and the PROPER INSTALLATION. I can verify the product rather easily, but the installation process was never checked and it should have been.
I wouldn’t mark it “A” without a valid permit. Just the way we do it…doesn’t mean its right, just our way.
Look out not we agree. Getting cold under my feet 
I think I just threw up a little in my throat…
Trust me I feel ya
You need a roof permit or a product approval. I do not believe that you are verifying the installation.
The form states “all roof coverings”(ie., the shingles) not all roofs(the system). The shingles(covering) “meet code” only when they have a product approval.
Theoretically, you could have a product without a product approval, installed to code and it would not be to code. The product approval is to unsure the covering was tested to meet the uplift requirements.
I have personally used product approvals and shingles marked as “Miami-Dade approved” or “FBC approved” many times.
The people that are filling out the form are NOT code inspectors and can not decide if a roof meets code. But if it clearly was not properly installed I would hesitate to mark it also.
Since the first process of a reroof is to pull a permit, if no permit was pulled, then the roof is not code compliant. Therefore it cannot meet any code. Not to mention they are in violation of the code by having non-permitted work on their property. This has been covered before.
I had the exact same thing last week. No permit.
With a metal roof the Zircon will not see the sheathing nails on the truss.
So! Nail spacing can’t be done unless someone know how to do it on a metal roof.
Not true. You do not need a permit to do a roof-over.
But we are talking about the shingles only, are the shingles complaint. You should re-read my post carefully. The shingles(NOT the roof) can meet FBC or MDC without a permit. That is specifically why they ask about the “roof covering.” In my area they were not requiring permits for some time because of the storms, are you implying that they are not complaint. How about the fact that many permits were not stored properly and now there was no proof that a permit was actually pulled. I think you will find an example in the wind mit class.
The form specifically states “roof covering”, not underlayment, not nails, not roof system.
But John
You would still need some sort of documentation to prove such…correct?
Sometimes I can get the Zircon to zero close to the metal roof and have it work properly. If you look on the hip side of a truss system sometimes you can see a portion of the nails. I have marked nails by visual inspection only in some cases. I have even used decking that was only visible in the attic.
See attached.
I have also used the package, to identify the brand/model and find the product approval number.
Thanks John
Good info.
Do you also disqualify a valid impact rated window just because there was no permit pulled? If the option is on the form, then I will use it. The permit is the easiest way to verify something, but it’s not the only way.
Bradley…let me ask you this.
I am presently in a debate about a "roof tile’’ that has Miami Dade approval code. But it was installed in 2001. Do they get the discount? My contention is NO. Just because the PRODUCT is approved does not mean it was installed in the manner it was intended to be, to obtain the approval.
Maybe I am wrong and willing to listen.
We are filling out the wind mit form! We are not code inspectors. It is not our concern, whether a product has been installed to code. As long as an installed product has a product approval, regardless of whether it was installed according to the provisions of that approval, it counts. Unless you see something that is obviously defective, it counts. We are not there to tell people that things were done correctly. If they wanted that, they should have got the permit, and had it checked out by somebody that gets paid to do just that!
Russ, if you can show that the actual roofing product installed is in fact MDCA, then yes it qualifies for the credit (that option is on the form - A or B). Don’t forget the “OR” between the options for credit. Most of time it is difficult to tie the product to the inspection address. I use material invoices with a delivery address, roofer’s PD invoice with product description or approval #, etc. The MDCA stamp on a shingle is probably not enough if you can’t tie that to the property. It’s really up to the inspector if you want to use this option or not, but it is there if you need it for your client.
Russ, there are thousands upon thousands of roofs that were not installed as per the product approval. Most shingle roofs, installed outside of areas that used the S.F.B.C., were not installed according to the product approval, they were installed to “code” which only required four nails, whereas the product approval required six. It is not our job to check installation details, so unless something is obviously wrong, it complies with the requirements of the 1802.
If you can prove a MDC approved product was used in an area(Not MDC) before FBC then you can use that. I once was able to prove that a home was built in compliance with the SFBC-94 because the builder was from MDC and the plans were designed to MDC. The home was in my area. I had the plans with the engineers stamp.
I would say both sides of this argument are right to a certain extent. According to the form a roof covering with a valid noa should meet the criteria. Based on my experience, however, insurance carriers often times require a permit to get the FBC roof credit. We never argue this, but do offer a disclaimer that the client may not get the discount.