A roof deck nailed in accordance with the FBC would not have any shiners…this is where things get a little technical. If you’ll (generally speaking) accept an Engineer’s approval for a glazing why not a Licensed Roofing Contractor’s affidavit for re-nailing?
The form, it it’s current wording, isn’t realistic. A roof deck with shiners is improperly nailed and in violation of the FBC, so how do you properly determine re-nailing? I don’t know what to tell you…
You live in a fantasy world. We need at least one shiner to prove the nail size. If not for that it would be something else for you to ***** about.
So you are saying that they must void the FBC so you can find a nail for them to get a credit. What happened to using the infamous MT6?
It’s not the actual shiner that is a code violation, it’s the assumption that the decking is not nailed to current code. If the shiner is backed up with another nail into the truss, then it’s FBC compliant. Re-nailing is a different animal than new construction. The shiners are never pulled on a renail, even if backed up. There is also an assumed percentage of allowed misses, taking into account that the deck was previously nailed off originally, and 8d (ring-shank) is required for the renail. This may not be spelled out in the code, but it is widely accepted by AHJ.
As far as the roofer’s affidavit goes…Roofers lie on those all the time and the insurance carriers know this. They are usually not accepted as verification of RDA.
You are wrong.
On the roof pictured, which was involved in a lawsuit due to the improper installation of virtually every component of the re-roof, the city of Tamarac code official made the roofer remove every single missed nail. I have spoken with the code officials in Coral Springs, Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, Pembroke Pines, Miramar, Pompano, Coconut Creek, and numerous others and every one of them said the same thing. “Remove the missed nails and try again”! There is no such thing as an “assumed percentage of allowed misses” located in any roof deck nailing guidelines or the building code.
To assume that the moron that couldn’t follow the original nails and nail in between them, could somehow have the wherewithal to re-nail where he didn’t even know he missed, is perhaps one of the most asinine statements I have ever heard. And in the end, it is still wrong.
I have abstained from this message board due to BS just like you posted. It is mis-information like this that is going to eventually cause someone to end up in court. And from what I hear, that is going to be sooner rather than later. And when they trot out the “It’s accepted practice to miss the trusses defense”, they will get laughed out of court. And those that subscribe to this nonsense will end up paying.
Back to the comfort of the hot tub…
Eric, I thought you might comment on this. Seems to be a pet peeve for you. I do agree that if the entire roof was missed then it’s time for a redo. I have been framing for a long time and I can tell you that I am not wrong. You have to come back to earth and accept that roofers are not perfect and will miss a few nails. AHJ never inspects the attic space on re-roof (that I know of). Most of them accepts the roofers word that it was renailed via affidavit. I am speaking of personal experience and real world scenarios which we inspectors have to take into account. If you think that I will fail a renail for a few misses, you are mistaken.
It is a pet peeve for me as it is wrong. Plain and simple. As for real world experience, see the previous pictures. There are plenty more on the roof page on my website. All of those roofs had to be replaced. The problem is that many are afraid to call this issue out.
I got in an argument with a Realtor last month about this very thing. I told him, how about this, I’ll call the building department and see what they say? I called the building department, had the guy speak with the Realtor, then he asked the Realtor for the address…at which point he handed the phone to me. I asked him “What do you want me to do now?”
The deal fell apart and the homeowner is now going to sue the roofer…and anyone else his attorney can think of. I know one person who won’t be getting sued. 
Although the roofers may not be perfect, if they follow simple instructions, they should never miss. Back in the day when I worked with a roofer, I knew when I missed. And that also includes framing, hanging drywall, etc.
This isn’t rocket science.
“Allowing mediocrity to become the new standard, only leads to less than mediocrity, becoming the newer standard.” EV
I respectfully disagree: The AHJ can change chapter 1 of the FBC only and they can not drop below what the code requires, they can and have been called out for this and required to comply with the code. It is a common misconception that the AHJ has the ultimate authority when it comes to code application and acceptance of changes or allowance of changes below the code, and that simply isn’t true. Also, It’s a wonder that AHJ’s can change what is required yet accept no responsibility for these actions. The AHJ can accept alternative materials that are not detailed in the code as long as they meet or exceed the provisions of the code, but in no case can they fall BELOW what is minimally required. This also applies to any revision or change, and the AHJ must submit the change/revision to the Florida Building Commission within a certain time frame.
***2010 Florida Building Code: 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.
The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be *approved *where the *building official *finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. When alternate life safety systems are designed, the SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings, or other methods approved by the building official may be used. The building official shall require that sufficient evidence or proof be submitted to substantiate any claim made regarding the alternative.
**104.11.1 Research reports. **
Supporting data, where necessary to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not specifically provided for in this code, shall consist of valid research reports from *approved *sources. **104.11.2 Tests. **
Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the *building official *shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the *building official *shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the *building official *for the period required for retention of public records.
Any violation of the building code is not allowed, even by the AHJ:
110.1 General.
Construction or work for which a *permit *is required shall be subject to inspection by the *building official *and such construction or work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved. Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. It shall be the duty of the *permit *applicant to cause the work to remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes. Neither the *building official *nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection.
111.1 Use and occupancy.
No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made, until the *building official *has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. **
Exception: **Certificates of occupancy are not required for work exempt from *permits *under Section 105.2.
Also, any change has to be submitted and listed as part of the permit documents:
110.3.7.4.2
Any proposal to install an alternate structural product or system to which building codes apply be submitted to the enforcement agency for review for compliance with the codes and made part of the enforcement agency’s recorded set of permit documents.
But even amendments by the AHJ has it’s limits, they can not amend the Accessibility or Energy Efficiency Code. When the code is changed or altered the AHJ must submit documents to the Building Commission proving they are a minimum compliant with or above the code.
The man, the myth, the legend…good to see you back my friend.
If you miss, pull it out and re-nail it correctly…it’s not rocket science…
Ask the owner if he has a 4-point or 1802 from another inspector? That’s always my first question…
And discussions like this are why many stay away from the MB. You have to live in the real word. Posting long drawn out copy and paste where you underline only what may help your argument does not solve anything. If you think that a missed nail fails inspection or should, as Brad said you are wrong. Instead of arguing on life in a nonrealistic world, lets focus more on what we need to do.
He had all of that. The house was inspected in 2008 when they bought it.
Someone has some splainin to do…and it isn’t me.
At least the inspector “recommend further evaluation by a licensed roofing contractor”…on a roof with seven leaks, rotted decking and fascia. :roll:
Everyone else can continue to argue about this as it is another area with the 1802 that requires changing. When the approved testing method consists of documenting improper work at the least, and a code violation and violation of the manufacturers installation instructions at worst, something is wrong with the method.
…“they” don’t stay away from the MB because of the discusion, they stay away becuase they don’t want to hear the truth. They don’t want to know what is factual, they want to live in a fantasy world were their interpretation is what’s relevant and only they understand what applies. That’s “fantasy land”.
The real world is what you can prove, not what you think you can prove. It’s black and white…accept it or not, it is fact!
Underlining was to save you guys time, in most cases many different issues are addressed in one code reference. If you would like to read the whole thing the FBC is available free online for all as it is the people’s code, I was just trying to save you some research.
Maybe, there is a request for declarative statement into the DBPR which states that the 1802 “directly addresses the Florida Building Code in 6 places”. If I turn out to be wrong, which I’m not, and the DBPR upholds this request for declarative statement to be true…guess what? You now have a declarative statement from the DBPR stating that the 1802 is a code inspection…
For those that don’t believe there is a request, I have attached it.
Robert. I certainly have no reason to get in a back and forth with you. It appears you are new around here so trust me with the “fact” on why people stay away. Also remember these are public mb so you have to think how the consumer views the conversation .
If roofers had to do this, re-roofs would cost a heck of a lot more!
Robert, have you ever used a pneu nail gun with 8p ring-shank? How much damage would you have to do to the sheathing and how long would it take for you to pull a ‘missed’ nail? In your likely inexperienced world, trusses and rafters are installed perfectly plumb and square. They are never ‘floppy’, despite being just 2x’s. No, they are perfectly rigid.
And EVDV, your advice to ‘just follow the other nails’ is not realistic, either. So, just follow other ‘misses’. And, really, Brad is right. No muni inspector is going to go in the attic on a re-roof permit to look for ‘shiners’. What a ludicrous concept, and also, who TF cares? Let’s damage the sheathing for no good purpose.
Robert R Sheppard -
I have yet to find a house without “shiners”. The attached picture is from a house I inspected earlier in the week that was built in 2010. So according to your logic, every house I have inspected is a violation of FBC, that is absurd.
Do you mind me asking what is your profession and what is your interest in an inspectors message board with an organization you are not affiliated with?
For everyone who wants to know what the code is:
From the 1996 building code:
Now, show me where it says miss as many nails as you want, assumed percentage of allowed misses, or anything else that some keep bringing up.
You can’t…because it doesn’t exist.
And to be clear, I am not referring to one or two nails missed, although technically wrong. I am referring to mass misses as pictured.
As for questioning others, this is an open section of the message board. Anyone can post. Those that question others, should probably concentrate on themselves. Maybe then, they might be able to get annual reports filed on time…among other things…
Until someone gives a definitive statement of the nailing, from either a code official or manufacturer that differs from what I have posted, I see no need to reply further.
Going camping with the Cub Scouts this weekend.
And Pete, next time you are in the neighborhood, just give me a call! 
772 214-9929
