Meant to say:
C = the first 1/2 of the paragraph 8d 6/6 zircon and shiner
Good post! That is the problem, we are listed on the form with Architects, Engineers, and Contractors alike that are regulated by the statutes of their specific licensing along with statute 455. HI’s are also regulated under statute 455, we also have 468 and the Florida Administrative Code which contain our standards. If you don’t know something, or don’t plan on even trying to figure it out, per your licensure you need to disclose that as required in 468.8321 and 61-30.604(c) to the client prior to contracting for or commencing the inspection inspection.
Now, some consider insurance inspections as outside the scope of a home inspection…even though you must inspect the home to complete the form. What are you inspecting? The home. What qualifies you to complete the form? Your licensure. The 1802 actually lists the statute of your licensing right in the form.
Lots of information out there, most of it from people who neither understand the statutes of the licensure or the minimal requirements of such licensing. and they certainly don’t understand how to read a 1802 form correctly.
3 months ago all of you said a 1802 wasn’t a code inspection, you still say that today. Then, a home inspector was sued and lost because a judge determined the 1802 form he filled out with the home inspection was in fact a code inspection verifying the structure as code complaint. The 1802 asks you that in questions #1.
Just think about it, that’s all I’m saying…
[QUOTE=
Lots of information out there, most of it from people who neither understand the statutes of the licensure or the minimal requirements of such licensing. and they certainly don’t understand how to read a 1802 form correctly.[/QUOTE]
I certainly agree with you on that statement.
I did not ask question, it was an answer
Who was sued? and where from?
I see, who would have that info, my local building department?? I would like to know.
The engineer of record
Thanks John, was my above post correct, just want to know if I myself wasn’t reading it right.
The minimum requirement for 8d nails has been around long enough that the Engineer of Record for most projects will not be available. I have this very problem with damaged trusses as per the requirement of 2303.4.5. I would recommend informing your client about the attachment and the ability, or lack of, to confirm the minimum uplift requirements. Let them know what you are doing and that it could change if they decide to hire and Engineer to determine compliance without re-nailing.
Thanks John, just asking was my above post correct. Want to make sure I’m not over reading the 1802 form. I have been doing WM’s for 6 months and haven’t had one bounce back.
I wouldn’t worry to much about that, the intent of this post was to make people think about the possibilities and what-ifs. Those of us who have reviewed the forms history and intent are kind of sitting back and waiting, the first storm that comes through will really expose what this form is. When insurance companies have to dole out claims based off of forms that were inaccurate, the defense of “there’s no way I could know that” will be responded with “then why did you fill out the form if you couldn’t determine what it asked?”.
I wouldn’t loose to much sleep over it, if you are operating within your standards using applicable FAC practices you should be fine. The idea of the article was to see if others actually did know, my information was inconclusive and scattered, it lead me to believe only a Engineer could determine what the form asks…and I was right. What does worry me a bit is I do get calls about wind mitigations from buyers asking if the forms are correct, and I do tell them that if the inspector didn’t perform uplift testing there is no way to determine through visual inspection if the attachment meets or doesn’t meet the requirements of B and C. And that is correct! The clients are paying a higher rate because of the 6d nails, and when I inform them that the attachment may actually meet the requirements of 103psf they are not to pleased. It’s only a matter of time…
Don’t forget dimensional lumber
Like I said, the are several different attributes under each category, as the form reads dimensional lumber/tongue and groove isn’t required to have 8d nails to meet attribute C. Below I have broken our each attribute for sections C for easier visual understanding of what qualifies: The first section lists what deck size qualifies with relation to plywood or OSB, the second sections lists types of decking, the third lists what does and does not qualify…I don’t know how to put it any simpler, this is cut and paste straight from the form!
C. **Plywood/OSB roof sheathing with a minimum thickness of 7/16”inch attached to the roof truss/rafter (spaced a maximum of [FONT= ]24”inches o.c.) by 8d common nails spaced a maximum of 6” inches in the field. -OR-[/FONT]
[FONT= ]****[/FONT]
[FONT= ] Dimensional lumber/Tongue & Groove [FONT= ]decking with a minimum of 2 nails per board (or 1 nail per board if each board is equal to or less than 6 inches in width). OR [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT= ][FONT= ][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT= ][FONT= ] Any system of screws, nails, adhesives, other deck fastening system or truss/rafter spacing that is shown to have an equivalent **[/FONT]**or greater resistance than 8d common nails spaced a maximum of 6 inches in the field or has a mean uplift resistance of at least [FONT= ]182 psf
**
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Maybe we need to get ARA to chime in. They are the ones who wrote the report that dictates the B1-1802 requirements CLICK HERE 
Check out ----Page 292 thru 298
The problem is when people start over thinking it. Are we trying to get our clients everything we can? Absolutely! But don’t think too far out of the box. Without some iron clad data (which I have never seen) 6d = A every time. Try getting the insurance underwriter to except anything else. We have had a few problems a few times getting them to accept a nail measuring around 1 7/8" below 5/8" plywood as 8d. Go figure. Keep it simple
I nail gun fired ring-shank nail is 2 3/8" long, properly set in 5/8" sheathing would reveal 1 3/4" at the bottom side of the decking. How do you know it wasn’t a 6d nail over-sunk? Or an 8d common nail under-sunk as they are 2 1/2" long? The building code defines an acceptable 8d ring shank nail as 2 1/4" long, although no gun-fired ring shank nails of that size exist.
If you can’t see the topside, how in the world do you confirm exact sizing of the nail? I have nailed more roof decks than I care to remember, the depth always varied with the run of the truss and the ability of the compressor to keep up. One of the things I do remember is when you miss the truss the nail most certainly over-sets(counter-sinks).
Good advice john and Preston. Two very well credentialed Nachi members with vast experience on the subject. Your opinions are the industry standard.
Thanks Dennis, you certainly are no slouch either!
I am not sure why you are telling us what is on the form, we can read.
They are broken down in the classes I wrote also. :mrgreen: