TimK

For what it's worth, the various forms of venting can all work, or not. I was a roofing project manager (PM) for a Design/Build contractor (thrown in to the deep end with no training - yay!). This was added on top of my Home Performance PM job duties. This was in Bend Oregon right after we'd had a winter that led to a lot of houses having destructive ice dam issues. There was 3-1/2 feet of layered snow and frozen rain on my roof that had to be shoveled off - that happened in 5 storms over the course of 1-1/2 weeks - oh joy! The houses that I saw the least damage in were the older houses with gable vents. The ridge vents were sealed up with the above-mentioned snow/ice layer cake. There's a fair amount of wind here regularly, which is my best guess as to why the gable vented houses worked better. The GAF roofing materials representative argued the company line that we had to close the gable vents - because they were neither high or low vents. My theory is that it doesn't matter (gable vents don't care what you call 'em) if air moves through the attic regularly - and I argued with the GAF rep endlessly. I understand the idea, but our local experience said that the gables were just fine. If you have to have the roof shoveled in the winters when we have those kinds of storm, it's not exactly beneficial, especially if the occupants are elderly, or if the rooves are steep or 2-3 stories high or otherwise difficult to access. Bottom line, you need airflow under the sheathing, by whatever means works in your situation. Building science is a discipline that needs to be applied with thought to the individual scenario.

I have been using the collapsible (to 36") Extend&Climb Pro15.5' for a couple years with good results and confidence. Once in a while I need to clean the stanchions and every time I use it I take the time to look for the green indicators to be assured it's locked on each step level. It's narrow enough at the top end to get into those attic hatches that are minimum or under sized, unlike the Little Giant, which I had used previously. http://xtendandclimb.com/products/telescoping-ladders/pro-series/785p.html

I'm in agreement with Jardine. My Werner does this to about that same extent.

Roofers near here call it an "eyebrow". Officially, I don't know.

There is a product in ridge venting that is designed for snow areas; GAF's is linked here. I would assume other manufacturers make something similar. https://www.gaf.com/en-us/roofing-products/residential-roofing-products/ventilation-and-attic-vents/exhaust/plastic-ridge-vents/cobra-snow-country

I see your Oregon CCB number, but not your OCHI number. I assume it's an oversight since you probably know that it's required in any published format?

Good looking site. Best luck!

Best practices of several energy programs recommend removing vapor barrier(s) from between insulation layers so that moisture doesn't get trapped adjacent to building materials. Therefore it depends on where the "paper" is located. If it is in an attic and the paper is on top, it is incorrectly installed already and should be removed. If it's against the ceiling, it's fine. From the way your question is stated, I suspect the former is the case?

Best practices of several energy programs recommend removing vapor barrier(s) from between insulation layers so that moisture doesn't get trapped adjacent to building materials. Therefore it depends on where the "paper" is located. If it is in an attic and the paper is on top, it is incorrectly installed already and should be removed. If it's against the ceiling, it's fine. From the way your question is stated, I suspect the former is the case?

Does anyone know when the requirement for safety glass in shower enclosures was introduced? It occurs to me that this is likely in an older home, which may have pre-dated the safety glass requirement. (I'm getting the shower scene of Hitchcock's "The Birds" in my head now)

If there is an attic of height greater than 30" the 2014 Oregon code requires access to the attic. Hatch must be at least 22"x30". No mention of access to the roof being required. Since Oregon's 2014 codes are adapted from the 2009 IRC, I suspect that others may be the same.

Hi Tim, In 1979, the construction of a single family home in Oregon would have been covered by the UBC. (We didn't start using CABO till 1986, when we adopted the 1983 edition.) The 1976 UBC doesn't say squat about decks. (At least as far as I can see.) If I were in your place, I'd apply the latest requirements. Jim Katen Jim, Thanks for your reply. I talked to a state code guy in Salem, who said pretty much the same thing, with the exception of the guards having been covered in the UBC at that time. I've advised the owner of what I thought the best thing (tearoff) and he's going to bolt the ledger along with replacing the floorboards and anything rotten. This is in Bend, where, as you know, things are significantly drier than the west side, and is probably the only reason it has lasted this long. Best regards!

Hello, I'm inspecting a second story deck for a Fire/Life safety report as the 1979 home it's attached to never got its final code inspection. My report is to be used to satisfy the local authorities for their needs before the owner puts this house up for sale. Does anyone know when codes were adopted specifying deck construction methods? I have been unable to find anything going back that far online. Two local code officials, city and county, don't have that info, and the few copies that may exist in the state of OR are at least 150 miles away. One official thinks that the lag bolt method of attaching ledgers may have come into use after 1979. Thanks for anything that may get me going in the right direction. Tim

That could be summarized with a 3 word inspection report. "Get the bulldozer"

I have a multi meter, haven't used it inspecting - yet..