StevenT

Although the new aluminum ones seem to hit farther, I prefer the old fashioned type.

Don't probe where you shouldn't. If what you are probing is finished and fancy, probe very gently. Don't leave any marks where they can be seen. More than anything, always use proper precautions when probing something that can be damaged or cause injury. If you are not sure, err on the side of safety. Some of us like to smoke afterwards.

What is that "mud looking," "nest lookin" mass on top of the burner? Hmmm???

Ditto: "bad mojo"

Frank, It would be nice to see what you are talking about, but it is done just like any other repair. First, remove the roofing in the area effected, fix what's underneath, install metal flashing along with the rest of the roofing. The idea is getting someone that is knowledgable, capable, and willing to do it right. A Vally Flashing could include a "splash rib" down the middle, it acts as a barrier to stop the water from the opposite slope, from flowing under the roofing.

In NY, there is no license for doing WDI/WDO inspections. Really, anybody can do a termite inspection. But, when a lending institution requests a termite inspection (NPMA33), they want one endorsed by a "NYSDEC Certified Pesticide Applicator." Although in NY, the HI has no "duty" to perform this service, many "make it their business" to.

It's really easy for us to sit here and "Monday Morning Quarterback" what we would have... or should have... or should not have done while doing a home inspection and coming across some wood rot. Let us not forget that in most cases, the person that hires us is not the owner of the property. I think that any inspection technique that is going to cause damage, should be very limited and done with the thought that our client may not purchase the property, and the owner is going to be left with the damage. I really try to avoid damaging finished surfaces and feel there are plenty of places we can dig to our hearts delight. I also do WDO/WDI inspections and once again feel that there is more than enough to visually inspect and probe in places that won't be so noticeable. If I can... or can't push my awl or screwdriver into the wood in a number of suspect places, I don't feel that it is necessary for me to remove grapefruit sized pieces of wood to prove my point. If I'm doing a home inspection for a potential buyer, and it includes a WDI/WDO inspection, I feel a "representative" amount of testing is appropriate. Once I've determined that there is a termite infestation, or wood rot, especially if I can document my findings in a couple of locations, I am finished. I don't think I have to list every l.f. of lumber or trim in my report. But if someone wants me to determine the extent of damage, that is quite a different inspection than the "basic" home inspection. My fees will vary accordingly. Even when I am doing an EIFS inspection, before I do anything invasive, I insist that the owner of the property sign a waiver giving me permission to poke, cut, or core holes into their building. Now, having said all of that, I wasn't at the inspection in the article, I have not seen pictures of it, and really am not in the position to judge the accuracy of it or whether it was justified.

This whole thing sounds like a fish story. "fist sized holes," was the HI using a sledge hammer to probe? I'd love to see pictures of the holes. I can't think of too many places where probing with a small screwdriver... or ice pick is going to do the type of damage that this article describes. Did the HI have a Norman Bates moment or is the homeowner exaggerating?

Sometimes I come across something that simply catches my eye. I'm glad I had a camera with me to "capture" the moment." I thought it was one the most amazing things I've ever seen. What can one say about such ingenuity? Image Insert: 58.26 KB Image Insert: 59.31 KB The installation seemed easy enough. I thought if they could be mass produced it would be a big seller. I'm looking for some investors.

There's no such thing as the Mafia.

Randy, I agree with you and that is my whole point. I find that many of the propertys that I inspect end up with reports that are unique to the situation. For instance, if I inspect a home that is "finished" there are things that I maight focus on that are different than an inspection of a "handyman special". For instance, I recently inspected a vacant, forclosure home that has been vacant for years, the house is crap, but the property is magnificent. The place was riddled with infestations, structural problems, electric issues, etc. I didn't spend too much time inspecting the cabinet doors or door bell, etc. This report suited my client's needs and reflected the important issues of the property. I can imagine that report being passed on, expecting me to pay for minutia that wasn't included.

I think it's a great idea to have a pre listing inspection so a buyer can have the oppertunity to fix any problems ahead of time. But, I can't see it taking the place of an inspection by one's own inspector. I also think that the amount of law suits would increase. If I was a seller and I had pre inspected my property, I would allow the buyer to see the report if he liked, but I would still recommend that he have his own inspection.

I would love to be able to do my reports on site. The only problem is, I would have to sleep there. Right now, I figure it takes me about 12 hours... easy, to write a report. So I rarely get it done in one day. As I get more familiar with the program and with reporting itself, I'm sure that will get cut down a bit. Hopefully, quite a bit. I was recently on an inspection with a fellow who does his reports on site. A very experienced fellow, I might add. Been inspecting for about 14 years. Although I was impressed with his knowledge, his report was nothing more than a check list with a few short narratives... not even one picture. When I discussed it with him and told him how long it took me, he commented that doing the reports his way was the only way to make money. When I saw the print out, it reminded me of what I learned on at ITA, although it wasn't an ITA report. My reporting style is still developing. I find I use alot of pictures and short narratives. Very little check list. When I finish the report I am working on now, I will post it for critique.

You guys really got me going with all this IR talk. I've thought about it in the past, always thought I'd like to get into it someday, like some others here, I thought that day was 2-3 years away. Now, I'm seriously thinking about making it my next challange. I know I could probably teach myself how to use and read the camera, but I think being certified will get me into more doors. Flir has an interesting course. A bit pricey, but I would imagine they are the best... or are they?

Go back, catch 'em and box 'em up. We can sell them to chinese cricket fighting dealers via the internet and make a killing?

Have you ever looked at something and before you could stop yourself, shouted out "Oh shit!" I just left a crawlspace where I encountered this: Image Insert: 82.8 KB Image Insert: 66.31 KB Image Insert: 74.99 KB Image Insert: 64.87 KB Each picture is of a different joist. Each and every loist was covered with these guys. I was afraid to pull down any insulation, I thought they would eat me! I would have taken more pictures, but my digital camera was almost out of film. Came across some of this too: Image Insert: 57.2 KB Image Insert: 66.86 KB Even found a few of these: Image Insert: 81.74 KB But this was the scariest!!!! Image Insert: 58.18 KB

I did an intrusive inspection of a leaking shower stall today. The unit is located on the 16th floor of a high rise building. Image Insert: 43.85 KB As you can see, there are no curb walls and there is minimal pitch. Let's look a bit deeper. Image Insert: 64.4 KB So here we have the heart of the problem. Image Insert: 67.64 KB Image Insert: 83.58 KB Image Insert: 40.96 KB I think the plumber was smoking something very strong. It's hard to tell from the picture, but besides the fact that the drain is about 2" higher than the sides, the wrong type of drain was used. There are no weep holes. The cone in the middle simply created a "sink". The water is overflowing the sides of the pan , runniing beneath it and into the apartments below.

When the time is right, the "swarmers" or "alates" fly off in search of a nest nest. The most common way to discover a termite infestation is to find the wings after the swarm. If they are inside the house, you can be reletivly sure the place is already infested. If the wings are outside, the colony usually isn't too far away.

I attended ITA/Kaplan. The class was great. The instructors were great, although some were better than others. Some taught me what I didn't want to be like. But, I'm still glad I got to meet them. Just like any trade school, I didn't expect it to do anything except teach me the basics. I feel it did that quite well. Actually, I was impressed just how much was taught. Don Norman was running the program. I believe that he is an ASHI past president. One day, I had to take a day off to go to court. Don insisted that I make up the class. He tutored me privately and taught me the material. No shortcuts, all the material from an 8 hour class... he wouldn't take a dime for his trouble. A guy named Mike Nelson was the head instructor, he was extremely dedicated to doing a good job. Steve Gladstone was also one of the instructors. He was very interesting. I also got I chance to meet Chad. I'm not trying to "stroke" him, but honestly, from all of the inspectors I meet, I wanted to be an inspector like him the most. By the way, he turned me on to TIJ, so blame him!!! Sure, I wish I could spend a year or two with Chad or some of the other guys I've met here... but I can't. I have to get my information however I can. I learned alot at ITA, I'm glad I went, I would do it all over again. Although the ITA report system was taught, there was no hard sell. I knew from day one I didn't like it. I don't use it. Whatever I thought I knew about construction, I realized that there was so much more to learn about inspecting. I realized that my prior knowledge was just another seed in the mixture. In the past 6 months, I have already logged more than 60 CE's... in reality, that is much more than 60 hours of study. I am already contemplating my next class. When I finished the class, there was no doubt in my mind that I would be able to do inspections. Yes, there was and still is a learning curve. I honestly believe that I do justice by my clients. I do have to take my time to think about things, and I do work harder to produce a product that is acceptable to me, especially when it comes to report writing. Besides having to invent the way I wish to say something, I also have had to learn the software. By the time my report is finished, I feel that my client has a pretty good idea about the building. In my opinion, my reports are understandable... even by those not construction savy. Sometimes I wonder if I give too much information.

I agree that you can tell quite a bit about an inspector by reading his/her reports and peer review could be good thing... if it were not simply the creation of another clique that didn't want to let anyone in. I wouldn't object to someone coming in after me, at a random site, and "double inspecting." I'm sure that there would be things that I missed that he will catch, just as I'm sure that there will be things that he will miss which I caught. If it is a "review" and not a "contest" it would be fine. I mentioned random site, so it would be a candid glimpse of MY SOP. Perhaps that type of "comparing" should be used too. Maybe the "fee" for being tested should include the cost of an inspection. Two inspectors could be hired to inspect the same house, not realizing at the time, it will be reviewed. You could test two or more inspectors at once. Since that part of the fee would be going back to the inspector, it wouldn't be that expensive. The review part comes when it would be decided if the client got a "good" inspection. One that reasonable protected their interests, and was presented in a way that could be understood. I realize this sounds far fetched, but, it just seems so fair... to me anyway.

I got a call from a landlord that is having a mold problem in one of her rentals. The problem has her in L&T court. After cleaning the mold, it reoccurs. She has informed me that the windows are sweating quite a bit, which by the way, are the problem areas. I asked her if she home had single pane or insulated glass windows, she was unable to answer the question. At this point, I have no clue about the construction of the building or what I will be facing until I look at it tomorrow. I have been considering different possibilities, they include: non insulated glazing,lack of storm windows, faulty frames, metal frames, metal frames w/o thermal break, windows blocked from ventilating, improper venting of a gas appliance, leaking steam pipe, improper moisture barrier. She did tell me that the heating system was recently serviced, but until I see it with my own eyes, I consider that hearsay. Does anybody have any input? I will post pictures tomorrow.

This thread started out asking about cleaning up the remains of an infestation. That is a very good idea... and standard practice in "Integrated Pest Management." Cleaning up to "trick" an inspection is bad. As far as reporting, if you are using the NPMA-33 form and my state's regulations, when performing a Termite/WDI/WDO inspection, you must report signs of activity and/or signs of previous treatment.

Thanks for the heads up. If you have seen Carpenter Ants activly tunneling into dry wood, and not the signs of a previous infestation, I can not dispute what you say, but I went to the Penn State, Ohio State and U of Alaska sites. Although none of the mentioned the 15% figure, they all cited moist or wet wood. Penn State added that they seldom tunneled into dry sound wood. I'll check out a few more places, if I can't find any information disputing my references, I'll probably stick with what I have. It's from Cornell and part of the NYSDEP catagory manuel. But... somewhere in my mind I will remember that it is possible. Thanks anyway. I think the real problem is, somebody may have forgotten to inform the ants. [:-idea]

I don't think 15% moisture content is a prerequisite for carpenter ants. If it is, I think someone's got it wrong. I'm not an entomologist, so I personally can't attest to the accuracy of the 15% calculation. But that is what the reference material I have states. I admit that it is possible that they are wrong. Can you tell me where I can get the right answer to that question?

Wood has to have a moisture content of at least 15% for Carpenter ants to successfully attack and you have to locate and kill the nest and queen to get rid of them. I agree, tough target.