dbyers

Like Kurt's first take. If I were testifying for the defense, I'd have to ask plantiff's attorney, do I refer to your client as Mr. Jackson or Mr. Cent ? Dave

This was new construction. Mixing valve located in a master bath wash basin base cabinet. The tub and shower water did not have reduced temperature. Don't know what this was intended for?? Thanks. Image Insert: 145.99 KB

Chris, some of the HIs on this forum are fast typers, and pretty smart to boot, but at 80 WPM you can get more done in less time. Here is free trial for a custom typing tutorial. A friend liked it, it sped her fingers up and mainly helped put them if the right spots. Maybe it will help. Just go to www.customtyping.com, for free trail and cheap after that. Dave

Chris, Since you have your InspecIt customized, you must be spending time typing in house specific comments, describing conditions and providing solutions. I think one has to decide if they want to do it this way or… It’s tough to find a middle route. But I think one can reduce office time, as you suggest, by compiling basic info on site with a hand held. I think that another method to less time in the office may be to use incomplete sentences. For obvious repair items, this woks fine. Another is to discipline away from adding those thoughtful conscientious key strokes. Could be like quitting smoking. You may have heard others say: you need to download various software programs to find the one that works for you. I bought InspecIt several years ago, but was too computer dumb or inpatient to efficiently get my database in, took too many steps per comment. If you have a data base to install, I think there are better ones out there. A data base system makes this easier - I downloaded Whisper, it was simple, and liked the ease of entering my data, but the format options were limited and the support was not geared to facilitate changes, so I didn’t buy it. I stuck with my own creation using MS Word. If there were another data base system out there, I would like to see it. There was someone who posted a few days ago who was honing up his report using Word’s (hidden) virtues. I think he uses a NAHI avatar. I wanted to get back to that thread but I can’t find it. Anyone know where that was? If you are planning on tech-ing it up in the field, consider doing it now. The longer you spend time doing your reports in the evening, the harder it may be to switch out. For what we make on an inspection, I think doing time consuming narratives is not fair to our business. That seems to me to be a rub in our profession for putting out this information. A choice we make. Dave

Yes, dito on this. The sad thing is that dryer roof jack exhaust hoods are made and sold with screens installed. Also, most of these have smaller mouth, 12 sq inches or less. There are large mouthed dampered mouths available for roof dryer vent terminations. Now wouldn't it make sense for sidewall terminations to use larger hooded or plastic dampers (lint collectors), even if a 4-6" vent reducer would have to be fitted, given the safety nature here.

This site has a list of vent lenghts for various manufacturers: http://www.appliance411.com/faq/dryer-vent-length.shtml I'd recommend upgrading by insulating the vent in the pictures. Dave

Posted - Feb 08 2008 : 2:16:00 PM I don't really see the distinction. The things that are conducive conditions are things that one inspects for anyway and should be reporting on regardless of whether it's mandated or not. The problem with the current situation is that one may not report on any of these issues unless one is a licensed pest guy and that makes no sense. So, the intent is to allow inspectors to do what they should have been doing all along, without the need to be a licensed pest guy to do it. M.id="blue"> Mike, first, I don't see my input on separating both WDIs and pest conducive conditions, apart from rot and rot conducive conditions, as a big deal. As long as there is to be no dual license requirement, and not specific pest inspection requirement (that is bringing WSDA into DoL) in the new HI licensing law, then I think the intent of the RCW will be made clear in the future. As I mentioned in my last post, as I had read Section 18 ...a licensed HI "shall only refer in his or her report to rot or conducive conditions to WDOs.." to mean that this was a requirement. Apparently this means that the HI is allowed to do this. This means that if a HI missed a rotted ledger board, deck collapses, people die, Suomi's revenge? Sorry, back to point. You exceed standards, I exceed standards. Commenting on pest specific conducive conditions can may be obvious for rot, but not necessarily for bugs. If an inspector is not a Licensed SPI-specialist, then knowing that a scrap 2x laying against a foundation wall is conducive to sub terranium termites (and not to rot of a structural component) is akin to knowing and refering to damaged wood as having anobiid beetle damage, a no-no. It's cleaner to have a complete separation in the Law and/or WAC. No big deal, but more of a deal if the inspector is required to refer to rot and conducive conditions to WDOs. I like the complete separation of the two kinds of WDOs, with rot and its conducive conditions being what a HI inspects for as part of their inspection of systems, components, and building science issues. Mike, I know the basic intent brings back to pre 1991. Dave

Mike, my point on identifying CC to insects was to be consistant in the separation. Whether HI should be required to mention conducive debris, etc., was my point. I have been informed that WHILAG feels the intent on reporting rot and conducive conditions to WDO was that it is to allow this, not require it. These things can be further defined by the Board in the SoP, and perhaps in a separate document often used to clarify intent of new Administrative Code. My point stands on the separation, it is not wordsmithing. Granted, these issues and wordings have been tweaked, dealt with enough, so going back to Spanel at this point might muddy waters. Dave

Looking at Section 18 of the Sub bill, it will require licensed HIs to report on conducive conditions for WDO's. This would include conducive conditions to wood destroying insects (WDO=rot and insects). There are some conducive conditions which are exclucive to insects, such as conducive debris in the crawl space, or a stump in the yard adjacent to the structure. Seems like the wording should be: "...refer in his or her report to rot or conducive condtions for rot..." Then there will be separation of WDRot and WDI. Dave

I was wrong, turns out Collinswood is not owned by Weyerh. The company bought the Weyerh plant that made Weyerh hardboard siding in 1996. Weyerh, since then (1996) has distributed the product for Collins, which in 2000 changed siding name to TruWood. I spoke w/ tech at Collinswood who advised there were no major changes to the product, and that only three tenths of a percent have claims, going back to the late 90's. He was a bit denfencive about the CA suit. One change has been a sharper angle on drip edge.

Randy didn't know if you had a look at the knot patterns. I mentioned 61" as this was/is the repeating pattern for both Weyerhaeuser and the pup company product. yes, its hard sometimes to identify all of em correctly, to even know all of them. Then, I simply identify the siding as engineered wood, espouse on potentials for failure and maintenance required, finish the report and say good night, as you have.

I couldn't tell from your second pic Randy, but the tell tale I use for Weyerhaeuser is knots 61" apart. But it sure looks like Collinswood TruWood, esp. if only half inch thick - I believe was the replacement for the before 2000 Wyhser siding that was in class action. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on the eras. Mainly responding here to give this link that shows tons of pics with knots, mainly of Masonite, but some of Truwood and Forestex. These are all hardboard products, wood fiber, but that's tough to tell without munchn on some. http://www.mastercodeprofessional.com/H ... ing_ID.pdf

I agree with Bill. If you state that the plumbing system is in good condition overall and your client and his attorney and the judge are willing to believe you meant the stuff inside the walls, then even if you have stated that this is a visual inspection in 20 other places of your report and contract: You must qualify a summary remark by saying "the visible plumbing...".

Many computer reporting programs use ratings such as, FUNCTIONAL, MARGINAL, NEEDS REPAIR and so on. They have a definition of terms page that describe what the ratings mean. I just looked up three words I have used: serviceable, functional, acceptable. I will no longer use the word, acceptable. I think it's fine to use conventions, if the meaning is clear and they serve a purpose for you and your client. I use "repair". I define repair (and include "or replace") along with: safety issue, major concern, further review and monitor at the front of report. They highlight the type of deficiency. As long as there is no confusion w/ intent of the convention, they make the report easier to read. In the case of "further review", this convention in a report is usually followed by a description of the problem, usually a manuscripted comment as the boiler plate won't fit- and the convention definition doesn't have to reinserted. I was once told by a FREA E&O rep. that you should define such words like, acceptable. (Of course, E&O carriers would have you refer to a specialist for a missing door knob.) If there can be ambiguity in a value description type word (acceptable by who), it should not be used or be more clear, or define in a report section. If Websters is clear (functional-it works), then why define. Also, in narrative reporting, do you mention everything that was inspected or just focus on the items that need attention? I understand that SOP requires me to mention information about specific things regardless of condition. I think most folks expect their report will concentrate on repair items. If you look at an SoP, does it they say anything about reporting on the condition of items that are not deficient? Mike had an opinion on this. Describe the structure, plumb, hvac, elec etc. And Report on what's damaged or broke. I include short comments in some sections of report which further describe system or component, and give inspection result that say, eg: the water heater was properly installed incl. blah blah. This is done to let client know this system was inspected, provides info. Does your SoP include the doorbell? If not and the bell doesn't work, do you report it? Would your client want it to work, or have been informed? This is on another tact and I won't get started on "representative" sampling, which back to point, at least is defined in SoP(s) . Dave

Hi Mike, Rich, and interested, After watching the video on TVW, I was impressed with the presentations from WHILAG. This advisory group has come a long way since its inception in Jan. '06. They are now recognized by Senator Spanel and other legislators as an authoritative group. It's clear that the information and reasoning put forth is intended to benefit the HI profession, and keeps the home buyer interests in mind. In doing so, any bias in favor of, or against specific HI association has not been in the equation. That isn't to say that particular issues or features that an association may bring aren't addresed, eg.: testing moduals. It's about time for WA to have an independent legislative resource group of HIs. The time spent by these folks in studying issues, bills, ammendments, understanding HI licensure trends country wide, writing ammendments, proposing a bill, and working tirelessly to gain the ear of sponsoring legislators has all been a feat we can benefit from. The process remains ongoing. It ain't over till the fat lady sings. (That's a saying, the honorable Governor appears trim to me, and I have no idea if she can sing.) Yes, the grandfathering to eliminate the 120 hour ed and 40 hour field training needs to be eliminated from this SB 6606, with some form of "maturity" accepted. M.O. spoke clearly on this (amazing how concise he can express his thoughts verbally). Still, if this issue is on anyone's mind, emailing Sen. Spanel and others on this would be helpful. Watching the video, it was again clear that the Senators are looking for concise specific suggestions, with brief reason for. One of the highlights on grandfathering came when Mike was asked by a Commerce/Labor Comm. Sen. if he felt the exam should be required of the experienced inspector. (The HI exams are generally minmal, H.S. diploma, DOL generally acknowledges that licensing is intended to qualify at a minimal level.) Mike responded that some HIs out there may have 15 years experience, but be out performed by a one year inspector, that these folks need to be found, and yes, the exam should be required for all to pass. I noticed that this public hearing had something different, several questions from the Committee. Part of this is a result of the issues being fine tuned, and the pols have more understanding-more interest, but again, the presence of an organized group of inspectors, and the credibility they are achieving bodes well for the chance of a reasonable law. Dave