hausdok

He gets out the white-out and removes R. Navarro from his alternative call list for when he's too booked...

Huh? You really should go back and read that. That post was meant more to spur on those experienced inspectors who knew about the deadline but dragged their feet, as well as those who hadn't even begun the process yet, rather than the experienced inspectors who knew and had made an effort. If we can light a fire under these folks, maybe we won't have to go through again what we've been going through the past 8 weeks exactly 8 months from today. Also it was meant to make sure that new inspectors that hadn't yet completed all of the requirements realized that they have to shut down their operation immediately; so they can avoid getting cited by DOL, when another inspector decides to drop a dime on them, and to make everyone understand that, license or not, all inspectors in the state are now obligated by law to comply with the new rules and SOP. Those things matter a whole lot more than quibbling about what someone's license date was when the director has decided to grant them an exception. I'm sorry you're unable to see the big picture. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Well, The reviewer for that device said don't buy, wait for the 3M. The reviews at the 3M site are mixed but mostly complimentary. OT - OF!!! M.

I've heard that too but have always wondered, if that's true, how do they survive during the hours of darkness when they can't see anything and can't fly? I've never bothered to google it; probably should except then I wouldn't wonder any more. Sometimes a little wonderment mystique is a good thing to have. OT - OF!!! M.

Well, I don't know what went on; but I should think that it would be reasonable to make the effective date the date that DOL received and rejected the paperwork without the fee. After all, everything had been completed on that date. That's just speculation, I don't know if that's actually what happened or not and I'm not losing any sleep over it. Nobody gets a prize based on their effective date, so what does it matter? OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, I didn't bother to look it up but the first question that comes to my mind is why would the presence of a plywood plenum connected to an electric forced air heating system that's incorporated into the middle of a flexible duct system, that's also made from flammable materials, be any different than using panned joists for part of the system? I'm not saying it's logical from a common sense viewpoint, but aren't electric furnaces the exception to the rule for locations relative to bathrooms? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Not Amazing really, It's my understanding that there were quite a few inspectors who'd completed the testing and paperwork prior to the deadline but failed to send in a check along with their applications, or had made other small administrative errors on the paperwork, that got their app rejected. The lady running the program can't make exceptions for special circumstances; only the Director can do that. If the Director has decided to take a second look at those rejected applications and has decided to do what she considers fair, using the discretion that she has, it's all perfectly legal and within her authority - not even the board has the power to challenger her on that because it's clearly set in statute. I don't understand why folks are obsessing on this stuff; anyone she approves still had to meet all of the experience requirements for grandfathering and still had to pass the same tests. The objective is to get all so-called experienced folks tested to ensure they all are minimally competent and to ensure that anyone new that gets into the profession has had a comprehensive education in the fundamentals, has actually been on-site and inspected homes, has prepared real reports, and has passed the same tests; before they are allowed to go out there the first time on their own to inspect homes for customers. It ain't perfect by a long shot but it's a lot better than it was and it will get better with time. Once the initial licensing deadline for everyone (July 1, 2010) has passed, the board can begin working to tweak the WACs and improve the way it works. What the board needs now are logical, well-thought-out suggestions for improvement to the WACs, which is the only thing the board is allowed to tweak, and fewer long-winded rants from those who couldn't have cared less about licensing before the deadline and provided absolutely no helpful input, but are now wailing louder than banshees the night before gran da passed. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Wasn't me, it was the listing agent on a house I did. She apparently took it from an upstairs window earlier in the fall. Still, there are days when you suddenly turn a corner and that sucker is staring right at you and looks about two or three times it's normal size. I'm told it's something about the atmospherics that magnifies it so much. Whatever it is, it's pretty kewl. OT - OF!!! M.

Sometimes conditions are just right to see this sucker from Seattle. Click to Enlarge 18.24 KB

For those of you who like new tech toys, this might just be the ultimate new gizmo - a mini LED projector that's the size of a cell phone that can be set up anywhere in minutes and can project a 50-inch image. Hmmm, Now, if it were possible to wear a cigarette video camera while inspecting, and stream those images to a laptop coupled to one of these, the clients could sit down in the house and relax while they watched you work. They could see the roof, the attic, and everything that you see.

After a deck collapsed in Morayfield, Queensland and eight people were injured, decks in Australia are coming under closer scrutiny by building officials. According to home inspectors in Australia, there are thousands of unsafe decks currently in use and decks in coastal regions fail more frequently than those in non-coastal regions. To read more about the deck collapse, click here.

Thanks to both of you. That'll work. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi All, I'm working on a report and need to get it out within the next 2-12 hours. Can't seem to find a reference for what the minimum acceptable depth for soil pipe below grade was back around 1991. Had one leaving a foundation yesterday with the top of the soil pipe and a rubber connector about 20% exposed at the foundation wall. It's kind of odd. There's at least a four foot drop to the street from where the pipe passes through the foundation and the sewer is buried in the street. Seems like it should have been sunk at least a couple of feet lower in order to prevent it from being damaged. Thoughts, Anyone? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

oooooooo'kay OT - OF!!! M.

I guess you didn't read what I'd posted very carefully; Joe Lstiburek is endorsing this method and has tested it. Going up against an opinion of Dr. Joe's is a pretty risky thing to do in my opinion. They guy lives and breathes for building envelope challenges. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I disagree, it certainly does have something to do with home inspections. I was going to run the story long before I learned that the victim was a home inspector, which was on the day I posted it 8 days after the incident; I just hadn't gotten to it yet. The primary story is that a hut tub may have electrocuted someone. Yeah, we don't necessarily inspect hot tubs but we should at least be inspecting the feeders, up to and including the disconnect and whether it's properly configured. The coincidence that he just happens to be a home inspector is secondary to everything else but the lead-in ensured that folks read about it, which I think is important - especially if it causes inspectors to look more critically at the power feeds to hot tubs. The fact that he is a home inspector is sad for our profession and the fact that the son is disputing it is an interesting twist that makes it a sort of mystery. Where the speculation and inuendo came from? Well, it's an internet forum, after all - we pretty much know how that goes. If they do confirm that this was an electrocution, how that thing was wired and how things were grounded is going to be important to know. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Any rain following those cables into that masthead would be unacceptable. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Well, I'd never seen the stuff before so I googled "Structural Insulated Sheathing." Man, this stuff is being pushed by Dr. Joe and PATH and a bunch of folks. Apparently, Dr. Joe tested the stuff in a test home for at least a year before he endorsed it. Here's some helpful links: The Dow Structural Insulated Sheathing home page The Dow SIS installation instruction page The ICC Evaluation Service Code Report (Shows some flashing details). The Build A Better Home - Avoiding Moisture Accumulation in Walls instructions (Referenced by P.A.T.H. as being the proper technique for weatherproofing and flashing walls where SIS is used - wherever the diagrams show "structural sheathing" just substitute SIS.) Enjoy. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I'd say that the head flashings and Z-flashings flashings and windows need to be installed to the rough framing first and then the sheating installed. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Man, I wish. After doing this for nearly 8 years, I'd never have to spend another dime on CEU's for the rest of my life. OT - OF!!! M.

Exactly, Yeah, we see splits with single main disconnects as well. As you've stated, those are figured just like any other service with a single main disconnect. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

The "sand" is just mortar that's gone to Aunt Sadie's. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

No Tom, That's not correct. This is a split-bus enclosure rated for 150 amps being fed by SEC rated for 150 amps. If there is no single main disconnect ahead of the panelboard - and there'd better not be recause the grounded and service-grounding conductors share the same bus - it's a 150 amp service. In a split bus configuration where there isn't any single main disconnect breaker as in your example, the top six breakers (Or bottom, depending on which way the panel is installed) are collectively considered the main disconnect. The size of the individual breakers used for various appliances, or for the sub-main feed, in a split bus panel do not decide its rating. It is rated by comparing the rating on the panel to the size of the SEC coming to it. Whichever is lowest determines the service's rating. For instance, if you have a panel rated for 150 amps but the SEC are only rated for 125 amps then you have a 125 amp service. If you have a panel rated for 125 amps but the SEC feeding it are capable of sustaining a 150 amp load you still have a 125 amp service because you're not allowed to exceed the rating for that panel. Six throw main split bus panels are very very common around here in homes built prior to 1984. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I think Kevin is correct. The large pair of SEC on the left feeds power to this panelboard from the meter. The upper right breaker is the disconnect for a large appliance or a sub-panel elsewhere in the house and the 2-pole on the upper left is the branch lighting/appliance cutoff. You can see the cables that backfeed the lower half of the panel behind all of that crap on the left. One pole of that middle-left breaker is still being used to power something so it does violate the 6-throw rule. That's a pretty crowded mess; plus the double-lugged breakers. Jim, Would you say that this violates the fill rule? I think it's time for a new panel or the addition of a sub-panel. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I grew up in a home with a gas stove. There was a pilot light on that sucker 24/7/365 and in the winter that house was shut up tight as a gnat's ass with 8 people, 2 dogs and several cats. Nobody ever got sick or even got a headache from that gas stove. There's a reason that they don't want you to heat a home with a gas stove or oven if the furnace breaks down - If it's cold enough outside that you need to use a stove or oven to keep warm, you'll close all of the windows and doors; and, when you're sleeping, all of the CO2 that those sleeping bodies gives off in a closed and unvented house will change the O2-to-fuel ratio and the stove will produce carbon monoxide. The stove pilot light was too small to do that back then and now they have electronic igniters. A gas appliance that's operating properly doesn't give off CO, it gives off CO2. When you use a gas stove or oven for what it's designed for - cooking - you aren't likely to poison anyone because during those times when the family is awake and moving around they do things that will ventilate the home and the air stays free of CO. A stove exhaust hood is nice; but, even without it you're not likely to see anyone become ill. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike