AHI in AR

This pic illustrates exactly why there are so many problems with EIFS if the details are done incorrectly. That type of flashing is common here for all wall cladding types; maybe it isn't common in other regions. Done properly, it's fine. (For a typical composition shingle, anyway.) It can't be seen easily in the photo, but there is a hemmed back edge under the shingles which keeps water from running under the shingles. But if it does not terminate OUTSIDE the wall cladding, be it brick, vinyl, wood, or stucco-like material of whatever type, you are going to have big problems since you are literally funneling water into the wall cavity. The unfortunate thing is that it usually does not cause enough damage to be discovered until well after the new-home warranty is up. Where's the kickout flashing? The lack of a kickout flashing is exactly what I was getting at when I said it terminated improperly inside the wall cavity and was funneling water inside the wall!

Whoa, there, Mike! You obviously get a lot more rain there than we do here. This type of flashing has worked reliably for decades in areas where it does not rain most days of the year. It's not a new technique. And frankly, it's easier to re-roof without creating a leak over this than it is over step flashing which is trapped under the siding -- or stucco and similar materials. You know what happens with step flashing; the roofer just slaps a huge mass of tar over the old roof and lays the new shingles down in it rather than wrestle it into place. Then he goops up the wall-to-roof joint with more tar. With a one-piece flashing, even on a cheapo reroof where they don't remove all the shingles they can simply cut off the first layer where it overlaps the flashing and go over it with the second layer. It still works fine. Nothing overruns the lip. OK, there are the rare cases where an idiot roofer mashes the lip flat so there is no slight ridging of the shingles. But then again, these types of mental giants also will either overlap the base flashing the wrong way, thereby directing water behind it (yes, I've seen it) or they will try to save a little flashing to cash in at the recycling center by stretching each piece of base flashing to cover 3 courses! As I said, the lip on the flashing isn't visible in the photo. In actuality, around here its 1/2" long and rises a good 3/8" above the roof. Kind of like a sideways "J". This will handle a LOT of water efficiently, especially considering that there is usually a roof overhang above it which limits the amount of water getting to these types of joints anyway. Remember, the water tends to run down, not horizontally out towards the lip. The critical issue, regardless of the type of flashing used, is the bottom termination. Almost all the problems I see, whether from this one piece flashing or 2 piece step flashing is due to improper discharge behind the wall cladding. I see plenty of both types done incorrectly. And as for freezing, that isn't an issue where the photo was taken -- which was in Alabama. Nor is it an issue here. I was not recommending it for use nation-wide, merely pointing out a problem with the bottom of the run. That problem does exist everywhere, regardless of climate, but even more so in rainy ones. And it exists for both types of flashings. I should point out that I recommend only copper flashing (of either type) when used with masonry construction. Want to see real dumb practices? Try using aluminum in contact with mortar. The real problem as you indirectly pointed out, is workers who are either improperly trained or simply don't care.

id="blue">Here's a clue...try looking in the plumbing section, for cryin' out loud! Really, should we penalize the more intelligent clients to cater to those who have trouble tying their shoes without daily reminders as to how? While I fully understand that some reporting software written by misguided souls seems determined to pad the page count (See! Mine's bigger than yours!) I think that catering to lowest-common-denominator types or those with short attention spans is a mistake. I think there are two benefits to a solid, informative report. And, no, I don't mean 12 pages of problems and double that of fluff. Leave out a lot of the maintenance tips, or at least relegate them to a separate section so they can be ignored, or read, as the client chooses. The benefits to a longer report? First, you inform the client that you actually DID something other than show up and note the obvious issues. Properly done, it gives the impression that you are professional and dedicated enough to assess all components present, good, bad, or indifferent. It doesn't matter whether you list items your client does not understand so long as you don't get too wildly esoteric in your report. Second, in the event of possible or actual litigation, do you think Mr. Plaintiff's attorney is going to be impressed by a just-the-minimum type of report? I doubt it -- and that means a greater likelihood of a lawsuit. Seems to me that if Mr. Attorney reads a thorough report with all conditions duly noted (whether Mr. Plaintiff understands them or not) Mr. Attorney may just be a little less likely to push for a suit. He might just doubt that the inspector is incompetent while realizing that the potential definitely exists that his client is a nut job. This assumes he's an ambulance chaser working on a contingency fee basis since he won't get paid unless he wins. Most of them, I would wager, fall into this category. However, I do like the idea of a segregated report to accommodate all personality types who might read the report. Think of it as a multi-course report, with maintenance tips and the like being dessert. Put it at the end. You don't have to partake if you don't want to. Generally, only your anal-retentive types (engineers, accountants and the like) will read that part, but those who do will be appreciative.

Every pic I take certainly doesn't need the same "retouching." I have a couple of HP cameras and I use their software sometimes. I set the adaptive lighting feature to be a default setting in the camera itself via the menu. It seems to work pretty well. Try Adobe Photoshop Album Starter Edition. It's a free program. While some aspects of it are stupid, it has an "Autofix" feature that usually does a good job with contrast problems and the like, especially overexposed issues where a flash is involved against an essentially white background.

This pic illustrates exactly why there are so many problems with EIFS if the details are done incorrectly. That type of flashing is common here for all wall cladding types; maybe it isn't common in other regions. Done properly, it's fine. (For a typical composition shingle, anyway.) It can't be seen easily in the photo, but there is a hemmed back edge under the shingles which keeps water from running under the shingles. But if it does not terminate OUTSIDE the wall cladding, be it brick, vinyl, wood, or stucco-like material of whatever type, you are going to have big problems since you are literally funneling water into the wall cavity. The unfortunate thing is that it usually does not cause enough damage to be discovered until well after the new-home warranty is up.

Maybe it's just me, but I loved the lawyers. Unlike regular citizens, they don't even read the contracts; they just sign them. That's because (a) the last thing they want to do is sue somebody on their own behalf and (b) they know that if a lowly HI really screws up, they can stomp the guts out of the guy in court. WJ It's funny. I used to be afraid of the big bad lawyers, but my experience is almost universally the same. They DON'T read the contract. The last home I did for one had so many flaws that he could not sign off and get out of there fast enough. My contract could have stated that I was going to send a runner to collect the keys to his Mercedes at 1:00 pm the next day and he wouldn't have known it.

What format is it in before you convert it into a PDF? My program writes it into Word, so you can easily go back to the root file, make changes to protect confidentiality, and then convert it into a PDF under a different name.

Everyone knows it should go around your head for foil to work properly. Duh!

I would have no problem being the "Old McDonald" guy if that is what it takes. I have only been doing this for 9 years, but have only been in a courtroom as a witness for a plaintiff, never as a defendant. I have only received one demand letter from a client's attorney. That was a dead issue after I (not an attorney) wrote a response. And even that demand letter was pretty weakly worded. The attorney knew it was a waste of his client's time. But he (the attorney) got paid anyway, right? I harbor no illusions that a lawsuit won't eventually name me. After all, that is the lottery system uneducated or unethical people choose to cover their oversights or poor judgment, right? If you are not vague you have fewer problems. It's that simple. However, I would recommend that you don't prescribe an exact fix unless you are sure it can't be misinterpreted and you are qualified to do so. The danger still remains that some blithering idiot can do what you say, but in a poor fashion. I recommend avoiding the term "further evaluation by a qualified whatever" unless it is followed by something along the lines of "and make all necessary repairs to ensure proper function, personal safety", etc. Don't leave any monkeys the opportunity to jump on your back.

I'm not a big fan of silicones either, at least not in a lot of the situations where they are commonly used. The big problem as I see it is a lack of elasticity when cured. When you use it to seal a joint between two dissimilar materials with different rates of expansion it will bond to one and pretty quickly pull away from the other. Actually, I guess it would be more proper to say the other material pulls away from it. DAP does make at least one pretty good sealant. It's called Flexible Clear Sealant and it's neither a silicone nor a latex. It is sticky as can be and remains flexible. Crystal clear and paintable. I've got some I put on my home when building it almost 9 years ago and it still looks like new. It seems to be similar to Lexel or Geocel if you've used those.

It's way before my time, and admittedly I didn't grow up playing in any mansion, abandoned or otherwise, but I still suspect it's not for a telephone. I doubt that the concept of a phone in each room would have been considered in a relatively modest home such as this. My guess would be some sort of proprietary plug and jack system which never caught on. If you look at the age of the home and the round hole in the plug, I think it was for a power cord for some sort of light or appliance. After all, back in the day, cords were usually cloth-covered and round, right? Thread drift: Why are modern cover plates so boring? Can't we bring back some designs like this one where they have a little character? I'll happily abandon the vertical ribs which are a pain to keep clean, but why not a little filigree work or similar design around the perimeter? Anyone out there with a little spare cash to invest? I suggest we start up a company to manufacture cover plates with vintage design motifs. Craftsman, Mid-century, Art Deco, Nouveau...etc. Any takers?

I realize that these videos must seem incredibly dry (pardon the pun) to those outside the profession. However, there is a key idea here that you newer guys can learn from watching these. It seems as though I've said these things a million times, and I'm sure you veterans out there have also. 1) Small amounts of water getting where they don't belong over a long period of time cause a lot of damage. Unfortunately, since the areas are concealed, the clueless homeowner doesn't often find out about it until after their drywall falls off at their feet. Don't count on the seller's disclosure! Proper flashing is CRITICAL. 2) In most cases, caulking should be your secondary line of defense, not your primary one. And in either case, get the BEST caulk for the job. Not what's on sale that week. Yeah, the good stuff costs 3-5 times as much per tube as the cheap stuff. But it's still very few $$. As they mentioned in the video, hardboard sidings (and certainly vinyl and metal ones) often appear to be in decent shape while hiding damage behind them. Some of these areas are truly concealed and can't be seen without destructive testing. However, some indicators can frequently be found. Since the water drains down, there are usually visual clues at the bottom of the wall in problem areas. I use my mirror from the dollar store and my Maglite to look at the bottom edge of the siding and sheathing...especially in areas like the fireplace chase offsets such as they showed. The flashing details at these areas are almost always incorrect. You can't see it unless you use the mirror to look up. Well, OK, alternately you can lie in the dirt and dog poo and look up. My dog might find that infinitely more interesting when I get home, but I prefer the mirror. You want to look like a genius to your client? Find something like this that the "expert" friend they brought to the home earlier didn't notice. Referral city, my friends.

Stylin' But I'm curious...was the local tool supply house having a everything-with-yellow-on-it-is-on-sale day, or was that an unintentionally color coordinated look?

Kurt-- There's a simple answer to this problem! The idea is to start off -- and remain -- blissfully incompetent. That way, you never become an anachronism and, as a side benefit, progress makes you happy. Admittedly, it's too late for me or you to try it. Or anyone else on this board. But based on some of the stuff I see every day, it's obvious that lots of others have embraced the concept![:-dunce]

Mike-- Sometimes you get what you pay for, right? Relatively early in my career, I went to a home about 45 minutes outside of town in a small community. Those of you who have done inspections outside of metropolitan areas know the kind of @#$% you often find in these homes. It's bad enough when there ARE city inspections being done during construction and remodeling, you can imagine how bad it is when the owner gives Bubba down the lane a six-pack to come over on Saturday and plumb and wire their new addition. The home was about 60 years old, and had been added on to twice, bringing it to about 1900 square feet...on a very short crawlspace, to make matters worse. The local agent let me in, and said she'd be back in 45 minutes to lock up! I let her know that I would be there about 3 hours but that I would be glad to lock up when I was through. I'll never forget the look on her face. You could see the color leave even through the makeup. It was impressive. I'd never had that power over a woman. Not that I'd tried...but I digress. I completed the inspection, walked through with my clients, and delivered my report the next day. They decided to pass on the home. Several months later, I got a call from an attorney representing the eventual purchasers asking if I would testify in a case against the sellers and the inspector who did the inspection for his clients. I declined. I suppose they could have subpoenaed me; I don't know. I wanted so badly to ask the attorney if the inspection was a 45 minute one.

I thought that's what "absolutely" meant![] What Walter was kind enough to lay out in detail is exactly my approach. You can't expect everyone to rip out every obsolete/dangerous item in the home, but you'd better TELL them what items are in that category and recommend that they repair/replace/rebuild them. They can do what they choose; our job is to inform them of those items. It's simply not economically feasible to fix some items. But if you don't write them up, you'll eventually find yourself writing something far more painful...a check to someone with an attorney!

With items regarding personal safety, absolutely. Injury doesn't care about timelines. I add language to the effect that the item may have been considered acceptable at the time the home was built, but that it would be prudent to update it to current requirements.

Yes, I must confess that I did. I even admitted that I didn't even live in NC. I almost didn't, but I thought whoever reads it might give the comments more weight if they thought about the fact that someone without "a dog in the fight" would care enough to comment on the proposal. They limited you to 500 characters; I used 498. Now I have to figure out how to follow the issue to see what happens after the 15th.

I've seen some asinine proposals regarding the home inspection profession and this is right near the top. Even though it would save them time, the HI's are against it! Imagine that. Who benefits? Only the real estate agents...the ones pushing for the change by keeping the buyer in the dark. The consumer is left to twist in the wind trying to figure out what all those comments mean while they are stressed out already from all the other details. Shameful. The comments from Board members are an insult to anyone's intelligence: “You can put, ‘House has no smoke alarms.’ You just can’t say the house is going to burn down,â€

Seems to me the solution is simple. If it indeed has been accepted by the local AHJ then the "builder" should not complain about you calling the local AHJ. That's exactly what I would do. Around here, they get real interested in an unpermitted job. They swoop in , shut the job down, and hold it for ransom in the form of triple the permit fee. If it has indeed been accepted by them, I'd state in my report that it is in contradiction to generally published and accepted standards but that the local AHJ has allowed it. That way you disclosed your concern and can CYA. In my neck of the woods, you can't do it. And also...if the electrician is unlicensed then just who supposedly took out the permit on it?

Sounds like BS. If there's a small hole or crack in an oil furnace heat exchanger, the pressure is going the wrong way to get flue gases into the airstream. If there's a honkin' big hole in the heat exchanger (not unusual if the refractory has failed) then you get so much flue gas into the airstream that there's little doubt about the problem; the whole house gets coated in an oily film of soot. - Jim Katen, Oregon Jerry said it was a gas furnace in the home. At this point in the conversation, I was responding to John's story about a CE instructor. I presume that the instructor was talking about oil furnaces because gas furnaces don't normally produce much in the way of soot. (Well, they can, but they’ve got to be seriously screwed up to do so.) Well, for the great majority of cases, there's little risk of CO entering the home from a failed HE. It can happen with a large hole and it can happen during the purge cycles, but in most cases the household air moves out through the crack, the exhaust gases don't move in. If a furnace is going to contribute CO to the household air, it's almost always going to do it because of problems with the vent, not a crack in the HE. Or maybe it had nothing to do with the HE. The black stuff is dirt. It could come from soot, cigarettes, candles, oil lamps -- lots of things. As far as I can tell, a busted HE is way down on the list of possibilities. Not a bad idea. I'll try it next time. - Jim Katen, Oregon Fair enough...but I still say that a bad HE can cause that kind of staining. I didn't say it was definite. Keep in mind that all we have to go on is a brief description; I'm just throwing out possibilities like the others -- not guaranteed answers by any means. I would agree that it is most likely just dirt from a poorly filtered system. That was posited first. But we don't know if the filter was dirty, or missing, or if there was a heavy cigarette smell, or an excess of candles or oil burning thingies. (My spelling) Imagine this scenario: you have incomplete combustion for whatever reason(s) AND a bad HE. Lovely, fall-like orange colors above your burners. Prior to the start of the blower, your burners are emitting crap which can be pushed into the duct system. Air pressure is working against Harry Homeowner at this point since there is no pressurized flow around the HE. If this goes on for a few years, I can imagine some sooting could occur through the ducts. It may be a long shot, and I may have been assuming too much from one photo, but the door casing appears to be the old "clamshell" style. That hasn't been in common use since the mid 1960's. Not around here, anyway. If that's the case where the photo was taken, this home could have had a couple of furnaces which were ignored and left in service past the point where there were problems. Just a guess. May be totally wrong. But then, I'm not getting paid, so it's OK in my book...

Tell 'em they need to find a competent framer! In the first photo you have poorly cut rafters at a hip-to-ridge joint. While it won't be picture-perfect, that can be repaired with a properly scabbed 2X6 on the rafter that's too short. Photo #2 is funny...as though liquid nails and Great Stuff foam will hold that mess together! I'm guessing that's the ridge over some intersecting gable such as the garage. That short valley definitely needs repair as it's carrying roof load. And the nails are shot through it right near the ragged edge...not much holding capability there. This guy needs to learn how to cut compound angles...

Sounds like BS. If there's a small hole or crack in an oil furnace heat exchanger, the pressure is going the wrong way to get flue gases into the airstream. If there's a honkin' big hole in the heat exchanger (not unusual if the refractory has failed) then you get so much flue gas into the airstream that there's little doubt about the problem; the whole house gets coated in an oily film of soot. - Jim Katen, Oregon Jerry said it was a gas furnace in the home. As for the flue gases mixing with the house air stream, if the pressure differential around the entire heat exchanger always acted to preclude the admittance of combustion waste gases it seems to me that we wouldn't have to worry about carbon monoxide entering the home from a failed HE. I do know that I have seen similar stains more than once in older homes which sport a brand new furnace at the time of the inspection, making it seem plausible that the staining was likely due to a bad HE in the previous furnace. Without other clues, all I would know to do would be to try to rub some off and smell it. If it smells like Glade or Renuzit you've got your answer!

I appreciate the replies, gentlemen, but it appears that I did not state the question clearly enough. I have no interest in trying to generate the entire report on a handheld. I have a laptop already; the keyboard on that is too small for me to want to use it for the entire report. And I don't like sitting in someone else's home for an hour and a half while I write the report. I'm much more comfortable sitting at my own desk later with a full size keyboard given the amount of customizing I do in my reports. What I was wanting to know was if the data that can be entered "as-is" in the field with a simple touch of a stylus would justify bringing along yet another piece of equipment. Inspect Express software has drop-down sections for such things as A/C and furnace brands, etc., where the info could be entered on the site quickly, (and later -- I think -- quickly synced to my desktop) rather than making a note on site and entering it into the main computer later. That was why I was asking specifically about this software. I am not about to try to produce a quick but vague report on site.

I have seen windows like that missing lintels where the brick has loosened and literally fallen out since there is not enough of it restrained by the frieze board -- and the top of the window frame isn't designed to carry a load. I have written it up on new homes more than once only to have the builder argue with me. I then watch as his eyes glaze over as I briefly explain that mortar has great compressive strength but not much adhesive strength. They usually want to keep arguing that it is speculation as to whether the brick will fall. True enough. To kill the "conversation" I ask if they have good insurance since a brick falling from a second floor window will put a good dent in a person's head!