AHI in AR

Well, it appears I've been told I have my head up my rear! Had to happen sooner or later, I guess... I'll give everyone else a chance to pile on if desired. But first, I want the chance to make my case. First, the disclaimers: (1) I was not responding to the original post that started this thread. I don't know what the term "J" flashing refers to so I'm not endorsing it or commenting on it in any way. (2) I DO NOT recommend one-piece flashing with brick veneer construction. I stick with the step flashing and counter flashing method there. (3) The comments I posted earlier refer to the one-piece type of flashing in the pic originally posted by Philip which I used in my post stating that the flashing was OK if done properly. (4) Lastly, I have no financial interest in any firm that makes or sells flashing of any sort. I do not own, nor have I ever owned, any roofing firm. What I would like to know is how many of you are condemning the one-piece flashing design due to actual experiences where it has failed? How many of you are suspicious just because it's not something you are familiar with? I can tell you that in my area it has been in widespread use for over 30 years. During my 9 years of inspections I've seen a ton of it used. Do you know how many failures I've seen due to water running over the lip? EXACTLY ZERO. (That seems to be the big fear/objection.) I've seen a whole bunch of improper terminations missing a kickout at the bottom. Guess what? I have seen the exact same thing as often with step flashing. I have seen leaks due to nailing in improper places; I've seen that in step flashing also. However, I've never seen 1 pc. flashing overlapped too short to save material. I certainly have seen that with step flashing. And I've never seen it overlapped incorrectly with the bottom piece over the top one at joints as I have with step flashing. As for my comments about reroofing over this product, I have a couple of necessary points to make. I never said that this product is: Easier and less hassle has nothing to do with it. The last thing I care about is how easy a roofer's job is. I care about leaks. The point I was trying to make was that based on my experience it maintains a more consistently reliable water tight joint after a reroof. I only say that because I've seen fewer problems with leaks after a recover which keeps this flashing in use . A proper step flashing design would still be a wonderful system if the roofers took the time to do their job right. The ugly fact is that a lot of them don't, and leaks result. Based on my experience, a one piece design is more resistant to problems due to a lazy or ill-trained roofer. And, no, I don't think that a 2nd layer of roofing is better that a tearoff and reroof. I never said or even hinted at that. In fact, I referred to the recover as a "cheapo" reroof! However, it IS allowed, (at least in most places) it IS done, and I have seen more than a few botched step flashing jobs where the roofer simply slathers tar all over anything near the roof-to-wall joint rather than wrestle with the step flashing. They simply put down the new roof right over it, bedded down in tar. Guaranteed to leak after the warranty is up -- if not before. For the record, it's not "made up at the moment crap" as it was referred to. It is sold by all the lumber yards locally as well as the roofing supply houses. Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but it is here. Some of the supply houses selling it are owned by roofing manufacturers. Now, before you flame me and say "That doesn't make it right" I will stop you short and say that I agree. I'm merely pointing out that it isn't some homemade junk created on site by a roofer, or existing only in his imagination. Both of those were alleged. And it's not reasonable to imply that this product in any way is more likely to allow water to freeze on a roof than step flashing. If anything the opposite would seem to be true since it gets water off the roof more quickly. I suspect that some of you aren't sure how this works since it may not be used in your area. It's simple, and it is EXACTLY the same principle found in metal flashings used in open valleys such as on wood or tile roofs. That's right, the type that has been used for centuries. Valleys take a whole lot more water that a wall to roof joint does. I can't follow the logic in asserting that the same design principles will work in a valley but not against a wall where there is far less water. You have a raised lip which keeps the water from running out under the shingles and gravity does the rest until it dumps out over the roof edge. I did a quick Google search and came up with this. It's not from a shingle manufacturer; their online installation details all seemed to be commercial stuff. It's from the Copper Development Association. I doubt that they'd have an interest in promoting a poor system; they aren't even selling anything. Look at illustration "D" http://www.copper.org/applications/arch ... rmers.html If nothing else, this proves that the product is commercially available as well as endorsed by an organization that knows a little bit about flashing. I also find it curious that you would bless this basic type of flashing under a tile roof but not shingles. The way it works is identical as far as water control, I.E. a raised edge. Certainly there isn't more water getting to the flashing with a composition roof than a tile roof. Where's the problem? So to recap, I haven't seen any problems resulting from the use of this product per se. It's all been improper installation. And since the alternative step flashing is certainly not immune to improper installation which produces leaks, I have a real hard time condemning this product. Quite simply, if I had seen problems from it, I would not hesitate for one second to argue against its use. As I said to start this post, I firmly believe in step flashing in some applications. But in my opinion, it isn't right to call a product crap if you can't point to any failures due to it. Maybe some of you guys can, but despite all of it I've seen, I can't. If you've got photos showing damage from water running over the lip, please post them. I'll go out on a short limb and say that most water leaks from this type of flashing are due to improper installation, not the inherent design of the product. The same is true of step flashing. Frankly, I never would have posted the original comments if I had envisioned this kind of response. I would just have chalked it up to regional differences. In short, it would not have been an issue I felt strongly about. But since my abilities and judgment have been questioned (as well as the location of my head) I feel compelled to waste some more time with this. If any of you can post pics showing problems from this type of flashing, I'd love to see them. Really. I'm not kidding. I'd also point out that in general, I'm a pretty staunch traditionalist when it comes to building materials. I never jump on a new product which is touted as better simply because it's new. Most often they're not. In fact, I've been called a dinosaur due to my insistence that a lot of old ways are better. But I do realize that materials and methods change and occasionally a new product comes out that offers some benefits. After all, we don't still live in log cabins with oilcloth windows do we?

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.

I'm assuming that you are inquiring about what info is needed to give a price and book the appointment. Well, I don't know about the other guys out there, but my standard questions are: 1) age; 2) size; 3) slab or crawlspace foundation (we don't have basements here); 4) presence of any outbuildings that need inspection such as pool houses, shops, detached garages, etc. There can be other questions depending on the responses to these. I also ask if the home is vacant. If so, I ask if all the utilities are on. I explain that if I get there and something is not on I can't inspect any function related to that system. A large number of people reply that the utilities must be on since the lights work. They have not checked water or gas. At that point, you politely explain that some sellers will turn off utilities such as gas and water -- particularly during the appropriate times of the year -- and it would be to their benefit to ENSURE that those utilities are on prior to the start of the inspection so that a thorough inspection can be done. You might be amazed at the # of calls I get where the small time investment required just to make them aware that they should verify the presence of ALL utility services turns them into clients right then. Seems most inspectors around here quote a price without trying to make sure that when they get there they can perform a FULL inspection. With my approach, the brighter ones realize that you are looking out for their best interests, not yours. I guess they view a shorter inspection as more $$ per hour for them.

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.

Those who aren't familiar with the Texas A&M "history" may not get this. As one who remembers the old Southwest Conference days, I do. Note the sign centered above the windows. And please don't rag me if you're a Texas A& M alum. I'm not saying it's not a good school; it is. It's just that it had a reputation...

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?

Ok then, I'll steal it from you without guilt. - Jim Katen, Oregon Knock yourself out. By the way, I prefer to think of it as "borrowing" when I do it.

That's real flattering, Jim, but I can't take credit for it. I don't know who first came up with the term, but I clearly remember hearing it the first time from a cousin of mine several years ago. Such a descriptive term. Want to see what cubic money looks like? Go here:http://www.snopes.com/photos/crime/drugmoney.asp#photo2

People with cubic money can always buy something. Their idea of belt tightening is to buy something for $800k instead of 1.2 mil. It's the working joe who sits tight and does nothing.

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€