I agree Mike. :mrgreen:
Sometimes a PT wood or hardwood cap can be used as an alternate to solid masonry at the top for resistance to termites and to ensure the beam is not bearing on just a hollow block web. Not to spread the load across the pier. A wood cap or piece of lumber is not stiff enough to spread the load across the width of the transverse single stack pier. Your bearing would still be directly under the beam. It would need a pretty thick structural steel plate (similar to a commercial steel column base plate … which should ring a bell) to spread out the load. Thats a basic engineering principal learned in an introductory material mechanics class.
Single stack piers are more stable transverse to the beam in any situation, and I am not aware of any residential codes or industry standards that address single stack pier orientation except to require them to be transverse in certain situations.
What does he reference if he is challenged on that issue?
The CMU block in the photo looks like a 12-8 or 7 3/4
it is hollow in the center. 3 voids for bonding.
That would leave the load bearing more probable of fracturing the Block.
The block is 90 degrees of where it should be placed to carry the load evenly.
The 2 blocks below the top CMU are corner ends. The are more stable and accept more load.
If it is a 15" block then that is worse.
Here are some illustration to use at your next inspection.
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=types+of+cinder+blocks,+Ends+block,+corner+block,+2+hole+3+hole&hl=en&sa=G&rlz=1W1GPCK_en&tbm=isch&tbnid=fd34ZoLsjdGLhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.kighthomecenter.com/build_tips/buildtips/blocks/blocks.html&docid=kOmmlcXT3uQsSM&w=210&h=538&ei=mAhlToXkLer20gHDmeS3Cg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=896&vpy=114&dur=1919&hovh=360&hovw=140&tx=105&ty=191&page=3&tbnh=173&tbnw=68&start=69&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:69&biw=1680&bih=883
We have gone full circle and are starting at the big inning. LOL
NO! They should have been installed parallel not lateral to provide full support under the beam or girder not across the beam. They will snap in the middle 1/3 of the CMU if not supported correctly underneath.:sad:
I think the whole subject revolves around the fact the the block might be hollow core with no cap.
The orientation is not the issue as much as the lack of cap as required by the Residential Code Requirement which is a minimum standard in the industry.
If this installation if for a one story shack, it will not go anywhere or fail, but I am not about to let it fly without comment to protect my backside, if you know what I mean. Bearing on a hollow block is always better to utilize it’s full length to increase the bearing surface rather than the pin point load on the center web.
If you feel it is adequate the way it is, report it as such, I will report it as I see it from a contractors view. 
Not with a proper pier cap
:):):)
Thats partly why “pier caps” are required so that bearing is not just on the web and/or face shells near the middle of the blocks
I agree completely with that part … and I think he should stick to the issue of the presence or absence of a pier cap, and NOT the orientation of the single stack pier.
Industry standards like the IRC, ACI-530, and TMS-402 only require 3" of bearing on masonry piers or walls (as well as other things like cap requirements and height limitations) for a good reason … because that’s what is needed to achieve the capacity of those prescriptive elements. The provisions are based on sound engineering principles and field proven performance. And the only standards I am aware of that address single stack pier orientation require them to be transverse to the beam for better stability.
Going beyond that and flagging orientation, capacity, or industry standard practices like using beam shims/spacers that are smaller than the block without any visible defects or substantiation just based on what is typically done in another area or what someone posts on a message board puts you way out on a very weak limb with no model codes, industry standards, engineering principles, or even an HI book to support that position. … A very slippery slope for a home inspector to be on …
Those are my parting shots across the bow … 
The ***web ***image ( in the CMU) The light bulb takes time to shine but when it does it shines bright.
Thank you for your patients.
My last comment. Kevin, your snap theory is unsupported. 
Your need some analytical data to back up your allegation. After about 1500 homes, 2/3rds of them crawl spaces, I have yet to see a “snapped” pier. Your anecdote doesn’t prove the snap theory. Sorry.
Robert, Marcel, Joe.
1.) The toping of the pier.
2.)) Pier caps.( Capped or toped with wood, metal, concrete molded cap.)
3.) 3" minamum bearing.
Thank you.
Always did love your patients Mikey.
You take intrest when its Canadians on the board.
Sorry Joe.
I see you post# 15 covers my questions.
The pier cap is really the issue here
“Hollow block is a highway for termites.”
Yes, Joe , it sure is! While most of the discussions on this bd are concerned with structural aspects, those of us who do HI and WDO at the same time need to look at these situations differently. We cannot see mud tubes going up the inside cells of the blocks.
For an installation like this that was probably existing for some years, my primary focus would be on the WDO risk rather than the structural risk. It is far easier and cheaper to repair or replace a masonry pier than a section of floor framing.
Great call, Joe!
“Hollow block is a highway for termites.”
Yes, Joe , it sure is! While most of the discussions on this bd are concerned with structural aspects, those of us who do HI and WDO at the same time need to look at these situations differently. We cannot see mud tubes going up the inside cells of the blocks.
For an installation like this that was probably existing for some years, my primary focus would be on the WDO risk rather than the structural risk. It is far easier and cheaper to repair or replace a masonry pier than a section of floor framing.
Great call, Joe!
“Hollow block is a highway for termites.”
Yes, Joe , it sure is! While most of the discussions on this bd are concerned with structural aspects, those of us who do HI and WDO at the same time need to look at these situations differently. We cannot see mud tubes going up the inside cells of the blocks.
For an installation like this that was probably existing for some years, my primary focus would be on the WDO risk rather than the structural risk. It is far easier and cheaper to repair or replace a masonry pier than a section of floor framing.
Great call, Joe!
Just noticed this quote from Ontario’s building code on piers. Since beams are typically running in the longest building dimension, that would actually require block piers to be orientated transverse to the beams. More stable that way so I agree with Ontario’s code. Funny thing is that you quoted a code section that directly contradicts your “snap theory”
No need to have documentation or prove anything … all ya have to do is think that 16" of bearing is better than 3" of bearing (sounds good, right), even though 3" is enough for the bearing capacity to exceed the compressive strength of the pier, and “Poof” … it become a requirement …
.
He is on fire today.
Nice pick Robert. Man take a cold shower before self combustion ignites the message board. HA HA HA.
Nice work Robert. Fact is fact.
It take’s a man to admit he is wrong.
What color is your dress today.