For those who do infrared, do you

do this

to find this?

If not, you should consider it.

•Bath tub and basin overflow connections are not included in the scope of the inspection and are not tested.

I specifically disclaim the overflow.

many past posts here & other sites think overflow test exceed sop & increase liability #gotyarn

Boy, that’s a tough one. I used to be a proponent of testing overflows, but conversations at this forum changed my mind.

It’s hard to decide whether or not the technique depicted would fall withing “normal use”. There are many who are of the opinion that tub and sink overflow testing is beyond the scope, and given the potential for consternation (at best) and legal action (at worst) on the part of a seller for causing moisture damage, I must honestly say that I would tend to shy away from it.

An exception might be if I was doing a one-year warranty inspection, but even then I would need some kind of written release.

Years ago, when I was doing IR imaging with my B400 w/temp upgrade, an image similar to Chuck’s below may not show any visible signs of water damage at all, to the naked eye. YMMV, especially depending on imager.

Ten seconds will give you something you can see with infrared, probably not with the naked eye. This one was not visible.

If the drain leaks, it’s going to leak. It can leak a little while you’re there or a lot after your client moves in and the kids fill the tub. If you’re walking around the house with an infrared imager, you’re already well beyond the SOP. I never want my clients to wonder why they bothered to hire me. My infrared thermography inspections are not part of the HI SOP. when I get hired to perform a thermography inspection, this is in scope.

This one happened to be a $2M custom. Both the builder and the buyer were thrilled to learn about this before they got all their furnishings and possessions in there.

Exactly…or less time…depending on the imager quality. :slight_smile:

Today was a slightly different variation on the water theme. This might be out of scope too. :wink:

I started doing that a couple years ago when you first posted about this topic. Haven’t found a bleeder… yet :wink:

Nice tip Chuck. I would consider this when ceilings or walls are damaged below or other visible systems are apparent within the drain location.
Typically/usually, my reports disclaim overflow drains.

Thanks for the tip.

After 35 yrs I’ve never done overflow testing. Just sloppy and lazy I guess.

Don’t know anybody around me that does it either.

Guess you never found any that leak either. No leaky shower pans either. Funny how that works, an inspector doesn’t find what he doesn’t look for.

1 Like

Prime example of… “you don’t know, what you don’t know until you know it”. Thanks for sharing!

Leaky shower pans we find several a month … IR, shower pan tester, etc.

Your protocol appears to be inconsistent. Why test one and not the other? Neither is part of the minimalist’s SOP.

We only test TILE shower pans when they look iggy.

Overflow testing not done around here.

[quote=“cevans, post:14, topic:126374”]

Guess you never found any that leak either. No leaky shower pans either. Funny how that works, an inspector doesn’t find what he doesn’t look for./QUOTE]

That same thought works for water meters and gas meters:p:p

I test them all and document with IR when they leak and when they don’t leak. If there is a tiled shower stall in the home there will be a digital and a IR image in my report of every side of the stall that is visible. Had one last week that I was able to view all four sides of the stall, don’t happen very often usually when the stall is in the middle of a wrap around walk in closet. Its called CYA