Mark,
I’ve got one too…
sorry guys…Let’s get back on topic.
Joe,
In reporting inspection results, as you suggest, Bruce or any other Texas inspector would be violating the rules in which he works under and contracted the inspection. Bold is mine
[FONT=Verdana]Rules Section §535.220 adopted 08-07-2006 Inspector shall not disclose inspection results or client information without prior written approval from the client, except for observed immediate safety hazards to occupants exposed to such hazards when feasible.[/FONT]
That being said we can advise the client(s) to take whatever actions we deem prudent and necessary. 
hth
You’re assuming as much as I was when I looked at the picture. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the meter base was being used as a pull box and mounted back-to-back with the panel. I assumed these a/c conductors were fed with a proper overcurrent device in the panel and run back into the meter can by way of the panel nippls, then out the side to the a/c. You’re assuming they’re tapped right off the can, etc. etc, which may or may not be true. Either scenario is equally likely, so both sets of issues are potentially equally real. If the inspector took interior shots of the fuse or breaker panel, that might sort it out.
By the way, I don’t claim to be an expert at anything besides tying my shoes, so your opening paragraph was pretty much a cheap shot at those who otherwise give freely. You owe me and Peter an apology.
Without getting too technical, a “gutter” is usually an auxiliary wireway that is used to make junctions or splices. However, the term is generically used at times to describe the space available in any enclosure for making splices, etc. The allowable fill in auxiliary gutters can be calculated using data and tables found in the NEC. Such a calculation can be found in one of Stallcup’s books. See this link:
Then let me say that I am so sorry but please understand that I really didn’t mean it as it sounds. Yes I agree with you after reading again it could easily be taken badly but it was my intention to say it entirely differently.
I was posting while I was waiting on the printer to finish printing something I need for this mornings class and did not take the time to proof read before posting. I promise to take myself out to the woodshed for a good talking to and assure that I shall try and do better in the future. I do hope that I can convince myself this time as the next time it will be nothing short of a thrashing.
I think that there are far worse problems than the worry of the flex. Gosh with all these electrically trained people posting I would think that at least one of them would address the real issues (here meaning, “I think that there are far worse problems”).
It was my intend to say that no one had mentioned that this could be a double tapped meter which would mean that the AC disconnect would be required to be rated as service disconnect and both service disconnects, the AC and the Main would have be in the same place such as either both outside or both inside. If both were inside then another would be required outside.
230.43 of the NEC states;
Until the 2008 cycle FMC could be installed in a wet location was allowed as long as the proper type of conductors were used.
I can’t see anything wrong with the use of FMC as far as being compliant if installed under the 2005 code cycle or before.
You’re still assuming those a/c conductors are tapped off the service, and not simply coming out of the panel, using the meter can as a handy pull box.
This morning when I read your post as well as the others I made a post that yes was assuming but it was assuming something that no one else had assumed.
I was just trying to add another thought into the mist of all thouhgts.
It is possible that it could be one way but then again it could be the other.
If I am remembering correctly there was once an installation that I thought was one way but someone else thought it was another.
After a little investigation we both learned that it was neither one way nor the other it was indeed done in a different way.
What I learned from that deal was, if it ain’t one way or the other way someone must have done something different.
The intent of my original post was to agree with you that if the Flex was installed under the ’05 code or any cycle older than ’05 it was not a violation and went on to point out that if someone had tapped the meter and installed service conductors in the flex that it also would be compliant on any cycle ‘05 and older.
By the way, I think that the talking I gave to my self did the trick. I don’t think I will be saying things the wrong way any more after I showed myself those doubled up plow reins. Boy they look like they would hurt.
[FONT=Times-Roman][size=2]FMC shall not be used in the following:[/size][/FONT]
[size=2]FONT=Times-Roman In wet locations unless the conductors are approved for the speci[/FONT][/size][FONT=Times-Roman][size=2]fi[/size][/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman][size=2]c conditions and the installation is such that [/size][/FONT][size=2][FONT=Times-Roman]liquid is not likely to enter raceways or enclosures to which the conduit is connected.[/FONT][/size]
The picture shows where liquid could enter the raceway, that’s the point!