The simulated or “mock” inspection idea was first developed by InterNACHI and is a membership requirement for new inspectors www.nachi.org/membership.htm
Accepting simulated inspections is only a step away from accepting virtual inspections www.nachi.org/advancedcourses.htm
Everyone should attend the meeting on August 7, 2008.
From my point of view one of the problems with this proposed “fine tuning” is that Module 5 work can be done only after Module 1-4 is finished.
Why do they not want to allow “simulated” (practice or mock, call them what you will) inspections during the training on Mods 1 - 4?
For example, part of Module 2 deals with electrical issues, as well as other interior concerns. Why cant the simulated inspection deal with that particular section? Not allowing the student to do so may be compared to not allowing a medical student contact with a patient until finishing all of med school, or, a chemistry major not being able to do any lab work until the end of his 4 years in college. Imagine a law student never writing a brief or experiencing a mock trial until graduation. By having simulated inspections dealing with what has recently been learned, it is similar to a hands on test that any of these professionals or even an apprentice trades person would do. The apprentice sparky works on electrical systems during training, not after completion of schooling. Apprentice carpenters, heavy equipment operators, plumbers - all the same.
This perceived “tweaking” of the state mandated course of instruction will, I believe, do little to turn out a better qualified student. In fact, it may work in the opposite.
Yes, please do turn out at the meeting on 7 August.
Voice your opinion on these issues. The law in NY State was established to “protect the public”. I believe what the members of the advisory council propose will actually be contrary to that goal. If we want well qualified people entering the field and eventually replacing us as we retire the council and counsel needs the input from practicing, full time, experienced inspectors
This opinion is based on my experience instructing students for home inspection licensing over the past year at CATS of ALBANY where I am Senior Instructor. CATS of Albany is a New York State approved Home Inspector Training and Continuing Education facility.
I believe this amendment is aimed at stopping the requirement of having schools mandated to offer Module 5 as a part of the HI program. Currently, its is a requirement. Personally, it seems to be aimed at the operation of one school I can think of.
I support the current requirement disallowing Module 5 until after all other modules are completed.
The purpose of modue 5 is to test the competency and readiness of course graduates. Having a student perform a mock inspection of components covered in any particular module might be beneficial, to a point.
It will not, however, meet the requirements of the law, which is pretty specific.
To the notion of “virtual” inspections, I believe it will never fly in NY State. A virtual inspection may be of some use in an advanced course, to exercise someones ability to identify and describe a photographed defect. But, we all know that there is nothing like performing an actual inspection, where all senses are relied upon by the inspector. This is of paramount importance for the brand new graduate.
I speak from experience, as lead HI instructor for the past 2 years for Bill Merrell and the Merrell Institute, where I have taught hundreds of qualifying and CE credit-hours for HIs around NY.
Interesting perspective on the proposal. Yes, I agree on the purpose of module 5. However, they copy of the proposal I received indicated NO field work allowed until all of 1 -4 is done. Okay - how about a modification to the proposal, in essence a fine tuning of the wording. No full inspections until 1 -4 is done, and “mock” inspections will not count toward the 40 hours. However, allow for “mock” inspections to verify the student has grasped the concepts of particular sections of modules 1, 2 and 3. Consider the mock to be like “lab work” but the “final”, the 40 hours will be only the full inspections.
The other point I do not like about the proposal is dis-allowing homes that are manufactured or not on permanent foundations. Sorry, but numerous homes in the Catskills, Adirondacks or other “recreational” areas are not on permanent foundations, they sit on piers or blocks. Many were originally vacation properties and are now year around residences. They have all the electrical, plumbing, HVAC and safety concerns of a home built on a concrete block of poured foundation. Why disallow them?
Likewise, just because a structure is built in a factory, under controlled environmental conditions, and is transported to its’ site is no reason to disallow it for mod 5 purposes. I can show you very elaborate manufactured homes, some of 7 or 8 boxes (modules) transported from the factory to the home site. They have all the potential concerns of a site built / stick built structure. Like those site built homes, two identical units will develop different conditions based on the occupants and their attention to maintenance, remodeling, etc.
I do support periodic “fine tuning” but it should not be done so as to impede the instructors ability to teach and turn out well trained, competent and professional level inspectors that are knowledgeable well above the “basic table top level” of the minimal requirement provided by the license law.