How can you write up a listed fitting used according to the manufacturer’s instructions as defective?
Maybe the manufacturer should stop selling them.
So an inspector should write a listed product as defective simply because he doesn’t like them?
Juan,
The one in my previous pic is water tight and approved and I would not comment on it.
But the one attached is another story…
Robert do you sell them or something? I have been writing them up because I considered them in violation of the weather tight requirement. After seeing several of them I was beginning to question my interpretation of weather tight. My post is aimed at defining weather tight. Being listed and installed per manufacturers instruction is of no concern to me. If you have an interpretation of weather tight that would allow the installation of these service hoods then I would love to hear it.
Nope I have no interest in these products but I do on occasion review inspection reports and when a HI calls out a listed product used according to the manufacturer’s instructions he ends up looking pretty silly. If you said in your report that you don’t like a certain product that’s OK but don’t recommend it for evaluation as defective simply because in your opinion the fitting stinks. Just my 2 cents. 
The weatherhead is designed to shed rain off while allowing the conductors to bend downward. Rain would need to be going horizontal or upward in order to get in that weatherhead. This is not an issue and should not be written up as such.
I would really be shaking my head if I saw a report questioning this.
How is the drip loop?
Look at the chimney crown. Anything wrong?
Like no crown.
A weatherhead is not designed for immersion. It does not need to be waterproof.
This is no different than a vented soffit. Does rain get into the attic through the soffits?
Weather and rain tight not water proof.
NEC.
I think it should be of a concern if you are writing up a fitting that is properly used. These fitting have passed a listing with a nationally recognized testing agency and met the criteria to be listed and approved.
You are costing people money to refute a claim that is baseless. A side affect is the harm done to the HI industry by showing a lack of knowledge when a licensed professional refutes needless claims based on things like “I don’t like it”.
Have any that you’ve written as defects been replaced?
Now there is weather tight, water tight and tight as a drum with no skin.
That might lead to a shocking effect when someone opens the dead front to peek in.
I should be safe like this. I am grounded.
I am ready for my lick test.
Your a bad boy.
Isn’t the requirement for a service mast weatherhead a little different for water tightness than a stapled on SE service cable such as the one posted above and the one pictured here.?
Type SE, service entrance cable is used to convey power from the service drop to the meter base.
http://www.southwire.com/images/products/seu_alum.gif
Wouldn’t you think that these are more considered to be water tight to prevent water from going down the conduit into a meter?
Just saying. 
Thanks Marcel .
These cloth covered stove Cables where used for a few years around 1940+ when steel pipe was not available because of the war . I still see the odd one .
Looking at many thousands of weather heads I have only seen one that was weather tight and the Insulation was breaking down on the wires . ( pyrotenax )
Just my way of agreeing with what Jim was saying. The majority of the houses in my complex have service entrance wires as I pictured above with no watertight weatherheads on them.
Juan, Roy et al
Here is another goofy one for me. House built in 1956. Service from pole to the gable end of house anchored to ridge. Service wires hung down to mast head attached to service enterance line. This line was draped across attic floor, run down the inside of the back wall, then out to the meter, then back in the wall to the service panel. On the service panel inside the lower left screw was “HOT” and arcing anytime I tried to turn the screw, even after the main breaker was turned off. As a results I stopped trying to open the service panel for further inspection out of safety considerations. Wrote it up as insufficient drip loop, insufficent anchoring of service enterance wire and shorted service panel, power line in trees. also caught the fart fan without a hose and vent cap and several other fun things. Any other suggestions?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26642147/IMG_6674.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26642147/100_1235.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26642147/IMG_6686.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26642147/IMG_6667.JPG
Did not read everything but i look at the original image…that weatherhead is designed for SE Cable…It’s perfectly fine. Now the securing of the SE Cable i can’t tell…but the weatherhead is fine…and no issues regarding the downspout either…as for drip loops…can’t tell from angle of picture.
The weatherhead looks to be one of the few things that is correct.
The weatherhead should have been attached to the house.
The unfused service cable is not as short as practical as the code calls for.