Joe writes:
Right on. http://www.nachi.tv/episode47 hammers that point home.
Kudos to Big Ben for bringing that to light (no pun intended).
Good, useful video.
Ben uses the camera as a… tool!
Part of his toolkit. Imagine that.
His orientation and assessment of the BUILDING lead him to pay extra attention to areas he WOULD HAVE PAID ATTENTION TO ANYWAY AS A COMPETENT INSPECTOR.
Nice job, Ben.
And WOW, he didnt even scan the area on the beam, below the sliding door, where he saw water marks. His probe didnt pick up much, but he had his suspicions…
I guess he was an INSPECTOR first and a thermographer second. How refreshing!
Jim is right in that it is, to an extent, glorified. It is a glorified flashlight.
A flashlight and an IR camera both allow one to see things one normally couldn’t with the naked eye.
So will we now have a new category of inspector called Superman with thermal vision rather than X-ray vision? Hmmm…is that now Inframan?
Claude - still using my natural born senses including the development of common sense!
[FONT=Arial][size=2]“Thermography enables us to see and measure heat. All materials on earth emit heat energy, in the infrared portion of the spectrum. Unfortunately, the unaided human eye cannot see in the infrared. However, infrared cameras can not only see, but also record infrared images and measure the temperatures of objects and areas of objects quite accurately.”
[/size][/FONT]
Did I miss something somewhere? I must have.
“Ben uses the camera as a tool”?
Yeah, what’s this about?
His orientation and assessment?
Every time I aim my camera at something it’s because in my assessment there is a potential. I always test all the plumbing fixtures and inspect them and then follow up with the camera to see if something occurred during my testing that hadn’t revealed itself yet.
Is your heartburn about an inspector just running around all over the place with the camera trying to find things that they should be finding anyway?
I saw, or saw the potential for the water leak that he found long before he got to it. He’s talking about all the different places that might get water and I’m sitting there “look up, look up”.
I just don’t get where you’re coming from.
You’re down on infrared but you’re giving Ben an “atta-boy”?
And for “not” scanning the beam? I don’t understand.
You are correct!!
Inspectors using this technology use their “Natural born Senses”, common sense, building science and IR Knowledge.
On yesterday’s inspection;
Wrong.
I’m not down on infrared.
I’m down on those who believe that without it, you’re not doing a proper inspection. It’s a tool. A useful tool; but a tool, nevertheless.
For those who advertise things like beyond the visual and see through walls, there is a parade of pain ahead.
For those who arbitrarily scan for things absent of utilizing conventional inspection techniques and due-dilligence, there will be problems on the horizon.
And finally, for those who believe that their E&O carrier cannot decide not to indemnify them in the event of a lawsuit… you need to really read the limits of your policy as it pertains to standards, and what is standard on a home inspection.
Oh, okay!
I wholeheartedly agree with that.
My insurance carrier has my contracts, my reports, my standards of practice, just about everything except the color of my underwear during an inspection!
I guess there may be more going on than I’m paying attention to. I have seen extensive misinformation from the beginning, plastered across the Internet. I can definitely see where you’re coming from.
A good tool when used in conjunction with others by knowledgeable people. There’s such a craze going on this MB that methinks it’s the next white sliced bread!!!
Oh!! to quote part of a PM, I received yesterday…(No, it wasn’t from Mario!; late edit after reading jbushart’s next post: it wasn’t from him either!!):
Subject: IR
You are correct. It is strictly NACHI hype.
NACHI is no longer a home Inspection association; they are sell ,sell and sell some more .
Exactly, Joe.
We all love our toys and, by darned, if I were to pay such an exhorbatant amount of money for a toy, I would be touting it, too.
Likewise, if I made money for every seat I could fill in an IR class, I would be insisting that there is no such thing as a valid home inspection report that does not have an IR photo attached to it. It’s no surprise that the profiteers would promote an IR camera the same way Pro-Lab promotes the necessity of mold inspections.
But until NACHI actually does become nothing more than the “vending machine” that we so often appear to be, there has to be room for the reality of what a home inspection really is and what it is not.
For an experienced inspector, Mario, that’s to be expected and a “no thought needed” call. I have called this many times simply by lifting the hose (which is improperly installed in the first place and will collect condensation).
I remember one place, a bungalow, where the owner installed a high quality, low sone bath fan controlled by a timer. When trying the fan, it sounded louder than it should. I looked in the attic and saw the problem (it was February…a drooping plastic hose loop. I asked the owner (it was a private sale and the owner was in the house for the inspection.) if I could take the water out of his fan duct…could you get me a pail or some other container? I guessed that more that 2 liters drained from the hose!!
Getting scary, JB.
Something that I have to agree with you on!!
I don’t remember anyone telling IR inspectors to abandon common sense
inspecting skills. Please cite a source on this forum, if you think so.
The warnings to verify all IR findings sounds like good advise that is
routinely given on this forum all the time.
What’s the problem?
We, the IR inspectors, probably exhort each other to verify findings way more
than any other group. It is repeated in all the IR courses all the time.
People talk like this is the first time we have heard all this.
I am wondering where have they been?
As far as the dire warning of liability issues, I would not want to be the inspector
who trys to explain why he missed the roof-wall-AC-plumbing leak, after my IR
camera finds it. It happens all the time.
When you want a Pepsi… isn’t it nice to have a Pepsi vending machine nearby?
Fact is, without InterNACHI, our members would still be paying $8,000 for their IR cameras, have no financing options, paying $2,300 for 2-days of training, have no free consumer video guides, no inexpensive online IR episodes on NACHI.TV, no product demonstrations at our events, no free commercial or residential IR agreements to use, no Infrared Certified professional designation, no classes in their town, no state CE approvals for taking them, no nothin’.
Yes, some members have no need for www.InspectorMALL.com … but some do.
InterNACHI is an all-you-can-eat buffet… but you don’t have to eat it all. Take what you like.
Can we just admit that it’s about the money?
Cost of entry into this useful technology is high. $7 - $10K with training.
The training is way overpriced for level I and level II and though it confers some credibility to the thermal inspector they fail to give the HI what he really needs according to comments from those who have taken it. IMHO
The equipment price is falling but it has a long way to go to be considered “affordable” for most inspectors. I’ve been looking at this for over 3 years and I just can’t make the math work. For those that can in your market. Good for you.
Fear that it will be a tough sell and that too many HIs will not sufficiently increase their fees to provide an adequate return on investment.
The fact that some consider it little more than a marketing tool that gives them some advantage in their market but without a commensurate increase in their pricing for the value added service.
When NACHI’s relevance to the industry and NACHI’s solutions to the challenges facing it are limited to its vendors, it is a weakness…not a strength.
When NACHI’s agenda is led by its vendors and not by its members, it is a weakness…not a strength.
As an association, we are more than our vendors. When that is no longer true, and we are nothing more than a Pepsi machine, we are nothing.
Even though the controversy started with one simple question - most answers and responses have not addressed the issue. The issue is whether or not it is advisable that home inspectors employ expensive high-tech equipment to carry out "visual" inspections under their Standards of Practice. It is my view that home inspectors tend to waste more and more time to operate fancy gadgets onsite to impress their customers - than to actually inspect the property.
It started when home inspectors began to issue computer generated inspection reports with countless - but often irrelevant - digital photographs - only to enhance the presentation of their reports.
The more unnecessary gadgets are being used - the more attention has to be given to properly operate the equipment and/or to interpret the provided results. This can potentially become a distraction resulting in an oversight of an actual defect or shortcoming particularly for novices in the business.
The trend to invest in expensively - but not required equipment under our generally accepted Standards of Practice - becomes even more ridiculous if the going rate for a home inspection is less than $300.00 in the area of operation - with or without the employment of highfalutin inspection equipment.
**
RUDOLF REUSSE** - Home Inspector since 1976 - **TORONTO
**
We are in the hyperbole stage, Mike. There are no facts to be presented until after three years and those owning their cameras can actually measure the amount of “additional” money they made from them.
One very respected home inspector in St. Louis who has been in the business for around 20 years recently advised his fellow ASHI members that the use of his camera did little to increase his income and, in fact, failed to pay for itself. Several others at the same meeting supported his statement.
The facts will not come from the posts on this message board. This is where the technology is promoted and hyped by the “Pepsi machine”.
Jim,
That was hyperbole because the “facts” are not available but there have been statements made by owners of this equipment that they use it on every inspection to “lower their liability” not so much to increase their income per inspection.
Hey, I’d love to have one too. I love the toys factor. But it’s not time for me yet or in my market. Maybe someday.
The “pepsi machine” is very actively promoting this technology whether to sell equipment or training.
All that glitters is not gold.