Originally Posted By: rjones2 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I’d like opinions on using an infrared camera to determine the degree of moisture intrusion in a house or to pinpoint moisture leaks found on flat roofs, cement . With all the problems with moisture today, would it be feasible to use thermal imaging as a verification tool, to check the presence or absence of moisture?
I have an Infrared Camera and so far I've used it more as avarification tool besides home inspection.
At first it was shuned by realtors as seeing too much, but it is slowly being accepted as a good thing and not an evil eye.
I would like to hear opinions from experienced inspectors.
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Infrared imaging is far beyond the scope of a standard home inspection. If you use it, be sure you know what standards you are comparing differing items to, and be able to explain in finite terms what you are claiming. If you end up on the wrong end of a witness stand, they will eat you up if you can’t.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
First, it cannot be used “to determine the degree of moisture”, but it can help with finding otherwise unseen areas.
Regarding the comment that frequently comes up when things like this are discussed, that it "is far beyond the scope of a standard home inspection", that statement is incorrect. SoPs are a *starting minimum* point. *IF* you do not exceed the SoP, you have a very real risk of NOT MEETING the SoP, and that would be far worse than exceeding the SoP.
You cannot (there just is no way to do so) GO BEYOND a MINIMUM requirement in any way other than "that's good, you are required to do AT LEAST that much, and you can do as much more as you want". You can exceed a maximum, but SoPs are not maximums, they are minimums. Just like building to code. You can get in trouble for not meeting code, but you cannot get in trouble building better than code. You can get in trouble for not meeting SoPs, but not for going beyond them.
That is not what gets people in trouble. What gets them in trouble is doing anything for which they are not qualified, and that includes meeting minimum SoPs.
Originally Posted By: dfrend This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
You cannot (there just is no way to do so) GO BEYOND a MINIMUM requirement in any way other than "that's good, you are required to do AT LEAST that much, and you can do as much more as you want". You can exceed a maximum, but SoPs are not maximums, they are minimums.
OK, I am confused? You can't exceed the MINIMUM? You Can exceed the MAXIMUM? I think your point was : you can and should go above and beyond the MINIMUM (which is our SOP)? I think I agree with you, if that is what you were saying in there. 
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Daniel,
Let's do it this way.
Minimum speed is 40 miles per hour. You are required to go at least that fast, thus you are not 'exceeding' it in the sense that you can get in trouble for it.
Maximum speed limit is 70 miles per hour. You are not allowed to go faster than that, thus, if you do go faster (i.e., "exceed the speed limit") you can definitely get in trouble for it.
Minimum speed is like an SoP. You are required to go at least that fast (do at least that much), and all SoPs specifically state you can do more. Thus, there is no way to "exceed " it, there is no upper limit to exceed. You can "meet" the SoP by doing as much as you want, the SoP gives you the option of doing as much as you want, as long as you do 'at least this much'.
Sounds convoluted, but maybe the above explains it better?
Originally Posted By: dfrend This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I agree. I was confused by the jumble you put before. We must meet the minimum SOP. We can go as far as we are legally allowed.
I think the Thermal Imager can be a useful tool in the hands of someone PROPERLY trained to use it. It is not just a toy to pick up and start using. The liability is high. We have them all over the fire department now. Yes they are $10k for the one's we use. But in order for a member to use it, they must be trained on it. Some think they can just pick it up and see victims in the smoke. It is not that simple. Yes you can, but you can also see imprints of bodies where they were laying before. So the untrained could rush in and try and rescue someone not there and get themselves killed.
The same goes for us. We could see something that is not what we thought it was and open up liablity. Just be sure you know what you are doing before exceeding parts of SOP.
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Ok, where in the SOP does it say that they are the minimum standard. I just read them twice and I know I don’t have my law PHD yet, but I read fairly well, and they simply say, these are the Standards of Practice.
Looks to me like they say what we are and are not required to do. No, it doesn't say you can't do what you aren't required to do, but if you do, in technical terms you are operating outside the standards of practice, not above them. 
Originally Posted By: dfrend This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Standards of Practice are recognized as guidelines. Notice that throughout they use the phrases “inspector shall” and “inspector is not required to”. Therein lies the minimum, and the allowance to exceed. If they said “inspector shall not” it would be a different story.
Quote:
Shall:aux.v. past tense should (shd) ; Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison.
So we are required to do the items noted "inspector shall".
But it does not say we "shall not" inspect paint, vents, use electical probes, inspect pools, inspect feul storage tanks, etc. It says we "are not required to". In other words we do not have to, but we may.
Originally Posted By: dfrend This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Furthermore, if you do something you are not required to do, you would be doing just that, not operating outside our SOP’s. It does not limit us from doing something “not required to” do. In fact that phrase in itself allows us to go further within the SOP’s.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
bwiley wrote:
Does your E&O cover you if you are doing something not listed as required?
You'd have to check with your E&O provider, however, if they respond that they do not cover anything above and beyond the SoP, simply advise them that "nothing" is above and beyond the SoP, that the SoP ALLOWS the inspector to do whatever is needed.
Then tell us what their response is.
If they tell you that you must adhere line-item-by-line-item to only the "SHALL DO" items, ask them if they would want you to do THEIR inspection limiting yourself to the "shall do" items.
Regardless, the SoP is not limiting, and any decent E&O policy will insure to the SoP, which is not limiting, and thus will cover you.
Besides, get Pre-Paid Legal and have them have your E&O provider 'explain' the limiting factor to them. How a non-limiting SoP is limiting. That would be an interesting discussion to listen in on.