Thread: Test Complete!!

.... so the buyer, AKA My Shadow, says "when we were here the other day, the garage door opener didn't work. Will you test it?"

TEST COMPLETE

I've wrinkeled a few of the doors made from old beer cans, but never had one blow up before! Less than estimated 10 lbs. resistance to closing when door stopped moving but the motor didn't. Looked up and the tracks were bowed like wet noodles. Almost ran over My Shadow, getting out of the way. See pics.

Similar Threads:

• This is a test only
• Boise home inspector now can test houses for drug residues - IdahoStatesman.com
• OR: Home Inspector Test Application Packet
• test
• Test

I feel your pain.


I had a buyer push the button for me. When I was waiting for the door to come down and I was looking at the buyer. The top 2 panels literally folded in on top of me. Luckily the seller was standing out side and saw the whole thing.

He said don't worry about it. Because of the slight creases in the top he was going to put a new one in anyway.

As he was laughing about it I laughed along and said "good, you need one"

What a way to end an inspection.

"FAILED UNDER TESTING"

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Less than estimated 10 lbs. resistance to closing when door

Vern,

How are you guessing at that force?

Were you holding the door with your hands to check the automatic reverse?

Vern, dont feel bad. I was doing an older home (early 70s) a few weeks ago when I went into the garage, I was admiring the newly installed garage doors with torsion springs and new openers. One of two doors was opened, so I hit the button and it closed with a fine sound. When I hit the second button, (the closed door), I noticed it didnt do anything except make some noise. As I was scrambling to pull the opener electrical cord, it was too late. The pop riveted brace had ripped clear through the door. When I looked at the door, I noticed the lock was engaged into the track. I offered to fix or pay for it, but the client (who thankfully bought the property) said dont worry about it. He indicated it was his fault because when he arrived at the property the power cord was pulled from the receptacle and he plugged it in (but failed to disengage the lock). Needless to say, I felt terrible and learned a valuable lesson from the experience. Maybe I need to paint a little garage door on the front fender of my vehicle with a little red slash through it indicating I took one out.

Why did the door fail?

How are you guessing at that force?

I stand sideways to the door with my arm bent at the elbow (gets my hand at about the same height as the BMW tail lights), feet together (so i'll tip over if i'm feeling strong), and estimate the weight of 2 sacks of suggar. Didn't have time to swing my foot infront of the elect. eye...just duck for cover.

The seller had left to run some errand and the buyer asked what happens with the door? All I could do was assure her it would be fixed. Lucky enough the listing agent showed up and when I told her what happend she said they would take care of it. I suspect the home owner had made repairs and everybody new it was a booby trap.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

I stand sideways to the door with my arm bent at the elbow (gets my hand at about the same height as the BMW tail lights), feet together (so i'll tip over if i'm feeling strong), and estimate the weight of 2 sacks of suggar. Didn't have time to swing my foot infront of the elect. eye...just duck for cover.

The seller had left to run some errand and the buyer asked what happens with the door? All I could do was assure her it would be fixed. Lucky enough the listing agent showed up and when I told her what happend she said they would take care of it. I suspect the home owner had made repairs and everybody new it was a booby trap.

Hello Vern,

"Testing" the garage door by using your arms is not an appropriate method for several reasons.

For starters, that is not how to test the contact reversal feature. Even if the door stops and goes back up you are giving incorrect information to the client by telling them it is working.

As you know, it can break the door and it did not "fail under test" since the testing method is not a recognized test.

Regardless of it being a good, bad or a flawed test, the only recognized test of the contact reversal fearture as determined by DASMA is a 2x4 laid flat under the door.

The purpose of the door contact reversal test (with a 2x4) is to see that the door stops within 2 seconds and goes back up. It is not an anti-injury or anti-crush test.

Additionally, do you really think that using a body part is a good idea to stop a moving object?

Sincerely,

Corey

Another good example of why I do not test garage door openers. I will check the electric eyes and I will disengage the door from the track to test it's balance, but I will not, repeat WILL NOT test the reverse feature on an opener. I stopped doing this way back on March 11th, 1998. A day that is embossed in my mind!

So for over 10 years and around 3,000 inspections later I have never had a problem not inspecting the reverse feature on an opener. I have found many doors that are weak, have broken rollers, broken henge's, broken brackets, and the vast majority are not balanced properly. Before I moved I use to stick an orange label on the door or opener that says that reverse feature has not been inspected by Trace Inspections, LLC. It also told whoever that they needed to consult with the openers manufacturer for proper monthly testing procedures for the homeowner.

As Vern discovered, the door is at its full force when it is traveling down, and doors can be damaged as Vern discovered when you test a door like this. You need to know and understand how the doors and their balance springs work. I'm not trying to dish Vern but unfortunately this is how we all learn.

I hope that if you are testing garage doors that you are using the only approved testing method and that is with a 2X4 board placed flat on the ground under the garage opening and in the path of the door.

Pooooh

Here we go with the only approved test thing and I aint gonna test em

Like I said


Poooh

In all due respect to those that subscribe to the 2x4 theory it’s just bad engineering and as Cory said proves dam near nothing except that after killing a slow moving house cat or God forbid Junior, the garage overhead door retracted so that the corpse could be safely removed.

Here is the NC SOP section for this topic where Vern inspects:



(b) The home inspector shall:

(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

In all due respect to those that subscribe to the 2x4 theory it’s just bad engineering and as Cory said proves dam near nothing except that after killing a slow moving house cat or God forbid Junior, the garage overhead door retracted so that the corpse could be safely removed.

Exactly, Does anyone really think the opener manufacturer is going to recommend a body part be used for testing? hahahhaha!

A 2x4 can't sue anyone.

Regardless of it being a good, bad or a flawed test, the only recognized test of the contact reversal fearture as determined by DASMA is a 2x4 laid flat under the door.

The purpose of the door contact reversal test (with a 2x4) is to see that the door stops within 2 seconds and goes back up. It is not an anti-injury or anti-crush test.

Additionally, do you really think that using a body part is a good idea to stop a moving object?

Most of the manufactures installation instructions say " must reverse whith reasonable resistance" or something to that effect. Sears is the only one I have found that uses the 2X4. How much force does it take to crush a 2X4 instead of the door? We stop moving objects all the time with body parts. It is hard to determine reasonable resistance with a piece of wood.
N.C. Standards of Practice state: "inspector shall: Report wether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing".

From now on I will stand looking at the top of the door with one foot ready to break the elec. eye. If it still crushes the door....so be it.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

Here is the NC SOP section for this topic where Vern inspects:



(b) The home inspector shall:

(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing

And we all know, or those of us who have been in the profession long enough know that the NC law has some quarks in their requirements as do a few other states. Doesn't the NC law also say if inspecting _____ could cause harm or injury that it should not be inspected? I would be surprised if it does not have this verbiage buried in it somewhere.

Scott, good point there...

From NC SOP:

(b) Home inspectors are not required to:

(3) Enter any area or perform any procedure that may damage the property or its components or be dangerous to or adversely affect the health or safety of the home inspector or other persons;




Since we have several online message boards that prove testing for force reversal using a reasonable force test method, (not a 2x4, that does not provide any information about a reasonable force as required by NC) can cause door damage, it would be reasonable to not choose a hands on testing method. Now, I would think that someone has busted a door with the 2x4 method also, but they don't seem to admit it on here. Keep in mind that only about 2-3 percent of home inspectors participate in online discussions.

So I can get a neck cramp looking up a chimney flue, get shocked looking inside a main or sub panel, or bang my head on a framing member while entering a attic space . I think the excuse for not inspecting is weak. The whole business is a risk that we have chosen to take.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

So I can get a neck cramp looking up a chimney flue, get shocked looking inside a main or sub panel, or bang my head on a framing member while entering a attic space . I think the excuse for not inspecting is weak. The whole business is a risk that we have chosen to take.

I must say that I no longer take the covers off any FPE or Zinsco panels. I report their known problems. As for attics, I have opted not to inspect a few due to low clearances, same for some crawl spaces. I have also had a few chimneys that I could not open the damper without it falling apart, so I could not inspect the flue.

But we also have to learn from the mistakes of others and many of us have screwed up and crumpled a garage door over the years. I would bet that those of us who have crumpled a door have only done it once.

Scott,

As for attics, I have opted not to inspect a few due to low clearances

Most times by the time you recognize the danger its to late. Ref. your post a few months ago, with the knot on the top of your head.

Originally Posted by Corey Friedman

"Testing" the garage door by using your arms is not an appropriate method for several reasons.

For starters, that is not how to test the contact reversal feature. Even if the door stops and goes back up you are giving incorrect information to the client by telling them it is working.

As you know, it can break the door and it did not "fail under test" since the testing method is not a recognized test.

Regardless of it being a good, bad or a flawed test, the only recognized test of the contact reversal feature as determined by DASMA is a 2x4 laid flat under the door.

The purpose of the door contact reversal test (with a 2x4) is to see that the door stops within 2 seconds and goes back up. It is not an anti-injury or anti-crush test.

Additionally, do you really think that using a body part is a good idea to stop a moving object?

Sincerely,

Corey

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

In all due respect to those that subscribe to the 2x4 theory it’s just bad engineering and as Cory said proves dam near nothing

WC Jerry,

"as Cory said proves dam near nothing"

That's not what Corey said.

Corey said "Regardless of it being a good, bad or a flawed test, the only recognized test of the contact reversal fearture as determined by DASMA is a 2x4 laid flat under the door."

"Regardless of it being a good, bad or a flawed test" - Corey did not state it was flawed, nor did he state it was good, he did not even state it was bad, Corey simply stated it was "the only recognized test of the contact reversal fearture as determined by DASMA" ... and described that test - it "is a 2x4 laid flat under the door."

You state that it "proves dam near nothing", to the contrary, though, the arm reversal test DOES *prove nothing* ... which is even less than "dam near nothing".

An arm test, while *proving nothing* can also set one up for *assuming it proves something*, i.e., if the door reverses at arm height, one is set up to believe it will reverse lower - where it is actually needed to reverse, and it does not in any way represent that.

There are two acts there which will lead one to pay dearly for the life of a dearly departed one: 1) an act of omission - NOT performing the act of testing the door with the 2x4 laid flat; 2) an act of commission - performing the act of testing the door at arm's height *and implying* that the door will reverse at a lower height.

1) above will hang you in court, 2) above will empty your check book while you are hanging there.

Agree with EC Jerry because Jerry is correct; I erred on how I quoted Corey. (haste makes waste)
Disagree with the flat 2x4 door test, always have, always will.
I've always felt my test method was superior to all other and eliminated any chance for any arguments.

I. Purchase life like doll. (either boy or girl)
2 Remove doll’s clothing
3. Remove stuffing from body cavity.
4. Fill with Catsup mixed with red Jell-O and shredded red peppers.
5. Re-dress doll.

Before beginning test of overhead garage door safety retraction device place doll face-up under point where door meets concrete floor.
Conduct test by pushing door closer button. (drum roll if you have one)
When door smashes doll and simulated blood and internal body organs explode out from both ends of doll I can assure you there will be no questions from clients or agents assembled to observe your garage door test.
Only bummer is a 10 minute clean-up and new doll must be purchased before next inspection. (E-Bay has them reasonably priced in 100 unit lots)

Opps, now I remember, somebody else on this BB also does my test.
Thanks Home-Works Inspection.

If the sensors are mounted properly, the doll test will not work unless the doll is very thin.


The "arm" test does not have to be at or near waist height, all you have to do is grab the door and start adding pressure and reach your maximum (reasonable) force as it gets around 12-15 inches from the floor.


I always make sure the door is not loose, not damaged, not missing parts and not missing any needed horizontal bracing before testing. The torque tube in the original post picture probably was not bolted to the wall correctly.

NC SOP does not accept the 2x4 method at all.
You either have to measure the force or estimate it yourself or disclaim the check altogether as allowed in the SOP.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

NC SOP does not accept the 2x4 method at all.

And this is in print??

That is what the manufacturers say to do and what their trade association says to do.

When they say to report whether or not it will reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing it can be safely assumed that the only way to verify "reasonable resistance " is NOT with a 2x4.

If I damage a door using a 2x4, I would probably have to pay for it, since it is a method not required by the NC SOP.

SC says we have to report whether or not the opener is functional.

Since the safety features ARE part of the functions, then they have to be tested too in my opnion. This would also be the opinion of a lawyer also if it would benefit him and his client.

I would rather a door collapse on me then collapse on my client. Minimal pressure under the door a short ways off the floor and if it does not reverse I write it up. Reasonable pressure??? To me reasonable pressure is if I put my hand under the door and it does not almost immediately reverse I write in my report that the auto reverse does not work properly. Do I stand there an put my back into it, no. Do I apply reasonable pressure yes.

If the door is going to fold I would rather it fold on me than my clients kid. At least I will be expecting it the kid won't.

Out of the absolutely countless doors I have done this to, the only ones that folded did it on there own with out touching them.

Again, reasonable force??? Anyone that has inspected hundreds or thousands of doors or even a couple dozen doors should be able to figure it out by then whether you are using reasonable pressure.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

When they say to report whether or not it will reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing it can be safely assumed that the only way to verify "reasonable resistance " is NOT with a 2x4.

If I damage a door using a 2x4, I would probably have to pay for it, since it is a method not required by the NC SOP.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

NC SOP does not accept the 2x4 method at all.
You either have to measure the force or estimate it yourself or disclaim the check altogether as allowed in the SOP.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

Here is the NC SOP section for this topic where Vern inspects:



(b) The home inspector shall:

(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing

Bruce,

You will have to excuse my reading ability, but I don't see anywhere in the NC SoP where it states "NC SOP does not accept the 2x4 method at all."

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Again, reasonable force??? Anyone that has inspected hundreds or thousands of doors or even a couple dozen doors should be able to figure it out by then whether you are using reasonable pressure.

Ted,

"Reasonable force" is reversing on contact with, or shortly thereafter (within 2 seconds).

Bruce and Ted,

Without defining "reasonable force" in an SoP, there is only one legally acceptable test method ... yeah, the 2x4 test.

Use your own test methods and your own definitions of "reasonable force" and you will be setting yourself up for an indefensible position in a court case.

While WC Jerry's squished and exploded doll is impressive and plays well with clients, it also is not a legally defensible test. The only defense which can be used with that is 'WTF? I showed my clients what would happen and it indeed did happen. WTF are they suing me about?' Quite simply put 'Because they did not heed your visual doll show and their child was crushed by a garage door WHICH YOU DID NOT TEST PROPERLY.'

First off Mr Jerry

No one is ever going to wind up in court over a 250 garage door.

Second, as my past said, I write it up if light pressure (reasonable pressure) but light pressure does not reverse the door immediately (within less than 2 seconds)

I do no put strength into it such as pushing up on it. If it does not reverse from light pressure than it is not working properly. When it does reverse I write it up as such and explain that this is not a technically efficient way of doing so, but, with light pressure it did reverse.

As I stated above. I would rather have the door possibly COLLAPSE ON ME WHEN POSSIBLY EXPECTING IT THAN IT CRUSH MY CLIENTS CHILDS SKULL OR COLLAPSE ON MY CLIENT.

Worse case scenario. Replace a couple or three panels on the door. Second worse case scenario. My client reads the report that it did reverse and also read that this is not technically the proper way to do it without an exact pressure but did reverse at the time of the inspection with light pressure. A garage door company will test the door properly for a fee.

He does not follow up the report and have an exact test done. Then at least you went out of your way to do a preliminary test. Light pressure reversed it. It does not do the same for them afterward. Oh well, did the best I could. They did not follow up. But least I put an honest effort into it and eased my mind.

Make an effort. Show them and explain to them the effort you made. Tell them it should be tested properly by a qualified agent. Yes, tell them. I hear all the time, do not tell your client, suggest to them, Bull, I tell my clients what they must do all the time. They are looking for that from me. You are not going to court if you break a door panel or 2. You are not going to court if you explain to them properly in your report.

Court, court, court. My God people. Stop with the court. Do the job. Give it your best. Cover it in your report and there will be no court. Court comes into play when you do not do your best and do not cover it in your report. If you do both you will live happily ever after

Kind of like a marriage I even screwed up a good one of those so who am I to talk. I guess I did not do my best.

Jerry,

Do you think 55-60 lbs of force before reversal is reasonable?


I made some checks on one of my doors and then adjusted the force up and made some more checks.


I observed the force applied to analog bathroom scales in the center of the door.

I watched it hit a 2x4 at 55-60 lbs and noted that the response of the door/opener was no different than the check made at 12-15 lbs. The sounds were not even noticeably different.

Cased closed.

A 2x4 CAN NOT and WILL NOT determine if all opener's will reverse at a REASONABLE FORCE.


The garage door manuf. association procedure is not complete!

Their testing method is only intended to check the reverse function and NOT the safety level of the reverse function of the opener.


The only time the 2x4 method will work for a safety level check is when the door actually folds up or parts go flying through the garage, then you can report "door did not stop and reverse properly".

This concludes the biannual Inspection News "garage door opener discussion"
LMAO

Originally Posted by Bruce King

A 2x4 CAN NOT and WILL NOT determine if all opener's will reverse at a REASONABLE FORCE.

Neither will testing it with your arm.

Case closed, in favor of the Plaintiff.

I use the open hand method at knee height, never damaged a door because I pull out if it doesn't reverse. I bet 3 out of every ten inspections the doors don't reverse. I don't give a rats ass what test method is standard. 2x4 is crazy and would damage more doors then we could pay for. Simple hold your hands out and if it keeps pushing you down then it needs adjusted. Let the installer come back out and put a 2x4 under it. At least you noted that it doesn't reverse under reasonable pressure and may save a client heart ache when that door buckled and crushed there car hood because it didn't trip the sensors because the front end is higher then them. Or even worse in WC Jerry statements.

If your worried about what will happen in court for not using the proper test method think about what will happen if you did nothing about checking the reverse. Sorry your honor, I did not want to break the door and the only recognized test method is a 2x4.

Or do you state in all your reports. I checked your door and it is working fine but I don't know about the reversing so keep your kids, cars and pets away from it.

It's not rock science here.

Guys, we are trying to help you and many others who might read this thread.

WC Jerry, EC Jerry and myself all do a fair amount of litigation consulting and EW work. What all three of us are posting is basically the same thing and we are all in different parts of the country. If you are ever involved in litigation you can bet that their experts will look on the Internet to see if they can find post like this. Yep, BB are used all the time to help or hurt folks in court..

State laws and standards work for a while, but the standard of care takes precedence when it gets to court and the only approved standard for testing a garage door is with the 2x4. And a 2x4 laid flat will not damage a door, you talking less than 2" of difference in the travel. It might buckle and this is when you can truthfully say it failed under the approved test.

Or you can do as I have been doing for over ten years and don't test the reverse feature. You check all of the other components but not the pressure reverse feature due to the possibility of property or personal damage. Your state law allows of this! And Yes, you do report that this feature was not tested due to the possibility of damage to the door. You then tell your client that they need to test the door per the manufacturers standards just like they should be testing the TPR on their water heater like the manufacturer says to do every month!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Neither will testing it with your arm.

Case closed, in favor of the Plaintiff.

There won't likely be any plaintiff if you really know how to test these doors and report properly.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

There won't likely be any plaintiff if you really know how to test these doors and report properly.

.
Bruce,
.
Link to UL .
.
http:///www.ul.com/consumers/garagedoors.html

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Guys, we are trying to help you and many others who might read this thread.

WC Jerry, EC Jerry and myself all do a fair amount of litigation consulting and EW work. What all three of us are posting is basically the same thing and we are all in different parts of the country. If you are ever involved in litigation you can bet that their experts will look on the Internet to see if they can find post like this. Yep, BB are used all the time to help or hurt folks in court..

State laws and standards work for a while, but the standard of care takes precedence when it gets to court.

I hope you are not saying that it is better to use a 2x4 and report no problem than to use your arm and find that the door will not stop and reverse?????

The absolute best job is all we can do, the 2x4 is only part of it.


Judge:

Mr. Patterson, I see some inspector from SC told you how the 2x4 method was not the best way to test the door and you chose to continue with only your 2x4 test. The door that killed your clients dog was tested the same day by a door opener engineer and found not to reverse until 55-60 lbs of force. Would you please tell the court why you did not peform your job to the same standards as other inspectors when you should have been fully aware that the 2x4 test was only a function check and not a safety level check?

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
Bruce,
.
Link to UL .
.
http:///www.ul.com/consumers/garagedoors.html

one too many / in that link.


That info is only partly correct also.

I'll say it again, this way,

No company or organization is going to recommend anyone put a body part in the path of a moving garage door.

If you don't understand why, I give up.

I have no idea why they do not recommend analog bath scales.

Maybe UL and DASMA should be sued.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

one too many / in that link.


That info is only partly correct also.

If you don't understand why, I give up.

Maybe UL and DASMA should be sued.

.
Bruce,
.
You have to do what you feel is right.

But please don't get in Court and on the stand & say UL & DASMA are wrong ( you are right ) and them other guys should be the ones as the defendant in these proceedings.
.
If you don't understand why, I give up.
.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

I hope you are not saying that it is better to use a 2x4 and report no problem than to use your arm and find that the door will not stop and reverse?????

The absolute best job is all we can do, the 2x4 is only part of it.


Judge:

Mr. Patterson, I see some inspector from SC told you how the 2x4 method was not the best way to test the door and you chose to continue with only your 2x4 test. The door that killed your clients dog was tested the same day by a door opener engineer and found not to reverse until 55-60 lbs of force. Would you please tell the court why you did not peform your job to the same standards as other inspectors when you should have been fully aware that the 2x4 test was only a function check and not a safety level check?

Well, actually the Judge would not be asking a question like that! A question like that would come from the plaintiffs attorney.

My response would be simple and as follows. I did inspect to the standard of care and that standard states that if testing a device or system might cause harm or injury then it should not be tested. I then notified the owner that he/she needed to test the door monthly as the manufacturer states on the warning labels. This is also stated on the bright orange sticker that I placed on the door/opener. ( Note to self: I need to order more of those stickers!)

And then I hope that my attorney that is being paid for by my E&O provider would do their job!

Well this link shows using your arms for testing.
DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association

Whats the problem with saying their recommendations are not complete?

Not complete test = dangerous door!

Originally Posted by Mike Schulz

Well this link shows using your arms for testing.
DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association

Thanks Mike! Looks like they realized their shortcomings.


Note the picture shows the guy outside the garage. That would be safer than standing under the heap of metal when it folds up. hahahaha!


From DASMA:

Force Setting Test
Test the force setting of your garage door opener by holding the bottom of the door as it closes. If the door does not reverse readily, the force setting may be excessive and need adjusting. See your owner’s manual for details on how to make the adjustment.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

Whats the problem with saying their recommendations are not complete?

Not complete test = dangerous door!

.
Well nothing at all Bruce. IF you can prove You are an Expert Recognized by the Court and your Opinion should have more credibility than that of UL and DSAMA.

Until then it's only Your Losing Opinion.

I remember seeing that picture before in the DASMA site but completely forgot about it.

That procedure has actually been out for some time now, maybe that link was posted during last years "biannual Inspection News Garage door discussion"


I guess we got some EW guys scrambling to change their process/reporting now......

I guess MR. Patterson, and the other knowledgeable should follow the herd no testers, there is a way to safely test a door................. Your elbows bend don't they, can't break your arm if the elbow works..............

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
Well nothing at all Bruce. IF you can prove You are an Expert Recognized by the Court and your Opinion should have more credibility than that of UL and DSAMA.

Until then it's only Your Losing Opinion.

Read before you type hahaha!

DASMA backs up my information.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

Read before you type hahaha!

DASMA backs up my information.

Typing B Slow.

Court rooms are not what is right or wrong but what you / they can prove.

DASMA has an error on their site on this page:

DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association

Safety Reverse. Since 1993, all openers manufactured for the U.S. must include a second safety reversing feature such as photoelectric eyes. These are installed near the floor. Once the invisible beam is broken, the door reverses automatically. If your opener lacks a similar safety reversing feature, it’s time to get a new opener.


Lets see which EW can find the error first.

Hint, its not a typo or wrong date, its wrong information in the above paragraph.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

DASMA has an error on their site on this page:

DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association

safety reversing feature such as photoelectric eyes.

its wrong information in the above paragraph.

.
Gosh Bruce,

I hope you follow all the procedures ( balance the door 1st., be a trained Door Sensitivity Technician ect. )

Not hing your cases on photoelectric eyes verses photoelectric sensors.

.

Gosh Billy, you don't know whats wrong with that paragraph?

Nothing to do with terminolgy or whatever you were trying to present.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

Gosh Billy, you don't know whats wrong with that paragraph?

Nothing to do with terminolgy or whatever you were trying to present.

.
Nope I'm a Generalist. ( and try to keep it that way. )

Home Inspection 101A - ALWAYS CHECK TO SEE IF THE DOOR IS LOCKED BEFORE PUSHING THE OPENER BUTTON.
Home Inspection 101B - IF THE DOOR IS A FLIMSY METAL DOOR, DO NOT TEST THE REBOUND FEATURE BY BLOCKING THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR, OR USING YOUR ARM, FOOT, NECK.
Home Inspection 101C - IF YOU ARE GOING TO TEST WITH A BLOCK OF WOOD, PAPER TOWEL ROLL, DUMMY, STUFFED ANIMAL, THEN KEEP YOUR FINGER ON THE BUTTON SO YOU CAN REVERSE THE DOOR QUICKLY.

Ted said, "No one is ever going to wind up in court over a 250 garage door."
I worked on a case where someone sued someone over a $80 attic ladder. Seems a woman fell to the garage floor and suffered brain damage.

If someone is seriously hurt, or killed, the family will sue over something as small as a $ 0.25 outlet cover.

The instructions are for the laymen and no special certifications are needed for monthly testing of the door safety features.

Take a few minutes to inspect and test your complete garage door system. Make monthly inspection and testing a part of your regular routine.

I hope your certified and follow protocols when you test those GFCI, arc faults and smoke detectors.
When you see a handrail do you take out your pressure tester (or what ever tool you would use) and see if it will withstand 200lb. at any given point. How can you determine if that rail is safe if you don't. Simple test, lean or push with your hands. Pretty much what the AHJ and HI's do is it not.........No special testing methods, just common sense.

My instructor in class wasnt kidding when he said the pressure reverse test on the garage door opener was one of the biggest controversies in the HI world!

I did not fully appreciate it until this evening when I started reading this thread.

Uh oh.

I release all TPR valves as well

I guess that is another discussion.

Test how you wish. Write it in your report how you tested and what happened. Write in your report that a definitive test should be made for the auto reverse. Approved or not you are trying to do some resemblance of a test. If it reverses with very light pressure it is working at the time of that preliminary test. Tell your clients it should be tested with proper manufacturers guidance with garage door company.

Folks, there is no home owner on the face of the planet that test the garage door monthly, bi monthly, bianually and most not yearly or ever.

If you write in your report that is should be tested properly and your test is just a preliminary test to see if it will even reverse then you are covered and no lawyer on the face of the planet is going to over come that.

You tested, you explained, you advised. you cannot lose.

You tested, you explained, you advised, you cannot lose.

If you do not test and for goodness sake don't advise as well, you are , how would you say, screwed.

You don't test and are suppose to test (no matter what your Sop's say of the type of testing) you lose big time.

Scott

You say you haven't tested a garage door in 3000 inspections. Your standards say you should test. Someone gets injured. You are screwed.

His standards allow him to opt out of testing the opener.

Most all standards allow HI's to opt out of certain things.


The next round of improvements in this profession will (should) be to require HI's to disclose to their clients which typical SOP items will not be done BEFORE showing up to the property.

I have several investor clients that quit using other inspectors because they could not fit into the crawlspaces. They did not know this until it was too late.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

---other inspectors because they could not fit into the crawlspaces.

.
Uh Oh, Here We Go!
.

OK.

Let's move on to the annual "I walk the roof" versus "I never walk roofs" debate now.

If one simply follows the step by step instructions on how to inspect a garage door and its opener that were written for home inspectors by DASMA, including the instructions that tell you to abort the inspection and have the door and opener inspected and repaired by a "trained door systems technician" at various checkpoints along the way, then the chances of an incident that results in personal injury or property damage during your inspection are minimized.

IMHO, not following the instructions exposes the inspector to huge liability should anyone be injured during the inspection of the door or by a malfunctioning door after the HI inspected it. You can be sure that plaintiff's attorney will slide DASMA Technical Data Sheet #167 under defendant HI's nose and grill him on each item of the checklist.

DASMA TDS #167 is here:
http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publication...ial/TDS167.pdf

FYI - the "Force Setting Test" (holding the closing door with your hands) was removed from the recommended inspection procedure in June 2006.

http://www.dasma.com/articles/tech/tips80.asp

This change (removal of the force setting test) is in TDS #167 but the web page referenced earlier in the thread has not yet been updated (and still shows the test). This was confirmed in personal communication between me and Joseph R. Hetzel, P.E., Technical Director of DASMA in November 2006 and January 2007.

For those who prefer visual instead of written instruction, in the fall of 2007 DASMA and IDA produced a video for home inspectors on how to inspect a garage door:

http://www.dasma.com/articles/feature/feature276.asp

The DVD can be purchased here:

http://www.doors.org/Content/Navigat...DoorTech11.htm

Thanks Brandon!

No wonder this subject is so controversial, DASMA can't even make a decision and stick to it.

They can't even get all of their published documents to agree. That would sure destroy the plaintiffs case too.


As I said before, they now do not want to recommend any body parts in the path of a moving door.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

I hope you are not saying that it is better to use a 2x4 and report no problem than to use your arm and find that the door will not stop and reverse?????

Stopping the door with your arm at arm height, waist height, or even knee height, DOES NOT TELL YOU ANYTHING.

That is because no person is going to get crushed at those heights.

While the door may reverse at those heights, you are not checking it at the lower heights which will actually crush someone.

Stopping the door with your arm at the proper height of 1-1/2" is totally suicidal and crazy.

You guys are set in your ways, even though your testing method proves, shows, nor indicates anything useful.

You are also at your own risk in doing so.

You have been advised, taught, re-advised, re-taught, yada-yada-yada several times over in this post, much less in other threads on this same subject. If you don't *get it* by now, you never will.

Originally Posted by Mike Schulz

Well this link shows using your arms for testing.
DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association

Originally Posted by Bruce King

Thanks Mike! Looks like they realized their shortcomings.


Note the picture shows the guy outside the garage. That would be safer than standing under the heap of metal when it folds up. hahahaha!


From DASMA:

Force Setting Test
Test the force setting of your garage door opener by holding the bottom of the door as it closes. If the door does not reverse readily, the force setting may be excessive and need adjusting. See your owner’s manual for details on how to make the adjustment.

Looks like you guys need to read better.

We go through this every time this subject comes up, This is what that link says:
Test the reversing feature every month.1.First, test the balance of the door. If the door is properly balanced, then proceed. 2.With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" thick piece of wood (a 2" X 4" laid flat) on the floor in the center of the door. 3.Push the transmitter or wall button to close the door. The door must reverse when it strikes the obstruction. (Note that the bottom part of "one-piece doors" must be rigid so that the door will not close, but will reverse when it contacts the obstruction.) 4.If the door does not reverse, have it repaired or replaced. Have a qualified technician adjust, repair, or replace the opener or door.

You will notice that the "force setting test" you are referring to *IS NOT* listed above. that *IT DOES NOT* test the auto reverse.

You will also notice that "the 2x4 test" *IS THE STATED* test for testing overhead garage doors.

Y'all just do what you think is best, I do and I don't have any regrets or problems.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
Well nothing at all Bruce. IF you can prove You are an Expert Recognized by the Court and your Opinion should have more credibility than that of UL and DSAMA.

Until then it's only Your Losing Opinion.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Looks like you guys need to read better.
.

.
Maybe we can all chip in and buy Bruce the Visual Aids. * for the next round of professional improvements.
.
(hahaha ! )

Originally Posted by Bruce King

Thanks Brandon!

No wonder this subject is so controversial, DASMA can't even make a decision and stick to it.

They can't even get all of their published documents to agree. That would sure destroy the plaintiffs case too.


As I said before, they now do not want to recommend any body parts in the path of a moving door.

The web page here:

http://www.dasma.com/safetygdmaint.asp

is a web version of the brochure available here:

http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publication...-Safety2pg.pdf

The brochure was published in 1996 and has not been updated.

TDS 167, on the other hand, is written specifically for home inspectors as a detailed "standard operating procedure" for inspecting the door and opener. It was released in 2003, last updated in 6/07, and is accompanied by the footnote "This sheet is reviewed periodically and may be updated. Visit www.dasma.com for the latest version".

That would sure destroy the plaintiffs case too.

I wouldn't make that bet. A good attorney would use it to show that defendant HI did not do his homework and keep current on the latest inspection procedures.

Originally Posted by Brandon Chew

TDS 167, on the other hand, is written specifically for home inspectors as a detailed "standard operating procedure" for inspecting the door and opener. It was released in 2003, last updated in 6/07, an is accompanied by the footnote "This sheet is reviewed periodically and may be updated. Visit DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association for the latest version".

Here is a link to TDS 167: http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publication...ial/TDS167.pdf

I know Brandon linked to it above, but I am adding it again down here toward, hopefully, the end.