Test Complete!! - InspectionNews

Vern Heiler · #1 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 05:16 PM

.... 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.

Ted Menelly · #2 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 05:49 PM

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.

Jerry McCarthy · #3 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 06:31 PM

"FAILED UNDER TESTING"

Jerry Peck · #4 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

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?

imported_John Smith · #5 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 08:12 PM

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.

Michael Thomas · #6 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008, 08:26 PM

Why did the door fail?

Vern Heiler · #7 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 03:54 AM

Quote:

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.

Corey Friedman · #8 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

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

Scott Patterson · #9 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 09:19 AM

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.

Ted Menelly · #10 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 09:59 AM

Pooooh

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

Like I said

Poooh

Jerry McCarthy · #11 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 10:23 AM

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.

Bruce King · #12 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 10:36 AM

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 King · #13 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

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.

Vern Heiler · #14 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

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.

Scott Patterson · #15 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

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.

Bruce King · #16 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 11:03 AM

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.

Vern Heiler · #17 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 11:50 AM

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.

Scott Patterson · #18 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

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.

Vern Heiler · #19 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 12:29 PM

Scott,

Quote:

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.

Jerry Peck · #20 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Jerry McCarthy · #21 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 02:19 PM

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)

Jerry McCarthy · #22 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 02:41 PM

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

Bruce King · #23 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 02:56 PM

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.

Scott Patterson · #24 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

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.

Bruce King · #25 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 04:51 PM

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.

Ted Menelly · #26 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 05:25 PM

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.

Jerry Peck · #27 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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."

Quote:

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.'

Ted Menelly · #28 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 06:45 PM

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.

Bruce King · #29 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 06:46 PM

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

Jerry Peck · #30 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

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.

Mike Schulz · #31 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:08 PM

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.

Scott Patterson · #32 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:14 PM

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!

Bruce King · #33 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

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.

Billy Stephens · #34 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

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

Bruce King · #35 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

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?

Bruce King · #36 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

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.

Billy Stephens · #37 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

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.

.

Scott Patterson · #38 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

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!

Mike Schulz · #39 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:50 PM

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

Bruce King · #40 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:52 PM

Whats the problem with saying their recommendations are not complete?

Not complete test = dangerous door!

Bruce King · #41 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

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.

Billy Stephens · #42 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

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.

Bruce King · #43 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 08:04 PM

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......

Mike Schulz · #44 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 08:05 PM

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..............

Bruce King · #45 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

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.

Billy Stephens · #46 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 08:11 PM

Quote:

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.

Bruce King · #47 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 08:16 PM

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.

Billy Stephens · #48 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

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.

.

Bruce King · #49 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 08:52 PM

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

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

Billy Stephens · #50 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

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. )

Jack Feldmann · #51 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 09:04 PM

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.

Mike Schulz · #52 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 09:11 PM

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

Quote:

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.

Brian Thomas · #53 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 09:13 PM

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.

Ted Menelly · #54 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 09:17 PM

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.

Bruce King · #55 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 09:28 PM

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.

Billy Stephens · #56 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

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

.
Uh Oh, Here We Go!
.

Bob White · #57 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 10:55 PM

OK.

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

Brandon Chew · #58 (**permalink**) 08-03-2008, 11:48 PM

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

Bruce King · #59 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 06:16 AM

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.

Jerry Peck · #60 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

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.

Jerry Peck · #61 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Schulz

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

Quote:

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.

Scott Patterson · #62 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:30 AM

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

Billy Stephens · #63 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 ! )

Brandon Chew · #64 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:

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".

Quote:

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.

Jerry Peck · #65 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

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.

Bruce King · #66 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 08:21 AM

One of the most frequent call back for the garage door business is for doors that stop while closing. Very frequently the reason is due to someone correctly setting the force setting and the door meets a rough spot on the way down.

The door association knows this and wants to reduce call backs for their members. ie. they don't want us checking for proper force settings because only 2 out of 10 doors will pass. None of the new homes pass.

Builders also have inspection checklists for new homes TOO, do you guy's use those too? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Anyone find the problem with DASMA's document as I posted earlier?

I thought you guy's were "up to date" ? hahahahahha!
I guess not.

I'll post the info if no one can figure it out by the time I get home later today.

Ted Menelly · #67 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 10:00 AM

Now gentlemen. Would you wish to replace that 2x4 with your grandsons neck. Would you like to see if the door pushes his windpipe back to his backbone and then the solid portion of his back bone finally adds enough resistance to make the door reverse. I think your grandson will not recover.
Not a pretty picture

Now, Which one of you wants to replace that 2x4 with you son, daughter, grandson or grand daughters neck

Gee, a lot of silence out there.

I did not think so.

Not trying to tick anyone off. You put that mental picture into the judge or juries brain cells and ask them the same question at closing argument.

You tell them of the varying tests from DASMA's website to its technical sheets for home inspectors.

Test the door with your 2x4 and not with light pressure from your hand and then when the door reverses with that 2x4 and you tell them at their door reverses per DASMA's test, the reverse is working properly and you say, sorry about your baby but I did what some controversial testing procedures tell me to do. I can just here or visualize what that parent is going to do to you. At that point they are not going to care about some damn court.

Uh oh, Teds getting excited. Shut up Ted.

Answer this one question. Would you replace that 2x4 with your 14 month old baby's neck. Or, and I ask , or would you feel much more comfortable knowing you put some light pressure at the bottom of the door about knee height, the door just starts to add pressure and then reverses.

By the way. How many babies do you know that have a head the width of a 2x4, or their neck or chest.

Test the door, tell them of the test, tell them they should do a follow up with a garage door company.

Sorry to be so controversial about this.

Billy Stephens · #68 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 11:02 AM

Ted,

I don't like your scenario.

That said I don't like the prospect of all my assets and future assets going to someone who would allow an unattended infant to be injured as you describe.

Here's one for you Ted

I see household chemicals under the sink ( many more injuries / deaths reported from these) than garage doors.

Do I tell the Client not to allow the same 14 month old to drink the Drain Cleaner ?

Errol Miller · #69 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 11:32 AM

Hi,

I'm not an inspector, but I really enjoy reading your posts and learn a lot from them.

I had no idea inspecting the reverse feature of a grage door opener could get so complicated and controversial, but I believe if I were doing this for a living I would take $20 and a few hours time and build a test box that, when placed in the path of a closing garage door, would cause the door to reverse prior to reaching a set pressure, or failing that cut the power to the opener.

What do you think?

Billy Stephens · #70 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Errol Miller

Hi,

I'm not an inspector, but I really enjoy reading your posts and learn a lot from them.

I had no idea inspecting the reverse feature of a grage door opener could get so complicated and controversial, but I believe if I were doing this for a living I would take $20 and a few hours time and build a test box that, when placed in the path of a closing garage door, would cause the door to reverse prior to reaching a set pressure, or failing that cut the power to the opener.

What do you think?

.
Errol,

If it were that simple.

We are required to perform a Home Inspection by approved methods ( no matter how we might agree or disagree with those approved methods. )

Built it as an Approved & Recognized Testing Method and send me 2 of them with a stock option.

Jerry McCarthy · #71 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 01:11 PM

As I’m sure you all know that I was making fun of garage door retraction testing with my imaginary doll, right? However, I have tussled with that 2x4 testing method since I first heard about it. I went to “Tools-Be-Us” and bought a pressure pad manufactured specifically for testing the impact in FPPI for overhead garage doors. The first week the average ppi was around 400 and since my testing device was about 1-1/2” thick I figured that what did putting a 2x4 under a door really prove?

I mean either way the child was going to be seriously injured or worse whether the door retracted after hitting them or not. Therefore I firmly believe that the 2x4 method is ridiculous and the entire process of testing should be re-thought. If I where inspecting today I would adopt Scott Patterson’s methodology regarding overhead garage door safety retraction devices and feel 100% relieved I didn’t have to conduct such a silly test dreamed up but some moronic government agency run by political appointees.

FWIW I also never tripped a water heater’s PTRV to see if it worked but once and that cost me 165 bucks.
Plus, I stopped taking the dead front covers off FedPak and Zinsco electrical distribution panels during the early 90s and included these web sites in my inspection report depending whose make I ran into: Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok Panel Circuit Breaker Hazard, Repairs, Electrical Panel Replacement Electricians Directory for Stab-Lok Repairs AND Zinsco Electrical Panel and Circuit Breaker Hazards, Failures, Inspection, Detection, Repair, Replacement - Sylvania Zinsco circuit breakers and panel hazards.
I’m sure by opinion(s) will not be popular with some of the guys I highly respect on this BB, but there they are and I’m sticking with them.

Bruce King · #72 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 01:49 PM

The reason this subject keeps coming up is that there are GOOD reasons for it. We simply have too many different opinions on a simple issue.

Here are some facts that are brought to light in this thread:

1. DASMA does not do a good job of keeping ALL of their documents updated.

2. DASMA took out the force setting test that used to exist and still exists on some of their web pages. The reason first reason is obvious, they were afraid someone was going to have a door fall on their head or get crushed.
The 2nd reason takes a little more intuition and deductive reasoning to figure out: Home inspectors were causing their members way too many door call backs!

3. Doors do not have to be grabbed underneath, many have braces that can be used. The force setting can be checked at heights other than waist level, it can be safely done at 12 inches if you use the brace or back of the door frame. Force settings can be safely estimated by most good inspectors who have some idea of what force, weight and momentum are.

4. The 2x4 test is a totally different test than the arm/hand method.
A good 2x4 test can leave a door with very very high force settings. All the 2x4 test does is make sure the down limit is not interferring with the reversal feature and that the reversal feature is at least present. Reversal feature checking DOES NOT do ANYTHING to verify actual force reversal settings!

5. The arm/hand method may not be perfect but it is the BEST method available without using some type of measuring tool such as scales.

6. Some of us have SOP's to follow and do not choose to trust DASMA for obvious reasons. Their latest testing method does not check for force setting safety level AT ALL. Most openers have these adjustments available and easily tweakable by Joe homeowner! Talk about scary!

7. NC for one requires us to check for reasonable force reversal and the 2x4 test DOES NOT give that information AT ALL, PERIOD!

8. Most SOPS allow you to opt out of the test if a car is parked there or you simply don't think the old door or installation method is up to the proper testing.

I spent 20 years working as an engineer and finding engineering mistakes made by the manufacturer on equipment costing eighty thousand times as much as a freakin door opener, so don't tell me that so and so is always right because they ARE the manufacturer or some association is right because they represent the opener companies! I was the guy who found many of the problems that the manufacturer could not even figure out.

Jerry Peck · #73 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Errol Miller

I had no idea inspecting the reverse feature of a garage door opener could get so complicated and controversial, but I believe if I were doing this for a living I would take $20 and a few hours time and build a test box that, when placed in the path of a closing garage door, would cause the door to reverse prior to reaching a set pressure, or failing that cut the power to the opener.

That's one of the problems.

There is not "set pressure" to set it to. There is no specified pressure for a pressure or force test.

(underlining is mine)

Sec. 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
- (a) Other than the first 1 foot (305mm) of travel as measured over the path of the moving door, both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position, unless an inherent entrapment circuit senses a second obstruction or a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
- (b) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and

located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed. For operators other than those attached to the door, the solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door.
- (c) An operator is to be tested for compliance with paragraph (a) of this section for 50 open-and-close cycles of operation while the operator is connected to the type of residential garage door with which it is intended to be used or with the doors specified in paragraph (e) of this section. For an operator having a force adjustment on the operator, the force is to be adjusted to the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition. Any accessories having an effect on the intended operation of entrapment protection functions that are intended for use with the operator, are to be attached and the test is to be repeated for one additional cycle.
- (d) For an operator that is to be adjusted (limit and force) according to instructions supplied with the operator, the operator is to be tested for 10 additional obstruction cycles using the solid object described in paragraph (b) of this section at the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition.
- (e) For an operator that is intended to be used with more than one type of door, one sample of the operator is to be tested on a sectional door with a curved track and one sample is to be tested on a one-piece door with jamb hardware and no track. For an operator that is not intended for use on either or both types of doors, a one-piece door with track hardware or a one-piece door with pivot hardware shall be used for the tests. For an operator that is intended for use with a specifically dedicated door or doors, a representative door or doors shall be used for the tests. See the marking requirements at Sec. 1211.16.
- (f) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that monitors the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position in the event the inherent door operating "profile" of the door differs from the originally set parameters. The entrapment protection system shall monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm). The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction or a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel.
- (g) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that does not monitor the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to and stop the door at the full upmost position, when the lower limiting device is not actuated in 30 seconds or less following the initiation of the close cycle. The door operator is not required to return the door to and stop at the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction or a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel. When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.
- (h) To determine compliance with paragraph (f) or (g) of this section, an operator is to be subjected to 10 open-and-close cycles of operation while connected to the door or doors specified in paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section. The cycles are not required to be consecutive. Motor cooling-off periods during the test meet the intent of the requirement. The means supplied to comply with the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section and Sec. 1211.8(a) are to be defeated during the test. An obstructing object is to be used so that the door is not capable of activating a lower limiting device.
- (i) During the closing cycle, the system providing compliance with Secs. 1211.7(a) and 1211.7(f) or 1211.7(a) and 1211.7(g) shall function regardless of a short- or open-circuit anywhere in any low-voltage external wiring, any external entrapment devices, or any other external
component.

You will notice it is time-based, not force based.

Bruce King · #74 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

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.

Got any good inspectors who are up to date enough to figure out what is wrong with the above DASMA quote?

Hint, its missing info, not just a play on words.

Bruce King · #75 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That's one of the problems.

There is not "set pressure" to set it to. There is no specified pressure for a pressure or force test.

component.

You will notice it is time-based, not force based.

In NC, we have to make our checks "force based".

Any good inspector will make sure the door is safe or disclaim and refer it to a specialist.

Bruce King · #76 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That's one of the problems.

There is not "set pressure" to set it to. There is no specified pressure for a pressure or force test.

There is now for the new wayne Dalton I-drive openers.

They are certified to stop and reverse at LESS THAN 15 lbs throughout their entire range of travel by mapping the friction etc. during the setup mode via a microprocessor based firmware routine that adds the "15 lbs" to each stored sample point.

Ted Menelly · #77 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 04:59 PM

Oh my

I came on this morning after setting up my inspections just to see what was going on.

Oh my

Billy

Sorry about the visual. Just making a point. Oh yeah, I do tell my clients about child safety latches as well. I guess I am just to nice a guy.

Oh my, I hope I was not responsible for everyone blood pressure.

Sorry but I do what I can in a reasonable amount of time. I inspected 2 homes today and did my usual garage door test. I told them what I did and wrote it. I told them that they should not rely on my preliminary testing. I told them about pressure, the 2x4, the photo beams. Same thing I do in every inspection. Both parties understood completely ( I ask them to tell me what I told them and wrote and they understood that I did as thorough but not exhaustive test and they should do an immediate follow up and have the doors controls tested monthly. The monthly thing always has them with that caught in the headlight bit.

They had no misconception that I did a definitive test. They thanked me (as always) for a very thorough inspection and explanation of the inspection (whole house) We parted ways with everyone happy and sending more work my way.

Clients are not stupid. Most have more edumication than me and most of you. (nothing bad meant) They understand facts, theories, limits. Talk to them, explain to them. Put it all in your report. We are not the only ones out there with extra brain cells to understand. Treat them with respect. Don't treat them like idiots or you will get the same in return.

Live happily ever after

Billy Stephens · #78 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

--so don't tell me that so and so is always right because they ARE --

Bruce,

Who said that? ( And I'm sure no one has Successfully Told You Anything for Sometime.)

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Oh my

Billy

I am just to nice a guy.

Live happily ever after

.
Why Thank you Pardner, ( in this Heat? )
.

Bruce King · #79 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.

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.

.

Yes, Billy those guy's are wrong and I am right.

Follow their partial testing instructions and you will have many doors that can kill someone.

Actually, people tend to trip the sensors, the real likely victims are personal property including the garage doors which are not cheap any more.

Jerry Peck · #80 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

the real likely victims are personal property including the garage doors which are not cheap any more.

Those are not "victims", those are expendable and replaceable parts of the structure.

Billy Stephens · #81 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

.Yes, Billy those guy's are wrong and I am right.

.

.
Let me check ( Nope ! )
.

Jerry Peck · #82 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

They are certified to stop and reverse at LESS THAN 15 lbs throughout their entire range of travel by mapping the friction etc. during the setup mode via a microprocessor based firmware routine that adds the "15 lbs" to each stored sample point.

All overhead doors should, and, they also should stop at 25 pounds upward pressure - in case something is blocking the door from being raised.

However, being as you point out that door with that drive, but either apparently did not read or review the installation instructions or did not think we would, here is *how to test them* - from the manual.

From page 31 of the manual: (underlining is mine)
28 Contact Obstruction Test

Tools Needed: 2 x 4 Board

After installing the opener, the door must reverse when it contacts a 1-1/2” high object (or a 2 x 4 board laid flat) on the garage floor.

Using the wall station, activate the door to the fully open position.

Place a 2 x 4 board flat on the garage floor, under the door path.

Activate the door to the closed position with the wall station. Upon contacting the 2 x 4 board, the door should stop, then reverse direction within two seconds and travel to the full open position.

If the door does not respond to the required tests, repeat profile routine Step 24 or 25, making sure the door is in the fully closed position prior to activation.

Bruce,

I may be missing something, but ... tell me where it states, shows, or indicates that you are testing for "force"?

Another thing I may be missing ... show me where that test is any different than the 2x4 test for other garage doors - 'cause I'm missin' that too.

Bruce King · #83 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 06:46 PM

What you are missing is this:

The instructions are poor, they are NOT complete and they WILL leave you with dangerous doors. The instructions do not include FORCE setting reversal checks.

Why are you so hung up on letting the opener manufacturer dictate the inspection process? Do you think they are smarter than you?

I think you are way smarter than them but need to admit that the published instructions are NOT complete.

I actually inspected a new home this morning that had the force setting at the proper range. The sad thing is that the sensors were a little too high, the wall switch too low and the tracks too close together where the door would stop and go back up every 2nd or 3rd trial when the rollers hit the track bolt heads.

I indicated in the report that raising the force level would not be a proper repair and took a picture of the force adjustment control.

Billy Stephens · #84 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

The instructions are poor, they are NOT complete and they WILL leave you with dangerous doors. The instructions do not include FORCE setting reversal checks.

need to admit that the published instructions are NOT complete.

.
Page 38

( maybe they have a visual aid Manufacturers Instructions Offering.)

Bruce King · #85 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:14 PM

Billy, I don't get your sarcasm, but anyway, the "instructions" we have been talking about are those of DASMA (where have you been? need visual aids help? LMAO)

I see you posted 1 page from some wayne dalton instructions, very good work, now which opener is that from?

Congratulations Wayne Dalton, for agreeing with me! woohoo!!

Bruce King · #86 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:19 PM

For those who are tracking this thread,

We have just found out that DASMA is trying to keep home inspectors from following instructions published by wayne dalton by publiShing their own abbreviated instructions THAT LEAVE OUT THE FORCE SETTING CHECKS!

It seems that many "experts" are making themselves scarce now.

Come on guys, we might can end up getting some changes to SOPS, DASMA documents etc. AND most importantly, pass this on to other inspectors that believe following "instructions" is better than using your common sense or technical knowledge or both actually.

Billy Stephens · #87 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

--which opener is that

Last from the Bottom of the list. ( only one I Read. ) in Installation Instructions residential section.

Mike Schulz · #88 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:26 PM

Lift-master is one of the units I see all the time. On page 21 there is Force adjustments and how to test that. http://www.liftmaster.com/pdfdocs/114A3088.pdf

Our State says we have to check for reasonable resistance during closing. I find them wrong all the time.
Now the Instructions also say if you make adjustments to one you may have to make adjustment to the safety reversal with a 2x4, and test it, which when the Tech comes to adjust the force they will have to make sure the 2x4 test is done if they follow the instructions. Which relieves me of the burden.

So checking the force and it's wrong prompts the tech to come out which then they Must do the other test (required by the manufacture). This will provide the safety That I feel comfortable with for my clients and keep me from hot water (damage) from the 2x4 test.

People that claim they damage doors from applying resistance with there hands has no concept of resistance and should disclaim them.

Bruce King · #89 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:47 PM

My 7 yr old Genie, noisy, screw drives only say this in the manual:

has basic info and then:

"Set minimum force required to make door close"

Bruce King · #90 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 07:57 PM

I have emailed the head guy at DASMA and asked him to read this thread 2 or 3 times.

We probably have a few thousand inspectors out there that just don't understand how to test an opener properly and the blame can mostly be placed on DASMA in my opinion because too many inspectors thought that was the "way to do it".

Don't forget, I am not trying to get anyone to actually do the testing correctly unless they understand the risks involved that are mostly due to failure to fully analyze and tug on the door hardware BEFORE testing.

If you really visualy inspect these doors, you will have no reason to do operational checks on most of the older ones due to loose/missing hardware or improper installation. Doing so is what causes them to break when they are already faulty. I broke one my first year because I failed to closely look at the connection on the arm. It folded up the top panel with about 3-5 lbs of resistance. The sellers knew it was already bad so no problem there.

Mike Schulz · #91 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

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

Oh yes it does, read the instructions. It tells you the "force" is to strong if you can't stop it by grasping the door.

I'll go with the manufacture instruction any day then the DASMA

Bruce King · #92 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 08:13 PM

For those of you that have not had the chance to actually do a manual force setting check on a Wayne Dalton I-drive opener......

When you do, slowly add force as it goes from knee height downwards and when it stops and reverses, I can guarantee, you will say "sweet !"

It feels very nice and actually reverses at a very low force, the specs say less than 15, it feels like 5-7 lbs to me. I have checked about 20 of these and they all feel the same.

The emergency disconnect handle at the right side feels crappy but it works and resets itself when the handle is taken off the bracket.

Jerry Peck · #93 (**permalink**) 08-04-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

What you are missing is this:

The instructions are poor, they are NOT complete and they WILL leave you with dangerous doors. The instructions do not include FORCE setting reversal checks.

Bruce,

WHAT YOU ARE MISSING IS ... (drum roll here) ... WE ARE DISCUSSING THE PROPER, LEGITIMATE, AND LEGAL WAY to test the AUTO REVERSE.

Yeah, you know, THE AUTO REVERSE?

THE INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS ... even the ones you tried to use to defend yourself with, state outright HOW TO INSPECT THE REVERSING FEATURE, and, yeah, it is with a 2x4 laid flat.

That 15 pounds downward force / 25 pounds upward force has been around a quite some time, at least 8 years or more - just in case you think you have discovered something 'new'.

REGARDLESS, those are the tests made in the testing labs to verify that the operators meet the standards for accepting the garage overhead door operators ... they are not the test to be used in the field.

Bruce King · #94 (**permalink**) 08-05-2008, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That's one of the problems.

There is not "set pressure" to set it to. There is no specified pressure for a pressure or force test.

Then why didn't you know about in the above post?

We are discussing opener inspection methods here, NOT just your little 2x4 test.

By the way, did you not read any of the manuf. instructions?
They tell you how to check the FORCE SETTINGS (on some anyway)

Why are you considering DASMA as being the legitimate source?
They had the correct procedure once and have removed it.
It being subjective was not a legitimate reason to remove the important FORCE SETTING checks!

You are now back pedalling Jerry.

Quit trying to muddy the water here for your own amusement.
We all know by now what the 2x4 test is checking, (contact reversal) and IT IS NOT at all what I am talking about here.

The simple fact is that YOU CAN NOT TEST a garage door without using some method of checking the force setting.

Go ahead and do a half job, its your choice.

Bruce King · #95 (**permalink**) 08-05-2008, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

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.

OK, no one could come up with the answer to this and I hate to see Jerry or other "EW's" get embarrassed someday. I also have requested DASMA to look at this thread so they can get their act together.

The above DASMA quote needs to inform the public that the lack of photosensors (or similar as is their words) is NOT always a problem.
The wayne dalton i-drive openers DO NOT need sensors when used with the series 9000 pinch-resistant doors. (or any pinch resistant door if more are available)

Don't confuse these "pinch resistant" doors with "entrapment resistant", pinch resistant is only referring to fingers in the door seams.

This was posted on another message board over a year ago. I thought you guy's were up to date. If you only read inspection news, you are missing a whole lot! This board is good but very slow moving and limited in content.

Bruce King · #96 (**permalink**) 08-05-2008, 07:38 AM

For Jerry and his followers that may be concerned with "meeting DASMA's standards":

Inspecting a garage door to DASMA's latest standards AND adding on the very important force setting test STILL meets DASMA's standards.

You have only added on another check to the abbreviated one.

Now that you know why a reversal check and a force setting check are not the same, you will be negligent if you do not perform the force setting check or inform your client that you did not do it and the reason for not doing it.

Billy Stephens · #97 (**permalink**) 08-05-2008, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

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.

its wrong information in the above paragraph.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

OK, no one could come up with the answer to this

The above DASMA quote needs to inform the public that the lack of photosensors (or similar as is their words) is NOT always a problem.
The wayne dalton i-drive openers DO NOT need sensors when used with the series 9000 pinch-resistant doors. (or any pinch resistant door if more are available)

.

.
Bruce,

There is NO Answer !

I appreciate your passion on this subject.

That said You NEED to READ what is said ( Lacks a Similar Safety Device )
again read what is said.

I try and learn something New Every day. If I assume my position is right just because I think it ( without any corroborating references ) I'm not going to achieve my Goal of learning something New.

BTW: when those RED Lines appear B4 you post ( right click & pick any alternative spelling choice.)

Bruce King · #98 (**permalink**) 08-05-2008, 08:30 AM

When (and still on a certain page) DASMA had the correct (and complete) garage door opener testing procedure posted on the internet many people used it in their documents.

Here is one:

Automatic Garage Door Opener and Garage Door Safety and Maintenance Guide

The correct procedures are all over the place out there and then there is the new abbreviated procedure that is out there only to prevent injury to unqualified persons and to prevent call backs for garage door installers (poor guy's).

An inspector pushing for the abbreviated procedure is a problem to this industry and to the safety of homeowners and their kids and property.

Most of these installers are just kids that don't know much about the system.

I do a huge amount of new construction inspections and find very few doors and openers installed correctly.

Billy Stephens · #99 (**permalink**) 08-05-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce King

An inspector pushing for the abbreviated procedure is a problem to this industry and to the safety of homeowners and their kids and property.

.

.
Bruce,

You have no idea ( unless someone has stated ) how an Inspector checks a garage Door.

An Inspector who refuses to Read & Try and understand what is written ( refuses to answer anything is A Problem .)

And yes I realize you Always Get the Last Word.

Bruce King · #**100** (**permalink**) 08-05-2008, 08:54 AM

Billy,

Did I forget to answer a question?

Also, don't believe everything you read, try and understand the "why" and "how" of issues, not just what some edited document states.

What I am stating here about the new DASMA procedure is very correct.

It does not provide for a properly inspected door, period.

Please don't ask me why, I think I have it covered very well in this thread.