Thread: Why you really need to get on that roof!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Ken,

"Recommends"?

What part of "shall" means "recommend"? (I've added bold, underlining, and red for you in the below)

Jerry, what part of

It's not mandatory here in MN, but may be elsewhere.

means it is only recommended everywhere? (I've added bold, underlining and red for you in the quote.

Originally Posted by Darren Miller

NFPA recommends that every home involved in a real estate transaction receive a 'LEVEL II' inspection. This includes video taping the interior of the flue.

What about doing the Level II without using a camera, using "other means"?

From NFPA: A Level 2 inspection shall also include a visual inspection by video scanning or other means in order to examine the internal surfaces and joints of all flue liners incorporated within the chimney.

It's not so easy finding a reputable company using a camera. Darren, Certified out your way has a camera, but told a client recently they don't use it because it's a scam. And what's up with the chimney guys who have the camera, but don't even carry a ladder?

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Jerry, what part of

My replying to Watson and not your post ... did you miss?

Or what part of my reply to Watson was not understood?

We have been discussing what the NFPA requires (the NFPA uses the word "shall", which means it is "required"), and the NFPA "requires" what it requires NO MATTER WHERE you are.

YOUR AREA may not "require" the NFPA to be followed, nonetheless, though, the NFPA STILL "requires" the same thing.

Let's say Town A "requires" all dog owners to register their dogs, and let's say that Town B does not give a crap about dogs. With that as a given, and if you are in Town B, Town A STILL REQUIRES all dog owners to register their dogs. The NFPA STILL REQUIRES the inspections - unless someone is re-writing the NFPA to suit their area, and then it is no longer the NFPA, it would be a locally amended NFPA.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

My replying to Watson and not your post ... did you miss?

Or what part of my reply to Watson was not understood?

We have been discussing what the NFPA requires (the NFPA uses the word "shall", which means it is "required"), and the NFPA "requires" what it requires NO MATTER WHERE you are.

YOUR AREA may not "require" the NFPA to be followed, nonetheless, though, the NFPA STILL "requires" the same thing.

Let's say Town A "requires" all dog owners to register their dogs, and let's say that Town B does not give a crap about dogs. With that as a given, and if you are in Town B, Town A STILL REQUIRES all dog owners to register their dogs. The NFPA STILL REQUIRES the inspections - unless someone is re-writing the NFPA to suit their area, and then it is no longer the NFPA, it would be a locally amended NFPA.

Oh I get it now. Your trying to tell everyone that we should be telling our clients that a level II chimney exam is required on all real estate transactions. Even though it isn't. I may be mistaken, but don't the codes need to be adopted locally before they are enforceable?

Again you've only produced "part" of the story. Page 2 of the same document you paraphrased states,

Law and Regulations Users of NFPA Documents should consult applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. NFPA does not, by the publication of its codes, standards, recommended practices, and guide, intend to urge action that is not in compliance with applicable laws, and these documents may not be construed as doing so

NFPA themselves are saying they have no authority. So unless federal, state, or local laws or codes "require" an inspection they have no authority to require it either. This is why my reports state, "The NFPA recommends a level II examination", because they cannot legally require one.

Originally Posted by neal lewis

What about doing the Level II without using a camera, using "other means"?

From NFPA: A Level 2 inspection shall also include a visual inspection by video scanning or other means in order to examine the internal surfaces and joints of all flue liners incorporated within the chimney.

Well now, what would include 'other means'? If you have a two story structure, how else would you inspect it; a still camera, a mirror?

By the way, when I see a problem with a chimney or B vent, I include W. Ryan & Sons phone # and web site.

I just added the word 'usually' to my macro.

hey all

just got my calls answered and the state of Colorado, city of Denver, and the city of Boulder, as well as the state board of realtors. do not enforce NFPA 211.14.1 or any of it. the only NFPA regulation they enforce of course is the co detectors in homes. so i guess i don't have to change my report writing from recommend to required. i guess all states are different, but it should be in reports that we recommend having that puppy evaluated

cvf

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Oh I get it now. Your trying to tell everyone that we should be telling our clients that a level II chimney exam is required on all real estate transactions. Even though it isn't. I may be mistaken, ...

No, you still don't get it, and, yes, you are mistaken.

THE ... yes, THE ... NFPA ... REQUIRES ... yes, ... REQUIRES the chimney inspections. Nothing you or Watson can do to change that. THE NFPA *does not* "recommend" those inspections - those inspections are "required".

*IF* NFPA 211 is adopted locally, then those inspections *are required* by the local AHJ as well as by NFPA.

*IF* NFPA 211 is not adopted locally, then those inspections *are still required* by NFPA ... but not by the local AHJ.

Get it now?

Whether or not the local AHJ adopts the NFPA *does not affect or change the NFPA in any way*.

Again you've only produced "part" of the story. Page 2 of the same document you paraphrased states, NFPA themselves are saying they have no authority. So unless federal, state, or local laws or codes "require" an inspection they have no authority to require it either. This is why my reports state, "The NFPA recommends a level II examination", because they cannot legally require one.

As I stated above: "No, you still don't get it, and, yes, you are mistaken."

Jerry, apparently you did not read the previous quote, so I'll post it again:

Law and Regulations Users of NFPA Documents should consult applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. NFPA does not, by the publication of its codes, standards, recommended practices, and guide, intend to urge action that is not in compliance with applicable laws, and these documents may not be construed as doing so

Unless the NFPA codes, standards, recommended practices and guide are adopted locally they are just a bunch of written words. Not enforceable whatsoever. You'd be misleading your clients by telling them the NFPA requires a chimney inspection...unless you also told your clients that the NFPA has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

Telling people that the NFPA requires a chimney inspection (when you know it's not adopted in your area) would be the same as citing a building code from China. It has no bearing unless it's adopted locally.

Maybe commissioner Gordon could send the Bat beacon out to Bob Harper to weigh in on this.

The National Fire Protection Association has no power to REQUIRE anything.

NFPA 211 is a performance standard, which may or may not be utilized by one performing construction, maintenance, inspection, or evaulation. It has become a "performance standard" by those who perform/conduct the "work" therein described.. It is also drafted as so as to make it available to be adopted as model code language, which MAY be adopted and incorporated into local ordinance, statute, law (with or without ammendments).

NFPA 211 has no power of law in and of itself, and neither does the National Fire Protection Association; and neither the document nor the organization which drafted/copyrighted it has any AUTHORITY to REQUIRE anything, except of its membership.

NFPA 211 provides the guidelines for the performance of a "Level II" Inspection. (Note roman numeral "II" not "2"). If one is performing a "Level II" Inspection, the "requirements" for such and a certification claiming having done so are spelled out (to a degree). NFPA 211 becomes the basis/standard for evaluation of said Inspection and the performance thereof; however, neither the document itself, nor the organization which holds the copyright, can MANDATE that an inspection, Level II or otherwise, occurs in the first place.

How many home inspectors settle insurance claims for damaging the roof?

MA Home Inspector Standards of Practice prohibits a home inspector from walking on the roof unless they have a signed document from the home owner relieving them of all liability and potential damage.

Be sure to check the warranty statements from the manufacturer. Point loads on the roof a.k.a. walking on the roof by non-authorized roofing contractors may void the warranty for damages to the shingles.

Of course, safety is rule #1, as many before me have already written. Manage your home inspector business actions wisely. Too many active home inspectors providing expert witness services against their competitors.

How many home inspectors settle insurance claims for damaging the roof?

Never. I have never damaged a shingle when walking on the roof and someone would be hard pressed to prove it. I have never heard of anyone stating complaints about them damaging shingles while inspecting never mind settling for damages.

MA Home Inspector Standards of Practice prohibits a home inspector from walking on the roof unless they have a signed document from the home owner relieving them of all liability and potential damage.

That is insane but I would not put it past the Mass for feeling they need to protect everyone.

Be sure to check the warranty statements from the manufacturer. Point loads on the roof a.k.a. walking on the roof by non-authorized roofing contractors may void the warranty for damages to the shingles.

Again someone would be hard pressed to prove a home inspector damaging shingle. It can be passed on to the next person saying they found the damage. Who is to say they did not damage them.

Of course, safety is rule #1, as many before me have already written. Manage your home inspector business actions wisely. Too many active home inspectors providing expert witness services against their competitors.

Now there is something we ca agree on but where would one find an expert witness about home inspection unless the expert witness was or use to be a home inspector

Hi Ted, Thanks for your comments. Maybe I can learn something from you. One of my issues is that home inspectors often comment on loss of granules on shingles as a condition of degradation/deterioration. While walking on a roof, I have never been able to not disturb some of the granules. I can always hear some of the granules rolling into the gutter. Thus, I disclose to the home owner that there may be some loss of granules due to walking/inspecting the roof. How do you avoid disturbing any of the granules? Very rare for me to have a home owner agree to a roof walk. One of the other items I requires is for complete photographs of the attic sheathing prior to the walking of the roof. All water stains, discolorations, delaminating plywood, etc, must be acknowledged.

Originally Posted by Jim Mushinsky

Hi Ted, Thanks for your comments. Maybe I can learn something from you. One of my issues is that home inspectors often comment on loss of granules on shingles as a condition of degradation/deterioration. While walking on a roof, I have never been able to not disturb some of the granules. I can always hear some of the granules rolling into the gutter. Thus, I disclose to the home owner that there may be some loss of granules due to walking/inspecting the roof. How do you avoid disturbing any of the granules? Very rare for me to have a home owner agree to a roof walk. One of the other items I requires is for complete photographs of the attic sheathing prior to the walking of the roof. All water stains, discolorations, delaminating plywood, etc, must be acknowledged.

That is the insanity of it all. Of course you will at least slightly disturb granules on the roof but a hard rain will more than likely disturb more than that as long as you are careful on a roof.

Again I have never heard of anyone paying out on liability or even have a complaint about ruining or damaging a roof because they get up there and inspect it. We are not butchers and just the thought that a home owner does not want you getting on their roof to inspect it for a new buyer is insanity in itself. I can guarantee that even though I have been inspecting all my life I can tell you that I have not damaged a roof to the point where someone could actually tell before during or after the fact. Fact is for someone to spot a few loose granules to inspect it after you inspected that roof they would have to be on their hands and knees with a magnifying glass looking at every foot fall you had and doing more damage than you could ever do..

Depending on the roof I may not get on it if it is too steep as this will guarantee you may damage shingles but even then if it is not too hot out you could walk that roof, carefully, and no one could follow your path unless it is seriously steep. The greater the pitch the easier it is to inspect from the eves and you probably get a better look anyway and would not have to walk the roof.

Back to the seller not wanting someone to inspect their roof that gets on roofs everyday (in the busy times) for the sake of full disclosure to a perspective buyer, as long as it is safe to get on that roof, is foolishness. If there were no paper to sign or a demand that you get permission to walk the roof to inspect it then it would not be made out to be such a big deal and no one would ever say "you are not getting on my roof!"

Also the insanity that the roof gets walked on once in how many years for an inspection ??????????? and someone is afraid that an experienced man walks their roof to look at it is going to cause undo damage to their roof. What are they thinking up there in the cold nasty whether North East where I lived for 36 years.

Insanity abounds. But now on the other hand. You folks get higher prices than we do in slab land....much higher...and you don't have to get on a roof. Good for you.

Complete photographs of every square inch of the underside of the sheathing or just that you inspected it and took pictures of possible concerns? You know and I know that getting pics of every square foot of sheathing is about completely impossible in most attics anyway. Never mind even seeing every square foot. That is impossible.

I may take a lot of pictures but I am not taking photos of anything but concerns in the home not everything that is not a concern and I believe that is what you must do with that roof.

Like I said, I lived in Mass for 36 years. I still have a multitude of family up there. Until you live somewhere else, and I am not talking a year or 2, you will never know the constraints Mass puts to everything. Got to protect everyone from everything having everyone question everybody about everything. It becomes such a way of life that you do not even realize it.

The commonwealth state. I guess that about says it all.

Originally Posted by Jim Mushinsky

MA Home Inspector Standards of Practice prohibits a home inspector from walking on the roof unless they have a signed document from the home owner relieving them of all liability and potential damage.

Not to offend anyone on this board but that sounds like the PERFECT out for a lazy home inspector.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

This is not directed at you but all that practically never walk on roofs.

I am very cautious when walking roofs and if it does not feel right at the moment (I do not care if it is almost flat) I back down the ladder and inspect from the eves and ground.

In saying that I cannot tell you the amount of times I looked the roof over from the ground, including new roofs where I thought everything looked fine, where I later got to the opposite side or the back of the home to find out I could get up from a lower level and when I did go up found either slight to pretty serious damage or defective application.

To not go on a roof if in fact you can safely do so is a huge mistake and an injustice to your clients.

I repeat the above. Countless occasions over the decades I thought everything looked fine from the ground to later see that things were far from fine. In some of those cases the roof looked perfectly fine from the ground only to see a decade more wear to the roof than thought of from looking from the ground and any roofer would have said it was re-roof time. Serious multiple thousands in costs to your clients in either immediate or a relatively short time that they should not have had to put out for or at the least have been aware of.

I concur-If its safe I will walk the roof. Of course walking up a steep roof is easy, however coming down may be a little more difficult, especially when is wet, mossy, has pine debris or is120 degree. I always find something I couldn't see from the ground or the binoculars.If its safe do it !

Hi Ted, Sounds like you got my point spot on, and know quite a bit about "The Commonwealth". The worse part is the high activity on the letters from The Law Firms of Douai, Cheetem, and Howe. I don't know for sure, but the rate is rumored to be around $100 for each granule. ( just kidding )

Insanity is a good word for what goes on here. Seller's and seller agents swearing roofs don't leak and basements/crawl spaces that are dry as a bone. They can do this while watching water drip from the sheathing or standing in a basement/crawl space puddle.

Of course, when they acknowledge the water, it must have been something the home inspector broke due to an error or omission.

The insanity became rampant when the license and insurance was required. Now there is a pool of money for lawyers to target.

As soon as you mention something like you're walking on the roof would not do as much damage as a hard rain, then they have an agreement to damage, now they just have to determine how much. Complete Insanity. Well enough of the rant.

In MA we must learn how to effectively inspect roofs without walking the roof. Think of it as a challenging exercise when you do not have the luxury of choosing to walk on the roof.

By the way. Many great comments from other inspectors. This is a very good forum. I wish I had more time to read and respond.

Originally Posted by Robert Pike

I concur-If its safe I will walk the roof. Of course walking up a steep roof is easy, however coming down may be a little more difficult, especially when is wet, mossy, has pine debris or is120 degree. I always find something I couldn't see from the ground or the binoculars.If its safe do it !

But just think of the excitement in your day while sliding over the edge of that roof trying to make a prejudged landing...and not break anything...like yourself

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

Maybe commissioner Gordon could send the Bat beacon out to Bob Harper to weigh in on this.

I believe it was stated accurately when someone said that although it may not be required, because the NFPA 211 is not adopted in a specific area, it is still the standard of practice in the industry. I would expect that anyone looking for direction or definition describing what is included in the inspection process would embrace the NFPA 211 levels of inspection whether they are mandated in any given area or not.

It is a method of protecting both the inspector and the consumer by being clearly defined. Not using a formally adopted procedure leads to differing expectations and that confusion can cause conflict resulting in litigation. Why not avoid the conflict by being a better communicator?

Ashley Eldridge
CSIA Director of Education
Chimney Safety Institute of America

There is a brand new (roof inspection risk management) professional association that has been created specificaly for non-construction roof access professionals like ourselves called ACRABAT (The Association for Rope Accessed Building Assessment Technicians) acrabat.org index . They have developed standards for lifeline assisted roof access void of 99% of the risk for personal injury.

All of this has spawned out of the Insurance Industry (claims adjusters) but will work for us too.

I too believe that the ONLY way to obtain the accuracy our customers deserve is to get on the roofs of the homes we inspect.

ACRABAT ?? ROFLMAO

Originally Posted by Kevin Kramer

There is a brand new (roof inspection risk management) professional association that has been created specificaly for non-construction roof access professionals like ourselves called ACRABAT (The Association for Rope Accessed Building Assessment Technicians) acrabat.org index . They have developed standards for lifeline assisted roof access void of 99% of the risk for personal injury.

All of this has spawned out of the Insurance Industry (claims adjusters) but will work for us too.

I too believe that the ONLY way to obtain the accuracy our customers deserve is to get on the roofs of the homes we inspect.

If i nneeded a lifeline to get on a roof then that is when I stop getting on roofs. The picture below would require a lifeline and my life is just to precious even if a large part of it is over.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

If i needed a lifeline to get on a roof then that is when I stop getting on roofs. The picture below would require a lifeline and my life is just to precious even if a large part of it is over.

No, Ted. The lifeline is not for climbing with. It is to save you if you fall.
The trouble I have with ropes is getting it attached in the first place. Attached to what?

"Attached to what?"

Satellite Dish, TV antenna, roof vent, gutter, I don't care if I'm falling.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

No, Ted. The lifeline is not for climbing with. It is to save you if you fall.
The trouble I have with ropes is getting it attached in the first place. Attached to what?

Same question here.
Some sucker has to climb up to the ridge with a tie down and anchor it in place. Of course that lucky person has all the safety benefits of the most modern OSHA approved Sky Hook 300XL. When everybody else is back down safely on the ground, having a nice cold drink, some "body" has to remove the tie down, patch the holes, and get back down without the benefit of the Sky Hook 300Xl. We need shoes with gravity amplifiers.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

No, Ted. The lifeline is not for climbing with. It is to save you if you fall.
The trouble I have with ropes is getting it attached in the first place. Attached to what?

well , if you are using a life line then you are literally climbing with it. There is that little problem that it does have to attach somewhere. That means you have to go up and attatch it somewhere. If I was that concerned I would not be onthe roof

Ted,
I would walk that roof, yeah right, not unless I was properly harnessed and tied off and on a boom.

Anyway, wow, damaging the roof by walking it. I guess if that was the case it is time for a new roof and my client should know.

I agree safety first if you doubt it at all do go up there.

I am pretty conservative with walking the roof, but I want to walk every one. You just can not see things from ground observation you can see up there.

I roofed (union boy) as a young one and it did not take me long to figure that was not the profession for me.

I know I see more issues on roofs than almost anywhere else on a home. Roofers are famous for shortcuts. They know most are not going there to check their work. I see poor work all the time on new homes.

Air-tools are great but in the wrong hand they can make a mess of a roof.

A "Lifeline" is a component of a "Personal Fall Arrest System" and ACRABAT standards were created with the expressed purpose of training roof inspection trades people on how to set them from the safety of terra firma (ground level) and being able to use that lifeline for mobillity.

Anchors fall into two seperate catagories:

Fixed & Portable

Both types of anchors are situated at ground level so their is literally no climbing (not even on the ladder) until roof inspector is secured to their lifeline.

People, This Is Not New Stuff Here!

State Farm Ins is the 5th largest company in the world and they have been using it to manage the risk associated with high angle roof inspection for years.

What Does This Mean?

Well, while Daniel Rogers is rolling on the floor laughing his @$$ off and completing suspect work based on what he speculates is going on with the roofing system, you could be putting him (and all the other home inspectors who refuse to climb roofs) out of a job with reports that reflect the true merits of the situation.

It is not nearly as hard as you think, I have been doing it for years with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment. Outside of a church steeple, there really isn't a roof system that i cannot get on with the use of a little technique and line placement devices that are good for up to about 120 ft high structures.

Remember: A Fool Knows Everything but A Wise Man Knows Nothing.

Laugh if you want to Daniel but somthing tells me that none of you guys looked into this.

Originally Posted by Kevin Kramer

A "Lifeline" is a component of a "Personal Fall Arrest System" and ACRABAT standards were created with the expressed purpose of training roof inspection trades people on how to set them from the safety of terra firma (ground level) and being able to use that lifeline for mobillity.



somthing tells me that none of you guys looked into this.

Nope, I checked it out. I think the training program has merit.
Lifelines have been discussed before. Some home inspectors maybe will take the time to string up a rope. But the general feeling is that for the small price of a home inspection, we check from the top of the ladder, and if it's unsafe to go further without a lifeline, we come down and move on.
Nevertheless, I have ropes in my truck for those special occasions, and am not too proud or too rushed to use a line once in a while.
I copped these pics from the website.
BTW, if you tie off to a car in the driveway, make sure the keys are in your pocket. [:>O]

Thanks John,

I'm glad to see that there are others like me who are aware of the fact that lifelines are definite risk management solution for roof inspection.

I believe that the title of this thread says it all because as professionals, we must get on the roof system to assess the merits of the situation.


PS - Nice pictures of a Line Launcher and Rope Caddy.

I've hired a couple of new guys that were hanging around today's inspection.......

Remember people that the goal here is 100% access with 0 incidents.

Don't end up like this roof inspector (claims adjuster) who slipped off a steep roof last week and ended up with two broken legs.

Up here in Ontario if the Ministry of Labour catches anyone on a roof without a fall arrest system on you will be fined.

Interesting.

OSHA does not require independent inspection (working in a non-construction capacity) professionals to have anything more than a "risk management plan".

Now tell me that this is not just a little vague.

In the vegas area any inspector that dose not walk a roof is missing a multitude of sind mainly because building inspectors will not climb a ladder

I've been for writing these up for years, especially when the installation in into OSB sheathing, and getting static for it, and I just *knew* I was gonna' run into this eventually, and get a nice picture to add to reports to explain *why* I report it: