Online thermography course

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by dharris

You have never seen me brag or try to impress any body with my education, training or HI qualifiications.
All I did was ask a legit question that others already agreed with,
besides that I'm just playing ping pong with the greenies, almost 3 boxes, then another red one, good thing red ones only take away 2 points and greenies add 5

Do you promote that home inspectors and thermographer get their
certifications and training from a home study course?

BTW... bragging is when you exaggerate something. I believe
Mr Decker was stating the facts in order to demonstrate
that his opinion is based on experience.

[dharris]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Do you promote that home inspectors and thermographer get their
certifications and training from a home study course?

I don't promote anything.
I do believe a person should take proper nationally reconised training and be able to prove that qualification thru proctored testing and provide written documenation on training /experience [ not statements on an afidavid] before he or she call themselves a certified inspector of any kind.

dang it I hit send before spell checking, oh well no spell ck on this one

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by dharris

I do believe a person should take proper nationally reconised training and be able to prove that qualification thru proctored testing and provide written documenation on training /experience [ not statements on an afidavid] before he or she call themselves a certified inspector of any kind.

dang it I hit send before spell checking, oh well no spell ck on this one

Oh.. OK , then we agree.
I tried to explain this same point in my original post that you challenged.
You agree with me. The path of superior education is best.

Thanks.

[rdawes]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

The path of superior education is best.

True as far as it goes. But who are you or I to say which is best, especially if you have only sampled one? I have taken plenty of classroom classes where I would have been MUCH better off just doing it on my own. I am not saying that is the case for the course that you took for 3 reasons (1) ITC has an excellent reputation and (2) I wasn't there and would not presume to pass judgment on something I did not experience first hand, and (3) you were there and gave it high marks.

All the major schools are good. ITC is large and has the money of FLIR behind it, Snell has been around since thermography was in its infancy, and Infraspection wrote many of the ASTM thermal testing protocols. All of them tailor their curriculums to the same ASNT SNT-TC-1A guidelines. Completing a Level I course from any of them will make a good start for going out into the real world and really learning thermography. Just like completeing a TREC school is just a start at learning how to inspect homes.

On the subject of being a "certified" thermographer. The only national standards body that certifies thermographers is ASNT and that is only for Level III. For Level I and II, the certification standards and the process is delegated to the employer. That's fine for Chevron Oil but is kind of tough for sole proprietors like you and me to do, therefore the schools confer a psuedo certification in place of the employer because after we spend $1700, we expect to get some kind of title to stick after our names.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by rdawes

True as far as it goes. But who are you or I to say which is best,

You said yourself that a live course is better. What's the problem?

especially if you have only sampled one? I have taken plenty of classroom classes where I would have been MUCH better off just doing it on my own. I am not saying that is the case for the course that you took for 3 reasons (1) ITC has an excellent reputation and (2) I wasn't there and would not presume to pass judgment on something I did not experience first hand, and (3) you were there and gave it high marks.

Ditto

All the major schools are good. ITC is large and has the money of FLIR behind it, Snell has been around since thermography was in its infancy, and Infraspection wrote many of the ASTM thermal testing protocols. All of them tailor their curriculums to the same ASNT SNT-TC-1A guidelines. Completing a Level I course from any of them will make a good start for going out into the real world and really learning thermography. Just like completeing a TREC school is just a start at learning how to inspect homes.

The ITC course I recommend is for the Building Science Certification,
which was made for the inspection industry.

On the subject of being a "certified" thermographer. The only national standards body that certifies thermographers is ASNT and that is only for Level III. For Level I and II, the certification standards and the process is delegated to the employer. That's fine for Chevron Oil but is kind of tough for sole proprietors like you and me to do, therefore the schools confer a psuedo certification in place of the employer because after we spend $1700, we expect to get some kind of title to stick after our names.

The demand for thermography in the home inspection industry has created
a need for custom training design and a course for the need of inspectors.
Your implied disrespect for the term "certified" thermographer betrays
even a greater need for a person to receive a very creditable training course,
in order to make sure that their "certification" has some weight to it.
ITC and FLIR offer more credibility to the inspector than a home
study course IMHO.

But if someone does not go that route, then I wish them all the best.
As you say "a live course is better".

All the best.

[rdawes]

OK John, you win. Taking the course you took from the school you used is the only good way, all else is junk. Not a lot of H left in your O is there?

BTW, I highly respect Certified thermographers but the simple fact is the only ones that are tested and certified by a national standards body are Level III. The Level I and IIs are "certified" by the employers or the schools. John Snell wrote a good paper called Certified or certified. If I can find it, I'll post it.

Suppose TREC delegated ITA and other home inspector schools to license inspectors using standards the schools established based on guidelines set by TREC and then did nothing to monitor the schools? We would have to trust that they all did a good job of establishing and applying standards to their graduates would we not? For the home inspection business that would not likely work very well.

Fortunately ITC, Snell, and Infraspection (and some other smaller schools) all do an excellent job of following the ASNT guidelines and carrying that thru to their classes and tests leading to the school "certifications". If they did not, the big employers of thermographers would not continue to send students to them. The thermography training market is self regulated by the big customers who demand quality for their money. After I take the proctored test in a couple weeks I will add the certified thermographer to my tag line because it is an accomplishment to be proud of. And I'll bet that my Level I test is just as thorough as yours was. If it wasn't, then Shell, Chevron, GE, GM etc would have pounded on my school till it was or pulled all of their students out and it would cease to exist. ITC, Snell, and Infraspection all have been around a long time and have excellent reputations with the big customers. Their continued existance demands quality.

One last thing and then I'm done with this thread. I need to clarify the quote you keep throwing back at me. When I said "While a live class is better..." it was in the context of which way is easier for most people to learn from NOT which has the better class material or is the better school or in any other absolute way. Everyone needs to make that decision for him/herself. The interaction with a good live instructor and among students can be very valuable for some people. For those, the classroom approach is "best". For others, it makes little difference and the only thing that's important is the quality of the course material. For those, either way can work equally well. And for some, a classroom is a big distraction and they actually learn much better on self study. Just check out the averages of the SAT scores of the big high schools and compare them to the averages of the home schooled kids. I should have made that plain and it was my mistake for phrasing it as an absolute.

You don't know Mr. Hawley and how he learns, you don't know me. Saying that one method is better or worse for everyone as a statement of fact is not and cannot be accurate.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by dharris

I don't promote anything.
I do believe a person should take proper nationally reconised training and be able to prove that qualification thru proctored testing and provide written documenation on training /experience [ not statements on an afidavid] before he or she call themselves a certified inspector of any kind.

dang it I hit send before spell checking, oh well no spell ck on this one

1) I took and passed the NHIE. All Illinois Inspectors take the state licensng exam, which is the NHIE, with a few added questions with regards to state law. BTW: Around here, so many people have copies of the NHIE, with answer sheets, that the test is considered a joke. So much for "National Standards". Also, BTW, "National Standards" has many meanings.

2) The NACHI exam is also a "National Standard" (just as much as the NHIE is) and is given in a proctored environment when required or asked for.

3) I have attended classes on Thermography given by both Snell and ITC. Their "Certification" is one given by a private company. Don't get me wrong, it is good training, but not a national standard. I learned all about thermography way back in 1979, from courses taken at the University of Chicago. I have forgooten more about the actual physics of thermal imaging than most "instructors" I have met. I still took the classes and learned stuff.

4) The Level I and II classes are only about 25% applicable to home inspectors. That is why I like the Building Science course better.

5) It is possible to know a great deal about building science, residential systems and houses even if you never take a formal course. Almost all the inspectors who worked in Illinois, before licensing, never took a formal class in their life. They were members of two national associations and that was enough. Are you saying that they were not qualified?

6) The "certification" given by the three major national associations have the same worth. This worth is not given by the associations, per say, but by the abilities and hard work of the individual inspectors. I have met inspectors from all associations. Some are really good and some are clueless. Association membership has nothing to do with their qualifications or their knowledge.

These are facts. I am sorry you don't want to recognize reality.

The only one I have to worry about is myself. I exceed the state requirements for state approved CE (last license period, I was required to take 12 hours, but I took 96 hours and taught 12 hours) and the requirements of alll the associations. I don't know how many other inspectors did this, and I really don't care. I am only responsible to myself and my clients.

I also did 5 follow up inspections on inspections performed by members of other associations. In 4 out of those 5, the previous inspector really messed up. On 3 of those 4, I took along a newly licensed inspector (ride along) and the new guy found the things that the previous inspector missed.

It's not about the association or the "certifiecation", its about the individual and how much he cares about the profession.

Hope this helps;

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by rdawes

OK John, you win. Taking the course you took from the school you used is the only good way, all else is junk. Not a lot of H left in your O is there?

BTW, I highly respect Certified thermographers but the simple fact is the only ones that are tested and certified by a national standards body are Level III. The Level I and IIs are "certified" by the employers or the schools. John Snell wrote a good paper called Certified or certified. If I can find it, I'll post it.

Suppose TREC delegated ITA and other home inspector schools to license inspectors using standards the schools established based on guidelines set by TREC and then did nothing to monitor the schools? We would have to trust that they all did a good job of establishing and applying standards to their graduates would we not? For the home inspection business that would not likely work very well.

Fortunately ITC, Snell, and Infraspection (and some other smaller schools) all do an excellent job of following the ASNT guidelines and carrying that thru to their classes and tests leading to the school "certifications". If they did not, the big employers of thermographers would not continue to send students to them. The thermography training market is self regulated by the big customers who demand quality for their money. After I take the proctored test in a couple weeks I will add the certified thermographer to my tag line because it is an accomplishment to be proud of. And I'll bet that my Level I test is just as thorough as yours was. If it wasn't, then Shell, Chevron, GE, GM etc would have pounded on my school till it was or pulled all of their students out and it would cease to exist. ITC, Snell, and Infraspection all have been around a long time and have excellent reputations with the big customers. Their continued existance demands quality.

I never said the other schools were bad, but ITC has an excellent course
that is designed for home inspectors. Level I is a good course, but was
created at a time when thermal imaging had very limited use in the home
inspection market and was geared for the needs of big industry to
monitor and maintain their equipment. When inspecting a home with an
IR camera, the ASNT standards are not needed, because we are
looking for defects and not trying measure a complex of set variables
to identify a moisture spot. We verify it with a moisture meter. This
is just one example why the ASNT standards are not needed for HI.

One last thing and then I'm done with this thread. I need to clarify the quote you keep throwing back at me. When I said "While a live class is better..." it was in the context of which way is easier for most people to learn from NOT which has the better class material or is the better school or in any other absolute way. Everyone needs to make that decision for him/herself. The interaction with a good live instructor and among students can be very valuable for some people. For those, the classroom approach is "best". For others, it makes little difference and the only thing that's important is the quality of the course material. For those, either way can work equally well. And for some, a classroom is a big distraction and they actually learn much better on self study. Just check out the averages of the SAT scores of the big high schools and compare them to the averages of the home schooled kids. I should have made that plain and it was my mistake for phrasing it as an absolute.

You don't know Mr. Hawley and how he learns, you don't know me. Saying that one method is better or worse for everyone as a statement of fact is not and cannot be accurate.

The live ITC course had experiments and participation in difficult
applications to stretch the students mind to think beyond the books.
It was a class of education and field experiments that was very good.

I have met ITC thermographers who have been called as an expert
witnesses and their ITC certification helped them in court. I just don't
put much stock in a home study course that does not allow for interactions,
field experiments, and a live instructor fielding discussion questions during
the entire process.

If you handed me the building science book and said it was just as good
as the live course, I would beg to disagree. The teacher can make all the
difference in the world.

There is a difference between reading a book and participating
in the training of a master while working together in the field, plus
having read the book. The Building Science Course is not designed
to help a person to just pass a test, but to use the live training
to apply the IR camera in the real world of inspecting.

Some courses are for learning facts, and some are for applying a
trade in the real world.

But to each his own. Your milage may vary.

[William J. Decker]

I totallu agree with John's comments.

This is a new technology for home inspectors. National Certifiecation groups are way behind the leading edge as far as training. ITC does the best job, so far.