Do you think ICC should be req for HI's??

[Joe Farsetta]

John,

Yoga for me would be a frightening sight for any spectator.

My point in this is that you'd better bone-up on what constitutes SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, and believe it can be used to fry you, because it CAN.

Also, the applicability of codes varies from location to location. You, even with ICC certs, could not be hired by any municipality here in NY, as you do not know the applicability of those codes in NY. You would be required to take 5 classes, with 5 exams,, and follow it up with a general exam for civil service purposes.

So, which specific codes should we know? You say we had BETTER know them. Which ones? Are they universally applicable? I have proven that they are not. For that matter, even in NJ, which adopted the 2005 NEC, does not enforce the requirment of having ARC Fault in new construction. NY State is on the 1999 NEC. NY City uses its own version, much more restrictive, by the way. In NYC and surrounding counties it serves, Consolidated Edison is the ultimate AHJ for gas and electric, and they have their own, specific rules, which may also run contrary to NEC rules and regs. Up until 2 years ago, no new electrical wiring in NYC could be non-metallic sheathed cabling. They recently changed that rule.

So, which regs should we know?

[jcundiff]

Joe

Without a doubt, the regs you should know are the regs in affect in your area. I don't think we disagree here. I suppose I could narrow my scope and say that HI's should become proficient in ICC if they do business in ICC state / municipality, and the contrary. However, I did not feel the obvious had to be stated.

My thoughts about ICC are founded on my experience in HI testing. Its more a commentary on tests I suppose. I have taken most commercially available HI tests and found them all to be fairly micky mouse, including nachi's. (please dont take that as a shot nachi members. the test serves it's intended purpose) Granted, I have not taken tests offered by individual states for licensing. One hopes they are more rigorous than those offered by any of the four major HI groups. I just see ICC as a widely accepted, commercially attainable, fairly proctored and unbiased means of certifying construction and housing professionals.

As far as special knowledge is concerned, I'm not sure of what you are stating here. Please don't preach that I'd better studying case law, especially if it's NY specific. I've taught HI, Appraisal, and Code in Ohio for a number of years and have butted heads with some of the most arrogant sob's- including the "best" professional witnesses ASHI had to offer. I know the scoop. Here's the question- at least in Ohio.. "are you a housing expert?" If the answer is yes, then forget about narrowing the scope, you've got it all baby! Thing is... if the answer is no, then one should reconsider being in the inspection business.

[rstrahan]

Originally Posted by jcundiff

I have not taken tests offered by individual states for licensing. One hopes they are more rigorous than those offered by any of the four major HI groups.

First time pass rate on Texas exam runs a little under 30%.

Originally Posted by jcundiff

I just see ICC as a widely accepted, commercially attainable, fairly proctored and unbiased means of certifying construction and housing professionals.

For construction professionals, agreed. But for housing, looking at buildings constructed over decades of varying codes and focusing on CONDITION reporting, code doesn't help much. This is where nothing can replace experience.

Russell in BubbaLand

[Robert J. OConnor]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Yoga for me would be a frightening sight for any spectator.

ROTFL ... Yea, maybe the fly fishing might be a better option ...

[Robert J. OConnor]

Originally Posted by jcundiff

I just see ICC as a widely accepted, commercially attainable, fairly proctored and unbiased means of certifying construction and housing professionals.

Originally Posted by rstrahan

For construction professionals, agreed. But for housing, looking at buildings constructed over decades of varying codes and focusing on CONDITION reporting, code doesn't help much. This is where nothing can replace experience.

Ditto. But I stick by my comments that HI's should have at least a working knowledge of basic model residential code provisions to assist in identifying installation related defects or recommended safety improvements.

A perfect example is an older home without GFCI receptacles in wet/damp areas, or smoke alarms throughout (the two biggest life savers ever added to the residential codes in my opinion). It may not be a legal requirement to have them everywhere current codes would dictate ... but I would use current construction standards (aka the dreaded "C" word) as a guide for "recommended safety improvements" to be installed by a licensed specialist (in accordance with all applicable local installation requirements).

JMO & 2-nickels ...

[jcundiff]

Russell- I couldnt agree more. Nothing can replace experience.

Roconnor- I too, am a gfci zealot. I dont care how old the structure is- at $13 a piece /$35 installed, gfci's are a real no-brainer. Of course- i do not cite it as a code issue, i cite it as a "don't be stupid" issue.

[Joe Farsetta]

So Big John,

It seems that we do agree in principal, but take a slightly different path at getting there.

No argument on recommendations....

[Justin Watts]

Good posts...

As for GFCI's and Smoke Alarms, I think States should make them "MANDATORY" for all residences newer or older....

In California, if you ride a motorcycle you must wear a helmet, well people get electrocuted and houses burn down.. so why not require these simple devices....

Water heaters in California are required to be strapped by the State Architect before any home is Sold... so why don't they require smoke alarms and detectors...

www.americandreamhomeinspection.net

[Nick Gromicko]

http://www.nachi.org/codecertifiedwarning.htm

[Gregory A. Liebig]

Originally Posted by gbeaumont

Hi to all,

Richard, I can see many advantages to HI's becomming ICC certified especiallyin this state where the law allows 3rd party inspections for most permitted construction.

Wisconsin uses UDC. Does anyone know the differences between that and ICC??

[Greg Bell]

The difference is that UDC was developed specifically for your state. Just the same as the FBC was designed for the state of Florida. The FBC was taken from the IRC with some corrections for state specific items (wind).