How specific do you get about identifying branch wiring?

[mellison]

Do you identify the distribution circuits by their general type in your reports? We have been going as far as "copper", "aluminum ...", "K&T ..."
It's on the table for our office to describe the method or type
e.g.
Cloth sheathed two or three wire with no ground:
Cloth sheathed cable with ground:
Cloth sheathed aluminum cable with ground:
Plastic sheathed copper cable with ground: etc.

While this is an SOP question, I'm more concerned about the SOC.

Cheers,

Mark

[Jeffrey R. Jonas]

Originally Posted by mellison

Do you identify the distribution circuits by their general type in your reports? We have been going as far as "copper", "aluminum ...", "K&T ..."
It's on the table for our office to describe the method or type
e.g.
Cloth sheathed two or three wire with no ground:
Cloth sheathed cable with ground:
Cloth sheathed aluminum cable with ground:
Plastic sheathed copper cable with ground: etc.

While this is an SOP question, I'm more concerned about the SOC.

Cheers,

Mark

Is it your office, or your "jurisdiction" that is considering the change? It sound as if someone is reacting to paranoia over a lawsuit. There is no harm in changing, just that once you do, your remove a lot of layers of protection in your report. Stick to what you are already doing. Inspectors have a tendancy to 'overthink' things, and we just make an issue worse than it was originally.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by jjonas

Is it your office, or your "jurisdiction" that is considering the change? It sound as if someone is reacting to paranoia over a lawsuit. There is no harm in changing, just that once you do, your remove a lot of layers of protection in your report. Stick to what you are already doing. Inspectors have a tendancy to 'overthink' things, and we just make an issue worse than it was originally.

I agree with Jeffery, If it is not broke why fix it .
Too many get reports with too much information ,and they continue to get longer ... Roy

[mellison]

Originally Posted by jjonas

Is it your office, or your "jurisdiction" that is considering the change? It sound as if someone is reacting to paranoia over a lawsuit. There is no harm in changing, just that once you do, your remove a lot of layers of protection in your report. Stick to what you are already doing. Inspectors have a tendancy to 'overthink' things, and we just make an issue worse than it was originally.

I understand Jeffrey, here's a little background - Our office operates under the CAHPI SOP and as an employee I must follow the office policy. CAHPI says the method must be reported. Anyway CAHPI has just included the reporting on the presence of AL (they're behind us on this). This has prompted the question and since I don't have access to CAHPI members and because I'm a curious bugger I thought I'd ask our gang.

Thanks

[Jeffrey R. Jonas]

I understand, and I cannot speak for anything Canadian, but as an HI in general, I don't see why you can't report the presence of AL without having to report the "conductor type". If it has AL, it shouldn't matter on the form it is in, other than solid or multi-strand. I see this as two different line items that have no bearing on each other.

Sorry I couldn't assist you more.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by mellison

I understand Jeffrey, here's a little background - Our office operates under the CAHPI SOP and as an employee I must follow the office policy. CAHPI says the method must be reported. Anyway CAHPI has just included the reporting on the presence of AL (they're behind us on this). This has prompted the question and since I don't have access to CAHPI members and because I'm a curious bugger I thought I'd ask our gang.

Thanks

Check your Mail copy of the Cahpi sop should arrive shortly ... Roy

[mellison]

Originally Posted by rcooke

Check your Mail copy of the Cahpi sop should arrive shortly ... Roy

Thanks Roy. This has come about because OAHI is aligning the SOP more with CAHPI's. CAHPIS SOP states the inspector shall describe wiring methods. I'm going to post this over on the Canadian board.

[mellison]

Originally Posted by jjonas

I understand, and I cannot speak for anything Canadian, but as an HI in general, I don't see why you can't report the presence of AL without having to report the "conductor type". If it has AL, it shouldn't matter on the form it is in, other than solid or multi-strand. I see this as two different line items that have no bearing on each other.

Sorry I couldn't assist you more.

Thanks, I agree whole heartedly Jeffrey. Thats why I'm reaching out here. It appears our Provincial assoc. sees the need for this but I don't.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by mellison

Thanks Roy. This has come about because OAHI is aligning the SOP more with CAHPI's. CAHPIS SOP states the inspector shall describe wiring methods. I'm going to post this over on the Canadian board.

Both CAHPI and OAHI have used the ASHI SOP from the get go I also sent you the 2012 isue and it is a few years old .
I see little or no changes ..
Roy Glad to help.

[Bob Elliott]

I have always identified branch wiring as observed from the panel,as by making it a habit to identify them, cloth conductors will not be missed.