# inspections



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

This isn't the inspector's fault. It's not his duty to know whether a panel manufacturer makes a specific breaker. It is the homeowner's duty to know both code and available products. 

I spend a lot of my time looking into products to make sure they will work properly. One of the first things I would do in a renovation is make sure that the old panel can handle the required AFCI's. If not, I would either suggest changing the panel or make the provisions to use the appropriate cable to the first device.

Everyone wants to be an electrician, until it's time to do real electrical work.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> This isn't the inspector's fault. It's not his duty to know whether a panel manufacturer makes a specific breaker. It is the homeowner's duty to know both code and available products.
> 
> I spend a lot of my time looking into products to make sure they will work properly. *One of the first things I would do in a renovation is make sure that the old panel can handle the required AFCI's. If not, I would either suggest changing the panel or make the provisions to use the appropriate cable to the first device.
> *
> Everyone wants to be an electrician, until it's time to do real electrical work.



This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

To the OP, you can't sue the government... nor any of its agents when working in a lawful manner.

This dictum is valid under English common law going back many centuries.

It is operative in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and America... naturally.

BTW, if you think this is something -- wait until the tax authorities flip-flop on your tax return.

You can't sue them, and they don't have to even remain consistent, nor obey// recognize rulings made by other IRS officials WRT to your situation in the past. They'll just say, "He screwed up. Now here's what you really owe."

This ^^^^ happens all the time, BTW.

It shakes your faith in government, no ?


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Atheist1 said:


> what happens when an inspector fails in his duties ? A home owner does a rough in with a permit, the inspector goes in and approves the rough in but later gives a deficiency on the code and bulletin requirement for ARC fault requirements for receptacles. the inspector failed to notify the owner of the deficiency due to having an FPE panel, which because of the new requirements that ARC fault breakers need to be combination, FPE does not make them because they are out of business. Bulletin 26-18 requires that the branch circuit conductors going directly from the overcurrent protection, be protected from mechanical damage by three methods. 1 is BX and the other 2 are with metallic or non metallic conduit. Subsequently, the first receptacle that feeds the rest of the circuit would be a combination ARC fault receptacle. The inspector not having informed the homeowner and telling him he could go ahead and closed the walls has now issued a deficiency after the walls are all closed and painted. I believe he did this on purpose due to not liking the fact that a homeowner can take out their own permit so long as they do the work themselves, which is absolute nonsense to begin with !!!any thought ???


I feel soooo bad for the homeowner :no:

What's your role in all this ??


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

emtnut said:


> I feel soooo bad for the homeowner :no:
> 
> What's your role in all this ??


construction maintenance :laughing:


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

HackWork said:


> construction maintenance :laughing:


I still would have helped him ... if he was catholic :jester:

I think he may have left


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

thanks for the empathy, you guys are awesome !!!


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

HackWork said:


> construction maintenance :laughing:


....and another one bites the dust!


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

HackWork said:


> This isn't the inspector's fault. It's not his duty to know whether a panel manufacturer makes a specific breaker. It is the homeowner's duty to know both code and available products.
> 
> I spend a lot of my time looking into products to make sure they will work properly. One of the first things I would do in a renovation is make sure that the old panel can handle the required AFCI's. If not, I would either suggest changing the panel or make the provisions to use the appropriate cable to the first device.
> 
> *Everyone wants to be an electrician, until it's time to do real electrical work.*


Yeah man!


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

emtnut said:


> I still would have helped him ... if he was catholic :jester:
> 
> I think he may have left




Since when are you racist?


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

the inspector is supposed to provide a deficiency report when doing a rough in inspection. He sais everything was good and he could proceed. It is absolutely the inspectors duty to inform the permit holder of deficiencies which includes contractors, the ESA makes policy !!! The are the enforcement and they must perform their duties in accordance to their own regulations. The inspectors of different sectors are very well informed of ALL deficient methods, materials, and manufactured products !!!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> thanks for the empathy, you guys are awesome !!!


The only empathy we should be giving is to the inspector that you are putting blame on for absolutely no reason.

Sorry that we don't have empathy for homeowners and handymen who want to do electrical work to save a dollar and end up not being able to do it right.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> the inspector is supposed to provide a deficiency report when doing a rough in inspection.


 There was no deficiency. I explained why. Just because you don't like the answer, it doesn't mean that it's not true.



> He sais everything was good and he could proceed. It is absolutely the inspectors duty to inform the permit holder of deficiencies which includes contractors, the ESA makes policy !!! The are the enforcement and they must perform their duties in accordance to their own regulations. The inspectors of different sectors are very well informed of ALL deficient methods, materials, and manufactured products !!!


Again, it is NOT his problem to wonder if the panel could accept those specific breakers. AFCI breakers are not required during the rough inspection, so there was no deficiency.


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

HackWork said:


> The only empathy we should be giving is to the inspector that you are putting blame on for absolutely no reason.
> 
> Sorry that we don't have empathy for homeowners and handymen who want to do electrical work to save a dollar and end up not being able to do it right.


This was a change that was note part of the code, it was a bulletin which the homeowner would not have known. But I see very clearly what this site is about and I will leave you to your sanctimonious rhetoric !!!


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Atheist1 said:


> the inspector is supposed to provide a deficiency report when doing a rough in inspection. He sais everything was good and he could proceed. It is absolutely the inspectors duty to inform the permit holder of deficiencies which includes contractors, the ESA makes policy !!! The are the enforcement and they must perform their duties in accordance to their own regulations. The inspectors of different sectors are very well informed of ALL deficient methods, materials, and manufactured products !!!



File a formal complaint

Give it a few weeks , and if they ignore you, take it by hand into your local inspectors office, walk on_ past_ the inspector who didn't do his job, slap it on his boss's desk

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> This was a change that was note part of the code, it was a bulletin which the homeowner would not have known. But I see very clearly what this site is about and I will leave you to your sanctimonious rhetoric !!!


The point went right over your head. It's the homeowner's responsibility to know this change. It is NOT the inspector's job to train people on how to do electrical work.

As I said earlier, knowing these things is part of being an electrical contractor. Maybe this will teach both you and the homeowner that there is more to it than white to white and black to black. But probably not, you seem like you will continue to blame everyone else...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> File a formal complaint
> 
> Give it a few weeks , and if they ignore you, take it by hand into your local inspectors office, walk on_ past_ the inspector who didn't do his job, slap it on his boss's desk
> 
> ~CS~


And say what, Steve?

"The inspector didn't tell us how to do proper electrical work, we want him fired!!!"


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

1. If the inspector was there to inspect the rough in a renovated area of a home that really wouldn't entail looking at an existing panel in many cases.

2. The inspector is there to make sure things are code compliant at that part of the job.

3. It isn't the inspectors job to tell you what has to be done to finish the job.

Whoever pulled the permit should have made sure the work they intended to do was up to code before proceeding. This is why it's best to hire a licensed electrician.

Sounds like the panel change should have been a part of the scope of the job in this case.

Down here I can't think of anyone that does any electrical reno and leaves an FPE panel.


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

HackWork said:


> There was no deficiency. I explained why. Just because you don't like the answer, it doesn't mean that it's not true.
> 
> 
> Again, it is NOT his problem to wonder if the panel could accept those specific breakers. AFCI breakers are not required during the rough inspection, so there was no deficiency.


the conductors to the first receptacle from the panel was a deficiency due to not being able to provide arc fault protection from the panel. They are well aware of that and he was negligent in his duty to inform the permit holder !!! Again, the ESA makes policy, they ARE in charge and they HAVE a responsibility.....


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Atheist1 said:


> This was a change that was note part of the code, it was a bulletin which the homeowner would not have known. But I see very clearly what this site is about and I will leave you to your sanctimonious rhetoric !!!


Yee of little faith.


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

HackWork said:


> *breakers are not required during the rough inspection*, so there was no deficiency.


Precisely!
:thumbup:


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Atheist1 said:


> the conductors to the first receptacle from the panel was a deficiency due to not being able to provide arc fault protection from the panel. They are well aware of that and he was negligent in his duty to inform the permit holder !!! Again, the ESA makes policy, they ARE in charge and they HAVE a responsibility.....


Is the inspector a psychic and supposed to know that you aren't installing the proper breakers in the EXISTING panel?

As you were asked previously what is your role in this job?

Are you actually an electrician?

Are you actually the homeowner?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> the conductors to the first receptacle from the panel was a deficiency due to not being able to provide arc fault protection from the panel.


 For the 3rd time, the inspector isn't there to know if a panel manufacturer makes a certain type of breaker. It is up to the person doing the electrical work to conform to code and all requirements as well as to make sure that the equipment is available or make no arrangements.



> They are well aware of that and he was negligent in his duty to inform the permit holder !!! Again, the ESA makes policy, they ARE in charge and they HAVE a responsibility.....


He wasn't negligent, and you are an idiot.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MechanicalDVR said:


> *Is the inspector a psychic and supposed to know that you aren't installing the proper breakers in the EXISTING panel?*
> 
> As you were asked previously what is your role in this job?
> 
> ...


His complaint is that the inspector should have known whether the proper AFCI breakers are available for that particular panel. Which, as you and I know, isn't the job of the inspector.

There is no getting thru to him, he is just looking for someone to blame and will never be able to look at it reasonably.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Is the inspector a psychic and supposed to know that you aren't installing the proper breakers in the EXISTING panel?
> 
> As you were asked previously what is your role in this job?
> 
> ...


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

it is not the electricians job to do the inspectors job, inspections would not be required if that were the case. The inspector has to inspect conductors coming from the panel to feed circuits and is aware of all deficiencies. He didn't tell the permit holder because the inspector is a prick !!!


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Is the inspector a psychic and supposed to know that you aren't installing the proper breakers in the EXISTING panel?
> 
> As you were asked previously what is your role in this job?
> 
> ...


I am a friend of the homeowner and an electrician. The proper breakers that they amended the code for, does not exist for this panel and the home owner would not have known that because it was a bulletin. A bulletin that the inspector would have been well aware of !!!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> I am a friend of the homeowner and an electrician. The proper breakers that they amended the code for, does not exist for this panel and the home owner would not have known that because it was a bulletin. A bulletin that the inspector would have been well aware of !!!


For the last time:

1) It is the homeowner's duty and responsibility to be aware of all codes, rules, regulations, etc.

2) It is NOT the inspector's responsibility to teach, train, or educate ignorant and unqualified people.

3) You are NOT an electrician.


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

HackWork said:


> For the last time:
> 
> 1) It is the homeowner's duty and responsibility to be aware of all codes, rules, regulations, etc.
> 
> ...


I am an electrician and you ARE a prick !!!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> I am an electrician and you ARE a prick !!!


Please do us all a favor, don't put off your suicide.


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Please do us all a favor, don't put off your suicide.


Let me guess, you're American right ???


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Atheist1 said:


> I am a friend of the homeowner and an electrician. The proper breakers that they amended the code for, does not exist for this panel and the home owner would not have known that because it was a bulletin. *A bulletin that the inspector would have been well aware of* !!!


He referred you to the bulletin, because he knows you don't have a code book.
The AFCI rules are very clear in both the CEC and OESC books.

Moot point, why don't you change his panel for him ?


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Atheist1 said:


> Let me guess, you're American right ???


Let me guess ... You're a homeowner, right ?? :laughing:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> Let me guess, you're American right ???


I am going to make a much better Canadian than you.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

HackWork said:


> I am going to make a much better Canadian than you.


And a better looking one too


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

emtnut said:


> He referred you to the bulletin, because he knows you don't have a code book.
> The AFCI rules are very clear in both the CEC and OESC books.
> 
> Moot point, why don't you change his panel for him ?


The AFCI breakers are in the code, and were supplied, the ESA changed the code to require CAFCI breakers, which FPE did not make. The bulletin was in reference to FPE not having that protection and to provide other wiring method.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Since when are you racist?


Just because I live in an all white town, with all Catholics, doesn't make me a racist :blink:

:laughing:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> The AFCI breakers are in the code, and were supplied, the ESA changed the code to require CAFCI breakers, which FPE did not make. The bulletin was in reference to FPE not having that protection and to provide other wiring method.


How many more times do you need to be told that the person doing the electrical work (the homeowner in this case) is responsible to know the codes and keep up with the bulletins? It's not the inspector's job to train and tech unqualified people.

I am not giving up on you, I WILL make you understand this simple truth.


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

Atheist1 said:


> The AFCI breakers are in the code, and were supplied, the ESA changed the code to require CAFCI breakers, which FPE did not make. The bulletin was in reference to FPE not having that protection and to provide other wiring method.


The ridiculousness of the rule is that, the upstream conductors have no bearing on the AFCI protection that the receptacle provides, making the requirement to have those conductors in armoured cable or raceway, nonsense.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> The ridiculousness of the rule is that, the upstream conductors have no bearing on the AFCI protection that the receptacle provides, making the requirement to have those conductors in armoured cable or raceway, nonsense.


Since the upstream conductors aren't protected by the AFCI, they are required to have extra physical protection.

Do you know an electrician who can teach you these things?


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

emtnut said:


> Just because I live in an all white town, with all Catholics, doesn't make me a racist :blink:
> 
> :laughing:


no, according to Justin trudeau, you qualify as being a racist !!! lol


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> the conductors to the first receptacle from the panel was a deficiency due to not being able to provide arc fault protection from the panel. They are well aware of that and he was negligent in his duty to inform the permit holder !!! Again, the ESA makes policy, they ARE in charge and they HAVE a responsibility.....


So, you’re really telling us you’re getting all worked up for what reason:
1. YOUR the homeowner?
2. You think that its the inspectors job to notify EVERYONE of EVERY product in Ontario?
3. Maybe next time suggest going on *THIS* open to the public ESA page next time?


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Since the upstream conductors aren't protected by the AFCI, they are required to have extra physical protection.
> 
> Do you know an electrician who can teach you these things?


straight from an idiots mouth. So all other conductors fed from the panel to any device should be mechanically protected in your mind ? The upstream conductors from the CAFCI protection has no bearing on the effectiveness of that protection...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> straight from an idiots mouth. So all other conductors fed from the panel to any device should be mechanically protected in your mind ?


 All other conductors are grandfathered and don't require AFCI protection (or extra physical protection).



> The upstream conductors from the CAFCI protection has no bearing on the effectiveness of that protection...


I agree, it doesn't, I never said it did.

The fact that you don't understand what I clearly explained shows that you most certainly aren't an electrician.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Atheist1 said:


> The AFCI breakers are in the code, and were supplied, the ESA changed the code to require CAFCI breakers, which FPE did not make. The bulletin was in reference to FPE not having that protection and to provide other wiring method.


What ?????

I quote from the bulletin ...

*Prior to the 2015 OESC*, the only type of AFCI device mandated was the Branch AFCI breaker. Branch AFCI breakers only provide arcing protection against parallel faults and are no longer permitted by the OESC. The OESC now requires a Combination type AFCI; a device that provides both series and parallel arc fault protection to the entire branch circuit wiring, including cord sets and power supply cords connected to the outlets, against the unwanted effects of arcing. CAFI type breakers are marked as “Combination Type Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter” or “Combination Type AFCI”.


Are you a homeowner working off the 2012 code book


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> He didn't tell the permit holder because the inspector is a prick !!!





Atheist1 said:


> I am an electrician and you ARE a prick !!!


Great @HackWork is now an inspector! :laughing:


Atheist1 said:


> The AFCI breakers are in the code, and were supplied, *the ESA changed the code* to require CAFCI breakers, which FPE did not make. The bulletin was in reference to FPE not having that protection and to provide other wiring method.


Incorrect! It was changed in the CANADIAN electrical code, not just the Ontario electrical code.




Atheist1 said:


> The ridiculousness of the rule is that, the upstream conductors have no bearing on the AFCI protection that the receptacle provides, making the requirement to have those conductors in armoured cable or raceway, nonsense.


So.... Why not just do YOUR job add the required protection ?:thumbsup:

Do us all a favour and put your mom on, maybe she can pet your head while she explains how the real world works.:thumbup:


----------



## Drsparky14 (Oct 22, 2016)

Atheist1 said:


> it is not the electricians job to do the inspectors job, inspections would not be required if that were the case. The inspector has to inspect conductors coming from the panel to feed circuits and is aware of all deficiencies. He didn't tell the permit holder because the inspector is a prick !!!




No, actually the inspector did his job. It is the person wiring the building whom should have done enough research to know the code. The inspector doesn't know they don't make AFCI breakers for an FP panel. Nor does he care. It is your job as the guy wiring he place to find a way to make it meet code. So change the panel and now it meets code. Done. Why are you even complaining about something so simple and straight forward? Do you feel like you need validation? Do you feel entitled to free electrical advice? Just hire an electrification or do your research and wire it yourself. But seriously research before you complain. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

HackWork said:


> All other conductors are grandfathered and don't require AFCI protection (or extra physical protection).
> 
> 
> I agree, it doesn't, I never said it did.
> ...


NO, the other conductors are NOT grandfathered... The code has not changed for them. Maybe you should do a little research yourself !!


----------



## Drsparky14 (Oct 22, 2016)

Atheist1 said:


> NO, the other conductors are NOT grandfathered... The code has not changed for them. Maybe you should do a little research yourself !!




Face palm....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> NO, the other conductors are NOT grandfathered... The code has not changed for them. Maybe you should do a little research yourself !!


This thread delivers :thumbsup:


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> NO, the other conductors are NOT grandfathered... The code has not changed for them. Maybe you should do a little research yourself !!


Incorrect once again, if the circuit is NOT being altered, it is NOT required to be CAFI protected.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1, you are right, I am just stupid. I don't even know how to hookup 2 motion detectors to a set of lights


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Atheist1 said:


> *NO, the other conductors are NOT grandfathered*... The code has not changed for them. Maybe you should do a little research yourself !!


Wow ... I got A LOT of jobs to go back to


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

The_Modifier said:


> Do us all a favour and put your mom on, maybe she can pet your head while she explains how the real world works.:thumbup:


:laughing:

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

Drsparky14 said:


> No, actually the inspector did his job. It is the person wiring the building whom should have done enough research to know the code. The inspector doesn't know they don't make AFCI breakers for an FP panel. Nor does he care. It is your job as the guy wiring he place to find a way to make it meet code. So change the panel and now it meets code. Done. Why are you even complaining about something so simple and straight forward? Do you feel like you need validation? Do you feel entitled to free electrical advice? Just hire an electrification or do your research and wire it yourself. But seriously research before you complain.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


LMAO, The inspection department makes policy, they are the ones who put out the bulletin. Every inspector is required to know these changes and are well informed, you know why ??? Because they are the INSPECTORS, they ensure code is followed by what means ??? INSPECTIONS !!! If everyone that took out a permit knew all the codes and regs and methods, inspectors would not be required !!!


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

emtnut said:


> :laughing:
> 
> :lol::lol::lol:


My mom passed away several years ago from cancer !!!


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> So all other conductors fed from the panel to any device should be mechanically protected in your mind ?


Yes they are required to be mechanically protected AND supported properly.

*HERE* for the next house you try and burn down.

Side note:
I find it humorous that someone arguing with a bunch of professional never clues into who the actual common denominator of the problem is. Or in the words of my mentors: "Never argue with a fool, other people may not know the difference.:thumbup:


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

Atheist1 said:


> My mom passed away several years ago from cancer !!!


but thank you for your comment !!!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> LMAO, The inspection department makes policy, they are the ones who put out the bulletin. Every inspector is required to know these changes and are well informed, you know why ??? Because they are the INSPECTORS, they ensure code is followed by what means ??? INSPECTIONS !!! If everyone that took out a permit knew all the codes and regs and methods, inspectors would not be required !!!


That's not true and it's downright idiotic.

Everyone doing electrical work is expected to know every code and regulation applicable to the installation they are performing. 

Inspectors are there to INSPECT, not to teach or train.


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> My mom passed away several years ago from cancer !!!


Same here, 21 years ago this past April. Care to drop another symapthy or hard done by card???

She is also the reason I got into the trade as well.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Atheist1 said:


> LMAO, The inspection department makes policy, they are the ones who put out the bulletin. Every inspector is required to know these changes and are well informed, you know why ??? Because they are the INSPECTORS, they ensure code is followed by what means ??? INSPECTIONS !!! If everyone that took out a permit knew all the codes and regs and methods, inspectors would not be required !!!


Without permits and Inspectors, NONE of us would install AFCIs :laughing:

Sorry to break the news to you ... but they don't prevent arcs :whistling2:

They make mfr's a lot of money thou ...


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

HackWork said:


> That's not true and it's downright idiotic.
> 
> Everyone doing electrical work is expected to know every code and regulation applicable to the installation they are performing.
> 
> Inspectors are there to INSPECT, not to teach or train.


it's absolutely true !!!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> it's absolutely true !!!


I know, that's why I said it.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Atheist1 said:


> My mom passed away several years ago from cancer !!!


Sorry that you will never see her again.

When I die, I'll say Hi for you


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

emtnut said:


> Without permits and Inspectors, NONE of us would install AFCIs :laughing:
> 
> Sorry to break the news to you ... but they don't prevent arcs :whistling2:
> 
> They make mfr's a lot of money thou ...


how do you know this ?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> how do you know this ?


Because he keeps up with electrical stuff, like someone doing electrical work should do :whistling2:


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> LMAO, The inspection department makes policy, they are the ones who put out the bulletin.


Incorrect. Please see a previous post- if you're even FULLY reading them. 

Or is he just trying to get his post count up?




Atheist1 said:


> Every inspector is required to know these changes and are well informed


As are the installers:


> As an Ontario electrical professional it is your responsibility to stay up-to-date on any revisions or rule interpretations made to the Ontario Electrical Safety Code after you purchase your copy. Bulletins are included with your purchase and will be published electronically on CSA Communities after they are released by ESA.


 *LINK*




Atheist1 said:


> you know why ??? Because they are the INSPECTORS, they ensure code is followed by what means ??? INSPECTIONS !!! If everyone that took out a permit knew all the codes and regs and methods, inspectors would not be required !!!


Once again check out the handy *LINK*.


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Because he keeps up with electrical stuff, like someone doing electrical work should do :whistling2:


OH I see, so you knew that arc fault breakers don't actually work ?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> OH I see, so you knew that arc fault breakers don't actually work ?


Yes, we have been talking about it for years now. And before you embarrass yourself again by saying that's not true, I would suggest you look back to the threads over the last 5-6 years in which we posted about it.


----------



## Atheist1 (Oct 26, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Yes, we have been talking about it for years now. And before you embarrass yourself again by saying that's not true, I would suggest you look back to the threads over the last 5-6 years in which we posted about it.


I see, so you know more than CSA and the ESA and the Engineers who design them ? Good for you, look at you being all smart!!!!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Atheist1 said:


> I see, so you know more than CSA and the ESA and the Engineers who design them ? Good for you, look at you being all smart!!!!


Do I know more? probably not. 

Do I know that they were put into code due to the influence (and large envelopes of cash) that the manufacturers had over the people making the decisions? You bet your ass.

Anything else you want to throw at us?


----------



## MikeFL (Apr 16, 2016)

Atheist1 said:


> the conductors to the first receptacle from the panel was a deficiency due to not being able to provide arc fault protection from the panel. They are well aware of that and he was negligent in his duty to inform the permit holder !!! Again, the ESA makes policy, they ARE in charge and they HAVE a responsibility.....


Whoever took out that permit is deemed to be qualified to do the installation.

If someone is doing unlicensed work under a homeowner permit, that's what should be looked in to. 

Hire a professional and you won't have these problems. It also makes one wonder what else is wrong.

The inspector is not required to design the job for the homeowner.


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

emtnut said:


> I know, you're just anxious for me to say Hi :thumbsup:
> 
> That's sweet


Only one issue though emtnut, legends don't die.:thumbup:


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Atheist1 said:


> how do you know this ?


He is an electrical professional and not only does he keep current with code and updates he hangs on on professional electrical forums to gain knowledge through the experiences of other professionals in the electrical trade.

Down in the states licensed professionals need to keep current to maintain their licenses.

Only a know-it-all homeowner or very unprofessional electrical worker would read a few code articles and think they are qualified to design and install a wiring system that is code compliant.

As for being 'atheist' while some may have assumed it was a religious thing, now that I read your commentary I see it goes far deeper.

You don't believe in codes, inspectors, the words of seasoned electricians, or much else, very sad.

Prayers that you wake up and see what is right in front of your face.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> And say what, Steve?
> 
> "The inspector didn't tell us how to do proper electrical work, we want him fired!!!"


Say '*I'm going over your head if you can't do your job*'

FWIW, i did ....

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Say '*I'm going over your head if you can't do your job*'
> 
> FWIW, i did ....
> 
> ~CS~


As everyone else except for you and the OP agrees, the inspector did his job.

Do YOU expect your inspector to tell you whether your customer's panel manufacturer makes AFCI's for that particular panel??


----------



## trentonmakes (Mar 21, 2017)

This guy sucks...he is actually making me take the inspectors side!
That is just sooooo wrong!



Texting and Driving


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

It's against the ethics of any inspector to provide remedial training to electrical contractors.

Think of it as if you're handing in your exams to your school teacher.

Is she supposed to fill in your guesses for you -- or is she supposed to grade your work ?

Then there's the matter of time.... 

The inspector is too busy to school you.

He's so pressed that the system is designed as a pass/fail scheme. He doesn't hand out 'B's.

Life is tough all over.


----------



## Drsparky14 (Oct 22, 2016)

Are you seriously calling HackWork a sanctimonious prick? Dude, just no. First of all, as I can very well confirm that he knows his ****. He and I get in code arguments from time to time. We don't always agree but he has code references to back up his claims. He is a smart cookie. But you on the other hand come here and complain saying how wronged you were hoping that you would get a bunch of people agreeing with you and confirming that you are some sort of ****ing victim. Whaaaaa whaaaaaa someone call a ****ing whaaaaambulance for this sociopathic asshole. 

Just so you know, you should probably visit a mental health professional in your area and get some medication and therapy. 

I'm not a doctor or a psychologist but let me point out some key symptoms of a sociopath. 
* Untruthfulness and insincerity

* Lack of remorse and shame

* Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior

* Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience

* Specific loss of insight

* Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated

* Failure to follow any life plan

* Lacks sense of moral responsibility

* Grandiose self image – They might see themselves as someone who is superior to others and sometimes even experiences delusions. A sociopath might see themselves as a fitting ruler of a country or even the world, but might also have delusional beliefs such as seeing themselves as a God or having super powers

* Sensitive to criticism – That said, like all narcissists, the sociopath will desire the approval of others and will be highly sensitive to criticisms. They often feel they deserve adulation and admiration of the world and might feel victimized

* Despotic/Authoritarian – Often the sociopath will see themselves as a necessary authority and will be in favor or totalitarian rule

* Compulsive lying – As part of their facade, and as a means to an end, sociopaths are compulsive liars and will rarely speak truthfully making them hard to pin down

Again I'm not a doctor I'm an electrician and this is just my personal opinion but you should probably seek medical/mental help. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> As everyone else except for you and the OP agrees, the inspector did his job.
> 
> Do YOU expect your inspector to tell you whether your customer's panel manufacturer makes AFCI's for that particular panel??


Yes the AHJ did Hax

When and where they create _malfeasance_ , avenues exist

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Drsparky14 said:


> Again I'm not a doctor I'm an electrician and this is just my personal opinion but you should probably seek medical/mental help.


Oh _puuuulezzze_ Doc , they tell me that here daily....

~C_(armed ,dangerous, and still at large_)S~


----------



## 350X (May 20, 2016)

Professional, huh.....?
Lots of information, here. What would you guys do with a tough client? Start the name calling and drag 'em through the mud?


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

trentonmakes said:


> This guy sucks...he is actually making me take the inspectors side!
> That is just sooooo wrong!


That is my favorite part about this maniac. It's like he went to an Eagles game and made people root for the Cowboys. If he could only harness his power and use it for good. 

While I'm here. Obviously the inspection process is not meant to find every deficiency. If it was the inspector's obligation to find every deficiency, they wouldn't be so fat, but inspections would take days and be very expensive. Most of these guys go years without seeing a crawl space or attic. 

Nobody would ever assume the responsibility of finding every deficiency on an installation. They are there to review and catch what they can. "Passed" doesn't mean perfect, it means nothing was caught. I guarantee if properly motivated I could go through just about any job and find a defect. The rough in inspection isn't a service for your convenience, it's something they demand so they can see what's inside the walls. 

Now around here on big projects electrical contractors do hire third party inspection services to come in ahead of the AHJ inspector. The purpose here is to catch deficiencies before they are hard to correct. Some other contractors will laugh at them for wasting money on something they should know, but when those other contractors get dinged and take a beating on a job who's laughing?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

So never trust a _fat_ inspector or _skinny_ chef....? ~CS~


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Atheist1 said:


> I am an electrician and you ARE a prick !!!


He is right you know....


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

HackWork said:


> Do I know that they were put into code due to the influence (and large envelopes of cash) that the manufacturers had over the people making the decisions? You bet your ass.


I think this is incorrect. They were put in the code because Dennis made them do it.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

MechanicalDVR said:


> 1. If the inspector was there to inspect the rough in a renovated area of a home that really wouldn't entail looking at an existing panel in many cases.
> 
> 2. The inspector is there to make sure things are code compliant at that part of the job.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with emphasis on the FPE panel change needed right
from the get go...they goofed.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

lighterup said:


> I completely agree with emphasis on the FPE panel change needed right
> *from the get go...they goofed*.



:thumbsup:

Some guys are just too smart for their own good.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

telsa said:


> MechanicalDVR said:
> 
> 
> > Is the inspector a psychic and supposed to know that you aren't installing the proper breakers in the EXISTING panel?
> ...


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

Atheist1 said:


> I am an electrician and you ARE a prick !!!


I think not...ENGINEER!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I agree that the general attitude and lack of practical knowledge is similar to an engineer. But an engineer would have told you he was an engineer 35-40 times by now.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

That's true.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

"Now around here on big projects electrical contractors do hire third party inspection services to come in ahead of the AHJ inspector."

Decades ago, I got stuck with that duty... and it wouldn't even be regarded as a 'big' job. ( only 27 electricians & apprentices )

I strongly recommend that everyone avoid such duties.

You're late to the party... chasing down entirely missing circuits// home runs -- all too often.

This is when the difficulties are intense.


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

HackWork said:


> I agree that the general attitude and lack of practical knowledge is similar to an engineer. But an engineer would have told you he was an engineer 35-40 times by now.


Don't insult the engineer, they were smart enough not to partake in this post. :laughing:


----------



## Drsparky14 (Oct 22, 2016)

I don't think he is an engineer. I think he is a homeowner who wishes he could be an electrician but can't get accepted on to the apprenticeship program. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. So he reduced altitude and spotted a man below. 

He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man below replied, "You are in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist.

"I am", replied the man, "How did you know?"

"Well," said the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but in this case it isn't worth a damn and didn't solve the problem"


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm reminded how many of us are more than content to toddle along behind our AHJ's _snickering_ about what they _missed_. :no:

How many of you tap them on the shoulder, and tell them to '_check this out_' for me please....? 

Realize because of a tight schedule, that a *15 min* walk through on a job being wired for *5 weeks* might not reveal _everything_ to an AHJ 

Realize that playing them as an _asset_, not a_ liability_ , is advantageous as an EC.

In fact, asking them to open a code book might actually be an _invited _ , if not openly happy event.

Further, got a '_hot shot_' Jman or apprentice? Send him along with the AHJ for the banter, some _LOVE_ the opportunity!


~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Steve, there is a big difference between using an inspector as an asset and expecting him to educate unqualified people on things that they should know and he isn't there to tell them.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> I'm reminded how many of us are more than content to toddle along behind our AHJ's _snickering_ about what they _missed_. :no:
> 
> How many of you tap them on the shoulder, and tell them to '_check this out_' for me please....?
> 
> ...


I have discovered over the years , the more jobs i do with a permit
through the local AHJ , the better my relationship has become. 

They got to know me , I got know them and now there is a level
of trust. (This is with my particular county office , which I prefer to
stay within the boundaries of).

I think the AHJ's love companies who pay for , pull permits and follow
through with inspections cause it really is a win -win - win for them , me
and the customer.

I really only have had problems with jurisdiction in Akron Ohio area 
cause I'm not from there and more importantly am non union...they
do not like non union companies there so I just avoid it as much as I 
can to even work there.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

lighterup said:


> I have discovered over the years , the more jobs i do with a permit
> through the local AHJ , the better my relationship has become.
> 
> They got to know me , I got know them and now there is a level
> ...



When doing fire alarm work on college campuses in NY I dealt with their insurance inspectors constantly.

Once they learn you aren't doing 'just get by' type work you earn their respect and they build a rapport with you. 

To the point of even having other clients call you for service.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

HackWork said:


> Steve, there is a big difference between using an inspector as an asset and expecting him to educate unqualified people on things that they should know and he isn't there to tell them.



One thing I didn't see mentioned is liability.
If the inspector starts telling a homeowner how to do a job, I guess he'd better have 2M in personal liability in case things go south !


----------

