# Inspector Borescope Reviews



## Stephen Anderson (May 27, 2010)

Do you have experience using various borescopes?  Would you share some tips?  We're considering getting one for the Department as another tool in dealing with work that's been done and covered without permits/inspections.  Of course, we can require it uncovered, but on certain occasions it might be more prudent to be a little less "invasive" if we had other satisfactory options.

Also, if there's a better place to post this inquiry than here that would be a help, too.

Thanks.


----------



## globe trekker (May 27, 2010)

Welcome to the Codes Forum Mr. Anderson!  

http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/people/pics/smithlarge.jpg

.


----------



## peach (May 29, 2010)

There are alot of non destructive techniques you can require. Don't ever do it yourself; require the owner/contractor/ violator do it... get the results.  What exactly do you think you're going to see?

What kind of construction are you talking about?  If it's drywall, either make them take it down or note in the public record that it was concealed without inspection - the owner is liable.


----------



## Stephen Anderson (Jun 1, 2010)

The idea is to reserve this for existing, often occupied, building/remodel scenarios where work has been done without permits/inspections and MEP system sections are concealed in finish materials that would be substantially costly to remove & replace.  Many times in these situations "random-sampling" inspections are used to substitute for the complete view a compliant roughin inspection would have provided.  We're thinking the use of a good borescope would be one step better, giving us better views of more of the system, with lesser impact on public perception as "strong-arming" compliance.


----------



## Mule (Jun 1, 2010)

It sounds like you have a big problem with contractors not securing the proper permits and inspections. If you require the contractor to remove drywall or other portions of the construction or whatever then word will get out and you won't need a borescope.

It's not call strong arming if you treat all contractors the same way! Sounds like the contractors is strong arming the inspection department! The contractors need to play by the rules or face the consequences! Get in their pocket book a few times and they will comply. You wouldn't believe how quickly they'll get in line!


----------



## Stephen Anderson (Jun 1, 2010)

Your absolutely correct, when the contractor is still involved.  The scenarios I'm describing are typically long after the contractor has (been paid and) left the scene.  The Home/Building Owner pleads ignorance and that all they did was "hire a contractor".  Hence, the feeling the owner has of being victim to both the contractor and the Jurisdiction.


----------



## peach (Jun 1, 2010)

won't learn 'em if you don't teach 'em.


----------



## mmmarvel (Jun 2, 2010)

My two cents worth ... a borescope, like any other instrument will only give you as much information as a competent, experienced operator can gleem from the instrument.  I too would go with testing labs who have already put out the bucks for the machine and who have people who are experienced in it's operation and the interpetation of the results.  Don't re-invent the wheel when you can go down the street and buy it/use it.  Charge the contractors up the wazoo, some sort of building department administration fee in addition to what the lab will charge - and REQUIRE IT, with the only other option being that the contractor can tear it ALL down.

Hmmmm, and I wonder why I'm not a building official ... not.


----------



## brudgers (Jun 4, 2010)

Just my experience, but homeowners and building owners are rarely ignorant of the fact that a permit hasn't been pulled.


----------



## peach (Jun 5, 2010)

True, brudgers... considering the homeowner is always the responsible party for everything done on their property.


----------

