The job in Burlington that made me stop trusting every 'clean' inspection camera feed

I was on a standard sweep in an old Victorian last fall, the kind with three flues. The homeowner showed me the report from the last guy, complete with camera footage showing a clear, clean flue. It looked perfect on his little screen. Something felt off, so I ran my own camera up. About eight feet up, behind a slight offset, the camera showed a thick, hardened glaze of creosote the other feed had completely missed. The angle was just wrong, or the light was bad, but his 'all clear' was a fire hazard waiting to happen. Ever since then, I don't care how good someone else's video looks. I put my own eyes on it, or my own camera, every single time. It added maybe fifteen minutes to my jobs, but it's non-negotiable now. Has anyone else found a big difference between camera brands or setups for spotting that kind of hidden buildup?

3 comments

3 Comments

morgan.logan1mo ago

My old boss in Rutland swore by his camera, but it missed a two-inch gap in a liner joint.

averywilliams1mo ago

I read about a crew in Texas that had a similar problem. Their fancy camera inspection missed a cracked pipe seam because the camera head got stuck just before the bad spot. They ended up having to dig up the whole line anyway. It makes you wonder if the tech gives a false sense of being sure. Sometimes the old method of walking the line and checking flow is still needed.

hall.nina29d ago

Yeah, I was all in on cameras too until I saw one miss a pretty obvious belly in a line last year. Now I always double check with a good old fashioned walk and flow test.