Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Fwd: Re: Inspection and the Engineer

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
At 12:37 PM 3/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-03-15 22:11:34 EST, sandyp(--nospam--at) (Sandy Pringle)
>>However, Special Inspection firm accreditation will clearly establish a
>>quality system that takes into consideration many elements of Special
>>Inspection, only one of which is the qualification of Special Inspectors
>     Sandy, what is the difference between what you are describing and what
>is used in Northern CA? I forget the specifics now but that group had a
>at the SEAOC convention in Hawaii and they seemed to describe something
>similar. If it works up North, why not extend it statewide instead of
>creating a whole new system? ( i imagine there is a reason that you will
>me an education on ). Thanks.
>     Tom Harris, SE

Hi Tom,  The area addressed is different.  I believe that the No. Cal
system is very similar to the RSIA (Regional Special Inspection Authority)
program which is trying to get off the ground in the Basin Chapter cities
and addresses the actual licensing of the individual Inspectors.  These
systems go a long way and accomplish a great deal.  The No Cal system,
however is sponsored by the Test Labs and that creates a conflict of
interest as I said in a previous post which is (I believe) not
insurmountable providing some guidelines can be established and adhered to
through a verification system as established in a quality manual.  ICBOES
has established criteria documents for the development of a Quality
Manuals, Quality Programs, and Quality Assurance firm accreditation (except
Special Inspection at this moment) and for Test Lab  accreditation.
Inspection is NOT part of Test Lab  accreditation as has been erroneously
assumed. The Inspection part of Test Labs does require some thought, but I
believe it can work that a Test lab can be accredited both as a Test Lab
and as an Inspection Body.

Our efforts are to establish the existence of criteria for accreditation of
Inspection Bodies in Special Inspection.  ASTM E329-95c does just that for
Test Labs or Inspection Bodies in testing and inspection of construction
(Note that the Standards community is trying to conform with the Europeans
and call such an organization an Inspection Body rather than an Inspection
Agency which has Municipal connotations although in my posts I refer to
Inspection firms so not to have confused the issue).

The Inspection Body will use whatever criteria is established for the
actual licensing of the individual Inspectors and will require they each
carry and maintain licenses as is accepted in the jurisdication in which
the inspection is to be performed.  Of course an Inspection Body will also
have a Quality Program to augment, reinforce and support the continuing
education of Inspectors as well as many other issues mentioned in the
previous post.

We embrace the concept of uniformity in Inspector competency requirements
as is established by either the No. Cal system or the RSIA program.  Both
are great ideas founded to meet serious needs.  Many municipalities don't
have funding to establish and administer Special Inspector programs and
they can now require the Inspector maintain a universal type license.  I
don't think ICBOES wants to be in the business of licensing individual
Inspectors, so it would be up to each municipality to adopt a program they
are comfortable with.  As I understand it, here is little or no cost to the
Building Official for the RSIA program as it is supported by licensing fees
charged to the Inspector.  The RSIA program includes some monitoring.
There are problems within each of these programs, but if cooler heads can
prevail, we have the possibility of an excellant additional step towards
quality assurance.  Administration funding and control are the main issues
of contention, not surprisingly.

There does need to be the allowance for the independent Inspector to be
able to work as an accredited Inspection Body without association with any
other company and that is possible providing all the criteria of the
accreditation of an Inspection Body are met as is, for example, in ASTM
Bottom line is that although both programs address Special Inspection, one
is for the individual Inspector's licensing and the other is for the
Inspection Body which employs those Inspectors.
Sorry for the verbosity.  I hope I've clarified the issues.

R. Sandy Pringle			            Sandy Pringle & Associates
sandyp(--nospam--at) 		            STRUCTURAL INSPECTION CONSULTANTS   (800)598-1970    Fax(310)376-5294

		       		             Hermosa Beach & Redondo Beach, CA		

	Be the master of your will and the slave of your conscience.

--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18658
	for <rlewis(--nospam--at)>; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 13:51:43 -0600 (CST)
Received: from by (NTList 3.02.10) id
na009555; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 11:49:14 -0800
Received: from localhost ( [])
          by ( MTA v2.0 0813
          ID# 0-29736U610) with SMTP id AAA158 for <seaoc(--nospam--at)>;
          Sun, 16 Mar 1997 11:43:05 -0700
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16)
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
From: "Sandy Pringle" <sandyp(--nospam--at)>
Subject: Re: Inspection and the Engineer
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 11:43:05 -0700
Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)
X-Info: [SEAOC]
Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
Precedence: list
X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at) [seaoc(--nospam--at)]


Richard Lewis, P.E.
Missionary TECH Team

The service mission like-minded Christian organizations
may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.