Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Disaster dilemma

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I agree, but how do you create an education program when the state has
already voted down the recommendations for continuing education as a means
to renew our licenses. The general attitude is that continuing education is
ineffective. I don't agree with this, but the majority must if SEAOC was
unable to get this one passed through.
If engineers won't agree to continuing education requirements, how can we
expect architects to buy into the idea.
BTW, when push came to shove on the issue of continuing education, was the
membership of SEAOC polled to obtain a general consensus or was the decision
made by the board alone or by BORPELS based upon their board alone.
When issues regarding regulation and education of engineers is at stake, we
take it for granted that our elected board officials are acting on behalf of
the majority membership. Is this true? I don't remember being polled on this
topic?
Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Serroels, Chris/SAC <CSerroel(--nospam--at)CH2M.com>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Date: Friday, January 23, 1998 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: Disaster dilemma


>My suggestion that only SE's be allowed to perform post
>eq assessments was tongue in cheek.
>
>Members of this list have suggested that only those who
>have a thorough knowledge of load paths would be competant
>in inspecting eq damage.  Fair enough.  However, as you mention
>below, even the seemingly most stringent of structural engineering
>examinations can not ensure this.
>
>We can not rely on any title, CE, SE, Building Official, Architect, ...
>to ensure quality inspections.  As Rick Ranous has suggested, I
>think that training is the key.  Not just a one time training,
>periodic refreshers should be offered, maybe required.  Bottom line
>is that even with training we will still have to rely on a persons own
>judgement as to whether or not they are qualified.
>
>Chris Serroels
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: wish [SMTP:wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 2:28 PM
>> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>> Subject: Re: Disaster dilemma
>>
>> What about the SE who was a great test taker, but a terrible engineer
>> - who
>> is protecting the public's intrest now?
>> Dennis Wish PE
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Serroels, Chris/SAC <CSerroel(--nospam--at)CH2M.com>
>> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 1998 11:55 AM
>> Subject: RE: Disaster dilemma
>>
>>
>> >I should of known better than to touch the architect vs. engineer
>> >debate.  I would only like to see every available and qualified
>> >resource utilized after an eq.  I'm not trying to suggest that
>> >anyone who isn't truly qualified perform these evaluations.
>> >I don't know if architects are qualified. I have never worked
>> >with an architect.
>> >
>> >If you don't think that architects are qualified then fine, you have
>> >answered my question.  Why stop there?  I know a whole
>> >lot of registered civils who don't belong out on these inspections.
>> >They might be able to tell us which way the water is going to
>> >flow out of a broken pipe network though.
>> >
>> >Let's just limit these inspections to SE's.  That way won't have
>> >to worry about unqualified people performing these inspections.
>> >That way we can completely ensure the safety of our residents,
>> >right?
>> >
>> >Chris Serroels, CE
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Bill Allen,S.E. [SMTP:BAllenSE(--nospam--at)pacbell.net]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 4:42 PM
>> >> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>> >> Subject: Re: Disaster dilemma
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Serroels, Chris/SAC wrote:
>> >> How many architects have assisted in post-eq inspections
>> >> in the past? If they are left out of the equation, are there
>> >> enough building officials, civil engineers, and structural
>> >> engineers to get the first pass inspections done in a
>> >> timely manner.
>> >> Fine, then let's use contractors and real estate agents as well.
>> >>
>> >> Do we really feel that they are not competent to make
>> >> the assessments. If they receive the rapid evaluation
>> >> training (ATC20) they should be able to make
>> >> appropriate assessments.
>> >> I dunno. I've been working with architects for eleven years
>> now.While
>> >> I do feel they are expert in a lot of areas, none have demonstrated
>> >> to me that they had any level of structural expertise.
>> >> To be fair to the architects,
>> >> we send a lot of young engineers out on these inspections
>> >> (present company included).
>> >> If you weren't qualified, you shouldn't have accepted the
>> assignment
>> >> either.
>> >> Keep in mind that, when the Northridge E/Q occurred, everyone in So
>> >> Cal
>> >> was light on work (to put it mildly). Everybody and their brother
>> >> jumped on
>> >> the E/Q inspection bandwagon.
>> >> When I went out on Northridge
>> >> it was a very intimidating experience. I was a pretty young
>> >> engineer and my partner was in the same boat. What
>> >> experience we did have was in bridge design. I feel that
>> >> we made prudent decisions, but having an more experienced
>> >> engineer on the team would of been extremely beneficial.
>> >> Let's not sell displaced homeowners short by making
>> >> them wait longer than they need to reoccupy their homes
>> >> just because we have a grudge with architects.
>> >> Nor should we give them a false sense of security that an
>> inspection
>> >> hasbeen done by a competent person when in fact this may not be
>> true.
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Bill Allen
>> >>
>> >> As a side note, I wonder if it would be possible to pair up
>> >> inspection teams so that if there is an inexperienced engineer
>> >> or architect that they go out with an experienced civil or
>> >> structural
>> >> engineer. I know that after an eq there is a fair amount of
>> >> disarray no matter how good the planning, so logistically this
>> >> may be hard to implement. Nevertheless, it may be something
>> >> to consider.
>> >> Chris
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Bill Allen,S.E. [SMTP:BAllenSE(--nospam--at)pacbell.net]
>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 1:46 PM
>> >> > To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: Disaster dilemma
>> >> >
>> >> > Hey! It's our own damn fault by letting ICBO and BORPELS get
>> >> away with
>> >> > giving
>> >> > the architect the same level of competency in structural
>> >> engineering.
>> >> > If you
>> >> > don't like the way things are - complain to them!!
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Bill Allen
>> >> >
>> >> > Tom Chiu wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > What! Architects to inspect damaged buildings, you must be
>> >> kidding.
>> >> > > No wonder, the green tags were changed to red tags, after
>> >> the
>> >> > engineers
>> >> > > went inside the buildings. You see, the architects were too
>> >> busy
>> >> > > looking at the exterior of the buildings, checking out
>> >> curtain
>> >> > walls,
>> >> > > carpeting etc.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Tom Chiu, SE
>> >> > > Thomas Engineering
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > >-----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > >From: Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov
>> >> > [SMTP:Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov]
>> >> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 9:49 AM
>> >> > > > >To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>> >> > > > >Subject: Re: Disaster dilema
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >We should be able to handle most any request for
>> >> assistance in
>> >> > safety
>> >> > > > >assessment. We have close to 6,000 individuals
>> >> registered
>> >> > between SEAOC,
>> >> > > > >AIA, ACIA, ASCE, and CALBO. For Northridge we used 600
>> >> plus
>> >> > around 200
>> >> > > > >from the Army Corps of Engineers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of
>> >> California (SEAOC) email server. To * subscribe (no fee) to the
>> list,
>> >> send email to * admin(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the message type
>> *
>> >> "join seaoc" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email * to
>> >> admin(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the message * type "leave seaoc"
>> >> (no quotes). For questions, send * email to seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org.
>> >> Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may
>> be
>> >> reposted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web *
>> site
>> ******
>> >> ****** ********
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>