Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Question for East Coast Engineers

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Extreme sarcasm intended. While the Conventional Framing Provisions is not
my main topic of consternation, the relatively lax laws regarding who can
provide structural engineering services in seismic zone 4 is. I am certain
the paranoia of "full employment provisions" may have something to do with
that as well.

Regards,
Bill Allen
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov <Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Question for East Coast Engineers


>
>Bill,
>
>Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your message?  Unfortunately, the
>employment issues plays heavily when engineers propose changes to
>provisions which don't require their invovement.  SEAOC was accused by a
>number of building officials of developing "full employment provisions"
>when we proposed something as simple as Structural Observation.  That's why
>it took us seven years to get limited provisions in the code.
>
>This is a reality when you take on conventional framing.  Like it or not!
>
>
>
>
>