Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough!

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill,
You are spoofing us, right?  No one can be that politically naive in trying to
tilt at windmills.  Just look at the annual dues paid by members of AIA, NAHB,
etc, and at the amounts of PAC money these outfits contribute.  In contrast,
SEAOC members recently bitched about paying $10 more dues, when their total
dues are a fraction of those of AIA members.

If you weren't spoofing, then dream on.

Frank Lew, SE
Orinda, CA

In a message dated 98-05-23 10:28:39 EDT, bill(--nospam--at)allendesigns.com write:

> No, this time I will offer a solution. I believe a viable solution does not
>  entail a lot of new legislation or Code changes; just some edits of a line
>  here and there. All of my suggestions are specifically for seismic zone 4
>  and/or California:
>  
>      a.. Eliminate the use of Conventional Framing Provisions.
>      b.. Eliminate the practice of allowing architects to practice or
promote
>  structural engineering services.
>      c.. Require civil-civils who wish to do structural engineering pass a
>  one problem, long hand test which will clearly demonstrate that the person
>  knows how to design and detail a lateral load path (see my sample problem
>  previously submitted). The civil engineers who currently practice
structural
>  engineering full time will have no problem whatsoever with this exam. This
>  exam would be proctored and graded by SEs.
>      d.. For those who do not pass the exam, have ICBO (maybe joint with
>  SEAOC?) offer a seminar based around SEAOC's "Seismic Detail Examples and
>  CAD Files for Engineered Light-Frame Timber Construction". I would prefer
>  ICBO put this seminar on since, IMO, they do a better job with seminars.
>  These could be offered on Thursday/Friday with the exam on Saturday. This
>  seminar/exam could also be for "newbies" and for us old geezers who what a
>  refresher course. (personally I do not see anything wrong with requiring
>  taking the SE exam every time your license comes up for renewal every four
>  years, but that may be a bit extreme).
>      e.. Offer a similar/equivalent seminar for contractors (general,
>  framers, foundation) and architects who do work in seismic zone 4. Require
>  this as a part of their license and renewal (i.e., professional
>  development). You see, I believe we in the business already spend a lot of
>  time in "professional development" with new code issues, etc. to require us
>  to submit to continuing education in order to keep our license. Who I
>  believe should really be the focus of professional development are the
>  civil-civils (who only occasionally do structural engineering), architects
>  and contractors.
>      f.. Adopt the DSA (Division of State Architect) method of plan check
>  which requires a registered deputy inspector, material tests, structural
>  observation and final verification reports on all projects.
>      g.. Make professional liability insurance mandatory for everyone
>  (architects and engineers) who puts a stamp on a plan. This way, everyone
is
>  accountable for their own work without worrying about being the "deep
>  pocket". Currently, the public has no idea how little some professionals
are
>  capable of offering restitution if they make an error in their design. Just
>  like automobile insurance, the professional would have to offer proof of
> 
>  insurance when their license would be up for renewal and building officials
>  could request a certificate of insurance with every submittal.
>  I firmly believe that, if the above features were adopted, they would go
>  further to provide public safety and reduce property damage than an
>  arbitrary "bump" in the seismic loads.