Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Salary Survey/ Code rant

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
At 10:20 PM 9/27/99 -0500, Christopher Wright P.E. wrote:

>.... But when we need some vision, say, for nuclear power plant design, 
>laissez-faire tend to fall apart--like the US nuclear power program. Too 
>many unintended consequences and the consequences of a hidden flaw are 
>just too profound for short term thinking. We can't afford to leave such 
>things up to bean counters and and the lowest bid.

It struck me how true this same assertion is for building code formulation
processes of the sort whose results in use have been widely criticised on
this list. It's not even paid work, but volunteer. It can't afford to obtain
meaningful review by those who have the experience by being every-day
vocational in the code's subject matter. Review material when offered has to
be answered before it can be reviewed even once, hastily. The care code
users take in designing ONE small building isn't taken in designing a
building code provision that controls ALL buildings. And finally the
volunteers carry on like victims when their work's consequences get aired
candidly.

A while back, Christopher Wright gave us many good tips on codewriting
protocol that works in the mechanical and pressure vessel field. They ought
to be gathered up into a new "Codewriting Code" and imposed on the
structural field.

Last night on Dr. Edell, we were told the vocational drug test proponents
ought to make sure their drug tests are proven accurate and free of false
results, by thorough testing, before being released as ruinous menaces among
the jobseeking public.

And so on....

Charles O. Greenlaw  SE   Sacramento CA