Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: PE Stamps on Drawings

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I admit that I misunderstood the position by SEAOC on this issue.  However, 
my argument is still valid - policy makers must represent the needs of the 
majority of the members of the organization rather than dictate their 
personal preferences. Historically, this has proven to be a flawed 
assumption. It is not my intention to raise further consternation with 
SEAOC but to point out that a policy should exist to allow the professional 
community to dicate any position that the board of directors wishes to take 
- a professional organziation that represents its membership rather than 
dictating to them.

With this said, it is not inconceivable that there is a flaw in a blanket 
statment that may cause liability for engineers in other areas of design.
In residential construction, for example, the roof framing may be designed 
by another engineer who represents the manufacturer of the roof trusses. 
The responsiblity is now split. The truss manufacture, hires his own 
engineer to design the trusses. This engineers wet seal represents his 
assurance against product failure and defect - his liability and 
responsiblity. The EOR, although required to verify that the trusses are 
designed in accordance with his or her stuctural design (loads and drags), 
limits responsiblity to the connection of the systems and review of the 
package to verify compatibility with the structural design.

Will removing the truss engineers signiture place undue liability for the 
manufactured trusses on the EOR who is not privledged to the design 
specifics of the proprietary truss plates (historically protected 
information)?

Again, if one engineer in twenty comes up with a valid argument that was 
not thought of by the limited number of policy makers, a potential problem 
for a large number of engineers with specialized practices may be avoided. 
Consider the depth of the argument and identify all of the flaws by using 
the resources at hand. Once a majority consensus is reached - then act.

Regards,
Dennis S. Wish, PE
SEConsultant(--nospam--at)Earthlink.net
(208) 361-5447 Efax


-----Original Message-----
From:	Evan Jorgensen [SMTP:EJorgensen(--nospam--at)eqe.com]
Sent:	Friday, December 17, 1999 9:30 AM
To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject:	Re: PE Stamps on Drawings



On 12/16/99, Dennis Wish, wrote:

"I agree with these comments. My concern is the requirment that the work be
performed under direct supervision of the responsible engineer. ...........
..............  I don't believe that a blanket statment as Ron Hamburger
suggested has
considered all sides of the issues and I believe that this needs to be
discussed openly before creating another potential liability for practicing
engineers."


I believe that Dennis Wish is missing the point of what Ron Hamburger 
posted.
Ron Hamburger's post is in agreement with the status quo.  Therefore, 
"another
potential liability" is not created.

I agree with SEAOC's decision of sending a letter protesting a rule making 
that
would require every registered engineer that participated in the 
preparation of
a set of construction documents, to stamp the set.  I have worked on 
projects
which have had close to twenty civil/structural engineers working on the
project.  To require all to stamp the entire set would be ludicrous, the 
stamps
would take up more space than the construction details.  There can only be 
one
responsible engineer.

Evan Jorgensen