SE's, PE's, EIT's, et al:
The problem, as I see it, is the whole process by which we abdicate our
authority as specialists in our business to people other than
ourselves. We begin this process when we create building codes meant
to be adopted as law. This process is governed by "the few" for the
"benefit" of "the many." What results is the discussion to which this
thread has descended.
If we could decide these issues on our own, involvement of the
remainder of society would be unnecessary. We could, in concert with
our clients/owners decide the best solution for the particular project,
and with regard to public (and private) safety, set ethical standards
that placed us above any other profession with regards to honor and,
dare I say, compensation. Instead, we submit ourselves to licensure by
the numerous states in our union, a process which is even now
serruptitiously questioned by the ASCE as less than adequate for
providing competent engineers.
A building code does not guarantee the public safety any more than an
engineering license guarantees a competent engineer. Band-aid (tm)
solutions such as continuing education only muddy the issue of what is
or is not a reasonable level of cutting-edge knowledge.
I am awaiting the results of my first PE exam. I took the exam in CA,
despite my Arkansas residency, because I felt it the best, and most
difficult, path to claiming competence as a "Structural Engineer". But
I recognize that it means very little if I don't take my work, and my
In truth, I would prefer no licensure, and would rather obtain
"certifications" for particular engineering skills from my fellow
engineers, or even from architects and manufacturers, than the present
All that said, I still like the IBC. Three model codes, plus military
codes, plus state codes or amendments is making my head spin.
--- Fountain Conner <fconner(--nospam--at)pcola.gulf.net> wrote:
> Thank you, Charles,
> We recognize the problem, I think.
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident;... that whenever any form
> of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
> the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
> government... in such form as to them shall seem most likely to
> effect their safety and happiness.",
> Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
> Fountain E. Conner, P.E.
> Gulf Breeze, Fl. 32561
> > From: Charles Greenlaw <cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com>
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: Exposure D Wind
> > Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:45 AM
> > At 06:51 AM 06/07/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Any wind guys or gals out there??
> > >
> > >Looks like all structures 1500 feet from the Pacific Coast will
> > >need to be designed for higher wind loads.
> > >
> > >Thomas Hunt
> > >Duke/Fluor Daniel
> > -----------------------
> > Former wind guy here-- when 1970's ANSI wind stuff was being
> > "simplified" by a SEAOC committee for inclusion in 1982 UBC.
> > Now, it should be evident from all the anguished code
> > postings on this list, and from the explanatory answers tendered by
> > those who pulled the strings, that we all fall into two broad
> > categories. Most of us are like sheep, and a few of us are like
> > sheepherders.
Orwell "Animal Farm" reference:
> > Soon an elite class of animals, the pigs, rose above them as
> > leaders to better manage the affairs of less-gifted, "less equal"
> > members of that community. Before long all but the pigs were back
> > on the receiving end of arbitrary policies, policies made by
> > the elite among them for their own pleasure or advantage.
> > Charles O. Greenlaw SE Sacramento CA
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!