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

Re: Recent Ruling by California Board of Registration for Prof. Engineers

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In reality, I think we agree. It's just a matter of procedure. Either a
document is to be used for construction or it isn't. I simply believe one
should not rely solely upon the presence of absence of s seal to glean that
information from the document itself. It should be self evident.

For example, my CAD and word processors have "watermarks" which cover the
drawing or document with "PRELIMINARY" or "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION", or
whatever is appropriate. They do not obscure the data, but are impossible
to ignore (nor can the unscrupulous cover the note up and copy the document
without it). Seal or no seal, one would have to be a dressmakers dummy to
assume the document was buildable. And, by the way, in CA, I'm with Eph
Hirsch. I don't sign anything that isn't ready for construction (with or
without the watermarks) if I can avoid it. Common useage is that signed,
sealed documents are for construction in CA.

On the other hand, I have seen unsealed drawings without those disclaimers
being used for construction all the time (the contractors often got them as
extra sets from the engineer directly who didn't see the need to seal
them). How do you guard against this?

No system is perfect, but personally, I am reluctant to rely upon the
absence of something (such as a seal and/or signature) to indicate the
status of a construction document. I prefer to put it on up front and

The TX regulation posted earlier seems to make some sense along those
lines. I see no reason why CA can't do something similar. However, right
now Eph Hirsch has a good point. We need to clarify the situation or run
the risk of losing control of a design.

However, at the moment, we're all guilty of violations, and BORPELS will
have to haul up everyone on charges en mass. [Eph and I are close enough
alphabetically that we will probably be in the same room if BORPELS
enforces the ruling :-) ].There won't be an active EOR with a license left.
Maybe then we can let the plan "checkers" do the work. Interesting thought

Peter Higgins, SE