Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Paying for clarification[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Paying for clarification
- From: "Garner, Robert" <rgarner(--nospam--at)moffattnichol.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:14:43 -0800
I am in total agreement with you. It's not appropriate to mention it here, but I have some ongoing i$$ues with S.K. Ghosh, also.
And as far as the new "codes" go, I agree with you, too.
I'm up to support a new code process. Anyone else?
Robert Garner, S.E.
From: Dennis Wish
I received an e-mail invitation to a one-day Seminar to be held on 1/15 and again on 2/18 featuring S.K. Ghosh, Susan Dowty and Kenneth Luttrell. For a fee plus airfare and accommodations (if necessary) I can fly from Palm Springs to Sacramento or Oakland to obtain clarification on the 2009 IBC new “Simplified Wind Design Provisions” (based on the ASCE 7-05/2006 IBC), Redundancy factor for Seismic Categories D through F, Rigid or Flexible Diaphragm flow chart to help identify when to you each procedure, and other important topics that have plagued us in 2008 since California adopted the ASCE 7-05/2006 IBC into the 2007 California Building Code. Before I comment, let me say that I am not criticizing Dr. Ghosh, Ms. Dowty or Mr. Luttrell for promoting a profit based or even if the earnings were donated to the profession a series of costly seminars.
complaint is that I purchased the proper code manuals and accessory materials
expecting to find the interpretations in a clear and concise format, flow-chart
or explanation as I would expect to receive from the above seminar. I
believe that the code publications committees had a responsibility to the
engineering community to define the design process with as little ambiguity and
with as much clarity as possible. For the engineers that I have spoken to in
reminds me of the Marx Brother’s “Day at the Races” when
Groucho goes to the race track to place a two dollar bet. He is approached by
who is the winner in this code creation debacles? Why publish and enforce
a code that few can understand or properly comply with? Each trip to the
building department reminds me of the mid 80’s when we wrote the draft
for RGA 1-91 for seismic Retrofit in the City of
I don’t want the plan checker signing off my work because I am a 60-ish year old white haired engineer who he believes has the great knowledge of experience to rely upon. I want to understand what I am doing and be sure that what I put on paper is properly thought out and not a risk to the public. Younger engineers have a tougher time than I might and I don’t believe I am any smarter or have any inside information than they do – in fact I would as much learn from an engineer much younger than I who has the understanding of what should have been presented to the practitioner in a clear and concise manner with examples at no additional price.
Am I the only one to think this way? Again, I am not criticizing education for those who have problems understanding the code after receiving a clear and non-ambiguous document that I expected to have originally paid for, but I doubt that even the seminar listed above could resolve all of this engineers questions in the one day seminar.
Dennis S. Wish
Dennis S. Wish, PE
54625 Avenida Bermudas
La Quinta, CA. 92253
Phone: 760.564.0884 (phone, fax and messages)
- Paying for clarification
- From: Dennis Wish
- Paying for clarification
- Prev by Subject: Re: Paying for clarification
- Next by Subject: RE: Paying for clarification
- Previous by thread: Paying for clarification
- Next by thread: Why continue to support professional associations involved in code creation?