I'm 69, but my wife won't let me retire. Besides I like engineering
(the easier stuff anyway) but all the red tape is a pain in the butt.
Gary
Garner, Robert wrote:
> Retirement? Like most old engineers, I can't wait to retire. Then I
> can work all the time. Luckily, I like my work so the necessity of
> working forever is O.K. with me.
>
> I agree that the code establishment system is far from perfect - in this
> country and others. As you see, I receive criticism for not being part
> of the solution and I accept that. But I've preferred to spend my
> career trying to perfect the engineering-construction end of our
> spectrum. Codes I have left to others. The engineering-construction
> endeavor is not perfect either, but I will go down in flames before I
> accept any less than maximum effort. I started out in construction with
> a contractor that fired people on the spot for minor mistakes (minor but
> they cost the contractor $$). I've carried this attitude ever since.
>
> So, off the philosophy, and Happy Friday. I think we all earned this
> one.
>
>
> Bob Garner
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. [mailto:design@hodgsoneng.ca]
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 5:03 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Bad Codes
>
> What is this thing you call retirement?
>
> I'm afraid you can be as demanding as you want but it won't do you any
> good and I'm not knocking the people who write the codes. Having served
>
> on a committee to write a new Canadian standard for EOT cranes, I
> learned there is more to the process than writing the technical stuff,
> at least here. It then goes to the Can Standards Assoc who ensure that
> the document conforms to their numbering and heading system, and that
> the English grammar, spelling and syntax are correct. Some of this will
>
> have been done along the way, but when the final draft is approved, we
> don't see it again. Then it goes to the printer who has to type-set it
> or whatever they do these days and again this is where errors can creep
> in. I have been told (so pls correct me if I am wrong) that many of the
>
> American codes or standards go thru this vetting process in house so
> that they don't have the equivalent CSA vetting.
> The type-setters, or whoever, have a problem with many of the formulas
> and then many of the printing companies that used to do this work have
> disappeared as technology made them redundant or behind the times. Most
> of this is anecdotal but came from a reliable source who has had to get
> a standard published.
> And this leads me to a little anecdote. The class of 1984 of the Royal
> Military College(my school) wanted to get commemorative pewter beer mugs
>
> made for their graduation. The college motto is "Truth, Duty, Valour"
> and and this was to be printed on the mugs along with the college coat
> of arms. The low bidder was out of Michigan and the graphic was sent to
>
> the firm for production.
> Approximately 200 mugs arrived with "Truth, Duty, Valor" which the
> company had to replace free of charge.
> Gary
>
> Garner, Robert wrote:
>
>> I am pleased to reply that following my complaint to ICC, from whom I
>> purchased ACI 318-08, I have been contacted directly by ACI, who has
>> agreed to send me a complimentary copy of the second edition. I wish
>> to publicly thank ACI for this service. This represents what I expect
>>
>
>
>> and appreciate from our code societies.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do, however, remain intolerant of errata and I recommend that our
>> professional societies, SEA, SEAOC, etc. take the position that codes
>> are incredibly important and must be treated as documents that must
>> not contain errors. I acknowledge human imperfection but I accept no
>> less than maximum effort. Of myself, and of those calling themselves
>> professionals.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm nearing retirement, and I'm definitely at the age of codgerhood.
>> I may consider assisting in code writing efforts, but I would be
>> demanding as hell!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for listening.
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Garner, S.E.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> *From:* Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner@moffattnichol.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:35 AM
>> *To:* seaint@seaint.org
>> *Subject:* Bad Codes
>>
>>
>>
>> I just purchased the ACI 318-08 Concrete Code. My wife called me at
>> work and said I had a package waiting for me. I love getting
>> packages. I knew it was the new Concrete Code because I had just
>> ordered it. So I looked forward to coming home to break into that
>> book and see the progress our "cement buddies" had in making the Code
>> a much improved document, especially our own dear Appendix D, which
>> has succeeded in creating a whole new structural discipline of
>> engineers that specialize exclusively in the design of CONCRETE
>> ANCHORS (caps mine to honor a subject that ACI has seen fit to make as
>>
>
>
>> sophisticated as the wind provisions of ASCE.) What was the first
>> thing I found in the package? Placed on top of the Code book so that
>> it stood out proudly as if claiming, "Look at me! I am very
>> Important!" Yep, Code Errata! A brand new code that isn't even
>> accepted by code bodies and hasn't even been purchased by most
>> practicing engineers, and there are four pages of ERRORS, whoops,
>> excuse me, Errata. Can't anybody get a code book published without
>> errors? Errata? B.S., these are errors. I don't care if they are
>> the publishers' proof reader's errors or just stupidity in writing
>> these books. When I do structural calculations, I don't do this kind
>> of careless work. I submit my calcs to the City then I routinely
>> follow up with errata? I don't think so. Everyone makes mistakes but
>>
>
>
>> the codes make them routinely and treat them as if they are just
>> another facet of the code.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a Structural Engineer licensed in the four western states, I find
>> the constant necessity of correcting codes with constant errata
>> totally unacceptable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Garner, S.E.
>>
>>
>>
>> R. Garner
>>
>> Moffatt & Nichol
>>
>> Tel.: (619) 220-6050
>>
>> Fax.: (619) 220-6055
>>
>> e-mail: rgarner@moffattnichol.com <mailto:rgarner@moffattnichol.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********