Design vs. engineering question

[rcole]

No offense, but I'm not so concerned with the liability, more concerned with doing whats right and fair.

Remember what Yoda told Luke when Luke remarked that he was not afraid of Darth Vader?

Yoda simply relpied "you will be".

[perryh]

Rod, that's funny.

[lbuttery]

Rod:

there is liability in everything we do in life

I have car insurance and I try to drive responsibly

but someday I may get stung by a bee or have a fainting spell and I may
wipe out a car with a family and get sued for millions

I still drive my car every day anyways ...

Lew

[sutcac]

Yeah, it's the same kind of sob story I've heard from engineers who poo-pooed worrying about just rubber stamping some buddy of their's plans for a quick buck until it came back to bite them in a lawsuit. Then I can't hire them any more because they can't get liability insurance.

[perryh]

I don't think anybody here is talking about rubber stamping, of course that's not right.
full reviews only, everyone's happy then. I sure wish I was located in Arroyo Grande, so nice up there. Lake Lopez,Pismo,Jocko's, oh my.

[rcole]

Rod:

there is liability in everything we do in life

I have car insurance and I try to drive responsibly

but someday I may get stung by a bee or have a fainting spell and I may
wipe out a car with a family and get sued for millions

I still drive my car every day anyways ...

Lew

Two different things Lew.

On the one hand we have ordinary risks that can befall anyone at any time.

On the other hand we have risks that are built into the system. As my attorney sees it, a lawsuit is simply a cost to doing business.

[lbuttery]

Two different things Lew


Rod:

I see risk as risk

of course I can be sued, in the USA anyone can be sued at anytime

I will do my job diligently and not "fret" about being sued

Lew

[Alaskan Son]

Remember what Yoda told Luke when Luke remarked that he was not afraid of Darth Vader?

Yoda simply relpied "you will be".

I'm just saying when liability is brought in to the picture its more "whats best for me". My original question was geared towards whats best for the client. They're the ones paying for it, and we should be doing whats right by them.

[Alaskan Son]

"I will do my job diligently and not "fret" about being sued"

Thank you Lew. this is my stand on the liability issue as well.

[gteacher]

Alaskan Son

Reading your posts – you seem to well aware of how to handle the division between designer/engineer. I am being presumptive (I’m paid to do that) but your question is: “What is everyone else doing?” and the definite answer is: “everything else you can imagine”. Reference the other 50+ posts

Even knowing what everyone else is doing would provide no usable information – is it just curiosity?

When the codes were under the control of the building industry–way back when-the designer/engineer relationship was more clearly defined. Now that the codes have been politicized, there are as many varieties as there are municipalities in the US.

The plan examiner is required to establish a reasonable record that sufficient information has been provided to establish that the presumptive method has been followed. A competent designer can do this. Outside of the presumptive method, an architect/engineer’s complete review and stamp is required – period. The designer is not mentioned in any code/legislation that I am aware of.

As a licensed Engineer and independent code official, I can say that some of the worst plans I have seen come from nationally known design firms. Most are just a plan schematic and pretty pictures. It is very hard to tell a new home owner that the $800-$1200 plans they purchased are been rejected because of lack of info. That why we have this problem.

If designers would simply provide the info needed to verify the prescriptive code, municipalities would not require varying degrees of engineering approval. This includes All materials, dimensions, sizes, bracing compliance, flows, etc.

My suggestion is to simply set down with your local plans examiners and find out what their problems and concerns are. This would provide clear direction. If you are designing out-of-your-area a call to that locality would help. What everyone else is doing is irrelevant.

I would like to hear from the examiners on this subject and what their problems are-although it’s already been beat to death. I think that would be more productive as to who needs to do what.

[Alaskan Son]

"Even knowing what everyone else is doing would provide no usable information – is it just curiosity?"

Gerry,

No, its not curiosity. Its more that I would like to adopt the industry standard (to the extent that I feel I can). I have however discovered that there is no industry standard. I think I will adopt the practice of doing as little "engineering" as possible. I'll provided the intent, and they can provide the rest.

[RMorrison]

Gerry,
These are good points. I think in Michael's case, though, sitting down with the plans examiner, may be fruitless, because it appears that like many jurisdictions in the country, they may have very little to no oversight of the construction and have widely ranging engineering requirements. There are parts of the country, of course, where little more than a "napkin sketch" will get you a building permit.

However, just because you don't need the plans and engineering to get a permit, doesn't mean they shouldn't be done. I have had a number of occasions where the examiner caught something I missed, and I'm happy to have a trained pair of eyes looking over my plans. It reduces my liability. The scariest thing I can imagine, both for myself and my clients, would be to have no oversight, and just trust myself and the contractors to "do it right." Yes, it would be enjoyable for the first couple of years, but then as problems started showing up, along with the lawyers, it would get less fun.

[marty]

The subject of examiners and building standards is an interesting one. Down here in NZ which is smaller than a lot of the states in the US we have a single National Building Code but it is interpreted differently all over the country. Its also interpreted differently within parts of the same city. THis problem seems to exist world over and the chances of reaching agreement must be nil, zip zero.

Our houses are generally smaller than the US - average around 2,400ft2 - and for that it takes around 34 A3 size drawings to get a permit. About half of that information is standard manufacturers installation information which should not be required but if its not supplied the application gets rejected.

THe general attitude is that the more drawings that are supplied the higher the chance of the building being built properly but the reality is if a builder doesnt know what he is doing you could give him 1000 drawings and he wouldnt be any better off.

[gteacher]

Richard

Can't argue with Dat

Gerry

[perryh]

I think Richard is right on.