Elliot Lake Update 2

[jayrod12]

Engineer charged in Elliot Lake Mall (Algo Centre Mall) collapse found not guilty

cbc.ca

 

[dik]

CPD just wastes thousands of hours for the profession, and does little or nothing. Check with the associations and see if there has been a marked decrease in the efforts of whatever 'Practice and Ethics' committee is in play... I doubt if there has been a change. My $.03CAN or $.02US...

Dik

 

[drawoh]

dik,

OACETT's CPD program is being justified by Elliot Lake. I am not aware of an ethics component to it. You could teach a course on ethics. I am not aware of one.

--
JHG

 

[HamburgerHelper]

In a culture that tries to go cheap on safety, things only happen when there is a long enough paper or email trail that ignorance is no longer a defense. When I have brought up safety issues, I had to bring them up repeatedly and to far more people than should be necessary in a safety first culture. While it might be easy to blame Wood or some of the other engineers, safety issues don't get resolved without a champion and there are no raises, badges, or ribbons for being "difficult".

 

[dik]

drawoh... it's just a waste of time, and will not prevent the next one...

Dik

 

[IRstuff]

"While it might be easy to blame Wood or some of the other engineers, safety issues don't get resolved without a champion and there are no raises, badges, or ribbons for being "difficult"."

According to the AG's report, there actually were a couple of people that did the right thing, until they were fired/retired. They pushed until the powers that be felt sufficiently threatened, and the powers dealt with it the cheapest way possible, firing one and retiring the other.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[WinelandV]

I just finished reading Part 1 of the AG report.

While I'm not opposed to continuing education (being in the U.S., it's all I've ever known), I don't follow how the AG went from "because of professional engineering shortcomings" to "thus continuing education" (recommendation 1.24). Unless the goal is to have all the P. Eng.'s take a course/attend a lecture on parking structures every so many years?

 

[IRstuff]

Possibly, it's punishment for the engineers that got away with, "I didn't notice anything bad," defenses. On the face of it, if these engineers seriously couldn't see that 60% loss from rust as a problem, then they do indeed need to be trained more.

The bottom line is that the AG is pretty sure the engineers lied, but was not able to prove it, so this is the punishment for the industry for allowing these engineers to keep their jobs.

While the legal issues are not surmountable, the PE board could have acted differently and imposed sanctions, as they are not bound by the same level of evidence required for criminal proceedings, but they didn't.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[3DDave]

I've seen continuing education as a general waste. There is nothing preventing anyone from reading up on the makings of disasters on their own. There are plenty of examples. It does make for a lively business for course suppliers and I suppose many are heartfelt, but they generally seem inadequate to affect industry if the participants aren't willing to research on their own. Maybe it's intended to thin the herd and decrease competition, but it seems like it detracts from those who are most capable and for whom it's a waste while supplying credentials for those who manage only to win the attendance prizes.

If it is to be done, the Khan Academy model would be best. Independent, low cost, quiz/test basis for demonstrating mastery and with a clear scope of content.

 

[Guest102023]

Full disclosure: I have been a P.Eng in Ontario since 1989.

1) I cannot defend the actions of the Engineer, despite him having been put under heavy pressure by the unscrupulous owner. Critical deficiencies were observed but deleted from the final inspection report. To claim, as some posters have above, that 'he was just the last guy on the train' doesn't wash. An engineer's duty of care to the public is a fundamental requirement made explicitly clear at the start of his/her career.
2) Why were the owners were not charged with any kind of offence? Probably because there is no law they could be charged under.

I have been put in similar situations, although with less visibility (it was testing of industrial pressure equipment), and with less directly obvious and more distant potential consequences. I felt enormous stress caused by pressure on me to keep repeating tests until an result acceptable to the client was obtained. There was no place to turn for protection (not higher management, not the government, and certainly not the PEO).

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[Guest102023]

drawoh

Engineering professional organizations in Ontario

There is only one Engineering professional organization in Ontario.



"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[dik]

brimstoner... until 10 years back, I was registered in Ontario for 20 years or so...

There is only one Professional Engineers of Ontario, but, there is the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers that acts as a 'spokesperson' for PEO members and tries to act on their behalf.

I don't defend his actions; he was wrong.

He was one of many involved that 'missed' critical items. I don't know what his skills are, but, am aware of the skills of those that also missed... I do not know what the scope of work was, or what his instructions were.

I have no idea of why the owners weren't charged. They were relying on professionals, and I don't know what information they were provided with. If they were informed of the problems and the possible outcome, then they could likely be charged with criminal negligence... It's hard to imagine that over the years someone didn't inform them.

The problem, as I see it, is that it is a problem caused by bad Architecture. From the material presented at the inquiry, it appears that the EOR only reviewed the loading. It does not appear that he was involved with the design or the preparation of documents; this was left to the steel and the hollowcore suppliers. It does not appear that the EOR even reviewed the shop drawings. This appears to have been done by the Architect. The original design could not have been constructed to resist the specified loading. The report provided by NORR for the OPP is lacking... My real problem with this is that engineers are getting an unfair and unwarranted label.

The recent fire in Kensington, England is another example of a failure of the building envelope. It was apparently designed by professionals that did not do their job properly; they likely 'caved' to other government agencies... approximately 20 are dead with 80 unaccounted for.

Dik