Ontario Disciplines Eng for not using IEC61511

[sdl]

Hello:

I recently heard of a story in Ontario Canada where an engineer was disciplined (either by the professional engineers of Ontario or in a court case) for an error. The subject of IEC 61511 came up as a question "it is used in other jurisdictions, why didnt you use it?".

I was wondering if anyone has heard of this case and can provide more information on it. Thanks!

sdl

 

[Ashereng]

"It is used in other jurisdictions, why didn't you use it?"

Maybe the other jurisdictions are a little different?

Who used that arguement?

In Pennsylvania, you don't need to wear a motorcycle helmet to ride a motorcycle. Gee, I wonder if you can use that arguement in Ontario. Or vice versa.

IEC61511, if it is not required in Ontario, then the question should better read "How come the Onatrio safety governing bodies have not incorporated the mandatory use of IEC 61511 into their code?".

If the applicable governing safety body does not have IEC 61511/08 incorporated into their code, the how can you fault the engieer for following the published code/regulations?


"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[sdl]

Ashereng:

I was not commenting on whether the IEC standard(s) should or should not be used (personally, I believe they should). I was looking for information to see if the story I heard was true. If it is, then precedence has been set in Canada and all engineers should be aware.

Like I said, the story I heard was that best practices have been compared across borders in either a disciplinary hearing or a court case. I am looking for confirmation and information to research it. It could very well be an urban myth too.

sdl

 

[Ashereng]

I haven't heard anything like this.

I too would be interested in more info.


"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[JoeTank]

What is IEC61511?

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants

http://www.tankindustry.com

 

[Ashereng]

Did you try google?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[panduru]

@sdl:

re: "... precedence has been set ..."
It does not seem likely that a court of law could expect one to follow what is in "other juridictions" (but not within its own jurisdiction). That would clearly be untenable in law, not enforceable, and so, could not constitute a precedent.

At the same time, it is very much possible that the observation was made in an advisory sense like "maybe if you had followed those procedures, you wouldn't have been in this mess today".

That said, I would not consider it worth any further interest.

 

[Ashereng]

At the same time, it is very much possible that the observation was made in an advisory sense like "maybe if you had followed those procedures, you wouldn't have been in this mess today".

Even the fact that ANY disciplinary body (either PEO, the courts, arbitration) would make such a statement even remotely close to this should have us all concerned.

This is what I call back seat hearsay engineering.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[panduru]

@Ashereng:

Concerned that the body is making an uncalled for observation? Or concerned about having to start complying?

I am really concerned that your line can be interpreted both ways

 

[Ashereng]

Concerned that there is a fallacy in the logic, and people don't understand the fallacy.

Why didn't you do it the way Party B did it?

Possible answers:
- because Party C did it this way also
- becasue we do it this way
- because Party E, F and G did it that way, but the results were iffy

The fallacy is, all these reasons are misleading.

The proper focus should be on whether the original reason(s) something was done is correct/legal/to code, etc. Not whether someone else did it another way.


"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[sdl]

Hello:

Ashereng: Thank you... you are correct, if this story is in fact true, then we all have reason to be concerned.

The IEC standard is starting to gain acceptance in Canada but not on a broad scale. It is reasonable to say that if company A follows it as "good practice" then that is precedence for others to follow has been set. The argument of "if they are doing it, why aren't you?" is then valid.

Panduru: I understand your concerns. The fact that this standard is widely accepted around the world and is gaining momentum in Canada makes this case even more important. If the story is in fact true, then all engineers in Canada must review and decide if following the standard constitutes due diligence and further explore the possibility of disciplinary action.

----

Above all, please do not loose sight of the fact that I am looking for confirmation of the story and to do research on what the facts are and what was actually presented by all parties. Right now, the debate is on a hypothetical.

Again, if anyone can help me to verify this story, I would really appreciate it.

sdl

 

[Ashereng]

Precedence as used in court does not mean someone has already done it that way. Precedence in court means a "judgement" has gone that way because a judge has decided in his opinion, based on the merits of fact, that the judgement should go that way.

Also, precedence can be overturned. Prime example? Slavery was legal once. It was overturned.

My concern is, what happens if Company A is wrong? Should you then follow them also?

As engineers, we should do something because WE believe it to be sound engineering practices. NOT because Company A does it that way.

My concern? We will be forced to do something not because we believe in it, but because someone ELSE has already done it.

If IEC 61511/08 becomes incorporated into our code, that means people have studied it, deems it to be important enough to be put into code, then we have to follow it. This makes sense.

There are lots of "good practices" out there that are not prescribed in code. Why? Because their application requires good judgement with regards to suitability. This is where the engineering comes in.

To hold engineers to a code is reasonable.

To hold engineers to someone else's preferred practice is what I am concerned about.

Panduru: Do you agree?

sdl: Do you understand my concern?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[BigH]

sdl: Why not write directly to Professional Engineers of Ontario and ask them? - they are the only ones permitted to administer the Engineers Act (don't mix this up with civil court case).

http://www.peo.on.ca

Click on "About PEO", "Staff Contacts (by function)" - then drop down to Regulatory Affairs and Practice Standards. They have the names, email addresses and phone numbers of the appropriate group.