6 ms·

> The construction and inspection firms working on the bridge were aware of the cracks and reported the cracks to the design firm, asking for guidance. The eng

by fernly 7y ago

> The construction and inspection firms working on the bridge were aware of the cracks and reported the cracks to the design firm, asking for guidance. The engineer of record at the design firm repeatedly indicated that the cracks were of no safety concern. Welp, that's a lawsuit laid out cold right there, setting aside even the fact that > the probable cause of the ... bridge collapse was the load and capacity calculation errors made by FIGG Bridge Engineers, Inc.

bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
Also, > Errors in design may occur, but systems should be in place to catch those errors when they do occur. In this case, a firm was hired to independently review the bridge design for errors. However, [...] Although the design reviewer recognized that he should have examined the nodes and stages, he indicated that there was not enough budget or time to evaluate those factors. Contributing to this review failure was the reviewing firm’s lack of qualification to do this work.
- duxup 7y ago
  So strange. Like even with software there's a point where I tell folks "Look if we're not going to do this X far, it's not of any value to do it half way and claim we did anything here." You'd think there would be some engineering standard where "No this isn't a legitimate review because we didn't do enough." and that might set off some alarms...
  - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
    There is. After the NTSB final report comes out next month I expect both investigations for taking away PE licenses and probably also criminal charges for gross negligence.
  - varjag 7y ago
    They would raise alarms if it was an unusual exception and not the norm in the industry.
duxup 7y ago
I belive several of the companies involved already settled their lawsuits.
userbinator 7y ago
The engineer of record at the design firm repeatedly indicated that the cracks were of no safety concern. I've heard many other examples of viciously denying that anything is wrong, all the way until something becomes very very wrong, to wonder whether this is an inherent part of human nature or a futile effort to avoid liability for knowingly screwing it up.
- jknoepfler 7y ago
  Yes.
- dboreham 7y ago
  3.6 roentgen
  - th0ma5 7y ago
    Not great, not terrible
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Human nature to avoid liability for screwing up - knowingly or not. You can see it even in little children who, having broken something, will deny they did so and invent excuses up until they realize the parent isn't buying it. It also makes sense both intuitively and mathematically. If you screwed up and don't admit it, there's a chance (say X) nobody will find out (that it was you, or that anything was screwed up in the first place). Conversely, there's a (1-X) chance it'll be found out and you'll pay the costs - which my be huge and very personal, including tarnished reputation, monetary damage or even jail time. Now, if you admit to the error yourself, you get 100% certainty of slightly lower punishment. As long as the "slightly lower" isn't lower than (1-X), it makes sense to keep quiet mathematically. And of course, once you add fear into this, people tend to overestimate X. Consequences to others turn this from a small to huge moral issue, but the mechanism is still arguably dominated by fear. That's why punishments are a tricky thing. Threat of losing license is a good deterrent from screwing up, but also a good motivator to hide your failure if you screwed up.
  - 7y ago
hanniabu 7y ago
> repeatedly indicated that the cracks were of no safety concern This reminds me of all the nuclear power plants that are operating beyond their design life and keep increasing their allowable crack tolerance.
- masonic 7y ago
  Examples?
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    The UK nuclear industry is one example. https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-49410625 https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-sco...
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43455859/ns/us_news-environment/t/safety-rules-loosened-aging-nuclear-reactors/#.XbCxqZNKiRs http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43455859/ns/us_news-environment/t/... https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/11/29/390222.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/11/29/39... https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/going-long-term-us-nuclear-power-plants-could-extend-operating-life-to-80-years https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/going-long-term-us-nucl...
    - masonic 7y ago
      None of these names nuclear power plants that are "operating beyond their design life and keep (sic) increasing their allowable crack tolerance". There's no mention of crack tolerance at all, just references to containment vessels and caps requiring maintenance for radiation damage.
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        I just posted these from a quick 30s search. I'm not sure of the link for the post I've read about the concrete cracks in specific, but I believe it was about a year ago that I read it. Regardless, you can see the state of affairs and how the need for power generation and the desire to keep costs low leads to compromises in safety precautions.

by fernly 7y ago

bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago

Also, > Errors in design may occur, but systems should be in place to catch those errors when they do occur. In this case, a firm was hired to independently review the bridge design for errors. However, [...] Although the design reviewer recognized that he should have examined the nodes and stages, he indicated that there was not enough budget or time to evaluate those factors. Contributing to this review failure was the reviewing firm’s lack of qualification to do this work.

duxup 7y ago
So strange. Like even with software there's a point where I tell folks "Look if we're not going to do this X far, it's not of any value to do it half way and claim we did anything here." You'd think there would be some engineering standard where "No this isn't a legitimate review because we didn't do enough." and that might set off some alarms...
- SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
  There is. After the NTSB final report comes out next month I expect both investigations for taking away PE licenses and probably also criminal charges for gross negligence.
- varjag 7y ago
  They would raise alarms if it was an unusual exception and not the norm in the industry.

duxup 7y ago

I belive several of the companies involved already settled their lawsuits.

userbinator 7y ago

The engineer of record at the design firm repeatedly indicated that the cracks were of no safety concern. I've heard many other examples of viciously denying that anything is wrong, all the way until something becomes very very wrong, to wonder whether this is an inherent part of human nature or a futile effort to avoid liability for knowingly screwing it up.

jknoepfler 7y ago
Yes.
dboreham 7y ago
3.6 roentgen
- th0ma5 7y ago
  Not great, not terrible
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Human nature to avoid liability for screwing up - knowingly or not. You can see it even in little children who, having broken something, will deny they did so and invent excuses up until they realize the parent isn't buying it. It also makes sense both intuitively and mathematically. If you screwed up and don't admit it, there's a chance (say X) nobody will find out (that it was you, or that anything was screwed up in the first place). Conversely, there's a (1-X) chance it'll be found out and you'll pay the costs - which my be huge and very personal, including tarnished reputation, monetary damage or even jail time. Now, if you admit to the error yourself, you get 100% certainty of slightly lower punishment. As long as the "slightly lower" isn't lower than (1-X), it makes sense to keep quiet mathematically. And of course, once you add fear into this, people tend to overestimate X. Consequences to others turn this from a small to huge moral issue, but the mechanism is still arguably dominated by fear. That's why punishments are a tricky thing. Threat of losing license is a good deterrent from screwing up, but also a good motivator to hide your failure if you screwed up.
- 7y ago

hanniabu 7y ago

> repeatedly indicated that the cracks were of no safety concern This reminds me of all the nuclear power plants that are operating beyond their design life and keep increasing their allowable crack tolerance.

masonic 7y ago
Examples?
- lostlogin 7y ago
  The UK nuclear industry is one example. https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-49410625 https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-sco...
- hanniabu 7y ago
  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43455859/ns/us_news-environment/t/safety-rules-loosened-aging-nuclear-reactors/#.XbCxqZNKiRs http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43455859/ns/us_news-environment/t/... https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/11/29/390222.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/11/29/39... https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/going-long-term-us-nuclear-power-plants-could-extend-operating-life-to-80-years https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/going-long-term-us-nucl...
  - masonic 7y ago
    None of these names nuclear power plants that are "operating beyond their design life and keep (sic) increasing their allowable crack tolerance". There's no mention of crack tolerance at all, just references to containment vessels and caps requiring maintenance for radiation damage.
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      I just posted these from a quick 30s search. I'm not sure of the link for the post I've read about the concrete cracks in specific, but I believe it was about a year ago that I read it. Regardless, you can see the state of affairs and how the need for power generation and the desire to keep costs low leads to compromises in safety precautions.