News story out of New York about crane inspectors used there. I would suggest that the problem with a governmental inspector in general is that they focus on semantics and miss the real issues. For example ASME B30.3 requires a 110% foundational overload test. Manufactrers often prohibit this test and limit it to 100% of the rated capacity. If the city (such as NYC) requires it so they'll look past the manual and say that it's required here, so do it. At that point everyone's ass is hanging out on the line because you have ignored the manufacturer. But the law says...
Another example is load testing a four part crane. You need to get into the line pull limit and the moment curve of the lad chart. Some manufacturers suggest doing so in two part operation. Yet some city inspectors will focus in on load testing the crane to it's maximum capacity. You can accomplish this in two part operation but they want to see four part operation and don't fully understand that you don't prove anything as the cranes are not limited by structural in tight, but by line pull factors such as the transmission, brakes, or staying within rope safety factors. Most independents know what the intent of the rules are and don't hang up on the minusha of language that distracts buearucrats from seeking corrections on real safety items. I have never seen a governmental inspector walk a tower crane jib in seven years. They aren't even verifying bent keepers or weld integrity then.
Just my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment