ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Safety at heights?
by gfretwell - 04/23/24 03:03 PM
Old low volt E10 sockets - supplier or alternative
by gfretwell - 04/21/24 11:20 AM
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 355 guests, and 38 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 316
L
Member
I agree with Trumpy - The EC should know that GFCI protection is required in a commercial kitchen.If the EC does pick up that the GFCI protection was overlooked by the engineer AND plan review then I think he should do the proper thing and call it out on a Request For Information form. Do it correct the first time. I'm sure the EC would still be able to argue for the extra cost. He should also know better then to do a panel schedule that states nothing more then Lights and Receptacles.
It also irritates me that the engineers draw the panel schedules the same way. Would it be that much more of a hassle to to add some room numbers to the schedule on the prints?

But the original post was about me not quite being as tactful as I could have been. I won't say I put my entire foot in my mouth but I did get a taste of what a wolverine boot tastes like smile

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 152
A
Member
Focus on WHAT is wrong and WHY, not WHO.

Originally Posted by Zapped
I think you should ignore tact and give these idiots both barrels - they charge huge sums of money, then expect everyone else to do their job for them. The contractors make about a 5th of what the engineers make, hence the overpriced suits.


This is a typical response that's both bull headed and ignorant, charging huge sums of money generally indicates that huge sums of money have been spent on legitimate business costs and does not necessarily mean taking home huge sums of money. I see few engineers out there making a killing, In general most of us work hard for a living and carry considerable risk certifying tests etc that we perform, we expect to be compensated for that but few of us are going to be retiring at 55 or even close. Engineering firms run their businesses just like you all do, paying attention to the legitimate costs and charging accordingly, we face competition like everybody else.

In this particular case we can all see WHY there is a need for inspection. Thank goodness he was doing his job correctly.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 3
Cat Servant
Member
Phooey on the 'what' and 'why.' I'll make my claim that the 'who' needs it brought to their attention. Accountability is what is often lacking.

Otherwise, an engineers' stamp is nothing but a fancy way to wrinkle paper. It's their responsibility - so let them take the hits.

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382
Likes: 7
Member
Lucky:
Tact and shoeleather aside...I have to ask; was any mention made as to if the GFI item was noted on Plan Review?



John
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 984
Likes: 1
G
Member
I like the RFI approach. If the answer changes the receptacles to GFI, the Change Order will be unquestioned. If the answer is to leave them as drawn, the Engineer gets the hit, and you still get paid to change them out. If there is some obscure reason (or Special Permission) for that unique instance, at least you've acted like the knowledagble Trademan that you are and brought the matter up for review.

BTW, I agree that the Panel Schedule on the plans should have been done in a non-lazy approach, but I usually avoid room numbers until the very last revision. Architects just love to renumber rooms each time they tweak a layout...I like to wait until there's almost no chance that the tags will be changing again before I do the detailed circuit tags.


Ghost307
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 337
S
Member
I am glad that Luckyshadow caught the error. I also agree with Ann on focusing on the what and why, not the who. Who is not always clear and may involve many in ways not clear.

I have also noted from personal experience that when I focus on the who, the who often never hear the what and why because they are busy defending themselves or others.

Years ago, I did not hear the problem and solution when handed to me by a lowly plant Engineer, because I was busy defending my senior Electrical Engineers design of an electronic sensor that I had appoved, tested, and passed the instrument. After I was working elsewhere, I learned in retrospect that the man was right due to a borderline power supply issue.

I now have also had my electricians loyally defend me and my designs to others - reading them the riot act. I would rather take the time to discuss with those involved the what, why, and codes involved so that we all can learn, including myself for I can not claim Popal infallability.

I want to thank all those who over the years have found problems in my designs and have brought them to my attention, and those who have wondered why I have done things the way I have and asked why. I also thank all of you here who take the time to ask questions and respond and discuss issues so that we all can be bettter educated. I have been to engineering forums and maybe I should stay and help them but it is here that I visit due to your overall professionalism.

It all comes down to respecting others in my mind. Remember three rules we all learned in kindergarten:
1- Don't yell at me.
2- Get along with others.
3- Clean up after yourself.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5