Tennis fencing, engineering or not?

[Yankee]

Write on plans, show how installation shall be in conformance with "ASTM F969 - 07 Standard Practice for Construction of Chain-Link Tennis Court Fence"

Nice! I'll do that (there's no "plans" but I can do that on the letter from the installer sayin' he's going to do it right) ~

 

[Yankee]

Our engineers in the public works dept will review and even spec out small projects for the city they just don't personally sign or stamp them.

That's kinda what I do ; )

 

[brudgers]

I would strongly suggest minimal drawings be provided.

 

[permitguy]

Some guy in permitting recently told me that if it protects your career then it complies with code.

Funny. Some guy who was less valuable to his last jurisdiction than a police car recently told me that it is ethical to ignore code requirements you don't like.

I'm with jar on this one. Either require engineering, or approve one of the many alternate methods that has been suggested here (with documentation). A jurisdiction which does not act in accordance with its own laws is eventually going to embarass itself, at the very least.

 

[texasbo]

Funny. Some guy who was less valuable to his last jurisdiction than a police car recently told me that it is ethical to ignore code requirements you don't like.

Ya, but you got to give him a break; he has a real problem with associations. Let's just take a look at the world according to brudgers:

Dislike for handicapped accessibility = slavery

Thorough code enforcement = child abuse

Quality customer service = bribery

Conscientious enforcement = just trying to protect your job

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and a peek into a delusional mind that can't differentiate fantasy from reality.

And just for the record, I'd have chosen the piece of machinery as well; it has better analytical skills. In fact, if given the choice between brudgers and a decent sidewalk patrol bicycle, it's still a no brainer.

 

[brudgers]

it's still a no brainer.

Thereby qualifying you to make the decision.

 

[brudgers]

Funny. Some guy who was less valuable to his last jurisdiction than a police car recently told me that it is ethical to ignore code requirements you don't like.I'm with jar on this one. Either require engineering, or approve one of the many alternate methods that has been suggested here (with documentation). A jurisdiction which does not act in accordance with its own laws is eventually going to embarass itself, at the very least.

First, last, and only jurisdiction.

I wasn't cut out for the whole "I can retire in 18 years, so I'll just keep my mouth shut and kiss the boss's ***" mentality.

But hey, whatever works for you.

 

[fatboy]

brudgers.........again you start all this crap up with some stupid, juvenile, OT, inapropriate comment, simpling baiting responses. Make your comments directed to the topic, leave the BS out......it's tiring, not sure about anyone else, but I'm not amused. JMHO

 

[Big Willie]

fatboy & others,

This is not " brudgers " first exhibition of juvenile behavior and argumentative responses.

He will continue with his antics until one of the Moderators or Jeff bans his ISP address.

:beatdhrs

 

[Yankee]

There is a difference between "keeping one's mouth shut", and advising your "client" (the jurisdiction) as to the correct and appropriate reading of the code and declining to sign that particular permit. You can quit over it (or maybe be fired over it) but in the end it is the TM's decision.

 

[brudgers]

There is a difference between "keeping one's mouth shut", and advising your "client" (the jurisdiction) as to the correct and appropriate reading of the code and declining to sign that particular permit. You can quit over it (or maybe be fired over it) but in the end it is the TM's decision.

I'm on record in favor of not requiring engineering - there are published standards and they are designed to provide satisfactory installation even in locations where no permit is required.

There are things worth falling on your sword for - adequate structural design for dwellings in high wind load exposure C locations perhaps being one that seemed worthy at the time.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I'm on record in favor of not requiring engineering - there are published standards and they are designed to provide satisfactory installation even in locations where no permit is required.

:agreeIsn't that the reason for a standard?

 

[Yankee]

There are things worth falling on your sword for - adequate structural design for dwellings in high wind load exposure C locations perhaps being one that seemed worthy at the time.

Indeed : ) , , , however no matter which ones you "lose", chances are the jurisdiction is better off with you there pushing their envelope, than with the next guy who doesn't. I must say I have had to "lose" a few before getting to this mental place.