First published: N/A
Standard: £9 + VAT
An IStructE account gives you access to a world of knowledge. Create a profile to receive details of our unique range of resources, events and training.
Added to basket
Dr P. A. Jackson (F) (Gifford & Partners)
Having been responsible for the assessment, testing and analysis of a number of similar
bridges, I was very interested in this paper. I have a few comments and would like to hear the authors’ views.
Mr D. K. Doran (F)
It has been my privilege for the past 7 years to chair the two Institution task groups working on this topic. One of the benefits of being Chairman is that one does not have to do too much work. What cannot be delegated, of course, is responsibility, and I accept that. Tonight I should like to pay public tribute to the hard work of the two task groups which have valiantly laboured to produce these reports, and in particular
tonight’s speakers for putting together, in fairly short order, our papers for this evening.
Mr. D.K. Doran
As members with sufficiently long memories will recall, the Government’s proposals for
‘Approved Persons’ were extensively debated 12 years ago; procedures for assessing candidates and maintaining a register were formulated jointly with the Institution of Civil Engineers and, at that time, it was hoped that there would be rapid progress towards final approval by Government. The underlying assumption (which still applies) was that ‘Approved Inspectors’ (AIS), when appointed, had to approve all Building Regulations, whereas ‘Approved Persons’ (APs) would specifically address structural
requirements. While they therefore had to understand the Building Regulations sufficiently to know the context within which structural adequacy was determined, there was no need fully to understand (or indeed be responsible for) other aspects of the Regulations.
Stefan B. Tietz