To all,
There is the reverse of this situation that happens frequently as well. Production will do something outside the code, and if the inspector calls them for it, Production will say "prove it". Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If your going to question the inspector and make them "prove it", then you must be willing to be reciprocal.
I had a production manager tell me one time that my job was to catch them if I could, but if I didn't to bad.
This idea of "proving" is going about it the wrong way from both sides of the fence. If the contractor/erector doesn't know the code they are building to, they have no business building to it, if the inspector doesn't know the code they are inspecting to, they have no business inspecting to it.
I'll bounce interpretations off of various inspectors and in here, but in the real world, if it's not in black and white I won't say anything. Which is really frustrating. What defines "good workmanship" as found in multiple codes and specs like API 620, ASTM 312, etc. Those things are subjective to say the least, and in this day and age of minimalism, squirm paragraphs like "good workmanship" are next to worthless, and can hang either the erector or the inspector or both depending on the situation.
No one wins when practicing the "prove it" method in the end. At some point in time, if "prove it" shows one or the other party doesn't know what the code says on a regular or even semi regular basis, that person needs removed.
D1.1 is the antithesis to that when it comes to fillet sizing. It is clear what is and is not acceptable. Production will say "well whats the real quality impact?" as an argument.
It doesn't make a damn what the quality impact is to the inspector, they are not the engineers, they didn't design the damn things, they are given specific criteria to work with and should not and cannot vary one way or another from it. If a specific situation is overkill for "fitness for purpose" then the engineers, designers, etc who specified the code criteria need to change that criteria. It is neither productions place, nor QA/QC's place to do so.
LMAO w/ scott!!
My misunderstanding I suppose.I thought you were making jus tthopposite type of statement, speaking form an inspeciton point of view and then requiring fabrication personnel to give you the code statement from which they speak. Not that this is in an of itself a bad thing, fabricaiton personnel should understand the code, but inspection should not impose more stringent requirments just becasue fab people can't find the azz with both hands code wise. My mistake.
Did I misunderstand from the beginning by assuming the first post was stated from the perspective of fab people trying to argue the fillets were OK?
I'm kinda messed up here I think.