Al,
With all respect, I would appreciate if you gave me a little more benefit of the doubt. I would also ask you read in context of the other post on the issue I wrote.
It's not a matter of being arrogant or unfamiliar with simple mechanics. Maybe I didn't make this one clear, so let me try again.
When I say it should have taken more than a nylon strap, I mean there is more to this than is being made out in the press. There seems to be a focus on this "strap" in every story I've read. My point is, the strap should not have been an end all statement as it's being made out to be. Yes the weight involved would develop significant energy falling several stories, but in my experience, it's rarely that easy to explain. You yourself point out a few key facts
"Who is to blame:
- The ironworker that used or abused the sling?
- The manufacturer of the sling?
- The foreman that was rushing to beat the clock?
- The crane operator who is responsible for the safe operation of the crane?
- The crane manufacturer that didn't foresee all the potential problems associated with "jumping" the crane?
- The engineer responsible for the design of the crane's attachment?
- The inspector that is responsible to ensure the crane is installed and operated properly (what is the scope of the inspector's work?)
"
Then there are the multiple reports surfacing in regards to bolting having been missing, of which you have mentioned.
"as the crane properly founded to a secure footing be it on the ground or a temporary attachment to the structure? "
I'd say no "if" the reports are true. I would also say this "if in fact" the reports of missing bolts are fact; who ever it was that saw that condition and said nothing obviously is stating they knew better. So why in the hell didn't they say something at the time? No matter how this turns out, it's hard to argue that missing bolts and nuts from the anchorage points had absolutely no effect on the outcome.
As for this inspector, in two different post I've stated:
"if he is found guilty of rubber stamping these reports"
"If this story is as reported."
I will stand by those conditional statements. """IF""" that guy rubber stamped those reports, He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It doesn't make a bit of difference "if" his report or lack thereof was directly related to the failure, the general public is going to lose trust in inspectors as a whole again. I've been following the news on this, and others for years, and invariably "if" there is even a hint that an inspector falsified something, the general public mind just shuts down at that point.
Most of the general public are aware of inspectors, either home, bridge, building, electrical, somewhere, someone, and in general, they have trust in them. incidences like this erode that trust. Most of the time an inspectors work goes on without mention nor note of any kind, but when something fails dramatically, one of the top 3 things that comes to the general public's mind is "wasn't that inspected?". Think back to the I-35 bridge, within a day the inspectors were already being scrutinized, comments flying on nearly every related blog whispering about poor or shoddy inspection, never mind the design flaws, and other issues, it was the inspector being hammered first out of the gate. Ask yourself "why is that?"
In closing, "it should have taken more than a nylon strap to bring it down" is in fact true. Be it abuse of the strap, using the wrong one, or using it improperly, being rushed, or any of the factors you've mentioned and others not mentioned, the medias focus on this "strap" and it alone is in my opinion B.S. misleading and piss pour reporting. Maybe I didn't make my intent clear, but it should be now.
Respectfully,
Gerald Newell