Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelfazin
|
These post-catastrophe apologetics drive me nuts. Very lame.
There is an old saying, one of my favorites: "Nothing speaks like results."
There is a bridge in the water. There was obviously something very wrong.
To imply after the fact that there was nothing wrong with the bridge is just so much CYA. Obviously, there was something VERY wrong with the bridge. It just didn't get fixed. Whether it was missed because we (all the humans involved, collectively) just did not have the knowledge and skills to find the problem; or whether it was identified and ignored - that is another issue.
I'm an optimist and hope it is the former.
Bottom line is that there is a big bridge in the water. That is proof enough to me that there was something very wrong with it, probably long before the day it fell.
The line that jumps out at me is the one somebody posted from the National Bridge Inventory indicating the bridge was within minimal tolerable limits to be left standing as is. (And that was at least 4 years ago - the category must have a very wide range however it is measured. It was mimimally tolerable 4 years ago, and after 4 years of the heaviest bridge load in the entire state, it was still minimally tolerable).
Maybe it is my hobby of choice, but I have a risk assessment process that does not allow a category like Minimal Tolerable Limits to even be an option on the menu when the cosequence of error is something like a bridge falling down.
When I inspect my rig, each and every component is either in Great Shape & Ready to Perform it's Function in the Extreme, or it is Unsafe & Not to be Used. There should be no in-between for things like planes, parachutes, rocket ships, big bridges, etc.