I think this thread highlights the conflict between the engineer, the consultant, and the lawyer, a single person may be all three, in which case there must definitely be a conflict of interest in the same way as that as a pharmacologist who becomes a GP.
All the engineer wishes for is a clearly defined and yes prescriptive set of rules to follow where nothing is left in doubt. If such a guide existed, there would be no room for doubt, but since that doesn't make money, things are left deliberately vague and indistinct. The best example of which is the 3 inspections from 3 different inspectors on the same installation and with 3 different results and conclusions, one man's catastrophic non-compliance is another's 'pass' but with a bit of remedial work required. The third most likely couldn't make up his mind, and just failed everything on the strength of a quick visual to be on the safe side.
I think this thread highlights the conflict between the engineer, the consultant, and the lawyer, a single person may be all three, in which case there must definitely be a conflict of interest in the same way as that as a pharmacologist who becomes a GP.
All the engineer wishes for is a clearly defined and yes prescriptive set of rules to follow where nothing is left in doubt. If such a guide existed, there would be no room for doubt, but since that doesn't make money, things are left deliberately vague and indistinct. The best example of which is the 3 inspections from 3 different inspectors on the same installation and with 3 different results and conclusions, one man's catastrophic non-compliance is another's 'pass' but with a bit of remedial work required. The third most likely couldn't make up his mind, and just failed everything on the strength of a quick visual to be on the safe side.
