I came across the following plat (you need to click on it to see it enlarged) a couple of years ago. Quite interesting when you start looking closely. The short story is that this subdivision plat was stamped and signed by a structural engineer. Something for another post but why do structural engineers think they are something different than civil engineers - I'm not sure the distinction other than it is a speciality of civil engineering.
Anyhow, you need to read the certification he posted on his plat - (by the way - it is against the law for an engineer to perform a boundary survey - in Arizona and most other states that I am aware of).
To Quote:
I, MOHAMMED M. SIDDIQUI, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA THAT THIS MAP, CONSISTING OF 1 SHEET CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A MINOR LAND DIVISION FOR NEW HOMES MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005. THAT THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN: THAT ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN ACTUALLY EXIST AS SHOWN, THAT THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN AND THAT SAID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ARE THE MOST EDUCATED CIVIL ENGINEERS. CIVIL ENGINEERS SUPERVISE AND INSTRUCT REGINSTERED LAND SURVEYORS. THIS MAP IS INCIDENTAL TO NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
What gives??
Let's break it down sentence by sentence. First, he is a professional engineer in Arizona (or was at the time). It seems a bit odd to certify that you are licensed. He is correct in that this plat is one sheet and that it is a minor land division. A surveyor would probably call it a minor subdivision, but close enough. "True and Complete" - that is for the reviewing agency to determine, but let's say it is. Here's one that is not very astute - "that the monuments shown actually exist as shown". What if one is destroyed? What if there was an error or bust in a measurement. It would be safe to say they were found and located as shown, but I wouldn't certify to them being there now and forever. "That they are sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced"?? Says who? Well, he does, but what about latent ambiguities in his survey or the adjoiners? He states the monuments are there, but what if they are destroyed? What then? Is it still sufficient to be retraced??
The last two sentences speak for themselves. I know many structural engineers - some are good friends. The ones I know seem to understand where their expertise exists and that it is illegal for them to perform a boundary survey. That would be like a surveyor designing and stamping and signing a bridge plan set. I'm a Professional Civil Engineer and I would never take it upon myself to certify a structural plan set/design. That is way out of my area of practice. This guy seems to think that he is above the surveyors though and thus, is within his rights to do their work. Not to say engineers and surveyors are on the same playing field as surgeons, but for comparison's sake, I wouldn't want a neurosurgeon to perform an open heart surgery just because he thought he was better educated than the heart surgeon. I would want the expert in his field. Seems that the client here may have been taken for a ride as well - paying for services rendered illegally. All said, a bit of an ethical and technical misstep I'd say.
Needless to say, the board of technical registration made their ruling recently and this gentleman voluntarily relinquished his engineering license.
No comments:
Post a Comment