I can’t help but wonder what’s in store for the parties involved in high-tech, sensor-dense, autonomous car accidents.  Compound my wonder with new drivers whose training did not include winter road conditions.  Car dashboards are pretty with all those control lights but I wonder if they instill overconfidence.

(Autonomous cars – cars that drive themselves.  You just sit there and monitor the sensors)

How bad is it?  A friend drives a five year old Honda Accord that has sensors to indicate how close he is to an object when backing up.  We tested and the sensor incorrectly indicated he was about twice as far from my car as measured – 0.5 metres compared to an actual 0.25 metres.

Those sensors from a lower-tech age are quite simple.  What about others designed to keep you from drifting over the line and into the next lane?  The sensing cameras work well when you can see the lines but what about when the lines are covered with snow or dirt?  What about that distracting, warning Ping! Ping! when you’re trying to avoid potholes or drive just off the noisy track worn in the pavement over the years?

What about those braking sensors when you get too close to the car in front?  I’m scared to think what happens when they malfunction..

We’re in high-tech transition and accidents will happen like they did when air bags and seat belts first came out.  They’re reliable now but they weren’t at the start.  I wonder about the reliability of the sensors on today’s high-tech cars..

I thought these questions during a recent meeting of CATAIR, the Canadian Association of Technical Accident Investigators and Reconstructionists.  CATAIR is an association of serving and former police officers, consulting professional engineers and others who figure out how motor vehicle accidents happen.

We got together a few days ago in Moncton, New Brunswick.  We were there for a regular meeting with an agenda that included identifying training courses for the national meeting in Halifax in August, also for a talk by Ed. Goodfellow on drugs and driving.  Ed is Chairman of CATAIR for the Atlantic Region.

CATAIR arranges courses for its members on the reconstruction of traffic accidents.  New courses are sought or developed, or existing courses refined for reconstruction involving high-tech car accidents.  There is a learning curve associated with the refined methods.

I also believe time must pass and data collected to optimize the accuracy of the methods.  The methods are somewhat empirical – based on testing and experience   They rely for their increasing accuracy on test data from investigations – data that is still coming in.  The test data is used to refine the methods.

Some of the technology on new cars is quite advanced so the data for refining accident reconstruction methods must be limited to some extent, like that for airbags and seat belts at the start.

I can’t help but wonder about the increasingly complex disputes and claims that are surely resulting as cars add more sensors.  And the questions that might be raised about the accuracy of the expert’s methods.

Bibliography

1. Reade, M. W. (Mike) and Becker, T. L. (Tony), Fundamentals of Pedestrian/Cyclist Traffic Crash Reconstruction, Institute of Police Technology and Management (IPTM), Jacksonville, FL 2016
2. Civil litigation, forensic engineering and motor vehicle accident reconstruction.  Published September 22, 2015
3. Is your traffic accident investigator well trained, experienced and “accredited”?  Published February 23, 2016
4. “Seeing is believing” at a meeting of traffic accident investigators.  Published March 4, 2016
5. If you  can measure it you can manage it, even if it’s a real mess like a car or truck accident.  Published June 23,, 2016
6. Forensic assessment of traffic accidents.  Published October 26, 2016

I was struck recently by the different ways experts engage with the parties to a dispute or those needing a forensic investigation.  I counted eight (8) different ways in comments by experts I consulted.  Some good and conforming to well regarded project management practices, others not so much.  How an expert is engaged affects how well costs are managed.

(See a list in the Appendix of the different parties that could be involved in a dispute or forensic investigation)

Seeing how it’s done now drove home the need for principles governing the cost management of dispute resolution and forensic investigation involving experts.  I’m identifying these principles and will post them later.

Early last month I sent a draft of the principles to experts and practitioners in different fields and asked them to review it.  These people included colleagues in engineering, traffic accident investigators, several civil litigation lawyers, a town planner and a published author.  I got good comments and suggestions and I’m incorporating these where relevant.

The reviewers’ comments indicated several ways experts engage with the parties to a dispute.  I’ve listed these below.  The methods vary from project management techniques, as characterized by frequent reporting of cost-to-date and estimated cost-to-complete, to methods that risk the expert being perceived as agreeing to a fixed price for his services. There’s not a lot of order to the following list and I’m sure it’s not exhaustive – it’s just an indication of how experts engage with clients in Atlantic Canada::

1. Fee basis after the retaining party briefs the expert, the expert reads the documents and then estimates the cost of the forensic investigation.  Frequent updates on current costs and estimated cost-to-complete.
2. Fee basis.  No reporting.  No cost estimate.
3. Engage for the budget set by the retaining party, after learning the budget and the party’s theory of the case.
4. Fee basis if the client has taken the case on a fee basis.  Declines the commission if the client has taken the case on a contingency basis.
5. Fee basis and frequent oral reporting to the party on the findings at successive stages of the forensic investigation, and after being instructed by the party to carry out each stage of the investigation.
6. Fee basis after all investigation is complete and all damage repair and remediation is done and all costs accurately known.
7. Fee basis for preliminary investigation like reading documents and a visual examination of the failure or accident site sufficient to estimate costs for subsequent stages.  Then do successive stages as directed by the retaining party.
8. Fee basis plus frequent reporting of current and estimated future costs.

This list begs the question:

• Why the parties to a dispute or forensic investigation don’t engage with an expert early,
• on a simple fee basis,
• with frequent reporting of the evidence-found-to-date,
• the cost-to-date, and
• the estimated cost-to-complete?

If how an expert is engaged affects the cost of dispute resolution and forensic work then the bulleted procedure is effective – engage an expert early and get frequent oral reports on everything.  And engage an expert only as long as required by the judicial process and the needs of the party.

Appendix

Parties to a dispute or a forensic investigation can include one or more of the following::

1. Advocates and civil litigation lawyers
2. Insurance company representatives
3. Claims managers and consultants
4. Insurance adjusters
5. Owners of damaged property
6. Builders and contractors
7. People injured in accidents in the built and natural environments

You can consult with an expert in five (5) different ways, from least expensive to most expensive, according to the technical needs of an insurance claim or civil litigation.

If you include peer review of your expert’s work or that of another party’s expert – good insurance – you can consult with an expert in nine (9) different ways. (Refs 1, 2)

The first way – a preliminary factual oral expert’s report – is the best way to start and involves very little of the expert’s time.  I gave a preliminary report recently based on 1.5 hours of my time.  You can upgrade later if justified by the evidence.  A preliminary report is based on:

• a client briefing,
• a document review and
• a virtual visual site assessment or walk-over survey.

Judiciously selecting the best way is one key to managing the cost of claim adjustment or civil litigation.  You still got to manage your costs as distinct from the expert’s costs. (Ref. 3)

These different methods are described below.  And there’s a nice, five-item list at the end to help you see how easily the different methods follow on one another.

You must think about how and when you retain an expert because most failures in the built environment are small or medium-sized, not catastrophic and newsworthy – and not affluent either. (Ref 4)

Yet, regardless of case or claim size, most failures and injuries require a thorough engineering investigation consistent with how the expert is retained and what s/he is asked to do.  You can always start small and expand the investigation as.the evidence comes in, if this seems justified.

Peer review of the expert’s work, regardless of how she’s retained, is not so necessary, not one of the basic ways, but it is good insurance – and cost effective for that reason alone. (Ref. 1)  It’s done in science as a matter of course – a forensic investigation is carried out to the same standard of care.

***

In the past, experts have been retained in one of two ways:

1. Consulting expert
2. Testifying expert

Today and in the future – almost without exception – experts will serve as consulting experts in the resolution of disputes rather than testifying experts.  This is because of changes in civil procedure rules governing experts.  The changes are designed to expedite resolution of disputes and reduce the number of cases going to trial.

(I attended Expert Witness Forum East in Toronto in February, 2019 and gave an invited talk on the principles governing cost control involving experts. (Ref. 3) I learned that 98% of cases in one area of dispute were settled out of court.  I can’t remember the area but know it wasn’t engineering and science.  Nevertheless the great majority in these fields, percentages in the mid-90s, are also settled out of court)

The consulting expert will submit one or the other of the following two basic reports according to a client’s instruction.  Ideally, these reports would be submitted at several stages throughout an engineering investigation, starting at the preliminary assessment stage, to keep the client informed as to what the evidence is finding and the cost to date:

1. Oral consulting expert’s report
2. Written consulting expert’s report

The oral report can also be presented in one of two ways:

1. Factual oral consulting expert’s report
2. Interpretative oral consulting expert’s report

A factual report gathers together all the data from the office, field, and laboratory investigations and submits the raw data to the client – without analysis and interpretation.

It’s used now in the science and engineering fields.  For example, in the geotechnical investigation of ground and foundation conditions at a proposed construction site.  I was introduced to this type of reporting while practicing in Australia and England for several years.  It’s used a lot over there.

An interpretative report analyses the raw data, draws conclusions and formulates an opinion on the cause of the failure or accident.  The report can be quite comprehensive, particularly in a complicated case.

The cost of a factual oral report is easier to estimate and control.  The cost of an interpretative oral report is more difficult.  Sometimes very difficult because you don’t know what you’re going to find at the site of an engineering failure or accident if you follow-the-evidence. (Ref. 5)

A factual oral consulting expert’s report to a client could be quite inexpensive compared to a written report to the requirements of civil procedure rules governing experts.  A peer review of the factual oral report could also be relatively inexpensive.  The peer might discuss the facts with the expert – orally – and the investigation supporting these.

For example, I gave a factual oral consulting report on a power tool accident.  I did this after I videotaped the victim reenacting the accident and after the tool was examined for wear but before investigating the adequacy of the design and manufacture of the tool.  Counsel decided against further investigation based on my factual oral report.

Other examples: A colleague who reconstructs traffic accidents said he frequently gives oral reports on his findings.

Similarly, an interpretative oral consulting expert’s report could be relatively inexpensive with or without a peer review compared to a written report.  More expensive, of course, because of the interpretative element, but still less than a written report.

The written report can also be presented in one of two ways:

1. Factual written consulting expert’s report
2. Interpretative written consulting expert’s report

The relative costs of these two ways of writing a report on a forensic engineering investigation are apparent – less for factual and more for interpretative, and a little more still for peer review of either.

A summary of sorts

So, the cost of retaining an expert increases from least expensive – a preliminary factual oral consulting expert’s report without peer review, to most – an interpretative written consulting expert’s report with peer review.

It’s no surprise that an interpretative written expert’s report is one of the most expensive if it’s remembered that “An expert’s report is a critical, make-or-break document.  On the one hand, a well-written report will make testifying later at discovery and trial much easier … On the other hand, a poorly written report … can turn discovery or trial into a nightmare …” (Ref. 6)

And, I might add, turn questioning and rebutting the report, before discovery, into a cakewalk, a tsunami, if the report is distributed to all parties.

How you retain an expert – there are five (5) different ways – is one key to reducing the cost of all insurance claims and civil cases, affluent and less affluent alike.  You can’t lose, if you manage your own costs properly, as I’m sure you do, with so many cost effective ways to retain an expert.

And, like I said above, possibly the best way of all: Briefly talking with an expert at the insurance claim or case merit assessment stage.  Retaining an expert at this stage, for a few dollars, would be like a preliminary factual oral consulting expert’s report.  This is the most cost effective way of all and the best return on money spent on an expert; possibly even better than peer review.  You can always do additional engineering investigation, if justified by the evidence.

Here’s how the different ways of retaining an expert appear in a list, from least expensive to most expensive:

1. Preliminary factual oral consulting expert’s report (at the insurance claim or case merit assessment stage aided and abetted by a virtual visual site assessment and walk-over survey)
2. Factual oral consulting expert’s report
3. Interpretative oral consulting expert’s report
4. Factual written consulting expert’s report
5. Interpretative written consulting expert’s report

A bit repetitious but I think helpful in deciding how to retain an expert in a cost effective way.

I did not include testifying expert in this blog because this role for an expert is much less likely in future – a few percent at most across all areas of dispute.

References

1. Eureka! Peer review is good case insurance. Posted November 16, 2018
2. How experts are retained in civil litigation is changing and the changes are good for counsel and the justice system. Posted May 1, 2014
3. Principles governing the cost control of dispute resolution and claim settlement involving experts. Posted November 30, 2018
4. Principles Governing Communications with Testifying Experts, The Advocates Society, Ontario, June, 2014
5. Reducing the cost of forensic investigation – it’s being done now by default not by plan. Posted September 22, 2014
6. Mangraviti, Jr. James, J., Babitsky, Steven, and Donovan, Nadine Nasser, How to write an expert witness report, Preface, Page xiii, SEAK Inc., Falmouth, Mass. 2014

Bibliography

1. Peer review in forensic engineering and civil litigation. Posted November 26, 2013
2. A bundle of blogs: A civil litigation resource list on how to use a forensic engineering expert. Posted November 20, 2013

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada November 30, 2018 ejorden@eastlink.ca)

(Updated March 19, 2021)   

Peer review of an expert’s work is good case insurance against a summary  investigation, a careless analysis of the data, invalid conclusions and/or a poorly formulated opinion on cause.  And if all’s good, then it’s good insurance against delay in resolving the dispute and taking up the court or tribunal’s time.

And if a forensic investigation was omitted then peer review and identification of the technical issues is good insurance if the review finds you’re out on a limb – it’s nice to know where you’re at if you’ve got to backtrack.

(Summary as in “done quickly in a way that does not follow the normal process” – not thorough. Ref. 1)

By definition: Peer review is a process by which work (such as a scientific or engineering study, investigation or report) is checked by one or more experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or relied on. (after Ref. 1) It can be as simple as getting an independent expert to simply read the report of the investigating expert.

Also by definition: Insurance is a means of guaranteeing protection against loss.  For example, “The peer review is your insurance against the loss arising from a summary forensic investigation or no investigation at all.”. (after Ref. 1)

I reflect on the above when I learn of failures and accidents in the built and natural environments that are well beyond the case merit assessment stage without benefit of an expert’s insight.  Not even a reading of the documents and a walk-over survey of the site – relatively quick and inexpensive forensic engineering tasks..

I had the Eureka! moment recently when I was following up on the status of a case after consulting with an advocate on the need for an expert to look into the matter.  Initially we discussed the circumstances of the problem and confirmed I was qualified to investigate it.  I was remiss at the time in not inquiring about the stage of the civil litigation.  I was surprised during my follow-up to learn that the case was in discovery.

Oh boy, what to do this late in the game?  I found myself typing my last sentence in an  e-mail suggesting peer review –  it just came out of the blue, the Eureka! moment – “Peer review is good case insurance”.

I know about peer review in forensic engineering but never thought of it as insurance.

***

By way of refreshing your understanding of peer review in forensic investigation you might read one or more of the blogs listed below in the references that I posted in the past.  They’re all quite informative, if I do say so myself, particularly Ref. 4 on peer review costs.  If nothing else, that one could save you money in litigation involving experts.  My blogs are also well referenced to the engineering and scientific literature on peer review so lots of good reading there too.

References

1. Merriam-Webster dictionary, November 10, 2018
2. Peer review in civil litigation and civil litigation. Posted November 26, 2013
3. Peer reviewing an expert’s report ensures the justice system gets what it needs. Posted January 15, 2016
4. Peer review costs can be controlled. Posted January 22, 2016
5. Peer review pays off – 17 years later. Posted May 5, 2018

(There’s take-away insight in this item for Advocates at the case merit assessment stage, particularly in Appendices 1 and 2.  The simple data there plus conferring with a forensic engineer can help you assess the technical merit of a case)

***

Right away, three engineers had similar thoughts about the cause of the Morandi bridge collapse August 14 in Genoa, Italy :  My friend, Paul Gunson, Adelaide, Australia, in an email a few days ago, friend, Reg Crick, Halifax, during a chat, and me. (Ref. 1)  Paul drove under the bridge in 2009.

Take your pick of causes from a survey of these people:

• Water,
• QC,
• Maintenance,
• Water

If that’s not enough, I’ll tell you a little secret below about how designers tweak – some might skimp-on – the factor of safety.  (Actually, it’s good engineering not skimping but you need an informed public to understand that)

(QC as in Quality Control during construction and Water as in Lots of Water)

Paul did some research and found that the Morandi bridge and one other showed serious rusting of the steel reinforcing – too much water and too little maintenance  The concrete cover was spalling in some areas and exposing the steel to the weather.  There were also reports of concrete that was way below the specified strength – too little QC.

I did quite a lot of quality control of concrete and earthworks in the past and Paul’s findings resonate with me.  Quality control and maintenance are not very glamorous and often get the short end of the stick.

In a blog several years ago, I added quality control and maintenance to a list that I saw of the stages in the life cycle of a building or civil engineering work – to increase the total to 11.  There’s no questions they are stages where failure can occur.  Ignore them at your peril. (Ref. 2)

Almost the first thing Reg said when we chatted about the bridge in Italy, “Get rid of the water!! (Stupid!!)”.  Reg didn’t say “Stupid!!” but that was the tone. (Ref. 3)  He was referring to proper drainage of the water from the bridge deck that isn’t provided for during bridge design.  Drainage design isn’t very glamorous.

Reg noted another mutual friend Bill Waugh, who designed dozens of bridges in Nova Scotia and Jamaica before he passed away, despaired at the inattention to deck drainage during bridge design.  Water rusts exposed structural steel..  There’s an element of maintenance in this as well; keeping deck drains – when they are present – clear of debris so the water can drain.

I wondered when I first saw the bridge failure why successive spans of the bridge went down after the first one?  Was that continuous span of bridge deck over successive piers designed to such a low factor of safety – in the interest of looking slender and pretty – that a span relied on adjacent spans for some of it’s support?  And when one span goes down, like dominoes many go down?  But in hindsight I realized that proper design of bridges like this one might in fact rely on adjacent spans, but perhaps too much.

A tweaking engineering design secret: In engineering design the factor of safety is reduced – confidently whittled away – with increasing successful design and construction, and no failures.  Until the pendulum swings too far, failure occurs, the pendulum swings back.and the factor of safety is put back up.  This really does happen in design. (Ref. 4, pages 100, 101. A very good read)

(The factor of safety is a number got from dividing the weight you want to support safely into the greater weight that will break the thing providing the support – cause it to fail)

If you want to know more about when and where failure occurs and who is responsible – a broader picture – see Appendices 1 and 2 below.

It’ll be a while before we know why the bridge in Italy failed but the smart money is going down on over confidence during design and poor deck drainage and maintenance.  And no way can I leave out poor QC during construction.  Any takers?

***

There’s food for thought for Advocates in this item.  Buildings, civil engineering works and infrastructure fail in many ways, and some of these are an easy first pick for a forensic engineering expert at the merit assessment stage.  And failure doesn’t have to mean total collapse of a building, – or a bridge like in Italy – but simply that it doesn’t work right.  The bridge probably didn’t work right for years, like in poor deck drainage.

Poor design, construction and maintenance can also injure people, for example, in slip and fall accidents on floors with low skid resistance.

What’s the take-away for Advocates?  You’ve learned that when a failure occurs in the built environment or a person is injured experienced engineers are suspicious of what took place at certain stages in the development of a structure.  Our suspicions are backed up by independent and detailed studies by researchers in the U.S. and Europe of 100s of failures.

Taken together – our experience as engineers and these studies – we have a good idea where to look for cause.  If you don’t consult an expert at the merit assessment stage you risk technical failure of your case.  

References

1. Personal communication, Paul Gunson, Adelaide, Australia, 2018
2. Stages in the “life” of a structure helps communication between counsel, insurance claims managers and engineering expert. Posted July 2, 2015 (See update Appendix 1)
3. Personal communication, Reg Crick, Halifax 2018
4. Petroski, Henry, To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successive Design, Vintage Books, New York April 1992,
5. International engineering magazine publishes information on foundation engineering in eastern Canada – and also information useful to counsel on the causes of failure.  Posted January 4, 2013  (See Appendix 2)

Appendix 1

(The following was taken from Reference 2 above and updated)

You might be interested in the updated list below of the stages in the “life” of a structure in the built environment.  Structures include earthworks and waterworks – a reshaping of the natural environment – as well as buildings and bridges.

I came across the basic list while reading the latest, 2012 edition of Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice.  I added the stages in italics to those in the Guidelines.  The list is a useful breakdown of the aging of a structure.

The Guidelines were published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).  Civil engineering includes structural engineering and geotechnical engineering.

I see the list providing context and facilitating communication between counsel, insurance claims managers and consultants, and an engineering expert.  Failures and personal injury accidents can occur pretty well any time during the life of a structure.

Principles governing communication between counsel and expert have been developed recently by The Ontario Advocates’ Society. (Ref. 2)  The following list of stages in the life of a structure will further help counsel and an engineering expert talk to one another when a failure or personal injury accident occurs:

1. Conceptualizing
2. Planning
3. Designing
4. Constructing
5. Quality control (during construction)
6. Operating
7. Maintaining
8. Renovating
9. Re-configuring
10. Decommissioning
11. Demolishing

ASCE say that, “Failure can be defined as an unacceptable difference between an actual condition or performance and the intended or reasonably anticipated condition or performance.”  This can occur during any stage in the life of a structure.

Furthermore, “Failure need not involve a complete or even partial collapse.  It may involve a less catastrophic deficiency or performance problem, such as unacceptable deformation, cracking, water- or weather-resistance, or other such phenomena.”

It’s not difficult to imagine that failure can occur at any stage.  Nor that personal injury accidents can occur at any stage.

Communication is easier for both counsel and client and counsel and engineering expert if we all have an idea of a structure’s “life” and the stages it goes through as it ages  The list above can help us.

Appendix 2

(The following was taken from Reference 5 above)

An article entitled “The expert witness and professional ethics” reports on the categorizing and classifying of the causes of structural failure as determined by researchers in the U.S. and Europe.  This research reviewed the causes of hundreds of failures.  Based on the research the primary causes of failure were categorized as follows:

• Human failure
• Design failure
• Material failure
• Extreme or unforeseen conditions or environments
• Combinations of the above

When professional engineers were at fault (human failure) the causes of failure could be classified as follows:

• 36%…Insufficient knowledge on the part of the engineer
• 16%…Under estimation of influence
• 14%…Ignorance, carelessness, negligence
• 13%…Forgetfulness, error
•   9%…Relying on others without sufficient control
•   7%…Objectively unknown situation
•   1%…Imprecise definition of responsibilities
•   1%…Choice of bad quality
•   3%…Other

When the percentage distribution of the failures were summarized the research found that almost half were due to errors in the planning and design of a structure and a third occurred during construction:

• 43%…Planning and design
• 36%…Construction
• 16%…Use and maintenance
•   7%…Others and multiple factors

I reviewed research a few years ago that found many, possibly most, foundation failures were due to inadequate geotechnical investigation of the foundation soils.

This type of information based on what appears to be quite exhaustive research is valuable to a forensic engineer in forming an initial hypothesis of failure at the beginning of an investigation.

The information is also valuable to Counsel in assessing whether or not to take a case or gaining an appreciation of where a forensic investigation may be leading based on initial oral reports by the professional engineer investigating the cause of the failure.

I was struck by the news report a few days ago about the man getting a face transplant, particularly the five years the surgeons and medical docs planned such a daunting operation. (Ref. 1) It reminded me about a case I had a while ago, albeit less difficult by comparison, and months of planning not years.  Nevertheless, I had that daunting feeling too.

Maurice Desjardins’ face was damaged by a bullet during a hunting accident.  He couldn’t close his mouth property and had holes in his face for a nose, and breathed through another hole in his windpipe.  Surgeons tried rebuilding his face with conventional plastic surgery over the years without much luck.

Then Dr. Daniel Borsuk came along, “un magician du visage” (a magician of the face), in his mid 30s and full of youthful piss and vinegar, and after five years of planning – Success.

Dr. Borsuk plus 8 other surgeons, 5 anaesthesiologists and 100 other medical, nursing and support staff performed two operations at the same time that had to end within minutes of each other.  The one operation removed the face of the brain-dead donor and the other transplanted the face before it died.

The operating rooms were so busy looking in news reports that it seemed no one moved unless they all did.  It reminded me of my smallish kitchen when five friends are in it each preparing a different course for dinner.  When one has to move to get something from the cupboard; we all have to move.

So, why am I telling you this?  How does a face transplant relate to forensic engineering?  It relates because some forensic investigations also take a lot of planning to know where you’re going.  Not years but sometimes many months and that can be scary because time is money in civil litigation.

The news report made me think of a case I’ve got that contains six different investigation, design and construction specialties.  They are as diverse as lifting a structure off its foundations and setting it aside to chasing an elusive material across a site, quite literally.

Where do I start in dealing with such a problem?  And how do I estimate the cost of the different specialties to guide the way forward when not a lot of experience exists in the area, certainly not all under one roof.  And for the one specialty, the magnitude of the problem is not known until you start chasing it.  How do you estimate the cost of something like that?

I’m getting on top of this case as the months go by, fortunately not years but still long and difficult. I had that daunting feeling when I started and was reminded of it when I saw the news report.

I thought of another case involving repair of the old foundations of a structure founded on sloping, filled ground that is still subsiding and shifting after about 40 years – not a sinkhole like in oxford, N.S. but almost equally challenging in the uncertainly that had to be confronted.  The main problem was repairing the foundation and supporting the structure safely while accommodating future ground movement and conforming to the standard of care.

Fortunately I remembered a case report from years ago about providing jacking points in the support for a structure underlain by compressible foundation soils.  I also conferred with a friend in Australia, Paul Gunson, who dealt with a similar problem beneath a railway line. (Ref. 2) Paul’s innovative solution included grout and rubber blocks for foundations.  The way forward was clearer.  Still, lots of non-textbook problems to solve and solutions to implement.

Two or three other engineering cases come to mind as i write.  It’s interesting, that the difficult, many month-long ones concern the ground and Mother nature, unknown, unforgiving quantities that don’t lend themselves to neat, quick and easy textbook solutions.  I’ve known about the tricky ground for decades and the planning that is necessary.

For certain, “the magician of the face” knew about tricky plastic surgery and that he was operating at the cutting edge of face transplanting when he started planning years ago.  A friend of mine, a retired ear, nose and throat surgeon, told about repairing a throat one time damaged by a chainsaw – a suicide attempt – and another repair, a windpipe pierced by a 2″ diameter stick.  Where do you start?

It’s a good thing that engineers and surgeons like to have a problem to fix and one to look forward to.

References

1. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC,  and other news’ reports, week of September 9, 2018
2. Personal communication, Paul Gunson, professional engineer, Adelaide, Australia, July 18, 2018

C’mon, really? It’s true, as I found out a few days ago during a meeting in Moncton.  I was told about a small drone fitted with a camera that could take vertical, aerial photographs above the site of an engineering failure, a slip and fall accident or a traffic accident and do this within Transport Canada’s regulations.  For that matter, the site of any personal injury.

I was at a meeting of CATAIR, the Canadian Association of Technical Accident Investigators and Reconstructionists.

Transport Canada’s strict regulations considers any drone weighing less than 250 grams a toy.  The Zerotech Dobby Pocket Selfie drone weighs 219 grams fitted with a battery and a 4K HD camera and costs about $350 Cdn – just a toy.  For a look-see and demonstration, Google ZEROTECH Dobby Pocket Selfie Drone FPV With 4K HD Camera  

I can imagine carrying one of these around – almost in your pocket – during a visual assessment of a site like we carry a carpenter’s tape now.  Maybe they’ll be standard issue in the future in the tool kit of forensic engineers, civil litigation lawyers, claims managers and others concerned with a site that has a problem.

The kid’s toy Dobby drone doesn’t take good quality aerial video, which I rely on during my forensic investigations – it’s not fitted with a gimbal –  but it does take inexpensive vertical photographs quickly.  These would be photographs a little like those we engineers used to take of a site from the raised bucket of an excavator or a boom truck.

(A gimbal is a device that keeps a camera level and minimizes vibration.  The basic device has been known for centuries – but it’s not on the toy Dobby because it increases the weight and cost)

Frame grabs of single photographs of the ground from good quality aerial video are easy to get like those from a toy drone but aerial video takes more time to organize and process and is more expensive.

I plan to compare the quality of vertical photographs taken with a toy drone of a site I’m investigating now to that of a frame grab from an aerial video.  I’ll wait till the leaves fall from the tree-covered site so we can see the ground better.  I’ll let you know how they compare..