Is Forensic Engineering a legitimate sub discipline?

Usually the insurance agencies contract specialists in case of disasters, where they presume fault by negligence, I have had some experiences in this field, most interesting it was the fire in a FM transmitter, where the jump of arc of voltage by defect of a new spare part assumed, it was verified that was not possible such event, by the characteristics of construction of the equipment, and the fire cause by attempt to replace this part by a compatible one, to be used with a similar equipment of smaller power, it took 30 days the reconstruction and verification of the components, not payment the policy and the client recognized his error.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Usualmente las compañías de seguros contratan especialistas en caso de desastres, donde presumen falla por negligencia, he tenido algunas experiencias en este campo, la más interesante fue el incendio en un transmisor de FM, donde se suponía el salto de arco de voltaje por defecto de un repuesto nuevo, se comprobó que no era posible tal acontecimiento, por las características de construcción del equipo, y el incendio lo ocasiono el intento de reemplazar esta parte por una compatible, para ser usada con un equipo similar de menor potencia, tomo 30 días la reconstrucción y verificación de los componentes, no se pago la póliza y el cliente reconoció su error.

"If forensic engineering can be defined as:............"

Just as a Professional Engineer must be licensed by a State or National Board of Examiners, such a person should also have the best available training in forensics.

One such specialized school, The National Forensic Academy, A CSI Training Shool has been conducted in Knoxville Tenn. for a number of years. The story of its operation is told in "BOdies We've Burriedl" by Jarrett Hallcox and Amy Welch, with a foreword by Dr. Bill Bass of "The Body Farm" fame.

Each engineering discipline would require a special course with emphasis on how to make forensic investigations to discover the facts and draw the appropriate conclusion.

All too many criminal crime scenes are destroyed or contaminated by well meaning but ignorant and uninformed officers of the law and citizen bystanders before a proper investigation can be carried out by trained personnel.

An industrial building, machine/equipment, or highway bridge collapse might require engineers from various disciplines with additional training in forensics as well.

Most forensics I have dealt with in the past are involve in litigation over structural failures in geotechnical structures. Not much need for CSI training in these types of investigations. However, you would need to be highly specialized to the type of failure you are investigating, since you may have to testify (and have the credentials). Frequently, in litigation situations there will be multiple engineers for the various parties involved and watching the sample collection procedures. Sample collection is dependant on the working conditions, materials and the type of failure. It would require multiple courses just to learn all of the sample collection for all the fields of engineering. It is better to be specialized to one field work in that field and take on the odd litigation expert witness role in that field. It would be very hard to train people in all methods of sample collection and handling to give them a credential for forensic engineering.

"Not much need for CSI training in these types of investigations."

True but then the WTC fiasco occurred twice!

The employees of Morgan Stanley escaped due to the foresight and planning of their emergency preparedness guy who reasoned if they bad guy hit once they would try again. He died a short time before 9/11 but the plan was in place and it worked.

In today's world there should be at least a few trained in criminal as well as structural and other discipline.

My thinking is that the need for Forensic Training is not so much in the CSI type stuff but basic investigative techniques, reporting, training in various aspects of the Law would be useful training.

I almost goes without saying that the first requirement is an aptitude and thorough knowledge of the subject at hand.

CSI makes high drama of the science. In real life, there is more hard work and drudgery than high drama. Gather facts, inventory observations, sort through the information, be thorough and let the facts tell the story.

One of the things that really gets me stoked is when an "expert" with a PE seal writes a half page, unsubstantiated "opinion" and seals it. Over and over I see this kind of "document" produced: little or no observation reported, no analysis, no basis, and often the client's "opinion" is regurgitated as "fact".

Another scenario - the "expert" rushes to a conclusion and then searches for information that complies with the desired result. This kind of junk encourages unnecessary litigation.

Maybe I'm just venting a bit - but I wish there was a better way to sort the lazy meat heads from the guys that really try to do their job.