Inspector arrested in New York crane collapse

The inspector responsible for checking the crane that toppled over last Saturday in Manhattan has been arrested for allegedly falsifying his reports.

The NYC Department of Buildings sent Edward Marquette to inspect the crane after receiving a tip that the apparatus was unstable. It is alleged that Marquette never checked the crane, but filed paperwork saying that he did. 

Buildings officials would not discuss why Marquette failed to inspect the crane.

Comments

[Doug from Allentown, PA]

Even though I think the inspector does deserve to be charged, I do believe this story is being hyped. Here is a direct quote from a CNN article on the issue.

"it is very unlikely that a March 4 inspection would have prevented the accident because parts of the crane that failed 11 days later were not on site then. The crane was inspected the day before the collapse."

This was of course burried near the end of the story.

[The Phantom]

yep. hype hype hype

And while any failure of the inspection process lies at the City's lap, I would also want to know --if there was material breach of procedure --ie no "collar" where it was needed-- how come the Crane Operator, the Project Manager and others not notice something apparently so basic to safety of that type of crane?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

To me, what's important is the official acknowledgment that senior Buildings Inspectors might falsify their records from time to time.

Of course this guy is innocent until proven guilty.

I checked the records for that construction site myself, and it had racked up a long list of complaints, violations, and even fines--especially in the last 3 months.

A number of these complaints involved the crane--that it was unstable, that workers weren't using safety equipment, that it posed a danger to the public. The paperwork shows that inspectors came to check out these allegations, but that they didn't catch the operators in any violations.

Maybe the crane operators were doing everything right. Or maybe the previous investigations weren't being pursued as closely as they might have been.

The fact that there was a series of crane-related complaints prior to the final accident makes me wonder about the overall competence and diligence of the crane operators.

If the building inspector didn't show up, then why not? Did he get any incentives to look the other way?

[julia]

Offhand I'd suspect that it has something to do with the fact that the inspector who has all that power over a multiple-hundred-million dollar project in Manhattan makes $52k.

I can't think of any other reason why with the city making lots of noise about improving construction safety standards an inspector would ignore a complaint coming from the Upper East Side, arguably the only citizens of New York our beloved mayor have legitimate concerns.

[julia]

our beloved mayor ^thinks^ have legitimate concerns.

[Pesto]

I agree that it's not yet time to call this General Slocum Part II, but there need to be serious investigations into the inspection system to find out if contractors are successfully evading being called on violations in a systematic and widespread manner.

[rpogugs]

apepl
It sites good, but it seems themes are similar:
ypytyy