It doesn't matter. There's no round-up/round-down court to take this to in dispute because the specs have been crystal-clear for 26 years: the cross-slope is not to exceed 2.000000000¯%. Contractor has the responsibility to take care of their own fudge factor by starting at 1.9% ± 0.05% or whatever....not 2.0% as a starting point, then ± 0.05%. They're the ones building the structure and the only ones who know for sure what margin for error their guys need within the available specs, materials, and equipment to do it right. So the margin for error is applied
proactively by them, not
retroactively by a lawyer.
/QUOTE]
Amazing -- while I was gone for a few days and nothing much has changed
F-line -- this was written as a reply to West -- but I missed the opportunity as I was not here -- nonetheless it applies to your post even more
[West or F-Line] if you really believe that -- then you live in a reality-free bubble
[added to address the most recent silliness about faux precision -- There is no such thing as a 2.000000000¯% slope on a piece of concrete -- given a very large budget I might be able to measure such a slope on a piece of highly polished fused quartz or a silicon wafer.
When it comes to concrete on the scale of meters the reality is probably 2% translates into anything from 1.95% to 2.05%
a 1.95% slope over 5 meters = 9.75 cm == 3.84"
a 2.00% slope over 5 meters = 10.0 cm == 3.94"
a 2.05% slope over 5 meters = 10.25 cm == 4.04"
by the way:
a 2.000000001% slope over 5 meters = 3.93700787
5984251968503937007874"
compared to
a 2.000000000% slope over 5 meters = 3.93700787
4015748031496062992126"
I was the victim of rigid faux precision thinking when Eyjafjallajökull that unpronounceable Icelandic Volcano blew in 2010 -- I was in Darmstadt Germany for a conference and couldn't return for nearly a week
Here's a bit from an article in the New Scientist that deals with [Zero Tolerance] [my highlights in
[bold]
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18797-can-we-fly-safely-through-volcanic-ash/
Known unknowns
Ever since a Boeing 747 temporarily lost all four engines in an ash cloud in 1982, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has stipulated that skies must be closed as soon as ash concentration rises above zero. The ICAO’s International Airways Volcano Watch uses computerised pollution dispersal models to predict ash cloud movements, and if any projections intersect a flight path, the route is closed.
But although it is certain that volcanic ash like that hanging over northern Europe can melt inside a jet engine and block airflow, nobody has the least idea about just how much is too much. After a week of losing millions every day, airlines are starting to ask why we can’t do better.
It need not be this way, concedes Jonathan Nicholson at the UK’s aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority. “There may be a non-zero safe ash level for commercial jets, of so many particles of a certain size per minute,” he told New Scientist, “but we just don’t know.”....
Model makers
The wisdom of allowing computer models alone to ground flights is also being questioned. Frustrated companies including KLM, Lufthansa, BA, and aircraft maker Airbus have launched their own aircraft to explore how the reality in the air matched the models keeping them on the ground.
None suffered any damage, and some carried sampling instruments that found no ash in places where models predicted it, sparking strong complaints from the airline trade body IATA. Yet in a reminder of the risks, some military jets did encounter ash last week and sustained engine damage.
Prata says sensors like those he is developing at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) in Kjeller could keep planes flying by letting them finesse the educated guesses of models to reveal ash-free patches and routes.
A spokeswoman for the British air-traffic control agency NATS said she was not aware of Prata’s work, but said the idea of in-flight detection sounded “handy”. However, Nicholson suggested that it could cause traffic problems if many flights ended up switching course to sidestep ash.
Whatever happens, one fallout from the ash cloud that has grounded Europe looks likely to be a fresh look at just how dangerous volcanic ash is, and whether planes can be given the smarts to dodge around it.
Well the actual fall-out of the Ash Cloud was that the
Zero level was raised in two stages by the ICAO committee and suddenly what seemed theoretically and modeling-wise impossible -- i.e. International Air Traffic --- was in fact just routine -- and so it goes when you let unknowing and all powerful bureaucrats rule your life
