Recognized rules of the technology (aRdT)

Important terms, which emerge during all engineer achievements, are such like state of the art or middle kind and G�te.Es are this so-called indefinite right terms. This to make concrete to make objektivierbar and understandable is a goal of the technical rule setting. In addition the appreciative rules e.g. serve the technology (aRdT). One aRdT is always a technical rule, but not each technical rule is a appreciative rule Technik.Die definition reads: Appreciative rules of the technology are rules, which are in the science as theoretically correctly appreciative, which admits throughout in the circle of the specialists trained on current conditions is, who are due to practical experience as technically suitably appreciative. Appreciative rules of the technology require not necessarily writing. When is a technical rule a appreciative rule of the technology? Or: Why is a text book; or also this book; none aRdT? So that a paper is applicable as aRdT, certain conditions are to be kept: - For the development determined � rules must � be valid. These rules must be suitable to guarantee that contents of the questionable technical rule comprehensibly and independently (e.g. coined/shaped by one-sided economic interests) it takes place. - (Specialized) the public must be included. Since aRdT � due to practical experience � must be appreciative as technically suitable, a regular and comprehensible publication procedure with the stages of the draft publication, time for appeal and objection treatment is a substantial condition. Everyone can deliver a statement to a draft of a VDI recommendation or a DIN standard and the responsible committee must with these statements be concerned as well as a speaker about the treatment of its statement inform. Thereby an additional protection against the anchorage of one-sided definitions is built into aRdT. - ARdT must be current. The technology develops further, within some ranges faster than in others. One aRdT of 1950 will not illustrate no more in all rule today the state of the art. For VDI recommendations it is valid from there that these at the latest five must be examined years after their publication for topicality. A committee of honorary specialists has to decide then whether the guideline for further five, which can be examined, can continue years invariably, whether it must be revised, or whether it must be withdrawn. DIN standards and VDI recommendations it is assumed that they are in the moment, since they appear as final versions aRdT. This is first a general assumption. These sets of rules are provided however by humans. There is always from there the possibility that they contain errors. In a special case in doubts it is pulled that a VDI recommendation or a DIN standard enjoys rightfully the status of one aRdT, then must be examined and proven in the respective individual case. ARdT are not legislation, but would be completely optional private-legal recommendations, which could tempt one to the acceptance, their application. That is however not like that! ARdT are implicit parts of contract, even if they are not explicitly agreed upon, and even if they are explicitly excluded. The exclusion clause can be regarded as ineffective, since it is simply illegal to furnish a service not after aRdT. ARdT are not only implicitly a component of contracts, it are rather dynamic parts of contract, i.e.: With change aRdT also contents of a contract change, and independently of the will of the parties. To the decrease a building is owed, which corresponds to the changed state of the art. The definition aRdT, as it quotes above states that aRdT � in the circle of the specialists trained on current conditions admits throughout is �. From this an advanced training requirement results regarding aRdT for the specialist in an area. The Erbringer clings to guarantee and adhesion for the contribution of an achievement. Adhesion exists here also with the application of outdated RdT, with missing aRdT and with the use of incorrect aRdT. That is because of the fact that guarantee is an absolute liability without consideration for being to blame for. This is based after the understanding of the author on the principle of faithful and faith, which form a central role in the German juridical system: The client, who assigns to possess maintains a specialized company the necessary authority for the contribution of the achievement may believe this statement. With it clings the Erbringer of the achievement, which contractors, but that the achievement is furnished duly, i.e. after the state of the art and in conformity with the relevant aRdT. Commitment and priority of different aRdTMissverst�ndnisse in the public; even in the specialized public; often exist with the question: Which is more value: a VDI recommendation or a DIN standard? The question is completely simply answered: Both are A priori aRdT and as such in o.b. the sense equivalent obligatorily and equal to much value. (If you the author personally ask, it to you will however say that it the opinion is that a VDI recommendation is more value than DIN, since it is compiled independently of firm associatednesses and more than DIN standards is gem�nzt on practical aspects. But that does not have to do anything with the legal one.) author: Dipl. - Phys. Thomas Wollstein, VDI association of German engineers TGA

This text was translated automatically.