Just last week I attended a 3-day “refresher class” on bridge inspection. I am now certified for 5 more years. The two instructors were asked about the Minnesota Bridge class and they refused to talk about it in any way, shape, or form.
I was totally disgusted by the findings. I wonder if others in the field are too? It was wrong to only blame the original designers and refuse to blame any of the people who made bad decisions afterward. Those decisions include (1) adding additional lanes (increasing the load) without beefing it up, (2) adding a corrosive spray device on a bridge that already had corrosion problems, in order to reduce icing, (3) canceling the reinforcing project that would have plated over the very gussetts that failed, (4) deciding to redeck the bridge (which implies that they figured the bridge would last at least 15 years more without substantial work, and (5) generally ignoring the serious cracks for the 10 years prior to the failure.
"Class" as in "type" or "series of lectures?" In either case, why would the instructors not want to talk about it?