Can practicing outside of one's area of competence be included to mean not being recognized in a particular State as a licensed engineer in that discipline? However, that same engineer is recognized in that discipline and licensed as such in a different state. This is for a case where the engineer that made such a decision will not be stamping the project, but the decision will affect the person who will be. I would assume so since in general, someone should not be practicing engineering in a state without being under supervision of someone licensed in that state.
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
Area of competence and state licensure 4
- Thread starter haynewp
- Start date
No, licensing and competence are two different considerations. Competence in at least one niche is a requirement for licensing, not the other way around. You can be competent but not licensed and vice-versa.
To be considered competent in a given niche, you need to have specialized in it for 3+ years under the mentorship of a competent senior engineer. ie. You designed foundations & footings for 3+ under a competent senior, now you're considered competent (only) in foundation & footing design. You can now jump to a new niche like structural steel design for commercial buildings and work 3+ more to become competent in that niche. Eventually when you're competent in the necessary small niches, you become competent as a generalist designing larger systems like the overall structural design for commercial buildings. Practicing outside one's competence therefore is doing anything which you havent spent 3+ years specializing in under a competent senior, including generalists who've never specialized.
To be considered competent in a given niche, you need to have specialized in it for 3+ years under the mentorship of a competent senior engineer. ie. You designed foundations & footings for 3+ under a competent senior, now you're considered competent (only) in foundation & footing design. You can now jump to a new niche like structural steel design for commercial buildings and work 3+ more to become competent in that niche. Eventually when you're competent in the necessary small niches, you become competent as a generalist designing larger systems like the overall structural design for commercial buildings. Practicing outside one's competence therefore is doing anything which you havent spent 3+ years specializing in under a competent senior, including generalists who've never specialized.
CWB1, where are you coming up with 3+ years of experience as the requirement? If that's the case, how is anyone designing a single family structure? I read your explanation as they would require 3+ years of experience in foundation design, 3+ years in wood frame design, 3+ years in steel design, 3+ years in lateral design, etc., or is the argument all of those experience years are acquired simultaneously?
haynewp - are you talking about a state that has a "title" law where some engineers can call themselves "Structural Engineers" when not specifically passing the SE exam. I know in Nebraska at one point you could call yourself a "structural" if you did structures (vs. passing SE1 and SE2). They changed all that now but wasn't sure what you were referring to.
Could you provide an example?
It seems like some US States ask for competence in practice (self-regulated but checked by the board if a complaint arises) but say an engineer with a "mechanical" tag on their stamp has lots of structural experience and designs a building frame the state would allow that. They have a PE license and they have experience and competence in structural design.
Could you provide an example?
It seems like some US States ask for competence in practice (self-regulated but checked by the board if a complaint arises) but say an engineer with a "mechanical" tag on their stamp has lots of structural experience and designs a building frame the state would allow that. They have a PE license and they have experience and competence in structural design.
- Thread starter
- #5
JAE, yes states that have a separate designation. In Oklahoma, there is a designation for structural engineers designing significant structures. Example; a structural engineer not registered in Oklahoma at all, received their license by civil exam in another state, makes a decision that affects the EOR that is in charge of the significant structure. Or is that simply seen as practicing without a license in that state?
The EoR should have "responsible charge" shouldn't they? If so, there's no ethical violation nor is there practicing without a license.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
- Thread starter
- #7
SWComposites
Aerospace
Well who exactly does this rogue engineer work for? Contractor? Owner? AHJ?
- Thread starter
- #9
ChorasDen, the norm for training and career development programs is three years per niche/role, which goes back in quality management IIRC to Taylor. Licensing stateside generally requires four years total experience and a senior attesting that you are competent in at least one niche, which makes sense given industry norm.
Working across multiple specialties simultaneously is usually called either being a generalist or a systems engineer and does not establish competence, hence the reason engineering training programs dont start recent grads in that role. Per the old stereotype, lousy generalists are the "jack of all trades master of none," emphasis on the later. Without deep knowledge of subordinate specialties, a generalist doesnt know how to correctly analyze their design or whether it meets requirements, and is left either guessing or committing the cardinal sin of blindly treating a "standard" as a "how-to" without understanding its context or nuances. To ethically and legally lead the design of complex systems requires quite a few years of experience or lying about one's competence, there's no shortcut otherwise. Many get away with the later in less technical/competitive/regulated niches bc their competence is never challenged by peers/competitors/courts. If you do so in highly technical/competitive/regulated niches without the requisite experience tho you'll be quickly called out, if not forced out.
Working across multiple specialties simultaneously is usually called either being a generalist or a systems engineer and does not establish competence, hence the reason engineering training programs dont start recent grads in that role. Per the old stereotype, lousy generalists are the "jack of all trades master of none," emphasis on the later. Without deep knowledge of subordinate specialties, a generalist doesnt know how to correctly analyze their design or whether it meets requirements, and is left either guessing or committing the cardinal sin of blindly treating a "standard" as a "how-to" without understanding its context or nuances. To ethically and legally lead the design of complex systems requires quite a few years of experience or lying about one's competence, there's no shortcut otherwise. Many get away with the later in less technical/competitive/regulated niches bc their competence is never challenged by peers/competitors/courts. If you do so in highly technical/competitive/regulated niches without the requisite experience tho you'll be quickly called out, if not forced out.
-
1
- #11
Both varieties certainly exist in every profession and role. Incompetent** generalists can thrive at large companies where process/policy requires their work to be reviewed and approved by niche specialists. At sole-proprietorships they dont have that luxury, the generalist needs to intimately know details of the individual specialties to ensure ALL of the work is done correctly. IMHO the needs of the sole-proprietor/sole-approver should drive the standard for who is competent/incompetent.
My position is that all engineers, generalists and specialized niches alike are incompetent until they meet the same minimum standard of time and experience in a given niche to prove otherwise. I frequently see senior engineers transfer into new industries or roles and be politely reminded that they need hubris bc they're not seniors, they're juniors in the new role. And to clarify, I have no issues with "incompetent" engineers doing anything under the supervision/approval of a competent, supervising mentor - that's how we learn.
**The word "incompetent" makes me cringe bc its typically an insult. In this instance tho it simply means lacking competence to do ALL of the necessary work yourself to a high standard.
My position is that all engineers, generalists and specialized niches alike are incompetent until they meet the same minimum standard of time and experience in a given niche to prove otherwise. I frequently see senior engineers transfer into new industries or roles and be politely reminded that they need hubris bc they're not seniors, they're juniors in the new role. And to clarify, I have no issues with "incompetent" engineers doing anything under the supervision/approval of a competent, supervising mentor - that's how we learn.
**The word "incompetent" makes me cringe bc its typically an insult. In this instance tho it simply means lacking competence to do ALL of the necessary work yourself to a high standard.
-
1
- #14
I've read all this about 4 times and still not sure I understand the question.
Generally, if you're working and/or licensed on a project in State A, nobody cares how or if you're licensed in States B, C, D, etc.
If the law or rules specifically require, say, a Structural Engineer, and you're a licensed engineer but not an SE, they might say you're not adequately licensed or properly licensed for that specific application but I think "unlicensed" would be misleading there. That might vary somewhat depending on how the state boards and licensing laws are set up.
As for making decisions that "affect" the engineer-of-record without his/her knowledge, I think that would depend a lot on the actual details.
Generally, if you're working and/or licensed on a project in State A, nobody cares how or if you're licensed in States B, C, D, etc.
If the law or rules specifically require, say, a Structural Engineer, and you're a licensed engineer but not an SE, they might say you're not adequately licensed or properly licensed for that specific application but I think "unlicensed" would be misleading there. That might vary somewhat depending on how the state boards and licensing laws are set up.
As for making decisions that "affect" the engineer-of-record without his/her knowledge, I think that would depend a lot on the actual details.
-
1
- #15
I'm with JStephen, I don't understand the question. Haynewp, I think maybe you are being intentionally vague to protect sensitive details. I get that, but I have no idea what you are asking.
As an aside, CWB1, your diatribe about supposed "requirements" for competence (e.g., 3 years) is nonsense. Nothing like that is codified in any state engineering rules or laws that I have ever seen.
As an aside, CWB1, your diatribe about supposed "requirements" for competence (e.g., 3 years) is nonsense. Nothing like that is codified in any state engineering rules or laws that I have ever seen.
I also don't get the makes a decision that affects the EOR business while somehow being an internal matter. Not going to get a definitive answer. But my view is unlicensed isn't the same as outside competence. Outside competence triggers public safety or at least consumer protection concerns. World renowned expert on timber house construction visiting from Europe helps out a friend on their patio design is unlicensed but not a safety issue. Example from Australia and maybe elsewhere: civil engineering degree can lead to structural design, road design, subdivision work, geotechnical, traffic engineering. An engineer who has only done traffic engineering can't suddenly call themselves a structural engineer because they did three subjects 15 years ago even though the degree qualification is identical.
- Thread starter
- #17
That is correct, I was being intentionally vague and I can see where it was confusing. My question is simply whether there is ever 2 violations possible or only 1. If you aren't licensed and get caught, then it's obviously practicing without a license. Is there a possibility that there are 2 violations if you are also seen as not competent to even attempt to practice in that area in the eyes of the state you were caught in?
I would think it is a more egregious offence if for instance, I practiced electrical engineering that could have set a building on fire since I have no clue about electrical engineering. If I got caught doing structural in Alaska which I don't have a license in, then I think it might be punished less harshly since I am a recognized SE in several other states. To a lesser degree, someone practices structural in a state by way of the old civil exam from 25 years ago attempts to design in California, without a license, and does not have adequate EQ experience.
I would think it is a more egregious offence if for instance, I practiced electrical engineering that could have set a building on fire since I have no clue about electrical engineering. If I got caught doing structural in Alaska which I don't have a license in, then I think it might be punished less harshly since I am a recognized SE in several other states. To a lesser degree, someone practices structural in a state by way of the old civil exam from 25 years ago attempts to design in California, without a license, and does not have adequate EQ experience.
If you have no license, you are, by definition, not competent, so it's not a two-fer.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
- Thread starter
- #19
SWComposites
Aerospace
BS.
Competency has nothing to do with being licensed.
I’ve known PE’s who were close to completely incompetent.
And I’ve known lots of very competent engineers that are not licensed (in industries where no one gives a rat’s ass about the whole PE thing.)
If this person who supposedly did something incorrect in a state they weren’t licensed, but they didn’t stamp/seal and drawings or documents, then it seems to be an internal company issue. Not a licensing issue.
Competency has nothing to do with being licensed.
I’ve known PE’s who were close to completely incompetent.
And I’ve known lots of very competent engineers that are not licensed (in industries where no one gives a rat’s ass about the whole PE thing.)
If this person who supposedly did something incorrect in a state they weren’t licensed, but they didn’t stamp/seal and drawings or documents, then it seems to be an internal company issue. Not a licensing issue.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question