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.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Area of competence and state licensure 4
- Thread starter haynewp
- Start date
geotechguy1
Civil/Environmental
I suppose this is one of those cases where you have to define the word in a specific context.
In the general context, PE is a possible indicator / positively correlated with competence but frankly there are a fair number of absolutely fucking useless cunts licensed with various professional associations, and a good number of questionably competent ones as PEs / PEng / CEngs / CPengs / RPEQ et.
In the general context, PE is a possible indicator / positively correlated with competence but frankly there are a fair number of absolutely fucking useless cunts licensed with various professional associations, and a good number of questionably competent ones as PEs / PEng / CEngs / CPengs / RPEQ et.
If you are a PE, you are legally deemed as competent, and if you have no license, it's irrelevant how competent you are, because you're in violation of the law if you practice engineering without that license.
I hear you; we wanted to hire a very sharp engineer at a previous company and couldn't because they didn't have a degree and even though he could program rings around most programmers, that lack of a piece of paper kept us getting the best engineer we could get.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
@IRstuff Disagree. Your case was regulatory not competence. Even licensed PEs have obligation to realise when they are going outside comfort zone and step away or get supervision. License won't save them from a competence accusation or standard of care problem if they stray so there's no blanket deeming of competence. Also unlicensed vs incompetence will absolutely be relevant when comes to charges and penalties.
I did not state otherwise; the OP tied it to licensure, hence it's a regulatory question.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
SWComposites
Aerospace
if you have no license, it's irrelevant how competent you are, because you're in violation of the law if you practice engineering without that license. rubbish. that would mean that virtually every engineer in the aerospace, automotive and many other industries are in violation of the law.
This is my opinion. The engineer of record is ultimately responsible for the final design, and every body that contributes to the final design must be under the EOR's responsible charge. It doesn't matter if the person contributing to the design is a fellow engineer licensed in the same state, an engineer from another office, a right out of school staff engineer, summer intern, licensed 1099 contractor or consultant, unlicensed 1099 contractor or consultant, or the uber driver you bounced engineering concepts off of, they are all under the EOR's responsible charge. Being a W-2 employee is not a requirement to be under the EOR's responsible charge.
If you hired a consultant to provide any kind of service (performing calculations, drawings, or just providing advice), it is still up to the EOR to completely verify the design prior to taking responsibility of it by apply their seal.
Unless your contract with the consultant included final seal by an engineer in the state of the project, then I do not see a licensing issue. If this was an employee, you would just fire them if you felt they were under performing. The fact the consultant is (I assume) a contractor to your company does not change this relationship. You simply "fire" them (no longer do business with them) and move on. I don't consider this a licensing issue. This would be different if they were submitting work to the owner of course, but you are essentially just subcontracting out labor and your company is still fully responsible to the owner.
If you hired a consultant to provide any kind of service (performing calculations, drawings, or just providing advice), it is still up to the EOR to completely verify the design prior to taking responsibility of it by apply their seal.
Unless your contract with the consultant included final seal by an engineer in the state of the project, then I do not see a licensing issue. If this was an employee, you would just fire them if you felt they were under performing. The fact the consultant is (I assume) a contractor to your company does not change this relationship. You simply "fire" them (no longer do business with them) and move on. I don't consider this a licensing issue. This would be different if they were submitting work to the owner of course, but you are essentially just subcontracting out labor and your company is still fully responsible to the owner.
Occupational codes tie competence to professional norms. Regulators and courts dont dictate those norms (nor want to), they just compare the facts of your history to professional norms to establish/challenge competency. If you completed a standard 3-5 year training period in a focused niche under competent mentorship and dont have many/large complaints otherwise then you're assumed competent in that niche. If you dont then you're not. Two common misconceptions are assuming that competence can be self-taught and that licenses allow you to work carte-blanche across the entire field. In reality everybody from engineers to doctors, attorneys, etc follow very similar norms - 3-5 in a focused niche under competent mentorship and if they want to learn another niche, they fall back to being a junior/resident/associate under competent mentorship for another 3-5. Ultimately you dont know what you dont know (thus need competent mentorship), and the Failures & Disasters section is filled with stories caused by folks practicing within their license but outside their competence. The residential foundations PE wanting to move into skyscraper steel needs retrained properly as does the cardiologist wanting to jump to pediatrics. Folks suggesting otherwise simply don't understand the legal system stateside.
Michigan 339.105 - "Competence" means a degree of expertise that enables a person to engage in an occupation at a level that meets or exceeds minimal standards of acceptable practice for the occupation.
Michigan 339.105 - "Competence" means a degree of expertise that enables a person to engage in an occupation at a level that meets or exceeds minimal standards of acceptable practice for the occupation.
CWB1, it is your continued reference to a "standard" 3+ years (now you have revised it to 3-5 years) of training on a subject under competent mentorship as some sort of standard (or norm) that defines competency that you are wrong about. There are of course required time periods of training that are codified to become licensed in various engineering fields, but you have said yourself that licensure does not grant carte blanche competency across the board, and there aren't any regulations or norms that define competency. The Michigan definition that you cited makes no mention of training, mentorship or time required to develop competency. If a licensed engineer's competency is challenged, a largely subjective determination will have to be made.
If they were in a state without industrial exemptions, then they would be practicing without a license in violation of the law, but California and many other states do have such exemptions.
That said, enforcement of the law can be overly zealous, as in the Oregon case, where their PE board attempted to stifle the free speech of an unlicensed engineer criticizing traffic light timing. Said engineer was, in my view, clearly baiting the board, by continually referring to himself as an "engineer." Nevertheless, that was a very public instance of someone practicing engineering without a license and the board did attempt to punish him.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
Its not subjective. A survey will be done of larger companies' job descriptions, training programs/requirements, and career ladders to establish industry norms for the role in question, and the engineer's training and experience will be compared to those facts. A given role's duties, training, career ladder, etc are very similar bc different companies hire the same training consultants, trade the same employees, follow the same processes, use the same tools, compete for the same customers, etc.
SWComposites
Aerospace
Training and experience do not ensure competence.
Overvoltage
Electrical
True, but a lack of training and experience will almost always ensure incompetence.
It happens daily in the US.
Licensing boards arent technical regulators. They have very little ability to investigate any engineering activity before they're overstepping their legal authority, outside their competence, and/or stepping on technical regulators' toes. They dont have large staffs/labs/resources, nor are they SMEs in most of the niches they're regulating. <5% of engineering activities stateside require a license so the overwhelming majority arent even subject to any state board's purview. They enforce existing licensing law and generally steer clear of engineering or business practices bc of the limitations mentioned.
The overwhelming majority of engineering regulation is administered by technical regulators in state and federal agencies specific to each industry. They're full-time SMEs with labs/resources responsible for every aspect of that industry from technical details to business practices. Technical regulators are heavily involved in the creation and implementation of new legislation including licensing and permit requirements. They're also the ones investigating disasters and complaints, establishing the competency of engineering approval chains as I described.
-
1
- #36
CWB1 - I appreciate all your posts - truly I do.
It seems to me that your "world" of engineering that you inhabit is much different than mine, at least, and several others here at ET as I see your descriptions and processes of engineering regulation have nothing to do with the engineering markets that I inhabit as a structural engineer working for clients (i.e. owners and architects) designing buildings.
It seems that your statements are most likely true in your particular realm of business. Most of what you state sounds totally foreign to me - I've been in the business since 1979, licensed in up to 27 states, etc. and I've never seen a "regulator" in my industry using labs, or having a "survey done of larger companies' job descriptions, training programs/requirements, and career ladders to establish industry norms for the role in question." Never happens.
So much of your dialog here with others seems to be skewed where you argue one point and others say "that never happens". I think these cross claims are talking about two different realms.
I don't think you are incorrect - don't get me wrong - but I am suspecting that you inhabit a different engineering market than others and this gets confusing and unnecessarily argumentative - again - not your fault at all and I suspect you are correct in your points as applied to your area of work.
Could you describe a bit what sort of work you are involved with? Just looking for clarification - thanks!
It seems to me that your "world" of engineering that you inhabit is much different than mine, at least, and several others here at ET as I see your descriptions and processes of engineering regulation have nothing to do with the engineering markets that I inhabit as a structural engineer working for clients (i.e. owners and architects) designing buildings.
It seems that your statements are most likely true in your particular realm of business. Most of what you state sounds totally foreign to me - I've been in the business since 1979, licensed in up to 27 states, etc. and I've never seen a "regulator" in my industry using labs, or having a "survey done of larger companies' job descriptions, training programs/requirements, and career ladders to establish industry norms for the role in question." Never happens.
So much of your dialog here with others seems to be skewed where you argue one point and others say "that never happens". I think these cross claims are talking about two different realms.
I don't think you are incorrect - don't get me wrong - but I am suspecting that you inhabit a different engineering market than others and this gets confusing and unnecessarily argumentative - again - not your fault at all and I suspect you are correct in your points as applied to your area of work.
Could you describe a bit what sort of work you are involved with? Just looking for clarification - thanks!
geotechguy1
Civil/Environmental
JAE,
The regulatory environment you are familiar with essentially only applies to the civil sphere, and even then mainly only to structural engineers and as lip service in the other civil disciplines. I would digress slightly from the number CWB quoted because I believe that the 'civil sphere' engineers that are generally the ones regulated by protectionist trade associations for stone masons under the P.E. systems - er did I say that, I meant regulators
, make up about ~25% of the total people working as engineers of some form in most western countries. I guess a mechanical engineer might need one if they are doing HVAC for a building or something?
The regulatory environment you are familiar with essentially only applies to the civil sphere, and even then mainly only to structural engineers and as lip service in the other civil disciplines. I would digress slightly from the number CWB quoted because I believe that the 'civil sphere' engineers that are generally the ones regulated by protectionist trade associations for stone masons under the P.E. systems - er did I say that, I meant regulators
, make up about ~25% of the total people working as engineers of some form in most western countries. I guess a mechanical engineer might need one if they are doing HVAC for a building or something? Yes in my world, the state, licensing boards seem to deal with structural, civil, geotechnical, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems for buildings. Also structural for bridges. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing or primarily HVAC systems.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question