Disciplines where Licensure shall be a Requirement

[whyun]

"Are Pseudo Engineers Common?" has been a very popular thread which I've enjoyed reading for several months. SHall we discuss, now, what disciplines SHALL require licensure?

I am a structural engineer in design of building structures and my opinion is that my discipline directly affects public life and safety and therefore should require licensure.

In this fora, there are engineers of many disciplines, to include mechanical, electrical, chemical, automotive and so on. Let's discuss each of these disciplines and talk about whether licensing should be required for each.

 

[EddyC]

All the disciplines affect public safety is some way. But not all design activities within a discipline affect public safety to the same degree. Theoretically, all engineers should be licensed. But if you design manufactured products in industry, you are exempt from licensure by law. And if you work for someone who already is a PE and is going to take responsibility for your work, then you don't need to be licensed either. So legally, most engineers never need to be licensed.

 

[Heckler]

I think we're beating a dead horse here lets move onto something else....no offense to the equestrian folks onsite.

 

[BobPE]

What are we going to do with the Microsoft certified systems engineers? They are running rampent our there telling the public that they are engineers....I feel for the public, they get more confused by us every day and yet we do very little to help the situation....

Bob

 

[sms]

I contacted my PE board when I discovered that in the live sound, recording, and broadcasting business there are a lot of people calling themselves "audio engineers", or "broadcast engineers" that publicly advertise their services and who do not have engineering degrees, much less PE status. In the state of Texas the board rules are very specific that only a PE can use the term engineer when offering services to the public. The guy that called me back said they were aware of the situation, but rarely enforced it. If the board won't make the distinction, what hope is there?

 

[haggis]

There will be a few surprised people after reading what I have to say here and you know who you are. I am not opposed to mandatory licensure in the exempt sector when an individual’s well being and safety is an issue while in, on or around our creations. As was stated by some of the respondents to the previous threads, licensure is an indication that a person is deemed qualified to perform engineering work in their respective fields. After all, I think in most states, if not all, some trades such as electricians and gasfitters have to be licensed, not as PE’s of course, but licensed. A welder needs his “ticket” to comply with various bureau standards which in essence is a license.

If the whole issue of licensure makes people more comfortable, so be it. I agree the factory worker has the right to the same degree of safety and a feeling of security while working under something suspended from the building steel as he does when he enters the building. So that nobody jumps to any conclusions, we do have a PE from a consultancy analyse the building structure, recommend and design reinforcing if necessary to accommodate the additional loads.

Having said that, the procedure and requirements for licensure would have to be revised to establish a reasonable equivalency for formal education and demonstration of competency through past experience in the workplace for the non licensed and non degreed. I suspect a number of PE’s and up and coming PE’s would disagree due to the resultant saturation. If anyone could not demonstrate that competency, they shouldn’t be there in the first place but I for one, because I don’t hold a degree, would not like to relieved of my present duties or plunged out of work because of the licensing requirements that are currently in place.

Notice that I’ve avoided the “e” title so far as this thread is dealing with licensure and not the right to use the title. I think the combination of the two subjects was the reason why the previous threads were going round in circles. A thread, as started by me, solely for the discussion of the right to use the “e” title ended up dealing more with licensure.

Furthermore, I think the designation on the seal, correspondence, business cards etc., should be PE (Struct), PE (Mech), PE (Civil) and so on to prevent any misconception that may arise by simply using PE. In general, I would imagine that verbally, most PE’s quantify the initials with the appropriate adjective.

 

[BobPE]

haggis:

I agree that there would need to be some well thought out steps to get everyone licensed. With licensure comes the commitment from us engineers to end the industry exempt status. Industry would now have to employ lincesed engineers, by our decision, not theirs like it currently is. Industry will not like this, but we engineers can wrestle our profession back from them I think and this wold answer the saturation problem. As for the seperate designation,I am not eprsonally in favor of it, but it is something we could work on I am sure....For instance I am a cicil engineer, but I specialize in turbomachinery and pressure hydraulics...typical of mechanical engineering...I think we can develop the licensure system to accomodate our needs...the exciting part would be we would set the system up...if only we could all get organized and make the leap.....

Bob

 

[whyun]

In the segment of the engineering practice I am involved with, I need to cooperate with professional engineers of various disciplines. My opinion is that none of these professionals should be exempt from licensure because incompetency in any "one" discipline may result in loss of human life.

The roles of each disciplines (though overly simplified) are summarized below:
1. Architect - mastermind and coordinator of all disciplines
2. Structural Engineer - designs the skeleton of the structure to resist anticipated loads
3. Mechanical Engineer - designs the heating and ventilation system as well as piping in a structure
4. Electrical Engineer - designs the electrical wiring and lighting for the structure
5. Civil Engineer - survey of the lot, designs site drainage
6. Geotechnical Engineer - writes engineering reports indicating design resommendations for the foundation

Again, I believe that licensing requirements are absolutely necessary for the above disciplines to minimize public risk.

There are additional disciplines available for licensure in my state which include: Agricultural, Chemical, Control Systems, Fire Protection, Industrial, Metallurgical, Nuclear, Petroleum, and Traffic. I know little about their roles in society but at least the government determined that licensure is necessary to control the minimum level of acceptance in their competency in these fields.

There are many fields of engineering not covered by existing licenses and IF all engineering shall require licensure, the government has to invent names of specific field of engineering and conduct standardized testing procedure that must encompass a knowledge level that is suitable for that particular field. This will not be an easy task.

Currently, the seal of a licensed professional engineer must bear the discipline in which one is competent. I believe this is a requirement in my state and not necessarily all. When an electrical engineer stamps a set of drawings containing structural information, building officials will easily identify that it is in appropriate and require the designer to provide a structural stamp. Although not perfect, the system is in place where measures are taken by the government for the benefit of the public.

Discussions along this line was intended from my original post. I would like all your valuable input.

 

[rjgoebel]

whyun,

A clear distinction should be made between the type of electrical engineer you are using, and another one who is designing filters for a software-based-radio project. Clearly, this project is not as firmly tied to everyday life and would not endanger the lives of anyone (within reason).

Requiring the PE for electrical engineering work seems to be more of a formality than anything to me. I do not see it as practical except for certain applications, and whyun mentioned one. You cannot gain the competency and experience needed to know safe ways to wire a structure unless you actually do have the experience (field) with seeing it done and learning from others.

Other things you are easily able to become competent doing in school alone. And that's why I don't support mandatory licensure. Some might be offended by a 'recording engineer' calling themselves that because most of what they studied involved more business and copyright law than rigorous math and science, but I say, just look at their resume. They cannot call themselves an EE in good faith because they did not go through and get an EE degree. In addition, that one op-amp circuit they built doesn't qualify them for work in power engineering, and qualified engineers will quickly find this out about people that like to inflate their title.



Jim Goebel,
Electrical Engineer
Mid-West Forensics, Inc.

 

[EddyC]

whyun,

Are you talking about universal licensing or merely the current system where the unlicensed design staff is supervised by the licensed staff? Because the two are totally different. I deal with unlicensed engineers all the time in my non-license exempt industry and they regularly interface with other licensed and unlicensed engineers. Some of these unlicensed engineers are even in supervisory roles. As long as they have a licensed superior who takes responsibility for their work, they are compliant with the letter of the law, if not the spirit of it.

Your definition of the roles that the various diciplines play in the engineering world is very simplified to say the least and is typical of the viewpoint of the civil/structural folks that I have met over the years. Most engineers work for manufacturing companies designing their products. I know one ME who works in the automotive industry and another who works on aircraft and I myself have designed fluid process equipment, pressure vessels and steam piping.

My opinion: I vote for universal licensing in the USA, but I also want to open the PE exam up to anyone regardless of where they have worked and for whom. The current method of qualifying to take the exam requires you to utilize the "buddy system" for your references. I think that the exam should stand alone. This would reduce the voices of the opponents who say we are trying to use it as a substitute union.

 

[EngJW]

Yes, where would you slot a mechanical engineer who designs gears, cams, castings, and does development testing, etc etc, none of which is used in a building?

 

[BobPE]

EngJW..

I would slot him in the mechanical engineering disipline...wouldn't think?

Bob

 

[whyun]

Although this is applicable in California alone, I am posting as a reference how the terms are "defined". Perhaps in the future these definitions may evolve further...

From the 2005 Professional Engineers Act

http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/2005_pe_act.pdf

6731.5. Electrical engineering defined
(a) Electrical engineering 6734.1 that embraces studies or activities of electrical energy, including the technical control of their operation research, organizational, and economic aspects of the above.
(b) The design of electronic electrical engineering, as defined in subdivision (a).

6731.6. Mechanical engineering
Mechanical engineering is 6734.2 that deals with engineering of energy in the thermal or mechanical production of tools, machinery, and plumbing. It is concerned with the economic aspects of the above.

6734.1. Practice of electrical engineering
Any person practices electrical engineering when he professes to or is in responsible charge of electrical engineering work.

6734.2. Practice of mechanical engineering
Any person practices mechanical engineering when he professes engineer or is in responsible charge of mechanical engineering work.

 

[SlideRuleEra]

There are so many areas where responsibility in blurred. A few specific examples that I have had to deal with:

1. Buried Electrical Ductbanks - Conduit/conductor sizing based on electrical requirements. Reinforced Concrete Design & Construction. Excavation & Backfill (settlement issues). Whose call is it - Electrical? Structural? Civil? Geotechnical?

2. Large, High Pressure Steam Pipe Hangers - Thermal expansion & flow issues. Significant (structural) loading concerns. Mechanical? Structural?

3. Industrial Electrical Grounding Systems - Electrical conductivity. Ground wire routing. Ground rod/soil interface. Excavation & Backfill. Electrical? Civil?

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

 

[EngJW]

Question for you civil engineering guys: are all the engineers that work on a project PEs or just the ones who sign-off?

 

[BobPE]

My second and third layers of my teams are almost all PE's. Below that it is EITs. When I am designing an electrostatic precipitators or machine components for industrial process, or pump systems, I may put all PE's on the projects depending on the level of risk. When designing a treatment process I mix PhD PE's and some non-PE professionals in the team. If there is not a lot of risk on a project or the client has no understanding of PE's then I may put a larger amount EIT's on a job so they can learn.

Depends...But why would you single out Civil Engineers for your question, just curious....

Bob

 

[planedr]

In Canada the industry exemptions as used in the US are non existent for the most part. Every Engineer signs for himself. Many will be insured and represented by their company but they are on their own. Therefore most companies require licensure. The only real exemption that I am clearly aware of is in the Aero industry when you are a DE/DAR in which case you sign on behalf of Transport Canada. They however require you to be a PEng in the first place (usually).

As for disciplines I am registered as Mechanical but only do Aircraft Structures with occasional some light systems work.

The Canadian Societies are very strong on enforcement and regulation. I believe the Microsoft Engineer issue has a legal injunction baring it's use.

 

[plasgears]

I am in favor of general licensure if only to limit the incursions of the unqualified in engineering practice. I left a company that had an engineering department managed by a QC type (non-engr) and his immed supvr staff were two promoted draftsmen. These two clowns managed staffs of PE's and other grad engrs. Without going into detail, the company lost contracts with major customers over the years, and they had a major reorg recently. The aove mentioned are no longer there.

 

[IRstuff]

But that's not even necessarily a PE or even an engineering issue. Management theory as taught by business schools says that ANYONE is qualified to manage engineers.

Former HR at former job used to claim that she managed the DRAM development group at our company.

The fact that the division then crashed and burned apparently was irrelevant, since that was a "production" problem, although it was demonstrably a "design" problem that sank the production line.

TTFN

 

[whyun]

In response to EddyC's post from 6 Jul 05 13:55

I believe that universal licensure for all engineers is impractical. Folks who design cell phones, silly putty or any consumer goods need not be licensed. The descriptions of engineers in my previous post describes each as they relate to what I do - building design. I'm sure there are mechanical and electrical engineers who design microchips and missiles among other things and I also believe that they need not be licensed.

My intent in describing each of the engineering disciplines as they relate to my career and indicating that licensure should be required for a certain segment of those engineering fields was in an effort to protect the public.

I would not imply that non-licensed engineers are incompetent to perform certain types of work as there are many brilliant individuals out there. Nor would I imply that all licensed engineers are competent.

People in the consulting world shall exercise their code of ethics in engineering and perform their duties to improve society and practice within their area of expertise.