PE or Not PE 8

[Blackcountryman]

I'm fairly new to this site and sitting in England reading about who can call themselves an Engineer, paricularly in the US and Canada, is confusing me.
I work for a multi-national company with a large operation in North America and I rarely if ever hear any of our engineers refered to as PE.
So my questions are
1. Who can call themselves an engineer?
2. What are exempt industries?
3. If the answer to 1. is only PEs then who drivers your railway engines as I believe they are called engineers?

If this has been answered in another thread can someone point me there as I can't find it

Ta
John

 

[Slugger926]

Your not the only one that is confused.

Here are my opinions to the ansewers:

1 - This is lined out by each state in the FAQ pdf that I posted in the FAQ's and on another thread. Also note that you can call yourself an engineer, engineer in training, or junior engineer in a lot of states if you are working under a P.E., but you cannot let anyone assume that you are a P.E.

2 - This is also lined out by each state, and differs between states. It is my opinion that a lot of people think they are excempt but are not.

3 - There are Railroad Engineers that actually require PE's. These are the guys that approve the designs of the railway itself and the bridges the trains go over. I had to deal with these engineers when I worked for a digital scale company when I designed railway scales for grain cars.

I believe everyone understands the difference of a Railroad Engineer that requires a P.E. and a Train Engineer which is like upgrading a Bus Driver to Bus Engineer.

----------------------------------------------------

It is also my opinion that the boards could be a lot more aggressive in enforcing their rules than they are.

The Federal Govt. is except here in the US about their titles which makes things confusing when they give kids out of HS the title of Engineer even though they may just be a ditch digger. When they get out of the military and into industry these kids don't understand why they can't keep the title of engineer, and why they can't be paid the same either since they have hardly any educational background. This leads to companies giving the titles to guys that should be called technicians rather than engineers.

These are my opinions, and I have been confused about it as well ever since the engineering laws have been drilled into my head during college.

 

[IRstuff]

From California Professional Engineers Act:

6701. Professional engineer defined
“Professional engineer,” within the meaning and intent of this act, refers to a person engaged in the professional practice of rendering service or creative work requiring education, training and experience in engineering sciences and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences in such professional or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning or design of public or private utilities, structures, machines, processes, circuits, buildings, equipment or projects, and supervision of construction for the purpose of securing compliance with specifications and design for any such work.

The first sentence makes clear that unless you are doing engineering as defined therein, you are not subject to the PE Act. Therefore, classical railroad engineers and sanitation workers are not covered by this law, since their work and services are not within the definitions. As with trademark disputes, no one confuses the garbage truck with an engineering office. Note also, in California, the PE Act specifically covers only civil, electrical and mechanical engineers:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/laws.htm

TTFN

 

[wes616]

I really believe that at this point, maybe we should rename this forum.

REGULATORY ISSUES IN ENGINEERING.



Wes C.

 

[zcp]

wes616,

Maybe you could start an ethics related thread. That would send a more positive message and keep this forum active. Discussion is always good, even if it does not directly relate to your industry.

ZCP

http://www.phoenix-engineer.com

 

[wes616]

zcp,

I do agree with you that diversity is important. However, I just read through a random sample of the threads in this forum. I can tell you that this forum is much less about ethics than it is about regulation. Specifically the issue of reguation surrounding professional liscensure. I am questioning the direction of the forum. I think that is more of an ethical subject, than liscensure. Maybe I will start another thread regarding this subject.



Wes C.

 

[Slugger926]

Wes,

Calling yourself an Engineer in a state that you can't call yourself an engineer without a license is an ethical issue

 

[wes616]

Rule of Law in Oklahoma.

Females are forbidden from doing their own hair without being licensed by the state.

In Tulsa

You may not open a soda bottle without the supervision of a licensed engineer.

Wes C.

 

[RDK]

Sorry Slugger926 but where I live it is also a legal issue.

The Manitoba engineering act specifically limits the term engineer to those who are P.Eng’s.




Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[Slugger926]

Rick - I should have said it is an ethical and legal issue.

 

[Slugger926]

Wes - I have seen that Engineering Law in Tulsa before. I believe they are trying to refer to Soda Bottles that are used in the oil industry. If you stick strictly to the letter of the law, I should setup a business to supervise people opening their soda bottles coming out of any grocery store.

The police never inforce that law. I have talked to my neighbor about the soda bottle law, and he informed me that he even breaks that law.

 

[Slugger926]

Off Topic - I wish I could go back and edit posts after they are posted. I had a few mis-spellings in the last post that I caught after releasing it. i.e. inforce should be enforce

 

[wes616]

Slugger,

I feel I should apologize for my comment in my last post.

I honestly believe that this is in no way an ethical issue. You do. I must admit that you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Ethics are an individual thing, as well as societal.

My premise. There are many exemptions, varying state to state for this to be a true ethical issue. If we want to have a discussion regarding this topic, it would be better in a forum that tackles the LEGAL issues of licensure, not the moral or ethical issues. This is a subject that sirs feathers on a daily basis here on eng-tips. It alienates many ENGINEERS that do not have, or are not required to become, or have no desire to become licenced.

I, for one, work in an industry where licensure is unnecessary, and historically irrelevant. If you wish to change this, then it is a legal issue, not an ethical issue, because I feel i have earned the right to call myself an engineer, as do my coworkers. The law says I may call myself an engineer, in the state that I live in. If i moved to a state where this was not the case, then I would contact my state assemblyman or senator and do what I could to change this, through the law and regulation, if I saw fit to do so. But I would still be able to sleep at night knowing, within myself, who I am. That is something that a rule of law can not take away. That is my ethic.

So you see, this topic of licensure would be better found in a discussion of regulation and law, and not one of ethics.

Wes C.

 

[JayMaechtlen]

eh-
do we really need seperate forums for legal vs. ethical vs. licensing discussions?

I suspect that none of us are being required to read each post in each thread of any particular forum...
(-:
cheers
Jay

Jay Maechtlen

http://home.covad.net/~jmaechtlen/

 

[DonPE]

Is it OK, legally, to even advertise for an engineering position in a public forum, if no PE is required for the position? Even if the position falls under industrial exemption, it sounds like the hiring company or headhunter is presenting the position as an engineer to the public. Perhaps a class-action suit would shake things up a bit.

 

[wes616]

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

I AM BEGINING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE US.

Wes C.
------------------------------
There are no engineers in the hottest parts of hell, because the existence of a 'hottest part' implies a temperature difference, and any marginally competent engineer would immediately use this to run a heat engine and make some other part of hell comfortably cool. This is obviously impossible.

 

[patdaly]

You have it figured out Wes......

 

[JAE]

Wes,
I don't begrudge you calling yourself an engineer, assuming its legal to do so, but I don't see the big reason to separate PE license issues from the Ethics forum. If you look at many ethics cases, such as those found here: TT Test cases....you will see that many times the interface between law, conscience, and morals all conflict into awkward situations, ethical dilemas that require rational thought, knowledge of the law, and community consensus.

In fact, legal issues are things dealing with the law and the law is simply a reflection of our common community ethical standards.

Saying all that, I agree that those who are not PE's may have zilch interest in reading posts about PE law and such. The site management, I'm sure, has read the comments above and its their perogative whether to add a separate regulation forum or not. But I agree with JayMaechtlen above - just don't read it if you find it distasteful.

 

[PSE]

Blackcountryman,

As you can see so far, the answer is a bit complex. I would generalize a bit as follows:

Someone offering/providing engineering services directly to the public must be licensed as a Professional Engineer and can represent themselves to the public as an engineer. These are individuals that can be held personally responsible by the public for the results of their work. From my experience, the majority of these individuals are Civil and Structural engineering practitioners. Each state has it's own requirements on attainment of licensure and title usage. Licensure in one state may or may not be readily recognized by another. The last information I saw from the NSPE website, indicated that ~2% of people practicing engineering are licensed. Most work under the "industrial exemption".

The "industrial exemption" allows unlicensed individuals to practice as the employee of a company. The company is held liable for its products rather than the individual. Engineering job titles are used freely under the "premise" that the the individual does not provide direct public services. "Exempt Industries" are most of those providing general consumer products. Also "exempt" is the Federal government.

Regards,

 

[stevenal]

If we want to have a discussion regarding this topic, it would be better in a forum that tackles the LEGAL issues of licensure, not the moral or ethical issues.

PEs are legally bound by a code of ethics. Can't separate the ethics from the law since the ethics are in the statutes.