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

 

[PBroad]

In reply to "blackcountryman" UK does not have P.E (or in Canada P.Eng) but does have a C.Eng see UKSPEC ENG.pdf perhaps via

http://www.engc.org.uk/

The C.Eng is equal to the Euro-Ing and is considered higher than a PE with a new UK P.Eng level to be inserted below the C.Eng for "industrial engineers". UK Doctors have an "exclusivity" clause so that only registered doctors can practice but even they cannot prevent a PhD from using the term "doctor". In UK one gets what one pays for, if you want a refrigeration engineer do not hire a tradesman at 5 pounds/hr

In Canada (Unlike US) there is no "industrial engineering exemption". All engineers are mandated to be licenced, but there is a grey area between technology and engineering where some unlicenced graduates of engineering try to operate until struck by a $25,000 fine (some people will always park by a meter without feeding it no matter what the fine). In Canada some jobs are allowed to use the term engineer if they used that title before 1900 (i.e. loco-driver, stationary engineer [boilers] etc), but no modern deriratives such as domestic engineer, in Quebec the Superior court has even told Microsoft to stop using the term "software engineer" which might suggest that the holder is a "professional engineer"

 

[Maui]

And they fined Microsoft a whopping $1000 for the infraction. They should have fined MIcrosoft $1000 for each of their employees that used the title "software engineer".


Maui

 

[CarolinaPE]

I think PSE summed it up very well for a US PE. I once worked for a company that specialized in forensic engineering. This involved testifying as an expert as to the cause of the accident. At the time (mid-90s) many of our degreed engineers (some as high as Phd) did not have their PE. Attorneys caught on to this quickly and (right or wrong) nearly overnight the engineers could not call themselves "engineers" on the witness stand!

 

[Slugger926]

This link will take you to FAQ's about PE licenses for each state in the US. It is very informative.

http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensing_requirements_2005/survey_e.pdf#24

A lot of people make assumptions about industrial exemptions when a lot of states don't have them.

 

[Blackcountryman]

PBroad, thanks for that I think I understand. I'm from the UK in fact from the Black country hence the name. The UK registration now has three levels. Chartered Engineer, Incorporated Engineer & Engineering Technician. The C.Eng & I.Eng both require degrees, then it depends on experiance and type of work you do.
I'm not sure if compulsory registration is a good idea. I don't know how it works in the US & Canada but here registration is through the engineering Institutes, which have a lot of academics as members. In the past they have stressed the theoretical at the expense of the experiance side. Also the Institutes are slow to react to changes in industry. HAving said that I am registered (I Eng) and belong to two institutes.

 

[JoeTank]

I find it amazing how we go on and on and on and on about this PE stuff. It seems to be quite simple in the US. It's not illegal to identify yourself as an engineer. It only crosses the line and becomes a legal matter when engineering services are offerred to the public. I've never heard of anyone being charged with anything just because they present themselves as an engineer. It only becomes an issue when it is part of a service being offered to the public.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants

http://www.tankindustry.com

 

[Slugger926]

Steve,

I have heard of it both in Oklahoma and Texas. You are legal to call yourself an engineer in those two states (maybe others) when you identify that you are working for a firm or company that has a certificate of Authorization (or in Texas under their exempt industries).

 

[tombmech]

Lots of good responses, and I agree in part with almost all of them. I've worked in the A&E business - where PE's meant everything. Then I worked in the Aerospace business, and PE's meant nothing - even in the context of Plant Engineering. Finally, I'm in the Federal Government now, and sometimes it means nothing, sometimes it means a lot.

I think the simplest way to understand it is, "does the work require a stamp?"

Slugger, NewFella, PSE, and even Wes all have good points. I think Slugger hit on another key - licensed firms or organizations. This is supposed to be what's used for companies that permit Engineering work by non-licensed Engineers, but it is enforced with a wink and a nod.

If Engineers got more political, it would actually help us all out. At the turn of the 20th Century, Engineers were as highly regarded as Doctors and Lawyers (and received commensurate compensation). We've fallen a long way, but it's our own fault.

I can understand how some view a position within a large product manufacturing, aerospace, or pharmaceutical company as confirmation of "Engineer" status. I've been there myself. Yet, the lack of enforcement - even for totally unrelated non-PE-stamped work - is tantamount to using our services without a "green card" (payroll abuse because of an "illegal" status). Even in industries where PE's are important, there is an awful lot of work that goes out the door without any PE input. That puts the Employer in the leveraging position.

P.S. Besides Railroad Engineers, there are "Stationary Engineers", meaning their boilers don't move. ;-)

 

[PBroad]

For our US friends see James Ruggieri, P.E., a member of the NSPE Legislative and Government Affairs Committee who serves as an advisor on federal regulations and regulatory affairs.

http://computerdesigntools.com/Publications/NSPE_PEG_JR_APR_01.htm

'Nonlicensure' Criteria Tantamount To Playing Regulatory Roulette April 2001:

Quote "Only in the U.S. has the status of professional engineers been made subordinate to that normally accorded physicians and attorneys in other countries, including Europe and developing nations. Engineering, once a distinguished profession domestically, has now joined the ranks of lesser-skilled trades. Moreover, despite bipartisan rhetoric extolling the importance of math and science education in the U.S., engineers' salaries are roughly equivalent to many blue-collar jobs. Interestingly, the federal government itself, specifically the Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for establishing and enforcing federal government hiring policies, appears to be a contributing factor. According to OPM guidelines, completing 60 semester credit hours in an engineering curriculum is sufficient to be titled "engineer" in the federal government. OPM goes further as to identify such engineers as "professional," although licensure is not required. This is contrary to the agency's examination and licensing requirements that are imposed upon physicians and attorneys before they can avail themselves of professional titles.).

While the OPM offers considerable special pay and incentives to its physicians and attorneys, engineers are actually paid less than information systems technologists. The discounting of a proper engineering education and professional licensing creates a domino effect that denigrates the quality of public services at the state and local levels. Unfortunately, OPM's policies toward engineers may also have the effect of placing the public at further risk. Far too often, engineering decisions are made by nonengineers, and licensed engineers have been subject to coercion and intimidation by nonengineer supervisors to adopt flawed technical positions. Some of these ethical issues, questions, and ramifications have reached crisis proportions and have prompted a recent flurry of proposed federal legislation, including S. 201 and H.R. 5516, both of which address more effective and enforceable whistleblower protection for federal employees. Given the criticality of services provided by federal engineers, it is clearly evident that more, not less, stringent requirements must be enforced by the OPM. Discussions have been conducted with several federal agencies regarding interpretations of OPM's policies toward engineers, but the results are not encouraging." (James Ruglieri's conclussions)