State of California denies non-civil PEs the right to practice enginee 1

[JohnRBaker]

Yes, I've seen it a couple of times. I understand, back when McAir was making regular deliveries to the Navy and Air Force, that the locals all knew what the schedule was and they would camp-out at the end of the runway when the weather was nice to watch the 'show'.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[wannabeSE]

Chemebabak,
If you have the education, training and experience to perform civil engineering, why don't you take the test and become a licensed civil engineer in California? Or, are there specific tasks associated with chemical engineering that the current law prevents you from performing? If yes, I would like to know what these are so I may have a better understanding of the deficiencies in the current laws.

I am a licensed civil engineer in California. So, I understand the requirements, authority and responsibilities for California civil engineers. However, I do not understand why a chemical engineer should have the authority to design a bridge, perform a geotechnical investigation, and perform electrical engineering. Is this an ethical or political issue where you feel the professional engineer should decide when they are qualified without government regulation and oversight?

 

[MiketheEngineer]

Again - I am not a lawyer. But MOST states say that if you have the training and/or experience then you are entitled to sign off on said projects if you want to accept the responsibility. As a Structural (not in CA) - I have signed off on simple plumbing and electrical plans. Am I breaking the law - no - I have experience in both. Would I sign off on the plumbing or electrical for a 10 story hi-rise - NO WAY!!!

Also tend to stay away from Nuclear and Chemical!!!

 

[JohnRBaker]

I don't know exactly what it says on the official license certificate issued by California, but on the one from Michigan, which I have on prominent display in my office (as I was told you were expected to do when I was issued my original certificate), there is no mention whatsoever of the Engineering 'discipline' under which the license was issued. It simply states:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULARTORY AFFAIRS


BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
LICENSE​

And far as I can recall, when I took both my EIT and Professional Exams, there was no specific scope or discipline either asked for or offered. The EIT test appeared to be the same for everyone, being of a general nature, and in the Professional exam, we were offered a broad range of problems across many different engineering disciplines with the only requirement being that you could solve NO more than TWO problems in any one discipline. Being a Mechanical Engineer I soon discovered that if you carefully reviewed each section, that you could always find at least ONE problem that was completely within in the skill set of a 'Mechanical' Engineer to solve. I suspect that this held true for other disciplines as well; EE's finding purely electrical problems, CE's finding structural problems, ChemE's finding chemical problems, etc.

So if all one had to offer was your state-issued documents (at least in the case of Michigan) there is NO way that one could say whether that person was deemed qualified in any one engineering discipline.

I even went back and checked the large, formal (suitable for framing and hanging on your 'ego wall') document that was sent to me shortly after I was issued my first license certificate, and again, there's no mention of any sort of limitation to a single discipline nor area of engineering, despite being much more wordy than the semiannually issued offical licensing certificate.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[Xera]

Some more information about the OP.

http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/nspeupdt/issues/2012-01-23.html

 

[chemebabak]

Engineers,

Some of the comments in this thread have implied that civil is the only branch that should be allowed to engineer "fixed works". The examples of fixed works given in this thread were bridges and buildings. Of course, civil engineers are most qualified to design bridges. However, because "fixed works" implies a sense of permanency, there are other examples that should only be stamped by the other branches which are currently title acts.

Agricultural - farms - Civil engineers are not qualified to determine the fertilizer requirements, water requirements, etc.
Chemical - chemical or refinery processes - Civil engineers are not qualified to determine what are the equipment sizes, design conditions, raw materials, finished products, etc.
Control systems - Civil engineers are not qualified to determine how processes should be controlled, PLC or DCS design, etc.
Fire protection - civil engineeers are not qualified to design a fire protection system.
Industrial - I do not know what industrial engineers do, but I know that civil engineers are not qualified to do it.
Metallurgical - civil engineers are not qualified to determine metallurgical compatibility with different chemicals, etc.
Nuclear and Petroleum - explanation is not necessary.
Traffic - although most traffic engineers are by education civil engineers, NCEES recognizes their skills and knowledge as separate from civil engineering.

I believe that civil engineering is a very valuable branch. I would only want a civil to design a bridge for me to drive on. However, I would not want a civil engineer to design a farm from which I get my food; a chemical process that could explode; a control system for that chemical process or, even more deadly than that, a nuclear process; a fire protection system for these dangerous processes; etc. All of these engineers should be afforded equal right to practice in the State of California and all other states.

 

[drawoh]

chemebabak,

I am the one who questioned the term "fixed works". It sounded to me like something a civil engineer would work on. We need to understand the definition of the term. In legislation, this may be very precise.

JHG

 

[oldrunner]

I remember the time a nose cone engineer wanted me to teach him concrete over the telephone. I advised him to take a course in an early bird program at Santa Clara where one of my S.E. friends was teach a concrete course.

Even though I know a little bit about metallurgy and mechanical engineering, I obtain the services of consultants in these disciplines on my projects. But I wouldn't let them design a bridge for me or even a frame house.

And the nose cone guy, well he got annoyed when we insisted on a soil report for the foundations for extensive solar arrays that his company was designing in Arizona. We didn't get anymore projects from his company.

Of course, the foundation engineer has to have the correct license in his discipline. And one is not really smart if he/she doesn't get a soil report in California with all the litigation.

Hope you guys that want to practice in California are well versed in our new green code.

 

[cvg]

I am registered in California.
I certainly hope we don't have too many civil engineers designing bridges, I would prefer it be a structural engineer, and it usually is. As for irrigation (water requirements for farms) - there is no such thing as an irrigation engineer, this is done almost entirely by civil engineers. Regarding fire protection, most public water systems which form an integral (if not essential) part of the fire protection system are designed by civils. need I go on?

 

[oldrunner]

Most of the engineers who have designed bridges in California have been very good civil engineers. At one time the State of California had one of the best bridge departments in the world - until Jerry Brown came along.

 

[hokie66]

cvg,
A structural engineer is a civil engineer.

 

[jdgengineer]

hokie66, I'm assuming you know this but in the State of California a Structural Engineer is in fact licensed as a civil engineer, but a civil engineer is not necessarily licensed as a structural engineer.

In California (and other states), a Structural Engineer is a civil engineer who has obtained the title of "Structural Engineer", requires additional experience / exams.

 

[hokie66]

That's fine, but structural engineering is still a subset of civil engineering.

 

[KENAT]

Well, unless it's say 'aircraft structures' but as there isn't a PE for that anyway it's not really relevant.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[oldrunner]

Structural engineering may be a subset of civil engineering but you still have to take another 16 hours exam a few years after you obtain your civil license in California.

And bridge problems were not on the exam when I took my exam although I had already designed a number of bridges.

 

[cvg]

agreed, it can be called a subset but in fact it is a specialty and most civil engineers cannot claim to be structural engineers (by law).

from 2010 California Rules

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ACT
(Business and Professions Code §§ 6700 – 6799)
6736. Title of structural engineer
No person shall use the title, “structural engineer,” or any combination of these words or abbreviations thereof, unless he or she is a licensed civil engineer in this state and unless he or she has been found qualified as a structural engineer according to the rules and regulations established for structural engineers by the board.

6763. Structural, soil, soils, geotechnical authority
Application for authority to use the title “structural engineer,” “soil engineer,” “soils engineer,” or “geotechnical engineer” shall be made to the board on forms prescribed by it and shall be accompanied by the application fee fixed by this chapter.
An applicant for authority to use the title “structural engineer,” “soil engineer,” “soils engineer,” or “geotechnical engineer” who has passed the examination prescribed by the board, or an applicant for authority to use the title “soil engineer,” “soils engineer,” or “geotechnical engineer” whose application is submitted prior to July 1, 1986, and who has otherwise demonstrated that he or she is qualified, shall have a certificate of authority issued to him or her.
For purposes of this chapter, an authority to use the title “structural engineer,” “soil engineer,” “soils engineer,” or “geotechnical engineer” is an identification of competence and
2010 Professional Engineers Act 25
specialization in a subspecialty of civil engineering and necessitates education or experience in addition to that required for registration as a civil engineer.

6763.1. Structural Engineer examination requirements
An applicant to use the title “structural engineer” shall have successfully passed a written examination that incorporates a national examination for structural engineering by a nationally recognized entity approved by the board, if available, and a supplemental California specific examination. The California specific examination shall test the applicant’s knowledge of state laws, rules, and regulations, and of seismicity and structural engineering unique to practice in this state. The board shall use the national examination on or before December 31, 2004.

 

[beej67]

Venn diagram arguments aside, did anyone ever figure out what their definition of 'fixed works' is?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cvg]

http://www.pels.ca.gov/licensees/pe_act.pdf

see section 6731. "Civil engineering defined"

 

[Fisch88]

This seems relevant to the discussion. I saw a link to this web site through the recent AIChE Smartbrief. It seems like there is some movement regarding reforms of current CA law, which I do not agree with. I'm a ChemE (registered P.E.) in both WI and MN.

 

[Ron]

beej67 has it right...that term is the one causing the problem and even in the section referenced by cvg, it is not defined, just inferred.