Titles: Engineer vs. Designer 25

[haggis]

This has been beaten to death in the past but let's get some opinions.

Of course it makes perfect sense as to whether some of us have to be degreed or licensed depending on what field of endeavor we enter. But…..Let’s all get over the title thing as to whether one is entitled to call him/herself an engineer rather than a designer. As long as nobody misrepresents themselves as being degreed or licensed and practicing as such when in fact they are not. True, some jurisdictions have already reserved the title “engineer” solely for those who are licensed and it is wrong.

The American Medical Association have not yet objected to the terms lawn doctor or tree surgeon simply because these people are not implying they have a degree or a license.

At the end of the day if we’ve designed something that is of benefit to our way of life and done so in a safe and responsible manner, we can choose to say if we wish, we engineered it. Degreed, licensed or otherwise, we have all earned it and the number of years I have spent in the engineering community, I still find that we learn from each other constantly.

 

[BobPE]

EngJW:

Sounds like the PE would only help that business...I often question some of the accidents I had a chance to look at either through the media or in engineer journals...The PE may or may not have helped avert these, but it certainly would not have hurt....

Bob

 

[EddyC]

BobPE,

I always wondered how licensing of engineers originated. Thanks for clueing us in.

 

[haggis]

In a couple of my previous replies, I used airline pilots as an example of thorough training in the appropriate setting before being let loose on the public. When I said that I never give it a second thought when boarding an airplane, I really should my trust also lies with the engineers who designed it. Is that blind faith or blind trust? I don’t think so as I’m sure the FAA would be lobbying for PE status within the aircraft industry if it was deemed necessary.

 

[BobPE]

haggis:

The FAA would not lobby for the PE, they are exempt and treat engineering licensure law infractions like any lay person would, they have no clue....They are a regulatory agency that as EngJW pointed out, are concerned with checking that their check forms boxes are all checked...It is up to us PE's to push for enforcement of the law, unfortunately there are not may PE's in that business...

I fly all the time, and I do wo with the comfort that there are many years of trial and error, that did not come at the cost of me or my family, not becaue of the qualification of the "engineers." Should this process be controlled by PE's? You bet!!!! Will it? Maybe one day.....

Bob

 

[UNLengineer]

BobPE,

The process for becoming a licensed engineer involves four years of training with a licensed Professional Engineer (Correct me if I am wrong). Since you already claim that not enough engineers in industry exempt jobs are not licensed, how can a young engineer become licensed if there are not any older licensed engineers to train with. I find myself in this situation, as even if I wanted to become a PE I would not be able to as I do not work with other PE's.

 

[astructurale]

UNLengineer - That is a great question. I'd ask your state licensing board. Perhaps they have some advice or ways to get around the requirement.

 

[BobPE]

UNLengineer:

You situation is the biggest problem we have to face...I do not want to see the laws changed, but at the same time, we need to understand the situation that industry has put you exempt engineers in. I have vouched for several exempt engineers that approached me on projects that I was working on with them in their facilities. Upon reviewing my ethical responsibilities, I found no problem helping them.

Find consultants working in your facility, they are there, believe me. Approach the boss of the consultant firm and your boss and ask them if they can help.

Look within your company, there may be PE's there...start a professional relationship with them....

Go to outside local organizations like NSPE and get friends with PE's there....

Some states have longer time limits that you can meet in lieu of the 4 years...for example, i believe PA has 12 years of progressing experience not under a PE.

You can also work with your state board, they are aware of this problem and are always willing to help any ay they can. In fact, that would be my first contact...see how they can help.....

You definately have an uphill battle, and in my opinion, it is by design because "industry" does not want you licensed....You can win, it happens all the time....


Do let us know how you make out.....


Bob

 

[BJC]

BobPE
The first state engineering registration act was passed by Wyoming in 1907. Massachusetts didn't get around to it untill 1941. You can read all about it on the following website.

http://www.aawre.org/files/pdf/HistoryLicensureCPC.pdf

The history of registration has been on most of the PE exams I have taken, but I only have one from east of the Mississippi.

 

[BobPE]

BJC:

I was refering to how the whole process came about, not how it became ratified by the states....Boston had a process different than what they have now...but it recognized minimum requirements of engineers....

The history of what it is we do is fascinating, and tragic.....

Bob

 

[EngJW]

Wow, BobPE, talk about an uphill battle!

I'm pushing 60 and my biggest worry is even having a job to make it to retirement. I thought the most difficult thing about getting the PE would be having the stamina to sit through an 8 hour exam. Now the requirement of working under the supervision of a PE would really kill the deal. There is only one other engineer here, with less experience than me, and I don't know any in this field. Oh, well, there are bigger battles to fight.

 

[haggis]

BobPE

When a PE designs a building or a bridge, there is no room for error. This is evident from catastophes that were the driving force behind licensure. It's a one shot deal and it better not collapse under normal circumstances. The PE laws in the private sector, which I agree with, are in place for the general good of the public in this respect.

Aircraft designers and manufacturers on the other hand, have the luxury of the destructive testing and test flights of their designs. This is niether to take away from the expertise of these people as many of them are PhD's but not PE's, nor is it meant to imply that the Civil/Structural people always get it right the first time.

Aircraft design is a field that is changing everyday and not everything can be built using last years details. Proof of this is in the Airbus A380.

The point is that an aircraft will never be designed and built then released to the public on the theories of aerodynamics and materials alone. When it enters service, the public is already assured of it's safety. What difference would a PE make in this case.

 

[EddyC]

EngJW,

Not all states require PE references. I suggest checking your particular state laws. You can link to them from

http://www.ncees.org

Just click on "Licensing Boards". The state licensing boards can also be quite flexible if you formally explain your difficulties in meeting all their prerequisites.

 

[BobPE]

haggis:

yikes...you are asking what difference a PE would make in the process, after all this discussion....

It is an awsome responsibility to hold the entire design under your control...every person, every task, every calculation....and rightly so, it must all be under one persons control, this is where the PE fits in....the engineers put their career, reputation, their license on the line for that design. I would think this is far far better than what we have now...nothing...

Bob

 

[haggis]

BobPE

You already said that you were comfortable with flying. How so? You put it that their engineering was trial and error, which could imply that they are not sure of what they are doing. I put it as destructive testing and test flights rather than releasing a thing like a 777 solely on the theory of flight alone. If tomorrow, you flew in the most inovative, largest, heaviest aircraft ever to take flight, would make you feel better if the PhD at the head of this project was a PE registered in Washington state?

C'mon, Bob, when you, I or any other member of the public get to fly in that aircraft, it's integrity and safety have been well proven and people are held accountable.

 

[IRstuff]

Planes are rarely destructively tested on purpose. The initial prototype generally runs > $500 million, which is too much money and time invested to risk intentionally. Almost ALL of the design features are tested through simulation and similarity.

Serious design flaws, similar to those found in public structures, are often not found except through crashes. The critical safety flaw in the original DC-10 was not discovered until an otherwise non-fatal failure of turbofan blades sliced through the ONLY place on the plane where there was no redundancy in the hydraulic lines.

Bad design coupled with poor maintenance resulted in damage to the rear elevator jackscrew on the ?? (I forget which, either B717 or MD-80)

The only two cases that readily come to mind where design flaws were discovered during flight testing was the tail cracking of the DC-9 stretch 80 (MD-80), where a higher than usual landing attitude caused the tail to impact the runway and the F-22, where problems in the fly-by-wire control system caused "uncommanded oscillations" that wrecked one of the prototypes.

One of the Delta III prototypes was actually boosting real cargo when it had to be destroyed because of a servo problem that was undiscovered during ground testing.

TTFN

 

[BobPE]

haggis:

Yes, it would. I would agree that people are held accountable in the aircraft industry, just not the PE. A lot of accountable people we the public never get to meet, or understand what it is their accountable for....It is a game of hide the liability played between lawyers and accountants, vary rarely shown to the public. Only when their is an accident and it goes to court do we see the impact that not having a PE affects the public. It is a very good example to show just how vulnerable the public is to the industry exemption.

What scares me most as a PE is what I don't see in the aircraft industry....Again this leads me to being confortable because the largest part of the trial and error period for aircraft is in the past and other poor souls paid the price of there not being PE's involved. I may pay that price too some day...But I make every effort I can today to ensure that it would not be because of an engineering blunder done by that high school graduate engineer exempt by the industry who doesnt even know the name of his PhD boss......

Bob

 

[haggis]

IRstuff

Wow! Am I wrong in having the faith I do? Or should I join BobPE's platform. I think you just shot me down

 

[EddyC]

Most engineers don't work on products that are as exhaustively evaluated as aircraft. Using the example of the aerospace industry to evaluate the value of a PE license is not valid. Obtaining a PE license is not a mere formality, it requires the evaluation of education and experience followed by examination. Logic would follow that the holders of a PE would most likely be better engineers (as a whole) than those without, just like the holders of a masters or PHD would be more intelligent than those with a bachelors. What's the real argument here? Its about a group of people that missed out on licensure and now want to say that its not really needed, in order to feel good about themselves.

 

[BobPE]

haggis...jump on the wagon, we would be glad to have you...after you get you PE of course!!!! LOL.....

I will always think that we engineers would be better served licensed, nothing will ever change my mind...I just hope to convince as many engineers along the way to step up...

Bob

 

[TheTick]

Wisconsin has provisions for non-degreed PE's Sounds like haggis has more than enough exsperience. I have a friend who teaches a course to prepare non-degreed designers and managers for the exam. Should I sign you up, haggis?