The key is Public Safety. Licensing was proposed and became a law in all the US States.  There are different requirements per state as each state has its own challenges, geography and other 

factors that may not apply to other states.  But there is also an industrial exemption. And many graduates of Engineering are not electing to become licensed professional. While I strongly recommend that any graduate of Engineering program in the USA get licensed.  There are advantages for being licensed PE. As to enforcement its really state by state. I think Arizona should have collaborated with the unlicensed professional by having licensed professional review of the work with the engineer.

Moshe,

Many thanks for providing the US perspective. I can fully agree with the intent of the law and the advantages of becoming licenced, but the issue here, based on the reporting we have seen, does not appear to be anything to do with safety but merely the fact that the individual titled himself as 'Engineer'. I can understand that "Professional Engineer" is a restricted title but was not aware that "Engineer" was restricted also (at least in Arizona).

Alasdair

Absolutely. Personally I really don't care whether the engineer who wrote the software for this editor I am using now is a "registered engineer" or not, or, say, the engineers who designed the torch that's on my desk (just looking around for inspiration!). I do want to know that an electrician who says my house wiring is safe, and we do in the UK have a registration scheme for that.


And I do want to know that (for example) a new level crossing system for the railways is safe, so we have a very precise legal framework for ensuring the work is carried out competently by the potentially large team involved, which ultimately involves key sign off organisations, and hence the key staff, being registered by (in the UK) UKAS. However the UK - and EU - approach is to say that it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut to say that the entire team, down to all subsupplier organisations, must be registered. Generally the UK approach is to believe that the safety management process - for example IEC61508 and its spin-off regulations for specific industries - allows the engineering of safety-critical systems to proceed without the requirement for the definitions of generic engineering competence (and hence registration), it's for the project to manage the specific competences relevant to each section of the project, some of which will be more safety-critical than others, with overall monitoring through independent assessment etc proportionate to the safety criticality of the project.


Which does seem to work pretty well across a range of industries. Of course, there's always room for improvement, and hence the various standards are constantly being revised, but personally I've yet to see an argument that any gaps in this approach can be appropriately covered by universal registration of engineers.


As I've said here many a time - when I'm assessing competence on safety-critical projects I do like to see CEng/IEng/EngTechs in there, but it's only a tiny bit of the evidence - they may still not have the specific competence for the specific task they are carrying out. A CEng who doesn't appreciate that they don't know what goes on in the outside world, and so who doesn't realise they need to invite a maintainer or operator to a HAZID, can end up making totally the wrong decision...


I must admit that I do have another concern that a huge amount of innovation seems to come from engineers who are likely to have little interest in any registration process. For example I was highly amused a few years ago when it was discovered that gaming computer technology had overtaken "conventional" supercomputer technology! Engineering to my mind is about innovation, not regimentation, and setting down a series of dusty rules about what an "engineer" is I believe will only dissuade those innovators from wanting to enter the profession. Hence I'm strongly in favour of targeting registration / legislation where it's needed, and only where it's needed.


I could be really naughty and suggest that a "registered engineer" who's registered because they will "always follow the rule book and only the rule book" isn't really an engineer at all, they're a technician. But of course I wouldn't want to suggest that ?


Cheers,


Andy

Thanks, Moshe.  That makes the situation much clearer. The problem we (i.e. those of us outside the USA) have is that we are unaware of the background and there is a tendency to think in terms of how it works where we live/work.

Alasdair

Don’t be cross for Christmas Andy!?

There was a pretty “hot” debate in one these threads recently, which involved different people including Electricians and Chartered Engineers discussing the risks in practice, interpretation of the regulations and certification, some science and calculations, some experience, some health and safety with a human factors angle etc.  


By coincidence on Wednesday I was in contact with a former colleague, who managed a job where some minor carelessness by two craftsmen on a job worth perhaps a few thousand pounds cost £20 Million plus to put right. In this case sparks from hot work, burning down a historic building, because they "shot off" for tea break instead of monitoring their workplace to check for any smouldering embers.  That led to a “hot” debate as well, only in the highest court.?

Best wishes all and a happy New Year! – probably made happier for some, as I intend to be far less prominent in this space due to a change of circumstances?