Should a Technician do engineering?

And that purpose is?

I repeated what I was told when I called the state and what was in the rules they had on the web server. They required four years. I don't know how they let you get through but they clearly said they weren't going to do this.

At least the way they handle it must have. BTW, it was the same with a former neighbor. He was required to have four year signed off by a supervising engineer, _then_ they let him sit for his PE test.

Huh? Our nation is made up of all the states, is it not? What do you think would happen to our current leadership position in medical electronics, aerospace design and so on if one state after the other would self-destruct via onerous license regs?

That is too young. Sorry to hear that.

Technologists to

will be no

will have

good

as

know

separate

like.

commercial

That _is_ a university. Actually one of the ivy league places in Europe, very tough. Back in my days over 80% of students didn't make the cut.

Their degrees are equivalent to masters degrees here. Technologists degrees would come from a Fachhochschule over there which we also had in Aachen. In hindsight I'd probably have taken that career path if I'd get a mulligan. Because it's faster and a BA suffices in industry.

But it has now changed. Universities have switched to the American master and bachelor system, and AFAIK universities offer both.

I have a certified and thoroughly vetted translation of my degree by a US government accredited entity where they drilled down into all the coursework details, and then attested that it is equivalent to MSEE. This was rather expensive. And quite frankly, I don't care about all this ABET stuff, what matters is experience.

Next to impossible for a consultant because clients often require that they not even disclose the relationship with them. But why all this bureaucracy in the first place? What good does it do?

Oh yes I do. And then the immigration folks wanted to see the transcribed original and punched binder holes into it. It was actually much nicer than my German degree. Hurumph ...

Not this kind of stuff. In the same way that I was under no obligation to know the number of members on the governing panel of my old university. What on earth for?

No, I do not offer services to the public. In order to get in trouble with the law you'd actually have to perform such services as a business, for example calculate or vet the electric stuff for a rental dwelling or something. Which of course I won't do.

Sure. In the same way the local gardener is liable to his actions. But I can perform services for corporate clients, while if I had a license in some states it would be against the law to do that without PL insurance. Which med device guys can't get anymore. Meaning I'd successfully license myself out of a job. That wouldn't be a very smart thing to do, would it? :-)

No. Plus my consulting agreements clearly state that the liability is carried by my clients. If they don't sign that I will not work for them, which has on rare occasions happened.

We have a thorough design review processes, agency approval processes and all that stuff. It's quite similar to aerospace.

Then there is the old adage: If you have fat insurance then some ambulance chasers will see deep pockets. People might "accidentally" drop down right in your driveway :-)

unsafe I

let

who can

be a PE

plain

Germany.

to do

of

accepted by the

engineering

engineers

cannot find

the

regulations.

To reduce the number of idiots designing publicly accessible infrastructure. There are three components:

1. A test to make some attempt to insure that after a couple of years of practice that the applicant still knows something of the basics.
2. Legal liability for anything that you sign and seal (most Licensees miss this bit).
3. Legal import to engineering evaluations you may make as part of court proceedings (the license puts real weight behind what a licensed Engineer says versus what any other says no matter how expert or actually having there when thing happened).

usually

does.

bottled

license

quality

for the

the test

test

have

=46E.

in

February

that i

Some flunky on the telephone, not what i would calla reliable information source. Just the same a foreign degree plus 4 years of experience signed up for by a supervisor who is also an engineer should be sufficient. The person on the phone does not have to be knowledgeable, the persons evaluating an actual application have to follow the written rules.

offer

exactly to

exemptions

See above.

meaningless

it will

at

medical

similar

PL

the

issues.

=46or one, what you do is not really covered by the license. Otherwise, they would have interfered in your consultancy.

and

formal

room.

may have

:-)

Sister in

two

Thank you.

by the

engineering

No. They accept his degree as non-accredited. That is why they said 4 years instead of 6 years.

the

That is no guarantee for good work whatsoever.

So explain this: Why do we have more bridge collapses and horrible train collisions than other countries without license laws?

A license says nothing about true competence in a certain area, such as RF design. A court may not understand this. Lawyers probably don't either and that can be rather damaging to their client. You need someone who is an expert in a matter, not someone who has a certain paper. For example, among the engineers specializing in medical ultrasound the number of licensed guys is very likely zero. And someone who doesn't at least have 10 years under the belt has really no business expert witnessing about this stuff in court. I've had a chat with a lawyer who did understand that and wanted to retain me because of this but the case was settled shortly after.

Sorry, those reasons ain't good enough.

the

test

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See? That's _exactly_ what I said and you didn't want to believe. And what the person on the phone said. And what I read in the law back then.

Obviously the person on the phone did know.

Read your own statement. You wrote exactly what I said.

meaningless

I'd have dragged them into court for damages if they did.

Nope, mine was vetted against ABET rules and formally declared equal to MSEE a long time ago, and I told them that.

It doesn't guarantee competence per se, it establishes that there can be very serious consequences to the person if they act in a dishonest or unethical manner, or represent themselves as competent in an area when they are not (IOW, contrary to the written code of ethics established by the governing organization). They have a serious commitment to the engineering profession because they've accomplished the educational (technical, law, ethics), years of work experience under one of the clan, and legal obligations, and even found people who will vouch for them being of 'good character' in some jursidictions. The have also voluntarily committed themselves to the consequences for misbehavior in exchange for some extraordinary powers.

Same as a medical licence or law license. Isn't that pretty much the basis of all professions?

I think this is pretty well understood by lawyers.

Of course an expert with a very established reputation (such that they'd have a lot to lose if they did something dodgy) might be as or more credible once that was shown to be true (for example, by awards from reputable organizations, books and papers written, association with a respected University, etc.).

The same goes if one testifies under oath in a court of law. Lying about one's background can lead to major legal trouble afterwards. Unless one is a higher level politician or bureaucrat, they often go scot free even after perjury.

I have seen example of the opposite. And yes, with license.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now you are getting to the real grounds of it :-)

No. A medical doctor works completely on his own, prescribes medication or does surgery and if he is not competent can immediately harm or kill a person. An engineer works in an enviroment of constant peer review, mostly in the form of a design review process. Stuff is vetted by others and by engineers of other functions such as QC all the time. Then it is thoroughly evaluated by notified bodies as to the safety and other compliance _before_ being let loose into the market. If a med devices company does not adhere to this they'll be in hot doo-doo very quickly.

What counts a lot more to the smart ones is that an engineer can explain complicated matter to lay people (including the lawyer ...) in a way that they understand, plus when vetting it gets corroborated by others.

Those are IMHO the wrong parameters, of the publish-or-perish kind. It has bred a lot of not so competent professors that were unfortunately let loose on our kids. Got a few examples, but only per PM. Yeah, I've got some publications to my name as well but I don't use them for bragging or for putting myself higher than people who don't have any.

Perjury has a high bar to prove- the person has to be proven to have known at the time that he or she was lying under oath about a central issue, and there must be no ambiguity in the questions or other room for a difference of meanings. You are presumed to be innocent.

Bottom line: perjury in civil cases is almost NEVER prosecuted.

Professionals are held to a higher standard- one is supposed to know one's limitations, and actively do whatever is necessary to avoid mistakes getting into final work (and to refuse the work if that's not possible). If some idiot incorrectly thinks he's competent he's not committing perjury, but he should be kicked out of his profession (usually takes too long, but that's another story). If there's a problem, you are presumed guilty and have to defend your actions.

I suspect you could count times when working for a licensed client as parts of the four years, since they would have signed off on the work within the client company. It's certainly worth a try, IMO, though the exams would be a hassle.

Doctors typically kill people one at a time, serially. Engineers have more options- we can kill people in job lots (parallel processing). And the reviews don't always happen, and not with enough depth to find subtle problems. There was even a case of a guy trying to blame software for a civil engineering disaster (IOW, it wasn't even checked independently once). There are companies that only have one licensed engineer, or none (and depend on an outside consulting engineer for, say, structural engineering).

Credibility has to be established, preferably in a way that cannot be questioned. A license with a clean record is one possible component of that. Most lawyers don't trust anyone- not even their own mothers.

Of course if their case is weak, some lawyers may want to hire a convincing liar, and there's a career path there for some of the scruple-challenged persuasion.

I read a book about that, written by a friend of mine. My jaw dropped when looking at some pages. It was in part about a trial that happened after another one where the same officials were on the witness stand. Some were caught perjuring themselves right there in the court room and from their reactions it was very clear that they knew it. But they weren't ordinary people, so ...

In the US you aren't presumed guilty until there is proof that you did something wrong and you clearly shouldn't have done it.

No, not in my whole career. There are usually no licensed engineers involved in my line of work. Sign-offs happen in the form of ECOs, like it should be. Personally I do not think it is a good idea if one engineer can stamp and seal all on his own. I have caught a serious bug in one such document and when I brought it up in the hearing (I had to) there was an eerie silence for a moment. Needless to say, in the end we won :-)

The exams are easy but they are irrelevant for my line of work. Plus the whole process is brought ad absurdum by onerous rules about times worked in the field under the supervision of another engineer, which in some states must be a PE. Since there aren't any in my field, well ...

I did meet a few (very few) who once were PEs but dropped the license because it was irrelevant for their work and becasue it costs yearly dues.

In my case the VP Engineering of my first employer came from the army and was by trade a radio & TV repair tech, not an engineer. Then a long time of self-employment. After that I ran a start-up and then a division of the investing company when they ran into trouble. I reported to the president (but I also did hardcore analog design there). Kinda tough to get years of supervisor testimony for the tech stuff. All the president could attest to is that I did turn my part of the company around to profitability, but not how I dunnit because he didn't get involved in details, as he shouldn't have to. This was followed by more self-employment.

Like this?

Usually such structured are built and maintained specifically under the direction of PEs. Obviously the so-called "safeguarding of the public" did not work, wouldn't you agree? Plenty more examples.

In medical electronics that process is very structured. The reviews must happen, else the company could be shut down and liabilities arise.

Well, this one said I was the first guy who was able to explain the inner workings of a complicated electronic device in a way that he actually understood it. That's of foremost importance because you might have to explain it to a jury where some members have even less ability to grasp.

That would never fly because the other party's counsel will rip that sort of "witness" to shreds right there on the stand.

That's an oversimplified view that only applies to criminal proceedings. If your role carries the responsibility to prevent injuries and one occurs, then you are going to have to prove that you did actually do your job. The fact that something bad happened and that you had that responsibility are known at the beginning. Also, criminal law operates to a different standard- it's better to let xxx criminals go than to convict one innocent man. PE sanctions are typically by majority vote, AFAIUI, so not nearly as 'clearly' as criminal proceedings.

Employers have this problem with health and safety because there is an implied responsibility to protect their workers. When an employee, say, gets eviscerated by a machine, they are going to have to prove they took every precaution to keep this from happening or bad things will happen to the supervisors the directors etc. They are presumed to be guilty because they failed to protect the employee. The fact that the death by gutting happened, and that the employee was 'theirs' are known at the beginnning.

That's why companies build evidence in advance to show that equipment met all OSHA standards, that workers were trained on procedures (with dates and signatures), that workers who didn't follow the procedures were disciplined and dismissed if they refused to work safely, and that they met all record-keeping regulations. If a company is buying band-aids regularly, and no injuries are being reported, that's a red flag. So, when someone eventually severs a hand and becomes disabled, questions may be asked.

It does fly. There are folks who make their living that way, basically contradicting the other side's expert. If he's cool about it, cross-examination is difficult, because the lawyer isn't an expert in the field. And it doesn't have to be completely clear, it just has to be enough to confuse the jury, which I'm told isn't at all impossible.

I haven't seen that first hand. I've had some testifying expert gigs so far, but the two that are finished both settled before I actually needed to testify. We'll see how the others go.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

That does not prove guilt. Someone would have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the engineer has screwed up. Merely having participated in a design does not constitute guilt. Maybe under Napoleon but not today.

Of course ambulance chasers try bizarre things. Along the lines of "You designed circuit boards A and B. If you hadn't done that then the company could not have built any C gizmos, the handle couldn't have broken off and the gizmo wouldn't have fallen on plaintiff's foot".

Well, I am not a PE so they don't get to vote on me :-)

I think it's pretty watered down by now anyhow. Some time ago they put that license board under the Department of Consumer Affairs.

^ every required precaution, that is

They can presume all they want, guilt requires negligence or deliberate acts. When plaintiff's counsel cannot prove that the employer violated OSHA rules or other regs then there is no guilt. Then it's a work accident.

I buy bandaids regularly because one must replace them even if not used. But yeah, if during an investigation it turns out that a lot has occurred over the years and was swept under the rug that constitutes negligence.

And exactly there's the mistake. Many lawyers do not know how to find a real expert or are under the misguided impression that they must have a PE and then can't find one who really knows the specialty stuff at hand. Corporate takeover "experts" often make that same mistake of not seeking advice from engineers in the know.

It's not that they have to let them testify. Sometimes all it takes is to have instant access to them and get their detailed opinion. Same with the takeover folks.

So far I never had to act as expert witness in a court. But sometimes I was asked to advise or was on a due diligence team. On rare occacions I had to stand my ground in legal matters which always ended with the other party fuming :-)

I haven't heard of that happening. Mostly expert witnesses in patent and trade-secret cases tend to be retired professors, who very likely aren't currently PEs, if they ever were. (Not too many physics professors are PEs AFAIK.) Forensic cases I don't know much about, but it's plausible that PE licenses would be of more importance there.

It's not a bad deal. It pays well, and it uses a completely different part of the brain from design, which is fun in small to medium doses. There are parts of it, e.g. claim construction, which are about as entertaining as doing BOMs, but that's life in the big city.

Now you're starting to sound like Thompson. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Ok, mine weren't patent and trade secret cases, it was where tech stuff had gone wrong. Trying to find a PE who is intimately familiar with analog electronics is going to be like the search for the needle in the haystack, without knowing whether there is any needle in the there in the first place.

Sounds like good money for not too stressful work. But I guess one has to be working in a field that is highly litigious when it comes to IP. My area of the analog world is fairly peaceful in that respect. Or maybe there just isn't too much to protect for IP. Medical is litigious though and frustratingly so. A couple weeks ago I bounced three ideas off a client that I thought were really cool. So did they. All three turned out to be already patented by some huge corporation :-(

:-)

I guess the old army training kicked in. What I've heard more than once was that legal folks do not like to wrestle with engineering folks.

So far, this is apparently mostly a US affliction. I hope it does not spread. It's not hard to make a hostile interrogator look like an idiot, because they typically don't know hardly a thing about what they are asking and anything reasonable you say will sound pretty good, even to a judge.

"* Lawyer: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

• Witness: No.

• Lawyer: Did you check for blood pressure?

• Witness: No.

• Lawyer: Did you check for breathing?

• Witness: No.

• Lawyer: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?

• Witness: No.

• Lawyer: How can you be so sure, Doctor?

• Witness: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.

• Lawyer: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?

• Witness: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

;)

The best one of those I've heard went like this:

"Never, ever ask a witness a question you don't know the answer to. My client was a soccer player, accused of biting off the ear of another player during a game. I was cross-examining the prosecution's main witness. I asked, 'Did you see my client bite the plaintiff's ear off?' 'No.' Well, I should have stopped there, but I didn't. 'How do you know he bit it off then?' 'I saw him spit it out.'"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Here's an example of what can happen (though penalties under current laws are pretty darn soft on employers)

"Install wiring and electrical equipment suitable for hazardous locations".

Sounds like it wasn't "suitable". (Class II div 1 Group G).

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany