Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb /img/forum/go_quote.gif
OK ... I know you mean well, but this goes against the Professional Engineering Code of Ethics, IMHO. The whole intent of the idea of "competence" is intended to mean that you never sign off on drawings in a discipline for which you have not been trained. From the Code of Ethics:
Note the emphasis on "qualified by education or experience." The Engineer who gains true discipline experience in an industry that's outside of his specific educational training is very rare. You don't graduate with a Mechanical Engineering degree, then get hired to do electrical engineering. There are instances where it happens, but I submit that experience of that sort is very cursory (on the level of a "designer/draftsman") and not founded in sound engineering principles, unless you've had the educational background, first. There are cases in small firms where some cook-book designs are stamped by a single engineer, but it's usually the firm's principal who takes on that responsibility - and it's almost always a risk.
Also, it's true that many states (most?) make no distinction on discipline when awarding the PE registration or when stamping and signing drawings, but the PE exam itself is most definitely discipline-specific. It's up to you and your individual ethics as a Professional Engineer whether you stretch that loop hole and start stamping/signing drawings outside of your discipline.
|
The important word in the rule above is "or". My formal training is in mechanical engineering with a total of 6 credits (all that were offered) in Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC). my experience is extensively in HVAC, plumbing, and fire protection. There are exactly 0 credits in the ABET program for fire protection. My experience and knowledge in my field of expertise is vastly greater than what I was taught in college. In fact, most newly graduated engineers know very little about what I do. Engineering school does not teach what I do. It teaches engineers how to think and gives them a basis on which to grow their experience. I am more than competent to design or troubleshoot any HVAC system or problem that you can throw at me. I am exactly what the board of professional engineers considers "Competent" in HVAC design.
I have from my curriculum, 6 credits in circuits - exactly the same amount of credits in HVAC. I am by no means competent to sign electrical documents (with the exception that I have on several occasions sealed electrical that was incidental to mechanical such as replacing feeders to a piece of mechanical equipment but only when I was absolutely sure I was cprrect in the work. I would never seal a full electrical drawing. I'm sure I'm not competent to do that.
I've done forensic engineering in several cases where I was deemed competent to such an extent where the opposing side withdrew their claim against my clients. Once with respect to damage to a roof. I have exactly 0 credits in roofing.
I could go on making the exact same argument regarding fire pumps, fire sprinklers, plumbing (I've taken exactly 0 credits on waste and vent systems and domestic water systems). I am more competent to sign these types of designs than the vast majority of engineers and would easily stand muster should I ever be questioned by any board of engineers.
My point here is that the almost all of the experience all engineers (including, I'll guess, you) have is gained in the field, and making a blanket statement such as the one you did is unfair, to say the least.
I greatly value your advice regarding tube amps. I would say you are competent to design the amps for which you have published designs here. I think I'm correct when I say that you know your limitations. That's the sign of a good engineer.
As experienced engineers, we are all greater than the sum of just our degrees, and education is a life long thing.
Respectfully,
Kuroguy, P.E.
