huangyhg

structural engineering licensure in the us
a nice state-by-state summary in the june 2005 issue of structure magazine
separate engineering discipline licensure is probably a good thing. however, i do take exception with the statement made at the start of the article that implies that mechanical and electrical engineering do not have life safety issues. as a mechanical engineer, i've had to work on many things in my career where failure could kill someone and cause property damage.
such as...
as a pe in the disciplines of mechanical & welding i have worked on these systems that if failed could cause loss of life & property; pressure vessels, power piping, boilers, cryogenic systems, equipment for nuclear facilities...
i, however, am glad that the insurance industry see mechanical engineering as being less risking then structural, for my professional insurance rates are significantly lower.
vita sine litteris mors est.
i've worked on pressure vessels and steam power piping as well. i've also worked on amusement park rides and life support biomedical products. some of my other me friends have also worked on cars, aircraft and ships. some other mes that i know work on fire protection systems.
there was a series of documentaries recently that covered engineering disasters. a structural engineer commented that when mes make a design mistake, people just sweat. i guess he thought that mes only design hvac systems. i wonder how much he would sweat if the engine on the plane he was flying in failed.
but i still would throw my vote in for separate discipline licensing. hopefully it won't result in a bunch of "turf wars" in the profession.
mspetaja,
i have worked on all sorts of things that had to remain attached to airframes during survivable crashes. on one project, i carefully explained to everyone why i was mounting a breather dessicator to an otherwise hermetically sealed enclosure that was to be mounted in an aircraft.
jhg
as a professional engineer residing outside the us, the state-by-state licencing there has always struck me as rather peculiar and even a restraint of trade.
is it just a quaint reminder of a registration regime established many years ago, when engineers didn't really trade across borders, or is it still a valid?
dbuzz, if you know for sure that you're going to be registered in more than one state, it's not that hard to get your ncees council record book and do state after state.
i don't know how things are in europe, but it might be possible that you can engineer over a wider area with less hassle here than in europe. at least each state speaks the same language, which simplifies things vastly.
one of the problems with getting licensed in multiple states is the amount of fees involved, both initial and on renewal. i too think its time for a single usa pe license. unfortunately, many of the regulations that govern professional engineering are behind the times. another problem is that not only are there state-by-state regulations, there are also local ones as well. sometimes i think that we professional engineers are part lawyer as well, needing to carefully review the regulations particular to a project.
hopefully, the majority of advocates of separate discipline licensing are motivated by altruism. i suspect, however, that quite a few intend to use it as a means of gaining advantage over their competitors. such is life.

__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言：前进吧，你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]