Practice of Engineering

[Guest]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it is acceptable to allow professional geologists to offer opinions, interpretations, etc. for what could be considering engineering calculations/design ??

I have come across this with some colleagues and the spectre has been raised again. I was asked if I could estimate the quantity of sediment that would be removed in a channel dredge project. Before I could answer, a geologist (P.G.) proceeded to tell me how you would calculate said volume.

I responded by saying, "O' Contraire mon Frere ... geologists can't provide calculations for the volume of sediment removal -- that's practicing engineering without a license." Said geologist was aghast and taken aback - even chastised me a tad.

I responded again by saying, "Look .. I don't need to know how OLD the sediment is, I just need to know something about the properties."

So I began asking questions with the following responses:

1. Soil grain size distribution ?? :blink:

2. Atterberg limits ?? :blink:

3. Water content ?? :blink:

4. Chemical characterization ?? :blink:

Hmmmmm ....

The question and exchange I listed above is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I was wondering if anyone else has examples or situations that might be GRAY AREA regarding the practice of engineering. Just curious.

JR

 

[singlespeed]

Perhaps the geologist spoke out of turn...but was the explanation of the calculation of said volume correct?

 

[benbo]

I don't think giving an opinion in a conversation constitutes practicing engineering. Tha janitor can give me his opinion, but it is up to the responsible engineer to decide whether to use it in a design.

 

[EdinNO]

Isn't it "Au contraire mon frere"?

I have a dislike for any "profession" or any technical, sales, etc... type person homing in on the engineering profession. I have seen so many people- thechnicians, sales people, technical recruiters, customer service people, etc... with just a tad bit of information all of a sudden think they know something about engineering. Often, they are the same people who have cocky, snide remarks to say about engineers. It irritates the heck out of me.

I don't think the trench calc requires an engineer though, in that context. It may be up to the engineer to make the final decision, though.

Ed

 

[DVINNY]

I don't think giving an opinion in a conversation constitutes practicing engineering. Tha janitor can give me his opinion, but it is up to the responsible engineer to decide whether to use it in a design.

I concur.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps the geologist spoke out of turn...but was the explanation of the calculation of said volume correct?

The explanation was - the channel is like a rectangle, so that means V = length * width * height

My response: orly

I asked if there had been a bathymetric survey competed ...

Response: :blink:

Hence the ooey gooey sarcasm.

JR

 

[Guest]

I don't think giving an opinion in a conversation constitutes practicing engineering.  Tha janitor can give me his opinion, but it is up to the responsible engineer to decide whether to use it in a design.

benbo --

Agreed - we can all air opinions as we see fit - short of offering those opinons in the form of a certification.

I have redacted most of the subject discussion because I wanted to limit this thread to "general" terms. Perhaps what I should have added was that this calculation was being offered in terms of design for a specific sediment dredge project.

I have run into this situation before - I was just curious what others thought.

JR

 

[Road Guy]

I took an engineering geology class my last quarter as an elective, thought it would be a cakewalk, that shit was very complicated I literally had to beg for a C to graduate...for the final the Prof. (a PE, PG, and RLS) had worked as a surveyor and engineer for coal mines before teaching.... anyways for the final exam he brought in about 20 types of rocks, and we had to tell him what type they were, if they would be a good foundation material, good for building materials (concrete/asphaly,etc), it was unreal.....

some of those guys might now what they are talking about, some of them might not, I know folks with PE's that dont know shit about design either B)

 

[Guest]

Isn't it "Au contraire mon frere"?

That's my southern, redneck vocabulary coming out

If anything, I was surprised that someone would provide such a hum-drum answer without considering the pertinent design parameters. :angry:

And really, I don't want to beat a dead horse, I was just curious if others had run into similar situations.

JR

 

[gatormech_e]

i don't have a holier than thou complex about being an engineer, but it irritates me also. and i think the reason that ppl so casually offer up that opinion is because you can be a 'sanitation engineer', 'domestic engineer' and so on.

the title is thrown around so carelessly...

i don't get to call myself a doctor or lawyer, do i?

 

[singlespeed]

I wasn't there and the geologist, from your description, doesn't appear to be competent in the area of interest, but....

An engineering title won't make me any more competent. The PE license, if and when I actually earn it, won't make me any more competent either.

The effort expended to get there will. And the effort to maintain that competency over the next 10, 15, or 20 years will say something as well.

In short, a title can be deceiving - you never know what hidden talents people may have.

On the other hand, we all run into our share of "idiots" too And though it is always tempting, I try to resist the urge to embarrass such people in public. You never know who you might end up working for :true:

 

[benbo]

We don't want to get overly strict. We just want to follow the rules. By these overly strict rules, anyone still waiting for their test results this December would not be able to give an engineering opinion because it would be "practicing engineering." Additionally, if I happenened to tell a buddy "take vitamin C to avoid colds" I could be accused of practicing medicine without a license. As long as we are clear and honest about our credentials, people can take our opinions with a grain of whatever.

 

[Guest]

And though it is always tempting, I try to resist the urge to embarrass such people in public. You never know who you might end up working for :true:

Very good point - I have a REALLY hard time resisting my urges sometimes. :tone:

Good points about competency as well - couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:

JR

 

[MattC]

Rampant in the environmental field. Geologists were mostly able to grandfather in without passing the 4 hour GRIT and 4 hour PG. Then many states let them sign off on cleanup involving rish based remediation objectives and transport modeling that most are completely unqualified to do.

 

[Guest]

Rampant in the environmental field.  Geologists were mostly able to grandfather in without passing the 4 hour GRIT and 4 hour PG.  Then many states let them sign off on cleanup involving rish based remediation objectives and transport modeling that most are completely unqualified to do.

Don't get me started on that !!!!!!!!!!!! ld timer:

Most of my work is reviewing risk-based corrective action workplans, designs, and fate & transport modeling. :+1: I see lots of things of disturbing things h43r: h43r: - never a dull moment with all of the tall tales I get :lie:

But, it's like the guy from EPA told me today - "I like the way you are thinking, but this isn't Burger King :BK: You don't get to have it your way." :true:

Regards,

JR

 

[Dleg]

I agree that the environmental field is overrun with people who stray too far into engineering. Even where I am, we have an RG who recently designed and installed a hazardous waste incinerator (EPA order, so we didn't have much say). One of my own lawyers (government) routinely makes engineering decisions during settlements on our cases, which we then have re-negotiate after I point out the fatal engineering/science flaws. Then we have a whole host of "environmental consultants" ranging from a lawyer who runs a hazardous waste shipping company (good consultant, actually), a biologist who does everything (very poorly and viciously mean), and several "local" guys with no qualifications whatsoever than political connections and no aversion to offering bribes.

The environmental engineering field needs to stick up for itself better than it is doing now. We don't even have a professional society, am I correct? (What's the "American Academy of Environmental Engineers" all about?)

 

[Dleg]

Oh! I almost forgot to complain about lawyers on the opposing side, trying to argue engineering or science. Real quote from a lawyer who was opposing a proposed revision to our water quality standards, because he felt it would have adverse effects on his client's business (it would prohibit dredging in sensitive areas during the annual coral spawn):

?if there are acceptable levels of fecal chloroform [sic] at our beaches for human recreation, are there not acceptable levels of turbidity for natural materials for coral reproduction??

:rotflmao

Why can't you young people do something about all that fecal choloform in my water! ld timer:

(in my defense, this came from our marine biologist. I do not intend to practice marine biology without a license. Or a PhD. Or whatever those guys have)

 

[Guest]

Why can't you young people do something about all that fecal choloform in my water! ld timer:

Damn ... that sounds like a shitty problem ! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I have a person in my office that calls KMnO4 Potassium Paramangate or purple kool-aid. :rotflmao

Too many jokes, not enough time! :lol2x:

JR

 

[udpolo15]

I don't see what developing risk based ROs or fate and transport modeling have to do with being an environmental engineer. I would say a majority of risk assessors and a fair number of modelers don't have engineering backgrounds

as somone said below, a title is only a title.

 

[Guest]

I don't see what developing risk based ROs or fate and transport modeling have to do with being an environmental engineer.? I would say a majority of risk assessors and a fair number of modelers don't have engineering backgrounds
as somone said below, a title is only a title.

On those terms I certainly agree. In fact, I happen to be an engineer who really wanted to be a hydrogeolgist that got stuck with engineering. :true: It happens, but I cannot say I have any regrets :thumbsup: I would point out that there are ASTM standards applicable to Risk-Based Corrective Action and my state has promulgated laws and rules that include these standards. :study At some point - someone must certify the design based on said standards. In my state, remedial action plans must be submitted by an independent, registered engineer. Note: Does not say geologist :read:

I will take a step back though, because I did start this thread stating that my comments are tongue-in-cheek but I suppose they border on downright caddy. :lol2x: I hold the same level of concern with work submitted by ANY licensed professional. It just turns out, in my experience, the environmental market has a fair share of geologists pushing out work based on their title alone - no statement as to the qualifications for commissioning such work.

I was just searching out to see if others had similar experiences since I am left to wonder from time to time.

Regards,

JR