PE stamping house plans

[NCST8ENGR]

Understanding this is a State issue (i.e. it only matters what your State prescribes by law), how are we to understand what "area of expertise" means? I don't buy the logic that you need to retake the PE exam to establish expertise... for the simple reason I don't think the exam has much to do with expertise. I'm sure the NSPE would weigh in with their BER, but short of that, what's a good rule?

I'd like to know a good rule as well.

 

[MA_PE]

NCST8ENGR:

I ask all then: what would qualify experience or competence. Would someone whom has designed over 500 homes ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 square feet over the past 15 years not qualify enough experience? Would the fact that 97% of these homes required no engineering stamp or review, are soundly built to the building code not qualify as competence?

What was different about the 3% that required and engineering stamp or review? As is evidenced by the number of jurisdictions not requiring a PE stamp for residential construction, you don't necessarily need any engineering education to build things to prescribed codes. Following the industry tables for beams/connections based on typical loads does mean the individual has any idea how those tables were generated (i.e. has any "engineering" competency). There are a lot of builders that have been building things for a long time and they don't fall down. That does not make them engineers or show competency in engineering.

"Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control"

Exactly, and as I said before having a stamp in a given discipline means that you have demonstrated to the board that you have enough education and experience in that discipline to be qualified to practice engineering. If you stamp outside of that area without being "qualified" then you run the risk of having to prove "qualifications" if anyone questions what you have stamped.

FYI, I know a guy with a structural stamp that stamped some civil/site drawings for a surveyor friend. Someone who was against the project in general notified the Board that a structural guy had stamped civil drawings. The PE in question had to go before the Board and prove to them that he had experience in surveying and was competent to review and stamp the drawings in question. It was a fairly lengthy process and his PE license was in jeopardy until the Board was satisfied. He eventually was exonerated with no disciplinary action, but was advised not to stamp outside his discipline. Also, the company we work for was not happy about one of its engineers having to defend himself against a claim of rubber stamping/breach of ethics.

Again, go for it if you want to. Stamping drawing means you take professional responsibility/liability for the design. For the most part, the only time anyone really cares who's responsible is when a problem arises.

 

[MA_PE]

Understanding this is a State issue (i.e. it only matters what your State prescribes by law), how are we to understand what "area of expertise" means? I don't buy the logic that you need to retake the PE exam to establish expertise... for the simple reason I don't think the exam has much to do with expertise. I'm sure the NSPE would weigh in with their BER, but short of that, what's a good rule?

c'mon. There are a number of different PE exams all geared to some topic: Civil (and look at the selection of choices for the afternoon session, Mech (and there are sub-choices here to), Chem, etc. etc. As rational engineers I don't think it's a real reach to assume that a Chemical engineers "area of expertise" would be something related to the Chem Eng field and likely is not machine design.

FWIW: an individual can be legally qualified as an expert at trial without a "PE", but he must first demonstrate to the court he has sufficient education and experience to be considered an "expert".

 

[ODB_PE]

I ask all then: what would qualify experience or competence. Would someone whom has designed over 500 homes ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 square feet over the past 15 years not qualify enough experience? Would the fact that 97% of these homes required no engineering stamp or review, are soundly built to the building code not qualify as competence?
After looking at several college course outlines for civil degrees it's interesting to note that there is only 30 - 40 different course hours, none of which where specialized in residential framing or foundation design. Infact, in the early semesters, at one college, i found it odd that the civil's were required to take mechancial courses in statics, dynamics, materials, and mechanics of solids... - the foundation and basics of engineering...

So should i complete an undergraduate in civil to be able to stamp house plans?!?

In your case I would say that you have developed a level of competence in residential home design. I don't have a problem with that at all. I assume you developed it initially under somebody else who presumably knew what they were doing. My main problem goes back to those like the original poster, who admittedly knows nothing about foundation design but reasons that it can't be that hard, so he wants to take it up to add some income after buying the idiot's guide to foundation design or the right software. That's scary. Now, of course nobody's likely to get killed because of a bad foundation, but the I have a problem with that attitude in general. I think that attitude is also responsible for the low pass rates on the civil and structural exams. Too many folks rely on software.

Curiously, why did you find it odd that civils had to take statics, dynamics, materials, etc? I couldn't imagine a program without them.

 

[NCST8ENGR]

[No message]

 

[NCST8ENGR]

In your case I would say that you have developed a level of competence in residential home design. I don't have a problem with that at all. I assume you developed it initially under somebody else who presumably knew what they were doing. My main problem goes back to those like the original poster, who admittedly knows nothing about foundation design but reasons that it can't be that hard, so he wants to take it up to add some income after buying the idiot's guide to foundation design or the right software. That's scary. Now, of course nobody's likely to get killed because of a bad foundation, but the I have a problem with that attitude in general. I think that attitude is also responsible for the low pass rates on the civil and structural exams. Too many folks rely on software.
Curiously, why did you find it odd that civils had to take statics, dynamics, materials, etc? I couldn't imagine a program without them.

o.d. - on that last statement - i was just being a smart a$$, that comment i made was uncalled for... just pointing to the fact we (civil / mechanical) take the same core courses. I also agree - the original poster sounds like he has no experience in it at all - so i see the reason to be a little hard on it..

i mean - I couldn't imagine a Chemical, Computer, Industrial, Fire Protection, Electrical etc., stamping a set of house plans. Just like it would be pretty hard to imagine a ME stamping off on a survey

I think in the "classic" engineering fields there are some overlaps (CE hydraulics is basically ME fluids etc.,) - and as it is - it should be - left to the integrity of the engineer to know what he/she is competent in... I appreciate your candor though and the opinions/feedback. My main focus on adding to the post was to clarify if i indeed needed additional documentation in my back pocket to make doubly sure in the event i was ever questioned.

 

[IlPadrino]

c'mon. There are a number of different PE exams all geared to some topic: Civil (and look at the selection of choices for the afternoon session, Mech (and there are sub-choices here to), Chem, etc. etc. As rational engineers I don't think it's a real reach to assume that a Chemical engineers "area of expertise" would be something related to the Chem Eng field and likely is not machine design.
FWIW: an individual can be legally qualified as an expert at trial without a "PE", but he must first demonstrate to the court he has sufficient education and experience to be considered an "expert".

In NCST8ENG's case, he's a Mechanical PE and wants to stamp Civil drawings. My point is simply that an exam is hardly a benchmark for expertise. Yeah, I'd agree a Chemical Engineer that's only studied, worked, and tested for Chemical Engineering is certainly not qualified to stamp Structural drawings. But I think it's reasonable for a MechE with significant work experience to claim expertise in some areas of Civil Engineering. Degree and coursework mean almost nothing (in my case, I've never taken a single Civil Engineering course and my degree is in Computer and Systems Engineering). I thought the exam was about "minimum competence". So then it would seem expertise only requires experience.

I wonder why some States don't designate an Engineering discipline and others do. I'd guess all Boards look for discipline-specific experience when approving examinees. Why not take it the extra step if they're worried about areas of expertise?

For me, the bottom line is always this: it doesn't matter what you or I say because as you've pointed out, it's only the State Board that matters.

 

[Guest]

FWIW: an individual can be legally qualified as an expert at trial without a "PE", but he must first demonstrate to the court he has sufficient education and experience to be considered an "expert".

That is very true - I was qualified as an expert witness in two court cases prior to obtaining my professional registration.

For me, the bottom line is always this: it doesn't matter what you or I say because as you've pointed out, it's only the State Board that matters.

That is very true as well - to the point that it is DOWN RIGHT scary. Especially if you read some of the more recent disciplinary cases.

JR