Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The dangers of unlicensed engineering

newsobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#21

Post by Anechoic »

Licensed engineer here (Massachusetts). I don't know WTF Lacy is smoking. I've been in a position where community groups have performed their own analysis to challenge my work and that's fine - either their analysis is wrong and I can point out their errors, or (in the rare occasion) I have indeed missed something and I revise my report. But going after the group who prepared the analysis because it looks "engineering-level work"... I don't know where to begin.

For one, it's not necessarily improper for a non-licensed engineer to do "engineering-level work" - the way you become a licensed engineer is to do "engineering-level work", typically under the supervision of a licensed engineer, but some of your experience has to come on your own ("responsible charge"). But more importantly, just doing engineering work isn't the problem, it becomes a problem if you represent yourself as a licensed engineer when your not.

Quite frankly, Cox should file his own complaint with the NC engineering board against Lacy (assuming Lacy is licensed, his name didn't come up in a license search).

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#22

Post by Anechoic »

notaddicted wrote: post #7
pyre wrote: post #2

> He said there is a potential for violation if DOT > and the public were misled by "engineering-quality > work"- even if the authors did not claim to be > engineers. Isn't this essentially saying that you can be too smart/thorough for your own good, and that the government is going to punish you for not getting a license to use your abilities? What the hell is 'engineering-quality work' anyways? Talk about an amorph…

You're refuting the weakest possible interpretation of his statement. "This" is essentially saying, that it is possible to mislead the public by producing work that has some of the qualities of engineering work, but is not actual engineerng work. The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put together some official looking research to support it ... one of the many things you learn not to do in eng…

The alleged violator _clearly started_ with the conclusion

What are you basing this on?

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#23

Post by jonathanwallace »

jefe78 wrote: post #20
arch_hunter wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sounding a lot like a profession making it illegal for others to do anything that could decrease their own income.

Agreed! I shouldn't need an M.D. to stitch you up!

Good thing you don't. Stitch away.

Just stick to friends and/or people who won't sue you.

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#24

Post by notahacker »

arch_hunter wrote: post #6
pyre wrote: post #2

> He said there is a potential for violation if DOT > and the public were misled by "engineering-quality > work"- even if the authors did not claim to be > engineers. Isn't this essentially saying that you can be too smart/thorough for your own good, and that the government is going to punish you for not getting a license to use your abilities? What the hell is 'engineering-quality work' anyways? Talk about an amorph…

This is sounding a lot like a profession making it illegal for others to do anything that could decrease their own income.

However dubious this instance of censuring someone's comments simply because they've bothered to do some research to support their case may be, I think it generally is in the public interest that people actually representing themselves as engineers have a sound understanding of what they're actually doing (e.g. designing bridges that don't fail and kill people). I doubt civil engineers in the US are disproportionately well paid.

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#25

Post by jwcacces »

The problem is they're all union, and you can't do their job, that's stealing work. Those guys need that work, and if you want it done, you have to pay them to do it. Now stop stealing work, and go back to your own job!

On a serious note, I have no idea if unions are involved, I'm just reminiscing about dealings with union members in my old job.

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#26

Post by jammur »

What's that, Mr. Doe? You found a weird lump on your balls? Better keep that to yourself. You wouldn't want anyone thinking you're a doctor!

Better not make that research for small claims court TOO thorough Mr. Smith. You wouldn't want anyone thinking you're a lawyer!

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#27

Post by sliverstorm »

notaddicted wrote: post #7
pyre wrote: post #2

> He said there is a potential for violation if DOT > and the public were misled by "engineering-quality > work"- even if the authors did not claim to be > engineers. Isn't this essentially saying that you can be too smart/thorough for your own good, and that the government is going to punish you for not getting a license to use your abilities? What the hell is 'engineering-quality work' anyways? Talk about an amorph…

You're refuting the weakest possible interpretation of his statement. "This" is essentially saying, that it is possible to mislead the public by producing work that has some of the qualities of engineering work, but is not actual engineerng work. The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put together some official looking research to support it ... one of the many things you learn not to do in eng…

one of the many things you learn not to do in engineering school.

I always start with the conclusion- "I want this to do X"- and then I throw together something that will hopefully do X.

If you don't know what your desired conclusion is, you'll get utterly lost and unfocused along the way.

Re: The dangers of unlicensed engineering

#29

Post by flogic »

notaddicted wrote: post #7
pyre wrote: post #2

> He said there is a potential for violation if DOT > and the public were misled by "engineering-quality > work"- even if the authors did not claim to be > engineers. Isn't this essentially saying that you can be too smart/thorough for your own good, and that the government is going to punish you for not getting a license to use your abilities? What the hell is 'engineering-quality work' anyways? Talk about an amorph…

You're refuting the weakest possible interpretation of his statement. "This" is essentially saying, that it is possible to mislead the public by producing work that has some of the qualities of engineering work, but is not actual engineerng work. The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put together some official looking research to support it ... one of the many things you learn not to do in eng…

So long as you're not selling yourself as a PE or trying to use non PE work in a situation that requires a PE, you should be allowed to write whatever god damned report you want. Otherwise, we have a serious breach of the first amendment.
Post reply on HN