Please Define Engineer?

The problem with the NYC crane accident is not a matter of the inspector's status as an engineer, but his honesty. He didn't inspect it, but said he did.

An education in engineering is not needed for an inspector's job. A class in physics isn't necessary to detect things like loose bolts and nuts, rust, misplaced or missing parts, etc. To require an engineering background for inspectors would be regulatory overkill, and serve no purpose but to drive prices up and generate jobs for bureaucrats. Now, regular eye checkups and background checks would better serve public safety.

As for defining what an engineer is, I like to compare how engineers and scientists approach things. The scientist is seeking to discover an explanation for why or how something happens. An engineer starts with specifications given by a customer or determined by the situation at hand, and then he takes knowledge (science) that he knows will apply to the situation and use it to create a solution. In the case of a situation that requires knowledge the engineer does not posses, he goes on a quest to acquire that knowledge, by asking questions, reading, researching, and sometimes experimenting the same as a scientist would. Those times when the engineer has to create a shape, his work might take on an artistic aspect.

Greetings, 3Doug,

You wrote... "An education in engineering is not needed for an inspector's job. A class in physics isn't necessary to detect things like loose bolts and nuts, rust, misplaced or missing parts, etc. To require an engineering background for inspectors would be regulatory overkill, and serve no purpose but to drive prices up and generate jobs for bureaucrats. Now, regular eye checkups and background checks would better serve public safety."

It just seems strange to me that non-engineers are hired to function as inspectors to oversee large construction projects. Seems that an "engineer's eye" would be pretty important in order to identify deficiencies. Am I being presumptuous to assume that a certified structural engineer might be a bit more "honest" than just a guy pulled off the street to do an inspector's job? Perhaps, an engineer might have more pride in meeting his responsibilities?

certified structural engineer might be a bit more "honest" than just a guy pulled off the street to do an inspector's job?

A civil or structural engineer in the case cited, may be as good as, or as "honest" as the guy pulled off the street. However if you had a mechanical engineer with a sound knowledge of materials, then this probably would not have occurred. But as pointed out, where does one draw the line relative to casting.

This may sound a little macabre, as lives were involved, but reality also has to be faced. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world....................far from it...... more's the pity.

I still think that requiring an engineering background for an inspector is overkill. Why not require the same of crane operators or construction workers?

As far as an "engineer's eye" goes, some engineer designed the firing pin of an M-60 machine gun so that it could be inserted backwards. Of course, the gun wouldn't operate with a backwards firing pin.

I know and used to work with the owner of a company that makes overhead cranes. He is the one who marked up the drawings that I worked on as a drafter. I would trust his inspection of a crane more than I would trust the inspection done by an engineer. His background is in sales, but he knows his product well enough to take the design from a previous installation and modify it to match the specifications of the current customer's needs.

>>>>As far as an "engineer's eye" goes, some engineer designed the firing pin of an M-60 machine gun so that it could be inserted backwards. Of course, the gun wouldn't operate with a backwards firing pin.<<<<

I'm not arguing that engineers could at times do better, but automobile wheel lug nuts can be threaded on backwards, too. Assembler/operator error is often to blame. Is it very hard to determine if the firing pin is inserted backwards in an M-60?

Would you hire a plumber to inspect new furnace installations. (Would it be overkill to hire a furnace tech?) That is what our state does. I paid a fee to the state to obtain a permit for the installation, and they sent out a plumber to "inspect" and approve the completed job. When winter arrived that year I walked into the furnace room one day only to find acidic condensate flooding the inside of the brand new furnace. The installer hadn't installed the concentric vent kit correctly, or purposely sabotaged it, so the condensate would flow to the furnace. The inspector didn't know enough about furnace work to be able to identify the wrong sized PVC vent pipes that the installer used. But, I doubt that the inspector crawled into the space above the furnace to check the work of the installer. He, like the NY crane inspector, just signed it off.

After a furnace tech, working for a different contractor looked at the vent, he told me it just didn't look right. Well, sure enough, when he sawed open the concentric, he discovered that the installer had left a gap of several inches in the inside pipe that carries exhaust gases, thus allowing condensate to run back to the furnace. After I threatened to sue, the installer sent me a check for several hundred dollars to cover the cost of reparations. But, I didn't get a cent for the grief the whole screw up caused me.

Skeeter, dead right. An engineer should be able to identify the faults that matter, which is, by definition, what matters.

Simon

Thanks, saddlechariot, and kudos to you for your high rating ratio. Just noticed the photo in your avatar, and am wondering if that is the English version of a Seqway. Cheerio!

It is incumbent upon all engineers to personally, or through a qualified representative they trust, to regularly inspect the construction of their stamped design for consistency with the design. Most engineering inspectors work for engineers, even city inspectors work for the City Engineer, or the engineer in charge of th ebuilding department. I have found, particularly in geotechnical inspections that the people used are usually high school graduates with minimal training except how to operate a nuclear gauge. So these types of inspectors do not know what to look for. Since the frequently these engineers do not get their feet held to the fire over inspections, because the client wanted the cheapest in favor of more qualified. Maybe if there was jail time for the signatories of the inspectors services contract, the people who do these types of poor quality low cost inspections would consider in to the fees what 10 years or more in prison is worth in risk. A business man client of mine once told me he didn't mind paying to meet the environmental regulations, as long as his competitors had to meet the same level of regulation, he did not want to pay for anything more than he had to. If everyone else does it.. Maybe legal/regulatory entities need to make more rqndom inspections to verify these people are doing their jobs. While it is not cost effective to have engineers do all the inspections, it might be prudent to have them randomly pop in once in a while and check on the inspectors. Of course this would have to be billed to someone, and no client perceives that kind of cost as effective for their projects. I get complaints from clients when they get billed for having me show up to a site when they asked me too, and I work for public entities that hire my firm for quality and skill. Imagine the response those guys working for land developers would get to a bunch of random site visit bills. Of course when the developers are at risk, they might take a different position.

Qualified is qualified, the inspector was probably qualified, but he didn't act responsibly. Were the proper installation procedures followed? doubtful. I thought the crane operator & riggers are always responsible for a safe lift! the construction company is responsible to have well trained knowledgable crews. There's plenty of blame to go around. The accident must have been been a series of failures. The inspector had probably been signing off jobs for years & getting away with it, since he knew his supervisors weren't doing their jobs either. A bunch of bureaucrats with cush jobs & no real oversite.

That was my point exactly! The crane accident in NYC didn't happen because the guy wasn't qualified, it happened because he didn't do his job, but said he did. I haven't checked into it, but as far as I know, he could have a PhD in Engineering or Physics.

Education is no guarantee of morality. Look at white collar crime. Most crimes in that category require specialized knowledge for someone to committ the crime. White collar crime seldom happens because of incompetence.

I just read an article about the crane accident, and thought a quote of Mayor Bloomberg was pretty ridiculous, but typical from a politician or a defense lawyer... "The violations had nothing to do with this," Bloomberg said. "Every large construction site has violations."

Yup, that statement sure clears things up. Because every large construction site has violations, and since not every large construction site has accidents, therefore violations have nothing to do with accidents. Just goes to show how smart Bloomberg is... he knows he can fool most of the people most of the time.

This is an easy one to answer, and as Walter Cronkite always said

"YOU ARE THERE". An engineer is the man who drove the train that hauled all of those big rocks all away across the desert so
your ancestors would have something with which to build those big pointed things. It seems that you cannot make a point pilling dry sand that high. Toomuchfun

Pvhramani, I don't want to be rude, always a sign one is about to be, but if you are going to say, only engineers can discuss this, firstly we are in a loop, becuase we need to define engineers, and secondly you are excluding those like myself with no engineering training. I am an ex cook, zookeeper and writer who just happened to develop the safest equestrian activity in the world. The traditional British horse establishment won't talk to me because I am not using spoked wheels, iron tyres, leather straps and buckles. If the engineering world is going to treat me as irrelevant because I haven't got a bit of paper, engineering has major problems, and so do I.

Judge engineering on engineering. Look at what I have built and what it does. Sure it could be better and engineering builds on the work of others, but if engineering becomes a cosy club where the the good old boys get together to exclude anything new, it won't be engineering.

Sure this forum goes off topic, its a discussion not a dissertation, and I was right on my first point about being rude. I have been, but it isn't meant as a personal insult, but a passionately held belief that engineering is about the end result and nothing else.

And saying "this writer DOES NOT question the fundamental RIGHT of one and all to engage in these talks" is meaningless if you go on to define your own little self defined sub group "I hope the experienced and knowledgeable members would be more circumspect, by trying as far as possible to keep within the SUBJECT LIMITS" as this sub group are in YOUR opinion, engineers.

Simon, hiding, after carefully placing cat in pigeons, or in a more engineering analogy, lit match in petrol tank.

Hi saddlechariot

Before becoming emotional, I wish you did read this:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/200181/Re-Please-Define-Engineer

Your idea of "engineer" is FULLY taken care of in those expressions. The presentation does say this:

"On the yardstick of what is aforementioned, a Carpenter is as much an Engineer as the latest IT Engineers are."

As to the suggestion to the members to be "more circumspect", it is felt that one should understand the same as a benign request for more "orderly" and "qualitative" discussions.

pvhramani

Sorry, had read but hadn't related it to you, however the subsequent comment #59 in the thread is suggesting only those with degrees can call themselves engineers so I have unfairly criticised you for the attitudes of others. Your definition is fair and I apologise .

I still believe this discussion needs no boundraries because engineering needs no boundraries. I am fighting the "horse and buggy" mentality both from the traditional "horse and buggy" enthusiasts, and from the engineering sneer "horse and buggy".

. Engineering is looking at windmills and tidemills and sailing boats, all "horse and buggy" technology......originally. Why is "real" horsepower totally ignored.

In England there is over 1 million horsepower at any second standing round in fields farting. Why not "harness" that "horsepower"? You can't think outside the box if all the degrees are handed out, inside the box.

Great display of communicating like gentlmen.

I think it needs to be pointed out here that in the history of engineering the concept of an "engineering degree" is a very recent development. According to current standards many great engineers and iventors would fall short. Check out the educations of the great names in history and you will find that many had minimal formal educations. Many were also considered poor students as well. For example one of the Wright brothers had a high school diploma, the other dropped out in the 11th grade.

I am very interested in your charriot. As it would be off topic I will email you about it later

Thanks Gary, and may I say I am fully in favour of engineering qualifications. I have enormous respect for those with degrees etc and in a wide range of situations, consider a recognised qualification as a really good indicator of the right man for the job BUT it is not the only indicator. There are also those who have come via a different route. (This will be a small minority, maybe a tiny minority, but to exclude them would be a fatal error.) What is needed is an understanding that there are alternative routes, though how you could expect a Government or the Legal profession to accept this is another story entirely and rather than come up with a definition that includes the concept of alternative routes, eliminating all politicians and lawyers might be simpler and cheaper.