P.E. requirement for DER to practice in a given state? 1

[dgapilot]

I'm in the process of becoming a Designated Engineering Representitive. I'm curious what others have done regarding becoming a Professional Engineer, or if not haveing the P.E. has ever been an issue with your state licensing authority?

 

[Hansmeister]

DER's operate under the guidance of 8110-37, which is controlled by the FAA. The FAA is a federal agency, not subject to the whims of individual states. The PE is not required.

 

[KENAT]

Plus, at least in my state, there is no 'aeronautical' PE.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[berkshire]

David,
You don need no stinkin P.E.
B.E

The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor

 

[dgapilot]

Thanks guys, that's what I was hoping

 

[SWComposites]

Well, the Feds don't care one hoot whether you have a PE or not in order to be a DER,

but, if you are an independent consultant DER (as opposed to being an employee DER) then your State board of engineering licensing will expect you to be a PE in order to offer engineering services.

 

[KENAT]

Which kind of conflicts with at least some states not having an aero PE.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ESPcomposites]

I don't believe you need to be that exact in your discipline. You could sit for the ME session. Once you have the PE, they don't restrict your range. It is up to you to abide by the code of ethics and not go outside of your domain.


Brian

http://www.espcomposites.com

 

[SWComposites]

Yeah and there is no PE for aircraft structures either in any state. Take whatever PE exam you can pass, and once you do then you are legal to advertise engineering services.

I had to relearn a bunch of ME stuff that I never used and never will use just to pass the silly test. Walked out of the exam room pretty sure I passed so immediately deleted all of that stuff from my brain.

SW

 

[KENAT]

SWComposites, you pretty much make my point.

If the point of the PE is to prove you know enough not to be a danger to the public, then it seems silly that you have to prove your competance in stuff unrelated to your area of practice and but not in the area related to your practice because there isn't a test for it.

Sure the much vaunted PE ethics says not to work out side of your domain, but for aero you can't really prove your domain. In stead you go out of your way to prove your competance in barely relevant stuff.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ESPcomposites]

KENAT,

It is not a perfect system, that is for sure. But I can thing of some good reasons to have it.

- It will still test your basic knowledge in the field. If you choose the structures side, about 50% of your problems are related to that. That is a good start.

- For the unrelated material, this is somewhat of a waste. But it does test your basic problem solving skills. For example, if you can't study for a few days/weeks and pick this up, maybe you don't have the capability to be performing for the public just yet.

- Learning some other areas, at least in brief, can't be all that bad. I am sure many people spend a lot of time to prepare, but if you are good at your core field, you can probably skate by (50% of questions will be related to this). I think I prepared for about a week and easily passed. So it wasn't that painful in my case.

Though its not a perfect, it does help to weed out those are clearly not competent. Better than nothing.


Brian

http://www.espcomposites.com

 

[KENAT]

But maybe some of us don't want to be weeded out;-).

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[SWComposites]

1) virtually nothing on the ME test was related to what I do as an aircraft stress analyst.

2) the PE does not weed out the incompetent; I once had a PE try to convince me that the stress in an axially loaded bar was 2P/A, since there was a load P at each end; I finally gave up arguing as even a free body diagram went over the person's head.

3) once you pass a PE exam, you can become completely incompetent but still retain the PE license; yes you have to take a few PDH courses every couple of years, but even that's easy to game.

4) I could probably pass any of the PE exams (except probably the SEII/III) with a bunch of studying, but I would still be close to incompetent in most of those areas.

/rant off

SW

 

[ESPcomposites]

I am surprised that the structures section did not have at least related topics. I had a lot of mechanics questions that were similar (at least in principle) to aircraft structural analysis. The exam has changed over the years, with different formats, so that would be one difference. Not sure if it varies by state, but that could be another variable.

No *generic* exam can guarantee competence. But if you can't pass it, and there are people who cannot, they should not be working in the public. It probably is more of a test to prevent the worst of worst from practicing rather than demonstrate you are the best of the best.

This same concept can be extrapolated to anything "test" based. I too know PE's and even Ph.D.'s who can't solve basic free body diagrams, though never to the extent you mentioned. Titles and certifications alone don't make you qualified, but do help to reduce risk to the public (at least in theory?). I think the problem is that some people give too much credit to these titles/certifications. Again, they are probably better gauges of minimum capability rather than actual capability. Of course there are always exceptions.


Brian

http://www.espcomposites.com

 

[Kwan]

I would have explained that he is almost correct with 2P/A. There are loads on each end; therefore, you must account for the area of the two ends. So the real formula is 2P/2A which reduces to P/A.