CEng or IEng as a licence to practice ?
 

A question to the house.

LAME / Certified Mechanic / Licensed Technician (choose the title according to nationality and preference) level Engineering professionals have a clear licence to practice. Aircrew have a clear licence to practice.

However, although the CEng and IEng qualifications exist for those of us practicing in design / analysis / senior management roles, they are not a license to practice. Somebody with no formal training or qualifications can quite legally do (the Engineering parts) of my job, whilst there are people junior to me who could not without formal qualifications.

Personally, I'm troubled like this. I'm proud of my CEng, and hope that it is a fair reflection of the level I work at. I would like it to be a licence to practice, forcing those without similar level qualifications to either prove that they can meet the grade in a formal assessment system, or have their work checked and supervised by somebody who has.

Opinions anybody?

Eur.Ing. Genghis, CEng

with the best respect, I went through this process and as you know at the end of the day, it does not get you anymore credibility apart from talking about it with fellows over a G&T and a few extra bits after your name. No im not a failed Ceng but I cannot see any point in paying annually for a qualification that has the stigma of the "guild of master craftsmen" (woodworker) that can be bought

It is not the same everywhere.
 

I assume that C eng is a Civil engineer. As an example in the States a Civil Engineer can participate in the design of civil projects such as roads, bridges, dams and so on. However in order to sign off on the project the individual must have a BSc or higher in Civil Engineering and be certified as a professional engineer which requires a level of experience and the ability to pass a very difficult test. The same holds true for other engineering disciplines. These individuals are very much in demand on the job market and no, they are not required to pay a fee to maintain their status.

:cool:

CEng is Chartered Engineer, IEng is Incorporated Engineer. Both basically require a degree, 2 years further training, and at-least 2 years practice. The difference really is in the level of degree - BEng(Hons), BSc(Hons) or MEng for CEng; BEng, BSc or Btech for IEng. Both have non-degree routes through considerably greater experience and a minimum level of academics.

Normal practice is to apply through one of the institutions, such as RAeS or IMechE, which is where the money really goes. I pay about £140pa to the RAeS but I do have the right if I wish to just pay the Engineering Council (or whatever they're called this week) fees to keep the qualification, which run to about £30pa.

It sounds to me that CEng and IEng are equivalent to what you refer to as "professional engineer".

Incidentally, you generally tell somebody's discipline by membership of institutions. For example, I'm CEng MRAeS MIMechE - or in other words qualified as an aeronautical and mechanical Engineer. Civil would be MICE (Member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, one might argue they could have thought of a better acronym).

Having said that, I'd also prefer to see fees being waived, or at-least reduced to the level of the £40 every 5 years I pay FEANI to maintain my Eur.Ing. qualification.

G

I have a confession - one of my offspring is a lawyer. To be a member of the profession and practice as a solicitor she must be a member of the Law Society and also hold a current Legal Practice Certificate - a form of licence. Thus, when one engages a solicitor, one is assured that, as well as the necessary experience and training, the solicitor is also subject to controlled ethical standards. There is a similar situation for Medical Practitioners, Architects and other Professionals. The main difference between these professions and the engineering profession is that they provide a personal service directly to a particular client.

As a Professional Engineer (IEng MRAeS MIEE) I'm technically qualified, subjected to peer review and submit to a code of conduct through my institutes, but membership is not mandatory. Ghengis really asks whether it should be compulsory for practicing Professional Engineers to be members of a relevent society. I do think that this should be the case, but first we must get our house in order and amalgamate the whole profession under a single Engineering Institute, with seperate divisions for each specialisation. Only then will our profession be in a position to enjoy public recognition and be granted the right to issue licences to practice. The Engineering Council is an attempt to produce a unified engineering profession, but by and large, it hasn't been too successful so far.


**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Having read this thread with a vested interest and with no axe to grind at all I would like to state a few points as we as engineers see things within the industry.

Having any form of qualifacation is an achievement on its own but the aviation industry runs along totally different lines and formats to any other industry you will find.

As engineers who are responsible to our employers,passengers,crew and the authorities who regulate this business.Some of us are granted licences to perform and CERTIFY the work carried out on our aircraft to allow the pilot to fly the said aircraft safely from point A to B.

These Licences are probably one of the hardest qualifacations to obtain in any enviroment and not only are academic but also rely on hands on knowledge and experiance to gain.

My question is why should someone who has done a few extra years at school be given management status?

Is the industry saying that these qualifacations are higher than the safety related licence bearing in mind the now present situation with the JAR66 C licence and degree holders?

When will our lords and masters finally recognise that the engineers licence (of which the number is now reducing thanks to JAR66) is a highly professional qualifacation of which takes on an awful amount of responsibility and should be treated as such but normally isn't.

At the end of the day by all means go and gain the qualifacation that allow letters to be placed after your name but dont expect to be given senior posts within this industry because of them.

There are a dwidling number of very professional experianced and highly qualified persons who work very hard under normally difficult circumstances who very rarely ever get the appreciation they deserve and who's standing is barely recognised because they are not members of the right society or don't have letters after there name, but without the WHOLE AVIATION INDUSTRY WOULD STOP! The pilot can only fly it until it breaks then he requires someone to repair it and LEGALLY RELEASE/CERTIFY the work performed to allow the thing to go again.

Not a lot of the general public are aware of this as it is not seen every day.

Sounds like a bit of axe grinding to me.

I don't know of any CEng type Engineer who has any problem with the fact that a technician type Engineer is a highly trained and qualified professional. The fact is you are trusted to keep them running, I'm trusted to sign the design of the thing off in the first place as fit for service. Neither of these are trivial tasks, and both require a great deal of academic and practical training. The difference, to me, is that you can't be employed in your job without proving you've met the required standards. It is possible to bluff your way into mine without any formal training or qualifications at-all. That is my grounds for a license to practice.

And incidentally, if you inquired you'd find that many senior managers hold your type of qualifications not mine, and that many "white collar" engineers on the design and certification (or management) side at places like BAe, Britten-Norman, etc. make a good deal less money than a good LAME. I used the term "management level", because the American term "professional engineer" implies that I am and you are not, which I find inappropriate and demeaning to fellow aviation professionals who just happen to have a different set of pieces of paper.

Most technicians can't drive or design an aeroplane, most pilots can't fix or design an aeroplane, most designers can't fix, build or fly. Nonetheless, we all trained for a lot of years to get where we are. I find the engineer's "the pilot can only fly it until it breaks", as infantile as the pilot's "grounding an aircraft for maintenance is like the tail wagging the dog" and I've heard both far too bloody often.

G

I take note of the 'devil' at the top of your post asheng, and the fact that you registered a username especially for it. ;)

Just to put things in perspective, the 'IEng' in my own list of letters is based upon my Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Licences, rather than an engineering degree. In my present job I'm no longer required or allowed to certify work on aircraft, but I remain qualified to do so. Meanwhile, I earn a good deal less than many of the LAEs in my organization and work longer hours than most of them, but without any overtime pay. Now, this isn't a whinge, I chose to do what I do and enjoy the challenge, but as Ghengis has pointed out, there are people in engineering who aren't qualified or tested in the same way as LAEs and Professional Engineers. Maybe its time to weed them out?

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

I'm writing from the other side of the fence, being one of those professional engineers who doesn't hold the CEng title.

From my own workplace, I would estimate that 2-3% of the engineers (not technicians or fitters) hold that title.

I would assume that other aerospace design/manufacturing facilities holding design authority (as we do) are in a similar position.

So "Weeding Out" is not really the correct phrase, "Eliminating Vast Swathes" of the aerospace design profession would be closer to the truth.

In my case, I feel no particular urge to pay £140 pa for a magazine that I do not read. Can you persuade me that the RAeS offers any more than that?

More than a (yes not truly brilliant, but improving) magazine yes. A superb technical library with free access, access to technical committees monitoring and influencing virtually every level of aviation, access to many independent professionals in other fields of aviation, a free careers centre, discounted entry to conferences, a nationwide free lecture programme, a place to hold meetings for free and get a cheap lunch in the middle of London - for example.

Having said all that, I'm not convinced it is good value for money at £140/year. I pay it because I think it's the best thing there, I get involved in it's committees because I think it can be made better.

But this actually was never my point. My belief is that Engineers working at CEng level should have been through an independent assessment process, of a known standard, before being allowed to work at an independent researcher / design signatory / senior engineering manager level. What we have at the moment is the CEng.

The actual Engineering council fees of around £30/yr are about the same as the American "Professional Engineers" license and although I do believe in membership of the RAeS / IMEchE / etc those are not what I personally feel should be compulsory.

Concerning "weeding out" versus "eliminating vast swathes", does anybody know what happened when a license to practice became compulsory for doctors, accountants, osteopaths, pilots, etc? I don't actually know, but I'd guess they were given a reasonable number of years warning, the powers that be geared up to handle lots of applications, a lot of people did some fairly rapid learning and training they should have done before, and a few rotten apples dropped quietly from the bottom of the barrel - but in that I'm guessing.

G

Genghis,
Whilst I'm merely a humble tech I've deep reservations about the direction that the engineering industry/establishment is heading. With the loss of the traditional path into engineering, apprenticeship, day release, sandwich course. We are losing the broad base of experience that used to be gained by people who followed this route. Not just the feel for the processess and materials, but man managment skills and the mutual respect that's gained when you work with people. We are also losing the middle ground, people like myself who act as a bridge between the "Professionals" and the shop floor.
I've had the misfortune to get stuck under a gradate entry box ticker who has no idea about basic engineering, I had to teach him how to use a micrometer! he is now chartered with I mech E fortunatley as we work mostly in research he's not going to hurt too many people, also I think he's aiming towards a move to politics he certainly has the personality for it.
What concerns me about this is the emphasis seems to be on career progress and programme/project management rather than actual nuts and bolts. Being able to draw charts and make power point presentaions are handy skills but don't really help when your trying produce a finished product that actually works. We need organisation but we need people who can actually do the job. If the institutes continue as they seem to be then the papers will sadly become worthless.

I agree with you, but is anybody going to worry that much about the actual technical ability of CEng applicants, or the list of core abilities required, whilst in practice it's not actually required?

G

Bottle Fatigue's "Vaste Swathes" are not to what I refer. Those vaste swathes are, by and large, qualified for the positions they hold but, by declining to get involved, they are a symptom of the engineering profession's problem. My 'weeding out' alludes to those who are unfit for office, but who nevertheless manage to talk their way into managerial positions by pure salesmanship or "bull!!!!!" as it is more commonly known. You've all met them and you know the type of people to whom I refer.

A qualification system for higher level staff would prevent many of these unfit people from being let lose on their destructive path. That is why I consider that a form of licencing, such as CEng/IEng, based upon peer review and a process of Continuing Professional Development (you forgot the CPD in your exposition, Ghengis!) is not only in order, but highly desirable.

Competent managers have nothing to fear from submitting themselves to peer review and certification, whereas "bull!!!!!ters" are easily unmasked by independent examiners. Its not all down to academic qualifications either. As I indicated in my earlier post, my own IEng was secured by the mature candidate process. You first describe your career in a detailed written exposition, then after passing that hurdle, you turn up for the board of inquisition armed with documentary proof, in the form of actual examples of your work. The grilling that follows is fair but tough and would certainly have unmasked any of the bull!!!!!ters that I've worked with over the years. [A bit similar to the old UKCAA Licence exams actually...]

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Genghis,you are great!...Please let me wallow in your greatness,Aeng[Hons],Beng[Hons],Ceng[Even More Hons]!
AshEng,I felt your post was well worded and carefully thought out.
Our friend Genghis is correct in saying[I think this is what he is saying amongst all of his high-and-mighty,I'm great,look at me,let's look down upon anyone without copious amounts of letters after their name attitude] that everyone has a place to play in the industry of keeping our a/c flying safely.
I rely on design engineer's every day of the week.Without their input,the work I carry out IAW the MM is worthless.However,design engineers also rely on us,the certifying 'engineer','technician',minion, etc....to carry out that said work,IAW what the design engineer intended.If we don't do that then all your work is pointless.
All us lower life forms such as LAME,Technician,Fitter recognise that you do an important job.As you imply,I could not do your job,but I ask the question how you would cope,given a 30-40 min turnaround,with a serious defect written in the Tech-Log?Would you be able to action/interperet [spelling?] [but i'm sure YOU would have known how to spell it!!!] your own design information with regard to despatching the aeroplane/fixing the aeroplane or not?
All the best,
Eng122,[I don't feel i'm able to be 123 anymore!!]

Having a bad day old chap?

Since I look after the maintenance on two light aircraft that I fly and do about half a dozen annuals per year on other aircraft using procedures I wrote (without pay, and mostly to make sure I haven't made a balls up of the procedures), I'm sure I'd cope quite well but not as well as somebody who does nothing else.

I have specifically avoided saying that that technicians are an inferior lifeform, I've spend quite enough time servicing aircraft in the rain to be quite clear on that point. However, I'm more than happy to make an exception in your case.

G


N.B. Or are you cleverly illustrating one of the reasons our combined profession fails much of the time to get itself taken seriously by the rest of the world?

When I worked for an airline, we had a couple of DARs. They had the credentials to approve designs and changes to aircraft. But more times than not the designs were only a nice picture, and could not be implimented. When you as the LAME had to install or modify the a/c as per said drawing, you would find that is was not workable.

I'm not a CEng or a IEng, and I have great respect for many of them, but the problem that I have is I have to work on many of these designs made by someone in an office, who doesn't put much thought of maintaining his/her design. When I have to fix an a/c, it normaly is dark, cold, and oily. Half the time it is as if the bit you are trying to remove was put in first, and the whole structure was built around it. Makes it hard to do a turn around, and clear that tech log snag in time for the next flight, and many times I have found that the structure was mangled by the last poor guy who was stuck fixing the machine in less than ideal environments.

I don't care what title a person holds, I just think they should spend some time twisting a wrench before they are let lose to come up with the next great design.

Genghis,
I have been a Licensed Engineer with multiple UK and Australian endorsements for some years now. I am also a MRAeS and IEng. As JAR 66 loomed I duly converted my UK Licence. On contacting IMechE to enquire about membership, I was told that despite being a Licensed Aircraft Engineer, a senior manager within a large maintenance organisation, MRAes and I Eng and with 30 years in the industry, I was not qualified to join IMechE as I did not have a degree.

Please note that there are no sour grapes on my part (too old for that sort of thing now). We should continue to promote the position of the Licensed Aircraft Engineer so that the word 'Engineer' associated with the role actually reflects the position and the level of responsibility. I believe that the RAeS, Engineering Council and IMechE are potential vehicles to do so. I also realise that some of the afore mentioned institutions have already made considerable steps to do so.

I was therefore saddened to see that after all the years of experience and the level of qualifications, I was not considered suitable for IMechE, unlike a person fresh from university with the ink on his dergree still wet who is welcomed into such a fraternity almost straight away. Why then should we wonder when some folks in the industry are disillusioned with the so called 'professional societies' when such things occur.

By the way I voted yes to your poll

It's good to talk,

Tempsford

Yes, they gave me considerable grief too (with less experience than you but a degree) - apparently didn't think RAeS' standards for CEng issue were high enough and I think it's only in the last year or so that they've started to accept Incorporated Engineers. A rather analy retentive attitude IMHO.

G

Genghis,oh great one.....you don't have to say that you consider us Licenced Eng's [oops,sorry,I shouldn't say Eng as I don't have a degree] Licenced Technicians are,in your opinion,lower life forms as it can be seen for all in the tone of your language.
Also,looking after your puddle-jumper with minimal or no pressure at all is a very different environment to working on the ramp at a major airport with a tech-log defect that require's rectification whilst there are 200+ passenger's sitting there looking out the window at you.
All The Best!
eng123

eng123, before I left the RAF I couldn't even spell 'injuneer' now I are one.

If you read what I said earlier you might deduce that I'm an LAE, without an engineering degree. I acquired what you call 'letters after my name' and what I call professional recognition, through practical experience plus commitment. Commitment to engineering, to aviation and to standards. In your earlier post you tell us how hard LAEs work, how responsible the LAEs' position is and you also complain about the poor design that often makes life difficult. All this is true, we've all experienced these things, but what are you doing about them?

You can go on merely fixing aeroplanes and cursing the bad designs for the rest of your working life if you wish. On the other hand you could devise new tools [or modify existing ones] that work around poor access; you could think of some way of reworking badly designed installations and eliminate the problem, then submit the idea to the manufacturer for consideration as a design change. You are almost certainly aware of at least one safety hazard - don't just complain to colleagues about it, report it to the manufacturer and the regulators, including your suggestions for changes that might overcome the problem. Then you'd be a professional, a non-gradute one perhaps, but a professional for all that.

You've already made a step in the right direction by posting here, now go out and turn your frustration into useful energy and dare to make a difference. Good luck in your career and don't let the b@stards grind you down; we know that LAEs truly are salt of the earth - all we have to do is prove it.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Blacksheep.
Pls rewiew my previous posts on this subject.I haven't mentioned half of what you credit me with saying.
The Boeing's [the new one's at least] are extremely well designed in comparison with older a/c I have worked on,1-11's etc... with very few improvements that I would feel worthy of reporting to the manufacturer.
From the tone of your post,I can only assume that you too,as well as my friend Genghis,feel you have reached a level far superior to the likes of myself,what was it? 'then you would be a proffesional'
AM I NOT ALREADY?......of course i'm not,I haven't got letters after my name! I must say,to save confusion,that I DONT WANT THEM!
However,I am a proffesional,and even if I say so myself,a bloody good one!The comparison to what the main man,Genghis,gets up to with his Cessna's and what myself and my colleages do with 'real' aircraft is non-existant.
Having re-read your previous post,it strikes me that you have,in fact,spent very little time 'at the sharp end'.You mention making our own tools or adapting the existing ones as though this would be a major breakthrough.I have been doing exactly that for the last 20 years and it has been the same wherever I have worked.Perhaps if you had had as much experience of maintenance at the sharp end as myself [as opposed to an office] then you would have realised that.

Now then eng123, I didn't suggest that you don't already make your own specials or have your own 'work arounds' for difficult jobs, but do you tell anyone about these? or do anything else to resolve the problem? I do believe that what differentiates an Engineer from a Technician is that the former takes ownership of a problem and acts to change the underlying cause, while the Technician continues with things as they exist, accepting the state of the world as he finds it. Are you one of the former or the one of the latter?

I don't generally flaunt it, but since you challenge my experience here it is: -
After finishing my apprenticeship, 37 years as a skilled tradesman (now there's an expression that's gone out of fashion!!) of which 2 years Line and Base on MkIA & MkII Vulcan; 4 years Line on VC10; 3 years Line HS748, Whirlwind & Gazelle; 3 years B707 & B747 Overhaul; 3 years B737 Line; 4 years B737 & B757 Base as Avionics Foreman; 2 Years Base Maintenance Foreman on B737 & B757 Overhaul; 12 years development engineering (B757, B767, F50, F100, A319) with last 3 years as section head. [I wasted the missing 3 years loafing about in workshops.] My knees are brown and yes, I've got some time in at the sharp end. On real aeroplanes. In fact, I might even be one of those "Real Engineers" that one often hears about but seldom see...

I think I could still manage a turn-round defect in horizontal freezing rain at 3 a.m. At a push, I could still do a seventeen hour overnight stint, on some obscure emergency repair in the big shed, though with my grey hair, fading eyesight, elderly stoop and the onset of senile dementia, I'm probably not as good as I used to be when I was in my forties.

So, while I apologise for spending too much time in a back orifice, rest assured that I don't talk out of one... ;)

Going back to the original topic, there are far too many examples of the validity of 'Incompetence Theory' around our workplaces. It will never be possible to eliminate all of them, but licensing all Engineering staff (Engineers, Technicians, Tradesmen or whatever else we may choose to call ourselves) and grading them through a process that uses independent review and assessment, is one way of reducing the parasites to a minimum.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

At least I'm in good company :D

G

No need to get personal here eng123.

I have worked with some unlicenced guys who are far better than I, and would trust their judgement anytime. I have also worked with some licenced guys who I wouldn't let change the batterys in my torch.

The dangers are the guys who just come to pick up a paycheck. They never see if you need a hand, never stay till the job is done, and don't care what they were on when the bell goes, they just pack up and leave. These are the parasites I'd like to see gone.

Once I tried to ask advice about recruiting somebody to do design investigation work, and a second time I ask about licensing of Chartered and Incorporated Engineers working in a similar environment. Both times people with chips on shoulders subvert it into a public rant about the status of qualified technicians / LAE / call yourself what you like. The term "professional engineer" is a misnomer often applied to "white collar" rather than "blue collar" engineers and the reason I used it in my previous post, which was perfectly clear.

Unless you feel qualified to conduct an Euler Buckling load analysis of a strutted wing, analyse the fatigue life of a drilled bracket, calculate the stresses in a modified seat harness, convert non-ISA flight test results to standard conditions, argue in incessant meetings with the CAA over changes to safety standards, and 101 other aspects of my job, why not get off your bandwagon and admit there are different jobs and qualifications, all equally necessary, all very difficult, requiring different qualifications, to some extent overlapping, but all called "Engineer".

Okay, I'll admit it, I have a degree, a handful of letters after my name, and although I spent some years of my life in overalls in a workshop or hangar environment, I happen to be much better at analysing designs and investigating airworthiness problems. I probably get paid less than some technicians, which doesn't trouble me at-all. What troubles me, and the reason I posted this poll, is that there are people working in similar jobs to mine, without formal professional qualifications, and in some cases I have doubts about their competence. You, as a working LAE, do not suffer this problem since your colleagues have to be CAA licensed.

And incidentally, you have to live with the consequences of cock-ups by my sort of Engineer, so I'd have thought it was in your interest as well as mine to raise the standards.

G

Point taken, fully agree, and have no heart ache. You are right in the fact that there are lots of jobs and qualifications, and each are as important as the next. I do what I do, and you do what you do. There is no need to point fingers and say that I am more important than the next guy. All this forum is about is getting people who don't fit the bill out of their spot because they are making this industry a slow and not overly productive environment.

Genghis my dear fellow,

First may I let it be known that I have absolutely NO AXE TO GRIND but I find you attitude both condescending and for a professional engineer of your mighty status I am surprised by your manner.

Looking at your posts you are obviously a one man aviation expert,designing,maintaining and flying aircraft and sometimes even in the rain.

When you decide to come back down to mother earth and join the rest of us mortals Im sure we'll all be grateful as I for one would love to give you a guided tour of engineering today as I and many of my collegues see it EVERY DAY.

I only work for a small airline operating over 60+ aircraft and turning round these aircraft about 140 times a day at our base alone (that includes problem solving and a sympathetic shoulder for the crews to rely on) and at night we have the luxury of only having 28 aircraft to look after.

This is done in all weathers every day by hard working engineers not all licenced but dedicated all the same. A person of your qualities would obviously be a major advantage to our operation and I cant understand why your not here?

Give me a call or come on down and we'll show you what aviation can be like in a high pressure/stress enviroment with an approximate timescale of 25 mins during the day and 6 hours at night and you can tell me how good letters are after youyr name in this situation.

What the industry requires are more engineers who are ready to get there hands dirty and do it again and again to keep the public flying safely with the knoledge that any decision they make is correct and safe.

What the engineers require is a little bit of recognition and a salary/conditions that reflects the vital job they are doing.Sadly in the case of most unlicenced engineers these are missing on all counts as eng's are seen as a necessary evil by the pen pushers.

Let me know!

You mean you do all that with a 60 ship fleet and no Technical Support Services to back you up, asheng? Hell thats tough, maybe we can help each other out. I'm doing a spot of research at the moment, what improvement in MTBUR have you seen since implementing the Sundstrand RIP programme? Did you negotiate a guaranteed maintenance cost per operating hour and if so what rate did you get? Are you affected by 2002-25-11? How are you coping? Send me a Private Message and maybe we can share our findings, after all the more information we can share, the greater the safety and performance pay-backs we get.

But of course, you aren't doing it all by yourselves are you? Aviation is a multi-skill environment and we all depend on each other....

Its horses for courses; we are all in the same profession, different compartments perhaps, but we all rely on each other. Engineering is underpaid and under-rated. As long as we remain divided amongst ourselves we will stay that way. IF we can achieve public recognition of engineering's proper place in the scheme of things, everyone in engineering will benefit - designers, maintainers, developers or whoever we may be. Thats what the real issue is. At the top of the profession are the people with post graduate degrees and several years of experience designing new things, be they whole aeroplanes and engines, or parts and sub-systems. At the other end of the scale are semi-skilled workers doing lubrication, ground handling and other essential but simpler jobs. The rest of us are somewhere in between, but all of us are in it together - sink or swim.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Blacksheep I appologise if I offended you personally but it was not my intention as my feeling is not with any individual but trhe attitude of certain individuals.

My intension was never to imply that as engineers the aviation world begins and ends at the line or hangar enviroment as this is cleary not the case.It is a large industry utilising a vast variety of departments and expertise and brings together many professionals.

My point was without doubt aimed fairly at the condescending element that I feel Genghis and persons such as him fit into. I find his remarks to be of a nature to suggest that us mere mortals are obviously unfit to work in the same industry as the elevated beings such as himself feel they belong to.

To suggest that I have an axe to grind I feel rather insulting, Personally I wouldn't want to grind it but bury it into something soft.

Tommorow I will go back on shift with my other professional engineers to keep the public flying safely surrounded by yet further professionals who fly the complex machinery that keeps us all employed.I will be able to do this in the knowledge that if required there is a vast machine behind me willing to advise me should I require it on a vast range of technical subjects as is my whim and without these people I couldn't perform my tasks as the public/authorities/company/crew require.Of this we are all grateful for the contributions made and given freely.

Hopefully I wont come accross the pontificating likes of Genghis the so-called Engineer whose experiance relys on him doing some maintenance on his puddlejumper and sometimes in the rain but does have letters after his name!

I wasn't aware that there was a prohibition to being approved to design, inspect, maintain and fly at the same time (well in the same year anyway, there are limits), nor to talking about more than one issue on the same website. I think it's also still legal to earn my living in GA, which is probably the only sector of the industry that this is still possible.

Any chance of getting back to the issue of licensing chartered and incorporated Engineers, rather than crew-room character assassination? I'd suggest that the point about the white collar .v. blue collar engineer debate, and about certain individuals opinions of yours truly have been made.

G

Genghis the so-called Engineer, so called Inspector, and so-called Test Pilot. (So called, by the Engineering Council, CAA and SETP, but I don't suppose their opinions are relevant).

And part, like everybody else, of a very large team.

Well,been away from the pc for a few days and look what happens!
Blacksheep.
Any response that begins with 'now then',gives me the impression of being told of by a teacher at school!,but ignoring that,I was clearly wrong to question your practical experience.Having said that,without wishing to be confrontational,I do feel that some of your comments arise from spending the last 12 years in the design office.It's all these comments about differentiating between the 'technician' and 'engineer' that get me! If I continually encounter a problem,do I act on it or just carry on regardless? Well obviously,if it was a continually re-occuring design/tooling problem,OF COURSE we would act on it! Your earlier post implied that us mere 'technicians' would just continue to get around the same old problems without raising the issue with our Tech Services or similar which is not the case.It truly would be a priveledge to spend a nightshift or two with someone like yourself [and I mean that sincerely].If you fancied a night out then PM me and I'll try and sort a pass.[South of England]
rwm,
Please don't get me wrong,I'm not one of these people that look down on un-licenced people.The ONLY difference between licenced and un-licenced people is the fact that one set has passed an exam.Where I work,we have some TOP CLASS mech's who,in most cases,I very rarely feel the need to inspect their work.[obviously depending on what the particular job is]
ASFKAP,
Thanks for the link,no surprise there then!
Ghengis
You mention something about living with cock-ups that 'your sort of engineer' might make.Well forgive me if I quote you out of context,because I struggle to take in anything you say,but what about living with the consequences that 'my sort of engineer' may make,ie. on the ramp,ready to go,critical system.Do you not think they could be just as grave as the elite like yourself having designed it wrong in the first place?
Asheng,
Top post!!
Genghis
No,having opened this can of worms with your initial condescending attitude there is no chance of getting back to your 'chartered and incorporated' engineers.Anyway,having read this discussion,could I call myself 'I Eng' through my JAR 66? I do hope so,it would mean sooooo much to me! Imagine that,letters after my name!

eng123.

I'm an old fart, so I'm entitled to say "Now then" :p

Could you get 'Incorporated Engineer' through your JAR66 licence? The answer is yes, you certainly could. All you have to do is submit to the inquisition ....

I'd be delighted to see you join the team; but wouldn't that be ironic? Come on then, e-mail Annabel, lets see what you're made of.... :)

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

It's tempting blacksheep..................but then again,maybe not! Like the e-mail-Annabelle bit! :)

Just follow the link in my previous post and you'll get Annabel's e-mail address. She's a lovely lady and very helpful. Go on; I dare you! :E

The more LAEs we get into the fold the better....

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Blacksheep,I thought you were calling me 'e-mail Annabel' in some jokey type reference to my proposal to spend a nightshift with us!
Having finally noticed your location,I can see the reason why you don't want to do that!
Now then,[!],I really have absolutely no interest in applying for letter's after my name as I really can't see the point.If you have any reasons to persuade me otherwise,please tell me and maybe I'll reconsider.
You do seem like a down to earth kind of bloke so please don't take offence from anything said earlier.
Cheers,
eng123.

As a complete non-engineer who occasionally lurks here out of interest, may I stick in my two-pennorth (and probably get flamed! :eek: )

AshEng and Eng123 , I think you're misunderstanding Genghis ' argument. He EMPHASISED that engineers doing your kind of job have to prove their worth. What he complained about was that engineers doing his job didn't...and therefore might be no good at it. Why on earth do you have a problem with that?

I know zilch about engineering...but I do know about people. Could it conceivably be the case that you have chips on your shoulders because you don't have degrees? Could it be that you don't like Genghis mentioning his qualifications without continually apologising for doing so...terribly un-English that, isn't it? Could you maybe have reacted to the person rather than the discussion as a result of the above?

I'm merely asking, that's all. After all, as a non-engineer, what do I know? :rolleyes:

And my humble apologies for taking up your bandwidth, and even for being in here, oh great engineers. ;) :rolleyes:

Thanks Whirlybird
 

Whirlybird

It may be that this thread needed comments from a 'non Engineer type' person. I do see from your profile that you are a 'driver' so in my humble opinion you have an input and I welcome your comments.

Thank you

Tempsford

Why all the Genghis bashing ? I for one appreciate his replies.

Keep posting Genghis.

Hands-up! I DO accept what Ghengis' point is and I have done so [in my own mind] since I first read his post.I have managed to sidetrack his argument onto my own personal agenda which was wrong on my part.I have since sent him a reply and apology for the personal abuse ,which was honestly only meant as a bit of light hearted banter, but which I can now see could easily be seen as something else.
Yours,[whilst eating lots of humble pie!]
eng123

Since Eng123 has been good enough to post the message above, it's only polite that I also say I've replied accepting the apology and hoping that we can continue to enjoy some good technical arguments. Hopefully we can now avoid boxing gloves behind the hangar at dawn.

G