letters...
P.E. Basics
Bal K. Gupta, P.E. Atlanta 		To the Editor: I am a mechanical engineer with over 30 years of professional experience. I am strongly in favor of requiring people working in the engineering field to have a P.E. license.

The engineering profession has been too lax for a very long time on registration requirements. This has resulted in many unscrupulous people calling themselves engineers, which brings down the esteem and prestige of qualified engineers. In medical and legal professions, no one can call himself/herself an M.D. or attorney-at-law without passing the professional examinations and getting the registration.

If engineers with lots of experience study a little harder, they can pass the licensing exams because their practical experience is going to help them in some of the design-related problems in the test. I tried and passed my exams at the age of 55, and I am very proud of my P.E. licensure in two states.

I strongly urge ASME to take a lead in the P.E. registration drive for mechanical engineers, as IEEE has taken in the registration of electrical engineers and software engineers.


Paul Durr, P.E. Birmingham, Ala. To the Editor: Granted, about the only thing my P.E. stamp has been used for is to mark my name in my college textbooks, but I'm glad that I got it. I can't imagine spending four years in engineering school and not wanting a professional license to show for it. And if I were an employer, I'd generally want someone of the same mindset. Most arguments against getting a license are cop-outs by people too lazy or too scared to take the test.


John M. McKinney, P.E. Indian Head Park, Ill. To the Editor: As I read the December and January issues and letters to the editor concerning registration (licensure), I was surprised by the apparent naiveté of my colleagues concerning the requirements of The Professional Engineers Act for many states.

Whether an engineer is licensed or not, he comes under the terms of the act when his engineering work (as defined by the law) has the potential to affect public safety.

How many times have we seen industrial incidents that go beyond the property lines of industrial facilities. All it takes is one such incident with the associated regulatory investigation and civil action to change the opinion of facility management with regard to engineering practices and licensure. These incidents are also causing several boards to consider tightening the manufacturers' exemption loophole.

Some recent OSHA investigations have questioned designs and/or modifications not done by a licensed engineer. Many EPA permits require certification by a licensed engineer that the facility was designed and built using sound engineering practices.

I suggest that future engineering practice legislation will create a need for licensure, if one desires to advance a career in engineering.


Taking License
Alexander V. Mirzamoghadam, P.E. Orlando, Fla.		 To the Editor: I obtained P.E. registration back in 1982 from California because it was the final milestone after graduation in becoming an engineer.

If we decide to rely on academia to qualify the individual for the profession, then we may want to be consistent and apply this principle to all professions directly or indirectly affecting public well-being. We would then be driven to concentrate on the problem of consistency in the quality of higher education including engineering faculty standards, a rather difficult process.

The state should encourage any public or private organization to employ registered engineering professionals, especially if it is to receive public funds or tax breaks.

The state needs to strengthen the renewal process by requiring continuing education units as is the case for the medical profession (this is where ASME and company career development and training departments can contribute), and/or a reference letter from a relevant P.E. colleague detailing the professional engineer's technical contribution, progress, and ethics.

Until the private sector and academia are provided with an incentive or mandate by the state requiring them to take on registered engineers, human nature will dictate who becomes registered, and I assure you that the number of participants will continue to drop.


Vote Challenge
Floyd O. Calvert Norman, Okla. 		To the Editor: I was startled to discover that No. 1 on the list of the top ten achievements of the 20th century turned out to be the automobile. The automobile is a refined set of wheels that were first developed in some ancient century. Has the quality of civilization been advanced by the modern automobile?

In America, some 30,000 to 40,000 fatalities each year take place on the streets and highways. Hundreds of thousands more are injured. These are wartime-type statistics. The automobile is the cause of unbounded sorrow for millions more.

A major result of the automobile is the change of the American personality. We all change instantly when the car door is closed. A term such as "driv-ing courtesy" is an oxymoron. The goal of every driver is to pass the car in front. Road rage is the modus operandi of the day.

In my city and state, concrete covers more and more of the available land surface. Concrete does not grow carrots very well nor does it make enjoyable parks. The automobile also saps other resources, such as the finite supply of petroleum fuels. Is it reasonable to suppose that in the 21st century, human types will again discover legs?

The automobile is largely a source of pleasure similar to television or ice cream cones or solitaire on the computer. Is pleasure the criterion used to put the automobile in first place as an "engineering achievement?"


More and Less
Robert H. Leilich Springfield, Va. 		To the Editor: Sensing that our ages are similar, I can definitely relate to Henry Petroski's excellent writings on 20th-century engineering advances in the January issue, entitled "The Distance We've Come." The article is a keeper.

I am often reminded that mankind hasn't always adjusted for the better, as indicated by the following thoughts that were penned by an observant, but unknown, author, entitled "Paradox of Our Times."

The paradox of our times is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We buy more, but enjoy it less.

We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time. We have more advanced degrees, but less common sense; more knowledge, but less good judgment; more medicine, but less wellness.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We have higher incomes, but lower morals.

We have been to the moon, but have trouble crossing the street to help a stranger; we have conquered outer space, but inner space is still too much a mystery.

We have cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul; split the atom, but not our prejudices.

We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.

These are times of steep profits and shallow relationships; world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure, but less fun; two incomes, and more divorce.

It is a time when there is much in the show window, but nothing in the stockroom; a time of instant e-mail, but also a time when you can make a difference or just hit delete.


Additional Space Junk?
 Timothy M. Garrison Cincinnati 		To the Editor: Your editorial "Catapulting Birds" (February) left me with one question: Is there enough room in low earth orbit if we start launching satellites at a rate of "one an hour"? That's 8,760 new satellites a year into an already crowded space.

I have heard of the maglev launch-assist system before and think it is a significant approach. I also think reducing NASA's $10,000 per pound is a great challenge and needs to be explored. But I think part of the engineering challenge to reduce the cost per pound involves reducing the amount of space junk.

Just like anything else, when the cost of something decreases, the volume increases. If you can reduce the cost of launching a satellite by a factor of 10 (or more), then it is probably safe to say that the number of annual launches will go up by the same ratio. Maybe not one an hour, but still a significant increase.

Telecommunications companies may replace aging satellites at a faster rate due to the lower launch costs, and new satellites might not be designed to last as long. All of this leads to more space junk, which will increase the danger of future manned space flights.


home | features | news update | marketplace | departments | about ME | back issues | ASME | site search

© 2000 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers