[Closed] when is an engineer not an engineer?

Anyone who walks into a bike shop and says "I'm an engineer" never is.

A proper engineer would have designed safety and braking systems which wouldn't rely on one tired train driver applying the brakes properly.

Who knows what really happened - all the evidence has been melted....

to be fair to the engineer - he'd left the engine running to keep the air brakes on and some firefighters had turned it off when fighting an earlier fire at the depot.

A person is a person, no matter what their job title. A certificate doesn't convey infallibility. Unless you're a certified pope.

Engineer has more than one meaning in the case of this guy it's someone in control of an engine.

A certificate doesn't convey infallibility. Unless you're a certified pope.

someone in control of an engine

The word Engineer comes from the french: l'ingénieur. Literally someone who is ingenius, ie designs things like engines. Hence the word "engine"

The word Engineer comes from the french: l'ingénieur. Literally someone who is ingenius, ie designs things, thinks thing through.

The meaning of words can change.

Engineer has more than one meaning in the case of this guy it's someone in control of an engine.

This is correct, and has been for a long time in the US.

I thought Engineer was common useage in US and Canada meaning locomotive driver

Read this this morning. Am I alone in being a little concerned that an individual can be castigated so publicly by the CEO of a company so soon after the event!? I don't believe a thorough investigation into the incident can be concluded so quickly.
And, as already mentioned here, if the only system control stopping the train is a brake applied by the driver, then it's a shit system

you'll be telling me that a fireman is someone who keeps the boiler going on steam trains and doesn't attempt to extinguish the flames next!

Tricky cove, johnny language.

Not quite, but certainly in the states, if you're the "engineer" responsible for the safety system, it fails and people die, then you go to jail.

totally. still a human though. Regardless of training or legislation or certification you don't become robot.

This is correct, and has been for a long time in the US.

My mistake then. Sceptics getting it wrong then (IMO). 🙁

Am I alone in being a little concerned that an individual can be castigated so publicly by the CEO of a company so soon after the event!?

I'm an Engineer* and so is my wife!

*Not strictly true as she's chartered and I'm not so I'm only pretending really!!

This is correct, and has been for a long time [s]in the US.[/s]

The oxford english dictionary states as much. There are attempts to hijack the word "engineer" to mean designer. It is not the case and never has been. You certainly don't need to be chartered to be a engineer.

He applied eleven brakes and that wasn't enough?

Jesus Harold Christ on a pogo stick, how many brakes does a train have?

And, as already mentioned here, if the only system control stopping the train is a brake applied by the driver, then it's a shit system

so you never drive or travel in a car or bus or coach then.

To be pedantic , the Brake is the brake applied to the whole train,by the driver, or by the train seperating ,eg a broken brake pipe and seperate Hand operatedbrakes work on each axle or bogie and are applied by the driver or train manager/guard.

Jesus Harold Christ on a pogo stick, how many brakes does a train have?

One on each of the 74 wagons.

The oxford english dictionary states as much. There are attempts to hijack the word "engineer" to mean designer. It is not the case and never has been. You certainly don't need to be chartered to be a engineer.

You certainly don't you can use the word 'engineer' to describe the bloke who refills the coke vending machines in the foyer.

Well Trigger was an environmental engineer 😀

I was sure the answer to the title question was going to mention "software engineer" 😕

I guess they're looking at the possibility that the engineer didn't apply the full amount of hand brakes but rather just a few in combination with the air brakes. When the air brakes were shutdown by the fire department the train rolled away.

You certainly don't need to be chartered to be a engineer.

Which in effect is my complaint.
I'm an engineer (you may have guessed) 4 years hard work at Uni for a Masters degree, subsequent 13 years in industry, designing some pretty big, complex and impressive equipment . I'm finally getting my charted application sorted.

Yet to the average bloke on the street, I could just be a train driver, or someone who fills coke vending machines.

[i]Yet to the average bloke on the street, I could just be a train driver, or someone who fills coke vending machines. [/i]

does it matter?

You know what you do, people who work with you understand the value of your qualifications and experience. Does some bloke in a pub's view matter?

[edit] to me an engineer is someone who physically builds stuff like steam trains or something. Machining stuff to designs, assembling, fixing. Not 'just' doing a bit of work with CAD software...

So?
The term engineer is not and never has been the preserve of designers.
If designers egos are so fragile that they need a term just so that they can feel special and recognised, it should be.....Designer!
Let engineers be engineers.

Office water dispenser breaks, phone company with service contract, they say they're sending an "engineer" round to take a look at it.

Not an engineer, just a guy in a van.

Well 'you' picked a name that was already in use for a different meaning so it will be very difficult to get a protected title.

When did Plumbers start getting called heating engineers? I've nothing against plumbers, but surely the guy that designed the boiler is the heating engineer and the plumber is a heating fitter.

wwaswas - Member

Tricky cove, johnny language.

A very fine sentence, sir.

So?
The term engineer is not and never has been the preserve of designers.
If designers egos are so fragile that they need a term just so that they can feel special and recognised, it should be.....Designer!
Let engineers be engineers.

Design engineer?

Plumber is a completely different job to heating engineer.

Heating engineer = deluxe Plumber 🙂

thekingisdead - Member

Read this this morning. Am I alone in being a little concerned that an individual can be castigated so publicly by the CEO of a company so soon after the event!? I don't believe a thorough investigation into the incident can be concluded so quickly.

Quite right.

[i]I'm an engineer ... I'm finally getting my charted application sorted.[/i]

So actually, by the definition that you want to apply, you're not. Yet. 🙂

Not 'just' doing a bit of work with CAD software...

That would be a designer/draughtsman, depending on how much autonomy is given.

The engineer is the person behind the design, who's done the required calculations, be it mechanical strength, thermal efficieny, or cost and production time or whatever to make sure whatever it is will work correctly for the given situation.

an engineer is someone who physically builds stuff like steam trains or something. Machining stuff to designs, assembling, fixing

So actually, by the definition that you want to apply, you're not. Yet

[i]they're not engineers[/i]

I think I was making the point that the word means different things to different people. I've always viewed it as a 'hands on' role - mad professor in a workshop or man with lots of machines in a big shed type stuff.

It doesn't mean that what you do has less value just that it's not like it's a term that deserves protection in law to apply only to people who use a slide rule on a daily basis and never actually touch the stuff they do the calculations for.

(note: this is all slightly tongue in cheek, I realise that a doing 'bit of CAD' does not a mechanical (or whatever) engineer make).

Definition of engineer
noun

1a person who [b]designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or structures.[/b]
a person qualified in a branch of engineering, especially as a professional:an aeronautical engineer

2a person who controls an engine, especially on an aircraft or ship.
North American a train driver.

3a skilful contriver or originator of something:the prime engineer of the approach

Design, work on, build or maintain machines? You're an engineer. You do not need a degree or a chartership. End of story.

project - Member

And, as already mentioned here, if the only system control stopping the train is a brake applied by the driver, then it's a shit system

so you never drive or travel in a car or bus or coach then.

Obviously I do, but the level of safety controls generally reflect the levels of risk. And no matter I hard I try to drive like a d*ck, the chance of me doing as much damage as a freight train carrying thousands of litres of oil are slim.

I will assume you are aware of (P)FMEA's?
I'm wondering if "driver forgets to apply brake" was included when they did (?) the FMEA on this system?!?

hekingisdead - Member
Read this this morning. Am I alone in being a little concerned that an individual can be castigated so publicly by the CEO of a company so soon after the event!? I don't believe a thorough investigation into the incident can be concluded so quickly.

Quite right.

These were my first thoughts as soon as I read the article, it seems pretty poor form and not well managed at all. Surely until they know 100% what the fault was they should just keep schtum. Instead of saying 'we think it was the engineer' and then going on to imply he's a liar as well.

Wrecker - you need to read the second half of definition 1 you posted. The bit about qualified and professional.

Personally if I want something machining, then perhaps a machinist or fitter is required - probably not an engineer, they wouldn't be much use.

But as someone once didn't say - an engineer by any other name would smell just as sweet - so who cares.

I've had my CEng for many years and if I ever get round to it I'll get my FIET pretty easily - but I'm more manager than engineer these days. Of course so was Brunel.

They pay me enough that I don't care whether I'm an engineer or not.

I though on trains the brakes were held off by the air, so in the event of a failure the thing STOPPED rolling? I cant check right now, maybe someone can explain?

The bit about qualified and professional.

They pay me enough that I don't care whether I'm an engineer or not.

an engineer by any other name would smell just as sweet

Precisely my points. The satisfaction of the job, the sense of accomplishment and the earnings should be plenty to be proud about. The post nominals tell everyone what they need to know. Hijacking the word "engineer" is just pathetic and elitist.

I've seen this from more sides than most, having completed an apprenticeship, been a hands on engineer then working up through college and university to an office based engineer (although I'm no designer). I've worked for tiny firms with a dingy office and some blokes in vans and also for huge global engineering consultancies.

I was working with a "plumber" yesterday who was calculating gas supply pipe sizes and purge rates. Something the design engineer (not being gas safe qualified) wasn't qualified to do.

I though on trains the brakes were held off by the air, so in the event of a failure the thing STOPPED rolling? I cant check right now, maybe someone can explain?

A big spring holds the pads against the disk, and air pressure is used to move the pads away from the fail safe position.

Sorry, I mean if that's the case why did it roll away?

The issue, for those that might have forgotten is that nothing is 100% safe.

Everything is designed to a level of risk. In this case a series of events meant that the design level was insufficient. However, how many trains have been shunted around the US rail system between every failure? I bet it's hundreds of millions, so at what point do we call it safe???

It is of course perfectly feisable to design a system that is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% safe, for example, we could fit square wheels and weld the carriages to the tracks at EVERY stop, but unfortunately that would cause more disruption (and probably more deaths in the long run) than this accident.

These days people seem to forget than a) they aren't immortal and b) they are not infalible

Precisely my points. The satisfaction of the job, the sense of accomplishment and the earnings should be plenty to be proud about. The post nominals tell everyone what they need to know. Hijacking the word "engineer" is just pathetic and elitist.

So how would you feel about somebody who does sports massage calling themselves a doctor? Somebody who does filing calling themselves a lawyer? A teaching assistant calling themselves a teacher?

I call my self a cyclist.

Sorry everyone 🙁

So how would you feel about somebody who does sports massage calling themselves a doctor? Somebody who does filing calling themselves a lawyer? A teaching assistant calling themselves a teacher?

Well that's a completely different scenario. The definition of the words clearly prevent anyone doing this. The definition is the word engineer is also very clear. Read the thread.
You also suggest by the examples that hands on engineers are somehow less skilled or trained than graduates. I can assure you that this is not the case.

You're suggesting to me that a "gas heating engineer" has as much training as a professionally qualified engineer? You do presumably realise that there is a lot more to being professionally qualified than a BEng?

Or are you suggesting that a sports masseur is less skilled than a doctor?

A 4 year apprenticeship isn't uncommon. That'll be a minimum of a 40 hour week, too. No free periods.

As you suggesting that someone who does filing is not less qualified than a lawyer?

Yes, I have experience of what apprenticeships involve, and how they compare to professional engineering qualifications. Do you?

I actually have a lot of respect for people who've done apprenticeships, but most of those don't call themselves engineers. Do most people calling themselves engineers even do that much?

As you suggesting that someone who does filing is not less qualified than a lawyer?

er, yes, in the same way a "gas heating engineer" is a lot less qualified than a CEng.

I'm fairly sure that engineer is a protected term in Canada, as I thought this was where the stink was originally kicked up over Microsofts MCSE qualification in its original acromyn (MS Certified Systems Engineer) - the acronym is back but it stands for something different now.

Beng but not engineer 🙂 - now I get called 'architect' which is even more perplexing to be honest.

The guys i work with in a busy tool room call themselves engineers, all timed served with decades of experience.

You are welcome to come round and explain to them why they aren't engineers.. 😉

I had a bit of a ding dong with someone on here a while back about the term "engineer" but I couldn't find a link (in the 10 seconds I spent looking).

I agree that letters after your name do not make you any more qualified than someone who has many years time-served, but that allowing the free use of the term devalues it to the point that the "tv engineer" that came to run a cable for me couldn't explain how it worked or how to get it to work when it was broken.

If it was a protected term, then at least there'd be some prevention of its devaluation.

FWIW, I think that an engineer is in the most general term is a solver of problems and someone who understands fundamentally how things work (what those things are depends on what sort of engineer you are): you don't need a degree for that, but you do need a brain that works in a certain way.

And I also think that it was very suspect of the CEO to point the finger at the guy so early into an investigation.

Brassneck is right about the term "engineer" being protected in Canada, but I think it varies by province. Here is BC it is protected by APEGBC, the body who manage P.Eng, the equivalent of a charter in the UK(I've had both). However, it isn't really enforced - I am the only "real" engineer in my department of about 10 people!

I am curious about this idea of the brakes being held off my the air, and how cars could roll away if the air was shut off.

er, yes, in the same way a "gas heating engineer" is a lot less qualified than a CEng.

Not if it's to do with gas or heating, he's not.

Yes, I have experience of what apprenticeships involve, and how they compare to professional engineering qualifications. Do you?

FFS read the thread!

You also suggest by the examples that hands on engineers are somehow less skilled or trained than graduates. I can assure you that this is not the case.

Wrecker - there is a difference between less skilled and differently skilled. There's plenty of stuff that craftsmen, like the plumber you mentioned, have the skills for that engineers don't.

But to take another example, craftsmen (electricians) regularly design the wiring for people's houses; however by follow standards (well they should do anyway) that were written by engineers (of the chartered variety normally) and published by the IET (a well known institution that offers a route to chartered status with he Engineering Council).

Now, please don't ask me to wire a house, I'd be a bad choice, but if the wiring regs need rewritten, I'm the sort of guy you need.

Incidentally, IIRC there is nothing to stop you acquiring premises on Harley Street and calling yourself a doctor (though my view is doctors are people with doctorates - not MBChBs - if only to wind up certain people I know).

Now, chips off shoulders everyone and go earn some money.

PS I read your definition Wrecker - the especially applied one to the professional bit, not he qualified bit.

My job title is "Specialist Engineer" - not my choice, that's what HR say I am.

If "engineer" hypothetically became a protected term, what do I call myself? Technician? The people who pick up the phone and ask you if it's plugged in and switched on are technicians.

I don't design computers or even really implementation systems to any great extent (or at least, it's not my primary role), so I'm not really an engineer by some folks' definition. And if I did I'd probably be an Architect, which is even more confusing.

I think the problem in IT is it's a relatively new industry and it's borrowing existing words to cover new "similar" roles. Maybe we need some new words. In conventional engineering terms I'm probably closer to the IT equivalent of a mechanic.

In the meantime, "Engineer" is probably the closest match to what I do. If you're a 'real' engineer need a protected title, maybe "Professional Engineer" or "Chartered Engineer" (which already is IIRC) is what you seek there.

As above, I think it's what goes in front of the engineer bit that's important.

I wouldn't expect a 'proper' engineer who'd spent their whole lives designing car engines to suddenly be able to do all the engineering required to build the Hoover Dam. It's a different job that requires a different type of engineer.

"to me an engineer is someone who physically builds stuff like steam trains or something. Machining stuff to designs, assembling, fixing. "

This is the problem.

My dad was a very good Precision machinist and mechanic. He would have made a very good Mechanical Engineer. I'm an Systems Engineer ( and chartered). The press refer to me as a scientist or simply a "Boffin" uurgh!

The way I see it is that scientists work out the idealised theory. Engineers take that theory and work out how to apply it in the real world so that products can be designed. Draughtsman may do the drawings, machinists and technicians and mechanics or whole production lines etc may turn the engineers' designs into physical items.

A great engineer understands the whole process from theory to finished product and can do all the hands-on work too but the key role being able to design the item using their knowledge of engineering theory (and the great thing about engineering theory is that it is very practical because that's the whole point of engineering!)

I wouldn't expect a great machinist or scientist or draughtsman to want to claim they're an engineer because they understand the division of knowledge, skills and labour, and are proud that very few engineers can do what they do.

In the B2C environment any old vaguely technical job seems to get labelled a "xxxx engineer" in the UK. I understand that this is not so much the case in the rest of Europe where the term "engineer" carries some more weight (and the salaries tend to be better too!)

will assume you are aware of (P)FMEA's?
I'm wondering if "driver forgets to apply brake" was included when they did (?) the FMEA on this system?!?

translation required

FMEA is a process designed to consider how things can potentially go wrong and how these risks can be understood and averted. His point being that human error can be expected, so fail safe systems should be in place to prevent accidents where possible.

FMEA Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

You basically sit down and go through all the known and all you can think off failure modes and work out what can happen and then, in theory, try and mitigate them by changing the design / operating procedures etc. Eg what if the power fails, what if the driver takes a leak in the cabin etc etc....

My bike, in my parking space at work, with neither of its two independent braking systems applied.

[img] [/img]

And can we go back to this bit, it's quite important...

[i]"I though on trains the brakes were held off by the air, so in the event of a failure the thing STOPPED rolling? I cant check right now, maybe someone can explain?"

"A big spring holds the pads against the disk, and air pressure is used to move the pads away from the fail safe position."

"Sorry, I mean if that's the case why did it roll away?"[/i]

Lorries and their trailers have got spring brakes and breakaway valves.
If the lorry loses its trailer, the trailer brakes are immediately fully applied.

Why don't trains do that ?

I think the CEO beggars belief, If what he does say is true is his company not negligent through employing someone not suitable for the task or not a suitable training regime in place for the employees.

Not if it's to do with gas or heating, he's not.

Ah, OK - can I change my answer to the previous question then?

As you suggesting that someone who does filing is not less qualified than a lawyer?

Not if it's to do with filing, or probably typing.

FFS read the thread!

I did, including the bit where you appear to claim that 4 years working 40 hours a week, which couldn't all really be described as "training", is more training than that required for a professional engineering qualification, hence the question.

like my boss used to say 'yesterday i couldnt spell engineer but today I are one' not even funny 30 yrs ago. He was a 'proper' structural engineer btw not the mud and wire kind 😉

Fix or install stuff with moving parts - Mechanic

Make stuff for one machine on another machine - Machinist

Do sums and other clever things that makes stuff work - Engineer

Colour stuff in - Designer!

Proud to be(by qualification, although I now teach colouring in which is even worse!) a fully paid up member of the last category! I have secret envy of anyone who is good at the previous 3.

Well, by the definitions that some of the above are using, I'm not an Engineer. Apprentice time served electrical / mechanical ............ builder, maintainer, modifier of machinery. My certificates for my qualifications say Engineer.

So that is what I am. 😉

FWIW bigblackshed, I don't actually have a big problem with people who do the sort of thing I presume you do calling themselves an engineer - seems a fairly reasonable description (though convert did a pretty good job of defining stuff and you may strictly speaking fall into the mechanic category). However "gas heating engineers" and the like are generally technicians and installers.

'Architect' is a protected name in the UK (you can't call yourself an Architect unless you're registered with ARB) - because they wanted to make sure the people who designed buildings so that didn't fall down were competent - and at the time the law was passed, structural engineering wasn't distinct from architecture. It's a bit ironic that Govt now refuse to protect 'Engineer' or even 'Structural Engineer'.

Re the big spring that holds the brakes on unless the air releases them - I also thought it was like that, but it's more complicated:

http://www.railway-technical.com/air-brakes.shtml

Great article!

Yep - I'll be reading the linked one next too. Ta.

EDIT:From that article: "Thus if a train comes uncoupled or an air hose bursts, the brakes apply fully, automatically. The amount of braking relies on the amount the system is charged however."

So perhaps the train's brakes were not yet fully charged as the firefighters turned the engine off that the Driver had left running to charge the brake system pressure up before that pressure was reached. Or it could be that the compressor/engine was holding the pressure against a slow discharge to atmosphere.

If there are also hand-actuated mechanical brakes on the cars [which I am sure I've seen in the UK] then perhaps he made a judgement call regarding the current brakeline pressure, the time for the pressure to complete it's rise and also the [i] number of the mechanical brakes he was going to hand-apply on the connected cars to ensure they couldn't roll on the incline.[/i]

And in the end, it could be that his estimations did not include someone turning the engine off when they did.

🙁

As a truck mechanic, familiar with air brakes on trucks, trailers and buses, reading that article about train brakes, I was shocked to find the lack of what I would consider a fail safe mechanism.

As the article says, [i]"A problem with the design of the standard air brake is that it is possible to use up the air in the auxiliary reservoir more quickly than the brake pipe can recharge it. Many runaways have resulted from overuse of the air brake so that no auxiliary reservoir air is available for the much needed last application."[/i]

A simple spring brake, as used on all modern heavy vehicles, would solve that.
If you've ever seen a bus or lorry driver sitting there revving the engine before moving off, it's because the air pressure has dropped and the brakes are locked on.

Indeed - they call it "fail-safe", but it doesn't in the normal meaning of that word - ie there are some possible failures which will cause it not to work (OK with a brake which is sprung on the spring or the brake pad could fail, but they're rather more unlikely occurrences than the auxiliary reservoir running out of air or a failure in the air pipe between the auxiliary reservoir and the brake cylinder).

There's a link (from the link I posted earlier) that's specific to North American Freight Train brakes
http://www.railway-technical.com/brake2.shtml
This is more frightening than the first link - if you have leaks in the system and don't top it up, you will reach a point where all the brakes release. Hence you have to use the handbrakes when parked (as is evident, you shouldn't rely on keeping an engine running) but you can't tell whether you have enough handbrakes, unless you release the air brakes - which takes time. It looks to me like a fundamentally flawed system that's been patched and patched to try to make it more fail-safe, but every patch introduces more potential for errors.

There's more too it than simple engine on - brakes applied or not. Any manner of events could cause it to runaway, but given that fire I doubt anything survived. 🙁
Very sad.
I'm currently filling out my iMechE application to become a MEng, but reading through the [i]sample[/i] application they sent for reference I'm tempted not to bother. If what I read is indicative of what they are looking for then I'd sooner save my money. 🙁