A few additional comments:
Art Kampmeier:
>- A four year college degree in engineering?
> Product Safety is only a very small portion of the
> curriculum.
"Egon H. Varju" 8/28/96:
~Actually, four years is not enough. Most fresh engineering graduates are quite
~useless to the company that hires them. It takes another few years of
~on-the-job specialized training before they are competent enough to handle
~their own projects.
~The same can probably be said for all specialized professionals in all fields.
This is true, but does not directly bear on the question Art
asked. Also not addressed is the fact that most of that
engineering education is not used in a specialized field,
and therefore one could easily do the job with a properly
trained non-degreed person, preferably someone with much
experience.
However, though that may be the case, there are other
reasons for using certified, degreed engineers in your
Safety lab. One is liability. If the work they do does
affect safety of life, then the company gains a shield of
credibility above and beyond experience in having a
Certified safety engineer. That's the origin of the PE,
after all, back when "engineer" meant someone who runs a
steam plant.
"Egon H. Varju" 8/28/96:
~A small part of the curriculum? Perhaps, but I should think one would prefer a
~brain surgeon to have a medical degree first.
The medical analogy is probably the wrong one. But if it is
to be used, why not compare it to an EMT? This is not
necessarily a college educated person, but a defined level
of training and certification IS required.
"Egon H. Varju" 8/28/96:
~No, an engineering degree is not mandatory, and it's certainly cheaper to hire
~someone that doesn't have one. But it's also much easier to train somebody
~that has the right kind of background, and their competency is less likely to
~be questioned by a customer.
Art Kampmeier:
>- Certified as a PE?
> UL uses this to qualify personnel with non-engineering
> backgrounds as engineers, but Product Safety is again
> only a very small portion...
"Egon H. Varju" 8/28/96:
~I find it very difficult to believe that many people with non-engineering
~backgrounds manage to meet the rigorous qualifications and tests required to
~become a PE in the USA. I suspect that most UL PEs are indeed engineering
~graduates.
This is not surprising; PE exams are written by people who
expect professionals in the field to have similar
qualifications to themselves. The exams will select for
that.
"Egon H. Varju" 8/28/96:
It is curious to note that most reputable national safety agencies around the
world hire safety personnel that are registered professional engineers (PE,
PEng, Dipl Ing, etc.). I suspect this is done to increase their credibility,
and to greatly reduce the likelyhood that their competency be questioned when
they are being assessed by another party.
Government recognition of qualifications at least adds one
level of legal credibility to the firm which has a PE as its
Safety Engineer.
"Egon H. Varju" 8/28/96:
Some agents (not all!), on the other hand, try to cut costs by hiring cheaper
staff. This is not unacceptable, but it should come as no surprise when they
find themselves having to defend their competence.
In practice, at least in the computer industry, the process
of obtaining NRTL recognition of a product requires that
NRTL witness the test, so the authority of the NRTL -- and I
think some degree of liability -- is borne by the laboratory
which grants its safety mark to equipment being tested.
"Egon H. Varju" 8/28/96:
Manning Rose is probably right in that using registered professionals may be the
best "Certification" we can hope for at this moment.
I am of the opinion that one would be wise to employ at
least ONE registered PE to oversee the work of the others,
but as long as a NRTL is certifying equipment meets its
standard, even that may be overkill.
Along with everyone else, my opinions do not reflect the
policies or opinions of my employer.
Cortland Richmond
