Engineer slapped with suspension after bridge collapsed hours after opening

Of the person responsible for the team or firm’s output. Still, the work is done by more than one person, greatly reducing risk and adding to the confidence in that one stamp.

Such a headline-writer would have laid a foundation to strut about, although that bearing could lead to being decked by piers.

I have an acquaintance who works for one of NASA's laboratories as a technician.

The simplified distinction as he explained it to me is:

Engineers are the guys who painstakingly design things, with reams of university degrees as appropriate for their credentials.

Technicians are the guys who painstakingly implement the engineer's designs on paper into physical things. Academic credentials not necessarily required.

The vast majority of the people who call themselves or are called "engineers" should not be called engineers.

It *is* protected where this fellow practised. It's also a 5yo story. You can't be an engineer in Canada without being held to the same values (it's a regulated title[0]). Much to the chagrin of boot-camps, and US employers.

[0]: https://engineerscanada.ca/publications/public-guideline-on-...

That would do nothing if so called engineers are not given the "power" to refuse to implement something when they are ordered to by their PM.

> Programmers love calling themselves engineers, but they'd better be careful in places where there are consequences attached to the term.

At least in the US, you can refer to this case where the state of Oregon tried to be as anal about the word "engineer" as you suggest and got slapped down. The whole case was a lot of fun because not only was the engineering board using unconstitutional restrictions of free speech, they were on the provably wrong side of an engineering argument while doing it, demonstrating just how stupid the attempted restriction of speech was in that case.

https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...

Perhaps in places where there is no First Amendment equivalent your suggestion holds weight.

> This is a good argument for protecting titles like "engineer".

That battle was lost long ago. I saw a truck driver by a ‘tree surgeon’ the other day.

dude most software “engineers” copy paste code from stackoverflow and load up a library of functions written by somebody else

I guess the code is from ChatGPT now so that’s a big advancement?

There were several factors causing the accident:

1. The AOA sensor was faulty

2. The installation of the AOA sensor apparently didn't check for proper operation

3. The MCAS system was connected to only one of the two AOA sensors

4. The MCAS system had too much authority

5. The LA pilots did not think to turn off the stab trim system when it ran away

6. The EA pilots did not receive, read or remember the Emergency Airworthiness Directive sent to all MAX pilots after the first crash that basically said to turn off the stab trim when it runs away

7. The first MCAS incident was when the crew simply turned off the stab trim and landed safely. The information about the faulty sensor was not passed on to the next crew, who crashed.

Well the root cause of this bridge failure was (1) the municipality’s choice not to pay for a geotechnical investigation and (2) not using extra helical piers, so why is this failure the structural engineer’s fault?

Fair point. Maybe us programmers are just a class above professional engineers.

Should've been a politician.

As part of my undergraduate engineering course work we had more seperate threads and more exams than almost every other degree on campus including law and medicine.

Part of that was civil, part electrical, part electronic, part mechanical, part drawing, part on site saftey, part drawing, etc.

Another key part, critical to passing, was ethics, civil responsibility and a roll call of great engineering screw ups that killed people as case studies of how badly things can go wrong.

If Software Engineering were to become an equivilant then a study of when software goes fatal would be mandatory.

Boeing 737 Max 8

Literally yes. We need to legally have the ability to gate release of software if we believe it has significant security vulnerabilities or bugs which could cause harm to human life. We need to be able to make those decisions _without_ some executive overriding them or firing us, and we need to be held responsible with actual fines and prison time when we are negligent with it. Otherwise people will keep dying and software engineers will continue to not be seen as real engineers.