I bet it was a chartered engineer who designed my boat engine with the water pump impeller housing in the most inaccessible position possible, you need arms 2 metres long and spanner with a wall thickness of 10 microns.
Sailing is like standing in a cold shower tearing up £20 notes!

I know what you mean, business travel is great when you are young, but takes it out of you the older you get, mind you I met some fantastic people from different cultures.

Hang on a minute there....

You have a boat and drove a porsche? You're not Jeremy Clarkson by any chance?

Who owns who a pint of Beer?

No...I bet it was a project manager...the CEng and IEng would have been trying to explain how bad it was and the PM would have been saying that if they fixed it it would mess up his project plan! (Not saying I keep finding myself in that position...)


Ahh...well...if you will sail yachts; if you sail dinghies you only tear up £5 notes! And it's proper sailing

Got both my children sailing solo this summer which was very satisfying, I was very impressed that my daughter managed to completely invert her Pico which I didn't think was possible!

"Better drowned than duffers, if not duffers won't drown" - Commander Ted Walker, RN

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

I reckon Richard Hammond's the IEng, James May's the CEng, but where that puts Clarkson?????

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

JC has his own special status BMEng.

Regards.

Thats' true, I'm too much of a coward to risk capsizing in a dinghy!

Ah yes, Hamster prefers the Porche and Clarkson is the Aston Martin man.

Where does that puts Clarkson? CEO of the Engineering Council of course.

Edited: 20 November 2012 at 07:15 PM by mbirdi

Do you think there could circumstances where dual registration is actually required and thus of real use? I tend to think it is more of a post nominals type exercise.

Regards.

If the institutes were specialist and if industry had a use for IEng I could see that it would be of value to show that you were (say) a practitioner in Mechanical Engineering and an innovation leader in Electrical Engineering.

But since with the IET in particular you can't link registration to fields of engineering I think at the moment it just makes you feel better having more letters.

Personally if I saw a CV with CEng IEng on it my instant reaction would be that this is someone who is more interested in being seen to be an engineer than someone who is actually going to roll up their sleeves and get on with some work. And possibly someone with a bit of a chip on their shoulder. I'm aware that this is a personal bias, and I do try not to give into it. (I have enough letters myself - far more than I show here - to know what the real value of them is )

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

strange comment! would you like to elaborate?

I have never seen a company proudly boasting about the number of IEngs it employs, equally I have never seen a job advert requiring IEng (I think I may have seen a couple saying "working towards an IEng an advantage"). Maybe some companies do pay you more or give you promotion preference if you are IEng, but personally I have never heard this discussed as a possibility. SO I would really question whether industry genuinly sees a value in IEng registration. Now, it's one of these questions where you have to be careful how you ask it: if you ask an employer "do you think IEng registration is of value?" they will probably say yes, because why wouldn't you. But if you were to ask "do you prefer recruiting IEng registrants over non-IEng?" my feeling (and I'm happy to be proved wrong!) is that the honest answer would be "no, we decide who we think will be best to do the job."

Until industry starts demanding that potential and existing employees at IEng level get registered, which will only be because that same industry sees a perceived added value, then the present situation is unlikely to change.

Hope that makes sense? Only my personal view of course.

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

That is the truest reply here. People get carried away with honours and letters after their name. they forget about thinking and practicality. Great engineers are not egotistical, they are forward thinkers and practical with sorting out problems,

Registration is a waste of time because engineering and technology are moving at an incredible pace. Somebody in their mid 40s applying for IEng is already well past their sell by date.

The majority of CEngs and IEngs engineers are closet engineers because they are in a minority in the work place and if they made mistakes in their jobs that affected service levels and therefore the rest of the staff, they would get linched by their colleagues.

I am aware of one registered engineer who booked a week's leave on the day of major testing for which they were responsible. The test went wrong and affected the service to the entire organisation. Subsequently the registered engineer wasn't popular with the rest of the staff.

The last thing an engineer - working under pressure - wants to do is declare they are CEng or IEng to the rest of the organisation. That is why we hear some CEngs announcing how proud they are writting CEng after their names in their Passports. That's because the Customs and Excise chap is the only one who isn't going to bite their heads off

I don't know anyone who is ashamed to admit they are CEng / IEng in case they are considered more responsible (I think that's sort of what you were saying). And all our engineers work under bonkers amounts of pressure (safety, commercial and deadline) all the time! I find that people's level of responsibility, and hence blame, depends solely on their position in the company, not on what letters they have after their name. I have never heard anyone say "he was a CEng / IEng, he shouldn't have let that happen"; I have regularly heard "he was the department manager / project manager, he shouldn't have let that happen". (And maybe I work for a particulalry enlightened company, but often the question is asked why that person was put in that position of responsibility, rather than why that person "made a less than optimal decision").

I have (just once) seen the opposite: recently one of my colleagues tried justifying a completely ludicrous decision on the grounds that he was a Chartered Engineer so he must know what he was talking about on all engineering subjects. Since the rest of us were a) also CEngs and b) knew darn well that each engineer only knows a tiny specific amount about engineering he didn't get far with that argument...

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

I think Mr Birdi has a point though, using CEng/IEng after your name forewarns petty officialdom that the individual they are dealing with is unlikely to be daunted by bureaucratic processes, mind numbing paperwork and being fobbed off by techno gobbledygook, its got to be worth registration fee!

I think Mr Birdi has a point though, using CEng/IEng after your name forewarns petty officialdom that the individual they are dealing with is unlikely to be daunted by bureaucratic processes, mind numbing paperwork and being fobbed off by techno gobbledygook, its got to be worth registration fee!

For me, the bigger problem is that the IET seems to be confused.

At a recent meeting at Savoy Place, there was talk of "we need to cater more for apprentices and technicians" - i.e. "graduates and engineers" were one group, "apprentices and technicians" the other.

Graduate/Apprentice does not dictate whether your role is that of an engineer or a technician. Many apprentices are undertaking engineering roles for example.

I'm sure most people on the forum already know this of course but it is worrying when we see our own institute referring to them in this way.

It is certainly the case that The IET has become much more prominent in its support of high quality apprenticeships. However it would be almost impossible for even the best apprenticeship to be able to deliver IEng or CEng outcomes, without subsequent career development. The same argument applies to a degree course, although increasing numbers of university graduates who have combined work-experience with their degree are gaining Technician registration early in career.

It is always difficult to know who said what, when and whether it was misunderstood. Perhaps the person was trying to say that Technicians have an equally important role in the profession, which should be valued and respected?

My personal position is -

Different development pathways will provide more or less optimal preparation for different roles. I opine that the most productive approach is usually to combine learning and practice concurrently. i.e. part-time study (block, day or distance learning). This requires collaboration between employers and providers of engineering education or specialist training (i.e. employer investment). The part-time study approach was the predominant model in use in the UK for many years (i.e. the apprenticeship model), but learning and experience became separated as the full-time engineering degree route became more commonplace. Most of these degrees were academically excellent, so good in fact, that many of the graduates found other careers in the city and elsewhere! Those who did move into engineering practice were reasonably well-prepared for analytical or some management roles, but often poorly prepared for the more practical aspects of engineering. Vice versa applies to more practical development pathways with less theory.

There are no "black & white answers" to what makes the best engineer or technician, especially since there is such a variety of practice and circumstances. This includes the myth that only people who have followed a particular educational pathway may develop into a Chartered Engineer. At whatever career stage they are at, I would urge any IET member (i.e. someone committed to professionalism) to strive in the direction that best suits their talents and motivational drivers. I have met many happy well-motivated and well-rewarded Technicians who would be unhappy in a Chartered Engineer job (including some with good degrees). I have met many Incorporated and Chartered Engineers who began as a craft apprentice, but wanted the additional technical or management responsibility.

The numbers of IET members becoming newly registered Technicians and Incorporated Engineers has improved significantly over the last few years. I encourage these members to take pride in their registration and find a more active voice within the IET. This will go a long way to ensuring that the institution always has a well-rounded view of the issues. Personal experience and preferences will always colour our opinion. But a great benefit of an institution as diverse as the IET is the opportunity to understand and develop a respect for the perspective of others, even if we don't necessarily agree!

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards

Very good point.
Regards.