# Is This Man An Engineer.



## roboted

The latter stages of "Useless Chief Engineers" contains much discussion about the definition and status of an Engineer.

If we take the basic premise that Isembard Kingdom Brunel was a great Engineer.

Would you consider "Fred Dibnah" to be an engineer ?

I await your comments with interest......

Robbo


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

oooooohhhh nice one (Jester)

My answer - without question

Now let me put one back at you

is the Super Collider at CERN (aka The Black Hole Machine) an example of Engineering




For the record I define Engineering as "The executive side of science"


----------



## roboted

Ahh !! Good morning SM,thought you might comment (LOL)

Now then...."is the Super Collider at CERN (aka The Black Hole Machine) an example of Engineering"

Mmmmm (H)
Yes and No.....

It's design and construction are a partnership between the requirements of the particle physcisists(?) and the ability to realise that in practice.
So yes an example of engineering.

Can it be fixed/tweeked with nowt but a shifter,2lb ball pein and a lung full of expletives...I think not !!
So no not an example of engineering


----------



## Billieboy

roboted said:


> Ahh !! Good morning SM,thought you might comment (LOL)
> 
> Now then...."is the Super Collider at CERN (aka The Black Hole Machine) an example of Engineering"
> 
> Mmmmm (H)
> Yes and No.....
> 
> It's design and construction are a partnership between the requirements of the particle physcisists(?) and the ability to realise that in practice.
> So yes an example of engineering.
> 
> Can it be fixed/tweeked with nowt but a shifter,2lb ball pein and a lung full of expletives...I think not !!
> So no not an example of engineering


Ever thought about the the angle at which the individual flanged sections are machined?

Fred Dibnah was one of the best engineers ever to apper on TV.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Or how about this one - I love this one.

Bearing in mind my own definition of an Engineer above, which I came up with after ritual chanting and sitting naked under a waterfall in Shangri La for a month (ok it actually came to me as I was kicking the crapout of an uncooperative valve one day).

Are doctors Engineers?

and just to add a bit of spice to it lets subdivide them into physicians and surgeons



Edit to nurses - you can be stokers, greasers and oilers


----------



## dom

*dom*

Engineers ,a loosely used term today covering everything from genetic engineering to fixing TV sets,when i think of an engineer its someone down below pulling pistons or giving me steam on deck


----------



## Thats another Story

SM you might have put your foot in it there sister eliff may give you a shot with a grease gun or shovell something up your boiler(Jester)(Jester)


----------



## roboted

Billieboy said:


> Ever thought about the the angle at which the individual flanged sections are machined?


Absolutely,so a work of engineering,in its construction...


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

JOHN PRUDEN said:


> SM you might have put your foot in it there sister eliff may give you a shot with a grease gun or shovell something up your boiler(Jester)(Jester)


Sigh - if only(Flowers)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

roboted said:


> Absolutely,so a work of engineering,in its construction...


Soooo getting back to my zen like definition - the scientists new what the wanted and asked the engineers to build it and maintain it- executive side of science (Thumb)


----------



## roboted

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Or how about this one - I love this one.
> 
> Bearing in mind my own definition of an Engineer above, which I came up with after ritual chanting and sitting naked under a waterfall in Shangri La for a month (ok it actually came to me as I was kicking the crapout of an uncooperative valve one day).
> 
> Are doctors Engineers?
> 
> and just to add a bit of spice to it lets subdivide them into physicians and surgeons
> 
> 
> 
> Edit to nurses - you can be stokers, greasers and oilers


Shurely we have a record here SM,4 posts to get away from "Fred Didnah" to doctors (LOL)(LOL)(LOL)

No doctors are not engineers,but in certain cases,as in radiology they have to be aware of the engineering side of the equipment they use to get the best results from it.As an example my little sister(!) who is now the senior partner and consultant, of one of the largest independant radiology practices in Oz spent two years in Sweden with the team of engineers and doctors who developed some form of scanning system(not sure what)...so that does not make her an engineer and conversely the engineer who built it dosn't become a radiologist overnight...


----------



## roboted

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Soooo getting back to my zen like definition - the scientists new what the wanted and asked the engineers to build it and maintain it- executive side of science (Thumb)


After my last post,which I think reinforces your definition (Thumb),any chance we can get back to dear old Fred !!!


----------



## dom

*dom*

what is/are an engineer


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

roboted said:


> After my last post,which I think reinforces your definition (Thumb),any chance we can get back to dear old Fred !!!


Fred is easy though - a great engineer

Oh there is a point.

Were Engines named from Engineers or the other way about? I don't know,


----------



## roboted

Ok,a last attempt to retrieve this thread (LOL)

Would you consider "Fred Dibnah" to be an engineer ??

SM much as I enjoy your thought provoking questions,I might ask one of you..
Are you still in Singers,and if so,must be sundowner time ?(Jester)


----------



## Sister Eleff

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Edit to nurses - you can be stokers, greasers and oilers


Yep, done all of that at some time or another but not on mechanical engines (==D)

John P I know what you are after, now where did I put that whip (Jester)


----------



## Thats another Story

yes sis i have been a very naughty boy(Jester)


----------



## WilliamH

In the French language the word for Engineer is Ingénieur and the word for ingenious is ingénieux which would suggest to me that the French consider Engineers to be men of ingenuity.


----------



## michael charters

Fred Dibnar was a Great Steeple Jack. Only an Engineer if you are employed as one.
Otherwise you count as unemployed. As I am classed as Retired.


----------



## michael charters

WilliamH said:


> In the French language the word for Engineer is Ingénieur and the word for ingenious is ingénieux which would suggest to me that the French consider Engineers to be men of ingenuity.


I think this definition answers ALL


----------



## roboted

michael charters said:


> I think this definition answers ALL


And was Mr Dibnah a man of ingenuity ?


----------



## cubpilot

languages other than English have a distinction between mechanics and engineers. the engineer these days having advanced academic education, the mechanic having skills training for their field of expertise. hence a chief engineer is an engineer as is someone with an engineering degree but the chap who does your car or fits your central heating boiler is a mechanic. 
sadly we have little distinction which leads to people in other professions deriding the training needed to become say a chartered engineer. especially prone to thinking this way are doctors who lets face it only have two derivations of one machine to look after.
In my book Fred D would be more of a mechanic veering towards an engineer. Brunel, Telford and all the other Victorian pioneers were of an era that created modern engineering and since they had to develop the skills and the academics they really were engineers with a bit of the mechanic on the side.


----------



## mikel1

A different thread so here goes.

The definition of the word only as in Engineer is derived from ingenuity as stated by William H.

I agree with Cubpilot regards the advanced academic qualification as a prerequisite too. However a Chief Engineer on a ship is not an Engineer. More of a Mechanic or Operator/Maintainer as they say.

It used to be that an OND gave exemption from the 'academic' element of the Chief's ticket. In otherwords the Chief's ticket is only equivelant to elements of and OND. And an OND is not an advanced academic qualification.

I suspect that mechanical based tradesmen thought that working on an engine makes them an 'engine'er. Simple mistake I suppose but a mistake nevertheless.

As a word of warning. A person who believes he is an Engineer, as understood in the UK and by a number of misinformed characters, may indeed be able to operate within certain countries in the belief that they are Engineers. The UK being one of them where anyone with a greasegun can say they are Engineers. That same unqualified person under the belief they are Engineers should be careful in applying that same self belief outside the UK where an Engineer must have professional qualifications and not equivelant qualifications. A bit like a Nurse applying for a Doctors job in the UK I suppose.

Was Fred Dibnah an Engineer ? No, but an excellent Tradesman with an acute mind.


----------



## cubpilot

one recognition of being an engineer is to be a member or fellow of an engineering institute or institution. In that someone with a chief engineer's certification can become a member and then fellow of the institute of marine engineers it follows that a chief engineer can be classed as an engineer. well at least that is my understanding of the situation.


----------



## Long gone

cubpilot said:


> languages other than English have a distinction between mechanics and engineers. the engineer these days having advanced academic education, the mechanic having skills training for their field of expertise. hence a chief engineer is an engineer as is someone with an engineering degree but the chap who does your car or fits your central heating boiler is a mechanic.
> sadly we have little distinction which leads to people in other professions deriding the training needed to become say a chartered engineer. especially prone to thinking this way are doctors who lets face it only have two derivations of one machine to look after.


Excellent post; the same point that my father always made about engineers, and why some people don't regard engineering as a profession (lawyers, doctors, and so on)

For the record, my father left school at 14, eventually did an apprenticeship at Woolwich ****nal, and got himself a job as a building services' draughtsman.
When I first became aware of him, he was attending night school to gain an OND. Anyway, he eventually reached near to the top of his profession (FCIBSE); again, when I first became aware of him, he was a'heating engineer'. It was only when they started fixing his central heating boiler that he started calling himself a building services engineer.


----------



## john g

Fred was quite simply a very talented fitter with a passion for steam and had an appealing personality for television.


----------



## Sister Eleff

WilliamH said:


> In the French language the word for Engineer is Ingénieur and the word for ingenious is ingénieux which would suggest to me that the French consider Engineers to be men of ingenuity.


quote from: Wikipedia
"*Ingenuity* – noun: The power or ability to invent: creativeness, creativity

*Ingenuity* refers to the process of applying ideas to solve problems or meet challenges. The process of figuring out how to cross a mountain stream using a fallen log, build an airplane from a sheet of paper, or start a new company in a foreign culture all involve the exercising of ingenuity. Human ingenuity has led to technological developments through applied science, but can also be seen in the development of new social organizations, institutions and relationships. Ingenuity involves the most complex human thought processes, bringing together our thinking and acting both individually and collectively to take advantage of opportunities or to overcome problems.

Context is important because solving a problem requires that we imagine a range of possible solutions, assess what is available to us in our context, and then proceed with some course of action. Ingenuity isn't a linear process but involves various dimensions of human cognition, intention, learning and the creation of novelty. These processes interact with each other as we try out ideas, fail, learn, modify, and try again."

So William H, for once I would agree with the French.


----------



## surfaceblow

Below is the Code of Ethics of the SNAME. I have been a member of this Society for more years than I care to remember. 

Code of Ethics
Foreword

Engineering work continues to be an increasingly important factor in the progress of civilization and in the welfare of the community. The Engineering Profession is held responsible for the planning, construction and operation of such work, and is entitled to the position and authority that will enable it to discharge this responsibility and to render service to humanity. Honesty, justice and courtesy form a moral philosophy that, associated with the mutual interest among all peoples, constitutes the foundation of ethics. As The Society's Professionals, Naval Architects, Marine Engineers and Ocean Engineers or (The Society's Professionals), we should recognize such standards, not by passive observance, but as a set of dynamic principles to guide conduct. 

Fundamental Principles

Naval Architects, Marine Engineers and Ocean Engineers or (The Society's Professionals) maintain and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of their professions by: 

•Using their knowledge, experience and skill for the enhancement of human well-being and as good stewards of the environment 
•Striving to increase the competence of the professions of naval architecture and marine engineering, and 
•Being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients. 
Specific Cannons

1) The Society's Professionals shall carry on their professional work in a spirit of fairness to employees and contractors, fidelity to clients and employers, loyalty to their country, and devotion to the high ideals of courtesy and personal honor. 

2) The Society's Professionals shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties. They will interest themselves in the public welfare, in behalf of which they will be ready to apply their special knowledge, skill and training for the use and benefit of mankind. 

3) The Society's Professionals shall refrain from associating themselves with, or allowing the use of their names by, any enterprise of questionable character. 

4) The Society's Professionals shall advertise only in a dignified manner, being careful to avoid misleading statements. 

5) The Society's Professionals shall regard as confidential any information obtained by them as to the business affairs and technical methods or processes of a client or employer. 

6) The Society's Professionals shall inform a client or employer of any business connections, interests or affiliations that might influence their judgment or impair the disinterested quality of their services. 

7) The Society's Professionals shall refrain from using any improper or questionable methods of soliciting professional work and will decline to pay or to accept commissions for securing such work. 

8) The Society's Professionals shall accept compensation, financial or otherwise, for a particular service, from one source only, except with the full knowledge and consent of all interested parties. 

9) The Society's Professionals shall build their professional reputations on the merits of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others. 

10) The Society's Professionals shall perform services only in areas of their competence. 

11) The Society's Professionals shall cooperate in advancing the professions of naval architecture and marine engineering by exchanging general information and experience with their fellow naval architects and marine engineers and students, and also by contributing to the work of technical societies, schools of applied science, and the technical press. 

12) The Society's Professionals shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those naval architects and marine engineers under their supervision. 

Joe


----------



## gingerbeer73

mikel1 said:


> A different thread so here goes.
> 
> The definition of the word only as in Engineer is derived from ingenuity as stated by William H.
> 
> I agree with Cubpilot regards the advanced academic qualification as a prerequisite too. However a Chief Engineer on a ship is not an Engineer. More of a Mechanic or Operator/Maintainer as they say.
> 
> It used to be that an OND gave exemption from the 'academic' element of the Chief's ticket. In otherwords the Chief's ticket is only equivelant to elements of and OND. And an OND is not an advanced academic qualification.
> 
> I suspect that mechanical based tradesmen thought that working on an engine makes them an 'engine'er. Simple mistake I suppose but a mistake nevertheless.
> 
> As a word of warning. A person who believes he is an Engineer, as understood in the UK and by a number of misinformed characters, may indeed be able to operate within certain countries in the belief that they are Engineers. The UK being one of them where anyone with a greasegun can say they are Engineers. That same unqualified person under the belief they are Engineers should be careful in applying that same self belief outside the UK where an Engineer must have professional qualifications and not equivelant qualifications. A bit like a Nurse applying for a Doctors job in the UK I suppose.
> 
> Was Fred Dibnah an Engineer ? No, but an excellent Tradesman with an acute mind.


You can't escape by swapping threads, I hadn't finished with the last one anyway, but suddenly found myself alone.(Jester)
Anyway, I will try and keep it short. I do believe that you are really wrong with your attitude towards ships engineers. Lots tried to help you see sense and find enlightenment in the last thread, but, it would appear you are immovable from your attitudes. I shall do what you do but first say you are very very wrong and insulting to many many good professional Marine Engineers through the ages, but, this is the last word I will say to you on this subject. Recognise that ?
Colin


----------



## muldonaich

gingerbeer73 said:


> You can't escape by swapping threads, I hadn't finished with the last one anyway, but suddenly found myself alone.(Jester)
> Anyway, I will try and keep it short. I do believe that you are really wrong with your attitude towards ships engineers. Lots tried to help you see sense and find enlightenment in the last thread, but, it would appear you are immovable from your attitudes. I shall do what you do but first say you are very very wrong and insulting to many many good professional Marine Engineers through the ages, but, this is the last word I will say to you on this subject. Recognise that ?
> Colin


just ignore this guy he is a waste of space brgds colin .


----------



## gingerbeer73

Long gone said:


> Excellent post; the same point that my father always made about engineers, and why some people don't regard engineering as a profession (lawyers, doctors, and so on)
> 
> And indeed some other engineers.
> I personally don't give a damn what other professions consider engineers to be as I am sure a doctor would not care what I thought about him for example. What is important to me is what other engineers think about me and what respect they have for me or not and what I think about other engineers. We are self controlling within out own profession.
> Colin


----------



## gingerbeer73

muldonaich said:


> just ignore this guy he is a waste of space brgds colin .


Yeah but, Yeah but.(Jester) He needs to be able to change his mind about this. I am very surprised that he is so scathing about a profession that he claims to like so much and the people he says he has sailed with. I really don't understand. Maybe be is just taking the P**s ?
Colin


----------



## JT McRae

This is all getting a bit silly. In my case (and thousands of other Marine Engineers world-wide) I have an internationally recognised certificate stating that I am a Marine Engineer. This means recognition as an engineer even in countries that only recognise "engineers" with degrees. I am also a registered Incorporated Engineer with the Engineering Council of Great Britain, an organisation with many foreign members. I gained this qualification due to my holding a Class 1 certificate and many years of experience.
I think that often we are our worst enemies in not promoting ourselves more, and allowing people from other professions to denigrate sea-going engineers. Perhaps more marine engineers should join professional societies, such as IMarEST, SNAME, etc?
Tim


----------



## John Dryden

An engine is an engine and engines according to the search engine I utilised to find the definition of an engine is.........well,an engine!


----------



## mikel1

Enginemen then ?


----------



## billyboy

Enginemen were footplate crews in my days on the Railway Mike


----------



## howardws

billyboy said:


> Enginemen were footplate crews in my days on the Railway Mike



I served at sea for forty years, from Engineer Apprentice to Chief Engineer. I'm now retired and a driver of steam engines on the Kent and East Sussex Railway. So I've gone from Engineer to Engineman - is that a promotion I wonder?


----------



## billyboy

Absolutey Howard. No Sundays at sea now eh!
I was Southern railway based at Newhaven (sub depot to Brighton).


----------



## chadburn

JT McRae said:


> This is all getting a bit silly. In my case (and thousands of other Marine Engineers world-wide) I have an internationally recognised certificate stating that I am a Marine Engineer. This means recognition as an engineer even in countries that only recognise "engineers" with degrees. I am also a registered Incorporated Engineer with the Engineering Council of Great Britain, an organisation with many foreign members. I gained this qualification due to my holding a Class 1 certificate and many years of experience.
> I think that often we are our worst enemies in not promoting ourselves more, and allowing people from other professions to denigrate sea-going engineers. Perhaps more marine engineers should join professional societies, such as IMarEST, SNAME, etc?
> Tim


Hear, Hear, JT(Applause) This thread is indeed getting silly and I was beginning to wonder whether some of the comment's were from "Glove Puppets".


----------



## gingerbeer73

JT McRae said:


> This is all getting a bit silly. In my case (and thousands of other Marine Engineers world-wide) I have an internationally recognised certificate stating that I am a Marine Engineer. This means recognition as an engineer even in countries that only recognise "engineers" with degrees. I am also a registered Incorporated Engineer with the Engineering Council of Great Britain, an organisation with many foreign members. I gained this qualification due to my holding a Class 1 certificate and many years of experience.
> I think that often we are our worst enemies in not promoting ourselves more, and allowing people from other professions to denigrate sea-going engineers. Perhaps more marine engineers should join professional societies, such as IMarEST, SNAME, etc?
> Tim


Well, that about sums it up.Who could say you are not an Engineer. 
I agree that we are indeed our own worse enemies in running ourselves down. We tend to accept that we just have these skills and expect others to be able to see that we have. Unfortunately, it is often the case that some cannot see it. We should fight for our position in life more as we have very useful skills that the world needs. Not many in Engineering are interested in "bigging themselves up" and make the mistake in assuming that other people can see it. Not the case as I have found out in life.
Colin
I loved Fred Dibnah who I saw as a very capable self made man with a variety of engineering and other skills. (apart from getting on with women) I suppose he could be called an engineer but not one with qualifications.


----------



## roboted

gingerbeer73 said:


> Well, that about sums it up.Who could say you are not an Engineer.
> I agree that we are indeed our own worse enemies in running ourselves down. We tend to accept that we just have these skills and expect others to be able to see that we have. Unfortunately, it is often the case that some cannot see it. We should fight for our position in life more as we have very useful skills that the world needs. Not many in Engineering are interested in "bigging themselves up" and make the mistake in assuming that other people can see it. Not the case as I have found out in life.
> Colin
> I loved Fred Dibnah who I saw as a very capable self made man with a variety of engineering and other skills. (apart from getting on with women) I suppose he could be called an engineer but not one with qualifications.


So does that make Mr "D" an engineer or nay ?
When I started this thread,it was with a genuine desire for opinion,so apart from various posts regarding definitions etc not once has it been mentioned about the "feel" for machinery,the ability of someone to be "in tune" with one's engineering workplace,the abilty to learn and assimilate "on the job" without recourse to non-existant manuels or tinternet !
Never has the passion for Engineering been mentioned,the thirst for knowledge....
That's what I was getting at with dear Old Fred.
The status of Engineers and definition is an entirely different bucket of spanners.
I respect all that has been said here,and do not wish to cause offence to anyone,but I dooo think many of you have missed the point of the OP.

Cheers
Robbo


----------



## gingerbeer73

roboted said:


> So does that make Mr "D" an engineer or nay ?
> When I started this thread,it was with a genuine desire for opinion,so apart from various posts regarding definitions etc not once has it been mentioned about the "feel" for machinery,the ability of someone to be "in tune" with one's engineering workplace,the abilty to learn and assimilate "on the job" without recourse to non-existant manuels or tinternet !
> Never has the passion for Engineering been mentioned,the thirst for knowledge....
> That's what I was getting at with dear Old Fred.
> The status of Engineers and definition is an entirely different bucket of spanners.
> I respect all that has been said here,and do not wish to cause offence to anyone,but I dooo think many of you have missed the point of the OP.
> 
> Cheers
> Robbo


I suppose it is because it is hard to classify. On balance I would say he is an engineer as like Brunel he lived and breathed the engineering that he did and loved. Whatever he was, he was a credit to Engineering.
Colin


----------



## roboted

gingerbeer73 said:


> I suppose it is because it is hard to classify. On balance I would say he is an engineer as like Brunel he lived and breathed the engineering that he did and loved. Whatever he was, he was a credit to Engineering.Colin


The case rests M'Lud.(LOL)
I appreciate your reply.....

Cheers,take a top ender to one.....

Robbo


----------



## John Briggs

Life is much simpler on the deck side. We don't have to wonder what our qualifications are. They are for driving ships and are worth FA ashore!


----------



## mikel1

_Life is much simpler on the deck side. We don't have to wonder what our qualifications are. They are for driving ships and are worth FA ashore!_

Well not exactly correct. If there is anything to be observed from this thread you could call yourself an Astro Physicist with boat driving skills !


----------



## MARINEJOCKY

who the ---- is Mikel1 or more to the point what has he ever done to even think about questioning who is an engineer, He was on another thread trying to stir it up like he is trying here and then moves onto another one. He has posted 8 times and not one has been constructive.


----------



## Billieboy

When a question of basic engineering comes up, I always remember the story of the Great Eastern when she had been laid up after building the dry dock in Pembroke. The ship needed to be re-activated and the services of one of the old seagoing Engineers was sought. To get a bit of vacuum he fashioned a plug from an old fence post and knocked it in to block one of the holes in the condenser. Of course, in those days there were not many certificates or Engineering institutes around. 

Fred Dibnah was, in my opinion of the same ilk.


----------



## mikel1

Jocky,
I have been constructive, but you choose to see otherwise. I suppose there are a few reasons why you think that. Denial is somewhere high up on the list I suppose. And because I express a different opinion you choose to be personal.

Now I believe an Engineer is a professional equal to a Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher and so on. That being the case the Engineer must be qualified to a professional standard, equivelants don't count. However in the arena of engineering I also completely accept and respect that there are those whose practical ability outshines their academic achievments. However they are usually not Engineers but tradesmen, Technicians or indeed specialists in a particular field. That is not to say one is better than the other. In fact I know from experience that usually the best hands-on are those who served in a marine engineroom. I have no doubt about that and indeed an application for employment indicating marine experience I always at the very least considered.

I have worked with many ex MN in an industry which appeals to their particular background. In fact a few achieved professional qualifications after leaving MN and as Engineers they are amongst the best.

So at no time have I been personal in a negative sense. Maybe it's because I have a professional interest. But the funny thing is I have never called myself an Engineer albeit I have the experience on one side and the qualification on the other.


----------



## roboted

mikel1 said:


> Jocky,
> I have been constructive, but you choose to see otherwise. I suppose there are a few reasons why you think that. Denial is somewhere high up on the list I suppose. And because I express a different opinion you choose to be personal.
> 
> Now I believe an Engineer is a professional equal to a Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher and so on. That being the case the Engineer must be qualified to a professional standard, equivelants don't count. However in the arena of engineering I also completely accept and respect that there are those whose practical ability outshines their academic achievments. However they are usually not Engineers but tradesmen, Technicians or indeed specialists in a particular field. That is not to say one is better than the other. In fact I know from experience that usually the best hands-on are those who served in a marine engineroom. I have no doubt about that and indeed an application for employment indicating marine experience I always at the very least considered.
> I have worked with many ex MN in an industry which appeals to their particular background. In fact a few achieved professional qualifications after leaving MN and as Engineers they are amongst the best.
> 
> So at no time have I been personal in a negative sense. Maybe it's because I have a professional interest. But the funny thing is I have never called myself an Engineer albeit I have the experience on one side and the qualification on the other.




I may well have missed something here,after all twas I that posted what I thought was a reasonably light hearted point for reasonable discussion,but having read and re-read and re-read again your last post mike|1.......
Do you not think the highlighted bits are somewhat condescending to some, at best,and to others might be considered inflammatory.
I ask,not for the sake of arguement or discussion,but out of curiosity...

Robbo


----------



## MARINEJOCKY

mikel1, 

usually on here when you are replying you give the courtesy of stating the name to whom you are replying to, I am Marinejocky and not jocky and if you were to read the threads it is not jockey either. 

That being said I read your post above and thought maybe you are correct but let me first check your other posts on the other thread I referred to however I only went back to post # 23 on this thread and read what you wrote there. 

I am quoting the full post below and I would like to draw your attention to the highlighted lines in red. 

In fact let me tell you right up front and very personally, that I object to you and your condescending manner when you write, "anyone with a greasegun an engineer". 

You are also so wrong about qualifications and other countries and many chief engineers walked into teachers jobs straight from a ship in the UK. 

Why do you not tell us who, where and what you do and what gives you the right to state what is an engineer. 

Denial, me, you are so ------g stupid to call or infer that about me I can only guess that I once fired you or refused to hire you. or where you that second that lasted about 3 weeks on a gas tanker with real engineers you asked for a relief, little did you know I had already fired you. 

Denial, look me up in SNAME and at the same time show me what you are. 



The definition of the word only as in Engineer is derived from ingenuity as stated by William H.

I agree with Cubpilot regards the advanced academic qualification as a prerequisite too. However a Chief Engineer on a ship is not an Engineer. More of a Mechanic or Operator/Maintainer as they say.

It used to be that an OND gave exemption from the 'academic' element of the Chief's ticket. In otherwords the Chief's ticket is only equivelant to elements of and OND. And an OND is not an advanced academic qualification.

I suspect that mechanical based tradesmen thought that working on an engine makes them an 'engine'er. Simple mistake I suppose but a mistake nevertheless.

As a word of warning. A person who believes he is an Engineer, as understood in the UK and by a number of misinformed characters, may indeed be able to operate within certain countries in the belief that they are Engineers. The UK being one of them where anyone with a greasegun can say they are Engineers. That same unqualified person under the belief they are Engineers should be careful in applying that same self belief outside the UK where an Engineer must have professional qualifications and not equivelant qualifications. A bit like a Nurse applying for a Doctors job in the UK I suppose.


----------



## mikel1

I have read post 50 and was hoping for something which would maybe influence my opinion. Not so.

However there may be some truth to this -_You are also so wrong about qualifications and other countries and many chief engineers walked into teachers jobs straight from a ship in the UK._

I do remember a Ships Master who became a Mathematics Teacher - very good he was too. He had the rare ability to connect the theory to the practical. I suspect he completed an additional Teaching qualification but yes he was a Teacher. And I also remember a Chief who became a Teacher too. Metalwork or something like that.

Nevertheless I make no excuse for my views. I accept they may be different from some, or most, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

The reference to someone with a greasegun was not intended to be derogatory. What I genuinely meant was that the public perception is that anyone with a greasegun must be an Engineer, a suggestion that Engineering suffers an image problem in the UK. 

I have never met Marinejocky, but who knows maybe one day we will meet. After and all we are in the same time zone !! And calm down, these are only words and definitions. So not wanting to get personal I will leave it there.

Mikel1 B.Sc (Eng)


----------



## Doug Shaw

mikel1

Certainly, in my time at sea, having a degree, such as a BSc in Mechanical Engineering, did not allow an individual to serve as a Chief or even a Second Engineer. I sailed with several degree-qualified engineers, but of these I considered only one to be a competent engineer. So, while you may stress the need for an academic qualification to be called an engineer, I would stress the true need is an ability to do the work, whether that be in design, manufacture or operation.

In any field, obtaining an academic qualification is only the starting point. The qualification merely indicates that an individual has achieved a set academic standard. It indicates nothing more. It certainly does not mean the individual is capable of translating the academic achievement into practical application.

Having worked in a number of unrelated fields, I have sometimes found degree-qualified individuals to be inflexible and they often have the "this is what I learned, so this is the way to do it" attitude.

To claim that Chief Engineers are not engineers is, in my opinion, completely incorrect. To me, it suggests that you have scant knowledge of the history of the industry, and your persistence in promoting your view to members of this forum who have spent their working lives as marine engineers and who are now in their seventies or older does you no credit. Why does it matter so much to you that they should, after a lifetime of service, not be allowed to call themselves engineers? Do you really need to denigrate the worth of these people's achievements to prove some point? For most of the people you are attacking (and that's what you are doing), there was only one route to becoming an engineer. Degrees in marine engineering simply did not exist. Times have changed, but this forum is about "nostalgia".

You are entitled to your opinion, but we are equally entitled to form an opinion of you based on what you say.

Regards
Doug


----------



## MARINEJOCKY

Doug , much better put than me but then again I was only a technician, I would love to take Mikel1 to glasgow nautical college and introduce him to uncle shuggie who was an ex Queen Mary chief and his fellow ex chief's who came ashore and taght more than metalwork but then again did we not all have to learn that to be an engineer.

I read all of these definations etc and this thing about having to design stuff to be able call your self an engineer, I remember one of my questions 30 years ago was to design and then draw out a pump capable of transferring sone fluid from 20 feet below to 40 foot above the pump, and that included the motor shape etc of the impellor and casing plus the piping. Did we not all have to learn that stuff

to call us watch keepers is insulting, yes we stood watch but when the st1t hit the fan we all knew what to do from electronics, electrical, mechanical, welding etc. 

I am in a country & western kareoke bar in the middle of Florida and wondering why I have to explain myself to him ? 
s


----------



## Billieboy

Regarding watch keepers, why does the BOT/MOT/DOTTI call them what you like, require that a "Certified Engineer" be on duty in the Engine room of any vessel carrying 100 or more passengers and crew?


----------



## WilliamH

Doug Shaw Post52
Well said, they are my sentiments exactly.


----------



## John Briggs

Doug, your post #52 says it all. Extremely well put (Applause)(Applause)


----------



## roboted

John Briggs said:


> Doug, your post #52 says it all. Extremely well put (Applause)(Applause)


Totally agree Mr Briggs....A fine post from Mr Shaw..


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

oh no not the old 'theory against practical' thang.

Engineering is engineering, it is probably one of the most basic human traits that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom - the ability to analyse and find a solution to a problem.

Chimps are starting to use customised tools - that is the very basis of engineering.

I made a statement that Engineering was the executive side of science. That is my firm belief. Scientists find out the actual laws of nature and engineers put them to work. Sometime engineers put the laws to work before the scientist figure out what the law is but there we go.

A Marine Engineer is just one type of engineer and as I said previously it is an extremely broad church and it saddens me to see otherwise clever people denying the right to the name engineer on the grounds of either not being practical enough or not being academic enough. They all compliment each other and rely on each other - get used to it and get out of the manger.


----------



## charles henry

Lots of fun but no one mentioned the legality of what an engineer is (apart from the seagoing variety)
An engineer is a person who after approximately five years of study receives a degree in engineering. Normally he has attended university but there are other avenues of approach (ie., full City and Guilds of Longdon Telecom, Radio and Mathmatics passes - if I remember my agonies correctly there were 8 telecom exams, four radio and two maths.
(Incidentally I found to my sorry that C & G qualifications held no water in Canada as they had never heard of them. They were however accepted by the US engr college)
de chas


----------



## gingerbeer73

mikel1 said:


> I have read post 50 and was hoping for something which would maybe influence my opinion. Not so.
> 
> However there may be some truth to this -_You are also so wrong about qualifications and other countries and many chief engineers walked into teachers jobs straight from a ship in the UK._
> 
> I do remember a Ships Master who became a Mathematics Teacher - very good he was too. He had the rare ability to connect the theory to the practical. I suspect he completed an additional Teaching qualification but yes he was a Teacher. And I also remember a Chief who became a Teacher too. Metalwork or something like that.
> 
> Nevertheless I make no excuse for my views. I accept they may be different from some, or most, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> The reference to someone with a greasegun was not intended to be derogatory. What I genuinely meant was that the public perception is that anyone with a greasegun must be an Engineer, a suggestion that Engineering suffers an image problem in the UK.
> 
> I have never met Marinejocky, but who knows maybe one day we will meet. After and all we are in the same time zone !! And calm down, these are only words and definitions. So not wanting to get personal I will leave it there.
> 
> Mikel1 B.Sc (Eng)


Here I am going back on my statement to say nothing more to you. Ah well, you did the same thing.
You are just incredible really, everything you write is a veiled insult. "Metalwork, or something like that" "He had the rare ability to connect the theory to the practical" I despair really. You are so typical of so called qualified degree people who look down on the real world from a position of being propped up by the people who actually do it. I am sorry to say that I have to support my original opinion - You are indeed a snob. Def - "A snob is someone who adopts the worldview of snobbery — that some people are inherently inferior to him or her for any one of a variety of reasons, including real or supposed intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, beauty, etcetera. Often, the form of snobbery reflects the snob's personal attributes."

Let me sum up that us "useful engineers" know what it is about, because you choose, or cannot see the same, is only a loss to you, not us. If you are indeed in a position to hire engineers, then I would only say, I bet my bottom dollar that you would have completely missed the ones that are really useful to the world of engineering in all it's forms.
Colin


----------



## gingerbeer73

Doug Shaw said:


> mikel1
> 
> Certainly, in my time at sea, having a degree, such as a BSc in Mechanical Engineering, did not allow an individual to serve as a Chief or even a Second Engineer. I sailed with several degree-qualified engineers, but of these I considered only one to be a competent engineer. So, while you may stress the need for an academic qualification to be called an engineer, I would stress the true need is an ability to do the work, whether that be in design, manufacture or operation.
> 
> In any field, obtaining an academic qualification is only the starting point. The qualification merely indicates that an individual has achieved a set academic standard. It indicates nothing more. It certainly does not mean the individual is capable of translating the academic achievement into practical application.
> 
> Having worked in a number of unrelated fields, I have sometimes found degree-qualified individuals to be inflexible and they often have the "this is what I learned, so this is the way to do it" attitude.
> 
> To claim that Chief Engineers are not engineers is, in my opinion, completely incorrect. To me, it suggests that you have scant knowledge of the history of the industry, and your persistence in promoting your view to members of this forum who have spent their working lives as marine engineers and who are now in their seventies or older does you no credit. Why does it matter so much to you that they should, after a lifetime of service, not be allowed to call themselves engineers? Do you really need to denigrate the worth of these people's achievements to prove some point? For most of the people you are attacking (and that's what you are doing), there was only one route to becoming an engineer. Degrees in marine engineering simply did not exist. Times have changed, but this forum is about "nostalgia".
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but we are equally entitled to form an opinion of you based on what you say.
> 
> Regards
> Doug


Very well thought out post and very well expressed. I see that your experience of degree engineers has been similar to mine with having met only one that even stood a remote chance. I truly think that most of them are shams and pretenders who hide behind a veil of Bull****e. How did it ever get to be this bad. Or, should I go back to my original about Champagne Socialist attitudes and Blair's dream of 50% of the population going to Uni. 
I suppose, you, like myself will never make an engineer (Jester)
Colin
ps I hope the jester symbol comes out.(Jester)


----------



## Nick Balls

like old time black-smithery , Engineering is an art not a science. It can only be taught to a certain degree the rest is down to the alchemy of old style apprenticeship followed by a large dollop of gumption .............. Take Dan Mc Phail the scourge of Peter from Sanday. LOL


----------



## Graham Wallace

What a great thread, it has tended to wander off the original theme but both are dear to my heart.

First of all who was Fred Dibnah?, living on Vancouver island I had never heard the name so had a quick look at Google. Steeplejack, Engineer (steam enthusiast) Eccentric and Engineer, Born 28th April 1938, died 6th November 2004 of prostate cancer, 3 marriages. Damn we we were close, born 28th April 1939, prostate cancer ( but survivor), 2 marriages, Engineer (Mechanical & Marine with steam ticket) and my family definitely think I am eccentric. Unfortunately I have no head for heights!

He sounds like someone I would have liked to meet

Now as to whether he was an Engineer...................Not here in Canada, but probably in UK. The title here is ‘Professional Engineer’ and is rigorously guarded by law, specific level of academic standards are required plus experience (similar to the UK AMI Mech E way back in 1960’s). No ifs and buts!

My ‘Engineering’ background is as follows, BP Marine Engineering Apprenticeship, OND Mechanical/Marine Engineering, OND Endorsements ( Marine subjects), then Second Class Steam Certificate. I left the sea and went back to shoreside work (Applications Engineer) then 4 years of nightschool for an HNC in Mechanical Engineering plus all relevant Industrial engineering endorsements. So there I was, full academic qualifications including GI Mar E, GI Mech E..............I had spent enough time with professional qualifications!

Emigrated to Canada 1967 and to my immense shock found all my professional qualifications and experience not accepted..................I could not call myself an ‘Engineer ‘at that time. More than slightly peeved I carried on working in a Mechanical Engineering environment in an enlightened British company. By that time I was upgraded to AMI Mech E. & C.Eng 

There were many like minded AMI Mech E’s working in Canada at the time and eventually in 1972 through the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in UK and a professor in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Toronto a number of us were individually scrutinised and finally accepted as ‘Professional Engineers’ in the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario ( APEO). Phew!

At that time the APEO did not have a section for ‘Marine Engineers’

UK has an extremely unfortunate loose/relaxed way of using the word ‘Engineer’, I specifically joined the professional Institutions there as I considered them a recognition of academic and professional standards. Isambard Kingdom Brunel was my hero and an Engineer!. I went to Acton Technical College in 1955, which later resited outside London and was called Brunel University.

At one time I was allowed to use the titles, GIMar E MIMech E, C.Eng, P.Eng and had to use larger envelopes......................................now I am plain P.Eng and proud of it

I am still very much a practical and hands on Engineer, but I will never forget my fabulous apprenticeship and my time at sea, they were experiences to die for.......well not the 12/4 watch! 

Graham


----------



## gingerbeer73

Doug Shaw said:


> mikel1
> 
> Certainly, in my time at sea, having a degree, such as a BSc in Mechanical Engineering, did not allow an individual to serve as a Chief or even a Second Engineer. I sailed with several degree-qualified engineers, but of these I considered only one to be a competent engineer. So, while you may stress the need for an academic qualification to be called an engineer, I would stress the true need is an ability to do the work, whether that be in design, manufacture or operation.
> 
> In any field, obtaining an academic qualification is only the starting point. The qualification merely indicates that an individual has achieved a set academic standard. It indicates nothing more. It certainly does not mean the individual is capable of translating the academic achievement into practical application.
> 
> Having worked in a number of unrelated fields, I have sometimes found degree-qualified individuals to be inflexible and they often have the "this is what I learned, so this is the way to do it" attitude.
> 
> To claim that Chief Engineers are not engineers is, in my opinion, completely incorrect. To me, it suggests that you have scant knowledge of the history of the industry, and your persistence in promoting your view to members of this forum who have spent their working lives as marine engineers and who are now in their seventies or older does you no credit. Why does it matter so much to you that they should, after a lifetime of service, not be allowed to call themselves engineers? Do you really need to denigrate the worth of these people's achievements to prove some point? For most of the people you are attacking (and that's what you are doing), there was only one route to becoming an engineer. Degrees in marine engineering simply did not exist. Times have changed, but this forum is about "nostalgia".
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but we are equally entitled to form an opinion of you based on what you say.
> 
> Regards
> Doug


It has just occurred to me that in the first few lines of your post you may have hit it on the head. You say "Certainly, in my time at sea, having a degree, such as a BSc in Mechanical Engineering, did not allow an individual to serve as a Chief or even a Second Engineer" He said a while ago "The Chief Engineers we sailed with were more Chief Mechanics and the rest of us Mechanics. For my part, even as a Junior Engineer, I was a qualified Engineer and the Chief normally a qualified Mechanic." I now sense quite a bit of bitterness there and maybe he was miffed at the time being "qualified" and maybe no one took as much notice of him as he felt he deserved? Just an idea.(A)
Colin


----------



## roboted

gingerbeer73 said:


> It has just occurred to me that in the first few lines of your post you may have hit it on the head. You say "Certainly, in my time at sea, having a degree, such as a BSc in Mechanical Engineering, did not allow an individual to serve as a Chief or even a Second Engineer" He said a while ago "The Chief Engineers we sailed with were more Chief Mechanics and the rest of us Mechanics. For my part, even as a Junior Engineer, I was a qualified Engineer and the Chief normally a qualified Mechanic." I now sense quite a bit of bitterness there and maybe he was miffed at the time being "qualified" and maybe no one took as much notice of him as he felt he deserved? Just an idea.(A)
> Colin


When I first went to sea,in theory I was a "qualified" engineer,an hour down the pit with the Third taught me how little I knew(21 year old-Assn't Eng-Official rank 7/th Eng).
I learned during my first deep sea,and I like to think I put some back.
I learned more than engineering,I learned many things about people and about myself,All of which made me firstly-a much better person,and consequently a much better engineer..!


In my mind "Old Skool Rules"...
Apart from one or two minor exceptions,I loved the people I worked with,I loved the life,and above all I loved being in the "playground"
Any doubters as to the performance of Marine Engineers should have a quick shufti at "Best Repairs at Sea"...Makes me bloody proud to be one of that breed......
Robbo


----------



## Winebuff

*I for one am proud to be an Engineer!!*

I signed articles as an Engineer Cadet, 3 colleges enrolled me to study Marine Engineering, I passed examinations to qualify as an Engineer, I served for several years as a Marine Engineering Officer, I have DoT certificates of Competency in Engineering. 

I have been an Engineer for 35 years and no one will take that away from me.

I admit much of the mundane watch keeping duties could have been done by an observant administer and a large amount of the routine maintenance done by diligent fitter there were as many occasions where an Engineers insight produced the "out of the box thinking" to solve the unexpected problem.

We who have always been Engineers should not let those who are jealous of our status put us down. 

Peter Smith
Bank Line
74-84(Thumb)


----------



## gingerbeer73

Winebuff said:


> I signed articles as an Engineer Cadet, 3 colleges enrolled me to study Marine Engineering, I passed examinations to qualify as an Engineer, I served for several years as a Marine Engineering Officer, I have DoT certificates of Competency in Engineering.
> 
> I have been an Engineer for 35 years and no one will take that away from me.
> 
> I admit much of the mundane watch keeping duties could have been done by an observant administer and a large amount of the routine maintenance done by diligent fitter there were as many occasions where an Engineers insight produced the "out of the box thinking" to solve the unexpected problem.
> 
> We who have always been Engineers should not let those who are jealous of our status put us down.
> 
> Peter Smith
> Bank Line
> 74-84(Thumb)


Well said Peter.
We know we have clothes on !(Jester) Mikel1 seems to have gone outside in his King role completely naked and in denial. (Jester)
Colin


----------



## Nick Balls

Post 63 ........Fred Dibnah ... hardly an engineer , more an enthusiast of engineering.
Fred was a steeple jack who made his fame by getting on telly and collapsing large old chimney stacks from the old industrial age. Fred then went on to make several programs on the industrial revolution and being a practical bloke did all his own stuff ! like rebuilding an old steam road roller. Brilliant to watch and for those not into engineering, an inspiration. 
Oh and Peter I for one would never ever put down the engineering fraternity...On ships out of the box thinking(Engineeringly) has saved my skin more than once!


----------



## charles henry

Not meant in a derogatory manner but I just remembered that as a child the word engineer brought to mind the fellows driving trains...... times, things and awareness change with time.

de chas


----------



## Ian J. Huckin

Interesting stuff. Now be gentle with me lads because I may have missed something in all these responses but here is my ha'penny's worth:

When I joined the British Merchant Navy it was as a Marine Engineer Apprentice. I believe I was in the last intake of indentured apprentices and my parents basically signed me over to the BSF across an unfranked stamp with old Queenie on it. I was not an Engineer Officer Cadet!

I believe, also, that the Marine Engineering Apprenticeship is (was?) THE premier Engineering Apprenticeship program for training across multiple disciplines. However, I reckon that a Tool Makers Apprenticeship produced the most skilled machinist/bench fitter but not an engineer.

Soooooo, my take on this is that if you completed a Marine Engineering Apprenticeship (not Officer Cadetship - yikes I'm going to be slaughtered!!!!) then you were in the best state of training to then learn the trade from your peers (not piers) at sea. Those that did were/are true engineers....and I never once mentioned degrees or ONC or OND or whatever it is now did I?

O.K. back to my mug of Pig's Eye (who said American's don't brew decent beer?????)

ps - Nice to be back on SN after a year in the wilderness - note my new avatar, this was a book my parents bought me when I was four and it's why I always wanted to go to sea - check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuppers_The_Sailor_Dog


----------



## gingerbeer73

This thread has been great and seems to have died a natural death now.
Having thought about it on and off a few days it brings to mind many years ago a snippet of a television program I saw. The bit that caught my attention was a young African lad in a village somewhere in Africa who had set up as a inner tube repairer. I can't remember the lever mechanism but below that he had attached a car or lorry con rod and flat top piston - upside down. He set up the inner tube on a base plate with the patch on top. He then put a little paraffin in the inside of the piston cavity and set it alight. He then bought the piston down on the patch and vulcanisation was the excellent result. Brilliant. 
Makings of an engineer under a different cir***stance ?
Colin


----------



## Dumah54

Being "old school", I prefer the RN ERA designation, Engine Room Artificer, repairs as well as operates marine engineering equipment.
Hope this further muddies up the waters.
Cheers, Dumah,
Halifax, NS


----------



## cryan

If you need a degree to be an Engineer then how would you consider the likes of Richard Trevithick? Here is a man who had no formal education after the age of twelve yet designed and produced the HP steam engine therefore opening up the world to progress?
I have sailed with two or three Degree qualified "Engineers," and yet to find one who is fully up to scratch. As a college lecturer once said to our class when Cadets, "You cany learn to drive a car by reading a book!" There is a lot to be said for understanding the forces at work but twice as much importance in being able to recognise them. The Degree or HND or HNC is only the ticket to start the journey to becoming an Engineer not the final destination and indeed any lay-man who strives to understand, harness and use to his advantage the forces of Physics and Nature can become an Engineer even if the Journey takes a little longer.
I would call Fred Dibnah an Engineering Enthusiast as although a good Mechanic he lacked what I see as an important element to become an Engineer in that he lacked the desire for constant improvement, believing somewhat that perfection had been reached in the 1800's, of course if Trevithick, Brunel et al had thought like this we would still be riding horses and sailing galleons.


----------



## Ron Dean

gingerbeer73 said:


> This thread has been great and seems to have died a natural death now.
> Having thought about it on and off a few days it brings to mind many years ago a snippet of a television program I saw. The bit that caught my attention was a young African lad in a village somewhere in Africa who had set up as a inner tube repairer. I can't remember the lever mechanism but below that he had attached a car or lorry con rod and flat top piston - upside down. He set up the inner tube on a base plate with the patch on top. He then put a little paraffin in the inside of the piston cavity and set it alight. He then bought the piston down on the patch and vulcanisation was the excellent result. Brilliant.
> Makings of an engineer under a different cir***stance ?
> Colin


With stories like this I think the thread should be kept alive.
In Nevil Shute's book "Trustee from the Toolroom" an Engineer is defined as "a man who can do for 5 bob what any bloody fool can do for a quid".
I think Fred would make the grade but the great Brunel would fail miserably on overspending! (Ouch)(Ouch)(Ouch)


----------



## eldersuk

Fred Dibnah would have made a bloody good 'Commodore 3rd'. And that's meant as a compliment.

Derek


----------



## Ian J. Huckin

Perhaps a view from a different angle would be "what would you like enscribed on your gravestone?"

1..Here lies a man with an Engineering Degree
2..Here lies a Mechanic
3..Here lies an Engineer
4..Here lies a Marine Engineer

Non refer to rank, all refer to the man.....


----------



## Thats another Story

after reading this very interesting thread question could you call the likes of a bomb disposal sappa an engineer i have a cousin who designed and built the first remote vehicle out of land rover parts batteries bits and bobs the only thing is he never pa tend it they are now used by armies all over the world and i think personally he must be classed as one of the best he now works for British gas he even defused an old mortar bomb they found in a trench plus numerous WW2 bombs that were dredged out of many docks throughout the country. and old mines around the coast i think he should be in the engineering club.IMHO. john


----------



## Duncan112

Ian J. Huckin said:


> Perhaps a view from a different angle would be "what would you like enscribed on your gravestone?"
> 
> 1..Here lies a man with an Engineering Degree
> 2..Here lies a Mechanic
> 3..Here lies an Engineer
> 4..Here lies a Marine Engineer
> 
> Non refer to rank, all refer to the man.....


Think I would go with 4


----------



## roboted

eldersuk said:


> Fred Dibnah would have made a bloody good 'Commodore 3rd'. And that's meant as a compliment.
> 
> Derek


And would be taken as,I'm sure...(Thumb)

And also a very salient point...!!


----------



## roboted

Ian J. Huckin said:


> Perhaps a view from a different angle would be "what would you like enscribed on your gravestone?"
> 
> 1..Here lies a man with an Engineering Degree
> 2..Here lies a Mechanic
> 3..Here lies an Engineer
> 4..Here lies a Marine Engineer
> 
> Non refer to rank, all refer to the man.....


Nicely and succinctly put....(Thumb)


----------



## Bjorne

I was on a Swedish ship where the company send on board a new 3:rd engineer.
I was 2:d and was a little suspect because he did not understand anything of the ship engine. When questioned we learned that he was a crane engineer and had been working with cranes for housebuilding and consider him en engineer. But had never been at sea.
His employment was terminated after one trip.


----------



## Alan Rawlinson

*What's in a word?*

What an interesting thread......

Would like to comment, but not as an ' engineer ' but an ' ancient mariner ' from the deck ( navigational) side.

Engineer is simply a word which is used to conjur up an image of someone capable of solving spanner type problems - it's a broad definition which does not do anyone justice. If you look at the philosophy behind the word, I suspect it could apply to a huge range of savvy problem solvers, with or without qualifications. This would definitely include Fred Dibna who entertained us all. He was a thinker with so much which he contributed to the understanding of mankind's efforts over the centuries... A brilliant independent engineer, first class in my book. He never viewed any man made object without posing a ton of questions. How, Why, Where, When, etc. Can you imagine him faced with a tricky problem down below? Not the sort of Guy who would suck on his biro for too long! 

Finally, I would like to belatedly salute all of the engineers I sailed with in the Bank Line and in Sealink who were a mystery to me, and only hardcase drinking companions. Only now do I understand a little of what they were faced with!

Cheers


----------



## john g

Bjorne said:


> I was on a Swedish ship where the company send on board a new 3:rd engineer.
> I was 2:d and was a little suspect because he did not understand anything of the ship engine. When questioned we learned that he was a crane engineer and had been working with cranes for housebuilding and consider him en engineer. But had never been at sea.
> His employment was terminated after one trip.


When I was a apprentice with T & J Brocklebank on very little money the 5th engineer ,on film star wages ,was on his first trip and had only ever worked in Manchester corporations swimming baths!!


----------



## Frank P

Talking about Fred Dibnah, 

I wonder how many people (engineers or others) could build a mainly steam driven workshop in their back garden?....He was very good at his job.

I still enjoy watching the Fred Dibnah programs on TV.

Cheers Frank......(Thumb)


----------



## uisdean mor

Hi John 
well much the same story re on board experience. Can remember on Manipur when the engine room crowd consisted of Port Line Chief wh was originally water board ( hospitalised in calcutta - its the heat you know) 2nd was from walkers in colombo 3rd from belfast and had been an agricultural fitter myself as an apprentice then 5th/4th another 4th who had worked in some light engineeering company in bolton 5er was and ex apprentice as well. The chief we picked up in Chittagong had been ashore for a while working for DNV and had hated it. After we left the Bay of Bengal and got settled down he was a real bonus to us as he really wanted to eb hands on all the time after the shoreside "desk job" so we even got some watches releieved when chieffy was on one of his busy periods. All in all a mixed bag but we git there and generally made lots of money to subsidise Trafalgar house and the passie boat wallahs 

Rgds 
uisdean


----------



## ART6

roboted said:


> T
> If we take the basic premise that Isembard Kingdom Brunel was a great Engineer.


Given the posts that followed this, I have to wonder -- how many degrees and membership of respected engineering institutions, how many EU accreditations, how many chartered statuses (statii??) did he achieve? Yet would anyone question that he was an engineer? And the famous Fred D. also showed that he could reasonably claim to be one even if he didn't have the advanced academic qualifications to meet modern demands (where you can't change a light bulb unless "trained, chartered, certificated etc etc.").

To me, an engineer is someone who is apprentice trained. He learns how to deal with the problems of machines. He learns how to understand hard steel and the innate hostility of the inanimate object, and to put it right when it goes wrong. He learns to think laterally, as many threads in this forum have demonstrated, and to fix it when the s**t hits the fan. He may go on to advanced qualifications, but the lack of them doesn't make him a simple "mechanic".

What I do take issue with is the term "civil engineer". Any b****y idiot can mix some concrete in a bucket. Doing that has nothing to do with engines and black fingernails(Jester)


----------



## WilliamH

Civil Engineer! now there's a contradiction of terms.


----------



## Long gone

ART6 said:


> Given the posts that followed this, I have to wonder -- how many degrees and membership of respected engineering institutions, how many EU accreditations, how many chartered statuses (statii??) did he achieve? Yet would anyone question that he was an engineer? And the famous Fred D. also showed that he could reasonably claim to be one even if he didn't have the advanced academic qualifications to meet modern demands (where you can't change a light bulb unless "trained, chartered, certificated etc etc.").
> 
> To me, an engineer is someone who is apprentice trained. He learns how to deal with the problems of machines. He learns how to understand hard steel and the innate hostility of the inanimate object, and to put it right when it goes wrong. He learns to think laterally, as many threads in this forum have demonstrated, and to fix it when the s**t hits the fan. He may go on to advanced qualifications, but the lack of them doesn't make him a simple "mechanic".
> 
> What I do take issue with is the term "civil engineer". Any b****y idiot can mix some concrete in a bucket. Doing that has nothing to do with engines and black fingernails(Jester)


The origin of the term 'Civil Engineer' is that he wasn't a 'Military Engineer'; so originally all engineers who weren't soldiers were 'Civils', including the Stephensons, Brunel, Locke, etc.. The divisions into 'Mechanicals', Electricals', and so on, came along later in the 19th century, when the profession began to specialise.

It's worth noting that in some coninental countries (Germany, for instance) you do need a degree or a diploma to call yourself an engineer.


----------



## k.atkinson

I think the contributor who linked engineer to the French origin of ingenuity was closest. I survived a four and a half year indentured apprenticeship as a marine engineer cadet starting in 1966. After 3 years of college theory and workshops for fitting, turning, electrical, welding etc. I went to sea. A dispensation 2nd (unqualified but experienced) asked me about the piston ring gap. I did not know but worked it out with chalk on the bench while he watched as I got close to what he had been told which illustrates the first part of becoming an engineer - understanding theory and applying it. By practice my skills as a fitter improved so I was able to sharpen a drill bit where my more experienced third could not as I knew from theory the included angle and rake required. Many juniors arrived with practical skills to maintain and overhaul and then had to understand the operational aspect. So we have theory, skills and operational understanding which complement each other but not an engineer yet. We need ingenuity to make an odd shaped spanner or apply something not in the manual to overcome a problem. Regardless of political posturing I would suggest engineers are not made at university or in a workshop or as plant operators but as a combined animal having the imagination to solve problems and learn new applications like computers.


----------



## Rosels

So in between real hands on engineering jobs in a previous life I helped a mate who owned a chicken farm. I was just an egg collector. So I added to my CV 6 months employment as a Protein Capsule Transfer Engineer !!


----------



## Bankman

roboted said:


> The latter stages of "Useless Chief Engineers" contains much discussion about the definition and status of an Engineer.
> 
> If we take the basic premise that Isembard Kingdom Brunel was a great Engineer.
> 
> Would you consider "Fred Dibnah" to be an engineer ?
> 
> I await your comments with interest......
> 
> Robbo


Fed was self taught + steeplejack + sinking a mine shaft outback,didn't have space the steel smelter come mill,before I knew about Fred,thought Brunnel could do it all,Fred could have started Idrustrial revolution single handed had he been immortal, aii though he was.


----------



## Bankman

Rosels said:


> So in between real hands on engineering jobs in a previous life I helped a mate who owned a chicken farm. I was just an egg collector. So I added to my CV 6 months employment as a Protein Capsule Transfer Engineer !!


Mate don't get started on eggs,think I'm getting wind up from SN sites.


----------

