[TowerTalk] RE: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 25, Issue 12

[Jim Lux]

At 01:15 PM 1/5/2005, D. Scott MacKenzie wrote:
>If you look at Kevin's page, it appears that One Man Towers USA has
>absolutely no relation to VK4VD - and that they ripped off his design.  If
>that is true, then I do not blame Kevin for not supplying engineering
>drawings, taking on liability for something that he had no control over -
>especially in the litigious USA.
>
>If you need engineering drawings, then hire a PE (Professional Engineer) to
>provide those drawings and his "stamp".  It would probably cost more than
>you paid for the tower....unless you have a friendly ham engineer - but make
>sure that it is a Mechanical or Civil Engineer with a PE, and not a EE :).

That depends a lot on the state. In some states, any PE can sign any plans 
that they feel competent to evaluate.  In others, there's restrictions. For 
instance, in California, a CivE can sign off on electrical plans, but an EE 
can't sign off on Civil Plans. It's a historical artifact... Civils have 
been licensed almost since the Gold Rush days, EEs came along much later, 
and by that time, the CivEs had a lot more clout and had actually been 
doing the EE work anyway.

There's also this sort of strange distinction between "practice act" and 
"title act" engineers in California. One requires licensing to do the work 
(practice engineering) and the other requires licensing to use the title 
(calling yourself a petroleum engineer, for instance).

There are efforts to try and regularize things, to make all states 
consistent, etc. However, there's a lot of politics involved, it really 
affects a fairly small number of people, so there's no real lobby trying to 
drive any changes through. If you're a glutton for punishment, you can read 
recommendations of the CA Board at
http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/board_meetings/agendas/board_reco-final.pdf

Somehow, I doubt that this is a burning issue for the Legislature.

Jim Lux