I agree with you Richard - Our problem, however, is made worse by the fact we're rarely the first call a domestic client makes if they have a problem or want something building. In domestic situations the client seeks an architect or builder first who then tell the client that they need a structural engineer. They usually then recommend the engineer and start the ball rolling in which case we're seen to be doing our work for the Architect or builder rather than the client. Generally speaking my opinion is that the public think Architects design buildings, so even if we do have a "client guide" we have to get round that obstacle first - and that means broadening the public knowledge.

Phil, I think you put it succintly. Just to add to it - I think a lot of the time, the client gets told they need an engineer because they need 'calculations', to get Building Regulations approval. The idea that we do design, that we balance the conflicting requirements of strength, economy, serviceability, aesthetics, etc. in their best interests, is outside of their range of knowledge & experience. Okay, Phil, so an A4 sheet, by the IStructE, maybe could fix this, eh? What do you think?

how about the engineers checking the building control submissions being more clear about what is acceptable in terms of submitted design? Part A checks are done by strcutural engineers. it is therefore not unreasonable for us all to make a standard approach to the design a condition of the tender to do the checks.

I think Richard, it would be a big step in the right direction - along with Building Regs submission checks being tightened up as suggested by Lynn. I have noticed, however, that ever since private companies have been allowed to check Building Regs submissions, I'm a little more careful about the quality and clarity of the submissions I make. That has to be because one firm of engineers will scrutinise the calcs of another more closely than the local authority will. No disrespect to the LA but there is less incentive for them to do so than two rival firms in a competetive environment - and the submitting firm won't want the embarrassment of looking silly by having to answer a bucket load of queries because they haven't given the scheme enough thought at the outset. I'm not saying the LA wouldn't raise queries with ill thought out schemes, but there certainly isn't the consistency that I think there is with private firms.

I am a former British Army Royal Engineer(mid 1980s to 1990's)and although I have sat military examinations to qualify as a Combat Engineer I never saw myself as a qualified Engineer as I knew there was much much more to learn. Yes, I agree the term "Engineer" is very loosely used and it does seem disrespectful that your qualification does not get the respect it deserves. However, anyone who would take Structural Engineering seriously enough would affiliate themselves with professional organisations such as this. You don't need to be the 'brains of Britain' to work out who the Pro's and who the cowboys are. If I wished to qualify as a competent Structural Engineeer I would start in a place such as this for advice. In fact I'm thinking about it right now!

I just came across this article which I thought was poignant. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/11/23/ccbengin23.xml

Hi Phil, as it happens, my grandmother always said I was an architect or a draughtsman. It wasn't that she was ashamed (I don't think), she just didn't know what a civil or structurla engineer is. (Mind you, she wsn't too sure about the concept of going away to university either - in her view, young men of 18 who went away had been called up. After all that's what had happened to my grandfather, great uncle, father and uncles. She always asked whether I had a comfortable billet and if the boys were ok)

Maybe that's the solution Pete - instead of company cars - send us to site in company tanks with "Structural Engineer" written on the side - and send us into meetings armed with rifles & bayonets. That should make people more aware of who we are !!! er...by the way I'm just kidding.

Again, you may be violating the Terms of Use for this Forum by advertising on it!! This is an engineering website with forums for discussion about engineering topics - it is not an advertising board!!!

This is a website site for professional structural engineers to discuss topics relevant to our profession and development, and is NOT recruitment advertising website.