Hi Guys


Just finished reading Roy's article and as always very interesting and full of the truths that many would like to deny. On my part had the rules that govern registration to CEng now been in place back in the day I am fairly confident that I would have made it in around 1986 when I was appointed to Group Principal Engineer for Ewbank Preece's Building Services Division. I believe that whilst IEng may serve a purpose it has always been regarded as subservient to CEng and the EC has done little to nothing to remove that thinking to the extent of making IEng a stepping stone to the gods.


When you look at the numbers; CEngs far outnumber the IEngs so that if you regard the IEng registration as a step towards CEng you have, in statistical terms, an upside down pyramid and as engineers we all know (I hope) that that doesn't work.


I have felt for a long time, and made my point at the IEng working party that I was involved in a couple of years back, that you either scrap IEng as a category, uplifting existing IEngs, with an agreed period of registration, to CEng. The requirements for CEng are then set out to cover all aspects of Engineering (probably mission impossible) then you formalise the progression scenario with recognizable steps from the bottom up through EngTech, IEng etc which is then understood by everybody. If your career path means that you do not want progress further it would not be a problem you, your employer and your industry would know where you stand. Then you don't get the scenario that I endured for a number of years with highly qualified CEng staff reporting up to me and occasionally even having my authority challenged on occasions because  I was "Only" an IEng.


On the second scenario to ensure all are treated fairly, I would have a simple format for existing IEngs with say 10 years registration the opportunity to to register to CEng. They would need to show by demonstrating their work experience and with a verifier in senior position to transfer to CEng. I'm not saying either scenario is perfect but they could be a starting point.


Changing the name (again) to REng will do nothing to make the situation clearer - no one outside the institutions (and some inside) have any idea what an Incorporated Engineer is so nothing will change there. A lot of people understand that a Chartered Engineer has some status within his profession but that certainly is not the case with IEng.


Certain disciplines such as the Civils and Structural Engineers have a legal standing and responsibility with their registration, their qualifications are set by statute. We in the IET are not in that situation but as we welcome all disciplines to our fold but a Civil or Structural Engineer with CEng MIET does not have the same legal standing as CEng MICE or StructE etc.


There I've said my piece, again - thank you all for reading this - it's an interesting subject with no real answers because those at the top are not really interested.


Regards Jim W

Hi Guys


Just finished reading Roy's article and as always very interesting and full of the truths that many would like to deny. On my part had the rules that govern registration to CEng now been in place back in the day I am fairly confident that I would have made it in around 1986 when I was appointed to Group Principal Engineer for Ewbank Preece's Building Services Division. I believe that whilst IEng may serve a purpose it has always been regarded as subservient to CEng and the EC has done little to nothing to remove that thinking to the extent of making IEng a stepping stone to the gods.


When you look at the numbers; CEngs far outnumber the IEngs so that if you regard the IEng registration as a step towards CEng you have, in statistical terms, an upside down pyramid and as engineers we all know (I hope) that that doesn't work.


I have felt for a long time, and made my point at the IEng working party that I was involved in a couple of years back, that you either scrap IEng as a category, uplifting existing IEngs, with an agreed period of registration, to CEng. The requirements for CEng are then set out to cover all aspects of Engineering (probably mission impossible) then you formalise the progression scenario with recognizable steps from the bottom up through EngTech, IEng etc which is then understood by everybody. If your career path means that you do not want progress further it would not be a problem you, your employer and your industry would know where you stand. Then you don't get the scenario that I endured for a number of years with highly qualified CEng staff reporting up to me and occasionally even having my authority challenged on occasions because  I was "Only" an IEng.


On the second scenario to ensure all are treated fairly, I would have a simple format for existing IEngs with say 10 years registration the opportunity to to register to CEng. They would need to show by demonstrating their work experience and with a verifier in senior position to transfer to CEng. I'm not saying either scenario is perfect but they could be a starting point.


Changing the name (again) to REng will do nothing to make the situation clearer - no one outside the institutions (and some inside) have any idea what an Incorporated Engineer is so nothing will change there. A lot of people understand that a Chartered Engineer has some status within his profession but that certainly is not the case with IEng.


Certain disciplines such as the Civils and Structural Engineers have a legal standing and responsibility with their registration, their qualifications are set by statute. We in the IET are not in that situation but as we welcome all disciplines to our fold but a Civil or Structural Engineer with CEng MIET does not have the same legal standing as CEng MICE or StructE etc.


There I've said my piece, again - thank you all for reading this - it's an interesting subject with no real answers because those at the top are not really interested.


Regards Jim W