• Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re correct that the headline is misleading. He’s not just posting in some forum. He is testifying as an expert. So there is a little more subtly.

    I would like to add. He was not paid. He also was not certifying any designs as safe. You should not need to be a licensed expert to show faults in existing designs.

    • healthetank@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If your argument is that you’re an expert, then you need to have the credentials you claim to have. Anyone can show the faults in a design, but he’s explicitly doing novel calculations and analysis - ie not just reviewing someone else’s work.

      Now that being said, it looks like he never needed a professional license as he fell under an exemption, in which case I feel like they shot themselves in the foot. He’s got previous experience doing the same thing he’s examining - hydraulics and fluid flow analysis. Regardless of his status as “professional engineer”, his previous experience sould qualify him to testify.

      • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right. I was just adding more considerations.

        The lawyer son should have taken the calculations to a licensed professional engineer to sign off on. In this particular case, I like the ruling in the headline, but I understand the importance of licensing boards for professionals.