Naval Architecture vs. Yacht Design

My two cents

I find this a difficult subject. On the one hand, I agree with some people who have posted to this forum that credentials, such as PE or NA for people who design yachts, would be reasonable to protect the public. On the other hand, many successful yacht designers to date, including Stephens, Farr, Schumacher, among many others, had neither of these credentials. True, requiring some form of credential enforced by a governing body would add some degree of protection to the consumer, but if mandated, will we lose future talents like the aforementioned? I think success at designing yachts is about much more than having the right credentials. It's about being good at something. It's about a person striving to do something right, and designing as perfect a product as they can. It's not about a beauracracy giving me the thumbs up that they approve of me, to make me feel better about myself.

Yacht design is a difficult business to get into. My feeling, is that to some degree, engineers and architects who want to get into yacht design would like the filtering process of a state req'd license because that would narrow the competition. With a degree in Mechanical Engineering, I'm tempted to fall in with this jealous way of thinking. But I don't, because I know that yacht design is much more than engineering. It's art and style and beauty, underpinned with an important but moderate amount of engineering.

I fight a battle of science versus art everyday, and I realize that it's important to remain an artist while designing and a scientist while engineering. That's the beauty and challenge, and pleasure, of yacht design. I think it would be a mistake to tilt the balance towards the scientist.

 

NA & YD

This is an interesting question, because the answer depends on what your interest in yacht design is based on. This also goes to the issue that engineering schools “don’t teach yacht design”.

As you no doubt guessed from the presentations at the CSYS, sailing yacht design can produce terribly difficult analytical technical problems and therefore provides a tremendous technical challenge. This is also the case for high speed planing craft for similar reasons; the hydrodynamics and dynamics are difficult, there are multiple different interacting regimes of flow, etc. and of course, high performance structures are a problem in both types of craft (as are high performance composites). As a result, design of competitive or demanding yachts is not just a subset of naval architecture, but in fact a very demanding specialty.

Commercial or military naval architecture (speaking here of new vessel design), is similar to these high levels of yacht design in that the design is tightly optimized against some goal, (or worse, a combination of conflicting goals) though the goal is often economic rather than performance per se (i.e. “bang for the buck”). This means that much commercial naval architecture work comprises a cycle of design, analysis and redesign for optimized results, just like design of an Americas cup yacht. In many ways, I have found these larger economic problems even more fascinating. For example, fishing vessels and military craft both use analytic techniques based on game theory and probability of detection (I guess fishing is basically anti-submarine warfare, just with very small submarines) to maximize catch versus effort by setting parameters such as speed, range, capacity, etc. Offshore oil operations use elaborate studies of weather probabilities, vessel response, equipment failure probabilities and so on to determine risk and probably cost and schedule and to choose between, for example, dividing the topside load of a platform into a few large modules (requiring a big, high risk lift) or many small ones (with more time on site required).

It is also important to note that most commercial and military craft have hard criteria that must be passed or the resulting boat is unusable. There is no such thing as almost enough stability, or almost making trial speed, and even if there is relatively little obvious optimization or competition in the design, there is always the challenge to minimize costs for the owner or to make a profit for the builder.

This all goes to an oft-quoted definition of an engineer; “someone who can do with one dollar what any damn fool can do with two”. This is also the difference I see between traditional esthetic yacht design and either commercial naval architecture or design of competitive yachts; the need for tight optimization, and hence analytic studies. If solving difficult technical problems and producing innovative solutions is what you are looking for, then a technical approach to yacht design or actually, commercial naval architecture, which will pretty much require university credentials, will provide this type of fulfillment.

It is also important to note that many (probably most) commercial naval architecture work is not on new vessels, but instead on solving problems of various sorts with existing ones. This can be a great challenge, especially if you are the sort of person who enjoys things like

However, many boats have been (and continue to be) designed purely based on esthetics, feel, and tradition with minimal analytic support. Here the main challenge is to connect with the emotional needs of a client and translate these needs into something that appeals to him, mainly on an esthetic level. This is not a technical skill, though not necessarily incompatible with technical ability. It is, though, at least partly an artistic ability. As a result, the need for elaborate technical analyses is generally minimized, and the resultant boat need only meet nominal performance and quality criteria. Since yachts aren’t required to meet any significant regulations, the technical parts can be pretty simple, and if you can make the emotional connections, customers will love your work. As one boatbuilder said “No one ever had an ugly wife, a stupid kid, a mean dog or a bad boat”. You will see this immediately if you consult a yacht designer of this type and a naval architects, even for the same craft. The naval architect will start by trying to set criteria and basic parameters first, but the yacht designer will start sketching immediately.

If this type of artistic approach is what interests you, then the mail order courses provide one approach. These courses provide the minimum technical background to achieve nominal safety and performance goals, some practical issues, and a great deal of drafting practice with an emphasis on the esthetic. However, they are expensive and have limited use as certification, even in yacht design, and none whatsover in commercial naval architecture. Landing School is generally much better regarded, but it still isn’t equivalent to a degree. It is also possible to combine self-teaching, seminars and so forth such as CSYS, IBEX and SNAME meetings and training in drafting, such as community college courses to get equivalent training to one of the non-degree programs, though you will have to be more self-disciplined. (Note that Bob Perry, for example, who is on Westlawn’s board, as well as being one of the major yacht designers in the US, is self-trained.)

As far as licensing is concerned, I personally am pretty sure that the law clearly exempts most rec boat practice as “drafting services”, (though it isn’t obvious unless you have been into the background of the law to some depth) so it is unlikely that licensure will be a requirement for yacht design. However, clients may begin to be interested, especially with all the noise anti-licensing folks are making. (“Methinks they do protest too much” – up till now, an awful lot of clients thought that someone did already license yacht designers, but they sure know better now). If I were a builder I would hate to have to explain on cross that yacht design doesn’t really require licensure in court in some product liability case. A smart plaintiff would certainly assert that by not using a P.E. the builder was not exhibiting a reasonable standard of care, and this might just stick, at least a bit, with a jury. It also appears that the roughly 30% rate of P.E.s in rec boats actually is higher than in most commercial areas (because so many people in commercial practice are explicitly exempt for one reason or another).

It is also important to consider some realities:

The recreational boat industry sold $9.28 billion worth of new boats last year, of which $640 million were sailboats. This sounds like a lot, but in comparison, Disney sold $4.5 billion of just “Winnie the Pooh” branded merchandise last year, so the rec boat industry is really small potatoes. You can also take the same numbers and make some simple guesses about the amount of engineering/design salaries as a fraction of sales, and so on and come up with some pretty dismal figures (a really good royalty on a one off large yacht is 3%). Depending on assumptions, you can see that the replacement rate required for yacht designers is somewhere between half a dozen and maybe three dozen outside, per year. There are also estimated to be between one and two hundred independent yacht designers in business in North America, which also gives pretty dismal job possibilities, considering the Landing School alone turns out over a dozen grads a year. The pay is also pretty low at best.

Commercial/military naval architecture is not the best paid branch of engineering either, but it is probably close to the median for mechanical engineers. A commercial/military NA can reasonably expect to roughly parallel civil service G-S wages, starting at GS-9 ($40K – $52K/yr) and retiring at GS-13 ($69K – $89K/yr). This is not what a bond trader would make on Wall Street, but it is reasonable and enough to own a home, a small boat and put a kid or two through college. (Marrying well is advised.) The main drawback here is that the geographic choices are pretty limited. If you like the Gulf, the Washington DC area, or Seattle, it’s OK, but there aren’t a lot of opportunities elsewhere. Layoffs are also common, and you have to be pretty agile – you probably won’t be out off work long, but you have to be flexible, and it is a stressor. There is usually a small shortage of commercial/military naval architects.

Neither is going to make you wealthy, so if you really just like messing around with big boats, do something that makes enough money to be able to buy them for yourself.

Keep in touch and good luck.

 

That's quite an essay. It's unfortunate that your name doesn't appear with it. Is it nosy of me to ask you to identify yourself?

I'd reiterate that I DO believe in design review by a P.E., the U.S. Coast Guard (or Britain's MCA), or a classification society (ABS, DNV, or Lloyds), and in compliance with U.S. Coast Guard (CFR46), MCA, IMO, ISO, classification society, and ABYC guidelines where possible/applicable. I think Australia has developed some small craft standards as well.

The reason the classification societies exist is the insurance industry's need of standards. For craft under 25M (24M Load Line Length) I think we should all be moving toward compliance with ISO standards (since the classification societies are interested mainly in larger vessels). A P.E. (or equiv. liscenced engineer in other countries) can assist in these matters without necessarily being the originating designer or the designer of record.

For info on MCA guidelines see http://www.mcga.gov.uk/survey/code_vessel/index.htm

 

ISO Compliance

I think ISO compliance is essential. When are they going to publish their Small Craft Scantlings? I've been waiting for several years, I think. I stop checking because it seems as if they make no progress. Does anyone have news?

 

ISO / P.E.

They are recently out, at least in draft. Contact ABYC, and they will sell you a copy, for about ten dollars or so.

Even though I am a P.E., I don't think there is a legal requirement that yacht design is necessarily engineering under the meaning of the law, though such certification may be a marketing advantage.

As regards P.E. issues, my main concern is fishing vessel stablity studies for vessels over 79 feet (46 CFR 28.500) and some of the analysis either required under Sub K or optional under Sub T. Since these ststutes use phrases like "naval architectural calculations..." or "engineering analysis ...", a board could probably sustain a finding that this constituted practice.

I would, however, suggest that yacht designers follow Mr. Ditmore's suggestion of some time ago and form a voluntary certification program, independent of any of the schools, say an "academy of yacht designers" or some sort and offer both certification (based on ABYC and CE standards and so on) and possibly awards, just for fun. (Maybe ABYC would do this.) This would cover any concerns that there is now nothing between the P.E. and self-certification, and might give folks some cover for small craft in liability situations.

It is also worth noting that there are very specific rules regarding P.E. review. A P.E. can't just stamp plans he has reviewed, this is called "adopt a plan" and is illegal, and enough so that the WA board put a note to that effect on the sheet the license wallet card was attached to this year. Stamping a document represents that the work is that of the P.E., or done under his effective control and supervision. Plan review is done by having the P.E. prepare a separate document commenting on the plan and stating the criteria reviewed against, including at least a summary of any analyses and checks performed, and so on. This is the actual work done by the engineer, and this can be stamped, but not the original material submitted for review.

 

I'm thinking it should be possible to find ISO standards on-line. The links at
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27&highlight=ISO
might help, though they may be linking you to dated information at this point. Rolf Eliasson and Robert Schofield have been writing in Professional BoatBuilder about this, and may have information. Schofield also sells his own scantlings software.

The link above is also where "Mr. Ditmore's suggestion of some time ago" concerning the certification of yacht designers can be found.

 

In the 31 years that I have been in the business (and this year is the 25th anniversary of my yacht design practice), I and others have always regarded those who hold a college degree in naval architecture are naval architects. All those who do not hold a degree are designers. And if you specialize in yacht design, then you are a yacht designer.

Naval architecture is an engineering field, and even yacht design encompasses engineering methods. So to make a distinction of what a yacht does or is versus what a ship does or is, is not the point. The point really is, what do you do for a living, and what are your qualifications.

I am a degreed naval architect, yet I practice yacht design. Does that make me a just a yacht designer? No. I am both a yacht designer and a naval architect. I also have a PE in naval architecture, which does not necessarily mean that I am more qualified than anyone else, it merely means that I passed a horrendously difficult test which felt like being drug through a knothole. The world at large, however, perceives the PE license very favorably as a worthwhile qualification.

On the other hand, I am by no means the best yacht designer. I count among my friends and aquaintences many fine yacht designers who have a better hand at designing yachts than I do. Your talent is exemplified by your work, as is true with any profession. I make a good living designing yachts, and I am pleased with my work.

When I meet people who are interested in naval architecture and/or yacht design, and they are picking a school, I always recommend the college degree. You get so much more intense education in math, structures, and aero-hydrodynamics that it will stand you in very good stead for understanding the complexity of vessel design. That is, the technical knowledge that applies to ships also applies to yachts. The difference is only in the details, the subject matters are the same.

I am also a past board member of the Landing School Design Program advisory board. I know the program intimately, and was on the selection committee that hired head design instructor Steve Dalzell whom we spirited away from the University of Southampton, much to the Landing School's benefit. He is a fabulous instructor and program director. Therefore, if you do not want to go for the college degree, then I highly recommend the Landing School.

Eric Sponberg

 

Thanks for taking the time to address this issue, Eric. I agree with much of what you've said, but I still wonder if there shouldn't be a way for people to establish a certain level of competance and familiarity with the applicable codes short of becoming a PE, or returning to school to get a bachlor's degree when they may already have an advanced degree in another field (Bill Cook was an English professor before becoming a yacht designer, for example). What about someone who has been a boatbuider and yacht surveyor and would like to become a designer.... how does (s)he know when (s)he has acheived a level of professional competance? How about someone who has a Master's Liscence or Engineer's Liscence through the US Coast Guard - does that establish competance as a designer? And for me as a Landing School graduate who's been out of the field for the last few years - am I still current?

That's why I think The Landing School Advisory Board (an impressive group, as you hint at) would be doing the whole field a service if it were to reach out to McNaughtengroup/YDS, Westlawn, and perhaps to Falmouth & Southampton Institute in England
(see http://boatdesign.net/search/Technical_Resources/Schools/), and to organizations like the ABYC, the Society of Boat and Yacht Designers, and perhaps the two organizations of marine surveyors
(see http://www.ibexshow.com/ibex2003/ and click on "Endorsing Associations" at the left) for the purpose of establishing a standard credencial for American yacht designers. If the ABYC and the Society of Boat and Yacht Designers got the ball rolling with the schools participating we could educate people about ISO standards, ABYC codes, CFR 46 codes applicable to small craft, measurement rules and other common terminology, etc., and give them a reasonably rigorous test at the end that would establish a level of competance and familliarity. The effort would benefit all concerned.

Let me not leave out the Society of Small Craft Designers
4294 Fontenoy E.
Boyne City, MI 49712
United States

As I've said in other places, the parallel is the liscencing exam for (building) architects, which requies a level of mastery but is distinct from a PE in structural engineering. Other organizations that might take an interest include the USCG, the ORC & the IMOCA, the Industrial Design Society of America, the NMMA, and marine insurance companies. Maybe there's even a role for BoatDesign.net!

By the way, using the BoatDesign.net directory I found this link to ISO:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueListPage.CatalogueList?ICS1=47

Sincerely,
Stephen Ditmore
Landing School class of '91

 

One of my other roles in this PE business is to serve on the PE Licensing Committee of SNAME to advocate for the small craft designer's interest. Specifically, I believe that PE licensing should be voluntary, not manadatory, as most states may so enforce. Over the last few years I conducted a straw poll (total respondents 61) that asked if licensing should be mandatory or voluntary, and fully 90% said voluntary.

Unfortunately, it is a very gray area, because small craft design really is naval architecture and engineering, yet most small craft practitioners are not degreed, so cannot be licensed. That is the way the national PE system works. It is run by the 55 separate states and jurisdictions, and they all have slightly different rules and regulations. For example, I live in Rhode Island, but RI does not recognize the Naval Architecture PE by virtue of the wording of the state PE law. So my license is in CT.

To accomplish a voluntary compliance, Dudley Dawson and I wrote a PE Policy Statement for the PE Licensing Committee that basically says that PE licensing should be voluntary because the vessels we design can cross jurisdictions so that no one authority has complete control over the vessel in question. For example, I practice in RI which does not recognize the PE, and I am designing vessels for a builder client in New Jersey, where the boat is being built in North Carolina, for owners in New York, Maine, and Indiana. If something happens to the vessel to where there would be a liability claim or a loss, who has jurisdiction over me to say that I am not qualified as the architect? Not a single one of those states has any authority over me. And the only time a question of my qualifications comes up, really, is if something bad happens to one of my boats.

The other reason for making PE licensing voluntary is because not one single law or construction and design standard exists that says the person who checks a vessel's compliance to the standard must be a PE. The Coast Guard rules don't require it, nor does ABS or any othe classification society, not the ABYC, nothing. So if no standard requires a PE, why should the states?

My opinion is that the states should just butt out of our personal and private design contracts. The matter of a PE should be up to the designer and his/her client. If the practitioner wants a PE, he/she should be able to get one. And if the client wants a PE person to design his/her boat, then they can go find one. Otherwise, go with the designer you feel most comfortable with.

In my efforts to work on PE licensing, I have run across many people who, as stated above, would like some kind of qualifying test or certificate or recognition from an independent authority that basically says, Hey, I know what I am doing and I am a qualifed "marine designer", if we can use that term for the time being. It is a nice thought, but the problem is in the execution. It is not a simple matter to write a set of standards and administer them. SNAME certainly has found that out; they are struggling to keep the PE license current. And you can see from the snail's pace of the ISO standards just how long that whole process of writing and maintaining standards takes. The problem is getting enough warm bodies of like minds together to write, administer, and pay for a system of certification. The desire is there, but the people and money are not. The marine design field is so tiny that it can't really pay for itself. It takes enough committed individuals to get it going.

Finally, the SNAME PE Licensing Committee has rejected Dudley's and my policy statement, with the result that Dudley refused to renew his membership of 30+ years standing. I am very disappointed in SNAME, and I have told them that I think they don't have any courage to make the appropriate stance. I am not resigning my membership because I paid a lifetime membership fee many years ago, so I stay a member for free. I will continue to work on it, but I don't have a lot of hope. In this aftermath, Dudley and I discussed who could we get to perhaps administer a qualifcations standard and appropriate membership, including some of the organizations above, and we even considered Professional Boatbuilder magazine. But we always ran up against the fact that it was too big a job for too small a population.

Someone above mentioned that maybe there were about 100 yacht designers in the country. About 14 years ago, I conducted a survey amongst yacht designers about how they marketed their business, with the promise that if they responded, I would send them the results. I hired a marketing consultant to conduct the survey for me under her letterhead, but with the fact that I was paying for it plainly stated on the cover letter. I contacted every designer I could find an address for, about 135 people. This was 1989. Some of those people are dead and gone, some have gone out of business, and a few others have come into the field. So that number is pretty stable. I wouldn't be surprized if it was 50% to 100% bigger now, what with the readily availabe training that exists. So lets say there are 250 quailfied designers either working on their own or for other designers and builders. If you had 10 times that amount, 2500 people, you would still have great difficulty getting any kind of qualification system going. You would need 50 to 100 times that number 5,000 to 10,000 people, to make some kind of personal qualifications standards worthwhile. Those numbers just aren't there.

Anyway, I throw all that out to fill you in on what I see in the field from my perspective.

Eric Sponberg

 

Thanks again for taking all the time you have on this issue, Eric. I, too, have reached the point of questioning whether SNAME is the right organization to do this. I wonder, though, if something couldn't be put together that would not be prohibitively difficult to administer as a starting point. You have three schools dedicated to yacht design all of which presumably have some form of final exam already. You have an organization already in place in the Society of Boat and Yacht Designers (and another in the Society of Small Craft Designers if it's still active), a standards organization in the ABYC which has taken responsibility for coordinating U.S. participation in the ISO and has a long history of developing and propelgating its own standards, organs of communication already extant in Professional BoatBuilder Magazine and Boat Design.net, and other organizations that potentially have a stake in this and have been down the standards and credentials road before including the IDSA and the two big organizations of marine surveyors as well as organizations that establish rules for various kinds of racing (such as the ITC of the ORC for offshore sailing).

What if you, Dudley Dayson, Roberto Giramonti and I were to just decide to form an exploratory committee and ask Jeff to set up a heading here on BoatDesign.net, then try to get people from each of the schools and organizations I've mentioned interested?

 

Steve,

As much as I sympathize with the plight of small craft designers, I have to limit my commitments on this issue. So far, I am working with SNAME (which may be like beating a dead horse), and I am trying to keep up with a really full desk of work. On top of that, I just sold my house here in Newport and am on my way this summer moving to St. Augustine, FL. I am stretched pretty thin. However, if you call me directly, I can give you Dudley Dawson's phone number and/or email adress, and you can sound him out about his participation. He may be more ripe for commitment than I am. I will be interested in developments, however, so keep me posted. My telephone number is (401) 849-7730.

 

P.E. yet again

Please forgive a terribly long post, but I am hoping this will help people to understand this issue.

It’s too bad that Dudley Dawson has decided to leave SNAME, especially over what seems to me to be a minor issue. I am also surprised that SNAME made that decision (or any decision at all, frankly). However, I don’t agree that P.E. licensing should be voluntary, though for different reasons than most people.

Licensing of engineering has been around since roughly WWII. All states (and similar jurisdictions) require persons or firms practicing engineering who are resident or maintain a place of business in the jurisdiction to be licensed in that jurisdiction unless they are otherwise exempted. This is exactly the same having a driver’s license – you have a license in the state you live in, (but not every one you drive through), so the question of the mobility of boats is moot. Even the question of selling services across state lines has been “asked and answered” in regards the large A&E firms that do business worldwide. The control is solely in the jurisdiction of residence or place of business.

Engineering is defined in the statutes in various ways but in general they are pretty vague. The states specifically exempt certain practices, such as practice of federal employees, (required by the separation of powers clause), persons under supervision and effective control of a P.E., specific activities such as design of wood framed houses under a certain size, home inspection, and sometimes contractors to the federal government only. Most states (but not Washington State) also exempt practice of engineering incidental to activities of the firm in interstate commerce. This is called “industrial exemption”, though it is generally written in obscure terms relating to interstate commerce as defined by a federal act of the mid 1880s. This includes designing equipment the firm owns to make a product which the firm sells, and designing anything which can be customarily moved or sold across state lines, such as an airplane, car or boat. The distinction here is the customarily moved or sold aspect. A fixed plant built for others – built in HVAC systems, for example - may need a P.E. in the chain somewhere, even though it could conceivably be moved, but even if a given boat has never been moved or sold across a state line, it has that capability inherent in its “boatness” and is exempt. Thus, boat building and repair (and ship building, for that matter) in these states is exempt.

Some naval architects have needed licenses for a variety of reasons. Some contracts have required P.E.s, especially state and municipal contracts (a San Francisco fireboat contract my licensed employers got in 1978 was an inspiration for me). Some military billets require P.E.s of the uniformed officers that hold them as do some jobs with state or federal agencies. Use of the term “engineer”, “engineering consultant” and so on in offers or representations to the public requires P.E.s. Some firms either encourage it or require it (the other incentive for me was a $0.25 / hour raise plus cost of the exam).

Until 1999, naval architects had to either sit an exam in another discipline or get a license in NAME from Washington state, which has registered NAME since about WWII and then try to get a license by comity (reciprocity) in their home state. (This is not possible in the few “defined discipline” states such as California, Washington or Rhode Island. I have an ME license in California and a NAME license in Washington. Both are “defined discipline” states, so I could not get an ME from California based on a NAME from Washington or vice versa, though I have a ME license in Washington based on a California ME. However, I could get a P.E. in Maine or Maryland based on an out of state license in either discipline, even before the new exam, because they only have a general license and can reciprocate on the “full faith and credit” clause provided the requirements in both states are similar. It’s kind of like whether you need a special fishing license for trout – some states require it, others don’t.)

In 1992, the Coast Guard promulgated NVIC 10-92, which offers “expedited review” to P.E. (or ABS) stamped drawings because they had found that drawings by P.E.s generally had fewer errors and were easier and faster to review. This means that stamped drawings go to the top of the pile for review and will be looked at first, not that they won’t be reviewed. At about the same time, Louisiana contacted Washington to be able to offer an exam in NAME, probably based on their offshore oil industry. These were probably what inspired SNAME to develop a standard exam with the NCEES (the association of state boards). In 1999, the first test was offered, and it has been subsequently offered in 2001, 2002, and just last Friday.

However, it is important to understand that all that has changed is the existence of a test specific to NAME. Some aspects of naval architecture have always been practice of engineering under the law, and those that are not will not become so. In the course of advising a local public authority, I had a very long conversation with people on the CA state board in the course of a public contract which required P.E. licensure. (I was advising the agency not to require a P.E., by the way.) CA does not recognize NAME as a discipline, but the board member there noted that some aspects of design of ships would fall under the scope of ME regardless.

To repeat, very clearly – all SNAME did was to develop the exam, presumably in an effort to make the P.E. easier, not to exclude anyone. They are not lobbying in any way or advocating any legal changes. People have said that this brings attention to this issue or some such, but what brings attention is a complaint regarding a specific incident to a board and such action is both necessary and sufficient.

It is also important to realize that in general, the US has a system of “common law”, which means that precedent and common practice is used to define and interpret statues. The exact wording of the statutes is only the beginning of the story.

In the case of yacht design, there is a body of precedent, both from Washington State and from other branches of design (this is far from the first time design and engineering have been at odds), which defines practice of engineering vice “drafting services”. In order to sustain a finding of unlawful practice, a court would have to demonstrate that there is a legal requirement for a certain type of analysis, that the legal requirement defines the analysis as “engineering”, generally by using that term or similar ones, and that the practice is not otherwise exempted. In 46 CFR 28.500 et seq, fishing vessels over 79 feet long are required to have stability instructions prepared by a “qualified individual”, who is further defined in terms of “..naval architectural calculations”. Similar phrases appear in various part of 46 CFR and the NVICs relating to “K” boats, alternative equivalent safety applications in “T” boats, and a lot of places for larger commercial vessels. In other places 46 CFR requires analyses to codes such as ASME B31.1, which would generally be construed as requiring a P.E. by B31.1’s internal language. (There are also a few places Coast Guard explicitly requires P.E. certification – in regards OPA 90 submissions and industrial system analyses that would require certification by a P.E. if on land, again such as B31.1 certification.)

No such requirements exist in either 33 CFR or 46 CFR for most yachts or even “yacht like” small commercial craft. Such craft are controlled by test and inspectable criteria, not engineering analysis, and design of such craft involving these standards are not therefore practice of engineering.

Of course, a yacht designer might well do very sophisticated analysis in the course of design. This comes to the second issue, title. Regardless of what type of practice is contemplated, making offers to the public using certain titles and phrases is controlled. The point of this is to ensure the consumer is not deceived by individuals who overstate their qualifications. In theory, a finding of offering to practice engineering might be sustained if an individual explicitly offers to perform engineering analysis without being licensed. However, there is no reason that these extra analyses (not required by law) could not be performed – the state boards do not care what sort of “religious ceremonies” (exact quote) an individual might engage in the course of designing a vessel provided inappropriate public offers are not made.

The bottom line is that unlicensed individuals probably should not perform engineering analyses required by law, or offer to practice “engineering” or perhaps “naval architecture”, either by use of these phrases or by descriptions of the tasks involved, using similar phrases – don’t say the “e-word”. Make the boat faster, but don’t re-engineer the propulsion system. This does not appear to me to be much of a limit, seems clear, and seems roughly appropriate, especially as regards large fishing vessels, since the Coast Guard does not inspect fishing vessels or review their stability work, and there is certainly enough loss in the fishing industry. Note however, that this should not be construed as legal advice, individuals should seek the advice of competent counsel. Note also that my dog’s opinion in this matter is “woof’, and this has exactly the same weight and standing as mine – none – neither of us are members of any state board or the bar.

As to SNAME’s position on not saying that naval architecture licensing should be voluntary, my comment begins that any position by SNAME is like that of Glendowen and Hotspur - they “can call beasties from the vasty deep”, but will the beasties come when called? – SNAME has no authority or even legal standing (“woof”). SNAME members can advise a board, but the weight of their opinion is solely judged by the merits, not by any authority SNAME has (again, “woof”). Naval architecture, and all other branches, are controlled by very general language. This means that making naval architecture licensing voluntary would require explicit statutes defining naval architecture and exempting it, both as regards practice and title, which would be a mess, especially in the context of the rest of the laws, not to mention the difficulty of such lobbying. Maine is currently contemplating a practice exemption for boats under 200 feet, but it doesn’t really address all the issues (what about floating buildings? are they boats?) and still doesn’t address title issues, so even if it passes, public representations, even regarding boats under 200 feet, will still be controlled.

I therefore thought that SNAME has no business one way or the other as regards advising the authorities on application or interpretation of state law, and should confine its efforts to making sure practitioners have accurate information, preferably by getting and publishing an opinion from expert counsel in this field, but otherwise should just let sleeping dogs lie. If those concerned about this issue are fully informed, I think they will be a lot less worried about it, because it is really a non-issue. Washington State, which has many unlicensed yacht designers, has had P.E. licensing explicitly in NAME for decades and does not have “industrial exemption”, it has been of virtually no impact at all – in practice all it means is that unlicensed yacht designers can’t use the “n-words” as a title and that is about all.

It is also unfortunate that people have felt bad about it, because as originally conceived, (and in practice) it was a “big ship issue” only. I don’t think anyone ever imagined it had anything to do with yachts, and in the only states that have real experience with it, it has only been a commercial ship issue.

 

Thank you, Chris, for a most cogent reply.

Eric Sponberg

 

I, too, thank you, Chris. You've always been a valuable resource for people in and interested in this field. I agree with most of what you've said, except for two minor points, where I'll quibble a bit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

The states specifically exempt certain practices, such as practice of federal employees, (required by the separation of powers clause), persons under supervision and effective control of a P.E., specific activities such as design of wood framed houses under a certain size, home inspection, and sometimes contractors to the federal government only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know the legalities of it, but I've worked for liscenced building architects in New York whose practice is not limited to wood frame houses, and they do not practice their trade under the "supervision" of a PE. When codes require they partner with an engineering firm as co-equal members of a team, each with their areas of responsibility.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

The bottom line is that unlicensed individuals probably should not perform engineering analyses required by law, or offer to practice “engineering” or perhaps “naval architecture”, either by use of these phrases or by descriptions of the tasks involved, using similar phrases – don’t say the “e-word”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but it seems to me there is still room for people who are specifically small craft specialists who take the time to avail themselves of knowlege of relevant ISO & ABYC regs and those of the Offshore Racing Council, British MCA standards for yachts, and composite boatbuilding standards and practices. Furthermore a P.E. can be obtained in fields other than naval architecture, and a Small Craft designer may very well have better knowledge of stability and the CFR 46 regs related to stability than do most PEs. THAT expertise (different in kind, not just in degree of expertise) should also be recognised. That's why I think a seperate credencial for certified small craft designers should be developed by the organizations listed in my previous posts.

 

Thanks Steve;

You are correct, architects are separately licensed and another common exemption is "practice of architecture", though this is often stated in other ways. (Engineers are sometimes allowed to practice architecture "incidental to engineering" as well.) Some states also have mandatory inclusion of civil or structural engineers for certain buildings. The rules vary quite a bit from state to state.

I agree that you have a good idea in certifying people who do small vessels, but it would probably have to be a voluntary certificate (which if well publicized, would probably be more effective than any legal control). The state boards have no real interest in boats (and very little in ships) since the individual states are pre-empted by federal regulations and interstate commerce clauses from actually exercising any control on boats or ships, and I can't imagine Congress giving such authority to the Coast Guard, and finally yachts generally don't involve third parties to the owner/builder contract, and the engineering laws are generally intended to protect "innocent" third parties, like kids in a school, or people downriver of a dam.

As far as a P.E. practicing yacht design without expertise in it, P.E.s are specifically forbidden to practice outside of their area of expertise, and held to it much more carefully and in detail than unlicensed individuals. (Since they have something to lose.)

Again, though, I am just saying what I think the law is, not what it should be.