It’s a little odd that a civil engineer is being an expert witness for pressure vessels, which are typically the Dobson of mechanical engineers. Though, to be fair, most states leave it up to the individual license holder to determine what domains they’ve are competent in.

The other aspect that’s interesting to me is that, like “engineer”, the term “expert witness” may be too generic to have much meaning. From the related Oregon case linked elsewhere:

>“Courts have long recognized that the term ‘engineer’ has a generic meaning separate from ‘professional engineer”

In this case, it's not for the time period because the specialty of ASME boilers and pressure vessels had legacy CivEs in addition to MEs. These guys had decades of experience on massive industrial, petrochem, and nuclear engineering projects.

That makes sense. As an aside about your comment:

>It's a shame there aren't specific software

NCEES tried to have a software PE but it withered on the vine and was only offered for a few years. I suspect the incentives in industry don’t support it and the only way itv would get traction is if it were forced by regulation.

I probably sound like a broken record on this but the software PE was effectively impossible to get firstly because the Fundamentals of Engineering exam that is the first step to becoming a PE wasn't discipline specific at that time IIRC and contained topics like thermodynamics that very few CS students would have had exposure to. Even for those candidates who got past the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, four years of professional experience under an already certified PE was the next step but there weren't any existing software PEs to do the supervision. Only after passing those two hurdles could the candidate take the software PE exam and become a PE. So basically NCEES made no honest effort to make attaining a software PE realistically possible.

It’s possible that your conception of what the software PE should’ve been differed from the opinion of NCEES. If I remember correctly, it was controls-focused, which makes sense to me given what PEs are normally called on to stamp. If the focus is on safety critical public works, controls is the biggest risk in terms of software development IMO.

So in that light, I want a software PE to know things like thermodynamics if they are writing controls code for a nuclear reactor or aerodynamics if they’re writing avionics code for an aircraft. In my experience, there’s a lot of problems created when SWEs don’t consider the physical dynamics of the system and having some breadth of engineering knowledge can mitigate some of that. Breath of engineering knowledge is the aim of the FE exam. There are oodles of materials to study specifically to pass the FE, so I don’t think that’s really an hurdle for a properly motivated person. Also in that vein, I want them with real experience under a PE. It’s a hurdle, but there are plenty of PEs in domains like oil & gas, aerospace, automotive etc. to work under. But if you think you’ll can work at a FAANG or adjacent SV role and get a PE, it’s probably harder to find a senior PE. I also don’t know if it adds much benefit to a web developer.

Well there's a reason why. There's an EE licensing example, but it's just a review of basic circuit design.

Not all that useful in practice.