Engineers and Crappy Drafting 7

[LONDONDERRY]

Why are mechanical engineers such bad drafters. I've been a Mechanical engineer since mid-90's and before that a drafter since the late 80's degreed in both. Every company I've have ever been at I've never come across an ME that understands drafting / CAD standards. I seen such crappy drafting work or CAD file managment that I can make a career just going from company to company and cleaning up messes. Its sobad some times that ME's could care less about producing drawings they could be proud of or its below then to do drafting to begin with.

 

[TheTick]

I was once a machinist, and I stand firmly in the "draft for function" camp. I didn't need a drafter to teach me how to mill.

 

[KENAT]

IRstuff, I'm more than willing to buy that a big part of the problem lies with management.

However, I still believe there is an element of personal responsibility in learning to do a required task properly.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[supergee]

I Agree with Chris

the focus in school, when it comes to drafting, is on the actual look of the drawing more than on the functionality. They spend a considerable amount of time teaching CAD software, and little time to actually teach GD&T.

The mentality is that you must be ready to draw when you start your new employment. This is even reflected in job offering. Most employer ask for the future employee to be familiar with specific CAD software and don't mention GD&T. When it is time to evaluate candidates, a lot of companies will test CAD proficiency and not GD&T.

I believe it is done backward. What is really important? the surgeon that knows how to use the scalpel or the surgeon that knows when and where? It is fairly easy to learn any CAD software, especially since 90% of parts are made with line, circles and rectangles. My experience is that you can get someone operational (not expert) in as little as 2 weeks.

GD&T takes more time. It should be tough in Colleges and university where student have more time than on the jobs where, pressed with time, engineers and technicians are under pressure to perform.

Lastly, GD&T is like juice to dieting people. People try to cut the fat, do exercise, count calories in all their food but no one looks at the number of calories in 100% pure Orange Juice. Some would be surprised how much they could benefit from drinking less juice and invest in GD&T.

Gerald
Catia Instructor

 

[ewh]

[start rant]
GD&T is only part of the problem... as a designer I've worked with seasoned engineers who didn't even know how to correctly project views, much less what a good drawing consists of. The "look" of a drawing is important, as a precise, well laid out, uncluttered drawing is much easier to interpret (and thus less expensive to manufacture) than most of the drawings I have seen engineers produce, (unless they have previous experience as a well disciplined drafter). One of the best ways to get a well disciplined drafter is to have good checkers (a topic which has also been discussed frequently here) but anymore companies don't realize their value and instead rely on peer checking, if any checking beyond a "self-check", and the engineers are often given carte blanche on what they want to see on a drawing before they sign off. There is nothing wrong with peer checking when the your peers know their stuff, but it is too often a case of the blind leading the blind. I often have well thought out drawings come back with red marks that actually introduce mistakes (from peers and "official" checkers alike). If I make a mistake or omission, I really do appreciate my mistakes being pointed out when they are legitimate, or given the opportunity to explain my reasoning for doing something the way that I had (I can be swayed with valid reasoning), but the frustration of peers and inexperienced checkers checking to their own undocumented preferences often leaves me tempted me to just let it go, right or wrong. My red-lined drawings often go to someone else to correct because they know I will argue the point if I feel I am correct and they have nothing to back up their opinions, other than that is the way that they had always done it. It is easier for them to hand it off to someone less experience and unlikely to question their mark-ups. This is unfortunate, because I usually have a reason for documenting something in a particular way. I was hired for my experience, not to be popular.
[/rant]

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[TWJR]

Know what you mean, ewh. Although after layoffs here I'm the checker once again, the last checker we had routinely used "that's what we did where I used to work" as his checking criteria. I certainly don't know everything, but if something doesn't seem right to me, I do my best to cite chapter and verse of ASME as the basis for my argument. I'm sure many here will admit that one failing of ASME is that there are many common practices that are not addressed clearly.

 

[LONDONDERRY]

At my last job I was the newbie engineer and I ran into an engineer that without my knowing was checking my drawing, redlining them and insisting that I changes them because "thats the way we do things here" even though they wrong according to ASME.

I guess the one pet peeve I have is engineers that still design products, for international sales, to imperial standard (english) instead of metric.

 

[CheckerHater]

I was once a machinist, and I stand firmly in the "draft for function" camp. I didn't need a drafter to teach me how to mill.

Have you ever encountered drawings specifying machined surfaces in places where no human-made tool can possibly reach?
Somebody still has to teach the drafter how part can and cannot be made.

 

[TheTick]

True dat, CH. Parts can't be designed such that they are impossible to make. DFM is always part of the equation. However, creating a dimension scheme simply to dumb down the design documentation for one person in the manufacturing chain is not kosher.

The primary purpose of a component is to function in its intended environment, not simply to be manufactured.

 

[KENAT]

Londonderry, I'd say the decision on metric V US customary ("imperial") shouldn't be up to individual engineers but should be a company/organization decision.

For say hardware where it may need to be replaced in the field then changing to metric for international sales may well make sense.

However for custom machined parts that are to be made domestically and then exported the attraction is not so strong.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[duk748]

hello - i just had to reply to this - our company is as others have talked about above, has the same structure - the engineers or project engineers are not required to make decent manufacturing
drawings - they make real pretty models that management just loves & then they issue "drawings" to our factory to make parts that either do not fit or cannot be made -
then w/ no checker, it is uo to us designers/drafters (read me here) to make things right - after starting on the board 30+ years ago i am referred to as the
antique guy who doesnt like change - no, because you have a degree, hold a higher position, talk/text on your phone all day, surf the internet then make pretty models of machines
that cannot be made, i have to clean up your mess - instead of looking good do something to learn your trade & not depend on others to make you look good -
good manufacturing drawings & machine trades are a thing of the past - we just limp along & fix things on the fly & turn around & make the same mistakes the next time -
as our v.p. told me recently "3d models will make 95% if not 100% of our mistakes in engineering go away" - why then has our number of eco's gone up

 

[learningchecker]

I agree with Londonderry's post. It is an uphill battle to get drawings done according to just drafting standards, like 3rd angle projection. I even had a young engineer tell me that since CAD, you can put a view anywhere on a drawing. I've worked all over this country, USA.

 

[CheckerHater]

“Since CAD” I am no longer surprised to see scales like 1:7, 1:11, 3:8, etc.

 

[prichmon]

Just a few comments from a crappy CAD user:

I graduated in 2005 with my BSME after the Navy and working in retail, construction, Tow boat, auto mechanic, student to Plant Engineer. I had 1 course on drafting of which 2 weeks was on CAD, 1 course on FEA which did a few weeks in CAD. I later earned an MBA but still was unable to take a class in CAD.

For electives I tool ICE, vibration. I had colleagues who did not know what a camshaft looked like but could work the calculations in the book. I had a colleague tell me I would make him look good since I didn't play golf or use CAD but could work on most anything and understood and applied the theory. I had a Vibrations Professor with PhD in ME ask me what the "red part" of the temp gauge meant on his car.

I have struggled to become the accomplished crappy user of CAD I am today. I have had little to no training at standards or usage. No employer I have worked for offered nor suggested compensation for CAD education. So I have little incentive to expand my knowledge.

I am studying for my PE and struggling to make time for life, work and will not worry about expanding my CAD knowledge until a later time. CAD is not my 1st priority nor will it ever be unless my priorities change. The breadth of knowledge for an ME to know, understand and use is massive.

The point I am getting at is CAD is a tool set. Just like repairing machinery, thinking in 3D and problem solving are tool sets. Not all graduates can perform the same functions which allows for marketability of your personal skills. If you are so disgusted with the level of proficiency of an individual please feel free to teach, push the organization to train or provide incentives to increase the skill set. Push our accrediting organizations to require a specific amount of CAD classes.

 

[ewh]

You can have unlimited CAD training, but it won't make you a good drafter.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[KENAT]

Ewh, I nearly posted similar. CAD is just one aspect of modern day drafting/design communication or whatever the more holistic term may be. You can know all the buttons on the specific CAD system but that doesn't mean you'll create good drawings.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[prichmon]

I agree with your assessments. It takes the knowledge being passed down to the next generation of people. The standards and practices aren't taught consistently. The generational differences between new to established people requires effort from all to make it work.

I am unfortunately on my third engineering position since college due to layoffs. All positions have had little to no contact with drafting and CAD. Only one position had a PE on staff and I did not work for him. I was in maintenance and he was in charge of the Engineering Staff. The closest I have come is my current position which has no PE and 2 draftsmen on staff. I have gathered more information from these gentlemen than anywhere else in my career.

How do you propose to correct the educational system's lack of requirements and the reduction in PE engineering positions? Where are people like me to garner the knowledge?

The curriculum is being muddied by removing pertinent content important to skills in a profiteering move rather than focusing on education to meet the industry/student needs. I attended a state PE meeting in which the leaders made reference to the curriculum of engineering schools are being reduced to 128 hrs or less to push students through in 4 years for an ME. As I recall <10 yrs ago I had to have 144+ hrs to graduate with my BS. Civil engineers have proposed that only MS degree individuals be allowed to become PEs. The group discussed the possibility of changing requirements to only offer MS degrees in an attempt to meet the needs of industry.

 

[KENAT]

First thing, in the exempt fields I have worked in and currently work in PE has limited value so I don't lose sleep over that aspect. Plus at least in my state time spent 'drafting' doesn't count toward PE experience last I looked into it. So the Engineering boards seem to be on the side of drafting not being real engineering.

While I certainly have thoughts about aspects of the education system I'm not sure this it necessarily the thread or forum to go into too much depth on that - there have been related threads over in "Where is Engineering Going In The Next 5 Years" as I recall. Suffice to say having been educated in the UK not so very long ago I got my bachelors in 3 years, in part because we started focusing our education at age 16. So my last 2 years of high school I took only subjects directly related to my eventual degree - per an accreditation review I had when I came to the US I was effectively part way through Sophmore year based just on my high school subjects and grades.

As to how I learned to draft I think I mentioned some above, I too got very little drafting education at university or high school. However, my jobs have required me to do my own drafting 99% of the time. My first job was in defense in the UK where the drawings were actually a contract deliverable much of the time so there was some checking process though with hindsight it wasn't fantastically robust. However, I did learn a lot from having my drawings checked by experienced peers - and also from my own desire to do a good job and get a drawing through check with no red-lines (only in part to avoid the teasing one got for bad drawings)! I spent a reasonable amount of time (some on the clock, some mine) looking up the relevant drawing standards, asking questions about how to do things, looking at existing drawings etc..

My current job in the US required good drafting skills, I just missed some on site GD&T training when I started here but got hold of the materials from the class and went over them on my own time. I also spent time looking at the standards. I was also fortunate to have very experienced & skilled checker for a couple of years who I learned a lot from. When he got laid off I actually got made checker for a while and further self educated to be able to perform the job I was being paid to do.

So for the most part I learned to draft not through formal training & experience by taking the initiative to learn; having some help from colleagues and having some requirement from 'management' for my drawings to be good.

Oh dear, I've gone and said far more than I originally intended.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[fcsuper]

One of the biggest problems I've run into is that many engineers (and yes, I really mean most) do not understand that the drawing is a significant portion of the PO contract between your company and your vendor. If the drawing is poorly created, then it is the same as a poorly worded contract. This applies even in Model Based Definition, where the annotations on the model replace the need for a drawing, but still must be complete to the same degree as one would on a drawing.

Another difficulty I ran into are engineers with poor drafting/GD&T training and skills who believe they understand these concepts well, but in fact have made some really bad assumptions to fill in the gaps of their skill and training. In my experience, most GD&T arguments a company will have comes as a result of these individuals not understanding what they don't understand, but believing they do understand.

Then, there's what I call the irrational fear of GD&T and near-relgious beliefs in myths of supposed challenges to using GD&T. This is usually from engineers who have no drafting and GD&T experience at all. There's been a number of times I've run into a frighten engineer when they see a simple POS tolerance on a hole. They turn white as a ghost, and instead of asking what it means (when they obvious don't know), they scury to find someone (because they don't know how to draft themselves) to remove it from the drawing as quick as they can.

Now, this isn't all engineers. I've arounding out my skill from the oversight some very talented engineers.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

 

[berkshire]

I made a few comments in this subject in thread404-315141 some years ago. it would appear that the situation has gotten worse instead of better.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[learningchecker]

Many drafters are bad drafters because they never learned from people who know how to draft. Engineering has alway thought of drafting as "anyone can do it". As a result, not many can. Because Engineers don't understand drafting and they were promoted into the position to get rid of drafting, it's only gotten worse. People who learn on CAD are not drafters. They're CAD jockeys.