The part that intrigues me about this is what you consider extremely high wages. I am arguably a PLC engineer and I have never made or been offered extremely high wages. Nor has anyone I know. The charges can be extremely high to borrow one from a vendor or provider, but service charges most often have little to do with wages. The wages are in line with other technical fields.

I do know that it's a good idea to use the ones who are paid well, because their success rate is _much_ higher than having just anyone do it. Some places I've worked thought a couple days of training was all that's required for anyone to do it, and the question sort of implies that. These companies generally eventually come to the realization that, yes, someone who knows what they are doing is worth what you have to pay. But you can pay a lot and still get someone who doesn't. That's why I said some are and some aren't.

Regards,
cww

 

But your qualifiers gut your main point. A student can do brain surgery or become a rocket scientist WITH PROPER GUIDANCE AND TRAINING.

And yes, perhaps there are even rare individuals who can do controls work with minimal training or experience, but other professions have their prodigies as well.

If you think kids can do market level work, don't post on an internet forum, start a company to pay kids piece rate for PLC programming and charge your customers at the normal adult rate. You'll make a fortune, and the kids will love it.

I, for one, don't want to work in a plant where kids or complete novices wrote the PLC programs.

 

Its not always about increasing the (PLC-Instructions)/($Price) ratio.

With proper automation programming you have to think of the initial cost, the cost of maintenance, and the cost of down time.

I've picked up other peoples programs and it was clear that they did not know a damn about programming, and they didn't care about maintenance. Some people think they are tricky by not commenting, not using device labels, jumping around at random, but they are only tricking themselves when they come back to the program 10 years later.

There is something to be said about a good engineer that chooses consistent and readable methods for a few reasons:

- Engineered programming methods are easy to read for maintenance and future upgrades.

- Proper methods will have less tendency to break down under strange circumstances, causing less down time. Good Engineers tend to think of all of the "what ifs" where a wanna be program jockey "wings it" and gets a working program... Sometimes...

Usually the cost of downtime and future maintenance far outweighs the initial investment.

You get what you pay for. I've had people (usually a mechanical designer with no program experience) give me specifications about sequence timings before and they expected me to generate exact code for that, but this is not ideal, only a vague starting point. If you know how to safely make motions in parallel and how to apply sensors properly you can increase the speed of a machine while increasing reliability. Sometimes you have to analyze motion and impact, inertias, etc. Try to have a Student do that from a specification. I am not against students doing work, that is how good engineers are made (with proper guidance and mentoring from seasoned Engineers). What I am against is someone with no formal training doing work for pennies on the dollar and cranking out programs like a computer. This is nonsense and I'm sure some MBA somewhere is looking into doing this as we speak. I'm glad I don't work there.

KEJR

 

I agree with everything you have said Ken E. There are monkeys that can be trained to write code for a machine when it is working properly, the trick is to think of the things that can go wrong as well as program the machine to safely handle these abnormalities. This includes documentation and layout for the maintenance crew.

I am often amazed by those that know not what they speak, and how they do not understand the time it takes to do things right and document them right and code so that someone else can figure out what you did.

I tell people to go ahead and have it written cheaply, but then I also tell them not to be near the machine when it is running. In fact I dramatize my point by telling them that when they want to meet to fix it, I want to do it offsite.

There is a huge difference between writing code for the secretary to enter time slips or sales and a machine that can hurt people. You get what you pay for, I have seen it over and over in my 25 years and yet they keep trying, the main issue is that they have goldfish memory. They do not equate their skimping up front with some issue a year or two later so it goes on. Their memory lasts only one quarter at best.

Dave Ferguson
Control Systems Engineer
Blandin Paper Company

 

Hi Dave,

Yeah, you are right. I think the "quarterly memory" you mentioned has not so much to do with their memory skills as it is more arrogance. Its more pleasing to their ego to blame someone else down the food chain when something goes wrong than to postulate if your decision to sub out the code may have been WRONG!

~Ken

 

I can't tell you how many times I have seen code written cheaply that ended up costing a lot more money in the long run than it would have to just pay someone competent to do it in the first place. But in fairness to some of the cheapskates, even in today's economic climate it is not easy to find good PLC coders, or to make the selection of a good one from one not so good.

It's hard for a place that only needs PLC coding on an intermittent basis to justify the cost of having a guy on staff that is actually capable, so they end up with having someone internally do it who is a bit of a hack, but can do other things as well. It often times works out OK, especially on simple projects. The other thing is that they will usually have no clue how to determine if the guy they hire is capable or not, so they hire based on the candidates own evaluation of his ability, or worse yet, on how many PLC class certificates he has stapled to his resume.

A lot of technicians and electric ans are pretty handy at troubleshooting and making minor modifications to existing PLC programs, but very few of them are all that good at starting with a blank piece of paper and creating one. That's why a lot of times you see them start with something they know works but is only remotely related to what they need.

I have a basic rule about PLC coding. if there are more then a handful of single shots, latches, and unlatches controlling the actual sequence of the thing, its probably a hack job, even if it 'works".

 

Hi Dave

We finally agree on something. Some of the questions on the list here lead me to believe that even quite dangerous (for personnel and equipment) tasks are being delegated to just about anybody. That's why there are questions I won't answer. And it's not snobbery, at least on my part, because I don't agree that any degree or certificate really addresses this. For example a PE certification only means something because the individual has taken responsibility to ensure that things are done right and will do the learning and work to accomplish it. Your comment resonates because it means that sometimes you must say _no_. No, I won't do that because it's not safe. Or no, I won't just hack away at that without some study so I know what I'm doing. Or even no. I won't work for you because you don't take responsibility for safety or ethics. Everyone had to stumble around to pay their dues, but that shouldn't be with a high speed 150 ton shear press or anything involving life safety. Many automation failures are a result of "Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead". I am reminded of a sawmill owner who wanted to run a slaughterhouse. The scary part is that he probably did find someone who was as crazy as he was.

Regards,
cww

 

Curt:

I agree, I think that (and I am not saying they are related, I do not know) that we will see more and more BP like stories, I have saved and watched more close calls in the last few years due to this issue.

Managers incentives are to get it running any way they can. I for one follow your example and will not work on something if I will not be given the time to do it "right". They constantly try to rush me and I constantly push back. They try to use someone else, and usually I end up rewriting it (paying twice).

An old friend of mine was retiring and they asked him if he would come back and work on the side. He said $100/hr, they said why would we do that we can get someone for $60/hr to do it. My friend said well by the time you do that and then pay Dave (or someone else) to redo it, you will be way over the $100/hr to be done right once.

My only reply to them when I heard this was $60/hr......hmmmm how many hours ? They did not understand my question. We are in trouble as a country as I see less and less skill being taught in this area and there are very very few "good" guys who get it out there, or maybe I am just getting old and don't see them......

Dave

 

This is not a new problem, but it is permeating more areas.

In the mid 90s, I did some work on some machines in an explosives plant. I think the company I was working for was charging the end user like $70 and hour for my time. Fairly typical back then as there was a lot of work for PLC guys and not much supply.

After I was on site for a few weeks, the PM confided to me that most of the other control guys they had there were contracted at $40 an houir or less. I was tempted to point out that most of them, while they were cheap, had no experience, and really no clue what they were doing. There had to be 15 or 20 of us there, and I only thought that three of us were accomplishing anything.

Eventually the end user caught on after they hire their own controls guy (who did have a clue), and sent all but three of us packing. you can guess which three stayed. In case you didn't guess, it was the two of us from the company I worked for and the other fellow who did not seem clueless. Gradually they were able to staff up a bit, but it was at a much hire per hour cost, but it's doubtful the guys that were originally on site could ever have made the plant run.

Sadly, they closed the place down without ever making a product. I was gone by then, as the part I was working on was completed.

 

There are actually a lot of problems with good. I was writing systems code to add some features to UNIX needed for a port at the hospital systems house. They needed a "channel" concept to match the old proprietary system comms. Anyways, it was really late and the owner came by on his way out. It was just me, the owner and a janitor sweeping up. He asked me how many hours would it take for the janitor to be able to do what I was doing. He thought I was bragging when I said: "God only knows, maybe never". In his thinking, all you would need is X hours of C programming training and he'd be great. But, knowing nothing about computers or electronics or how things worked in the good old days, I don't think you'd have a chance. Automation is a lot like that. Some people think if you can run the programming tools, you're golden. But that is only the end game in automating a process. And even that implies you know what to do with the I/O. It's really everything else you have to know. That's why starting out in automation is very much more difficult than ending up in automation like I did. But how do you measure good? Very relevant for me, how do you convey good to HR people who are not technical?

Management likes training, rote learning, X hours for X dollars and you're competent. Education is too fuzzy and acquiring the background, well, that could take a lifetime. For someone with the right education and the right background, the training works fine. For people picked at random, it's a waste of time and money. That's the problem we're up against. People want a silver bullet solution.

Regards,
cww

 

And there is no silver bullet................I have always said give me a farm kid, he has the makeup and curiosity to do this job, but there are less and less of them around. You have to have a "I want to know how everything works" type of attitude.

To expand on your theme, not only do they think that if they go to "tool users" school they will be able to program, they think that if there is a 5 week training on "DCS X" then I should be able to send you to the intro class and all will work out, after all I trained you.

I came from an Instrumentation background, I always say that "if I do not know what I am doing, a polyflow air line cut in the wrong place can be as dangerous as a line of code", if is about knowing the process and knowing the tools to build or fix it. And not only do you need to be a designer, builder, maintenance person, code writer, IT guy, but you also must find every possible thing that all the other humanoids will do.

Curt we agree........................awesome.

Dave

--
Dave Ferguson

 

My children are building a rocket ship. I take it you want a ticket on its maiden flight to the moon?

 

I preface this reply that a janitor is a good job that serves a needed purpose and they work hard. Having said that, not every Janitor is like the guy in "Good Will Hunting".

That's disturbing that a company owner would inquire to you about your replacement by a janitor. Not only is it a stupid question, but it shows you how loyal these employers are and their level of people skills. You would hope someone would say "How can we make you more efficient" rather than "Do you think Joe Schmo could have your job, we're thinking of replacing you?". I guess that is telling about management in this country.

KEJR

 

But, being an automation guy in a maintenance dept. takes this phenomena to new heights. Especially when things get tight and they start to measure everything. Not only are you expected to be able to jump right in on any problem with any PLC with code written by anybody, they count these problems the same as "light not working
in ladies restroom". So, if you take on projects, like build a synchronized servo slot conveyor, by the end of the week there are grumblings about "retirement project" and "sits there and looks up parts" and "wastes time with that CAD program". And the one that was really irritating was "spent a whole shift installing a software upgrade on a laptop", said laptop has 10 other PLC tools on it. The fact that the upgrade broke 3 or 4 other tools and then didn't work is immaterial.

Although I did get some small retribution when they called and asked how to get RSLogix working, they'd installed an upgrade they didn't need and lost the key. I offered to come and sort things out at my consulting rate, or they could call RS support who would have them reloading, rebooting, and wiping the disk. (there was more wrong than just the key). They were 3 days in already and I'm pretty sure I was, by far, the cheapest option. But they didn't call back and I am absolutely certain that they blamed the whole mess on me. And equally certain that it was believed higher up:^). But at least they are receiving an education. But I would forgive them all that and still help them if they ask. Or take the challenge on again, once they are educated.

Regards
cww

 

I think part of what happens is that there are far more very simple things to do that involve making small changes to an existing PLC or adding a PLC with a few dozen I/O that are quite simple as opposed to the more complex things.

People start to think because a PLC is involved, that it is somehow simple.

Many of these simple kind of projects can be done by a trained monkey.

I have to admit it is kind of fun to watch the trained monkey try to do something a little harder, at least from the outside. Its probably no fun for the monkey.

 

In a place with 30 different varieties of PLC the trained monkeys can go ape just trying to get connected. Finding the right vine in the jungle is amusing to watch. That's no fun for the monkey either.

Regards
cww

 

u must to find first, who is "engineer"?????

 

Sigh, what a bunch of engineers, as always we rush in to give precise and very informative and accurate responses all at the same time missing the absolute obvious, the person who posted this thread is without a doubt a Troll, and a very good one at that, 5 years on people are still choosing to take offense at his illogical claim....nerd rage much???

 

Well you seem to have hit hit the nail with the head. I am an Apprentice Elec. I was chosen to be a puppet with PLC's HMI's. I fell in love with the complexity and challenge of it all. I would have to say i am a pretty good puppet.

However I have no educational back ground besides my High School Diploma. I want to evolve.

So if anyone could help with advise!! I want to go back to school and become that Quote "Engineer"
Where should I start? ITT Tech? Community Collage?
Are there grants??

Any info would be great..

Michael,
[email protected]

 

Well since this has resurfaced... the original poster said "Whatever work a PLC engineer proudly do with the stamp of a PLC/DCS/system engineer can be easily done by a school student if proper guidance and training is given."

Some other things that students can do with the proper training and guidance are:

1. Rocket scientist

2. Nobel Laureate

3. Leader of a nation

4. Particle physicist

5. Etc. etc. etc.