Chris Roney, P.Eng., is a practicing engineer based in Kingston. He has served on the Complaints Committee of the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) for 25 years and has been a part of many investigations of engineering failures. Many involved ethics.
All 12 engineering and geoscience regulatory bodies in Canada have fairly similar codes of. Breaches are considered professional misconduct for each of those regulatory bodies (excluding Ontario.) Roney explained a code of ethics contains underlying principles to use when making daily decisions, providing engineers guidance and strength to do the right thing, even under pressure.
Other professions have a duty to their client or patient, for example, but not engineers. Roney reminded that an engineer’s paramount duty is to the safety, health and welfare of the public, environment and workplace. He said engineers have a duty to advise their employer and client when an engineering decision that is overruled may result in breaching their duty to safeguard the public. In some cases, it may be necessary to inform the regulator.
He encouraged engineers to recognize their strengths, but also their limitations. He explained the stages he sees in an engineer’s career. A graduate feels they know everything, but once they start a job, they recognize they know nothing. They learn and their confidence grows as they become senior engineers.Roney said the value of experience is that it allows an engineer to identify solutions more quickly and helps them judge where to focus their engineering, but it shouldn’t take the place of doing proper due diligence and analysis to verify hypotheses.
He spoke about how culture played a role in 1986 NASA Challenger disaster. The solid rocket boosters of the Challenger had O-Rings to contain the hot, high-pressure gases produced by the burning solid propellant. NASA engineers were concerned about the O-rings and inspections following earlier flights found they were failing to entirely contain the gases (and it was worse when the temperature was low.)
The morning of the launch, which was a record cold day, engineers argued against launching, but upper management over-ruled them. Roney explained that a culture known as the “Normalization of Deviance” had developed within NASA. Gradually, unacceptable practices and standards became acceptable.
Then, there was the collapse of a stage for a Radiohead concert in Toronto in June 2012, which killed the band’s drum technician and injured three others.
An engineer was to check the structure for the intended loads, certify the structural drawings for the stage and review its assembly before the concert. This demountable stage had been used countless times over the years with no reported issues, but an investigation found the design had been pushed further than it had gone in the past. That initial design did not contemplate changes made over years, so it was unreasonable to rely on it. The engineer argued the client was knowledgeable and the crew assembling the stage were experts, but their report was considered deficient.
Roney also went through the collapse of the Algo Mall in Elliot Lake. In June 2012, a connection of one steel beam to its supporting column gave way. Two bays of the rooftop parking level collapsed into the mall. Nineteen people were hurt and two were killed.
Roney encourages all Canadian engineers to download and read the entire Report of Elliot Lake Inquiry for what he calls an “amazing story of human failure from cover to cover.” Roney assisted PEO with drafting recommendations for the Commission of Inquiry.
While the collapse was sudden, the roof had leaked since the mall opened in 1979. Many engineering investigations had been done, but not always by structural engineers. Reports were amended to satisfy owners’ interests. Ownership changed and reports weren’t passed on. The last engineer to provide a report was on suspension for an earlier incident. Insufficient attempts were to deal with problems, but none addressed the root issue – no waterproofing membrane on the roof deck.
The collapse drew media attention that questioned the credibility of engineers. A forensic investigation was done. It was not just the engineers who failed, but only an engineer was charged and held accountable.
Roney recommended engineers be clear and direct in their reports because those reading them will want to interpret the contents in a way that best benefits their own interests. However, an engineer must understand logical and scientific consequences on behalf of clients and the public. That, he said, is why engineers are needed by the world.
