"Engineer's Oath"

Good idea. At the very least, Engineers should follow the Code of Ethics set out by their relevant Engineering Council. One interesting point to add to Del Cat's comment is this: If a Doctor slips up he can adversely affect the health of a single patient (at worse, a single person could die). If a civil engineer messes up [say design of a bridge] it could affect the safety of hundreds of people.

But if Investment bankers make mistakes or simply over-do-it [e.g. with Derivatives and other risky financial products] the entired world economy could land up in Crisis ! Entire countries could collapse in such a scenario. Say no more !

Del - I agree. I swear daily oaths. They also have nothing to do with ethics.

I do not think an official engineering oath would be of any significant benefit. It would be upheld or broken just as ethics already are - the oath would be no net change.

Also - Hi Del! It's only been 4 years, but I'm back.

Would such a thing have stopped these?

5 points for each correct answer.

Maybe
Maybe
Maybe
No
No
Dunno
Yes
No
?
Del

The Hindenburg disaster far more likely due to the pilot's haste in the face of an oncoming electrical storm. Her pilot put her through several very hard turns as he approached the mooring, turns for which she was not built to handle. The maneuvers put a great deal of stress on several interior support wires, pushing them well past their breaking points. At least one wire snapped, ripping through several hydrogen cells and causing the gas to mix with air. At the same time, coronal discharges ('St. Elmo's Fire') were seen near one of Hindenburg's vents. The discharge ignited the mix and the rest is history.

Hindenburg was the most publicized airship disaster of course, marking the end of the airship era, but the Hindenburg disaster was by no means the worst airship disaster in terms of loss-of-life. That dubious honor goes to a helium-filled U.S. Navy scout airship which crashed into the ocean a month earlier off the New Jersey coast, killing 73 of the 76 people aboard her.

The limitations of materials technology at the time made both disasters more likely in any case. Hydrogen is blamed as the culprit in the Hindenburg disaster, but the hydrogen was not the bad guy; it was that Hindenburg's airframe was not designed to withstand the stresses induced in the frame and interior bracing due to the pilot's putting her through several very hard turns. Hindenburg began buckle internally even before she caught fire.

Some ascribe the treatment applied to Hindenburg's exterior cotton fabric as being the culprit, claiming that the 'dope' used to seal the fabric was largely composed of nitrocellulose, which is extremely flammable. Thing is, large sections of charred exterior fabric survived the disaster, suggesting that the fabric burned in the conventional sense that painted cotton fabric might and not explosively as it would were it saturated with nitrocellulose. Were this theory correct, little if any fabric would have survived the disaster, but this is clearly not the case.

Another popular theory is that the Hindenburg ignited as a result of a static discharge between the craft and the mooring tower, but the non-metallic guying ropes were dry at the time and would not have conducted a static discharge. Hydrogen, moreover, does not burn without an oxidizer; in other words, even if there had been a spark, the hydrogen within in Hindenburg's cells would not have burned simply from that alone. It would have to be mixed with oxygen before a spark could set it off and even then, if such were available, it would not be present under the craft given that free hydrogen rises and quickly, too.

The pilot was in a hurry because he feared repercussions from his Nazi masters if he did not land the craft at that moment. In other circumstances he would have used better judgement, flying her downwind and out of harm's way. The Hindenburg had, after all, logged over one million miles prior to the disaster and so her pilot certainly knew what he was doing. The real culprit?

Nazis. (Insert reference to Godwin's Law here )

Read the last line in the voice of Lt. Aldo Raine.

Also, they were looking into the paint on the fabric of the Hindenburg. It was of course petroleum based, but Highly flammable.

One thing though, of all disasters, there comes of good. Case in point the Tacoma narrows bridge. That really spearheaded natural forces and resonances effects to become a leading example in engineering.

No. The oath is meaningless if it is imposed as a condition of qualification or employment. The sentiment only works if it is voluntary, if it is there to start with. Some of your clauses will, on occasion, conflict with others.

I can't really speak for the rest of the world, but here in the US, we've got a Principles and Practice of Engineering Exam that needs to be taken to become a "Professional Engineer".

That's kind of like an oath?

Pennsylvania has, as do all or most states, a Code of Ethics: Scroll to page 7.

Oops
Edit: I forgot, A grandfathered engineer doesn't take the exams but can still practice.

In the UK, the profession label "Engineer" is not reserved for appropriately qualified persons. Hence one can find all sorts of strange labels applied to people.

The forum has been here before: "Photocopier Engineers", "Plumbing and Heating Engineers" and "Domestic Maintenance Engineers" being among the favourite labels so far. However, the title term "Eur Ing", widely recognised and accepted across the rest of Europe, doesn't seem to have made much headway here. Websites that require names and addresses not recognising the term whereas the title "Dr." is much more widely accepted. Mind, there are still many that discriminate a woman on the basis of whether she is married or not!

As far as the "I will serve..." prospectus is concerned, well, good luck. It will probably achieve the same penetration and value as Eur Ing in time.

Icelandic society has got it right, and there are two flights a day from London Heathrow....

Yeah but.. my score ?

Bow & Arrow Engineer, Vet( speciality Cats).

Thanks to all for your comments. I know such oath will be not able to solve various problems as illustrated in the forum, but it will be like ritual. It will at least create a spirit in the minds of young engineers and will remind them of their social responsibility to the society. It depends on the various institutions to introduce such an oath. I would have preferred if some of our members had contributed to the wording of the oath in making final draft. Latter on it can be circulated to various colleges around the world for their suggestions/implementation.

I didn't say this, but I am a Licensed Professional Engineer who did not attend college so I would have missed the oath.

I said earlier, that if the ethic was not in the person's constitution, swearing an oath makes little difference. What do you say to this?

It may be true, more often than not, that ethics are held to by professionals only so long as their careers are advanced by doing so...

But in any case, it's good to be reminded every so often, that (in theory, we're all supposed to have them and hold to them) but the (ratings-hungry elements of the media) continually reminds us of those who don,t...

Yes, the Canadians have a ceremony of the calling of an Engineer. A Iron ring (wrought) is used as a symbol. Here state side they did not let us use this as they copy-write this ceremony, a stainless ringis used state side. It does have some words on ethics. Easy to google this with "iron ring engineer".

Engineers have saved more lives then doctors.

ignator

Yes, the Canadians have a ceremony of the calling of an Engineer. A Iron ring (wrought) is used as a symbol. Here state side they did not let us use this as they copyrighted this ceremony, a stainless ring is used state side. It does have some words on ethics. Easy to google this with "iron ring engineer".

Engineers have saved more lives then doctors.

ignator

Just wondering will there be an insurance like malpractice to go along with it?

you believe in the tooth fairy too, don't you?

I think most of the professional bodies have their 'Code of Ethics'. You may please refer to Code of Ethiccs of IEEE or Institute of Engineers, India in this regard.

Hey Freddie,

The insurance that engineer's who do contract work or the organization/firm that hires engineers to do work is called "omissions and errors" insurance. Please search Google first. And as mentioned above we here in Canada respect the field of engineering unlike the UK and hold engineers to a higher standard and have enforcement to govern these laws. check Professional Engineers of Ontario or PEO.

UFG

Sorry to conflict with you, but that is NOT what i have seen.

sorry to say but I think the Air of self importance is a bit overdone in this thread.you shouldn't need to take an oath or promise to do a good job, this notion is ridiculous. I highly doubt an oath would have prevented the harmonics that took that bridge down. or prevented the frozen seal that failed on on the CHALLENGER. they both were errors caused by rushing and not putting all the proper work into a project that was required.sorry but thats how I feel.

Why your President Mr.Obama had to take oath in presence of millions of American people. Was it also useless ritual?.

Unforturnately, Freddie there are alot of people in this world who feel like you do and look at the mess we are in today. Recalls of every product in the world, cars, medicine. Outbreaks of ecoli with recalls of millions of pounds of meat products. Obviously you don't get the intent that the other posters do. You take an oath as a promise/symbol that you do the best job possible, so that you can look at yourself each day and know that you have not compromised your priniciples. Something I feel that has been lost in today's society to chase after the "almighty buck". Just remember the next time you are driving your motorcycle, did that assembler working on your bike have the same attitude? Does this make any sense to you? Please advise.

Sorry about my rant guys. It's the same type of people like Freddie that I run into daily that say when asked to do something, "That's not my job". Any comments from posters that get the purpose of an oath?

If engineers had a oath, many would have to quit their job to keep their oath, because of management directives. In the challenger disaster, the engineer warned, but the government ignored the warning.

More engineers should become Rotarians:

They have a four way test in dealing with others;

1. Is it the truth?

2. Is it fair to all concerned?

3. Will it build good will and better friendships?

4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

This is how I operate my business and my relationships with others.

You could also try the ten commandments. Those rules seem to be a pretty good code of ethics.

Mr.Jay, GA from me. I have many Rotarian friends here in Mumbai, India. I am familiar with your oath. Even my ex-boss is Rotarian, good organization who offers humantrian services to society.

Verbal statements of ideals are not bad. They can serve to remind those who take them, as you suggest, as a ritual, that adherence to those ideals is now a verbal promise -- a binding. But, sadly, as we know (at least in the U.S.) wedding vows (as an oath), for example, provide little guarantee. With, roughly, a 50% success rate, it's a statistical toss-up as to the adherence to the oath (since the " 'til death do us part" is usually part of the oath).

Presidents, too, take an oath, but, oddly enough, it doesn't seem to cover lying. Should the oath really be "defend the Truth" rather than the Constitution? Or better, both? Seems to me that if it were specifically stated, it might preclude many actions from needing to be deciphered under the description of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors?" That could become conflicting, though. What, if any, lie is permissible to protect the Constitution? And what does "protect and defend the Constitution" really mean? The Constitution is an expression of "rights" in addition to the rules of governing. And shouldn't Truth be underlying to both? (As an "amendment" I would suggest it would be a no brainer to most people and be easily passed.)

I think many of us feel that the Challenger disaster was due to someone feeling a need to succumb to "pressure." We might differ in our perception and description of that pressure. This article states there was no political pressure and also disagrees with the description of "exploded" in the first link.

Being forewarned by engineers in the ranks, of bad design/flaws, but ignoring the warning, should, in this instance, be liable to criminal prosecution. Whoever had final say in that case was willing to throw the dice with other lives... for whatever reason. (Excerpted from the first link above: The press reported that engineers at Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for building the solid rocket booster, had vigorously opposed the launching of Challenger, but their warning had not been heeded by management. These engineers suspected what the Rogers Commission would later support, that the immediate cause of the explosion was a burn through of the solid rocket booster joint O-rings - the same O-rings that engineers had been concerned about for more than eight years. emphasis mine.) These engineers probably had taken no oath and also could not enforce their ethics on higher-ups.

And banking? I'd vote to make that a non-profit institution.

Truly speaking, no oath should be necessary. I would submit, in your case, none is needed. It is instilled in you. And a verbal promise probably wouldn't make that much difference in your actions.

The "Greatest Generation" instilled their good qualities, to the best of their abilities, in their children, by their upbringing -- by example. That is mostly when good or bad qualities become part of a person. And corruption can still happen in pursuit of addictive wealth and/or power -- power usually follows wealth. Concentrated wealth (i.e., in the hands of one or a few individuals and open to definition in any society) can be most dangerous to ethical ideals. Also, the pressure to rise from the ranks of poverty can alter ideals. We shouldn't forget that redemption, or the reverse of corruption, can occur, too.

And one more thing...

Del cat has stated and is good start for an Oath of office etc.- Lets get Bankers and Wall St Mavens lined up and certified to ensure everyone's SAFETY. Or they would just like European Licensed PE's; loose there ability to practice their trade in Banking or Wall St trading, if they screw up.

I was trained the Old Way and one of my Mentors was Sir Barnes Wallis of the famed Dam Buster's Bomb design, Concord and the TSR2.

He always said "if you are going to design something for anyone's use and you have to think about what you had designed for more than a few seconds. Go back to the drawing board and redo everything from scratch and ensure it is correct and will work safely".

Ethics on design, fabrication and doing things right safely have gone bye the bye, quite often due to bean-counters running the SHOW.

Challenger was a disaster in the making after so many years of - just getting bye- and the engineers who said do not launch paid for there stances from the higher ups.

The all had very sound and reasoned engineering arguments:

• The SRB's had never been tested/fired in sub-zero conditions as those that existed that day in Florida- remember the Shuttle was angled slightly to the rising sun ant the air temp was below freezing. Thus the rear booster was in a partial shadow next to the main fuel tank of LOX (-325°F) and there were icicles forming on the launch pad and in the exhaust duct - some were nearly 14 feet long and 8 to 15 " diameter.
• Also the SRB's had all been test fired in the Horizontal, never in the Vertical or at Sub-zero temps.
• So everything shrunk or hardened beyond there design spec.
• The engineers were the scapegoats for the BIG wigs of the NASA program and the SRB contractor.

So did they do the right thing YES by challenging the launch decision and they can go to bed at night knowing they spoke up responsibly.

So Should we take an OATH as Engineers to do the right thing when we design, build or consider our ideas for use by others, maybe not to the extent a European Licensed Engineer has too, to remain in his professional position and earn a living. He screws up; he can and does loose all his rights to practice as an engineer, some for life

So always thing carefully and consider the consequences of cutting corners or taking the approach "it will do" , be consistent and then you can sleep at night knowing you were giving your 100% best and not any less.

If only Bankers and Wall St Mavens had such ethics as the majority of the "Boomer Age" Engineers have; so be truthful to yourself and fellow users of anything you do.

Never give into the Bean counters to save a Penny or two - remember the Ford Pinto Debacle, all over $1.05 per fuel tank savings; that killed more than 68 people and injured many others, together costing hundreds of families/friends grief to satisfy a short term gain for a few on Wall St Mavens and the higher ups at the company.

So take your own "Personal Oath" to do your best and keep your ethical scruples and leave your ego at the door. By never shorting any thing you do in Engineering.

Because if you do you must live with the consequences from there onwards just so some one you work for is kept happy. It can also tarnish the term ENGINEER.

"If only Bankers and Wall St Mavens had such ethics as the majority of the "Boomer Age" Engineers have; so be truthful to yourself and fellow users of anything you do."

Did you intend to offend engineers of other generations with this? singling out "Boomer Age" engineers, you appear to infer that the rest of us are unethical; an explanation or an apology would be in order.

Passingtongreen,

if you read the "thread 30 " - "the Greatest Generation" sentence, the children that were from this era have become the "Boomers" and I am one of them.

I was not inferring that the following "generations" did not learn from their Fathers/Mothers the same ethics of doing the right things when attempting to design/build something. I do know my son has recognized this and follows the "do the right thing approach or got back and redo if he has to think for more than a few seconds"- yes, his manager (non-engineer) has chastised him on occasions but realized later the reason why, for this I am proud he stood his ground, even though he was recently passed over.

Except as engineers we are now RULED by "bean counters", who are only interested in the bottom line and can make or break your designs/careers. Like; use a less costly component or shave the thickness of a sheet of steel etc.

Please also look around you and see how many engineers have been either laid off or lost their jobs and retired (sometimes due to burn out). Why you may ask: Ethics or standing up for their profession (you then become a non-team player and can suffer the consequences).

I am fully aware of some very good and clever young engineers, who do clamor to learn how to do the right thing when they work on a project as maybe part of a team effort.

They also look to the older folks as well for knowledge/experience- not all or everything is learned from a book but by hands on experience combined. (the SRB is an actual experience I can pass on, having been involved when the Challenger went down- I live in NH and we lost Christa McAuliffe that day, all for the sake of the "State of the Nation" speech requiring the Shuttle be in a set position. For President Regan to speak live to the crew and Christa McAuliffe the first TEACHER in space. It was Bean Counters and Politicians playing GOD that day, against engineering wisdom by highly qualified people. Who then became the scapegoats at the end of the day)

Another example is the Big Dig in Boston where the passenger in the car that was crushed in the TED WILLIAMS tunnel from falling ceiling panels (supposed to be 2.5 tones were nearly 4 tons?), management cut corners in the roofing panel design and by using an epoxy to GLUE the rods into place (that was expired and not handled correctly)- also not recommended by the manufacturer - approved and signed for by FIVE PE's at managements request, to save time and money (two had questioned the use of an epoxy support- so they were like the SRB engineers ; doing the right thing).

So lets just say the era was started in "thread 30" and I enlarged upon the sentiment and had no intention of inferring "Ethics" are not handed on to other generations. They are and we should encourage this always.

How about some sort if standardized international peer review system... with NDA allowance for secret projects. Scientists do it. Chris

Hi Chris,

Glad to see you are back along with Derek and Ky.

A good idea concerning "Peer Review", pity the US DOJ never did this to the Bankers/Wall St Mavens (probably would have had them return all the ill gotten gains/trades they did, then send them to a place like Gitmo to learn humility)

Hope the POD idea is still going.

Hey Geoff, It is going, but slowly. I am reminded of Star Wars. "The truths we cling to depend largely on our point of view." Money is a resource, like time, labour, material, energy. Good design and management conserves them all. In project management, pressure to complete tasks itensifies asymptotically as deadlines approach. This is why modularity in large projects is so important. Divide and conquer! Cheers, Chris

Ya, like the stone masons....... We can even have a secret handshake to differentiate non members ...... I like that idea..... ;)

Geoff Daly,

You misunderstand me. I have been retired for ten years now and I wasn't an early retiree, I don't disagree with much that you posted, but I am of the generation that supervised and trained the Boomers to convert their book learning into practical engineering, when they arrived from college.

In the downsizing that occurred when the boom in design and construction of new power stations died, I was okay as long as the chief engineers controlled the lists but was downsized when the administrators, mainly Boomers BTW, took control and reducing the payroll became their prime ovbjective.

My point is that when you say, "The Boomer Engineers good and ethical", you beg the question, "What is wrong with the others?".

A good and idealistic idea, but meant to be broken. Look at all the oaths that have been broken by doctors, clergy and lawyers.

Any comments on draft? Shall I understand the draft is acceptable to majority of engineers?.

No, because the sample size is too small to be statistically significant. Plus, this is not a democracy.

Instead of taking an oath, how about a re-qualification every 5 years. They are trying to do this with teachers and that is a good idea. Law enforcement officers get re-qualified. An oath is only as good as the morality of the individual. A former president was said to have the morals of a snake. I think that same president paid no heed to oaths. I wonder how many people cross their fingers when taking an oath?

Ron, there is some sense in this kind of refresher course you suggest. It could be incorporated into the Professional Eng Certification. It does not have to be a formal exam and it does not have to be heavy-weight as the original degree was. I for one have found it necessary to follow up with the way calculations are carried out these days. A bit different to the old days of slide rules, followed by the days of calculators. Also, at some point in our careers, many of us slip out of regular practice and we become rusty. So a few refresher courses would be a good way to remedy this problem. As for an oath, I'm not sure whether this will be taken seriously by many. But , in practical terms, one could beef up the code of ethics set out the the relevant engineering council and also implement stricter monitoring and reviews. Do note that re-qualification will not eliminate unethical or fraudulent behaviour.

Nothing will eliminate unethical or fraudulent behavior. In this society, we usually give the benefit of the doubt (first time only) unless proven otherwise. It works most of the time, but there will be some big time bad behavior now and then, as people try to get away with it. There will always be individuals who think they can beat the system.

Correctly said: There is no doubt that there is unethical behaviour in projects. The questions is just how much and what % of people around the table are so inclined. The reality, sadly, is that the % of unethical people around the average table can be very high in some regions. A colleague has a little "reverse" contacts book. A list of people to not deal with because of this reason.

dear Mr.suresh sharma

My addition in the draft oath is as under, high lighted:-

"I will serve my country and whole humanity with all my ability,honesty and sincerity for betterment of all human beings.I will always struggle to work restlessly to innovate the processes of engineering technology for achieving highest efficiency of natural resources so as to keep environment clean. . I will be fully supporting the positive events and will act as catalyst for the Growth OF THE Society, which made me an Engineer, and I will return to the Society much more than what my self and my dependents have taken from the society "

DHAYANANDHAN.S