Ethical Team-Based Design

C h r i s t o p h e r S a l d a n a , P h . D .W o o d r u f f S c h o o l o f M e c h a n i c a l E n g i n e e r i n gG e o r g i a I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g yA t l a n t a , G e o r g i a U S A

2

• Understand ethical responsibilities in engineering design• Identify major ethical design/engineering issues in

historical and contemporary contexts• Apply these important principles in pursuit of team-based

design problems

Learning Objectives

3

ASME Code of EthicsFundamental PrinciplesFundamental Canon

Case StudiesHistorical Cases – NASA (Apollo 1 / Challenger / Columbia)Contemporary Cases

A few more thoughts on the ME2110 Final Project

Today’s Agenda

4

Engineers uphold and advance integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by:

I. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare;

II. being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity their clients (including their employers) and the public; and

III. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession.

Fundamental Principles (ASME Code of Ethics)

https://www.asme.org/about-asme/advocacy-government-relations/ethics-in-engineering

5

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.

2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence; they shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.

3. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and shall provide opportunities for the professional and ethical development of those engineers under their supervision.

4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Fundamental Canons (ASME Code of Ethics)

6

5. Engineers shall respect the proprietary information and intellectual property rights of others, including charitable organizations and professional societies in the engineering field.

6. Engineers shall associate only with reputable persons or organizations. 7. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful

manner and shall avoid any conduct which brings discredit upon the profession.

8. Engineers shall consider environmental impact and sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.

9. Engineers shall not seek ethical sanction against another engineer unless there is good reason to do so under the relevant codes, policies and procedures governing that engineer’s ethical conduct.

Fundamental Canons (ASME Code of Ethics)

7

10. Engineers who are members of the Society shall endeavor to abide by the Constitution, By-Laws and Policies of the Society, and they shall disclose knowledge of any matter involving another member’s alleged violation of this Code of Ethics or the Society’s Conflicts of Interest Policy in a prompt, complete and truthful manner to the chair of the Ethics Committee.

Fundamental Canons (ASME Code of Ethics)

8

1. Apollo 1: fire during launch test

2. Space Shuttle Challenger: shuttle failure on takeoff

3. Space Shuttle Columbia: shuttle failure on re-entry

4. Boeing 737 MAX – 2 hull losses on takeoff

Historical Case Studies

nasa.gov wsj.com

9

Accident Date: 27 January 1967

Crew: G. Grissom, E. White, R. Chaffee

Condition: ‘Plugs-out’ test (pressurized, no umbilical)

Official causes:1. Ignition source due to faulty/frayed wiring2. Pure O2 atmosphere at greater than atmospheric pressure3. Combustible materials in cabin (e.g., Velcro)4. Inadequate emergency preparedness

Root issue: failure modes analysis

Case 1: Apollo 1 Spacecraft

nasa.gov

time.com

10

Case 2: Space Shuttle ChallengerAccident Date: 28 January 1986

Crew: F. Scobee, M. Smith, R. McNair, E. Onizuka, J. Resnik, G. Jarvis, C. McAuliffe

Condition: Shuttle takeoff

Official causes:1. Low-temperature O-ring failure in SRB2. Failure in communication during/before launch day3. Flawed NASA management structure

Root issues: communication breakdown, groupthink nasa.gov

11

History: Social psychological phenomenon developed by I. Janis (1972)

Characteristic: Group of people make non-optimal decisions due to urge to conform and/or discouragement of dissent

Groupthink

Influencing conditions: Cohesiveness of the group, rules governing decision-making process, leadership character, social homogeneity, situational context

12

Case 3: Space Shuttle ColumbiaAccident Date: 01 February 2003

Crew: R. Husband, W. McCool, M. Anderson, K. Chawla, D. Brown, L. Clark, I. Ramon

Condition: Atmospheric re-entry

Official causes:1. Foam from external tank struck left wing on takeoff2. Impact caused breach in wing and heat shield3. Re-entry gases caused vehicle failure

Identified issue: decision-making and risk-assessment processes nasa.gov

13

Case 4: Boeing 737 MAXDetail: 2017 intro date, 387 in service, 500k flights, 2 losses

Accident 1: 29 October 2018 (JT610), 181 pax / 8 crew

Accident 2: 10 March 2019 (ET302), 149 pax / 8 crew

International Grounding: 13 March 2019 (FAA)

Design Causes: Manuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) and Angle of Attack (AOA) Sensors

Potential System-Level Causes:1. Limited pilot preparation and awareness (training, flight manuals)2. Aggressive new product introduction timetables

wsj.com

14

Case 4: Boeing 737 MAX

wsj.com

15

Case 4: Boeing 737 MAX

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW00/20191211/110296/HHRG-116-PW00-Wstate-PiersonE-20191211.pdf

16

Case 4: Boeing 737 MAXTARAM – Transport Airplane Risk Assessment Methodology

TARAM calculates specific levels of risk associated with identifiable design flaws in transport airplanes, in support of Monitor Safety/Analyze Data (MSAD) regulation required by FAA Order 8110.107.

MSAD is a safety management process to promote continuing operational safety throughout the life cycle of aviation products.

TARAM aims at helping safety decision makers to determine whether corrective action, in the form of an Airworthiness Directive (AD), is necessary, regarding an individual airplane or a whole fleet.

NLR-CR-2012-582, “Unified Framework for FAA Risk Assessment and Risk Management Toolset of Methods for Safety Risk Management”, 2013.

17

Case 4: Boeing 737 MAX

https://www.flightglobal.com/download?ac=65911

Probability

Detectability

Severity

TARAM for B737 MAX JT610 Incident Date – 29 October 2018FAA TARAM Date – 03 December 2018

18

Case 4: Boeing 737 MAX

https://www.flightglobal.com/download?ac=65911

Total uncorrected fleet risk (RT) - # of events statistically expected in the remaining life of the affected fleet if no corrective action is taken as a result of the identified hazard.

RT = [U x T x Σ x F] x [CP] x [IR]U = Utilization in hours/dayT = Remaining fleet lifeΣ = # of airplanes in affected fleet F = Frequency of occurrenceCP = Conditional probability(s)IR = Injury ratio(s)

TARAM Risk Assessment

19

Case 4: Boeing 737 MAX

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/83ec7f95f3e5bfbd8625833e0070a070/$FILE/2018-23-51_Emergency.pdf

20

Case 4: Boeing 737 MAX

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/83ec7f95f3e5bfbd8625833e0070a070/$FILE/2018-23-51_Emergency.pdf

21

Can include:• Class assignments/presentations• Class examinations• Qualifying examinations• Archival publications/proceedings• MS/doctoral theses• Use of network resources• Official forms• Purchasing

Can impact:• Grades

• Degrees (post-hoc)

• Employment

• Funding ability

• Freedom

Ethics / Honor Code at GT

22

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism• Ithenticate - iThenticate is a plagiarism detection tool optimized for

researchers and authors. iThenticate enables researchers to ensure the originality of written work before submission to conferences, journals, and funding agencies. It also enables authors and staff members to check originality of written works such as press releases and Web pages prior to publication.

• Turnitin - Turnitin is a plagiarism detection tool optimized for use in the classroom (physical or online). Turnitin enables faculty and students to check written drafts and assignments against a large database of academic materials for originality. Other useful features include:

23

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism

• Plagiarism – Copying someone else’s work and passing it off as your own work.

• Self-Plagiarism – Copying your own work from published texts and reusing it in new publications and submissions.

Pay attention to copyright, reuse, etc.Who owns the rights to your work?What can you repost and what files can you make available?

24

Ithenticate

25

Turnitin / Canvas

26

Turnitin / Canvas

27

Retraction Watch

Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers and on related topics.

34

• Understand ethical responsibilities in engineering design• Identify major ethical design/engineering issues in

historical and contemporary contexts• Apply these important principles in pursuit of team-based

design problems

Learning Objectives

35

Appendix

36

GT HC – student responsibilities (S3) - IStudents are expected to act according to the highest ethical standards. The immediate objective of an Academic Honor Code is to prevent any Students from gaining an unfair advantage over other Students through academic misconduct. Such acts include but need not be limited to the following:• Possessing, using or exchanging improperly acquired written or verbal

information in the preparation of any essay, laboratory report, examination, or other assignment included in an academic course;

• Substitution for, or unauthorized collaboration with, a Student in the commission of academic requirements;

• Submission of material that is wholly or substantially identical to that created or published by another person or person, without adequate credit notations indicating authorship (plagiarism);

37

GT HC – student responsibilities (S3) - IIStudents are expected to act according to the highest ethical standards. The immediate objective of an Academic Honor Code is to prevent any Students from gaining an unfair advantage over other Students through academic misconduct. Such acts include but need not be limited to the following:• False claims of performance or work that has been submitted by the claimant; • Alteration or insertion of any academic grade or rating so as to obtain

unearned academic credit; • Deliberate falsification of a written or verbal statement of fact to a member of

the Faculty so as to obtain unearned academic credit; • Forgery, alteration or misuse of any Institute document relating to the

academic status of the Student.