Group # 18: Child Safety Device Group Members: Jacob Sutton, Zainab Alamri Samuel Wood, Reem Al Alshikh

Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse What happened?  On July 17, 1981, a pair of spanning walkways within the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri, collapsed onto the first floor of the atrium below in the middle of a tea-dance party the hotel was hosting.  114 people were killed and at least 200 others were injured.

Why did it happen?  A change in the original designs for the walkways doubled the load and compromised its integrity  Even if the change wasn’t made, the original plans did not meet the minimum requirements for Kansas City building laws.

What were the consequences?  G.C.E., the engineering firm which had been hired to design and construct the hotel, and its owners were charged and found guilty of gross negligence, misconduct, and unprofessional conduct in the practice of engineering.  The firm’s owners Jack D. Gillum and Daniel M. Duncan lost their licenses to practice engineering in the state of Missouri.  G.C.E. was stripped of its certificate of authority as an engineering firm and shortly afterwards went bankrupt.

What ethics were broken?  From the IEEE Code of Ethics (Section 7.8 of the IEEE Policies), Rules 1, 7, and 9:  “to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment.”  “to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others.”  “to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action.”  From the Rules of Practice from the NSPE’S Code of Ethics, Rules 1, 3, 13, and 16:  “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”  “Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards.”  “Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.”  “Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.”

How could this have been prevented?  G.C.E. neglected to double check its designs throughout the design and construction phases or didn’t report any problems.  Critical moments:  After the fabricator submitted changes to the designs, which G.C.E. had to approve  After a partial collapse of the atrium roof during construction on October 14, 1979

What could we have done to prevent this?  We would have made sure that all plans were in accordance to Kansas City building laws and AISC Specifications.  If any problems were discovered, work would begin on corrections and the client would be notified.

Tacoma Bridge What happened ?  On November 7, 1940, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Puget Sound, Washington fall down and was destroyed. It is failure was one of the biggest disaster caused by engineers.  It collapsed because of a windy condition, speed of 42mph (68km/h).  One person and his dog was on the bridge at the time of its failure, the man survived while the dog died.

What ethics were broken?  From the IEEE Code of Ethics (Section 7.8 of the IEEE Policies), Rules 1, 3, 7, and 9:  “to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment.”  “to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data”  “to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others.”  “to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action.”  From the Rules of Practice from the ACM’S Code of Ethics, Rules 1.2, 1.3, and 2.1:  1.2 Avoid harm to others.  1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.  2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness and dignity in both the process and products of professional work.

How could this have been prevented?  In designing a bridge all the natural forces should be considered and studied very well.  The bridge should be tested for all the aerodynamics like wind speed, pressure, resistance, etc.  Whenever the designers notice any strange motion on the bridge, they should take an action and improve the design.

What could we have done to prevent this?  We will test and apply all the possible natural forces to the bridge before the day of its opening.  If we will observe any aerodynamic instability, or resonance, we are going to improve the design.

Ford Pinto  Ford Pinto designed to weight no more than 2000 lbs. & cost $2000.  The first model year for the pinto was in 1971.

What are the circumstances of this disaster? The placement of the gas tank in ford pinto was in wrong position & needed improvements. Because if the cars are struck from the rear it can cause fire. Ford was aware of this defect but it decided not to make improvement because redesigning the pinto was far too high.

What key ethical principles were involved?  Ford was more concerned about money than safety. (cost-benefits analysis)  Ford did not consider the lives which would be saved if they modified the design.  From the IEEE Code of Ethics (Section 7.8 of the IEEE Policies), Rules 1, 7 and 9:  to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment.  to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others  to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action.

What key ethical principles were involved?  From National Highway Travel Safety Administration(NHTSA)  Requirements for rear end collisions.  From (NSPE) National Society of Professional Engineers (1):  1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.  From the Rules of Practice from the ACM’S Code of Ethics, Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 2.1:  1.1 Contribution to society and human well-being.  1.2 Avoid harm to others.  1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.  2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness and dignity in both the process and products of professional work.

How could this disaster have been avoided? If ford considered redesign the fuel tank which was going to cost $11 per car  What actions could you have taken if you were part of the project in question?  Take enough time studying the design before manufacturing it.  Redesign the pinto despite the loss.

Our Project Software for tracking children with GPS through a mobile app  Privacy - Tracking data being collected and transmitted should be kept private.  Safety - Our project is meant to improve the safety of children. - Reliability is vital to doing so.

Privacy  Ethics Codes - ACM Code of Ethics: Section 1.7: "Respect the privacy of others" details responsibility to prevent unauthorized access to personal information. - NSPE Code of Ethics: "Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code."  What we can do - Use encryption when transmitting private data - Limit access to particular tracking devices to appropriate users

Safety  Ethics Codes - IEEE Code of Ethics: "[IEEE members agree] to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment." - ACM Code of Ethics: Section 1.2: "Avoid harm to others" describes the need to minimize the possibility for a product to cause harm to its users.  What we can do - Design for reliability in all steps of design and implementation - Test the code thoroughly to identify reliability issues