1. CS 481 Group 2 Jonathan Rile Brandon Strickland

2.  A company named Antenna Engineering designed a new TV antenna to be put up.  They hired Riggers, Inc. to hoist the antenna.  Riggers, Inc. started putting up the antenna, and then realized there was an issue with the last section of the antenna.  Microwave baskets on the last section interfered with the lifting cables.

3.  Once Riggers, Inc. realized this would be an issue, they contacted Antenna Engineering.  They asked if they could remove the microwave baskets and then re-attach them once the last section was attached.

4.  Antenna Engineering had this issue in the past, and allowed the company to do what Riggers, Inc. was asking.  The microwave baskets were not re-attached correctly in the prior case, costing Antenna Engineering a large amount of money to repair.  They declined, and blamed Riggers, Inc. for not paying enough attention to the plans before accepting the job.

5.  Riggers, Inc. decided to create a makeshift extension that would allow the lifting of the final section.  After they designed the extension, they reached out to Antenna Engineering again to ask if a engineer would review the design of their extension since they had no professional engineer on site.  Antenna Engineering denied, did not want to be held liable if something went wrong.

6.  Something did indeed go wrong: the stress in the bolts was 7 times what the design called for.  The extension failed, and caused the death of 5 technicians.

7.  Rules of Practice 1: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.  Antenna Engineering did not review the extension.  They also did not allow the alternative of temporarily removing the baskets.  Riggers, Inc. did not have a professional engineer review the design.

8.  Rules of Practice 4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.  Antenna Engineering had an inadequate design that did not account for the microwave baskets, even after having the same issue with the previous antenna.

9.  Rules of Practice 2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.  On the other hand, Riggers, Inc. did not review the plans for the antenna carefully enough to realize that there was a problem with the microwave baskets.

10.  Antenna Engineering could have designed the antennas so there would not be an issue with the baskets.  Antenna Engineering could have allowed Riggers, Inc. to temporarily remove the baskets.  Riggers, Inc. could have reviewed the plans more carefully.

11.  Riggers, Inc. could have had a professional engineer review the plans even after being denied by Antenna Engineering.  Antenna Engineering could have referred Riggers, Inc. to a capable engineer for review of their plan.

12.  Designed the antenna so there would not be an issue with lifting it.  If there still was an issue, put human safety over money.  Allow alternatives, such as removing the baskets temporarily.  Refer Riggers, Inc. to a professional engineer.

13. For our online tool, there aren’t many ethical issues that come into play. However, we do have to deal with issues such as protecting personal data.

14.  We need to make sure that all personal data that is entered by the user when registered that they do not wish to be made public are stored securely in our database. We will do this by storing personal information (such as passwords) as a hash.