New Zealand Engineering 1997 August

Editorial

On a Wing and an Oath?

Peter King, editor

When an aeroplane hits the ground there are often two people responsible and only one of them is in the plane. Pilots don't set out to crash. Sitting in the front seat with the controls in their hands and a drop below makes them acutely aware that if they stuff up they risk injury or death. Aeronautical engineers don't intend to do bad work, but there is a big difference. If an aeronautical engineer allows inadequate maintenance to pass they may only risk their livelihoods, not their actual lives.

While it is easy to blame Ansett flight 703 pilot Gary Southeran and first officer Barry Brown for failing to take proper precautions while trying to simultaneously land and get a stuck wheel down on approach into Palmerston North airport on 9 June 1995, it should not be forgotten that if an engineer somewhere had done their job properly the wheel wouldn't have been a problem. Equally, United Aviation pilot Tim Thompson might still be alive today if the aircraft he was flying had been properly maintained.

Air operators face four major costs in their market: fuel, capital, staff and maintenance. The cost of fuel and capital is basically the same to all competitors which leaves only staff and maintenance costs to compete on. For smaller, and perhaps some larger, air operators this is where the trimming knives come out, where maintenance is skimped, systems fudged and the romance of working in aviation is cynically tapped.

But what does an aeronautical engineer do when the boss isn't worried about scheduled maintenance, the company just needs this contract to keep up the payments and an aeroplane to carry it out? Does the engineer insist? Threaten the employer with a report to the Civil Aviation Authority? Go public? Or does the engineer not risk their own livelihood, keep the peace at home, and keep their head down? Recent revelations in the aviation industry suggest that for a long time it has been more of the latter than the former. The attitude has been that it is up to the authorities to catch poor engineering out.

Such behaviour is obviously unethical. If a doctor or nurse thinks their hospital is risking patients' lives we expect them to blow the whistle. But how are engineers (of any discipline) who, through their claim to integrity and competence, are charged with designing and maintaining vital systems any different to doctors? Perhaps the answer is that engineers do not take a public oath to preserve life and public safety. They offer no warranties. Perhaps it's time they did.

Some engineers have been concerned to see the status of their profession elevated in the public mind. But with status comes risk. When the aeroplane crashes, when the dam breaks, when the water poisons, it's not enough to hide behind a body corporate, a profession has to take responsibility. A membership oath might at least be the first step towards the integrity the public expects of its leading technical professionals.