EDITORIAL

Engineering Responsibility in Ensuring Safety
– A Call to Conscience

The tragic events of recent days have brought renewed focus to the immense responsibility engineers bear in protecting human life. On 13th June 2025, the crash of Air India Flight 171 claimed all lives onboard, shaking the global aviation community. Just two days later, on 15th June, an untimely death of a 19-year-old youth was reported in following the collapse of an elevator at a hotel in Moratuwa. While the causes of these incidents differ, both serve as stark reminders that the systems we design, maintain, and monitor can have life-or-death consequences when they fail, whether due to technical fault, oversight, or human error.

In the case of the Air India tragedy, preliminary reports indicate that the crash was linked to the unintended deployment of the aircraft's Ram Air Turbine (RAT), reportedly triggered mistakenly by the co-pilot during the takeover. Though the RAT is a vital emergency system designed to provide power during total engine failure, its activation under normal flying conditions introduced severe aerodynamic instability. This incident illustrates a delicate and important reality: not all failures stem from mechanical faults or poor maintenance. Sometimes, human error plays a central role. However, this does not absolve engineers of responsibility. On the contrary, it demands even more robust, fail-safe system design. Aircraft control systems, for example, must be built to resist inadvertent activation of critical components, through clearer design logic, guarded switches, or automated fail-safes that require multiple confirmations before deployment. Human error, though often inevitable, must not lead to irreversible outcomes if safety engineering is done right.

Similarly, in Moratuwa, a lift reportedly collapsed suddenly at the Bolgoda Hotel, causing the death of a young man. While the investigation is ongoing, the nature of the incident points to serious concerns about mechanical reliability or the absence of timely inspections. Elevators, widely used and often taken for granted, must adhere to stringent safety checks. Routine maintenance and structural audits must be treated not as optional practices, but as critical obligations, especially in public spaces. It is unacceptable for any vertical transport system to fail in a way that endangers life.

>Beyond aircraft and elevators, building fire safety presents another recurring challenge. Numerous urban fires, both locally and globally, have revealed gaps in design and enforcement, whether due to substandard wiring, missing fire exits, or disabled alarm systems. Engineers must go beyond compliance and consider how fire safety systems will perform years after construction, under stress, and during emergencies. Our responsibility does not end at commissioning; it continues for the full operational life of the systems we design.

These examples collectively speak to a deeper principle: the engineering profession is bound by an ethical duty to anticipate failure modes, including those triggered by human mistakes. While operators must be trained and held accountable, it is the engineer’s job to build environments that are forgiving, intuitive, and capable of safeguarding life even when things go wrong. Blaming the operator alone, without questioning whether the system could have been designed to prevent or contain the error, is not just incomplete, it is unjust.

In the face of these tragedies, the engineering community must reassert its commitment to safety with renewed seriousness. We must design with foresight, maintain with diligence, and review with humility. At every stage, from conception to daily use, our work must reflect a culture that values human life above all else. It is not enough that our systems work; they must work safely, even under the strain of the unexpected. That is the mark of true engineering responsibility.

Eng. Suran Fernando
Editor, SLEN
suran.fernando@gmail.com
editor.slen@iesl.lk