INTRODUCTION. Dear Nichole and Warren,
This note is really a non-confidential letter on EMPATHY to a Professor, which has a number of cases where empathy proved to be vital in problem solving. It may be of interest to younger persons.
Looking back empathy, unknowingly at the time, helped me to suitably react to solve some difficult cases; and must have come naturally because of my upbringing by my mum, dad, Barb and many friendships and wide experiences including the Great Depression and WW II which had a great impact on all.
Remember I am only an engineer brought up in “slate” days.
Hope it helps. Stan A.
LETTER 13/11/2020
Dear Professor,
1 Your general email news letter late last year asked for comment on “Empathy in engineering”. I recalled a good case and was intending to send some notes.
But with heart disease and sudden pneumonia meant hospital and no notes. I started slowly again this year, was gradually recovering, and after Easter in hospital, started again on this note (and catching up with some engineering and mentoring)
2 I am no expert on empathy; and for this note define it as “the ability to understand the thoughts, feelings or emotions of someone else”. (It can be positive or negative ie you feel the happy or sad emotions etc of others)
3 The Cases and notes below may be of help to you and your learners in any way you like. They deal with negative empathy (cf negative risk) and not the many positive cases experienced in life as a balance.
Sorry it’s late but just in case. Recalling them is also helping me.
4 When you are young – say below 20 you don’t think much about empathy except when you see a close family member or friend badly affected by something. As you get older the little experiences pile up and you are more likely to realize that empathy is important in life, human relations (and engineering).
5 The following are some real cases in engineering:
Case 1. Oil Tank Explosion. I am a technologist, applied scientist or engineer but what do you do when about 1986 asked to reply to a letter to the Minister from a mother in Ireland just before Christmas. She had just learned her son was one of 5 killed in a NSW refinery explosion mentioned below and she was also very worried that he might have caused the deaths. I drafted the reply indicating he or his mates had played no role in what happened and the Minister expressed our sympathy. This was right but done before the coroner’s investigation and with the aim softening a sad Christmas.
(Comment. This simple case is typical of issues which face many engineers doing their engineering job. In this case walking among 5 dead men affected me greatly and changed me a bit more. Thinking back, what I did automatically helped me. Thus empathy has two or more sides – like giving -the giver often also gains)
Case 2. Road Tanker Failure In 1950/1 1st year after graduation from UoM I accidentally designed a self- repairing pressure vessel road tanker, and didn’t know it, and that it saved a life. I am sure I had little or no empathy in mind even when specifying 2 (wrong) safety devices and omission of another that is now law. If I had some empathy I might have done better.
I asked a driver a few years later without letting him know my role, what he thought of the tanker (one of 10). He extolled it’s great virtues which were really decided by the tanker’s intended job and road regulations. Thus I couldn’t take any credit. But when asked of any problems he firstly said no, and then suddenly recalled that when standing on the top of the tanker during discharge there was a big bang and shaking of the tanker (that might have killed him if it had collapsed as usually). The rear end, instead of the cylindrical shell, had buckled in, and on refilling later popped back. He showed me the damage and self repair. I had heard of self-sealing aircraft fuel tanks but no other until the same thing happened to a rail tanker at Wiluna in WA 2 years ago.
Some details are: The tankers were for transport of heavy furnace oil from the big oil terminal then at Pt Melbourne to new power station boilers at Richmond & Spencer St.
Road regulations, not me, had determined its main features for max. payload per trip ie GVM = 28 ton; overall length = 44’11 1/2″ max Diameter & width = 8′; thickness = 3 mm; max. axle and wheel loads to suit Vic law.
It was years later that I realized that I had not thought of the driver but almost only of the tank and its support. The design was novel and based on aircraft design thinking.
From this case, and others, the importance is seen of feedback and thinking holistically which includes empathy in the design for all those that could gain or lose by a design flaw ie driver, equipment owner, public and their families.
Case 3 Proposed 50,000 L LPG Underground Pressure Vessel (PV) – NIMBY Public Rally, East Sydney about 1988.
.1 As AD (Asst. Director – Major Hazards) I was asked indirectly by the Minister for Industrial Relations John Fahey to attend the rally near the proposed site at 2pm to see what might be needed. The AD knew very few details, had an open mind and knew a fair bit about LPG and pressure vessels and their hazards – and safety.
.2 The rally was in the open on a nice day. Present were the local MP Clover Moore (now Sydney Lord Mayor) who nicely introduced the AD and very ably controlled the rally, and about 25 local persons, mainly ladies, and the Chief Inspector-Dangerous Goods for possible support.
.3 After about 20 minutes of clear real objections to the PV being installed near their homes, including a baby being thrust almost into the AD arms with “You want to kill my baby?”, the final king-hit came. It was from an erudite lady who had lived near 3 Mile Island nuclear power station in USA, which had failed disastrously. She said that the local bureaucrats had assured all the locals “there was no risk”. She then, pointing her finger at the AD, almost demanded “Now do you, a bureaucrat, tell us there will be no risk to us and our families?”
.4 I was very surprised at being called a bureaucrat. After a very long 2 second delay, the AD said very clearly while looking her straight in the eyes and with a nod – “Yes“. This hushed the crowd, as in effect the government was saying they are putting them all at risk, – and hence they would win.
.5 About another 2 sec. later before any remarks from the crowd, I unconsciously added: “Yes, about the same risk as being hit by a meteorite”. I had not been really prepared for the Q&A but knew a fair bit about risk, early in WW II, and had read months before of a very rare injury to a person in Asia from a meteorite. (The unconscious brain does wonders – giving us a 6th sense (intuition, instinct etc) especially in emergencies. This easily showed simply that the risk was small and probably could be lived with.
.6 Then about 3 sec. delay, he told them of the excellent AU PE safety record.
.7 He followed with brief details of about 8 initial, current and future controls required and checked by government and which were as good as any in the world.
.8 He finished with something like: “government is fully committed to assuring safety now and in the future of all its citizens.” He told what he believed was the truth.
(AU WHS Acts, 2011 and now, require parties to “take no risk, as far as is reasonably practicable”, and they spell out in detail “practicable).
.9 The rally quickly came to an end, all were reasonably assured, the PV was easily installed, Minister was happy, progress was made, and it is understood the PV is still performing safely after 30 years.
The whole event took less than an hour and no paperwork. I know of no problem after 1/3 century but the first problem is likely to be a pinhole leak from external corrosion which is easily detected with the odourised LPG.
(Unplanned, no BS and the whole truth and being objective, holistic and thinking about the impact, turned out to be the solution, helped I feel by JC &/or luck. Australians are getting more sensitive and wiser especially when they know all the true facts)
.10 Comment The success was largely due to a number of factors and unconscious actions:
a) Authoritative: 10 years before, the AD had left the AU Welding Research Assn. as Chief Engineer, to join the DIR as Chief Inspector of Boilers. It was a shock, thought of leaving after the first week but when he asked Jack Fitzgerald 2ic of DIR what was really needed, he got one the best pieces of advice. “You have been appointed to represent the government technically on boilers etc issues. We know very little about boilers and we rely on you but:
i) don’t do as an earlier CIB had done. Just after WW II NSW needed an oil refinery and had advanced discussions for the big Caltex Refinery at Kurnell. Caltex asked the CIB for technical safety requirements to be met. As per regulations they had to comply with AU Standards even though they were out of date due to WW II. Caltex would not comply and the government needing a refinery gave an exemption. (It worked well for 60 years and was decommissioned in 2016); and
ii) don’t get the Minister in the shit”.
It summed it up and communicated it excellently what was needed and importantly clarified CIB’s authority – and was an essential element for resolution of many difficulties and to make national progress -“the price of which is problems”. (NSW law then gave the Minister powers for exemptions and the CIB, as in early UK law, powers with penalties for limited, mainly technical variations. Examples were the first automatic acceptance of other States’ design and manufacture approvals and certification of various personnel, based on all being Australian)
b) Fair Play. All persons involved in the rally acted perfectly, with an unexpected and unplanned outcome, probably by all being open and honest resulting in trust everywhere. On much reflection recently, the following were some factors leading to the a good meeting and solution, made easier or possible by people’s empathy:
#. Meeting the rally with the backing of the Minister, and as a normal human being, not sure what was to happen, with a completely open mind, that the NIMBY thinking can be right or wrong, not arrogant nor overconfident but with the belief there was an optimum solution. He had brought the Chief Inspector of Dangerous Goods for possible support – it came in the form of confidence and support (I did not think of him as a witness or to impress the meeting). All of this probably did not off-put people or upset them more but hinted at a possible fair or reasonable outcome.
#. Clover Moore set a good tone and did a good job with whole rally. She was trusted, understanding and sympathetic to her constituents, met me for the first time and introduced me nicely. This helped me. Also there were no rocks, eggs, bad language or fights. Clover Moore’s reputation, interest and manner helped make the rally peaceful – very important for an objective and optimum outcome.
c) Show Empathy He listened and looked closely at various speakers and probably gave a little nod when he agreed. He cannot remember showing any disagreement or saying anything during all of this – even with the baby incident where he nicely didn’t accept the baby.
d). Learn of Concerns He learned first hand of their concerns with the proposed pressure vessel near their block of flats and homes, and of their and others safety. They knew about the high hazards and serious failures overseas with LPG BLEVES etc.(AU has had only 2 that I know with one death).
e) Prove Trust Saying Yes as in .3 above was a big key solution as it agreed with them and answered a then very difficult government question perfectly honestly and so developed TRUST. (AD still knows nothing of body language except the nod came involuntary in the communication)
f) Advise Risk Showing very low risk in simple easily understood manner , instead of expressing the low probabilities of PV failure and of its consequence ie harm, in complex numbers. It showed the risk was small compared with risks they normally encounter, accept and live with.
g) Prove Low Risk Showed in .6 and .7 above the logic, evidence and and basis of statements above and covered the safety record and all aspects past, present and future. He advised of the 7 or 8 controls and intermittent and continuous checks to achieve very remote risk and so be safe, and also of the great AU and NSW safety record to date with this type of plant (proof that controls actually worked).
h) Give Assurance. He gave a concern and commitment of the government which may have added more authenticity or authority to what was said- and was consistent with 2 senior technologists being sent by the Minister.
i). Recommendation – take heed of the Prof. Frei (see Appendix below) and this Case.
6 Change and Empathy. Some further comments:
a) This note has been changed with some things removed and others added.
“Many brave men, women and young people are now doing something about further changes needed. One of these was the Governor General resisting the very recent intense media etc request to remove an AO from a woman who supported a detective’s comment on a disaster that impacted on him.
b) I personally know what that sort of thing can do to you. When about 62 I walked among 5 dead blokes burnt in a refinery explosion which I was investigating when still on fire, and subsequently recommended technical changes. Being older I had empathy for the many affected – as in Case 1.
c) During WW II young people generally were briefly sorry for the person listed as killed and themselves sad, but had little empathy for others unless one in the family or close friends or mates were killed or wounded . But when 18 in RAAF I saw 4 aircrew killed and burnt in a crash at take-off. Most ground crew did not know the aircrew and basically thought or expressed “Poor bastards – got the chop” and went on with our job with little or no conscious empathy – then. (Years later I learnt that 200 had been killed there by accidents in 4 years)
d) But on the other hand I have seen my wife and great mates die. All very un-nice and I am still upset by these and what happened in WW II despite not facing enemy fire. It all piles up and I am holding back tears from my iPad but not so on ANZAC Day. Earlier this year at a party in answering an innocent question I recalled the above WW II incident and I had tears running from my eyes and couldn’t speak for a minute – 75 years later.
e) Empathy comes easy for those affected. You get it by experience. death, failure, poor, hungry, discrimination and great loss, and the older you get the more you get.
f) For Engineers et al the key is HOLISTIC ie look at a job from all angles and also think or design for ALL eg designer, builder, user, owner, cleaner, maintainer, inspector, disposal people , public and environment; and consider safety and health, resources, security, maintenance, aesthetics, and aim for a better world and national net benefit with negligible penalty to anyone.
7 Professor,
I hope this helps you and your students around empathy,
Regards and good luck
Stan.
[Case 4 Boy Killed in Pressure Cooker (Added 21/4/2021)
About 1983 a maintenance foreman and a boy about 18 y were carrying out maintenance inside a large pressure cooker when low pressure steam was suddenly admitted into the cooker. The foreman was nearest to the manhole and escaped first followed by the apprentice. Both suffered severe burns and were so serious on the boy that he died 2 days later. The foreman was incapacitated for months.
My inspectors investigated the incident and determined the causes – computer controlled steam discharge from an adjacent cooker flowed down the discharge pipe, common for all the cookers, and past a defective non-return valve back into the open cooker. Ultimately the company was fined.
The death of their only son had a huge impact on his parents, and soon after also on my inspectors who frequently had an angry father ring them to get justice and as good an outcome as possible. This happened for nearly 6 months as government wheels turn slowly. We all had empathy for the parents, especially when we learnt that the law gave them no compensation. As a result I wrote up the line that the law should allow for the fine to give reasonable grief therapy for persons seriously impacted by an industrial accident.
I hope that the latest WHS laws in 2021 make provision for suitable compensation. AS/NZS 3788-2006 now gives guidance on suitable isolation of pressure equipment.]
APPENDIX
This Note was part of a note on Change in PE triggered on 11/5/2018 by Prof Frances Frei of Harvard Business School TED Talk on Trust April 2018. In summary, she said:
a) Trust is vital for human progress.
b) Essential elements to gain trust are: Authenticity + Logic. + Empathy
i) Empathy – requires them to clearly sense you honestly care about their concern.
ii) Logic -requires that there is a very sound basis for the change + you clearly get this message to them
iii) Authenticity -requires you establish clearly for them that you …??(LECTURE CEASED). This is to be checked. It might finish with something like “…. are solid, not acting, no B/S, have and show you have a lot of clues, are honest, of high integrity, highly experienced, excellent progressive record of achievements, know holisticallyyour subject, and your reputation is good with peers, bosses and others. Nobody probably has all these attributes, but you need a few.
Author CV: Born 1926, 1929-35 Great Depression, dad out of work, sister born at home, me operated on dining table with Mum as nurse, twice had acute rheumatic fever, state and high schools, job hunting in 1942, back to school, leaving certificate but not matriculated, clerk, RAAF flight mechanic WW II (got close to God), luckily demobbed very early, with special rules for ex-service personnel and declining to go back to school was admitted to University of Melb 1946-49 for – ? I was not sure. It turned out to be B.MechE. This really woke me up and changed my life – I had slept and studied in a small unlined asbestos cement garden shed for the first 3 Uni. years and then on an half-open back verandah in 4th year when at 22 I married a fantastic girl next door (Barb). We both slept there for 4 years as there was a Postwar rule was for married girls to give jobs to ex-service personnel), but similar rules helped 4th year to get a loan below the basic wage. Sounds bad but we were very happy. First job in 1949 was packing Christmas presents at Myers, then great experience with 4 different unplanned engineering jobs accidentally complementing each other, 3 terrific sons and families, and then at 52 became a tech. bureaucrat in NSW with a big role in many technical changes that saved about 30 lives and $200 million, retired 1989, then Director of a PV company which later got AU Exporter of Year Award from the PM with new technology, an OAM (1/2 Barb’s) for new PE standards and technology, and then help and feedback to many, didn’t kill anyone but went close, and at 94 alive, unfit, happy, still practising, living alone and lean, missing Barb and still learning – all thanks to great family, thousands of people at all levels and disciplines, great mates, and many helpers, Docs. and lot of luck &/or JC. SA. 13/11/2020
—————////////——————-
Below is the version from 10/5/2021
INTRODUCTION
This note is really a non-confidential letter on EMPATHY to a Professor, which has a number of cases where empathy proved to be vital in problem solving. It may be of interest to younger persons.
Looking back empathy, unknowingly at the time, helped me to suitably react to solve some difficult cases; and must have come naturally because of my upbringing by my mum, dad, Barb and many friendships and wide experiences including the Great Depression and WW II which had a great impact on all.
Remember I am only an engineer brought up in “slate” days.
Hope it helps. Stan A.
LETTER 13/11/2020
Dear Professor,
1 Your general email news letter late last year asked for comment on “Empathy in engineering”. I recalled a good case and was intending to send some notes.
But with heart disease and sudden pneumonia meant hospital and no notes. I started slowly again this year, was gradually recovering, and after Easter in hospital, started again on this note (and catching up with some engineering and mentoring)
2 I am no expert on empathy; and for this note define it as “the ability to understand the thoughts, feelings or emotions of someone else”. (It can be positive or negative ie you feel the happy or sad emotions etc of others)
3 The Cases and notes below may be of help to you and your learners in any way you like. They deal with negative empathy (cf negative risk) and not the many positive cases experienced in life as a balance.
Sorry it’s late but just in case. Recalling them is also helping me.
4 When you are young – say below 20 you don’t think much about empathy except when you see a close family member or friend badly affected by something. As you get older the little experiences pile up and you are more likely to realize that empathy is important in life, human relations (and engineering).
5 The following are some real cases in engineering:
Case 1. Oil Tank Explosion. I am a technologist, applied scientist or engineer but what do you do when about 1986 asked to reply to a letter to the Minister from a mother in Ireland just before Christmas. She had just learned her son was one of 5 killed in a NSW refinery explosion mentioned below and she was also very worried that he might have caused the deaths. I drafted the reply indicating he or his mates had played no role in what happened and the Minister expressed our sympathy. This was right but done before the coroner’s investigation and with the aim softening a sad Christmas.
(Comment. This simple case is typical of issues which face many engineers doing their engineering job. In this case walking among 5 dead men affected me greatly and changed me a bit more. Thinking back, what I did automatically helped me. Thus empathy has two or more sides – like giving)
Case 2. Road Tanker Failure In 1950/1 1st year after graduation from UoM I accidentally designed a self- repairing pressure vessel road tanker, and didn’t know it, and that it saved a life. I am sure I had little or no empathy in mind even when specifying 2 (wrong) safety devices and omission of another that is now law. If I had some empathy I might have done better.
I asked a driver a few years later without letting him know my role, what he thought of the tanker (one of 10). He extolled it’s great virtues which were really decided by the tanker’s intended job and road regulations. Thus I couldn’t take any credit. But when asked of any problems he firstly said no, and then suddenly recalled that when standing on the top of the tanker during discharge there was a big bang and shaking of the tanker (that might have killed him if it had collapsed as usually). The rear end, instead of the cylindrical shell, had buckled in, and on refilling later popped back. He showed me the damage and self repair. I had heard of self-sealing aircraft fuel tanks but no other until the same thing happened to a rail tanker at Wiluna in WA 2 years ago.
Some details are: The tankers were for transport of heavy furnace oil from the big oil terminal then at Pt Melbourne to new power station boilers at Richmond & Spencer St.
Road regulations, not me, had determined its main features for max. payload per trip ie GVM = 28 ton; overall length = 44’11 1/2″ max Diameter & width = 8′; thickness = 3 mm; max. axle and wheel loads to suit Vic law.
It was years later that I realized that I had not thought of the driver but almost only of the tank and its support.
From this case, and others, , the importance is seen of feedback and thinking holistically which includes empathy in the design for all those that could gain or lose by a design flaw ie driver, equipment owner, public and their families.
Case 3 Proposed 50,000 L LPG Underground Pressure Vessel (PV) – NIMBY Public Rally, East Sydney about 1988.
.1 As AD (Asst. Director – Major Hazards) I was asked indirectly by the Minister for Industrial Relations John Fahey to attend the rally near the proposed site at 2pm to see what might be needed. The AD knew very few details, had an open mind and knew a fair bit about LPG and pressure vessels and their hazards – and safety.
.2 The rally was in the open on a nice day. Present were the local MP Clover Moore (now Sydney Lord Mayor) who nicely introduced the AD and very ably controlled the rally, and about 25 local persons, mainly ladies, and the Chief Inspector-Dangerous Goods for possible support.
.3 After about 20 minutes of clear real objections to the PV being installed near their homes, including a baby being thrust almost into the AD arms with “You want to kill my baby?”, the final king-hit came. It was from an erudite lady who had lived near 3 Mile Island nuclear power station in USA, which had failed disastrously. She said that the local bureaucrats had assured all the locals “there was no risk”. She then, pointing her finger at the AD, almost demanded “Now do you, a bureaucrat, tell us there will be no risk to us and our families?”
.4 After a very long 2 second delay, the AD said very clearly while looking her straight in the eyes and with a nod – “Yes“. This hushed the crowd, as in effect the government was saying they are putting them all at risk, – and hence they would win.
.5 About another 2 sec. later before any remarks from the crowd, I unconsciously added: “Yes, about the same risk as being hit by a meteorite”. I had not been really prepared for the Q&A but knew a fair bit about risk, early in WW II, and had read months before of a very rare injury to a person in Asia from a meteorite. (The unconscious brain does wonders – giving us a 6th sense (intuition, instinct etc) especially in emergencies. This easily showed simply that the risk was small and probably could be lived with.
.6 Then about 3 sec. delay, he told them of the excellent AU PE safety record.
.7 He followed with brief details of about 8 initial, current and future controls required and checked by government and which were as good as any in the world.
.8 He finished with something like: “government is fully committed to assuring safety now and in the future of all its citizens.” He told what he believed was the truth.
(AU WHS Acts, 2011 and now, require parties to “take no risk, as far as is reasonably practicable”, and they spell out in detail “practicable).
.9 The rally quickly came to an end, all were reasonably assured, the PV was easily installed, Minister was happy, progress was made, and it is understood the PV is still performing safely after 30 years.
The whole event took less than an hour and no paperwork. I know of no problem after 1/3 century but the first problem is likely to be a pinhole leak from external corrosion which is easily detected with the odourised LPG.
(Unplanned, no BS and the whole truth and being objective, holistic and thinking about the impact, turned out to be the solution, helped I feel by JC &/or luck. Australians are getting more sensitive and wiser especially when they know all the true facts)
.10 Comment The success was largely due to a number of factors and unconscious actions:
a) Authoritative: 10 years before, the AD had left the AU Welding Research Assn. as Chief Engineer, to join the DIR as Chief Inspector of Boilers. It was a shock, thought of leaving but when he asked Jack Fitzgerald 2ic of DIR what was really needed, he got one the best pieces of advice. “You represent the government technically on boilers etc issues. We know very little about boilers and we rely on you but:
i) don’t do as an earlier CIB had done. Just after WW II NSW needed an oil refinery and had advanced discussions for the big Caltex Refinery at Kurnell. Caltex asked the CIB for technical safety requirements to be met. As per regulations they had to comply with AU Standards even though they were out of date due to WW II. Caltex would not comply and the government needing a refinery gave an exemption. (It worked well for 60 years and was decommissioned in 2016); and
ii) don’t get the Minister in the shit”.
It summed it up and communicated it excellently what was needed and importantly clarified CIB’s authority – and was an essential element for resolution of many difficulties and to make national progress -“the price of which is problems”. (NSW law then gave the Minister powers for exemptions and the CIB, as in early UK law, powers with penalties for limited, mainly technical variations. Examples were the first automatic acceptance of other States’ design and manufacture approvals and certification of various personnel, based on all being Australian)
b) Fair Play. All persons involved in the rally acted perfectly, with an unexpected and unplanned outcome, probably by all being open and honest resulting in trust everywhere. On much reflection recently, the following were some factors leading to the a good meeting and solution, made easier or possible by people’s empathy:
#. Meeting the rally with the backing of the Minister, and as a normal human being, not sure what was to happen, with a completely open mind, that the NIMBY thinking can be right or wrong, not arrogant nor overconfident but with the belief there was an optimum solution. He had brought the Chief Inspector of Dangerous Goods for possible support – it came in the form of confidence and support (I did not think of him as a witness or to impress the meeting). All of this probably did not off-put people or upset them more but hinted at a possible fair or reasonable outcome.
#. Clover Moore set a good tone and did a good job with whole rally. She was trusted, understanding and sympathetic to her constituents, met me for the first time and introduced me nicely. This helped me. Also there were no rocks, eggs, bad language or fights. Clover Moore’s reputation, interest and manner helped make the rally peaceful – very important for an objective and optimum outcome.
c) Show Empathy He listened and looked closely at various speakers and probably gave a little nod when he agreed. He cannot remember showing any disagreement or saying anything during all of this – even with the baby incident where he nicely didn’t accept the baby.
d). Learn of Concerns He learned first hand of their concerns with the proposed pressure vessel near their block of flats and homes, and of their and others safety. They knew about the high hazards and serious failures overseas with LPG BLEVES etc.(AU has had only 2 that I know with one death).
e) Prove Trust Saying Yes as in .3 above was a big key solution as it agreed with them and answered a then very difficult government question perfectly honestly and so developed TRUST. (AD still knows nothing of body language except the nod came involuntary in the communication)
f) Advise Risk Showing very low risk in simple easily understood manner , instead of expressing the low probabilities of PV failure and of its consequence ie harm, in complex numbers. It showed the risk was small compared with risks they normally encounter, accept and live with.
g) Prove Low Risk Showed in .6 and .7 above the logic, evidence and and basis of statements above and covered the safety record and all aspects past, present and future. He advised of the 7 or 8 controls and intermittent and continuous checks to achieve very remote risk and so be safe, and also of the great AU and NSW safety record to date with this type of plant (proof that controls actually worked).
h) Give Assurance. He gave a concern and commitment of the government which may have added more authenticity or authority to what was said- and was consistent with 2 senior technologists being sent by the Minister.
i). Recommendation – take heed of the Prof. Frei (see Appendix below) and this Case.
6 Change and Empathy. Some further comments:
a) This note has been changed with some things removed and others added.
“Many brave men, women and young people are now doing something about further changes needed. One of these was the Governor General rejecting the very recent media etc request to remove an AO from a woman who supported a detective’s comment on a disaster that impacted on him.
b) I personally know what that sort of thing can do to you. When about 62 I walked among 5 dead blokes burnt in a refinery explosion which I was investigating when still on fire, and subsequently recommended technical changes. Being older I had empathy for the many affected – as in Case 1.
c) During WW II young people generally were briefly sorry for the person listed as killed and themselves sad, but had little empathy for others unless one in the family or close friends or mates were killed or wounded . But when 18 in RAAF I saw 4 aircrew killed and burnt in a crash at take-off. Most ground crew did not know the aircrew and basically thought or expressed “Poor bastards – got the chop” and went on with our job with little or no conscious empathy – then.
d) But on the other hand I have seen my wife and great mates die. All not nice and I am still upset by these and what happened in WW II despite not facing enemy fire. It all piles up and I am holding back tears from my iPad but not so on ANZAC Day. Earlier this year at a party in answering an innocent question I recalled the above WW II incident and I had tears running from my eyes and couldn’t speak – 75 years later.
e) Empathy comes easy for those affected. You get it by experience. Death, failure, poor, hungry, discrimination and great loss, and the older you get the more you get.
d) For Engineers et al the key is HOLISTIC ie look at a job from all angles and also think or design for ALL eg designer, builder, user, owner, cleaner, maintenance, inspection and disposal people , and consider safety and health, resources, security, maintenance, aesthetics, and aim for a better world and national net benefit with negligible penalty to anyone.
7 Professor,
I hope this helps you and your students around empathy,
Regards and good luck
Stan.
[Case 4 Boy Killed in Pressure Cooker (Added 21/4/2021)
About 1983 a maintenance foreman and a boy about 18 y were carrying out maintenance inside a large pressure cooker when low pressure steam was suddenly admitted into the cooker. The foreman was nearest to the manhole and escaped first followed by the apprentice. Both suffered severe burns and were so serious on the boy that he died 2 days later. The foreman was incapacitated for months.
My inspectors investigated the incident and determined the causes – computer controlled steam discharge from an adjacent cooker flowed down the discharge pipe, common for all the cookers, and past a defective non-return valve back into the open cooker. Ultimately the company was fined.
The death of their only son had a huge impact on his parents, and soon after also on my inspectors who frequently had an angry father ring them to get justice and as good an outcome as possible. This happened for nearly 6 months as government wheels turn slowly. We all had empathy for the parents, especially when we learnt that the law gave them no compensation. As a result I wrote up the line that the law should allow for the fine to give reasonable grief therapy for persons seriously impacted by an industrial accident.
I hope that the latest WHS laws in 2021 make provision for suitable compensation. AS/NZS 3788-2006 now gives guidance on suitable isolation of pressure equipment.]
APPENDIX
This Note was part of a note on Change in PE triggered on 11/5/2018 by Prof Frances Frei of Harvard Business School TED Talk on Trust April 2018. In summary, she said:
a) Trust is vital for human progress.
b) Essential elements to gain trust are: Authenticity + Logic. + Empathy
I) Empathy – requires them to clearly sense you honestly care about their concern.
II) Logic -requires that there is a very sound basis for the change + you clearly get this message to them
iii) Authenticity -requires you establish clearly for them that you…??(LECTURE CEASED). This is to be checked. It might finish with something like “…. are solid, not acting, no B/S, have and show you have a lot of clues, are honest, of high integrity, highly experienced, excellent progressive record of achievements, know holistically your subject, and your reputation is good with peers, bosses and others. Nobody probably has all these attributes, but you need a few.
Author CV: Born 1926, 1929-35 Great Depression, dad out of work, sister born at home, me operated on dining table with Mum as nurse, twice had acute rheumatic fever, state and high schools, job hunting, back to school, leaving certificate but not matriculated, clerk, RAAF flight mechanic WW II (got close to God), luckily demobbed very early, with special rules for ex-service personnel and declining to go back to school was admitted to University of Melb 1946-49 for – ? I was not sure. It turned out to be B.MechE. This really woke me up and changed my life – I had slept in a small unlined asbestos cement garden shed for the first 3 Uni. years and then on an half-open back verandah in 4th year when at 22 I married a fantastic lady (Barb) – also with no money (postwar rule was for married girls to give job to ex-service personnel), but similar rules helped 4th year to get a loan below the basic wage. Sounds bad but we were very happy. First job in 1949 was packing Christmas presents at Myers, then great experience with 4 different unplanned engineering jobs accidentally complementing each other, 3 terrific sons and families, and then at 52 became a tech. bureaucrat in NSW with a big role in many technical changes that saved about 30 lives and $200 million, retired 1989, then Director of a PV company which got AU Exporter of Year Award with new technology, an OAM (1/2 Barbs) for new PE standards and technology, and then help and feedback to many, didn’t kill anyone but went close, and at 94 alive, unfit, happy, still practising, living alone and lean, missing Barb and still learning – all thanks to great family, thousands of people at all levels and disciplines, great mates, and many helpers, Docs. and lot of luck &/or JC.
SA. 13/11/2020