I suspect that the engineer did think along these lines, although there was probably also some irrational denial that there was anything wrong. What's missing f

I suspect that the engineer did think along these lines, although there was probably also some irrational denial that there was anything wrong. What's missing from this "calculus of professional risk", however, is any consideration of the danger to other people, and that is what makes it so unethical. There is no practical alternative to taking away a licence in cases like this, at least temporarily in less egregious cases. What meaning would the licence have if the person responsible here retained it? He has demonstrated an appalling lack of judgement which goes beyond this one disaster. Removing the threat of revoking the licence would not fix the incentives issue, as even with that off the table, the engineer is to blame for the cost and delays of his failure, even if he does not care about the risk to other people. Here's an example of an engineer doing the right thing - though the prospect of failure was so appalling that it probably focused his mind on what mattered most. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_tower_design_flaw_that_could_have_wiped_out_the_skyscraper.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_t...