Engineers couldn't prove danger, so managers launched anyway. Seven astronauts died when O-rings failed in freezing temperatures. Apply the lessons learned to help avoid future incidents.

Three Key Takeaways:

1. Reverse the burden of proof: Require positive proof that something is safe before proceeding, rather than forcing engineers to prove it's unsafe.
2. Simplify safety communication: Complex data failed to convince decision-makers, but a simple demonstration (O-ring in ice water) made the danger crystal clear.
3. Protect technical authority: Engineers need more than just formal authority to stop unsafe operations — they need genuine psychological safety to exercise that power without career consequences.

This In Case You Missed It episode brings the written word to life. Today, Trish Kerin, the director of Lead Like Kerin, and Stay Safe columnist for Chemical Processing, will read her column "Bird’s-Eye View Prevents Process Safety Groundings," which was published to chemicalprocessing.com on Dec. 17, 2025.

In this year-end episode, hosts Trish Kerin and Traci Purdum welcome Hayley Little, a U.K.-based process safety engineer who tracks quarterly catastrophic incidents on LinkedIn. The discussion explores origin stories in process safety, the critical gap in fundamental safety knowledge outside petrochemical industries, and the alarming frequency of preventable incidents in lower-hazard sectors. They discuss innovative solutions including AI tools, virtual reality training and social media outreach to democratize process safety education. The conversation emphasizes the urgent need for better university training, field presence over desk work and human factors integration to make it easier to "accidentally get it right."