Goodrich A7-D Brake - Case Study Example

Goodrich A7-D Brake Summary of the case On June 1967, Goodrich got a contract to provide brakes and wheels for the A7-D from LTV (which was the prime contractor of the airplane). This corporation had come up with a new design of breaks (the four-rotor brake) which was to be ready for flight testing by the month of June in the year 1968. Warren gave the completed design to Lawson to do testing of the breaks. Lawson could not find any compatible materials after testing. This made him suspicious that the design was faulty. Lawson informed Warren who advised him to try some new lining materials. This did not work. Searle talked to Sink (who was the Goodrich’ project manager for A7-D) bought the problem. Sink insisted that Lawson keep trying other linings. In March 1968, the corporation began testing full brake prototypes. The brake did still not pass the Air force’s temperature specifications. Kermit was responsible for writing a report on the test done and he noted that the test results were doctored as he was writing the report. Lawson and Kermit contacted the FBI. The inspection revealed that the test results were indeed tampered with, and the report was invalid as it had faulty data and that the brakes designed were actually faulty. Goodrich designed a five-rotor brake for replacement since they knew that the initial four-rotor brake was not going to work. In October 1969, the senator chaired a congressional hearing, which was meant to inspect the Air Force A7-D brake issue. Lawson got a job with LTV and Kermit resigned from his job with the Goodrich Corporation. He included in his resignation letter a chain of accusations on the brake design tests against Goodrich Corporation. Later in 1972, Kermit wrote an article on his detailed version of the Goodrich Incident in Harper’s magazine. Was there a need for the whistle to be blown? Need refers to a situation that raises alarm and that jeopardizes a persons’ life, safety, well-being. Poor technological innovation rendered communication as well as qualification testing procedural issues previously in place. The failure to communicate concerns brought up an atmosphere where whistle blowing became unavoidable for Kermit Vandivier. Furthermore, Vandivier was not accessible to legal counsel within the corporate hierarchy of the company, Goodrich. Technical writer was a dubious distinction, and did not constitute the ranking of a technical professional. In my point of view, I think it was advisable to blow the whistle because it prevented a harm of occurring. If the brakes were used on the aircraft in that faulty condition there was the probability of a crash or someone getting hurt. The people involved would be guilty of fraud and conspiracy him (Kermit) being one of them. In that case, he would be heavily fined or jailed and even lose his job. Considering all these factors I would tend to support Kermit’s decision to blow the whistle. Although whistle blowing is not taken kindly by the involved company as well as its employees, I find it morally permissible in some situation like this which endangers lives. Using breaks that do not meet the qualifications set would have been very catastrophic. Kermit had raised his concerns about the tampered test results yet no one took him seriously or even listened to him. He blowing the whistle was the right thing to do at the moment and the only thing he could as all other efforts had failed. Kermit had tried to write a good report that actually made use of the actual results of the tests but Sink would not allow him to publish that report. He destroyed it and wrote a false report. This was enough reason for Kermit to report that fraud because if the aircraft company found out about it, all those involved with the process would be in very big trouble because they would be charged with Fraud and conspiracy. Did he have proximity? Proximity refers to the right to be able to present such concerns to the legal bodies. One is only capable of reporting issues to bodies of law if they have first hand information and if they have experience in that field. This point is quite debatable because if we look at it closely, Kermit did not have experience in engineering and technology since he was just a was employed as a typist for typing the results of the test. Although he had been doing that job for a while and had somehow become familiar with such cases and dealing with such tests, he was able to tell that those test results for the brakes were doctored even though he had no educational background in that field. Kermit was also relying on second hand information since he had not carried out the tests himself he was relying on data from someone else. He was not the one who did the testing of the brakes so his proximity was a bit questionable because he did not have first hand information neither did he have the educational nor technical expertise. He had experience in writing results of such type of tests. He was thus able to discover some anomalies in the tests. Though he was not an engineer he had expertise in the area. Was he capable? Capable refers to a situation where one stands a better chance of winning than losing a case. This is debatable depending on how one decides to look at it. Kermit had a reasonable chance of success since if he failed to report chances were high that if the discrepancies got discovered he amongst his colleagues would all be guilty of fraud and conspiracy which is a very big case. He would probably end up being jailed or lose his job for fraud and conspiracy. He had every reason to do what was morally right and expected of him. He was capable because he was able to contact his lawyer and later on the FBI and the case was looked at. The investigation began, and the Corporation was found guilty though lucky for them they had already developed a new five-rotor brake. No official action was taken on the corporation though Lawson left his job at the corporation and joined LTV whilst Kermit resigned. On the other hand, Goodrich stood a chance of winning because it’s a big company and has money so high chance are it will bail itself out, bribe, or just find a way to redeem itself. We can see clearly that the company immediately designed the 5 rotor brake to replace the faulty one it had made so as to save itself from trouble as the investigation was proceeding. Was it a last resort? Last resort refers to the last possible option after all other means and solutions have been tried and failed. Yes, I think it was the last resort because Kermit had done all that he possibly could to try and do the right thing within the company but all his efforts had miserably failed. He felt obligated to do the right thing. Kermit raised his concerns to his immediate boss as well as to Lawson soon after he discovered the anomalies, but no action was taken. He had even tried writing a report based on the correct test results but the management would not allow him, he was ordered to write a report which validated the brakes stating that they had passed all the tests were ready for use. He had tried all possible solutions and failed. This was his last option. He was the only one capable of reporting since all other people did not take him seriously. Kermit did this because was his moral obligation to do the right thing. Works Cited The Goodrich A7-D Brake Case Read More