Case: Aircraft Brake Scandal
Executive Summary
Goodrich Company was suspected of publishing falsified qualification report of its new-designed aircraft brake for the A7D. Kermit Vandiveer, a data analyst and technical writer in Goodrich, was ordered by the executives to issue a false qualification report. Initially, Vandiveer refused and got support from his supervisor. However, under the pressure he had to offered artificial graphic presentation in the report. After the failing flight test, Vandiveer disclosed the misconduct and fraud of Goodrich and turned into a government witness in the litigation. Vandiveer faced dilemmas throughout the case: to follow his personal value and professional responsibility to refuse unethical action or to follow the managers’ order to keep the job; and to keep loyalty to the company or to be a whistleblower to disclose the fraud. In general, Vandiveer behaved by his personal values. However, some actions by Vandiveer are open to question.
Visibility: Vandiveer was admired and supported by the public for his courage to do right thing though losing his job and suffering the possible prosecution. In some sense, Vandiveer betrayed his company as a whistleblower. However, his disclosure prevented a worse consequence of engineering fraud.
Generality: Vandiveer set an example to guide others who in the similar situation. When there are conflicts with self-interest and ethics, the one will be expected to behave following the moral principle. However, it does not mean personal interest retreat constantly. Voice will be a better decision in such situation.
Legacy: Vandiveer has a positive image when people talk about the aircraft brake scandal. He did not obey his inner sense and would be trusted by others in his future life.
Discussion
A summary of the Important Facts
All stories caused by a contract issued on June, 18, 1967, by LTV Aerospace Corporation with Goodrich Company to order wheels and brakes for the new Air Force plane. For Goodrich, it seemed destined
Goodrich Company was suspected of publishing falsified qualification report of its new-designed aircraft brake for the A7D. Kermit Vandiveer, a data analyst and technical writer in Goodrich, was ordered by the executives to issue a false qualification report. Initially, Vandiveer refused and got support from his supervisor. However, under the pressure he had to offered artificial graphic presentation in the report. After the failing flight test, Vandiveer disclosed the misconduct and fraud of Goodrich and turned into a government witness in the litigation. Vandiveer faced dilemmas throughout the case: to follow his personal value and professional responsibility to refuse unethical action or to follow the managers’ order to keep the job; and to keep loyalty to the company or to be a whistleblower to disclose the fraud. In general, Vandiveer behaved by his personal values. However, some actions by Vandiveer are open to question.
Visibility: Vandiveer was admired and supported by the public for his courage to do right thing though losing his job and suffering the possible prosecution. In some sense, Vandiveer betrayed his company as a whistleblower. However, his disclosure prevented a worse consequence of engineering fraud.
Generality: Vandiveer set an example to guide others who in the similar situation. When there are conflicts with self-interest and ethics, the one will be expected to behave following the moral principle. However, it does not mean personal interest retreat constantly. Voice will be a better decision in such situation.
Legacy: Vandiveer has a positive image when people talk about the aircraft brake scandal. He did not obey his inner sense and would be trusted by others in his future life.
Discussion
A summary of the Important Facts
All stories caused by a contract issued on June, 18, 1967, by LTV Aerospace Corporation with Goodrich Company to order wheels and brakes for the new Air Force plane. For Goodrich, it seemed destined