B.F. Goodrich Four – Rotor Brake System

Sometime in June 1967, B.F Goodrich received a contract from LTV Aerospace Corp. to build a four rotor brake system for the new Air Force A7D light attack aircraft. Winning the contract from the government was very big thing for B.F. Goodrich. They had received an order to design and build 202 assemblies. B.F Goodrich was given a year to design, build, and test the four – rotor brake system. Two weeks were allocated at the end of June 1968 for testing. Within a few weeks of receiving the order, a company’s engineer, Searle Lawson, designs, builds, and test the system. Once the brake system is assembled, the system is tested and all tests fail crucial temperature tests.

During next 10 months the system goes through 14 different test and each test fails. On the fourteenth and final test, which was conducted in May of 1968, Lawson was instructed by his supervisors to qualify the brake system no matter what. Upon the qualification of the system, another BF Goodrich engineer, Kermit Vandivier, is asked to qualify the system. Vandivier examines the safety reports and refuses to qualify the brake system due to too many irregularities in the testing method. Even after so much protest Vandivier is forced to write a qualifying report.

During the next few weeks the Air Force realizes that the report was falsified report and demands the raw test data from BF Goodrich. When the test date came in June of 1968 all test fail and Lawson and Vandivier are told by their attorney that they can be charged with conspiracy. Both BF Goodrich Engineers talk to the FBI and discuss their stories. Even after the test are conducted and four – rotor brake system fails for safety, BF Goodrich management force Lawson and Vandivier to lie to the government.

In October of 1968 Vandivier resign from BF Goodrich giving an effective date of November 1, but is dismissed immediately due is lack of respect for the company. In August of 1969 BF Goodrich is charges against BF Goodrich are announced by a congressional committee.

The main ethical issue in the case was that the managers were so afraid of missing their targets that they forced the engineers to falsify information. BF Goodrich engineers did not take enough time to properly design, build and test the brake system. Had they taken the time to properly design the system no one would have to break the code of ethics and everyone would have been happy.

If I was an engineer responsible for testing the system, I would have not waited a year to blow the whistle on the BF Goodrich. Yes, it is true that no lives were lost during the testing but the companies name was ruined. I would tell the government about the internal problems but I would go up the chain of command and address the issues.

A sample of the article is posted at the following website.

http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/70/BF-Goodrich.aspx

The whole article can be purchased at the following website.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/1972/04/0021446

Disaster of the Space Shuttle Challenger

On January 28th, 1986, seven astronauts lost their lives in the one of countries worse shuttle accidents. The space shuttle, Challenger, exploded minutes after takeoff. The main reason of the explosion was discovered to be a failure of the O-Ring in the solid rocket booster to seal properly. There were many factors of the O-Ring not closing properly; insufficient testing of the O-Rings in low temperature, faulty design, lack of communication, weather, political pressure, etc.

The design of the space shuttle was assigned to a company call Morton-Thiokol. The O-Ring problem was discovered in the previous shuttle launches and was addressed with the launch of the Challenger. At first two engineers form Morton-Thiokol recommended not to launch but their recommendation wear not heard and upper management took the decisions to with launch because they wanted to stay on the good side of NASA. Even on the day of the launch, NASA was warned about the defect but NASA also chose not to listen.

The main ethical issue in the case of Space Shuttle Challenger is lack respect towards engineers and their recommendations. Everyone involved was concerned losing their jobs or contracts. Morton-Thiokol was concerned about losing their contracts from NASA. NASA was worried about the government the pressure that was building in the space wars that was going at the particular time frame.

To handle this ethical issue I would seriously blow the whistle on Morton-Thiokol, even if it meant that I am was going to lose my job as an engineer. A life is not more important than ones job. The managers at that company were engineers before and forgot their duty as an engineer. They were too concerned about their contract and their reputation. But then again, one question comes to my mind, what happens when NASA does not want to listen? They too had pressure from above because the US was competing against the Russians.

The article is avaliable for reading at the following website:

http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/170/The-Space-Shuttle-Challenger-Disaster.aspx

RE: peer-to-peer an ethics issue

You bring up a very important issue but have you though about how much these artist make from there music. It is true that people are stilling food from a person's mouth when they share files by using file sharing programs but think about how much these singers make when they create one album. Please do not mis understand me on this issue. I am not into sharing files either, but that only because I am not interested in it. I do not believe it is wrong knowing how much these artist make and how they spend their money. How many artist do you know of that actually use the millions of dollars that they make for a charity or for any good? Once again I am not for file sharing and downloading music for free, but what I mention is really something to think about.

peer-to-peer an ethics issue

When it comes to file sharing I feel that it is not ethical because, peer-to-peer to me is receiving something for free you’re not paying for it and that to me is basically stealing, over the internet. We all have heard of lime-wire which is an illegal file sharing of downloaded music and sometimes movies. It is mainly the illegal download use of music. To me when you download free music which are copyright that artist works hard for you’re actually taking food out their mouth, music is that person passion and life and you’re taking away from what they work hard for. Some people feel that illegal file sharing isn’t un-ethical, but if we look at what ethics is we all will come to a different viewpoint based on how we were raised and our culture. To me it has to do with what a person feeling; if that feeling is telling them whether or not it’s right or wrong, it also has to do with what the law requires. I feel that file-sharing is something hard to control because it’s over the internet and it’s not like you can really hold one person responsible for these un-ethical behaviors. Some people argue that there’s nothing wrong with downloaded music for free but they fail to realize that when you downloaded for free you’re hurting others financially. I feel that if you're getting music and other forms of entertainment such as movies and you're not paying for them, then you're doing something un-ethical and you're also breaking the law.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/71038/whats-legal-in-peer-to-peer-downloading;_ylt=AusT3sxRafOhFc8ODblJj4wFLZA5