Introduction

This report is based on a case study which title is “The Aircraft Brake Scandal”. This case study is based on the ethical principles that are meeting by the business leaders to protect the societies from the bigger loss. This case study also reflects the role of the whistleblower in the organization to raise the issues against the failure of any activity that raises ethical issues for the organization and may affect the performance and productivity of the employees as well as the organization.

Facts of Case

The B.F.A. was founded on June 18, 1967. The Goodrich Wheel and Brake Plant in Troy, Ohio, has been awarded a contract to provide the new Air Force light attack aircraft with wheels and brakes. The contract was awarded to Goodrich due to their competitive offer and, more significantly, their unique technological design, which included a lightweight four-rotor brake1. Before the Air Force accepted the brake, B.F. Goodrich was required to provide a report demonstrating that the brake had passed certain qualification tests. Goodrich had over a year to develop and test the brake, so the last two weeks of June 1968 were set aside for flight testing.

Following the failure of the brakes during the flying testing in June 1968, and the subsequent charges leveled by a former B.F. Kermit Vandivier, a Goodrich employee, spoke up about the fabrication of qualification test reports and ethical wrongdoing on the part of a certain B.F. Goodrich employee. Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin), a Goodrich employee, demanded a federal investigation into the B.F. Goodrich brake certification tests. Troy Plant by Goodrich. On August 13, 1969, Senator Proxmire presided over a four-hour Congressional hearing on the Air Force A7D Aircraft Brake Problem.

Vandivier described his account of the Goodrich event in a well-written essay titled “Why Should My Conscience Bother Me?”3 in 1972. His essay is now known as “The Aircraft Brake Scandal” in professional business and technical ethical circles, as well as in whistle-blowing literature. The Aircraft Brake Scandal has been described as a model instance of a bold individual fighting an unethical company as one of the most renowned whistle-blowing cases in the literature. Vandivier, a whistleblower who lost his job for doing the right thing, is recognized as a hero.

Issues in Case

The main issue is related to the professional business and technical ethical circles. This report also analyses whether the “authority of the company has met their professional business and technical ethical circles or not.”

Theories of Ethics

The repercussions or outcomes of behavior are emphasized inconsequential theories of ethics. John Utilitarianism, a well-known consequential theory proposed by Stuart Mill, holds that good and wrong are decided by the consequences of an action(Byars and Stanberry, 2018). The ultimate moral value is “good,” and we should strive to maximize the greatest amount of good for the largest number of people. In determining universal moral wrongs and rights, rule-based theories of ethics stress the character of the act itself rather than its repercussions (O’Sullivan, Smith and Esposito, 2012). Moral rights, which serve as the foundation for legal rights, are linked to such notions. The cultural theory of ethics emphasizes cultural relativism. This theory states that there are no universal ethical principles. Therefore, people should not impose their ethical standards on others (Mandal, 2010). It means a manager must follow the situation as per the rule of the company and the expectations of the customers to face a particular situation.

Analysis of Case

The whole plot of the A7D Affair hinges around the four-disk braking design and its flaw. The B.F. Goodrich Company agreed to build a four-rotor, 106-pound brake for LTV. The responsibility was given to John Warren, the most experienced and capable engineer on the team. He’s well-known for his engineering abilities (Tannsjo, 2008). Moving on to the following phase, the brake had to be tested, and the task was given to newcomer Searle Lawson. He doesn’t have a lot of experience, but he possesses all of the necessary skills for the position. During testing, he discovered that the brake generates too much heat and disintegrates into pieces.

This led to the conclusion that the product’s design is ineffective, resulting in the worst possible consequences. The project manager, Robert Sink, was informed of the situation. However, no good results were obtained, putting the person in serious jeopardy. As a result, the person was compelled to create fraudulent reports saying that the testing was successful, which were then authorized. Ralph Gretzinger also took action and encouraged Lawson to stay away from the con (Shaw, 2010).

Russell Line, the company’s top executive, did not take any strict measures despite knowing all of the relevant information and was quite comfortable with the falsifications that were to be carried out. The committee does not reach any useful conclusions in the future. Robert Sink was elevated to Production Superintendant when Russell Line was promoted to a higher post. Searle Lawson and Ralph Gretzinger both resigned from their jobs. Searle Lawson was promoted to engineer for the LTV and passed over the A7D project to Ralph, who became a newspaper writer.

Reason

The entire scenario was not an accident; it was carefully planned and executed under the supervision of the company’s top executives. Nothing effective happened after gathering all of the information on the product’s quality and safety. In the end, the firm paid too much since they had to build the five-disk brake and they didn’t get compensated for it.
The employees at the firm were extremely unscrupulous and immoral. They do not employ ethical maneuvers, and the situation becomes extremely tough and convoluted. The conditions turn out to be highly variable, causing problems for the firm. It should be clear at this point that the portion that went wrong was groupthink and harmful compliance.

Group think is not given nearly enough weight and relevance at B.F. Goodrich Company. B. F. Goodrich, a well-known US high-tech product company, knowingly and intentionally submitted a hazardous airplane braking system for in-flight testing to the US Air Force. This is the most astonishing aspect, and it comes out as a result of insider participation within the firm (Jennings, 2011). Destructive obedience was also plainly evident, demonstrating that the subordinates’ loyalty was leading to massive destruction and harm. In this case, it is clear that the subordinates’ compliance was insufficient and served no purpose for the company or its workers.

The region to be considered, in Kant’s words, is that duty and reason must be considered together. Furthermore, it is effectively said that the intentions behind an act are more important than the estimates of the consequences that would be obtained. The suggested theory was Deontological Theory (Wolf, 2014). According to this idea, a person is considered accountable for the duty to complete any work. This appears to be an ethical approach that focuses on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the activities taken. It rarely considers the repercussions that occur after an action has occurred. The ultimate goal is to examine the motivations underlying the actions before passing judgment on the outcomes. The conduct of B. is well stated in this hypothesis. In the A7D Affair, F. Goodrich was unethical. It’s also possible to deduce that the motivations were shady at best and that everything that happened was meticulously orchestrated. This is understandable since senior corporate officials become involved in the fraud, and the repercussions of their bad intentions are severe. In this situation, a lack of integrity and honesty may also be observed and detected.

Conclusion

As per the above discussion based on the facts involved in the case, it concluded that the act done by F. Goodrich was not based on the expected ethical practices. Due to this, it can be stated that the act was unethical and the actions done against the whistleblower were also against the policy of the government to stop the corruption.

References

Byars, S. and Stanberry, K. (2018). Business Ethics. OpenStax.
Mandal, S. (2010). Ethics In Business & Corp Governance. McGraw-Hill Education.
O’Sullivan, P., Smith, M. and Esposito, M. (2012). Business Ethics: A Critical Approach: Integrating Ethics Across the Business World. Routledge.
Wolf, R. (2014). International Business Ethics and Growth Opportunities. IGI Global.