¶ … Air Force Brake Case
Case Summary:
The Air Force was providing a contract that featured the manufacture of brakes to be implemented in an aircraft. The B.F. Goodrich Wheel and Brake Plant in Troy, Ohio won the contract, on June 18, 1967, and the organization agreed to supply wheels and brakes for the new Air Force light attack aircraft.
However, the clause in the contract was that the testing that was to be done before the product was accepted must adhere to the stipulated standard. On failure of the trial test done on the provided products a controversy arose. A former employee, Kermit Vandivier, took the role of a whistle blower and it was claimed that the organization falsified reports undermining the ethical codes of the contract. A full investigation was conducted under governmental supervision and it was realized that the Air Force A7D Aircraft Brake Problem was the tip of the iceberg. The problem associated with the unethical behavior of the organizations creates a national issue that must be tackled accordingly.
Background
The Goodrich organization previously, was a minor player in the field of technological innovation but when disc brakes replaced brake drums the entire organization was reorganized. Resourcing and Human Resource capabilities were challenged and previous technically qualified workers were channeled to another department in the company while new and qualified engineers were hired to make innovative and challenging technologies. This labor pool allowed the organization to become a recognized player in...
The design that was accepted by the Military is this scenario was considered relatively dynamic as it allowed for a lighter and more innovative brakes that could radically change the military aircraft industry.
However, when an employee of the organization Searle Lawson, tested the brakes he found that the brake projected high temperature readings and threw off sparks that could be dangerous. It was on further research realized that the A7D brake had a design flaw. The in charge of the case told Lawson that the design was not flawed but rather there was a technical problem with rotors. The administrative in charge was later changed and Lawson became the in charge. There were a series of miscommunication efforts that caused the problem to be delegated within the hierarchy, which was more a negligence of the affair than actual intention to ignore or misrepresent the problem.
Issues Involved
When we take up an analysis of the organizational standards by which business deals are completed we realize that the scenario is such that the ambiguous laws and codes allow more leeway than should be considered feasible. Organizational Managers take advantage of the laws and opt for maximum profit rather than standard, security and value. In the Air force Brake Scandal case facts were manipulated, tests were falsified and engineers stood aside from their ethical responsibilities and created a failed technology that could and would have in the long-term…
