Ethical Dilemmas in the Goodrich Brake Assembly Case

Essay, Pages 3 (728 words)

Views

519

The case of the Goodrich brake assemblies for the new Air Force light attack plane, the A7D, is a complex story of ethical dilemmas, corporate responsibility, and individual choices. The main characters in this case are John Warren, Lawson, Kermit Vandivier, Robert Sink, and the unnamed technician. John Warren, a veteran engineer, was the project engineer who designed the initial four disc brake assembly. Lawson, a young engineer, was responsible for the final production design. Kermit Vandivier was the individual who discovered irregularities in the test data and blew the whistle on the fraudulent practices.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Ethical Dilemmas in the Goodrich Brake Assembly Case ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

Robert Sink was the head who assigned Warren to the project and overlooked the design flaws. The unnamed technician was pressured to manipulate data to cover up the design flaws.

Warren's initial design of the four disc brake assembly was flawed, leading to multiple test failures. Lawson, who initially believed the issue was with the lining, eventually realized that the design itself was the problem and proposed a five disc brake design.

However, due to delivery schedules, the replacement design was not feasible. When Lawson brought the issue to Warren's attention, Warren refused to acknowledge the design flaw and blamed it on the lining. Sink, caught in a difficult position, chose to ignore Lawson's concerns and left the decision to Warren.

As the tests continued to fail, Vandivier discovered that the data was being manipulated intentionally to cover up the design flaws. Despite pressure from his superiors, Vandivier refused to participate in the fraud and eventually blew the whistle on the unethical practices.

This led to the recall of the qualification report and the replacement of the brakes with the five disc design.

In evaluating the conduct of the characters, it is clear that Warren and Sink prioritized their own interests over ethical considerations. Warren's refusal to acknowledge the design flaw and Sink's decision to overlook Lawson's concerns demonstrate a lack of ethical responsibility. On the other hand, Vandivier and the unnamed technician demonstrated ethical integrity by refusing to participate in the fraud and eventually exposing the wrongdoing.

Lawson, on the other hand, initially failed to consider the ethical implications of manipulating data to cover up the design flaws. However, when faced with the choice between following orders and doing what was right, Lawson chose to cooperate with the fraudulent practices. If I were in Lawson's position, I would have chosen to speak up against the unethical practices and report the design flaws to prevent potential harm.

Vandivier's decision to work up the qualification report was not inherently wrong, as he was following instructions from his superiors. However, when he realized the fraudulent practices and the potential consequences of his actions, Vandivier made the ethical choice to blow the whistle and expose the wrongdoing. This decision ultimately led to the correction of the design flaws and the replacement of the brakes with a safer alternative.

Goodrich, as a company, should be held ethically responsible for the A7D affair. The company's failure to ensure the safety and quality of the brake assemblies, as well as the pressure on employees to engage in fraudulent practices, reflects a lack of ethical leadership and corporate responsibility. By allowing such practices to occur, Goodrich compromised the safety of the aircraft and put the lives of pilots and crew at risk.

In conclusion, the case of the Goodrich brake assemblies for the A7D plane highlights the importance of ethical decision-making in corporate environments. The actions of the main characters, including Warren, Lawson, Vandivier, and Sink, demonstrate the ethical dilemmas individuals face when confronted with wrongdoing. Ultimately, it is essential for individuals to prioritize ethical considerations over personal gain and to speak up against unethical practices to ensure the safety and well-being of others.

Questions

Identify the main characters in this case and explain what happened.
To what extent did Lawson, Vandivier, and the technician consider the relevant ethical issues before deciding to join in the fraud? What was their reasoning? What would you do if you were in their situation?
How did Sink and Warren look at the matter? How would you evaluate their conduct?
Do you think that Vandivier was wrong to work up the qualification report?
Was Vandivier right to blow the whistle?
Should Goodrich be held ethically responsible as a company for the A7D affair?