Need help with my writing homework on Goodrich A7-D Brake. Write a 1250 word paper answering;

Need help with my writing homework on Goodrich A7-D Brake. Write a 1250 word paper answering; This made him suspicious that the design was faulty. Lawson informed Warren who advised him to try some new lining materials. This did not work. Searle talked to Sink (who was Goodrich’s project manager for A7-D) bought the problem. Sink insisted that Lawson keep trying other linings. In March 1968, the corporation began testing full brake prototypes. The brake did still not pass the Air force’s temperature specifications.

Kermit was responsible for writing a report on the test done and he noted that the test results were doctored as he was writing the report. Lawson and Kermit contacted the FBI. The inspection revealed that the test results were indeed tampered with, and the report was invalid as it had faulty data and that the brakes designed were actually faulty. Goodrich designed a five-rotor brake for a replacement since they knew that the initial four-rotor brake was not going to work. In October 1969, the senator chaired a congressional hearing, which was meant to inspect the Air Force A7-D brake issue. Lawson got a job with LTV and Kermit resigned from his job with the Goodrich Corporation. He included in his resignation letter a chain of accusations on the brake design tests against Goodrich Corporation. Later in 1972, Kermit wrote an article on his detailed version of the Goodrich Incident in Harper’s magazine.

Need refers to a situation that raises alarm and that jeopardizes a persons’ life, safety, well-being. Poor technological innovation rendered communication as well as qualification testing procedural issues previously in place. The failure to communicate concerns brought up an atmosphere where whistleblowing became unavoidable for Kermit Vandivier. Furthermore, Vandivier was not accessible to legal counsel within the corporate hierarchy of the company, Goodrich. The technical writer was a dubious distinction and did not constitute the ranking of a technical professional. In my point of view, I think it was advisable to blow the whistle because it prevented the harm from occurring. If the brakes were used on the aircraft in that faulty condition there was the probability of a crash or someone getting hurt. The people involved would be guilty of fraud and conspiracy him (Kermit) being one of them. In that case, he would be heavily fined or jailed and even lose his job. Considering all these factors I would tend to support Kermit’s decision to blow the whistle. Although whistleblowing is not taken kindly by the involved company as well as its employees, I find it morally permissible in some situations like this which endangers lives.