Goodrich case

• On June 18, 1967, the B.F. Goodrich Wheel and Brake Plant in Troy, Ohio, received a contract to supply wheels and brakes for the new Air Force light attack aircraft.
• Goodrich won the contractbased on their competitive bid and their innovative technical design, featuring a lightweight four-rotor brake.
• B.F. Goodrich had to present a report showing that the brake passed specifiedqualifying tests.
• The last two weeks of June 1968 were set aside for flight-testing the brake, giving Goodrich almost a full year for design and testing.

In 1968 the problem arises when this brake testsbecame such a huge failure because the reports that Goodrich gave were just falsifications of the brakes, of Goodrich personnel.

“The whistle-blowing was merely a symptom of larger ethicalproblems within both Goodrich and the aircraft brake industry as a whole.”

From deficiencies in communications to governmental and industry culpability in allowing erroneous qualification testingprocedures to continue.

This case its an important example of bad taken actions int his case Kermit Vandivier could inmeditely communicate that fraud of the reports instead of permitting this situationand letting time pass . He didnt take an inmediate response of making the correct move ..even though he at last moment confirm the falsifiaction of the reports he could also act faster in ouropinion.

Principal Characters of the huge scandal

Kermit Vandivier, technical writer. As whistle-blower, Vandivier claimed that he and Searle Lawson were ordered to falsify the qualification report.Searle Lawson, young design engineer (with a certificate in aircraft design technology and an undergraduate degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering) on the A7D brake. Partiallycorroborated Vandivier's accusations against Goodrich personnel.

Richard Gloor, laboratory test engineer. First to confirm Vandivier's suspicions regarding falsified testing.

Russell Line, manager,...