Background (continued)

Whistle-blowing

In mid-June, flight tests on the brake began at Edwards Air Force Base in California. On Goodrich's behalf, Lawson witnessed the tests. No members of the Air Force were present at the flight tests, as their presence was not required. And while LTV officials were present at some preliminary tests, no LTV representative attended the final flight test.

When he returned two weeks later, Lawson told Vandivier about various mishaps during flight testing. Listening to Lawson's concerns about possible dangers associated with the brake convinced Vandivier that he should contact his attorney, which he did before the day was out. "[My attorney] advised me that, while I was technically not guilty of committing a fraud, I was certainly part of a conspiracy to defraud." Vandivier's attorney also suggested that Vandivier meet with US Attorney Roger Makely in Dayton.

On his return, Vandivier told Lawson that his attorney had advised him that both he and Lawson were guilty of conspiracy; not that they might be, but that they were. Fearing conspiracy charges, Lawson asked Vandivier if he would arrange a meeting for him with Vandivier's attorney. Asked at the Congressional Hearing why he made the statements he did to the FBI, Lawson responded:

I believe my [real] feeling for going to the FBI was one of just, I guess, protecting myself. I realized from speaking with Mr. Warren, who had made statements to me to the effect that whenever something gets in trouble (referring to being at the Goodrich plant), you were on your own, don't look for your supervisors to be around, and from seeing experiences, experiencing things at Goodrich, where Mr. Sink had been involved in another incident, and somebody else was demoted, and other items like that, I felt that I needed to talk to somebody about it, because it was a pretty serious situation, and the only person I could think of was to consult an attorney, and then he advised me to talk to the FBI.

Several days later, Lawson left on another LTV visit. While Lawson was in Dallas, Vandivier's attorney called and said that on the advice of Makely, he had arranged an interview with the Dayton office of the FBI. Vandivier's attorney arranged a meeting for him with FBI agent Joseph Hathaway in Dayton, Ohio. Hathaway told Vandivier not to discuss his concerns about the ethical misconduct at Goodrich's Troy Plant, and asked Vandivier if Lawson would corroborate his story. Vandivier assured him that Lawson would.

When Lawson returned, Vandivier described his visit with his attorney, and what the attorney said. Lawson, taking Vandivier at his word — and without approaching anyone in the Goodrich hierarchy — met with Vandivier's attorney. Both Vandivier and Lawson met with FBI agent Hathaway.

Around the same time, Mr. Bruce Tremblay, Systems Group Leader for Landing Gear in Airframe Subsystem Directorate, Aeronautical Systems Division of the Air Force Systems Command, requested the raw data for Goodrich's Qualification Report Q-6031. Goodrich declined Tremblay's request for raw data, stating that it was considered proprietary information. As noted by Tremblay, such a refusal was rare; however, Goodrich kept data in-house as a long-established policy, and gave Air Force officials the opportunity to review the raw data at the Troy Plant.

On Saturday morning, July 27, a damage control meeting took place between Vandivier, Lawson, Warren, and Sink. Sink had been away, off and on, for almost three months. He called the meeting to discuss how best to tell LTV about the discrepancies or engineering interpretations inherent in the test results of the four-rotor brake. Finances no longer mattered, for Goodrich was well over-budget given all the extra testing associated with the four-rotor brake. Lawson manned the blackboard, and together the four meeting participants compiled a list of discrepancies. Of the 43 discrepancies noted, Sink made the final decision that 40 of the discrepancies could be considered inconsequential, so only three were deemed worth mentioning.

As often happens, Vandivier, the bringer of bad news, was now alienated from day-to-day operations, and openly hostile to Sink. He no longer expressed his concerns, and instead relayed his suspicions to FBI agent Hathaway.

On August 26, 1968, Tremblay submitted his official letter to Robert L. Hartman, Chief Systems Engineer, Headquarters, Aeronautical Systems Division (AFSC), Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Because the Goodrich report contained no original test data, only replotted information, and "The method of conducting the test was highly unconventional and without suitable explanation acceptable to this office," Tremblay recommended withholding approval of Goodrich's four-rotor brake.

Meanwhile, work had already commenced at the Goodrich Troy Plant on a five-rotor brake that would replace the disqualified four-rotor model.

A number of visits took place between Goodrich Troy staff and LTV staff in Dallas throughout August and September. The activities between Air Force, LTV and Goodrich Troy Plant personnel paralleled Vandivier's clandestine meetings with FBI agents, where he transferred sundry documents to agent Hathaway and others. From Vandivier's now-limited vantage point at Goodrich, the October 8 meeting was just another forum for Sink, where Sink could ensnare others in his own prevarications. Vandivier did not attend the October 9 meeting, and work continued apace on the new five-rotor brake, with all indications that it was meeting standards to the letter of the military specifications. In fact, one of Lawson's initial designs had been reworked, and he was immersed in the five-rotor brake project. As with so many whistle-blowers, Vandivier was frightened, knew he was low man on the totem pole, and was now walking alone. He found himself talking about the brake problem with anyone who would listen; however, most employees were busy on other projects and preferred not getting involved. His training was in outmoded electronics and writing, and he had a family of seven to feed. His situation looked grim at best.

In 1968 LTV sponsored a hire-a-friend program, and one of the people working on the A7D project suggested Lawson apply for a recent opening. Seeing a career opportunity, and anxious to leave Troy for an assortment of personal reasons, Lawson applied for the position. In October he was offered a position with LTV, and when he resigned his post at Goodrich on October 11 (effective October 25, 1968), he burned no bridges and had no intentions of blowing the whistle on them. In fact, Russell Van Horn offered him reassignment to another section of the Plant, if working under Sink caused his resignation. Lawson assured Van Horn that his reasons for terminating were personal in nature, and let him know he looked forward to working with Goodrich on the A7D and other brake projects.

Vandivier submitted his own letter of resignation on October 18, replete with accusations against Goodrich. As the Plant's chief engineer, Bud Sunderman was not always privy to day-to-day operations within the plant, instead leaving Sink and Line that task in their respective departments. Thus, it is conceivable that rumors of Vandivier's allegations had not reached him, so when he read Vandivier's letter, Sunderman was likely shocked. On October 25 Sunderman called Vandivier to his office and dismissed him immediately for disloyalty. When Sunderman asked if Vandivier would take his allegations further, Vandivier said, "Yes." Ushered out of the Troy Plant on October 18, Vandivier started working for the Troy Daily News, a local newspaper for which he had been writing local political commentary part-time since 1965.

Congressional hearing

Vandivier told his editor at the Troy Daily News about his experience at Goodrich. The editor had just received a Ford Foundation grant, and passed his story to others in Washington. The story reached Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin), and he was receptive to Vandivier's tale of misdeeds at Goodrich. Proxmire had earned the distinction of quality assurance senator, for his tough stand on government waste.

On May 13, 1969, Proxmire requested that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) review the brake qualification testing performed by the Goodrich plant in Troy. The GAO reviewed the operations at Goodrich and submitted a report to Senator Proxmire on July 3, 1969, with a follow-up letter dated July 11, 1969. On receiving the report, and without consulting Goodrich personnel, on August 4, 1969, Senator Proxmire made the first public announcement on the Senate floor, both about Vandivier's allegations against Goodrich and the GAO investigation.

On August 13, 1969, a four-hour Congressional Hearing, chaired by Senator Proxmire, was held before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government. The purpose of the Congressional Hearing was to determine: (1) the accuracy of Goodrich's reported qualification test results; (2) the effect the defective brakes had on the test pilot's safety; (3) the identification of additional costs, if any, incurred by the Government to obtain an acceptable brake; and (4) the responsibilities of the Government, including Air Force actions, in the qualification testing.

GAO Report B167023, as well as the Congressional Hearing testimony presented by GAO representatives, showed that Goodrich's qualification testing procedures did not comply with Government specifications, that some of the discrepancies in the report were indeed significant, and that, overall Qualification Report Q6031 did not present an honest picture. In general, report findings support Vandivier's claims that the report was falsified.

In terms of the effects of the defective brakes on the test pilot's safety, Congressional Hearing testimony suggests that this point was overstated; however, in the fog of battle, no one could be sure what would happen to the pilot had the brakes failed. The consequences of design failure are not often known in advance, and in many industries, seeming redundancies are used. While engineers have a deserved reputation for over-engineering, that tendency is itself a product of experience with unexpected failure (witness "the unsinkable Titanic"). Yet, while some risk always exists, Lawson testified at the Congressional Hearing that while he believed there was some danger to the test pilot, it was much less than he had once assumed.

Congressional Hearing testimony also confirmed that no additional costs were incurred by the Government in obtaining an acceptable brake, and that aircraft delivery and testing was not hindered in any way because of the Goodrich brake problem. But who would incur the additional costs, given the four-rotor brake was egregiously over budget? Perhaps not the government in this particular instance, but surely costs were absorbed elsewhere.

This leaves us with puzzling points involving qualification testing procedures. In addition to haphazard events caused by technology-related and communications problems, the evidence supplied by witnesses at the Congressional Hearing raises other issues surrounding culpability of Goodrich, LTV and Air Force personnel. Because aircraft five-rotor brake technology had changed so little and failure seemed so remote, those concerned with the A7D brake allowed what we now perceive as slack in the qualification testing procedures.

When Proxmire questioned witnesses at the Congressional Hearing, no one other than the GAO representatives thought the testing procedures then in place were odd, even though they revealed that testing procedures were indiscriminately monitored, critical LTV and Government officials missed witnessing important flight tests, and no definite procedures were in place. At first blush, Congressional Hearing evidence points to ambiguous qualification testing procedures. But if a company can be trusted, why not cut down on supervision? Part of what contracting with professionals means is that you can avoid the additional supervision costs. Government and industry alike now often omit certain kinds of monitoring for companies that have quality control and ethics procedures in place. Yet, with increases in technological sophistication, and mounting bureaucratic layers, can any of us afford to eliminate quality control checks?

Gutmann noted that Government signatures on reports seemed to carry little or no force, and that Government quality assurance seemed lacking at final testing; for example, there were no Defense Contract Administration Service (District) personnel present during any of the test flights. Richard W. Gutmann, deputy director of the Defense Division for the GAO, stated that the deficiency in government quality assurance left the entire subcontracting responsibility with the prime contractor, LTV, a situation that seemed unacceptable in government procurement. Gutmann said that because discrepancies found in the report were significant, and that having a government presence before the final flight tests was necessary, that "... it is basically the lack of participation in the qualification testing where we consider the procedures inadequate." And Gutmann again confirmed that while a government official had signed the qualification report, it was essentially meaningless. It simply meant the official had seen it, not that he had necessarily approved it.

Finally, the Congressional Hearing lasted only four hours. This conveys the relative insignificance of the case as it was perceived by contemporary standards. Finding no "golden fleece" on which to ride, Proxmire merely wanted to confirm that the Government's nose was clean, that the taxpayers were not being ripped off over yet another Air Force cost overrun like the C5A.70 No action was taken against Goodrich, and despite Vandivier's contention that an announcement of "sweeping changes" in government contracting procedure were initiated following the Congressional Hearing, Federal government contracting procedures were constantly changed to meet the challenges of technological innovation and bureaucratic expediency.

The fallout

The major change following the Goodrich incident involved governmental inspection procedures. With more people involved in fulfilling a contract, and with technological shifts, more checkpoints were enforced. Essentially, the cost of information (that is, finding out which professionals you could trust) had increased. The other change that occurred was that Goodrich, because of its blunder, was forced to deliver a redesigned, traditional five-rotor brake, so that the A7D aircraft could make its successful debut at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona in November of 1969 without murmur of impropriety.

No one then at Goodrich lost his (there were no women involved in this particular incident) job because of the incident; however, no one ascended the corporate ladder either. Warren, Line, and Van Horn continued working for Goodrich, with the usual promotions and perks. Warren stills works at the Troy Plant, and Line and Sink retired from the Troy Plant; they did not climb the Akron hierarchical ladder. And despite the claims in Vandivier's article, Sink was not promoted. Instead, he was reassigned to the technical writing division, arguably a step down from managing technology-related projects. This is significant, for it shows that Goodrich took corrective measures with personnel-related problems in the Plant, and took remedial action where Sink was concerned.

Lawson's superiors at LTV were most forgiving, and despite his complicity in writing a less-than-honest report, he remains an LTV employee to this day.

From the day of the Congressional Hearing forward, business in the aircraft brake industry continued apace, and normal practices returned. The changes made in government contracting procedures were well underway when The Aircraft Brake Scandal made its debut, and Military Specification MilW5013HUS was just another in a long series of modified procedures over time. Changes put more inspection points into contracting, but no one argued that more inspection was superfluous. The changes were neither earth-shattering in terms of governmental contracting procedures, nor did they significantly affect the day-to-day operations of Air Force prime and subcontractors. It was "business as usual."

When Lawson heard about Vandivier's chapter for the book, "In the Name of Profit," he met with Goodrich staff and wrote to Doubleday, publisher of the book, disavowing Vandivier's claims. To Lawson, Vandivier was motivated (as any sane writer is) by publishing his work, and the Goodrich case provided the perfect story for launching a new career. Lawson, on the other hand, was on a successful career-track at LTV, was on good terms with staff at Goodrich, and wanted the entire aircraft brake scandal behind him.

In 1972, Doubleday published Vandivier's version of the Goodrich story, and it soon appeared in Harper's Weekly. Goodrich never sued Vandivier for publishing his account of the Goodrich story, in part because the costs of so doing far outweighed any benefits to the corporation. How could they know the article would be used time and again over the next 20 years, as a case of the courageous individual battling an insensitive corporate hierarchy?

Twenty years later, the power of Vandivier's words live on. But have those of us using his article done the Goodrich case justice? Evidence provided shows that the long-term implications of what happened at Goodrich remain unresolved. Those involved in the Goodrich case were lucky; however, our failure to learn from the past is much in evidence today witness what happened with Challenger when pressures for fulfilling a government contract outweighed presenting an honest picture of a technology's limitations.

Was this really a case of intentional deception solely on the part of B.F. Goodrich? Does the case involve professional engineering judgment (or rationalization), negligence, incompetence, or fraud? And, if it was intentional deception (making it a legitimate case of ethical wrongdoing), who was guilty beyond Vandivier and Lawson, and was Vandivier morally justified in blowing the whistle on B.F. Goodrich? These are difficult questions to answer, mostly because life is ambiguous inside corporate America.

Ethical Issues of the Case: Points for Discussion

Questions posed throughout the Congressional Hearing were aimed at resolving the issue of whether the Air Force A7D Brake Problem case really involved ethical wrongdoing solely on the part of B.F. Goodrich, and whether Goodrich personnel intended to deceive either LTV or the Air Force (never mind the public) by falsifying Qualification Report Q6031. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest intentional deception as a possibility; however, there is no direct evidence beyond the claims of Vandivier (and, by implication, Lawson) that the reports were intentionally falsified.

Evidence from the case exposes three significant causes for the escalation of events at Goodrich:

1. Failed technological innovation.
2. Failure to communicate full information (from the Air Force down).
3. Lack of credible and enforceable governmental qualification testing procedures.

Failed technological innovation exposed communication and qualification testing procedural problems already in place. Then, the inability (perceived or real) to communicate concerns created an atmosphere in which whistle-blowing became inevitable for Vandivier. Vandivier did not have access to counsel within the corporate hierarchy of Goodrich. The same is true of Lawson. Goodrich personnel within the Troy Plant (specifically Sink) did not keep Vandivier within the communication loop after Vandivier voiced his concerns. Air Force and LTV personnel neither attended crucial tests, nor asked the right questions of the right people. And GAO representatives and Senator Proxmire did not follow up on puzzling points, both in the GAO report and at the Congressional Hearing points that might have resolved the larger technical and ethical issues.