NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... ety courses. The problem, which Mr. Gellert suspected, was of unexplainable crashes in a flight simulator while using the auto pilot system.
The L- 1011 defect involved the complex interaction between the crew and the autopilot and related instruments, which they relied upon to conduct a safe approach to a runway when landing the aircraft. Mr. Gellert became aware of the problem on a routine flight while using the L- 1011. While flying the aircraft with the autopilot engaged and cruising at 10, 000 feet with 230 passengers, Gellert dropped his flight plan. As he went to pick it up, his elbow hit the control stick in front of him causing the plane to go in a steep dive something that should not happen.
Fortunately, he was able to grab the stick and ease the plane back on course. What had happened was that that while bumping the stick, he had tripped off the autopilot. Instead of holding the plane at 10, 000 feet, it had switched from its "command mode" to "control steering." As a result, when the stick moved forward, causing the plane to dive, the autopilot, rather than holding the aircraft on course held it in a dive. There was no warning to the pilot, such as alarms or light and the autopilot's altimeter indicated that the plane was flying at 10, 000 feet, a dangerously wrong reading.
After this incident Gellert told an Eastern management official what had happened and the official replied "we " ll look into it. " But three months later from the time he reported the incident an Eastern airlines flight approaching Miami International Airport crashed. The crew had used the autopilot to land the plane and it had malfunctioned crashing into the everglades. The first step that Mr. Gellert took in blowing the whistle on Eastern airlines and Lockheed was to write a two page evaluation of the auto pilots problems and send them to, Frank Borman, then vice-president of operations; Floyd Hall, chairman of the board, and Samuel Higgenbottom, president of operations. The only response was from Borman that said, it was "pure folly" that the autopilot caused the accident.
He also sent two copies to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board. ) which agreed with Gellert and asked him to testify against Eastern and Lockheed. Even with his testimony on his experiences with the auto pilot system NTSB found that a defect in the autopilot caused the crash, but attributed the tragedy to "pilot error" because the crew did not react fast enough. At this point eastern has done nothing to keep Gellert from doing his job. Until he had the same situation happened to him on two separate occasions, which prompted him to write a twelve-page petition to the NTSB as well as to top management. Gellert was immediately demoted to co-pilot. "Twice a year pilots bid on a base, a position, or a particular aircraft. " The first indication that he was being penalized by the company for his written petitions.
At the same time the NTSB began to put pressure on eastern to make alterations to it's aircraft's. The pressure that went along with confronting eastern management forced Gellert to take a three- year leave of absence. And when Gellert decided to return to work, eastern denied him, questioning his ability to fly an aircraft concerned with his mental state. Eastern grounded Gellert indefinitely. A civil suit was filed and won by Gellert.
The jury found Eastern guilty and awarded him 1. 5 million in damages, which were never paid, due to appeals. Gellert also filed a grievance to get reinstated as a pilot, which he won but Eastern refused to instate him as a full time pilot. The bottom line is that eastern was making life hard on Gillard because he wanted to do the right thing, he was aware of a problem which he tried to bring to the attention of the executives in charge. He was a dedicated employee and was only concerned about the safety of the people Eastern was flying and in turn Eastern continues to punish him and make his life extremely hard. I believe what has happened in the above summary of the Eastern airline case is that which is common among whistle blowers. Employees that decide to blow the whistle on big business for the greater good of the people are often subject to countless acts of discrimination.
Employees are often demoted, pushed aside, put down, alienated from the industry, and made their lives extremely uncomfortable for the mere fact that they tried to do the right thing. Gellert felt that the autopilot was defective yet management refused to listen, and then when it was to late and an accident occurred management didn't want to know, because they didn't want to except responsibility for not addressing the problem in the first place. If anything Gellert should have been rewarded for trying to prevent a disaster but instead, as is common for many whistle blowers he was punished. Employees who discover apparent wrong-doing have several options, they can turn a blind eye and continue as normal, raise the matter internally and hope for the best, blow the whistle outside while trying to remain anonymous, blow the whistle and take the full force of employer disapproval, resign and remain silent, or resign and blow the whistle. The key is minimizing the risk to you as an employee. As I have shown to blow the whistle requires a great deal of care and patience.
Yet sometimes employees do not always make good judgements in the heat of the moment. Allowing himself or herself to be more vulnerable then someone who takes the time to plan and receive advice to do it right. Some simple questions will help to minimize your risk and determine if blowing the whistle is really necessary. First, make sure the situation is one that warrants whistle blowing. Secondly, you should carefully examine your motives. Third, verify and document your information.
Fourth, determine the type of wrongdoing involved and to whom it should be reported. Fifth, state your allegations in appropriate ways. Sixth, decide whether the whistle blowing should be internal or external and if it should be open or anonymous. Seventh, make sure you follow proper guidelines in reporting the wrongdoing.
And last you should consult a lawyer and anticipate as well as document retaliation. With all this said there is really no sure way to go about making the right choice on weather to blow the whistle or not. Employees that are forced to blow the whistle are often forced to do so because their concerns are not given fair hearings by their employers. This results in damage to both the whistleblower and the organization. Yet if wrong doing with in an organization go undetected, they can result in even in greater damage to the workforce, and the public at large. Whistle blowing is an effective way to regulate business internally and should not be discriminated against.
In researching this paper it has come to my attention that whistle blowers may never have it easy. The possibility of causing career suicide should be maintained at the lowest level possible. A good indication of the how genuinely ethical our society is how organizations treats its whistleblowers. I can only hope that we will improve in the next coming century than continue on the course we have set for ourselves in the past.
I strongly believe that society owes an immense gratitude to its whistle blowers and that they will soon be praised for coming forward instead of punished. Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: whistle blowing, whistle, 000 feet, eastern, blow
Research essay sample on Whistle Blowing 000 Feet
