Whistleblowers Testify at Congressional FAA Hearing in WA DC

Project On Government Oversight « The Federal Graveyard of Whistleblower Cases | Main | FAA Oversight Hearing Webcast »

Whistleblowers Front and Center at Tomorrow’s FAA Hearing

FAA whistleblowers are going to be the stars of the show at tomorrow’s marathon House transportation committee hearing (pdf) on the cozy relationship between the FAA and major airlines.Here is the hearing’s first panel: Mr. Charalambe (“Bobby”) Boutris
Aviation Safety Inspector and Boeing 737-700 Partial Program Manager for aircraft maintenance Southwest Airlines (SWA) Certificate Management Office (CMO)Mr. Douglas E. Peters
Aviation Safety Inspector and Boeing 757 Partial Program Manager American Airlines Certification Unit, AMR CMO Mr, Michael C. Mills
Assistant Manager, Dallas Fort Worth Flight Standards District Office (FSDO)Mr. Paul E. Cotti
Supervisor, American Eagle Airworthiness Unit, AMR CMO Mr. Robert A. Naccache
Ret, Assistant Manager, SWA CMOMr. Terry D. Lambert
Manager, Safety and Analysis Group, Flight Standards Division, FAA Southwest Region According to the USA Today:Government officials have blocked enforcement of safety rules at major airlines for years because they have a cozy relationship with the companies, according to the testimony of U.S. inspectors who will appear before Congress Thursday.The testimony alleges for the first time that inspectors have been pressured by Federal Aviation Administration officials to change findings or to soft-pedal enforcement actions for several of the nation’s largest airlines, including Northwest, United and Continental. The controversy over the FAA’s oversight has so far involved only Southwest Airlines.The inspectors claim FAA officials were often more concerned with airline profit margins than safety and made them work under the specter of intimidation, according to the testimony, provided to USA TODAY.Thursday’s hearing before the House Transportation Committee was prompted by two whistle-blowers who charged that their bosses at the FAA had prevented them from enforcing serious safety matters at Southwest a year ago. The FAA issued a $10.2 million fine against Southwest last month for intentionally flying jets that had not received critical inspections and acknowledged that its inspectors had not acted properly. [emphasis added]In other aviation safety oversight news, in Washington state, jurors continue to deliberate the fate of former Boeing quality assurance inspector Gerald Eastman.  Eastman, after raising concerns about the safety risks of what he felt were lax inspections of planes, went to the press with internal Boeing information.  Eastman’s actions were discovered by Boeing investigators and is being prosecuted for stealing Boeing proprietary information. He states his motive was simply to bring to light safety concerns of public interest which were not being addressed.  Given the recent Transportation Department Inspector General report which verifies that there are problems with Boeing and other major aerospace manufacturers’ quality assurance systems, it might be worthwhile for the House transportation committee to take a look at Eastman’s case and others as a possible subject matter for a future hearing.– Nick Schwellenbach

More From Boeing and Northrop

James Wallace on Aerospace

boeingairplanemanufacturingairbusEADSSeattle

t_omni_path = “pi|blogs|aerospace” t_omni_pagename = “pi|blogs|aerospace|staff blog” t_omni_pagetype = “staff blog” t_omni_articleid = “pi_blog_135753″

« Northrop tanker motion denied – Updated | Main  

New salvos fired in tanker dispute

Another day, and more exchanges between Boeing and Northrop on the tanker controversy.Boeing on Thursday said the Air Force had found, in its evaluation, fewer weakness with the 767 than with the KC-30 tanker offered by Northrop and EADS. The Air Force review identified 98 strengths and only one weakness with the 767, according to Boeing. That same Air Force review found only 30 strengths but five weakness for the KC-30, according to Boeing.

After Boeing issued a press release, and its tanker boss, Mark McGraw held a teleconference with media, Northrop quickly responded.

Northrop said “we continue to be surprised by the language being used by Boeing that suggests” the Air Force did not run a fair competition.

Northrop also recently launched what it calls America’s New Tanker website that it says is to “inform the general public about the facts” surrounding the Air Force decision to buy 179 tankers from Northrop and EADS and not from Boeing.

This was the latest from Boeing:

ST. LOUIS, April 3, 2008 — While the U.S. Air Force awarded a contract to build the next aerial refueling airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), Air Force evaluators found the Boeing (NYSE:BA) KC-767 Advanced Tanker offers more mission capability and has a better chance of surviving combat than the larger Northrop-EADS KC-30 tanker.

“The fact that the Air Force gave Boeing the highest possible rating in mission capability and cited the KC-767 Advanced Tanker as having three times more strengths than the Northrop-EADS tanker in this most important category further highlights the inconsistencies in the selection process,” said Mark McGraw, vice president and program manager for Boeing Tanker Programs. “As for protecting flight crews on the most dangerous missions, the Air Force evaluated Boeing’s tanker as much more survivable than the Northrop-EADS tanker.”

On Feb. 29, the Air Force selected Northrop/EADS’ Airbus A330 derivative over Boeing’s KC-767. Boeing subsequently asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the decision, citing numerous irregularities and a flawed process that included making unstated changes to the bid requirements during the competition that provided Northrop/EADS with an unfair competitive advantage.

“Despite the changes made in favor of the KC-30 in the area of mission capability, the evaluation was clear in its assessment,” McGraw said. “The Air Force identified 98 strengths and only one weakness with the KC-767, while they pinpointed 30 strengths and five weaknesses for the KC-30, including four weaknesses in aerial refueling.”

The Air Force gave Boeing high marks in aerial refueling. Evaluators cited the ability of the KC-767 to refuel the V-22 Osprey, which the KC-30 was evaluated as not being able to do. They cited the KC-767’s better maneuverability while flying heavily loaded into a refueling zone, and they said its refueling flight deck displays and communications systems were better than the KC-30’s. Evaluators also found three weaknesses in Northrop/EADS’ boom design and an additional weakness in their ability to be a receiver due to the lighting of their receptacle.

In contrast, the Air Force said the KC-767 met or exceeded all key performance parameters in the mission capability requirements evaluation. Among some of the other key strengths: aeromedical evacuation, enhanced navigation system, better use of airport ramp space, better cockpit displays and communications systems, and more likely to integrate into operational use faster with new equipment and future growth.

“Also of significant concern for us is the fact that the Air Force settled for a plane that is ultimately less survivable for flight crews performing their vital missions in war zones,” McGraw said. “In providing technology and features that can keep the airplane more survivable for the men and women flying them, the Air Force determined that the KC-30 is less survivable than the KC-767.” The Air Force found that in the critical area of combat survivability, the Boeing tanker had nearly five times as many strengths as Northrop’s. The Air Force said Boeing’s strengths totaled 24 and gave just five for Northrop-EADS.

“The superiority of the KC-767 in the critical area of survivability compared with the corresponding ‘weakness’ of the Northrop/EADS plane should give warfighters and American taxpayers alike cause for concern as the GAO continues their review,” McGraw added.

And this was the response from Northrop.

Northrop Grumman Corporation today issued the following statement at the conclusion of Boeing’s conference call on its protest of the KC-45 selection decision:

April 3, 2008

“We continue to be surprised by the language being used by Boeing that suggests that, first, the United States Air Force did not run a fair, open or transparent tanker program selection process, and second, that the Air Force leadership improperly steered the award decision.

Northrop Grumman was rated superior in four out of five evaluation criteria so for Boeing to suggest that the award outcome should have been different is illogical.

Among the many points Boeing continues to refuse to address is its low marks in the area of program management and risk. Boeing chooses to ignore what concerned the Air Force, including Boeing’s failure to deliver on its commitments to Italy and Japan to provide a plane that is not the same as what has been proposed to the Air Force; the fact that the plane Boeing is proposing for the Air Force has never been built; and, the fact that Boeing has not yet built the boom it proposed to provide.

By contrast, Northrop Grumman and its partners have built, tested and flown the KC-45 and we have built and successfully passed fuel through the boom that will be used.

No amount of insistence on the part of Boeing officials that its scores should be higher will make it so. To raise your score, you must provide a superior product, which is precisely what Northrop Grumman did.”

And here is the latest from the IAM about Sen. Barack Obama’s comments on Wednesday about the tanker controversy. I mentioned what he had to say about a Congressional investigation in my blog entry yesterday.

“Senator Barack Obama just walked away from another fight for American jobs,” declared R. Thomas Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). “This is becoming his trademark. But never before has he done so on this scale, with 44,000 American jobs at stake.”

At a town meeting in Wilkes Barre, PA, this week, Senator Obama suggested the Air Force’s decision on the tanker deal was justified if it turns out the Airbus bid was 10-15 percent better than Boeing’s.

“He just doesn’t get it,” said Buffenbarger. “Airbus has been subsidized by the French government, the British government, even the German and Spanish governments.

“For Senator Obama to equivocate on this issue is a complete embarrassment. But for him to equate our efforts to protect 44,000 jobs and national security with drawing ‘a moat around America’ just shows he’s no friend of blue collar workers.

“Maybe Senator Obama doesn’t ‘mind the Pentagon procuring from other countries’ but I sure as hell do. What is at stake is America’s manufacturing sector. What’s at stake is over $40 billion in American taxpayer dollars.”

And finally, here is Northrop’s press release about its “America’s New Tanker” Web site.

Northrop Grumman’s “America’s New Tanker” Website Generates National Support
for the KC-45 Tanker

LOS ANGELES – April 3, 2008 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC)
recently launched the website “America’s New Tanker”
(www.americasnewtanker.com) to inform the general public about the facts
surrounding the U.S. Air Force’s selection of Northrop Grumman to deliver the
KC-45 aerial refueling tanker aircraft.

“This website serves as a central point of accurate information and
current news for Americans who want to learn the facts about the KC-45 Tanker
– from the 48,000 U.S. jobs this program will support to how citizens can take
action and contact their elected officials,” said Randy Belote, Northrop
Grumman vice president of corporate and international communications.

Citizens across the nation have generated tens of thousands of letters to
their respective congressman, senators and governors in support of the Air
Force’s selection of Northrop Grumman to provide the KC-45 Tanker. The
website also offers a capability that enables visitors to receive e-mail news
updates about the program.

“Following the Feb. 29 Air Force announcement that it had selected
Northrop Grumman to build and deliver the new fleet of KC-45 aerial refueling
tankers, supporters of the losing bidder spread misinformation about the basis
for the Air Force’s decision,” Belote added. “We believe that citizens who
visit the site will learn the facts surrounding the program – like the fact
that the program is led by an American company, that the aircraft will be
built in the United States in four new factories, and that the KC-45 is the
superior tanker for our Airmen at best value for American taxpayers.”

The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will create 48,000 new American jobs at 230
companies in 49 states. The aircraft will be assembled and modified at new,
state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities in Mobile, Ala., while the KC-45’s
refueling systems will be built at new facilities in Bridgeport, W.Va., and
delivered to the KC-45 Production Center for aircraft integration.

The KC-45 will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop
Grumman, and includes EADS North America, GE Aviation, Sargent Fletcher,
Honeywell, Parker, Goodrich, AAR Cargo Systems, Telephonics, Knight Aerospace,
Astronics and Aircraft Safety.

Posted by document.writeln(showE2(“jameswallace”,”seattlepi.com”,”James Wallace”))James Wallace at April 3, 2008 5:16 p.m.

FAA Whistleblowers Say Jobs Were Threatened

APWhistleblowers Say Jobs Were ThreatenedWASHINGTON – The whistleblowers who exposed maintenance and inspection problems at Southwest Airlines told Congress their jobs were threatened and their reports of noncompliance were ignored for years. Federal Aviation Administration inspector Douglas Peters choked up Thursday at a House hearing and needed a few sips of water to tell lawmakers about how a former manager came into his office, commented on pictures of Peters’ family being most important, and then said his job could be jeopardized by his actions. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said FAA managers’ actions displayed “malfeasance bordering on corruption,” adding that if presented to a grand jury, the evidence would result in an indictment. The FAA last month took the rare step of ordering the audit of maintenance records at all domestic carriers following reports of missed safety inspections at Dallas-based Southwest. The airline was hit with a record $10.2 million fine for continuing to fly dozens of Boeing 737s, which carried an estimated 145,000 passengers, that hadn’t been inspected for cracks in their fuselages. Southwest has said it will appeal the penalty. Both FAA whistleblowers — Charalambe Boutris and Peters — said the agency views the airlines as its “customers” instead of companies to be regulated. They said the FAA’s chief maintenance inspector at the time, Douglas T. Gawadzinski, knowingly allowed Southwest to keep planes flying that put passengers at risk, and that another inspector knew of the problem and did nothing. Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III echoed concerns about the FAA’s inspection office responsible for Southwest Airlines, testifying that it had “developed an overly collaborative relationship” with the carrier. “FAA’s oversight in this case appears to allow, rather than mitigate, recurring safety violations,” Scovel said. His office found that the agency fails to protect employees who report safety issues and doesn’t adequately respond to problems when they are identified. He recommended immediate action be taken to fix the air carrier oversight programs. Herb Kelleher, Southwest’s founder and executive chairman, apologized for allowing planes to fly that should not have.”Our people made engineering judgments they were not entitled to make,” he said, adding that passenger safety was never compromised. Southwest Chief Executive Gary Kelly said the airline increased the number, scope and frequency of audits and implemented more stringent requirements of maintenance plan changes after the problems were discovered. The airline will take further action after independent investigators, the FAA and Southwest staff finish their reviews, he said. When FAA inspectors blew the whistle in March 2007, Gawadzinski was their superior. He’s still employed by the FAA, but has no responsibility for safety decisions, said Nicholas Sabatini, the agency’s associate administrator for aviation safety.  Oberstar disputed that assertion and said Gawadzinski had retained oversight responsibility after his removal from the Southwest office. Sabatini said he would look into it those claims and promised that the FAA will “take whatever action the law will allow” when the investigation is complete. Gawadzinski was not asked to testify at Thursday’s hearing because of the ongoing nature of the investigations and he was considered to be a hostile witness who would most likely refuse to answer questions that could have incriminated himself, according to a spokesman for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Committee Chairman Oberstar said as long as the FAA views the airlines as customers “that culture of safety will not take hold and is not going to permeate the organization.” Sabatini said the FAA is a regulator and that he would immediately work to correct that internal problem of perception.

Still, the inspectors’ concerns about Southwest, which the FAA first acknowledged a year ago, have since been confirmed, and the agency on Wednesday said it is investigating four airlines for failing to comply with various federal aviation regulations. It did not name the airlines. In the last week alone, AMR Corp.’s American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and UAL Corp.’s United Airlines have canceled flights to perform unscheduled inspections of certain aircraft, and US Airways Group Inc. found problems on some Boeing 757s after a wing part from another plane fell off during a flight. Spokesmen from Delta, United, Northwest Airlines, US Air and American said they have not been informed that their companies are the subject of an investigation. A Southwest spokeswoman said the carrier has not been informed of any additional investigation. On Wednesday, the FAA announced a new reporting system designed to make it easier for inspectors to raise concerns and strengthening ethics policies aimed at easing potential conflicts of interests. The agency will launch the system by the end of this month to provide employees an additional way to raise safety concerns they feel are not receiving the necessary attention or response from management, acting FAA Administrator Robert A. Sturgell said. And by June 30, the agency will start a rule-making process to set a two-year “cooling off” period for former inspectors hired by airlines to match the time that new inspectors hired from industry must wait before they can oversee their former employer.

FAA: Ensuring Safety – Seattle PI Editorial Board

FAA: Ensuring safety

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARDMinor temper tantrums and rants aside, the flying public puts up with all sorts of delays and issues just to get where they’re going. Stringent (although at times, pointless) security measures, tightening luggage limits and hours spent on the runway waiting for last-minute safety inspections to be completed.We suffer through it all because we want to live to land and maybe even claim our baggage at our destination. But a spate of recent investigations makes us wonder if those in charge take passenger safety seriously. The latest one involves two Federal Aviation Administration inspectors who faced the firing squad for calling attention to what appears to be a cozy relationship between the agency and the airlines it’s meant to keep in line.Both spoke before the House Transportation Committee hearing Thursday. “I’m here to report that more than one inspector along with FAA management has been looking the other way for years,” said whistleblower Peter Boutris. Well, that explains why all of a sudden, in the midst of this embarrassing flap, several airlines have grounded several flights for inspections.The Transportation Security Administration found last fall that its agents allowed bomb parts and weapons to pass through inspections (but apparently, a nipple ring or two can trigger a DEFCON Four alert), and last week, the TSA had to deal with a CNN story exposing a shortage of federal air marshals on commercial flights. If those revelations don’t trigger major overhauls in how the government regulates the industry, nothing will.

 

GAO Considers Boeing Tanker Appeal

GAO won’t throw out Boeing tanker appeal

By ERIC ROSENBERG AND JAMES WALLACE P-I AEROSPACE REPORTER
P-I WASHINGTON BUREAUWASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Office on Wednesday denied requests by Northrop Grumman and the Air Force seeking dismissal of an appeal by The Boeing Co. over the award of a lucrative tanker jet project to Northrop and Airbus parent EADS.But even this latest developed touched off a war of words between Northrop and Boeing.Northrop, in a statement, said the denials came after a supplemental filing by Boeing that “streamlined its original protest and eliminated many of the elements that were central to the Air Force and Northrop Grumman motions.”“Boeing’s decision to abandon the public relations rhetoric contained in its original protest filings is in keeping with our motion,” said Randy Belote, Northrop Grumman vice president of corporate and international communications. “We are encouraged that the company has streamlined its approach. We remain convinced that the Air Force process that led to Northrop Grumman’s selection was fair, open and transparent, and we look forward to assisting the Air Force defend its selection decision before the GAO.”Boeing issued a statement shortly after Northrop’s, saying it has not streamlined its original protest.“We have no idea of the basis of the Northrop Grumman statement,” Boeing said. “We continue to press every ground in our original appeal. We have neither abandoned nor narrowed any ground. In fact, our supplemental filings have added additional grounds to our original filing based on the information we have received from the Air Force since filing our protest on March 11. Any assertion to the contrary is a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts.”On March 1, Boeing asked the GAO to overturn the contract award to the EADS-Northrop team. In motions filed with the GAO last week, Northrop Grumman and the Air Force asked the agency to dismiss elements of Boeing’s request.The agency has until mid-June to rule on Boeing’s complaint.Michael Golden, a GAO spokesman, declined to comment.The Air Force in February rejected a Boeing bid to build the new midair refueling tankers and instead chose a team of European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. and Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman. The initial program is valued at around $35 billion but could grow to $100 billion. In its appeal to the GAO, Boeing accused the Air Force of switching airplane size requirements in the middle of the bidding contest. Initially, the service had sought bids for a medium-sized tanker but ended up picking a much larger aircraft, Boeing maintains.Boeing also alleged that the Air Force “repeatedly made fundamental but often unstated changes to the bid requirements and evaluation process” in an effort to keep the Airbus tanker in the competition.The EADS team, maintaining that it won the contract because its aircraft was superior, has denied Boeing’s charge that the Air Force stacked the deck in its favor.Northrop Grumman said that Boeing’s complaints are “untimely” and that the Chicago-based aerospace giant should have complained sooner in the process, not after the Air Force made the contract award.The issues Boeing has raised “should have been questioned, or perhaps protested, before Boeing submitted its final bid,” Northrop Grumman said.P-I aerospace reporter James Wallace can be reached at 206-448-8040 or jameswallace@seattlepi.com. Read his Aerospace blog at blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace.

Jurors told not to consider whistle-blowing laws in whistleblower trial

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/357609_eastman04.html

Jurors told not to consider whistle-blowing lawsLast updated April 3, 2008 11:18 a.m. PT

By ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTER

A King County Superior Court judge told jurors who are deliberating the fate of Gerald Eastman, a former Boeing quality assurance inspector, that whistle-blowing laws should not be considered.

Jurors continued into their third day of deliberations Thursday. They had asked the judge the day before, “May we consider whistle-blowing laws as they pertain to this case?”

Judge Monica Benton told them that they couldn’t consider other laws, nor do outside research.

Eastman faces 16 felony counts of computer trespass, after having downloaded Boeing documents and providing some of them to a Seattle Times reporter.

He said he did so to highlight corruption at Boeing and a shoddy inspection process for new planes. The King County prosecutor has charged that some of the resulting articles had nothing to do with airplane safety.

Defense attorney Ramona Brandes told the judge on Thursday morning, “I felt the court’s instruction went beyond what was necessary.”

Judge Benton also raised concerns to the attorneys about national news regarding “inflammatory discussion about airline safety.”

While the jury deliberates in Seattle, a Congressional hearing in Washington, D.C., has revealed that the Federal Aviation Administration looked the other way even after inspectors found cracks in Southwest Airlines planes. When FAA inspectors complained about the safety problems, they were threatened with dismissal, according to a report Thursday by the New York Times.

Delta, American Airlines and United Airlines have recently grounded scores of Boeing planes. U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who has charged that the FAA has a “culture of coziness” with the carriers it regulates, leads the hearing.

Benton brought jurors into the courtroom to again remind them not to consider outside evidence or information when deliberating the case. The jurors are not allowed to read or watch any media reports regarding Eastman or Boeing.

Eastman said he felt somewhat vindicated by the national reports about poor FAA oversight. One of his complaints as a Boeing employee and after his arrest was that the FAA overlooked faulty inspections at Boeing.

While working as a quality assurance inspector in Tukwila, he wrote to Boeing management, the FAA and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell about what he viewed as fraud in Boeing’s airplane inspection process.

“With everything that’s going on, you’d think somebody would be interested that the same thing is going on at Boeing,” Eastman said. “It’s nice it’s coming out now — no matter what happens to me.”

---

This report includes information from Bloomberg News. P-I reporter Andrea James can be reached at 206-448-8124 or andreajames@seattlepi.com.© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Seattle PI Reader’s Comments   What do you think?

#403207Posted by nullbull at 4/3/08 12:11 p.m.Please rule on this matter, oh jury of his peers, cornerstone of our system of justice. But only consider these few laws, and don’t do any research to become more informed about the decision, and ignore any legal protections the defendant may be granted by our laws.And then give us your ruling.That’s like asking a referee to fairly ref a game of basketball where one team has their arms tied behind their backs. What a crock. I smell an appeal, and for good reason.

#403209Posted by nullbull at 4/3/08 12:12 p.m.That said… perhaps the whistle blower protection laws require a SEPARATE legal proceeding, only after the initial verdict is given? Anyone have time to research this or know off the top of their heads?

#403246Posted by Pedro_the _Lion at 4/3/08 12:56 p.m.My understanding it that the whistleblowing laws are meant to protect employees from retaliation by their employers. The issue in this lawsuit is not retaliation by Boeing, but whether the employee committed a crime by stealing documents from his employer. I agree that his actions may appear justified, but that issue would not likely implicate the whistleblowing laws and instead would fall under the general rubric of public policy.

#403259Posted by Green Party at 4/3/08 1:12 p.m.If guilty, APPEAL!

#403290Posted by themodpoet at 4/3/08 1:46 p.m.Is it really any surprise that multinational corporations have more rights than people do? Is it any surprise that a federal judge is biased towards multinational corporations and against democracy? Not in Seattle. Remember, cops beat and arrest people all the time for exercising their constitutional rights and then, years later, the City of Seattle pays out the victims. Impeach this judge and let citizens make the rules, not corporations.

#403306Posted by Deano59 at 4/3/08 2:08 p.m.To have a whistle blower status, he has to report it to a government agency, usually the DOL, EEOC or OSHA. He didn’t contact any of these. He contacted the press to make his employer look bad period. They can’t consider whistle blower laws because he was trying to report as a whistle blower.Case closed and he gets the punishment he deserves. 

#403326Posted by jbottero at 4/3/08 2:27 p.m.He *broke into* computer systems and *stole* documents. He broke the law. This is different than just talking to reporters. 

#403327Posted by jbottero at 4/3/08 2:31 p.m.Posted by themodpoet at 4/3/08 1:46 p.m. Is it really any surprise that multinational corporations have more rights than people do?So you’re saying it’s OK for the guy who mows your lawn or comes in to clean your drains to rile through your personal papers? Really?

#403332Posted by D_P at 4/3/08 2:39 p.m.Let’s hope for jury nullification. If I was a juror in a case where the judge said that I couldn’t see all the information, I would not vote to convict. It would be unethical.

#403345Posted by jbottero at 4/3/08 3:06 p.m.Posted by D_P at 4/3/08 2:39 p.m.Let’s hope for jury nullification. If I was a juror in a case where the judge said that I couldn’t see all the information, I would not vote to convict. It would be unethical. It would be “unethical” to allow this guy to get away with breaking the law simply because you hate “Big Corporations”.He broke into systems he had nor right to be in. He stole documents he had no right to give away. He broke the law.

#403375Posted by beirdo at 4/3/08 3:54 p.m.to Deano59 – As evidenced by the paragraph below, which is from the article, this guy did try reporting to the gov., but they looked the other way. Obviously money means more to them than safety. (and in this election season I have to note that the 2 senators he reported this to were both democrats – just as corrupt as the republicans). I applaud Gerald’s heroic actions (from what I know of them). “While working as a quality assurance inspector in Tukwila, he wrote to Boeing management, the FAA and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell about what he viewed as fraud in Boeing’s airplane inspection process.”to jbottero – your lawn mower analogy hardly compares to this when the discussion is about whistleblower status. sheesh!

#403377Posted by equalibrium at 4/3/08 4:00 p.m.Is it really any surprise that multinational corporations have more rights than people do? I was unaware of my right to steal from people and business’.Also, if whistle blower laws applied, would the defense not try to go that route to begin with? I would hope so.If I was a juror in a case where the judge said that I couldn’t see all the information  What do you mean? One of the corner stones of our judicial system is eliminating outside influence. Evidence is either allowed or it is not. We can’t have gray areas where each jury picks and chooses their information. 

#403396Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/3/08 4:37 p.m.Nullbull, It appears the company has a number of issues they were trying to address with this attack on former Quality Assurance Inspector, Eastman.

I have been told that the company has had little patience for anyone who voices concerns about problems they see evidenced while doing their jobs. It appears they are trying to make a BIG example of Mr. Eastman. If they pull this off, they will certainly exact a new level of terror among their employees, particularly anyone who even remotely considered making whistleblower complaints.

Mr. Eastman tried first of all to resolve the problems he saw occurring in is place of employment by going through the proper and designated channels within his company. Achieving no success, he then went to the federal oversight agency, which was supposed to be policing Boeing’s safety and manufacturing processes, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Surely, after last night’s breaking stories nearly everywhere, no one could doubt FAA has been having their problems and has been failing the government and the American public in that mission. Then Mr. Eastman, went to the DOT OIG, and also met with ambivalence to his complaints. Considering the emasculation of the Justice Department, and other oversight agencies recently, it is no surprise he was not successful in getting the problems addressed there in a timely manner either.

Mr. Eastman, it appears was trying to get his claims of fraud, filed as a whistleblower addressed, when his former employer filed charges against him. They filed these charges approximately two years after they had temporarily had him arrested, long enough to seize all of his computers, documentation and evidence, all of which was needed to support his claims of fraud. Also, it is notable that apparently Boeing also refused, upon filing charges against Mr. Eastman, to release the information they had seized and locked away that Mr. Eastman and his attorney needed in order to prepare a defense of his case in the trial being quickly funneled through the King County Courts as we speak.

Boeing has done everything it can to try to narrow the scope of the trial to keep Mr. Eastman’s whistleblower activities out of consideration. It is to their advantage to paint him as a common criminal. If they allowed him to have his legitimate whistleblower status, they would have to also allow him his rights as a whistleblower. Although whistleblower protection laws are far from sufficient, there are a number of protections, including Sarbanes-Oxley, and others mentioned in comments to other PI articles on this topic earlier this week.

Retaliation by Boeing? Yes, indeed, it appears that way to me. I imagine they don’t want this camel’s nose under the tent, especially with other investigations in progress in various three and four acronym agencies. I have been told that the company is quite frantic about what employees might say to federal investigators. Perhaps the example they want to set is “See what happens to you if you dare!” And with that lovely work environment, it becomes more understandable the poison we have read over the past week or two in posts from some, claiming to be Boeing workers. It sounds like a pretty terrible environment.

Thanks for your comments beirdo. This whole thing is outrageous and an embarrassment to everyone.