Archive for April 5th, 2008
More on Scientific Censorship from GAP
Climate Science Watch Exposes Scientific Censorship
Earlier this month, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a major report on the likely impacts of climate change on Gulf Coast transportation infrastructure. However, the GAP program Climate Science Watch (CSW), in addition to noticing the report’s press release was buried, confirmed that journalists were blocked by DOT from speaking with the report’s lead author.
The report specifically analyzes how global warming will require immediate changes to be incorporated into Gulf infrastructure planning (highways) in order to avoid future problems. Three hours after the report was posted online, DOT issued an uninformative and misleading press release on a separate Web site, listing only one contact – a DOT press official. Reporters who initially tried to interview the report’s lead author were explicitly told by DOT officials that the author and the press could not communicate with each other.
The authors of scientific reports should always be allowed to brief and respond to press inquiries. After finding that DOT was blocking inquiries, GAP and CSW issued a press release to challenge their censorship. The DOT then felt public pressure, and was compelled to open media communication between journalists and the report’s author.
Add comment April 5, 2008
Southwest Lapse Tied to Pattern of FAA Leniency
Airline Safety Alarms Unheeded
Southwest Lapse Tied to Pattern Of FAA Leniency
By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 4, 2008; A01
Federal aviation safety inspectors told members of Congress yesterday that they repeatedly ran into roadblocks when trying to report oversight lapses that allowed Southwest Airlines last year to operate passenger flights with planes in need of key safety checks.
Those problems demonstrate weakness in the Federal Aviation Administration’s efforts to ensure safety at all airlines, the inspector general for the Transportation Department told lawmakers. Since it was disclosed last month that Southwest kept flying dozens of planes in need of inspections for fuselage cracks, four carriers have grounded more than 500 planes and canceled hundreds of flights to conduct inspections or make required repairs.
The FAA’s reliance on airlines to voluntarily disclose safety issues “promotes a pattern of excessive leniency at the expense of effective oversight and appropriate enforcement,” Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel told the House Transportation Committee yesterday.
Several FAA inspectors described their struggles in trying to get their superiors and other inspectors to take tougher stances with Southwest. Instead of taking prompt regulatory action, their bosses tried to find ways to help Southwest avoid sanctions, they testified.
When they attempted to report those issues to officials higher up the FAA chain of command, they were harassed, threatened and even punished, they said.
They also said the FAA had gone from aggressively regulating airlines to treating them like customers or clients. Lawmakers and outside safety experts have expressed similar worries about regulators’ coziness with the carriers.
One inspector, Douglas E. Peters, said his experience proved that there “was evidence that FAA management personnel with the responsibility and the authority to take appropriate action proved themselves unworthy of being custodians of the public trust.”
Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the committee, said issues raised by the inspectors represented the “most egregious lapse of safety I have seen in the last 23 years.”
“The FAA would have us believe that what took place was an isolated incident,” Oberstar said. “But . . . this was a systematic breakdown of the safety oversight role of the FAA.”
FAA officials have said the problems with Southwest appeared to be unique, and a recent audit revealed that airlines were complying with 99 percent of safety directions. Four unidentified carriers are under investigation for not complying with directives, the FAA has said.
The groundings and inspection errors are coming to light during the safest period in the history of U.S. commercial aviation. There has been only one major fatal commercial jet crash in the United States since late 2001. Even the sharpest critics of the FAA’s oversight, including Oberstar, have said that air travelers should not be afraid to get on passenger planes.
The FAA’s top safety officer, Nicholas A. Sabatini, apologized to lawmakers yesterday for his agency’s mishandling of the Southwest inspection debacle. He promised that investigators were trying to get to the bottom of what occurred. “I consider what happened to be egregious,” Sabatini said, adding that the whistle-blowing inspectors were heroes.
Scovel, the inspector general, told lawmakers that the FAA relied too heavily on airlines to report problems under a program that encourages voluntary disclosure of safety dangers. In exchange for reporting such issues and quickly fixing them, airlines often avoid punishment. Scovel said that the Southwest lapses were “symptomatic of much deeper problems with FAA oversight.”
Last month — a year after the original problems at Southwest — the FAA fined the carrier $10.2 million for the missed safety checks and for continuing to fly the planes even after the airline learned that it had missed the inspections.
Southwest Chairman Herbert D. Kelleher and chief executive Gary C. Kelly both testified that safety was never compromised by the missed inspections. They noted that the missed inspections dealt only with a tiny section of the planes’ skin, where cracking would likely not have led to a catastrophic accident.
Still, Kelleher and Kelly said the planes should have been taken out of service when the airline learned that they had missed the inspections. Kelly called the incident a “black eye” on the airline’s safety record.
The inspectors who testified yesterday said Southwest’s compliance lapses stemmed from the lax attitude of their supervisor in their Dallas office, Douglas Gawadzinski. He seemed to be too close to the management of Southwest and believed in treating the airline as a customer or client, not a business to be regulated, they said.
Gawadzinski, who continues to work for the FAA in another job, could not be reached for comment. FAA officials would not discuss possible punishment, but Scovel said the agency had considered reducing his compensation by two pay grades.
Charalambe Boutris, an inspector credited with helping expose the troubles in the Dallas office, said the problems appeared in 2003 when he noticed that Southwest’s documentation of fleet-wide engine maintenance was “inconsistent.”
He said he tried to get Gawadzinski to issue a letter of investigation to Southwest, a step considered a stiff regulatory action, but Gawadzinski refused. Still, the inspector said he was able to get Southwest to fix the way it tracks engine maintenance records.
In March 2007, Southwest discovered that dozens of its Boeing 737s had gone months without required inspections for cracks in their skins. Southwest was then improperly given permission by Gawadzinski to keep those planes in service.
Undiscovered cracks on planes “could have resulted in a sudden fracture . . . which would have had a catastrophic impact during flight,” said Boutris, who learned the planes were still flying only when he came upon one being repaired at a Chicago airport.
Add comment April 5, 2008
Airlines, FAA Under Fire on the Hill
Airlines, FAA Under Fire on the Hill
Lawmaker Links Safety Lapses to ‘Cozy Relationship,’ Will Hold Hearing
By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 2, 2008; D01
Crossed wiring led two United Airlines jets to skid off runways.
Federal inspectors blew the whistle on Southwest Airlines for flying planes after learning that critical safety checks had not been conducted on schedule.
A 20-square-foot piece of wing broke off a US Airways jet over Maryland.
Two other carriers discovered problems with the way they were supposed to bundle wires inside jets, leading them to ground scores of planes and cancel hundreds of flights.
Those recent disclosures have raised concern in Congress and among safety experts about airlines’ maintenance practices. They said they were also worried about regulatory oversight of an industry that has been outsourcing increasing amounts of its repair work, which makes it more difficult for inspectors at the Federal Aviation Administration to keep tabs on carriers.
Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told reporters yesterday that the recent flurry of maintenance problems is partially a result of “a cozy relationship between the FAA and airlines and a lack of an enforcement mind-set” by regulators.
“We need a change of attitude at the highest levels of the FAA,” said Oberstar, who is to hold a hearing tomorrow on the issue.
FAA officials denied that they are too friendly with air carriers and said the industry has done a good job of complying with often complex directives requiring them to fix items as varied as wiring and windshields.
A recent sampling of airline records and inspections of hundreds of planes has found a “very, very high compliance rate” with safety directives, said Laura J. Brown, an FAA spokeswoman. The FAA is expected to release the results of that study today.
The controversy over airline maintenance comes during the industry’s safest stretch in history — there has been only one major fatal U.S. airline crash since 2001. Even the agency’s toughest critics in Congress, including Oberstar, have said air travelers should not be nervous about stepping onto a jetliner.
Still, lawmakers and safety experts said they worry that they are witnessing the same types of problems that dogged the industry a decade ago. That is when the FAA and carriers came under fire for lax maintenance practices that led to crashes.
Many of today’s reporting and monitoring systems — which rely heavily on airlines reporting problems to regulators — were developed to fix such lapses.
In exchange for disclosing errors or other mistakes, airlines are generally not subjected to fines or other forms of punishment. Some experts and members of Congress worry that the approach may need to be recalibrated.
“The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of partnership with the airlines,” said Ken Mead, a former inspector general at the Department of Transportation.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate aviation subcommittee, added: “Well, if you view airlines as your customers, I am not sure that is the appropriate relationship, particularly when it gets into safety.”
The recent disclosures of maintenance problems surfaced last month in media reports about Southwest Airlines.
FAA inspectors approached investigators on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, alleging that the airline did not conduct proper inspections for cracks in the fuselages of dozens of Boeing 737 jets. Such inspections were required after a 1988 accident in which the top of an Aloha Airlines 737 tore away due to cracking.
Southwest told regulators in March 2007 that it had not done the appropriate inspections on more than 40 of its 737s but kept flying them for as many as eight days before being able to inspect them for cracks. Mechanics found small cracks in five of the planes, the airline said.
A month later, the airline made a similar admission about late inspections of a critical rudder system. The airline continued to fly the planes for up to nine days after disclosing the problem. A top FAA official in the office that monitors Southwest was a friend of at least one airline employee and improperly gave the carrier permission to fly the planes even after it learned of the missed inspections, according to members of Congress and investigators with the special counsel’s office.
The FAA has removed the employee from his job overseeing Southwest.
Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch, whose office investigates complaints by whistle-blowers, said in an interview that he believes “there are significant issues with the FAA commitment to oversight and safety compliance.”
“The FAA has a culture of coverup and complacency,” Bloch added.
Last month, nearly a year after the initial problems were discovered, the FAA levied a $10.2 million fine against Southwest. The vast majority of the fine was imposed because Southwest had certified that it stopped flying the planes as soon as it learned of the missed inspections, FAA officials said.
Southwest representatives said that the late inspections never endangered the public and that they thought they were following proper procedures after learning of the missed checks.
Southwest’s chief executive, Gary Kelly, has apologized for any potential safety lapses.
Southwest last month grounded 38 jets to make up for late inspections for potential cracking on another part of the airplanes. Four of those jets had minor cracks that required repairs, the airline reported.
Southwest’s disclosures prompted airlines and the FAA to look for other problems across the industry. Inspectors and mechanics found problems with how wiring bundles were attached in the wheel wells of McDonnell-Douglas jets operated by Delta Air Lines and American Airlines. The airlines grounded scores of planes and canceled hundreds of flights until they could correct the wiring. Airline representatives said the problems did not pose a safety hazard.
On March 22, a 20-square-foot section of composite material separated from the wing of a US Airways Boeing 757 on a flight from Florida to Philadelphia. The airline quickly discovered that improper repairs had been conducted on seven of its 43 757s. That work probably led to the wing breaking over Maryland, the airline said.
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating what led two United Airlines Airbus planes to skid off runways in recent months. On Feb. 22, one of the planes ran more than 100 feet off the end of a runway while landing at the airport in Jackson Hole, Wyo. Investigators blamed crossed wiring on sensors that operate an anti-skidding system. A similar incident occurred Oct. 9 at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, investigators said.
United representatives said that they have found no similar problems in their Airbus fleet and are trying to figure out why tests did not uncover the faulty repair work before the planes were put back into service.
Add comment April 5, 2008
FAA Whistleblower Says He Was Threatened!
TELLS CONGRESS AGENCY VIEWED AIRLINES LIKE “CUSTOMERS”
RATHER THAN COMPANIES TO BE REGULATED
April 3, 2008
(CBS/AP) A House committee reported the findings of its investigation into the Federal Aviation Agency’s safety oversight Thursday and heard testimony from airline safety inspectors and the Transportation Department’s inspector general.
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 that hadn’t been inspected for cracks in their fuselages.
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 Southwest, 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.
Gawadzinski is still employed by the FAA, but has no responsibility for safety decisions, said Nicholas Sabatini, the agency’s associate administrator for aviation safety. The FAA will “take whatever action the law will allow” when the investigation into the Southwest episode is complete, he added.
Gawadzinski was not asked to testify at Thursday’s hearing because 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.
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.”
Southwest is not the only carrier that has benefited from a “cozy” relationship with regulators, said Tom Brantley, president of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists union that represents FAA inspectors.
In testimony prepared for the hearing, Brantley details maintenance and safety issues at United, Continental Airlines Inc., Northwest Airlines Corp., Hawaiian Airlines Inc. and elsewhere where the carriers were given great leeway by the FAA to correct problems that inspectors on the ground said merited more serious attention. Financial penalties for infractions suggested by inspectors against United and other carriers also were ignored or significantly reduced by the time they were assessed, he added.
Adding to the airline industry’s problems is the growing number of U.S. air travelers who have endured longer lines, more delays and the loss of amenities like meals and blankets.
And now they are getting hit with a wave of schedule disruptions caused by airlines scrambling amid increased regulatory scrutiny to ensure that the expanding air transport system stays safe.
The latest complication came Wednesday, when United Airlines temporarily grounded dozens of Boeing 777s to test their cargo fire-suppression systems.
I think that relationship between the carriers and the FAA has become too cozy.”
Peter Goalz
former managing director,National Transportation Safety Board
United said it canceled 41 flights and delayed dozens of others as it carried out work on the long-haul jets after a review of maintenance records showed that a test on a bottle in the fire suppression system hadn’t been performed.
Schedule foul-ups due to inspections have been commonplace since early March, including hundreds of flights canceled last week by American Airlines and Delta Air Lines as they checked wiring bundles on some planes. Stepped-up inspections began when the Federal Aviation Administration ordered a check of maintenance records at all domestic carriers after revelations surfaced about missed safety inspections at Southwest Airlines Co.
The FAA said Wednesday that four U.S. airlines are under investigation for failing to comply with federal aviation regulations, but would not name the carriers. Officials said three airlines had missed inspection deadlines and that penalties could be levied, though it would be several months before the probe was complete.
Industry experts warned that passengers can expect more headaches as the FAA and airlines work to guarantee safety amid the rise in air travel – though federal officials are quick to note that this has been one of the safest periods in aviation history.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/travel/main3991452.shtml
Add comment April 5, 2008
Sen. Kerry Presses DHS on Reported Air Marshall Shortage
Senator’s Inquiry Follows Allegation that 99%
Flights Have No Air Marshals on Board
PRESS RELEASE
Newsroom
04/02/2008
|
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. John Kerry wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff today, urging him to provide more information about the number of flights in the U.S. that are actually covered by a Federal Air Marshal (FAM). The letter is in response to allegations made in the media by whistleblowers, which indicated that less than one percent of flights are actually guarded by an armed officer. The importance of having this last backstop of security on board America’s airplanes is not lost on a nation that still bears the scars of the September 11th attacks. “After September 11th, the government promised to make our skies safe again. Billions of dollars were spent to ensure that Armed Marshals were covering commercial flights, so that if every other safety precaution failed, someone would be on board to prevent disaster,” said Kerry. “But now whistleblowers tell us that the promise of Air Marshals may be a mirage. This isn’t what Congress intended. The American people deserve to know what has happened with the Federal Air Marshal program to keep passengers safe.” The text of Kerry’s letter is below: Assistant Secretary Kip Hawley Dear Secretary Chertoff, The Federal Air Marshal Service has provided a crucial last line of defense against the hijacking of commercial flights since its inception in 1970 (then called the Sky Marshal program). After the attacks of September 11th, Congress authorized the dramatic expansion of this program and dramatically increased its funding so more flights could be covered and the public’s confidence in the safety of air travel could be restored. Unfortunately, however, recent press reports indicate that less than one percent of the commercial flights within the United States have a Federal Air Marshal (FAM) on board. Given the crucial function that these Air Marshals perform – as well as the billions of federal dollars that have been spent on the program since 2001 – these reports, if true, are unacceptable. While recognizing that certain facets of this program are classified, Congress must be kept informed as to the basic parameters of this program and how many flights are actually covered by FAMs. As you know, I have been a long-standing advocate for the Federal Air Marshal program. According to CNN, Dana Brown, Director of the FAMs, suggested that there were “many thousands” of FAMs around the globe. To that point, I respectfully request your assistance in answering the following questions: • Is this number accurate? • What is the total coverage for flights, how does this compare with the previous seven years, and do you feel it is adequate to secure our flights and provide an effective deterrent? President Bush called attention to the value of this program in his September 20, 2001, address to Congress in which he said: “Tonight, we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of Air Marshals on domestic flights, and take new measures to prevent hijacking.” While I understand the need for certain aspects of this program to remain classified, more information must be made available to the Congress to ensure proper oversight and to reassure public that they are safe in the skies. Thank you for your consideration of my request. I would appreciate a response to my questions before April 11, 2008. Sincerely, John F. Kerry |
Add comment April 5, 2008
Update on Gerald Eastman’s Trial, April 4, 2008
Gerald Eastman’s Trial is still going on as of 3:45 p.m., Friday, April 4. He has updated more of his experiences on his blog which is located on his website: www.thelastinspector.com
Please visit there for his words. Below please find the updated story from Seattle Post Intelligencer Reporter, Andrea James, who has really made the effort to continue to report this story, and updated comments on her article from the Seattle Readers and Mr. Eastman himself.
——————————————————————————————————
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/357609_eastman04.html
Whistle-blowing laws out in Eastman case
Judge tells jury not to consider them
Last updated April 3, 2008 11:14 p.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 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 downloading 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 Thursday morning, “I felt the court’s instruction went beyond what was necessary.”
Benton also raised concerns to the lawyers about national news regarding “inflammatory discussion about airline safety.”
While the jury deliberates in Seattle, a congressional hearing in Washington, D.C., 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.
Delta Air Lines, American Airlines and United Airlines have recently grounded scores of planes. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who has charged that the FAA has a “culture of coziness” with the carriers it regulates, led 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.”
The jury did not reach a verdict Thursday; deliberations were to continue Friday.
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
Posted 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?
Posted 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.
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? 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.
Posted 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.
Posted 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.
Posted 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?
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.
Posted 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.
Posted 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!
Posted 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.
Posted 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 embarassment to everyone.
Posted by NAYSAYING TROLL at 4/3/08 7:01 p.m.
Hopefully a verdict of innocent will be returned. This would be a “just” slap in the face of the prosecution.
Posted by Leelaw at 4/3/08 11:30 p.m.
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.
This would be considered sound jurisprudence in every American jurisdiction. The jury decides questions of fact, not law. The judge has the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly.
Posted by The Last Inspector at 4/3/08 11:31 p.m.
Thanks, kind supporters. Actually my attorney and I had our necessity/whistleblower defense taken away by the judge before the trial began. It is nice the jury saw the judge’s error without even witnessing her striking down that defense. The truth is I always was a whistleblower and I tried every avenue I could think of for almost two years before I had no option left but to go public in concert with reporting the FAA management’s fraud in the intentional lack of any real oversight of or investigation of Boeing, which was the “root cause” of Boeing’s ability to ignore aviation safety regulations and violate their quality system at will.
Posted by beirdo at 4/4/08 8:29 a.m.
WBR supporter – thanks for fleshing out the details for us.
The Last Inspector – keep up the good fight!
Posted by SouthSeaTown at 4/4/08 10:10 a.m.
I used to be an inspector at Boeing and although I never saw any outright fraud meaning people stated they were going to purposefully do poor work, but there were many times inspectors would look over their shoulder because they were rushed, or it was their friend, or it was time to leave for the day. But of course, this could go for any job role at any company.
When people are assigned a task of doing something and it involves the safety of people, they have a responsibility to either do it correctly or don’t do it at all. I remember people trying to bring to light certain aspects of unsound practices only to fall on deaf ears. Usually those folks just got moved to another location.
All of the people I have known at Boeing that have brought these types of issues up however, have all ended up in negative outcomes.
Posted by The Last Inspector at 4/4/08 2:11 p.m.
Thanks, “beirdo” and “SouthSeaTown” for the support.
Because I was transferred more than other inspectors who complied and didn’t really do their jobs, I saw more the length and breadth of Boeing QA management corruption and more of the the rollerstamping inspectors that they ensured did so. When I went to the FAA to get that corrected, I found no help at all in ending the massive fraud in QA at Boeing, but I did learn alot about the FAA, and how its actions, or more acurately, intentional lack of required actions and oversight, was the enabling force behind the fraud I witnessed at Boeing. Until the oversight and independence of the FAA is restored, Boeing will be free to violate the law at will. Getting rid of Nick Sabatini at the FAA and any management that reports to him involved in the non-investigation of my report would be a minimum start to that end. Charges should be pressed against the maximum number of complicit FAA managers possible. Then they may finally give up their accomplices at Boeing in this matter of public safety significance in order to save themselves, and reveal just how this racketeering system worked, and exactly why they subjegated public safety to deference to industry management, which I still can’t fathom. Was it money? The good-old boy/girl system. Quid Pro Quo jobs for services of lack of oversight rendered after early retirement from the FAA to the AIA or some other industry organizaton or company? Inquiring Federal Prosecutors should like to know, as well.
Add comment April 5, 2008
Posted 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.