Tag Archive: Gerald Eastman


Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman reflects on the past decade and wonders about the direction being taken by the new one, taking on Boeing and government corruption and more.  Here is a short excerpt.  You may find the complete post at The Last Inspector,  http://eastmans.site.aplus.net/pblog/index.php

“Boeing chose to jump on the Bush anti-regulation and ignore enforcing regulations bandwagon.  And, Boeing got busy early in the decade with revolving door fraud, as in the case of hiring Druyun Quid Pro Quo for fixing the first tanker contract award in Boeing’s favor.  Such revolving door shenanigans continue as employees eagerly jump from government to Boeing and back to government again, each time performing more service to Boeing such as favors in the form of information, contacts and influence, “adjusting” federal regulations to better the advantage of the company or make such regulations less in the way of opportunities for more questionable business dealings.  Combined with Boeing lobbyists and campaign contributions it is a powerful cabal that works 365 days a year to gain taxpayers dollars.”

Boeing’s Troubles Deepen:  Comments by Jon Talton, Seattle Times, with commentary by Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman.

Talton and Eastman take on the onerous task of sorting through the PR and spin put on the latest Boeing castastrophe, the malfunctions and delays of the 747-8, and consider who is to blame and why, and what must be done to set things straight.

 Link to article with Mr. Eastman’s comments on Mr. Eastman’s blog, The Last Inspector

http://eastmans.site.aplus.net/pblog/index.php

 

Link to original article by Mr. Talton in the Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/j … col07.html

 

 

From The Last Inspector.com

 

Link to original:  http://eastmans.web.aplus.net/pblog/index.php

 

 

Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 01:14 PM
Posted by Administrator

Kudos to Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding for setting an example for how seriously and appropriately to handle inspectors who rollerstamp inspections without actually doing the inspections.

An inspector was turned in by another inspector for such rollerstamping of weld inspections off on military ships, including extra-critical SUBSAFE welds on submarines. Contrary to the way such fraud is handled at Boeing on commercial and military aircraft platforms based on Boeing commercial aircraft, Northrop Grumman immediately launched a real investigation (as opposed to intentionally ineffective Boeing ethics/Legal/OIG investigations) into the inspector’s fraud, including re-inspection of every weld the inspector had rollerstamped off as being done and OK when they were never actually done.

They disclosed the fraud to the government, fired the inspector, and otherwise handled the incident completely appropriately–in direct opposition to how Boeing handled my report of massive rollerstamping at Boeing to Boeing’s Chief Counsel at Boeing’s Chicago Headquarters.

Northrop Grumman is obviously a company that takes integrity and its responsibilities to protect our brave military personnel’s lives seriously.

Too bad Boeing has no such integrity, as demonstrated by how they intentionally mishandled the report I submitted to their Chief Counsel in the good faith that it would be actually be investigated and the fraud documented within it ended, and how they retaliated against the inspector who reported the fraud to them–me. Contrary to such Boeing modus operandi, Northrop Grumman investigated and ended the fraud one of its inspectors reported to them–they didn’t do as Boeing did–“killing the messenger,” then continuing the fraud.

Nice to know there are companies of integrity out there that take their responsibilities to the warfighter and the public seriously. Perhaps their management’s integrity will be rewarded as it should be–with more business for their company.

As much as I love the hypothetical concept of an uncorrupted Boeing and the many non-addled employees that work there, feeding the the cancer of corrupt Boeing management cannot be justified, especially when there are companies out there with managements of integrity that want the work. Such a company could hire the good Boeing workers over if they are given the contracts instead, leaving corrupt Boeing management and their sycophants in corruption to whither and go away. That may be the only way to stem such Boeing management corruption at this point–a managment that has demonstrated that it will not “let go” of the company until it has died as a consequence of their corruption and incompetence.

But, Boeing’s Chief Counsel’s actions to cover up the fraud documented in my report and to instead show up at my workplace to personally direct the retaliation against me is understandable, if you think like a criminal would.

The inspection fraud at Boeing was an intentional creation of corrupt Boeing management to take shortcuts and increase profitability and efficiency at the expense of passenger, crew, and military personnel safety, whereas, at Northrop Grumman, it was one rogue inspector.

Rollerstamping inspectors at Boeing are par for the course, as that is what Boeing management wants them to do. Been there, witnessed/experienced what happens to inspectors who refuse to rollerstamp at the direction and expectation of corrupt Boeing management.

So, if Boeing’s Chief Counsel had actually decided to investigate as Northrop Grumman did instead of covering it up, the investigation would have implicated many levels of Boeing management that had directed the fraud–not just a few rogue inspectors.

Because rollerstamping has for so long been a part of the business plan, ending it would have had 1997 style implications for Boeing’s production lines, and obviously, it was much easier for them to retaliate against this whistlblower than ending the fraud and implicating themselves in the process.

Doing so would have also threatened Boeing’s corrupt relationship with FAA management it has cultivated for years, making Boeing actually have to certify its aircraft were safe, rather than just going through the motions with complicit FAA management. Boeing’s undeserved delegations by corrupt FAA management would also have ended, ominously for the 787, which is already two years late.

I am proud that I have dealt with Northrop Grumman, both on the B-2 program where I worked for them through Boeing’s subcontract, and via my warning their CEO, Ronald D. Sugar, of Boeing’s theft of their B-2 technology for use in their commercial programs in a letter I faxed to him on 12-14-06.

Working for a corrupt companies’ management, as I did for many years at Boeing, makes you envious of the employees who work for the uncorrupted companies out there, like Northrop Grumman, whose management ensures a quality system of integrity no matter what the cost, whereas corrupt Boeing management and its Chief Counsel ensure the opposite, precisely to save costs and increase efficiency by consciously engaging in such fraud, on a truly massive scale.

Obviously, in Boeing management’s twisted thinking, a few rollerstamped required inspections make a little money, and massive amounts of rollerstamping will therefore make massive amounts of money.

Thankfully for the warfighter, that is not Northrop Grumman management’s philosophy.

What follows is the article about the rogue inspector, and how a truly ethical company handles rollerstamping reported to it (of course, Boeing management already knew of the rollerstamping I reported to it, as it was done at their direction):

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/ … s_060109w/

Weld inspector’s lies may affect 9 ships

By Christopher P. Cavas – Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jun 1, 2009 16:48:42 EDT

More than 10,000 welded joints on at least eight submarines and a new aircraft carrier might need to be reinspected after the discovery by Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding that one of its inspectors had falsified inspection reports.

According to an internal report obtained by Navy Times, the issue came to light May 14, when a welding inspector at the company’s Newport News, Va., shipyard told a supervisor that a fellow inspector was initialing welds as “OK” without performing the inspections. Confronted by the supervisor, the offending inspector admitted to falsifying three weld inspections, all that same day.

Company officials rapidly began an internal investigation and notified the Navy’s supervisor of shipbuilding of the situation, according to the report. On May 20, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service began its own investigation.

Northrop Grumman declined to reveal the employee’s name, citing the ongoing personnel investigation. A company official did say May 28 that the employee initially had been suspended, then fired.

According to the report, a quick company review of the inspector’s work showed that 12 other joints inspected by the employee that evening were satisfactory. But the ramifications of the falsified inspections rapidly grew beyond a single night’s work.

“We have to go back and check everything this guy has ever touched,” said one industrial source.

The employee had been certified to perform inspections in June 2005 and, according to the report, a review of the shipyard’s welding database showed that in the ensuing four years he inspected and signed off on more than 10,000 structural welding joints on at least nine ships.

Company officials said May 27 that the investigation of the employee’s work could mean that all the joints would need reinspection or re-evaluation.

3 ships in service
According to the report, the ships worked on by the inspector included the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Missouri, California, Mississippi, Minnesota and John Warner, and the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush. Bush, North Carolina and New Hampshire are in service; the other subs are in various states of construction at Newport News and at the General Dynamics shipyards in Groton, Conn., and Quonset, R.I.

The two shipbuilders share equally in building the submarines. Each shipyard builds specific sections of the submarines and transports the sections to the other yard. The shipbuilders alternate in assembling the hulls.

The inspector performed most of his work on the New Mexico (2,133 welds inspected), Missouri (3,169), California (2,002) and Mississippi (2,177). The employee inspected only 23 welds on New Hampshire and two on North Carolina.

A little more than 10 percent of the submarine welds were hull integrity, or SUBSAFE, joints involving critical parts.

The inspector also performed 229 piping joint inspections on submarines.

There are many thousands of welds on each 7,800-ton submarine — more then 300,000, according to an Electric Boat Best Manufacturing Practices Web site.

But making sure that welding work is done correctly can be a matter of life and death.

“People take this really, really seriously,” said one industry source. “Why? Because people don’t want another Thresher. Nobody takes a chance.”

The submarine Thresher sank in April 1963 when it was forced to dive below its crush depth and the hull imploded. All 129 men aboard the sub perished.

“The quality of our work is something we take very seriously,” Northrop spokeswoman Margaret Mitchell-Jones said in a May 28 statement to Navy Times.

Previous problems
Newport News is still smarting from a welding filler issue that arose in fall 2007. Shipyard workers had used the wrong type of welding filler material on many pipe welds, and the company and the Navy were forced to re-examine a number of submarines, aircraft carriers and surface ships built or repaired at the shipyard. Northrop changed a number of workshop practices as a result.

Both the Navy and Northrop Grumman emphasize that there is no relation between the weld filler issue and the latest problem with the inspector.

Northrop Grumman has developed an inspection plan of the offending inspector’s work that will focus on hull integrity and SUBSAFE joints as a priority, followed by non-SUBSAFE joints, according to the internal report.

The nature of the NCIS investigation is unclear.

“I can confirm that NCIS is investigating allegations made against a weld inspector, but I cannot get into case specifics,” NCIS spokesman Ed Buice wrote in a May 28 e-mail to Navy Times. “NCIS does not comment on the details of ongoing investigations.”

 

From The Last Inspector, Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman

 

**********************************************************************************************************************************

 

My Letter to the Last Tanker Procurement Team Posted–Sadly, Nothing has Changed in Boeing Management Since Then 

Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 12:11 PM
Posted by Administrator

As no reforms in Boeing management have taken place since this letter, please use it as a model for your letters to the next procurement team and your Congressional politicians. Just substitute your own experiences with Boeing management fraud for mine. The taxpayer as well as the warfighter need to be protected from such Boeing management continuing Druyun/Sears-esque fraud. Note that I advocate for a Boeing selection despite corrupt Boeing management. I feel the extra expenses to guard against Boeing management fraud are outweighed by the necessity of this program to Boeing employees and our wider industrial base. This letter was previously posted at www.thelastinspector.com

Here is an important story yesterday in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that explains in part the corruption detailed in the letter below–the first Boeing tanker procurement scandal was never adequately investigated–no adequate investigation, no adequate reforms.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/168964.asp

February 25th, 2008

The Honorable Sue C. Payton
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition
1060 Air Force Pentagon, Room 4E964, AF/AQ
Washington, DC 20330-1060

Dear Assistant Secretary Payton:

This urgent letter is to inform you of matters that I have witnessed that I believe should strongly bear upon how you should go about structuring the KC-X contract and how you perform contract negotiations should The Boeing Company be selected over the Airbus/Northrop team as supplier of the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft.

First, I want to make my motivations in giving you this crucial information clear: I am not trying in any way to influence you to select the Airbus/Northrop proposal for the KC-X instead of the Boeing offer. Instead, quite the opposite is true, although that is not related to this letter other than as background information. I do hope you ultimately select the Boeing RFP even considering the corruption I detail below that I witnessed that is still entrenched deeply within Boeing management following the former tanker contract debacle and other Boeing ethical and legal lapses that have been aired publicly for several years now.

My opinion as a loyal former Boeing employee and U.S. citizen that can trace my roots in this country to eighteen years after the Plymouth Colony was settled and some 138 years before our country was founded is that it is essential for the economy of our country, the preservation of aerospace manufacturing jobs in this country, and therefore the preservation of military aircraft production capacity within the United States, that Boeing is ultimately selected as the winner of the competition for the KC-X contract.

That said, I can now get to the essential crux of this letter, which is how best you and your KC-X procurement team can structure a contract should, as I hope, Boeing wins the competition, in order to protect the Air Force, Air Force personnel who will fly on and use these tanker aircraft, and the American taxpayer from the consequences of the fraud still ongoing within management at Boeing today several years after Boeing’s much self-publicized “ethics reforms.”

As a former Boeing Quality Assurance Inspector until just over a year and a half ago, when I was terminated per the direction of the highest management levels at the company for collecting information in order to bring this continuing fraud in Boeing management to light, I witnessed this management fraud in Boeing Commercial Airplanes Quality Assurance on a daily basis. Knowing not only the lives of the public were being intentionally placed at higher risk by corrupt Boeing management because of this fraud, but the lives of our brave military personnel were placed at much higher risk illegally, as well, to maximize Boeing’s bottom line, I knew I had to act to stop this brazen fraud before more lives of the public and our military that fly on Boeing Commercial Airplane platforms were inevitably lost, so I reported this rampant fraud in QA throughout BCA to the FAA in early 2002, well before the former tanker contract debacle.

By the way, this letter is in no way related to Boeing Corporate Headquarter’s retaliation against me as noted above. I knew the day I decided to try to bring Boeing’s illegal actions I witnessed to justice that I would be ultimately removed from my job by Boeing as retaliation for attempting to bring Boeing management’s fraudulent actions to an end as I knew Boeing management’s corrupt modus operandi almost better that they knew it themselves at that point, when Boeing’s “win at any cost” “ethic” was in full swing, as it had not been publicized yet.

The fraud that I witnessed and reported to the FAA in early 2002 is a fraud that sadly continues to this day, due to a relationship with the arm of the FAA that I reported it to that mirrors to some extent the bias that was unfortunately shown by a few former officials in the Air Force before those officials were removed from their posts following the reforms instituted after the 2003 tanker procurement scandal. While the Air Force, under your new leadership team’s hard work and integrity, is totally reformed now and is up to the task in performing your duties with the utmost integrity for the benefit of the taxpayer and our military you represent, the same cannot be said of the FAA and Boeing management involved in the continuing fraud I witnessed. And it is this continuing fraud that, if not noted and addressed by your team as it relates to the KC-X program, poses a grave threat to military personnel who fly on or use the services of the KC-X tanker, and an unreasonable danger to the wise use of American taxpayers’ dollars. Possible challenges to the hard won reputation of the procurement agency for the program also exist if this ongoing corruption at Boeing and the FAA is not properly addressed before a contract is signed, and is not properly mitigated during the life of the program.

The fraud I witnessed on a daily basis at Boeing is something you have likely heard of. While my coworkers and I referred to it as “rollerstamping,” this fraud does have other names in the industry, such as “hot stamping,” or perhaps its most apt description: Product Substitution.

As you well know, the safety, quality, and reliability of military as well as commercial airplane platforms that are produced must be ensured by strict adherence to inspection, testing, and other quality assurance processes. Without such processes, no matter how well intentioned the people are that do the actual construction of those aircraft and their many component parts, inevitably faulty and/or incomplete aircraft will be produced because all humans by nature make mistakes, especially on fast paced and complex tasks requiring high levels of skill, such as in aircraft manufacturing.

That basic fact is acknowledged in the modern regulations and implementing and necessarily mandatory quality assurance procedures that have been put in place over the years to ensure the safety, quality, and reliability of military and commercial aircraft is ensured, and is ensured to the high level required.

However, to Boeing and FAA management, those critical regulations and implementing procedures are only guidelines, if that.

At Boeing, inspectors are expected by management to “look the other way” rather than actually do their critical jobs of ensuring the safety and conformity of Boeing aircraft, and FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors are also similarly expected by their management to “look the other way” from their duties to enforce the FAA regulations at Boeing and to ensure Boeing is adhering to their FAA required quality system.

Is this corruption just speculation? Hardly. I, as well as many others, witnessed it, and I in fact proved it during my dealings with top Boeing and FAA management in my thusfar futile efforts to end this endemic and symbiotic Boeing/FAA fraud.

My reports of this fraud at Boeing to Boeing and FAA management did not have the desired result of reform so inspectors like me could begin to do their critical jobs without the inevitable harassment and retaliation for doing so. The FAA and Boeing chose to cover up and protect this fraud rather than investigate and end it. My refusal to ignore FAA foot dragging on investigating my report did result in corrupt FAA management having to document a few of my many reported Boeing noncompliances so as to be able to say they did an investigation, so they unwillingly corroborated several systemic noncompliances I reported. However, the major and most serious by far noncompliances the “investigation” of my report by Boeing and the FAA uncovered was in proving that the many noncompliances I reported were not just a result of low level Boeing management corruption—they were instead a result of corruption at the highest levels of FAA and Boeing management—a true “working together” corrupt relationship to ensure Boeing did not have to abide by what they saw as too expensive to comply with mandatory quality and safety ensuring regulations and procedures. What Boeing management got out of this corruption is clear as most of their compensation is tied to bottom line driven stock option prices. What the corrupt FAA management involved got out of ensuring Boeing could break regulations, in opposition to their mandated duties, other than “quid pro quo” well paying jobs at Boeing and organizations funded by Boeing is less clear, but time will tell.

Since you are busy, I will spare you the details in this letter as this letter is to only warn you of this fraud so you can take measures to protect the taxpayer and warfighter from it before it is too late to do so. The details of this fraud are on my website, www.thelastinspector.com . I strongly suggest you visit the site to find out the corroborating and disturbing details of this corrupt FAA/Boeing relationship.

As you are intimately aware of the inner workings of the aviation industry as I am, it should not surprise you then that the ethics reforms Boeing said it undertook after the first tanker contract and the Lockheed RFP data theft debacles did not “take,” and Boeing management still relies on unethical and illegal activities to enhance its bottom line. Even unethical and illegal activities that obviously place many citizen and military lives at risk.

Although Boeing has apparently been very careful to not use such unethical and illegal habits in the current tanker RFP until the contract is sewn up, that has not prevented it from engaging is such misconduct in other areas of its business—especially “safe” areas to do so, such as internally in making quality and safety assurance at Boeing one of the most corrupt organizations within Boeing, and in long fostered corrupt relationships with FAA management. The Boeing Legal department is another area where the illegal is tolerated, if not fostered. They were they department of Boeing tasked with covering up rather than ending the Boeing management corruption I reported to them on two occasions. It is no accident an internal Boeing system used by Boeing Legal is called the “elegal” system, and that one of Boeing Legal’s top attorney’s mantra was “you gotta do what you gotta do.” Rather than end the corruption I reported to them, the same Boeing Legal attorney assigned to “investigate” my report was also assigned to personally ensure I was arrested and charged with a crime for collecting data for my continuing efforts to end the noted Boeing/FAA corruption.

However this letter is not about what Boeing has done to me. It is solely to protect the taxpayer from being defrauded by Boeing as it defrauds its current customers via the ongoing product substitution abetted by corrupt management personnel in the FAA, as well as to ensure such fraud is not allowed unwittingly by your organization to place military personnel’s lives at extra risk by your organization not being informed of it.

I have read disturbing articles about the still unreformed FAA being allowed to certify 767 tankers for Japan and Italy. Such certifications are next to meaningless in the current era of FAA management corruption. This is a key area that will have to be changed should Boeing be awarded the contract.

If FAA personnel have to be used on the tanker program in any way, DCMA Quality Assurance personnel must closely supervise FAA personnel to ensure they are actually doing their critical jobs rather than mostly pretending to do them. They must perform independent audits of Boeing quality assurance as well as FAA inspections and certification work with ending and preventing the fraud reported in this letter and on my website in mind during the program. Such heightened oversight activities by the DCMA must be allowed in the contract.

Boeing will likely pursue language that FAA and FAA delegated Boeing personnel do as much of the inspection and certification work as possible in the contract. After this letter, the motivations of such language should be much more transparent. Language must be inserted in the contract to give the DCMA the authority, headcount, and budget with which to perform the much increased oversight functions that will prevent FAA/Boeing fraud on the program from being used to pump up Boeing’s profits from the program via the noted product substitution currently enabled by “quality assurance” at Boeing and the reduced certification costs lack of real FAA oversight provides.

Such real oversight by the DCMA would uncover problems in the production system hidden for years by the noted Boeing and FAA non-oversight of Boeing’s engineering and production processes. This would add additional costs to the program, but the conforming aircraft that would result would be worth those costs. Drawings and engineering specs that could never be complied with as they were in error and/or conflicting would be uncovered—never fixed because Boeing management thought it would cost too much to fix them and that such fixes were “non-value added” no matter how much the errant engineering confused those who had to try to build per those drawings/specs and how creative mechanics had to become to make what they thought the engineer might have intended. Such evidence of past Boeing and FAA carelessness will be simply more proof of the corruption I am disclosing to you now.

Although I have not been on the Boeing production line for over a year, there is no doubt the FAA/Boeing fraud proven by the handling of my reports continues to this day. I still communicate with Boeing personnel on occasion. Nothing has changed. If the noted fraud was ended by Boeing and/or the FAA, the severe bottlenecks on production programs resulting would have to be made public, and an announcement by the FAA making the public announcement of the ultimately ineffective FAA Special Technical Audit of 1999/2000 seem very insignificant by comparison would have to be done. Neither has happened to date.

As you can see on my website documenting the Boeing and FAA management corruption I and others have witnessed, “working together” fraud in Boeing and FAA management will not be the only Boeing mismanagement and fraud your team will have to be vigilant in preventing in order to protect the interests of the military and our country’s citizens during a Boeing tanker program. Boeing’s past intentional and “unintentional” mismanagement of ITAR controls is an area that will need special emphasis in preventing during a Boeing tanker program. The QRS-11 chip debacle is just one such instance of ignoring such controls that I helped ensure a fair end to for our country. Transfer of ITAR data between commercial and military programs is another area that will need to be of special concern during the program in terms of putting in place controls to prevent such actions by Boeing’s still ethically challenged management during the program, and/or to prevent Boeing management’s past demonstrated disdain for adhering to ITAR controls when more money can be made by ignoring them from affecting how such controls are used on the program.

And then there are the 787 delays and the Japan and Italy tanker delays to consider as far as how to best help Boeing management avoid a repeat of those delays during a tanker program for our government. It is my belief that it was Boeing’s focus on “leaning out” the production and certification processes and focusing on the financial planning aspects of the program rather than planning sufficiently for production of the 787 itself that has resulted in the 787 delays. Schedules planned too tightly in order to meet financial targets ultimately has resulted in the delays thusfar, I believe. Notably, one of the “bright spots” in the 787 program thusfar has been the “smoothness” of certification activities on the program and the FAA siding with Boeing over experts on some controversial certification tests performed and those chosen not to be performed as was required in past new programs. I need not, I trust, give my well informed opinion as to why the FAA has been so accommodating to Boeing’s every wish on the program, and has allowed unprecedented levels of delegation of Boeing personnel to do formerly and exclusively FAA performed certification activities on past programs on the 787 program.

I will let my website give you the rest of the details. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions for me not addressed in this letter or on my website.

Please do not penalize Boeing workers for the continuing “sins” of their management. I believe, if you heed the warnings in this letter, Boeing and FAA management’s arrogance in continuing to perform unethical and illegal activities if the personal rewards are seen to outweigh the risk can be mitigated completely so that the Air Force will avoid being defrauded and receive the product contracted for, with the required levels of quality, safety, and reliability assured. And our country and the vast majority of Boeing workers not complicit with the noted fraud will reap the benefits of such a key contract to protect our military aircraft industrial base.

I hope one day soon the noted FAA/Boeing fraud will be ended. However, until then, procurement officials like you and the DCMA will have to take actions to protect our country and military from it on programs such as the KC-X tanker program and the P-8A Poseidon program.

Please ensure these warnings are heeded and the contract language is structured to protect the Air Force and the taxpayer from the noted Boeing/FAA fraud. Please delay any contract signing until such contract language is drafted, if necessary.

And please distribute this letter to your Deputy, Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, John Young, and any other member of your team that you believe has a need to know this information.

Sincerely,

Gerald Eastman

cc: The Honorable Patty Murray
United States Senate
173 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-0238

cc: The Honorable Maria Cantwell
717 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-228-0514 fax

Thanks, flyover_27, for highlighting my case. I still can say “bad” things about the company, as long as they are the truth. I have never strayed from telling the truth, and my blog, accessible from my website, is pretty hard hitting, most recently pointing out that not only former Assistent Attorney General Paul McNulty perjured himself before congress, but Boeing‘s CEO Jim McNerney did as well, knowingly (most likely) or not. I just can’t give out the details of what Boeing and their counsel ask me in their interviews. True, Boeing did ruin my life in an effort to go on the offensive agaunst one of their most “dangerous” (to their fraud) whistleblowers ever, trying to discredit me and imprison me in the process using illegally gathered “evidence” against me. Had I been convicted, corrupt Boeing management would have had one of their grandest back slapping parties ever in celebration, knowing they had imprisoned a whistleblower on their own crimes, knowing it was they who should have been imprisoned themselves for far worse crimes they committed than I was even accused of. Arrogant? Yes. But they do have a lock on the most arrogant, incompetent, and criminal management since Enron went down in flames.
 
Thanks again
 
Gerald Eastman
 
The Last (Boeing) Inspector
 
www.thelastinspector.com 

 

Mr. Eastman endured two trials if one can call them that.  Boeing settled in an odd agreement requiring Mr. Eastman not to say bad things about the company, and to agree to undergo several what is turning out to be long interrogations from Boeing managers and legal.  He is still enduring retribution and harassment from Boeing and trying to put his life together that Boeing turned upside down and backwards.    See his website:  http://thelastinspector.com

-GFS

 

****************************************************************************************

Internal Boeing Documents Support Whistleblower’s Allegations: Aircraft Quality Control Problems Cited

May 8, 2008

 

Internal Boeing documents obtained by the Project On Government Oversight show that the allegations of a former Boeing quality control inspector facing criminal charges have merit.  Quality control problems at Boeing increase the likelihood that defective aircraft parts end up on planes and flaws in the manufacturing of planes remain uncorrected.  This can potentially threaten public safety and drive up the cost of aircraft maintenance. These documents are linked at the bottom of this release.

Gerald Eastman, the former Boeing inspector, is facing a second trial of criminal charges for disclosing Boeing information to the press.  His first trial last month resulted in a mistrial when jurors could not agree on whether Eastman committed “computer trespass.”  Mr. Eastman claims that his involvement with the press stemmed from the lack of corrective actions taken by Boeing and the government in response to his disclosures of wrongdoing to them.

An internal Boeing memo sent to Boeing employees in October 2000 stated that misuse of “production stamps” or “roller-stamping” can result in negative consequences for the company and the individual misusing their stamp.  Roller-stamping is the misuse of production stamps to stamp work on critical parts and assemblies as complete and fully inspected when there has only been a cursory inspection, if one at all, of the part or assembly in question.  Eastman’s central claim is that he had perceived widespread “roller-stamping” and Boeing did little to curtail the practice.

“These documents show that Eastman clearly had a reasonable basis for his belief roller-stamping was occurring,” according to Nick Schwellenbach, POGO investigator.  “It’s one thing to break company policy on releasing documents and getting fired, it’s another matter to file criminal charges.  Who do the prosecutors work for?”

The Boeing memo came months after the Federal Aviation Agency conducted a special technical audit of Boeing that concluded that there were systemic quality control problems.  The 2000 FAA special technical audit found “in some cases, manufacturing planning was not adequate, requirements were not followed, inspections were not specific, or personnel were not knowledgeable about requirements.”  Thus, “parts, assemblies, and installations are released through the system that do not conform” to approved designs.  Also, in 2000, the FAA proposed “a record $1.24 million in civil penalties against Boeing for inadequate supplier oversight and for failing to quickly report cracked parts on two older jetliners,” according to a news report (James Wallace, “FAA Audit Rips Boeing Over 100 Production, Design Problems Detailed; Company Plans Corrective Action,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 11, 2000.). 

Years later, roller-stamping was still occurring when Eastman acted on his concerns.

Boeing certainly was aware of the practice because a Boeing document dated January 2004, states that, “There appears to be a systemic issue within BCA [Boeing Commercial Aircraft] involving parallel process breakdowns of mechanics and inspectors involved in assembling and inspecting aircraft, assemblies and parts.”  The 2004 document also states that the FAA examined 55 issues at Boeing between 2002 and 2003 and found that “24% of these issues have involved instances where the mechanic and inspector created and accepted nonconforming conditions”—i.e. roller-stamping.

In further support of Eastman’s claims, other Boeing employees became whistleblowers when they reported that Boeing supplier Ducommun was regularly supplying non-conforming parts to Boeing, according to the whistleblowers’ False Claims Act lawsuit obtained by POGO.  Now-former Boeing employees Taylor Smith, Jeannine Prewitt and James Ailes were then retaliated against by management because Boeing allegedly did not want to deal with the repercussions of their findings. 

For additional information

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group memorandum, “Use of personal stamps in our production system,” October 31, 2000.

Federal Aviation Administration, “Special Technical Audit of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,” December 1, 1999, through February 11, 2000.

Boeing Airplane Program Systemic Issues Chartered Team 1, “Investigation of ‘Dual Failures,’” January 2004.

United States of America ex rel Taylor Smith, Jeannine Prewitt and James Ailes vs. The Boeing Company and Ducommun, Inc., Federal District Court of Kansas. Filed on March 11, 2005.   

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more accountable federal government.

# # #

 

 

 

There were frustrating moments for Gerald Eastman and his Attorney
during his first trial, which led up to a mistrial, discussed in
previous posts on this site.

Some of these frustrations were brought about by King County Deputy
Prosecutor Scott Peterson and Boeing, who refused to release
information needed by Eastman and his attorney to fully prepare for
his defense against Boeing’s attempts to prosecute him. Despite
repeated requests by Eastman’s attorney, apparently Boeing would not
release the information, much of it on Eastman’s computer, which
Boeing had confiscated during a Boeing initiated King County police
raid on Eastman’s home well over a year ago. This is the same
information Boeing in spite of having it available to Boeing all that
time for forensic analysis, now says it wants Eastman to show them
what is there for about for up to 16 hours (2 sessions -2 days).

It seems that withholding evidence needed by a defendant for trial is
not a new concept in these circles. If you will recall one of the
last things Boeing and King County Deputy Prosecutor, Scott Peterson
did was to threaten Mr. Eastman that if he did not accept one of the
offered “deals” or settlement for Boeing’s benefit, he would be
turned over to be tried in Federal Court by Federal Prosecutor, Carl Blackstone,

reputedly a close personal friend of Mark Boman of Perkins-Coie, a legal auditing

service.  It seems Blackstone has been found to conduct himself questionably in
the past as well, curiously accused of the very same tactics, not
allowing a defendant the information released needed to prepare a
defense. See archived article below:
**********************************************************************

SANCTIONS DROPPED ON APPEAL
COURT REVERSES DISTRICT JUDGE’S ORDER AGAINST FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
By Steve Miletich P-I Reporter
Friday, November 12, 1993
Section: News, Page: D8

 


Two federal prosecutors in Seattle shouldn’t have been sanctioned by
a federal judge in a case involving a Kirkland attorney convicted of
tax and fraud charges, a federal appeals court has ruled.


A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
a decision by U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly, who last year sharply
admonished federal prosecutors John Carver and Carl Blackstone after
ruling they had failed to provide in a timely fashion evidence
favorable to the defendant.


Zilly, in an action unprecedented in recent memory, ordered the
government to pay costs incurred by the defense to independently
locate the evidence.


The attorney, John M. Woodley, was convicted last year of defrauding
the Internal Revenue Service, Medicare and Medicaid of $560,000 in a
scheme that involved the $20 million fortune of a dead client.
Woodley was sentenced to 30 months in prison for tax and mail fraud,
and ordered to pay about $330,000 in fines, taxes and restitution.
The charges stemmed from Woodley’s role as a trustee of the estate
left by Elizabeth A. Lynn of Medina in 1984. He was convicted of
stealing stock from Lynn’s estate, donating it to her charitable
trust and taking an illegal $90,000 tax deduction.
He also was found guilty of illegally inflating rents at a Nevada
nursing home controlled by Lynn’s trust, costing the government
$470,000.


In addition to reversing the sanctions order, the appeals court
upheld Woodley’s conviction.  The court said there was no legal basis

for the monetary sanctions because federal prosecutors have immunity from

economic penalties.


The U.S. Attorney’s Office said the court noted that Zilly had found
no pervasive pattern by the prosecutors of withholding evidence. The
court also found that Woodley had not been prejudiced.
Zilly said their conduct fell “below the standards” expected of
prosecutors in his court.


Woodley’s attorney, Peter Byrnes, said the appeals court concluded
the prosecutors engaged in misconduct but that it was powerless to do
anything because of the immunity rule.  “The message by the 9th Circuit is that government lawyers can’t be sanctioned but that private attorneys can,” Byrnes said, calling it a
“double standard.”


He said no decision had been made on whether to ask the court to
reconsider the decisions on the sanctions and conviction.
Zilly’s sanction order prompted an unusually pointed reply from then-
U.S. Attorney Mike McKay. He said last year that the decision was
“erroneous and inappropriate” and that Zilly was wrong on the facts
and his understanding of criminal discovery in the federal system.

Link to original:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1993/9311120076.asp

**********************************************************************

It only gets more and more curious, and troubling…. GFS

Thursday, July 10, the Boeing Company had charges of computer trespass against former employee and Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman reduced and agreed that the charges will be dismissed entirely if Mr. Eastman agrees to tell Boeing about what data he took from the company’s computers.  The Boeing Company has had Eastman’s computers for over a year, now, and surely has taken apart every document, including Eastman’s private information by now.  Eastman is to be held to an agreement to follow a certain set of requirements by the Boeing Company with the threat of prison, as decided by a judge without a trial or jury, if Boeing deems Eastman has in any way violated the agreement until late January of 2009.  -GFS

 

See Seattle PI original article “Felony charges reduced for ex-Boeing employee” at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/370310_eastman11.html

 

Thursday, July 10, 2008 the King County Prosecutor’s Office announced it would not retry Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman.  They further said that Eastman has agreed to help Boeing recovers information that he leaked to the media and that if he does not “live up to the agreement” a judge can find him guilty of 10 misdemeanor counts of computer trespass, and he could face years in prison. 

 

Eastman’s attorney stated that Eastman’s jury at the first trial which resulted in a mistrial, “was faced with a ‘vague statute’ that does not specifically say it is a crime for an employee to access information that an employer doesn’t want him to have.  Given the facts of the case, she said, the jury’s failure to reach a verdict was not surprising and showed that the panel had paid close attention during the trial.”

 

The jury had asked numerous questions of the judge regarding consideration of Eastman’s whistleblower status and whistleblower laws, and was frustrated by the judge’s and King County Prosecutor’s office successful attempt to prevent any consideration of those facts in the trial proceedings.  The trial resulted in a hung jury as some of the jurors refused to be pushed to a conviction considering the facts and King County’s management of the case.  A mistrial was declared and the jurors told the judge and King County that the case should not be retried.  -GFS

 

 

See the Seattle Times original article “Ex-Boeing worker will not face new trial for leaking files” at:

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008044404&zsection_id=2003925728&slug=webeastman10m&date=20080710

 

 

 

Friday, July 11, Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman, agreed to a settlement with his former employer, the Boeing Company, regarding the company’s prosecution of him regarding “leaked company documents.”  Eastman has agreed he will try to get leaked company documents back from the Seattle Times, PI and any other place they were released.  In return, Eastman will not face retrial, and after six months, if Boeing feels he has cooperated and not violated the terms of the agreement, the case against Eastman will be dismissed.  If Boeing complains that he has violated the agreement, a judge may then find him guilty of at least 10 misdemeanor counts, each with a penalty of up to a year in jail.  –GFS

 

See the Seattle Times original article “Whistle-blower settles case” at:

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008046014&zsection_id=2003925728&slug=eastman11m0&date=20080711

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This seems to be looking like an emerging trend.  Companies, often contractors with government contracts who are commiting acts of fraud, or other wrong doing and are outed by their more ethical employees, are seeking to press criminal charges on their whistleblowing employees.  It seems to this observer that this is an attempt deny the whistleblower their whistleblower identity, and what little protections there are for them in the law, and to paint them to be “common” criminals instead, throwing them into criminal courts, fighting for their freedom and reputations.  A reader of one of my blogs sent his article to me.  Steven Heller courageously spoke out some time ago, regarding problems with those providing services for Voting, which affect the integrity of our American voting system.  I see similaries, such as described above to the case of Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman, (who was and still continues to seek remedy to public safety risks in his former company’s aircraft manufacturing business),  in that the attempt is being made to deny they are whistleblowers at all.  (www.thelastinspector.com)  I pass this information and the article that follows along to those of you who may wish to help. 

-GFS

 

 

********************************************************************************************

Huffington Post:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-soby-jr/whistleblower-charged-wit_b_16411.html 

Whistleblower Charged With Three Felonies for Exposing Diebold’s Crimes

By Peter Soby, Jr.

A whistleblower in Los Angeles is in legal trouble and needs our help. Stephen Heller is alleged to have exposed documents in Jan. & Feb. 2004 which provided smoking gun evidence that Diebold was using illegal, uncertified software in California voting machines. The docs also showed that Diebold’s California attorneys (the powerful international law firm Jones Day) had told them they were in breach of the law for using uncertified software, but Diebold continued to use the uncertified software anyway. Heller is alleged to have come across these docs while temping as a word processor at Jones Day, and he is further alleged to have taken the docs and exposed them to the bright light of day. Now, after sitting on this for 2 years, the Los Angeles District Attorney, under pressure from Jones Day, is going after this whistleblower with 3 felony charges, each of which carries the potential of time in state prison. Here is a story in the LA Times. Heller’s lawyer believes the 2 year wait to file charges was due to the then-impending 2004 election, and that Diebold and their attorneys didn’t want the information to be made public in the lead up to the election.

The documents also look bad for Diebold’s California lawyers, Jones Day. According to Bev Harris, author of the book Black Box Voting, the docs “provided evidence that the Jones Day law firm was helping Diebold to cover up the fact that they were installing uncertified software which, as it turns out, caused thousands of voters to be unable to vote just weeks later.”

Bev Harris continues, “Jim March, another investigator for Black Box Voting, and I immediately took the documents to both the California Attorney General’s office and to Kevin Shelley, who was then the California Secretary of State. Just days later, the secretary of state decertified Diebold.” At the time, Shelley called the company’s conduct “reprehensible” and said “their performance, their behavior, is despicable,” and that “if that’s the kind of deceitful behavior they’re going to engage in, they can’t do business in California.” In an interview, Shelly said “We will not tolerate the deceitful conduct of Diebold, and we must send a clear message to the rest of the industry: Don’t try to pull a fast one on the voters of California.” Shelley then requested Cal. Attorney General Bill Lockyer to investigate taking criminal and civil actions against the company based on what he called “fraudulent actions by Diebold.” Lockyer eventually dropped the criminal probe of Diebold but he sued the company on behalf of California, and Diebold settled out of court for $2.6 million.

Let’s make this clear, folks. The docs Heller is accused of exposing were important evidence. First, they show that Diebold and their attorneys, Jones Day, conspired to mislead the California secretary of state, and that the lie they told was material, and resulted directly in the disenfranchisement of voters. Second, another document demonstrates that Diebold lied to the secretary of state when it represented that certain problems with its software were “fixed.” This document, the release notes for the new software, showed that the problems were not fixed. Third, the documents showed that Diebold had been advised by Jones Day that what it had been doing with its uncertified software was illegal. Fourth, the documents show that Jones Day advised Diebold that it was subject to criminal prosecution. So in a nutshell, Diebold was defrauding the state government and taxpayers of California, and disenfranchising the voters of California. And the documents PROVE it.

And for allegedly exposing Diebold’s felonious behavior (which led directly to Diebold being de-certified in California), for allegedly helping protect the taxpayers and voters of California, for allegedly helping to keep elections clean and fair, what happens? Diebold, the true criminal in this case, and their powerful international law firm Jones Day, press the L.A. District Attorney’s office to hammer Heller, a whistleblower. Three felonies! Diebold was (and probably still is) screwing California voters, Heller is alleged to have seen the smoking gun evidence of Diebold’s crimes, and, like a true patriot and whistleblower, allegedly exposed that smoking gun evidence, and now HE’S the one facing jail time. Only in Bush’s America!

And the irony is, if Heller is convicted of a felony for exposing Diebold’s crimes against the California voters, he’ll lose his right to vote. Diebold will win. We can’t let that happen!

But we can help. Let’s flood the Los Angeles DA’s office with phone calls, letters and emails asking them not to crucify this whistleblower.

Now of course, BE POLITE. Remember you are writing, calling and emailing the office of the Los Angeles District Attorney, which is a branch of law enforcement. Being harassing, rude, or threatening will only get you in legal trouble of your own, and it won’t help Steve Heller, the whistleblower.

Talking points:

Don’t prosecute Stephen Heller. He’s a whistleblower, not a criminal, and he should not be prosecuted.

Diebold is the criminal here. Stephen Heller is alleged to have exposed Diebold’s criminal activity, and that makes him a whistleblower. He should not be prosecuted.

Diebold’s election malfeasance strikes at the very heart of our democratic republic. Without clean elections, we don’t have democracy anymore. Those who expose such crimes are whistleblowers and should not be prosecuted.

America has a long history of whistleblowers exposing criminal activity, and prosecuting them is wrong; it puts a chilling effect on others who might see criminal activity and want to expose it.

Heller is getting pounded. He’s the victim of bullies; a huge, powerful, wealthy, politically connected corporation and their equally huge and powerful international law firm are slamming him, grinding him up in legal machinery for allegedly lifting up the pretty skirt Diebold shows to the world, exposing the dirty, stinking criminal secrets that lie beneath. For what he’s alleged to have done, there was nothing in it for him. No financial gain (in fact a serious financial loss, because he got fired from his job, and he’s had to pay 10s of thousands of dollars to his lawyers, and owes them 10s of thousands more). And he’s now at risk of over 3 years in state prison. It’s insane. His cause is a worthy one, and he needs our help. Please call, write and email today.

Email the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office at lada@co.la.ca.us.

A good old fashioned snail mail letter is very powerful tool:

District Attorney’s Office
County of Los Angeles
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210

And of course, phone calls:

Telephone (213) 974-3512
Fax (213) 974-1484
TTY (800) 457-7778 (8:30am – 5:00pm M-F)

Let’s help defend a whistleblower from Diebold and their attorneys!

 

Last Inspector’s Blog – Fighting FAA & Boeing Fraud from the 737 to the 787

Alert From the Project On Government Oversight Supporting their Op-Ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer  

Monday, May 12, 2008, 12:14 AM
Posted by Administrator (www.thelastinspector.com)

 

 

If you thought the last blog was noteworthy, check out this alert on the Project On Government Oversight’s website, which gives facts and data backing up their op-ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that showed that Boeing and the FAA knew my report on massive rollerstamping fraud by BCA inspectors was correct. Yet over the years they knew it was the status quo at BCA they did nothing about this fraud allowing defects of unknown number and severity to deliver to airline and government customers. In fact, the STA (Special Technical Audit) of BCA in 1999/2000 was actually used to further weaken an already ineffective quality system, rather than to make it more effective, as an reasonable person would deduce was what was needed.

This effort to weaken and make “less prescriptive” Boeing’s already sievelike quality system was called the “Quality Management System,” or QMS. Why would Boeing further weaken such a compromised quality assurance department as documented in the STA? Because, of course, as noted on my website, Boeing management was always aware rollerstamping was going on on a massive scale in QA because it was Boeing management who wanted that fraud to take place for cost and production flow reasons. And they knew they could count on their counterparts in the FAA to look the other way.

In January, 2002, I began my effort to end the rollerstamping in Boeing QA after my manager of the time proved to me it was Boeing management directed fraud, by going to the FAA. After several rounds of trying to get the FAA and Boeing Headquarters management to end that fraud placing passenger and crew lives at extra risk for a few more bottom line dollars for Boeing, Boeing dared me to go public, knowing they had FAA management to cover for their continuing fraud. The FAA had reliably done so since at least the 1999 STA.

That’s where the “Dual Failures” charade came in, which began, not coincidentally, just after I last spoke with Boeing about the subject, in October, 2003. This was a cover for Both FAA and Boeing management should I go public, as they and I expected I would. However, due to aforesaid reasons, I was unable to do so in a timely manner. They thought that I had decided to not go public after all, so they dropped this “Dual Failures” cover up project. More proof of Boeing/FAA management complicity in ensuring the rollerstamping quality system at BCA can continue. What more proof does DOT OIG Inspector General Scovel need to investigate the crooks in the FAA “overseeing” Boeing Type and Production Certificates? You have to wonder at what point they will step up and do their jobs in this critical area. Corrupt FAA mmanagement are not going to out themselves. Real oversight of BCA is needed now that will not only restore Boeing’s quality system to minimum standards, but also restore Boeing’s and/or the FAA’s oversight of Boeing supplier’s compliance with minimum quality system standards, which the OIG has documented serious noncompliances with. The root causes of both are the same–corrupt BCA and FAA management.

http://www.pogo.org/p/transportation/ta-080508-faa.html

Alert

May 8, 2008

Internal Boeing Documents Support Whistleblower’s Allegations: Aircraft Quality Control Problems Cited

For Immediate Release
Contact Nick Schwellenbach (202) 347-1122

Internal Boeing documents obtained by the Project On Government Oversight show that the allegations of a former Boeing quality control inspector facing criminal charges have merit. Quality control problems at Boeing increase the likelihood that defective aircraft parts end up on planes and flaws in the manufacturing of planes remain uncorrected. This can potentially threaten public safety and drive up the cost of aircraft maintenance. These documents are linked at the bottom of this release.

Gerald Eastman, the former Boeing inspector, is facing a second trial of criminal charges for disclosing Boeing information to the press. His first trial last month resulted in a mistrial when jurors could not agree on whether Eastman committed “computer trespass.” Mr. Eastman claims that his involvement with the press stemmed from the lack of corrective actions taken by Boeing and the government in response to his disclosures of wrongdoing to them.

An internal Boeing memo sent to Boeing employees in October 2000 stated that misuse of “production stamps” or “roller-stamping” can result in negative consequences for the company and the individual misusing their stamp. Roller-stamping is the misuse of production stamps to stamp work on critical parts and assemblies as complete and fully inspected when there has only been a cursory inspection, if one at all, of the part or assembly in question. Eastman’s central claim is that he had perceived widespread “roller-stamping” and Boeing did little to curtail the practice.

“These documents show that Eastman clearly had a reasonable basis for his belief roller-stamping was occurring,” according to Nick Schwellenbach, POGO investigator. “It’s one thing to break company policy on releasing documents and getting fired, it’s another matter to file criminal charges. Who do the prosecutors work for?”

The Boeing memo came months after the Federal Aviation Agency conducted a special technical audit of Boeing that concluded that there were systemic quality control problems. The 2000 FAA special technical audit found “in some cases, manufacturing planning was not adequate, requirements were not followed, inspections were not specific, or personnel were not knowledgeable about requirements.” Thus, “parts, assemblies, and installations are released through the system that do not conform” to approved designs. Also, in 2000, the FAA proposed “a record $1.24 million in civil penalties against Boeing for inadequate supplier oversight and for failing to quickly report cracked parts on two older jetliners,” according to a news report (James Wallace, “FAA Audit Rips Boeing Over 100 Production, Design Problems Detailed; Company Plans Corrective Action,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 11, 2000.).

Years later, roller-stamping was still occurring when Eastman acted on his concerns.

Boeing certainly was aware of the practice because a Boeing document dated January 2004, states that, “There appears to be a systemic issue within BCA [Boeing Commercial Aircraft] involving parallel process breakdowns of mechanics and inspectors involved in assembling and inspecting aircraft, assemblies and parts.” The 2004 document also states that the FAA examined 55 issues at Boeing between 2002 and 2003 and found that “24% of these issues have involved instances where the mechanic and inspector created and accepted nonconforming conditions”—i.e. roller-stamping.

In further support of Eastman’s claims, other Boeing employees became whistleblowers when they reported that Boeing supplier Ducommun was regularly supplying non-conforming parts to Boeing, according to the whistleblowers’ False Claims Act lawsuit obtained by POGO. Now-former Boeing employees Taylor Smith, Jeannine Prewitt and James Ailes were then retaliated against by management because Boeing allegedly did not want to deal with the repercussions of their findings.

For additional information

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group memorandum, Use of personal stamps in our production system ,” October 31, 2000.

Federal Aviation Administration, Special Technical Audit of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group ,” December 1, 1999, through February 11, 2000.

Boeing Airplane Program Systemic Issues Chartered Team 1, Investigation of ‘Dual Failures ,'” January 2004.

United States of America ex rel Taylor Smith, Jeannine Prewitt and James Ailes vs. The Boeing Company and Ducommun, Inc. , Federal District Court of Kansas. Filed on March 11, 2005.

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more accountable federal government.