Boeing inspector fired for pointing out aircraft safety flaws

Published time: December 03, 2012 19:51
Edited time: December 03, 2012 23:51
A US Air Force Boeing C 17 Globemaster freight transport airplane remains on the tarmac at the Kabul International airport, in Kabul, on August 4, 2012.(AFP Photo / Alexander Klein)

A former quality control manager for a Texas Boeing factory is suing the multi-billion-dollar aircraft company because she says her position was terminated after blowing the whistle on safety issues.

Cynthia Whittenburg claims that she was fired in December 2011 because she refused to void and modify documentation that would have allowed the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft to be given the go-ahead for use, reports Courthouse News Service. Beginning in February of that year, Whittenburg says she was repeatedly pressured to make changes to forms which would have cleared the aircraft to take to the sky, despite having identified a series of safety issues.

According to the complaint filed in court, "Any delay in the release of the aircraft would cost defendant Boeing thousands of dollars in lost revenue.”

Whittenburg is suing both Boeing and Vaalutasi Lelea, the company’s vice president that ordered her to illegally make changes to acceptance documentation results for the Globemaster.

"Plaintiff was advised by members of her staff that certain C-17 aircraft had failed to meet certain acceptance standards," the complaint reads. "Plaintiff told her superiors regarding the failing acceptance standards of the aircraft which rendered it not airworthy. Corporate principals for defendant, Boeing, were aware, approved and ratified the instructions given to plaintiff, Whittenburg, to void and alter acceptance results and standards which rendered the aircraft not airworthy.”

David Lee of Courthouse News Service reports that even though Whittenburg’s contract with Boeing listed her employment as at-will, the airline giant would not be protected in this case because they allegedly ordered her to commit an illegal act before what’s being considered by the plaintiff as retaliation.

"Defendant, Vaalutasi Lelea … directed plaintiff to alter and void failing test results of non-airworthy aircraft," the complaint states. "Such an act is illegal. The illegal course of action that defendant asked plaintiff to perform carried criminal penalties at all times relevant to this lawsuit."

According to publicly available profiles of Whittenburg hosted online, she joined Boeing as a quality assurance manager in 2010 after serving two years overseeing safety at MRI Technologies. Prior to that she was the lead quality and mission assaurance manager for United Spac Alliance, where she was responsible for the executive of a five-year, $20 million Safety, Reliability, Maintainability, Quality Assurance and Risk Management program.

Comments (6)

Greely (unregistered) 13.02.2013 01:24

Working for a company like this can be stressful.  As for the San Antonio site, they have there own engineering teams.  When a discrepancy is addressed, it must go through engineering before a correction is made.  Probably in this case, the engineers stated corrections and the Quality Inspectors did not agree with them, which would create a debate between the two teams and would delay production time for the aircraft, which in turn would possibly delay a delivery.  The thing with a Quality Inspector is that over 80% of them have no idea what they are doing.  Think of it this way; you are an expert at making cabinets.  Then you have to show someone that has never touched or produced a cabinet, and they don't like the way it looks.  Maybe a  shelf looks slanted or the light doesn't reflect the right way off of the door.  The cabinet is made to highest quality and shows no defects, but since this person says it looks wierd, he/she will tell you their opinion on how to fix it.  REALLY!?  Even if everything is within certain specs, they will dismiss all explanations and call the system foul.  This is what most likely happened.  Cynthia said it looked wierd (wasn't shiny enough) and decided to say NO.  Well, her other counterpart said, "You don't make the plane, the Engineers and Mechanics do."  There was nothing wrong with the planes, she stuck her nose into way to much and go punched.  Regardless if she worked for NASA, if you don't know what you are inspecting, you can B.S. your way through your job.  I am a Technician/Mechanic in the Aviation field, and I run into these jokers all of the time.  A company like Boeing will not put their reputation on the line just to make a delivery date, they make WAY to much money to be concerned with a thousand-dollar-dela y.  They will do it to spec and fly it to prove the plane is complete..  It may not be perfect-looking, but the plane will not crash because the paint is a different color.  She's a joke.

0

Undo

Daniel (unregistered) 05.12.2012 01:42

Boeing is guilty of putting American Servicemen's lives in danger for the all mighty dollar. Not only should they be fined by the FAA for covering up unworthy aircraft problems they should pay this woman millions over what they did to her for doing her job. 

0

Undo

Brenda (unregistered) 04.12.2012 15:38

My brother worked for them and he pointed out a problem and they wouldn't correct it.   He couldn't accept their way of handling the the situation. So he left their employment.  What a shame when we have so many safety rules imposed on the ground but they do not apply to aircrafts flying above us .

0

Undo

View all comments (6)
Add comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Log in to comment in full, or comment anonymously under character-limit restriction.

100 Text

– required fields

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us