Professional

and Management and Skills H1041

Ethics Assessment 2
Blay Whitby 23.03.2019



Select one of the case-studies below. Write a report which expands on the case by
describing the ethical issues, if any, raised by the case you have chosen. Do not
omit legal requirements, if any.

These are only brief outlines. You should research (and include references on)
your chosen case, looking particularly for project management issues on which
you can comment from an ethical point of view.

In particular, you should explain which, if any, ethical principles might help
prevent any recurrence of this sort of event. Your report may cover technical
matters where necessary but the marks will be awarded mainly for coverage of
ethical issues.

Your report should be well-structured and no longer than 2000 words.
References and appendices are not included in the word count.

This assessment should normally be submitted in Week 11 – Check Sussex Direct
for your exact submission details.




Case 1 – Apple and the FBI

In 2013 Edward Snowden revealed that various state security agencies including the
NSA in the US and GCHQ in Britain could access almost all the information held on any
smartphone. Perhaps in response to this revelation, Apple developed new encryption
technology for iOS 8 and later devices which prevented any outside access to users’
data. Despite legal objections, Apple continues to use encryption methods which cannot
be read by the security services.

On December 2nd 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured in a
terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. The terrorists had destroyed their
personal phones immediately before the attack but one of them had also been issued
with an Apple iPhone 5c by his employer which was recovered after the attack. The FBI
had reason to believe that some information on this iPhone such as call history, internet
history, and location tracing would be of great importance in preventing further acts of
terrorism. However, they were unable to get into this phone because of Apple’s new
security features.

On 9th February 2106, the FBI obtained a court order requiring Apple to unlock this
phone by providing a new one-off iOS operating system which would allow them to use

1
brute force methods to defeat the pin code without erasing all data after 10 attempts -
as it can be set by the user to do. The FBI said this would be used once only to crack this
particular phone and be destroyed afterwards.

Apple repeatedly refused to comply with this order: stating that creating such a
‘trapdoor’ would encourage others to do the same and would not be consistent with
their commercial goal of protecting their users’ information. On 16th February Apple
CEO Tim Cook sent an online ‘letter’ to all Apple users explaining why the company was
taking this position. Most tech companies in California sided with Apple in this debate
but polls suggest that a majority of US citizens took the side of the FBI.

The US Department of Justice therefore filed a federal application to compel Apple to
comply and Apple announced that it would fight the federal order in court. However,
while legal preparations were being made, the FBI were approached by ‘a third party’
(assumed to be Cellebrite, the Israeli data-extraction specialists) and on 28th March
2016 announced that they had, with the help of this ‘third party’, successfully broken
into the iPhone and no longer required assistance from Apple.




Case 2 – The loss of STS-107 Columbia

On January 16th 2003 during the launch of the Space Shuttle Columbia a piece of foam
insulation broke off from the Shuttle external fuel tank and struck the left wing. On at
least 4 previous launches of the space shuttle similar foam strikes had been observed
and it was not considered a serious problem.

Engineering and management views of the subsequent space flight differed in a manner
highly reminiscent of the loss of STS-51-L Challenger. Engineers made three separate
requests for US Department of Defense imaging of the shuttle in orbit to determine if
there was any damage. While the images were not guaranteed to show the damage, the
technical capability existed for imaging of sufficient resolution to provide meaningful
examination. NASA management did not honour the requests and in some cases may
actually have intervened to stop the Department of Defence from assisting. The exact
details of these communications with the military currently remain classified.

Risk assessment meetings came to the conclusion that the flight was not in danger.
John Harpold, Director of Mission Operations reportedly said: “You know, there is
nothing we can do about damage to the TPS (Thermal Protection System). If it has been
damaged, it's probably better not to know. I think the crew would rather not know.
Don't you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die
unexpectedly during entry than to stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be
done, until the air ran out?”

No further attempt was made to investigate the damage to Columbia and the crew was
told: “Experts have reviewed the high speed photography and there is no concern for
RCC or tile damage. We have seen this same phenomenon on several other flights and
there is absolutely no concern for entry”

2

Re-entry of Columbia began as scheduled early on 1st February 2003. At 0853 when
travelling at about Mach 23 in the upper atmosphere, superheated air entered a large
hole in the leading edge of the left wing leading to the complete destruction of the
spacecraft and the deaths of the crew. The subsequent enquiry: Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, was particularly critical of the management culture within the
upper echelons of NASA. There was also criticism of the software used by the engineers.



Case 3 – Boeing 737 Max 8 Problems

The Boeing 737 was designed in 1964 as a short haul jet airliner carrying 50-60
passengers over distances of 50-1,000 miles. It was designed to sit much lower on the
ground than larger Boeing airliners so that baggage handling and basic servicing could
be carried out at airports without any sophisticated ramp equipment. Over the
subsequent 50 years the design has been progressively modified – mainly to give
greater range and seating capacity and better fuel efficiency. There are now very few
airports anywhere in the world without the necessary ground equipment to unload
baggage.

The 737 Max is the fourth-generation redesign which first flew in 2016. It is designed to
carry 150-230 passengers over distances of 3,000 to 4,000 miles. Because of fuel
efficient competition - particularly from the Airbus 320neo range - Boeing needed to fit
more powerful, quieter, and economical engines to the latest version of the 737. The
CFM International LEAP engines are fitted higher and further forward – something
necessitated by the low ground stance of the original design. This part of the redesign
caused a dangerous tendency to pitch up at low airspeeds which Boeing designers chose
to correct using an automated system - Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation
System (MCAS). This system takes in data from sensors – primarily angle of attack
(AoA) and automatically trims the aircraft nose-down to prevent a stall, without
notifying the pilots.

Because the MCAS system is sensitive to a failure of one of the two AoA sensors, an
optional extra is a ‘AoA sensor disagree warning system’ which alert pilots to a problem.
Neither Boeing (the manufacturer) nor the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) - the US
regulatory body which certified the 737 Max as safe – considered this warning system
to be essential. The FAA did not require pilots to be trained in the details of MCAS nor
how to override it if problems are detected. The flight crew operations manual provided
by Boeing did not even mention MCAS as Boeing did not want overload pilots with too
much information.

On October 29th 2018 Lion Air Flight 610, operated by a new Boeing 737 Max, crashed
in a high-speed dive into the Java Sea 13 minutes after take off. The crew had reported
control problems before the accident. In November 2018 the FAA issued an
emergency Airworthiness Directive requiring procedures relating to erroneous data
from an AoA sensor be inserted into the aircraft flight manual of each 737 Max aircraft.

3
On 10 March 2019 Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, also operated by a new Boeing 737
Max, crashed in a high-speed dive 6 minutes after take off from Addis Ababa, after the
crew reported difficulty controlling the aircraft. At the time of writing this accident is
under investigation but the obvious similarities to Lion Air Flight 610 caused many
countries around the world to ban the Boeing 737 Max from flying in their airspace. One
notable exception to this grounding was in the United States (US). On 11th March 2019
the FAA declared that the 737 Max was airworthy. However, on March 13th 2019
President Trump (owner of a different model Boeing airliner) announced that all 737
Max aircraft in the US would be grounded.

There is currently much speculation in advance of hard evidence from investigation of
the two accidents. One such speculation is that the importance to the US aviation
industry of Boeing being able to compete with the Airbus A320neo series may have had
an influence on the speed of the design process. It may also have had some influence on
the willingness of the FAA to certify Boeing’s redesign of the 737 as safe without
requiring the MCAS system even to be mentioned in the operations manual. On the
other hand, most products nowadays from cars to phones contain automated systems
and complex software which is not explained to users and may be commercially secret.





Case 4 – Volkswagen Emissions Scandal


Modern motor manufacturers need to produce vehicles that comply with strict
standards governing emissions. This is not only a legal necessity but also a key
marketing point. The Volkswagen Audi group, as one of the world’s largest car
manufacturers, started in 2009 to produce a new generation of ‘Clean Diesels’ which it
claimed met all the new emissions standards in the US and the EU. As a result,
Volkswagen Group gained green car subsidies and tax exemptions in the US. The 2009
Volkswagen Jetta Diesel was awarded Green Car of the Year. This and similar diesel
models were marketed as ‘green technology’.

After this, there were many indications that Volkswagen’s Clean Diesel range did not
meet the legal emissions standards in real road conditions. In 2014 scientists at West
Virginia University collected data on emissions in real world driving conditions –
finding, for example, that the award-winning Jetta exceeded the legal limit by a factor of
15 to 35. Eventually on 18 September 2015 the US EPA served a Notice of Violation
(NOV) on Volkswagen Group. They claimed that approximately 480,000 VW and Audi
vehicles equipped with 2-litre TDI engines, and sold in the US between 2009 and 2015,
had an emissions-compliance ‘defeat device’ installed. Up to 11 million vehicles may be
affected worldwide.

In this case, the ‘defeat device’ was engine management software that detected when an
emissions test was being conducted, through parameters such as no steering input,
bonnet open, or only one set of wheels turning. All of these would indicate that the car
was on a ‘rolling road’ test bed and not being used in traffic. It is usually necessary for

4
engine management software to detect a test situation in order to protect the engine
from damage. However, it is also very easy for engineers and software designers to use
this feature in order to optimize one set of variables during an emission test and
another set during driving.
The Volkswagen case is not the first use of such a ‘defeat device’ – something defined in
US law – many examples of such devices illegally used by many large motor
manufacturers go back to the 1970s.

Volkswagen group had initially claimed that the discrepancies in emissions were
technical glitches until they were confronted with the hard evidence of the ‘defeat
devices’. As things stand, it is not clear at precisely what level in the company the
decision to sell vehicles engineered in this way was taken.

Estimates for the number of extra deaths in the US caused by Volkswagen’s use of defeat
devices vary from 10 to 350. The company has put aside US$18.32 billion to deal with
the immediate problem but the long-term costs to Volkswagen Audi Group will be far
greater. It is also likely that all manufacturers of combustion-engine vehicles will suffer
steadily declining sales from now on as public confidence in ‘green’ claims by
manufacturers is lost.