Ethical Dilemma Analysis

Mia Klopfenstein

Group 3: Quinn Hulse, Mia Klopfenstein, Forest Swanson, Julie Pipkin

Ethical Dilemma Analysis Klopfenstein 2

Background on Ti6242

Ti6242 is a near alpha alloy with applications relating to gas turbine compressor

components, engine afterburner structure, and hot airframe skin applications (Granta Design).. It

is made of Titanium (base), Aluminum (6), Tin (2), Zirconium (4), and Molybdenum (2) (Granta

Design). Ti6242 has alpha and beta phases with primary alpha and transformed beta

microstructure. It has a bimodal microstructure (lamellar and equiaxed) with primary alpha and

transformed beta grains, where the transformed beta is comped of alpha and beta lamellas

oriented randomly (Sefer). Bimodal microstructures occur when the heat treatment temperature

is done below the beta-transus temperature (Sefer). Errors could include, not doing heat

treatment below the beta-transus temperature which could lead to a failure in creating lamellar

microstructures of the beta phase.

Running Late

The operations manager put me in a position where I need to authorize the parts for

shipping before testing was finished. In the sense of physically approving this decision, yes, I

have authority. However, I also have a moral obligation to uphold ethical values. If this is an

instance where I think people could end up getting hurt, I must do what’s right which may be

telling the operations manager that I can’t authorize the parts to ship because they haven’t passed

the creep tests and may fail. If the creep test failed after the parts were shipped, it would be the

fault of many people. The company works as a whole and if the operations manager is pushing

for things to get done, forge shop workers running late, people aren’t voicing their opinion that

the material is bad, someone authorizes the shipment, and the material fails, it becomes difficult

to place the blame on a certain individual. If the company is working together, the company is

the one to blame for a loss, which could lead to a lawsuit and potential bankruptcy. There is a
Ethical Dilemma Analysis Klopfenstein 3

definite risk that the parts could fail due to creep because the material hadn’t been re-heat

treated.

Trouble in the micrographs

I don’t think it is OK to ship the parts. The photos show that it is all beta phase because

the parts were overheated during processing. The tensile test also provides marginal data, while

everyone is ignoring this, I would be more concerned that the parts would fail if we shipped

them. I think that it would be wise to try to stop the shipment. Engineers must act ethically and if

this mistake could cost lives, it is imperative to step in and stop the shipment. The best actions

would be to voice concerns to the higher ups, instilling concern in them might make them try to

handle the situation themselves. If that doesn’t work, it might be a good idea to try to stop the

shipment yourself or talk to the client about your concerns with the material (which is what they

did in the next section).

Customer response

If the customer didn’t know about the bad microstructure, the material could have failed

in manufacturing or in use with passengers. I would like to believe that the customer would have

done further testing if parts failed and figured out that it was originally our fault and that we sold

them faulty parts. I don’t think I could imagine the customer taking the parts. If they are

manufacturing a plane and had requirements that we had no made as the manufacturer, then it

seems perfectly reasonable that they wouldn’t want the parts. I would say that it is your fault that

the customer won’t accept the parts. In the end, it was you who told the customer, however you

had very valid concerns. If you felt that it was necessary to tell them for ethical reasons, then

your actions are well justified.

Ethical Dilemma Analysis Klopfenstein 4

Conclusion and Reflection

I think this problem could have been prevented by more organization within the company

itself. This issue started with the forgers for these parts. They didn’t understand how long it

would take themselves to finish the parts. The other employees should have accounted for that

and given them ample time to complete their work on time, or been more pressing about them

getting it finished within a certain time frame. Enforcing organization and deadlines in the

workplace can cause tasks to get done more quickly and efficiently. The competing interests here

are mainly net gain for the company and acting ethically. This divide is always an issue within

companies. When running a company, the only goal in mind is to gain more money. This idea

makes sense. In order to be successful, you must gain profit and build a name for the company,

and the more gain you have in these areas, the more attention and influence you have. The

people with this idea in mind would have shipped the parts for the customer. Things worked well

enough, so in the end you gave the client what they wanted by fulfilling the minimum

requirements. On the other side, we have people trying to make ethical decisions. These are the

engineers watching what’s happening from the inside and seeing things being rushed and tests

barely passing. These people have concerns for the application of these materials because it

could potentially cost lives. If I was in a position like the individual in the paper, I would take

several steps if I was concerned about the material. I would probably first talk to the operations

manager, other people and clients about my concerns and try to gauge the severity of the

situation. If my manager ordered the parts to be shipped I would express my concerns to the

manager, and if she didn’t do anything about it then I would talk to the client. If my manager

didn’t tell the client about the microstructure problems, I would express my concerns to the

client. As engineers, we have a responsibility to act with honesty and integrity, which is outlined
Ethical Dilemma Analysis Klopfenstein 5

in the engineering code of ethics (NSPE) One of the Canons is that “Engineers shall hold

paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” Under that, “If engineers'

judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall

notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.” We have

a responsibility to uphold safety and honesty to our employers and/or clients.

Final Analysis

Upon discussion with my teammates, it seems that we are all on the same page when it

comes to making ethical decisions as an engineer. While it may not always be the easiest

decision to make, and may damage the relationship between you and your boss or your job, it is

more important to act ethically. Something interesting that Forest brought up was asking the

client for more time. I don’t know how well this would go down with the client, if there was an

agreed upon deadline they might not be happy that you want more time. However, if the

company is having some issues with timing and if the concern of lives are at hand, this seems

like a good question to ask. Thing happen! And sometimes being upfront about the issues may be

the best option, if the customer understands, then it all works out for the better. I like that Forest

brought that up, because I hadn’t given that a single thought.

Ethical Dilemma Analysis Klopfenstein 6

References

Granta Design. CES EduPack. 2019. Available from: https://grantadesign.com/education/ces-

edupack/

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers [Internet]. NSPE; c1978 [updated 2019 July]. Available

from: https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics

Sefer, B. Oxidation and Alpha-Case Phenomena in Titanium alloys used in Aerospace Industry:

Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-2Mo and Ti-6Al-4V [licentiate thesis]. [Luleå, Sweden]: Luleå

University of Technology, 2014 [cited 2019 Sep 12]. Available from: https://www.diva-

portal.org/smash/get/diva2:999194/FULLTEXT01.pdf