4 ms·

This is one of the flaws you get with leadership in the military - while enlisted and officers alike are encouraged to be a leader and speak out about issues wh

by Bahamut 12y ago

This is one of the flaws you get with leadership in the military - while enlisted and officers alike are encouraged to be a leader and speak out about issues when no one else does so or is able to, the reality is that if you do, you almost certainly will face reprisal. The leadership principles preached by the US military are rock solid, but the execution can be incredibly flawed unfortunately, and good men & women get screwed by it for doing the right thing. * I do not know if he went to his chain of command with the issues first, but this is just a general observation from serving in the military myself.

bellerocky 12y ago
I don't think something like this is fixable, it's pretty much a flaw in human nature. This is why courts and juries and checks and balances have to exist. Many people are cynical, self-interested political animals especially in positions of power because being cynical helps them get power. It's something you have to recognize as a very real risk before blowing that whistle. You will likely be sacrificing your career, and in some cases your freedom and life. Discrediting a whistleblower who jeopardize a life's work and career works in leadership's favor, especially since they're probably mad as a group. As an example I've witnessed high ranked enlisted working together, planning and cheering the demise of lower ranked individuals. If it's not worth the personal cost, one can consider taking the anonymous route which is getting easier with the tools the EFF is creating. One should also learn good opsec and not brag about what was done ala Chelsea Manning.
neurotech1 12y ago
My impression is that the way this was handled was flawed. Effectively removing him from his full-time ACC job is highly questionable. The issue is more complicated. The flight surgeon was concerned over the filters, but the chain-of-command couldn't allow him to fly without the filter. There was genuine concern from the chain of command, acting on the premise it was toxic fumes getting into the pilots air/oxygen supply. That turned out to be flawed as well.
yeukhon 12y ago
He did. He sent a memo to the then commander, did a confidential survey, sent the survey result to the commander, and sent few more memos to other senior officers. None were interested in his work. They dismissed his questions and concerns. Search the phrase "After about 40 hours of flying with the filter." I have to say in a disciplined organization like military, it's always a bad idea to speak on behalf of your organization without approval. There are all kinds of gotchas in these organizations. But if these officers dismiss his concerns, I really think he has the right to ask for help in public. In the end, he's a human being.

by Bahamut 12y ago

bellerocky 12y ago

I don't think something like this is fixable, it's pretty much a flaw in human nature. This is why courts and juries and checks and balances have to exist. Many people are cynical, self-interested political animals especially in positions of power because being cynical helps them get power. It's something you have to recognize as a very real risk before blowing that whistle. You will likely be sacrificing your career, and in some cases your freedom and life. Discrediting a whistleblower who jeopardize a life's work and career works in leadership's favor, especially since they're probably mad as a group. As an example I've witnessed high ranked enlisted working together, planning and cheering the demise of lower ranked individuals. If it's not worth the personal cost, one can consider taking the anonymous route which is getting easier with the tools the EFF is creating. One should also learn good opsec and not brag about what was done ala Chelsea Manning.

neurotech1 12y ago

My impression is that the way this was handled was flawed. Effectively removing him from his full-time ACC job is highly questionable. The issue is more complicated. The flight surgeon was concerned over the filters, but the chain-of-command couldn't allow him to fly without the filter. There was genuine concern from the chain of command, acting on the premise it was toxic fumes getting into the pilots air/oxygen supply. That turned out to be flawed as well.

yeukhon 12y ago

He did. He sent a memo to the then commander, did a confidential survey, sent the survey result to the commander, and sent few more memos to other senior officers. None were interested in his work. They dismissed his questions and concerns. Search the phrase "After about 40 hours of flying with the filter." I have to say in a disciplined organization like military, it's always a bad idea to speak on behalf of your organization without approval. There are all kinds of gotchas in these organizations. But if these officers dismiss his concerns, I really think he has the right to ask for help in public. In the end, he's a human being.