Seems fairly standard.  He provided feedback that could have prevented a disaster and the managers ignored it.  So at the very least, the managers would dislike him for the fact that he illuminated their incompetence, but even more so for the fact that he would be a reminder of the massive tragedy that ensued and for which they were partially to blame.   With management&#x27;s resentment, his peers would have a choice, maintain a friendly relationship with him and risk their careers and management’s wrath, or distance themselves from him.<p>It’s sad, but the natural tendency of organizations is to close ranks in situations like this.  It is incredibly tough to perform an open, honest, self-assessment.  The procedures need to be in place to force the self-examination and strong leaders need to push for it.  Even then, politics sometimes place the blame on the wrong people.  I’ve seen this happen time and time again in the military from working with SF in Iraq [1] to joining a squadron just after a disaster [2].<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;08&#x2F;20&#x2F;world&#x2F;africa&#x2F;20iht-20iraq.15446434.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;08&#x2F;20&#x2F;world&#x2F;africa&#x2F;20iht-20iraq....</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;2008_San_Diego_F&#x2F;A-18_crash" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;2008_San_Diego_F&#x2F;A-18_crash</a>