Note 14: Contingent Liabilities (Details)	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2012
Department of Justice Lawsuit Against Pratt and Whitney [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency Lawsuit Filing Date	1999
Loss Contingency Allegations	As previously disclosed, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued us in 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that Pratt & Whitney violated the civil False Claims Act and common law. This lawsuit relates to the “Fighter Engine Competition” between Pratt & Whitney’s F100 engine and General Electric’s F110 engine. The DOJ alleges that the government overpaid for F100 engines under contracts awarded by the U.S. Air Force in fiscal years 1985 through 1990 because Pratt & Whitney inflated its estimated costs for some purchased parts and withheld data that would have revealed the overstatements. At trial of this matter, completed in December 2004, the government claimed Pratt & Whitney’s liability to be $624 million.
Loss Contingency Period Of Occurrence	fiscal years 1985 through 1990
Loss Contingency Damages Sought	$624 million
Loss Contingency Actions Taken By Court Arbitrator Or Mediator	On August 1, 2008, the trial court judge held that the Air Force had not suffered any actual damages because Pratt & Whitney had made significant price concessions. However, the trial court judge found that Pratt & Whitney violated the False Claims Act due to inaccurate statements contained in its 1983 offer. In the absence of actual damages, the trial court judge awarded the DOJ the maximum civil penalty of $7.09 million, or $10,000 for each of the 709 invoices Pratt & Whitney submitted in 1989 and later under the contracts.
Loss Contingency Actions Taken By Plaintiff And Defendant	In September 2008, both the DOJ and UTC appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2010, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Pratt & Whitney’s liability under the False Claims Act and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Department of Defense Contract Claim Against Sikorsky [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency Lawsuit Filing Date	December 2008
Loss Contingency Allegations	As previously disclosed, in December 2008, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a contract claim against Sikorsky to recover overpayments the DOD alleges it has incurred since January 2003 in connection with cost accounting changes approved by the DOD and implemented by Sikorsky in 1999 and 2006. These changes relate to the calculation of material overhead rates in government contracts. The DOD claims that Sikorsky’s liability is approximately $93 million (including interest through June 2012).
Loss Contingency Damages Sought	$93 million (including interest through June 2012)
Loss Contingency Actions Taken By Defendant	We believe this claim is without merit and Sikorsky filed an appeal in December 2009 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Trial in the matter is scheduled to commence later this year.
US Department Of State Against Company [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency Allegations	A significant portion of our activities are subject to export control regulation by the U.S. Department of State (State Department) under the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). From time to time, we identify, investigate, remediate and voluntarily disclose to the State Department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance (DTCC) potential violations of the ITAR. DTCC administers the State Department’s authority under the ITAR to impose civil penalties and other administrative sanctions for violations, including debarment from engaging in the export of defense articles or defense services. Most of our voluntary disclosures are resolved without the imposition of penalties or other sanctions. However, as previously disclosed, in November 2011, DTCC informed us that it considers certain of our voluntary disclosures filed since 2005 to reflect deficiencies warranting penalties and sanctions.
Loss Contingency Period Of Occurrence	voluntary disclosures filed since 2005
Loss Contingency Damages Sought	$55 million
Loss Contingency Actions Taken By Plaintiff And Defendant	On June 28, 2012, we entered into a Consent Agreement (CA) with DTCC to resolve a Proposed Charging Letter that references approximately 45 of our previous disclosures. The CA has a four-year term, and provides that we will: (1) pay a civil penalty of $55 million, up to $20 million of which can be suspended based on qualifying compliance investments made by us prior to or during the term of the CA; (2) appoint, subject to DTCC approval, an outside Special Compliance Official (SCO) to oversee our compliance with the CA and the ITAR; (3) continue and undertake additional remedial actions to strengthen ITAR compliance, with emphasis on human resources and organization, training, automation, and security of electronic data; and (4) sponsor two company-wide outside compliance audits during the term of the CA.
Loss Contingency Date Of Investigation	November 2011
Department Of Justice Against Company [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency Allegations	The voluntary disclosures addressed in the CA include disclosures made in 2006 and 2007 regarding the export by Hamilton Sundstrand to Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) of certain modifications to dual-use electronic engine control software, and the re-export by P&WC of those software modifications and subsequent P&WC-developed modifications to China during the period 2002-2004 for use in the development of the Z-10 Chinese military helicopter. As previously disclosed, the DOJ separately conducted a criminal investigation of the matters addressed in these disclosures, as well as the accuracy, adequacy, and timeliness of the disclosures.
Loss Contingency Period Of Occurrence	2002-2004
Loss Contingency Damages Sought	$55 million
Loss Contingency Actions Taken By Plaintiff And Defendant	We cooperated with the DOJ’s investigation. On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut filed a three-count criminal information alleging: (1) that in 2002-2003, P&WC caused Hamilton Sundstrand to export ITAR-controlled software modifications to Canada and re-exported them to China without the required license; (2) that in 2006, P&WC, Hamilton Sundstrand and UTC made false statements in disclosures to DTCC regarding these ITAR violations; and (3) that P&WC and Hamilton Sundstrand violated a separate provision of the ITAR by failing timely to notify DTCC of the unlicensed software shipments to China, an embargoed country. P&WC pleaded guilty to violating the ITAR and making false statements as alleged, and was sentenced to probation and to pay fines and forfeitures totaling $6.9 million. P&WC, Hamilton Sundstrand and UTC (the UTC Entities) entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) regarding the remaining offenses charged with respect to each UTC Entity. The DPA has a two-year term, and provides that the UTC Entities will: (1) pay an additional penalty of $13.8 million; (2) appoint, subject to DOJ approval, an independent monitor (who may be the same person as the SCO appointed under the CA) to oversee compliance with the DPA; (3) provide annual senior officer certifications that all known violations of the ITAR, Export Administration Regulations and sanctions regimes implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act occurring after the execution date of the DPA have been reported by UTC, its subsidiaries, and its majority-owned or controlled affiliates to the appropriate official(s) of the U.S. government; (4) cooperate with law enforcement in specified areas; and (5) implement specified compliance training initiatives.
US Air Force Claim Against Pratt And Whitney [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency Lawsuit Filing Date	June 18, 2012
Loss Contingency Allegations	On June 18, 2012, the trial court found that Pratt & Whitney had breached other obligations imposed by common law based on the same conduct with respect to which the court previously found liability under the False Claims Act. Under the common law claims, the U.S. Air Force may seek damages for events occurring before March 3, 1989, which are not recoverable under the False Claims Act. Further proceedings at the trial court will determine the damages, if any, relating to the False Claims Act and common law claims. The government is expected to continue to seek damages of $624 million, plus interest.
Loss Contingency Damages Sought	$624 million, plus interest
Loss Contingency Actions Taken By Plaintiff And Defendant	Pratt & Whitney continues to contend that the government suffered no actual damages. Should the government ultimately prevail, the outcome of this matter could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability would be recognized or cash flows for the period in which damages would be paid.