Note 13: Contingent Liabilities (Details)	9 Months Ended
	Sep. 30, 2011
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 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 the 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.  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 U.S. District Court for further proceedings on the question of damages.
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.
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 $90 million (including interest through September 2011).
Loss Contingency Damages Sought	$90 million (including interest through September 2011)
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, which is pending.
Rolls Royce Allegations Against Pratt & Whitney [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency Lawsuit Filing Date	August 27, 2010
Loss Contingency Allegations	As previously disclosed, on August 27, 2010, Rolls-Royce plc (Rolls-Royce) sued Pratt & Whitney in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that fan blades on certain engines manufactured by Pratt & Whitney infringe a U.S. patent held by Rolls-Royce.
Loss Contingency Damages Sought	Rolls-Royce sought damages plus interest, an injunction, attorney’s fees, and a finding of willful infringement.
Loss Contingency Actions Taken By Court Arbitrator Or Mediator	On May 20, 2011, the Court granted Pratt & Whitney’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and denied Rolls-Royce’s cross motion in which it alleged Pratt & Whitney had infringed the patent.
Loss Contingency Settlement Agreement Date	July 14, 2011
Loss Contingency Settlement Agreement Report Classification	On July 14, 2011, the parties entered into an amicable, confidential settlement agreement to dismiss all of the foregoing matters, resulting in no adverse impact to UTC.
Pratt Whitney Complaint Against Rolls Royce [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency Lawsuit Filing Date	November 2010
Loss Contingency Allegations	Further, as previously disclosed, in November 2010, Pratt & Whitney filed complaints against Rolls-Royce in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patent Court (HCJ) in the United Kingdom (UK), with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and against Rolls-Royce and its parent, Rolls-Royce Group plc (Rolls-Royce Group) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The HCJ action alleged that certain turbomachinery blades, engines and components manufactured by Rolls-Royce infringe a UK patent held by Pratt & Whitney and sought damages plus interest and all other relief to which Pratt & Whitney is entitled, including attorney’s fees, expenses, and a permanent order preventing further infringements.
Loss Contingency Damages Sought	sought damages plus interest and all other relief to which Pratt & Whitney is entitled, including attorney’s fees, expenses, and a permanent order preventing further infringements.
Loss Contingency Settlement Agreement Date	July 14, 2011
Loss Contingency Settlement Agreement Report Classification	On July 14, 2011, the parties entered into an amicable, confidential settlement agreement to dismiss all of the foregoing matters, resulting in no adverse impact to UTC.