Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association
Patriotism and Freedom of Speech in Action!

 

Airline Industry News

"Extra! Extra!  Read all about it!"

Fatal Flying on Airlines No Accident in Pilot Complaints to FAA

By Caroline Salas

 

Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- On the evening of Dec. 10, 2007, pilot Kenny Edwards got the order to fly a Continental Airlines Inc. commuter flight from Tampa, Florida, to West Palm Beach. He told his dispatch supervisor he wouldn’t do it.

The plane’s collision avoidance system was broken, and a worn seal around the main cabin door made it difficult to maintain air pressurization above 10,000 feet, he told his bosses.

Gulfstream International Airlines Inc., which operated the Continental flight, ordered Edwards to fly the 19-passenger Beechcraft 1900D turboprop plane anyway, Edwards says. He refused. As a result, he was fired.

Edwards filed a complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration, bringing into focus the hidden dangers of flying on regional airlines, which account for half of all scheduled passenger flights in the U.S., Bloomberg Markets magazine reported.

In May 2009, the FAA found that Gulfstream had violated multiple regulations; it proposed a $1.3 million fine. Gulfstream is appealing the penalty, which would be the largest ever for a regional, says FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette.

FAA inspectors found that Fort Lauderdale-based Gulfstream put planes in the air even after the company’s own staff had repeatedly reported malfunctions in the aircraft.

Gulfstream crews documented seven times in a month that one turboprop had faulty landing gear; eventually that plane touched down without wheels under its nose, on its belly. Gulfstream also scheduled crew members to work more hours than allowed, according to the FAA.

Automotive Parts

And the airline had installed automotive parts not certified by the FAA for use in airplanes. Edwards, 44, has sued Gulfstream (which isn’t related to business jet manufacturer Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.) under a Florida whistle-blower law, alleging the company retaliated against him by firing him.

“They were trying to force pilots to fly airplanes that weren’t in any condition to fly,’” Edwards says. “They did everything to cut costs, and they seemed to be crossing a line to where it was not safe.”

Edwards’s concerns resonate across the U.S. for millions of people who fly regional airlines every year for business and pleasure. Companies like Gulfstream run the fleets that Delta Air Lines Inc., UAL Corp.’s United Airlines, Continental and most other majors use for commuter flights.

Fatal Crash

Continental Flight 3407, operated by Colgan Air Inc., crashed in icy weather on Feb. 12, 2009, outside of Buffalo, New York, killing all 49 people on board and one person on the ground.

The plane’s captain had been trained by Gulfstream, which also has an aviation school known as Gulfstream Academy. The pilot and his first officer may have erred in responding to a stall warning by pulling up the nose of the plane rather than pointing it down to increase speed, the National Transportation Safety Board found.

Gulfstream also trained the co-pilot on the last fatal commercial airline flight before the Continental crash. That involved a Delta commuter plane, operated by Comair Inc., which used the wrong runway in Lexington, Kentucky, in August 2006, killing 49 people.

Gulfstream also previously employed the two pilots who crashed a Pinnacle Airlines Inc. plane with no passengers after deciding to fly at their jet’s maximum altitude to have fun, the NTSB found. They crashed and died in Jefferson City, Missouri, in October 2004. The first officer attended Gulfstream Academy, according to the NTSB.

A Coincidence

Gulfstream Chief Executive Officer David Hackett says it’s just a coincidence that the crashes were piloted by graduates from the company’s academy.

“The analogy we like to use is: You’re 25 years old; you had a car accident; who taught you to drive at 16?” Hackett says.

Pilots for regionals are often less experienced than those who fly for the majors and are forced to work more-grueling schedules, says U.S. Senator Mark Begich, a Democrat from Alaska who sits on the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Regional companies handled more than 158 million passengers in 2008, according to the Washington-based Regional Airline Association. Regional flights usually bear the names of their major airline partners.

Five Crashes

That leaves many passengers unaware that the planes they fly on -- and the pilots who command them -- may not match the safety standards of the airline whose name they see on their tickets, Begich says.

The last five fatal crashes of commercial passenger carriers in the U.S. involved planes operated by regional airlines, according to the NTSB.

Major airlines contract out to regionals to lower their expenses by getting around union agreements, says Captain Paul Rice, first vice president of the Air Line Pilots Association, the world’s largest pilot union, with about 53,000 members.

“The way the industry is structured is that management will go out and find a new airline and start siphoning off the business to whoever will fly for cheaper,” says Rice, 52, a pilot at United for 23 years.

“The American public is only just starting to wake up to that,” Rice says. “What they are buying is the lowest-cost operation that’s available.”

Guaranteed Cockpit Time

Pilots, mechanics and crew schedulers say Gulfstream International doesn’t want to hear complaints about safety. Founded in 1988 as a charter airline, Gulfstream now flies commuter planes for Continental and United, mostly in Florida and the Bahamas. Gulfstream has never had a fatal accident.

Pilots say Gulfstream has an unhealthy relationship between its airline and its flight school. Gulfstream’s training program is different from others, because it guarantees students time as a first officer, the No. 2 position in the cockpit, flying passengers for its own airline, Gulfstream says on it Web site.

“We offer the fastest possible transition to the ‘Right Seat’ of a commercial airliner,” Gulfstream says.

For $32,699, students get 522 hours of training -- including 250 hours as a first officer for Gulfstream International Airlines. That means student pilots are paying Gulfstream for the privilege of flying as first officers.

“Gulfstream is selling the job,” says Charlie Preusser, a regional airline pilot who flew for Manassas, Virginia-based Colgan Air. “When you’ve got a guy fronting the cash, there’s a lot of pressure on the company to keep him onboard no matter how bad he is.”

Meeting Standards

Gulfstream CEO Hackett says all of the airline’s first officers meet FAA standards to fly a commercial airline.

Gulfstream International Group Inc., the parent of both the airline and the flight school, went public in December 2007.

Its share price dropped 21 percent in the week following the May 21, 2009, FAA-proposed fine. The stock has tumbled a total of 51 percent to $1.42 as of Dec. 29. In the four quarters ending September 30, 2009, the company reported $6.5 million in losses, with $88.7 million in revenue.

Gulfstream’s initial public offering was underwritten by Taglich Brothers Inc., a New York brokerage that publishes research on 31 companies with market values of less than $250 million. Michael Taglich, president and chairman of the firm, is Gulfstream’s largest individual shareholder, regulatory filings show.

“Gulfstream didn’t do anything materially wrong, and I’m confident that there’s no material substance to the FAA allegations,” Taglich says.

Shares Downgraded

Taglich Brothers, the only company that rates Gulfstream stock, downgraded its recommendation on the shares to “neutral” from “speculative buy” in June because of the proposed FAA penalty.

In October, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to toughen training requirements so that an airline pilot would need 1,500 flight hours, up from 250 currently. The Senate hasn’t yet voted on that measure.

“It’s clear there’s a difference between the major airlines and the regionals,” Senator Begich says. “It’s bad business and bad safety procedure for the majors not to understand that whatever standards they’re living by, they should have the same standards for their regionals.”

One of the FAA’s top priorities is making performance consistent across major and regional airlines, says spokeswoman Duquette.

‘Definitely Acknowledge’

“We definitely acknowledge there needs to be a greater level of professionalism,” she says of regional airlines.

On June 15, the FAA asked airlines in the U.S. for written commitments showing they’ve started or planned accident- prevention programs; 98 percent have done so, the FAA said in October.

Roger Cohen, president of the Regional Airline Association, says the more than 30 companies he represents follow all federal regulations.

“There is no gap between major airlines and regionals on safety because it is the No. 1 priority and the same for every airline,” he says. The association opposes raising minimum flight hours to 1,500 because that could discourage people from becoming pilots, Cohen says.

The major airlines say they trust their regional counterparts.

‘Top Priority’

“Safety is Continental Airlines’ top priority, and we expect the same from our partners,” spokeswoman Julie King says. She declined to comment on Continental’s affiliation with Gulfstream.

United Airlines spokeswoman Megan McCarthy says, “All of our regional airline partners meet FAA and United’s own high standards.” US Airways Group Inc. spokeswoman Valerie Wunder declined to comment. Delta Air Lines spokeswoman Betsy Talton didn’t return calls for comment.

The majors don’t typically hire pilots straight out of flight school. Pilots usually get experience at regionals first and have accumulated about 4,000 hours of flight experience before they’re hired by the large airlines, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Regional airlines pay pilots annual salaries as low as $18,264, according to Kit Darby, a retired United Airlines captain who’s now a consultant and flight instructor in Atlanta. That salary level was below the official poverty line of $21,834 for a family of four in 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Pilots Commute

Pilots endure the low pay for the promise of six-figure salaries at the major airlines, says Darby, who has testified in civil cases for both defendants and plaintiffs as an expert on pilot hiring and compensation.

Pilots for regionals frequently commute across the U.S. for flights because they can’t afford to live near the airports where they’re based, Darby says.

Before operating a plane, they often sleep in crew lounges or at so-called crash pads, temporary apartments where as many as six pilots share a bedroom. Former Colgan pilot Preusser lived full time in a crash pad in Albany, New York, in 2007.

He says he slept on an air mattress and shared a room with three or four people. One pilot slept in a walk-in closet, he says. Many regional pilots can’t afford meals and keep track of which hotels offer free continental breakfasts, Preusser says.

Preusser says he remembers falling asleep in the cockpit while piloting a 50-seat Embraer RJ145. He had been on standby and was assigned at the last minute to fly a 7 p.m. flight from Dallas to Cincinnati.

‘It’s Very Scary’

The next day, he started at 5 a.m. and flew three more flights. On the final trip that day, he dozed off for a few seconds.

“That adds up to: Let’s just play Russian roulette with air traffic safety,” Preusser says. “In the pilot world, being aware of your environment and what the airplane is doing is absolutely requisite. You’re not fully conscious or even conscious at all and then you snap to, and it’s very scary.”

John Nance, a retired Air Force pilot who also flew for Alaska Airlines and has about 40 years of flying experience, says airlines are closing their eyes to issues of training, pay and living conditions among regional pilots.

“This business of see no evil, hear no evil doesn’t cut it,” says Nance, who’s testified for both plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases as an expert on air safety. “It is totally unacceptable legally, morally, ethically for any airline leadership to pretend they don’t know what they know.”

‘Fly Smart’

At Gulfstream Training Academy in Fort Lauderdale, the company tells prospective students that the school will teach them all they need to know about being commercial pilots.

“Jump-start your airline pilot career,” the academy says on its Web site. “Fly safe, fly smart, fly Gulfstream.”

The aviation school is about five miles (eight kilometers) from the Atlantic coast, and its campus is peppered with palm trees. Former Gulfstream pilot Edwards, who says the academy trained him well, says students would study sitting by the ocean.

“We would go to the beach and sit there in chairs on the sand and quiz each other,” he says.

Gulfstream pays its new first officers $19.01 an hour to fly. Before September, the trainee first officers were paid $8 an hour.

“I’ll stack our training program against any in the industry,” says Hackett, 48, a former director of financial planning at Continental who joined Gulfstream in 2003 and became CEO in 2006.

Broken Parts

Dan Brisco, a licensed pilot who spent 18 months as the lead mechanic at Gulfstream’s Tampa base until the end of 2007, says Gulfstream Airlines is more concerned with cutting expenses than in focusing on safety.

Brisco says Gulfstream routinely flew passengers on planes with broken parts, including wheels and landing gear.

“They push the airplanes out in whatever condition they’re in,” says Brisco, 51, who has more than 20 years of experience as an airline mechanic. “Unless they physically stop running, they’re not going to get any maintenance.”

Brisco says he left Gulfstream in 2007 after he repeatedly complained to his supervisor that the company’s operations were unsafe. He has since spoken with the FAA.

Gulfstream spokesman Bruce Hicks says Brisco never complained about safety issues.

When the FAA announced its proposed $1.3 million fine of Gulfstream in May 2009, the agency said the airline had installed unapproved air-conditioner compressors in its planes between September 2006 and May 2008.

Not FAA-Certified

Gulfstream has 23 Beechcraft 1900D turboprops, according to a Nov. 16, 2009, regulatory filing. Gulfstream bought automotive air-conditioner parts for its aircraft and modified them to use in planes, an FAA inspector found.

Such equipment isn’t certified for use on aircraft, the inspector wrote. Brisco says the danger of using non-FAA certified parts is that they could explode because they may not be able to withstand extreme temperature and air pressure changes.

FAA inspectors found that crews had repeatedly reported several malfunctioning parts on airplanes, including vapor cycle systems.

The FAA hasn’t yet collected the fine. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown says she can’t comment on Gulfstream because the agency is in the middle of an enforcement action.

The agency hasn’t publicly released its inspectors’ reports. Former Gulfstream pilot Edwards obtained them through a Freedom of Information Act request.

No Safety Issue

Hackett says his company bought the same parts that are in FAA-approved air conditioners to make repairs that met FAA standards, so there was no safety issue.

“We believe what we did is correct,” he says. After the FAA inspection, Gulfstream replaced the parts with FAA-approved compressors.

Brisco says he remembers in May 2007 when the landing gear for the nose of a plane didn’t come down when arriving in Tampa. The plane landed on its belly and had to be evacuated on the runway, a risky maneuver that could have resulted in death or injuries, Brisco says.

Pilots had been complaining for several days that the gear wasn’t working properly, and mechanics were signing off on the safety of the aircraft without fixing it, Brisco says.

The FAA’s Service Difficulty Record database documents that May 11, 2007, landing. The files show that the pilots shut down one of the plane’s engines at an altitude of 1,000 feet (305 meters) and turned off the second engine before touching the ground.

Six More Reports

There were six other reports filed in the previous month about the landing gear malfunctioning on that same plane.

Gulfstream spokesman Hicks says the landing gear was a manufacturer’s shortcoming, not a maintenance issue. He says Gulfstream’s maintenance program has received the FAA’s diamond certificate of excellence for 13 consecutive years, including 2008.

That distinction is based solely on the number of hours personnel spend in training, says the FAA’s Duquette.

Gulfstream pushes fledgling pilots to fly for more hours in a day than the FAA allows, says Mary Hebig, who was a crew scheduler at Gulfstream from 2005 to 2007.

Hebig, 64, says she quit because she didn’t want to be responsible for scheduling pilots who were flying while fatigued and on unsafe aircraft.

‘Like Their Mother’

“I just felt like their mother,” Hebig says. “Some of these kids are so young, and they want to do the right thing. They come out of the academy, and everyone is telling them, ‘You gotta suck up to Gulfstream, do what they say.’ These poor kids are brainwashed from the time they hit the street.”

Hackett says Hebig doesn’t understand FAA rules on flying hours.

Hebig, who worked the night shift, says she remembers seeing firetrucks in October 2006 surround an aircraft that took off from Fort Lauderdale and made an emergency return after an engine failed in flight.

“Thank God everybody made it back OK,” she said. “Two days later, the same aircraft went out of Fort Lauderdale again and had another return with the same engine and same result.”

Gulfstream fixed the engine after its second failure, she says.

“We train our pilots to be overly cautious,” Hackett says. “I’m not saying it’s an everyday matter, but sometimes engines don’t always work perfectly.”

Exceeding Limits

When the FAA announced its fine in May, it said Gulfstream hadn’t properly entered pilot flying hours from its manual, hard-copy logbooks into its computers. As a result, crew members flew more hours than the FAA allowed, both daily and weekly, the regulator found.

Gulfstream dispatchers were routinely working shifts exceeding the regulatory maximum of 10 hours, an FAA inspector wrote.

John Horton, director of safety at Gulfstream, told FAA inspector Terrence McMaster in May 2008 that most Aviation Safety Action Program reports -- confidential complaints filed by pilots without punitive consequences -- centered on crew members who worked more than their legal limit of 16 hours a day.

“Mr. Horton stated that in one case it was discovered by him, during the course of his investigation, that a crew scheduler had falsified flight times and duty times,” the FAA inspector wrote.

Never Falsified Records

Hackett says the FAA is confused by Gulfstream’s record keeping. He says the company never falsified flight or duty time records and doesn’t ask its pilots to fly more than the legal limits.

Edwards, the former Gulfstream pilot who’s now a whistle- blower, had long dreamed of becoming an aviator. The walls of his living room are decorated with images of airplanes from vintage travel posters.

Since leaving Gulfstream, he has made ends meet by working as a waiter in a sports bar and giving guitar lessons.

He attended Gulfstream Academy in 2000 and was hired by Gulfstream Airlines in 2001 as a first officer after accumulating about 460 hours of flight time, including the 250 he bought flying for the airline, he says.

Edwards, who’s 6 feet tall and sports a goatee, says his Dec. 10, 2007, flight assignment from Tampa to West Palm Beach wasn’t the first time he’d found a Gulfstream plane unsafe.

Stormy Weather

He refused to fly one of Gulfstream’s turboprops from West Palm Beach to Tampa in stormy weather on Oct. 1, 2007, because he says it didn’t have all of the equipment needed to safely approach an airport and steer the aircraft on the ground.

After he complained, Gulfstream gave him a work schedule that made it virtually impossible for him to fly home and see his wife in Phoenix, Edwards says. Edwards decided to quit. He gave Gulfstream two weeks’ notice several days before the Dec. 10 flight assignment.

The turboprop that day had a broken traffic and collision avoidance system, or TCAS, which shows pilots the location of other aircraft relative to their position in the air, Edwards says.

In addition, worn-out door seals meant the cabin wasn’t properly pressurized above 10,000 feet, he says.

Hackett says the TCAS on that airplane had been repaired, and it wasn’t needed anyway.

“I can tell you with certainty that maintenance signed it off,” Hackett says. “He inconvenienced a whole planeload of passengers for a plane that was legal to fly.”

Nothing Wrong

Gulfstream spokesman Hicks says there was nothing wrong with the plane’s air pressurization and that another pilot later flew the plane without incident.

Edwards says he saw maintenance workers remove the broken TCAS, which is a computer, lubricate its plug, and put it back in, saying it was fixed.

“I didn’t think that plane was safe to fly,” he says.

Federal Aviation Regulation Part 121.533 says, “Each pilot-in-command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft.”

Edwards says that on the evening he refused to take the plane in the air, Gulfstream’s director of operations told him he should consider his resignation effective immediately.

The next day, Dec. 11, 2007, Gulfstream sent Edwards a letter saying he was fired because he had refused to operate the flight.

“Your decision delayed the flight for over two hours and inconvenienced our customers without just cause,” the notice says.

Suit Contested

Edwards filed his lawsuit in September 2008 in Broward County under a Florida whistle-blower act that protects employees from retaliation if they complain about wrongdoing at their company. He’s seeking compensatory damages of more than $15,000.

In a court-filed response dated Nov. 11, 2008, Gulfstream denied any wrongdoing and requested dismissal of the case, which is pending.

The cost-cutting culture is pervasive at regional airlines, putting passenger safety at risk, says Scott Erickson, a captain at Pinnacle Airlines, based in Memphis, Tennessee, and head of Pinnacle’s pilots union.

Pinnacle Airlines Corp. owns Colgan, which operated the Continental commuter that crashed near Buffalo. Pinnacle spokesman Joe Williams says, “The goal is to be the industry leader in safety, not just the regionals’.”

Erickson says the battle for the lowest ticket price that’s ensued since airlines were deregulated undermines protection of passengers and flight crews.

“We say, ‘Competition is the enemy of safety,’” says Erickson, who lives in Minneapolis and joined Pinnacle in 2000.

Lower Fares

The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 removed government controls on fares, routes and schedules to encourage competition. Adjusted for inflation since 1978, the cost per passenger of flying one domestic mile has halved to 4.19 cents as of 2008, according to the Air Transport Association.

The growth in commuter airlines accelerated in the past two decades with the invention of the regional jet.

“The geographic scope of regional airlines now has gone almost coast-to-coast from just a couple hundred miles with turboprops,” says Roger King, an analyst at Creditsights Inc. who has covered airlines for 20 years.

“As the jets came in, they were able to fly more people cheaper and faster. The demand accelerated,” King says. In exchange for flying routes at decreased costs for major airlines, the regional carriers get to piggyback off their larger partners’ brand and customer base.

A Fixed Fee

“Without the majors, the little airline would have to do its own marketing; it would have to take the risk of oil price hikes and demand,” King says.

“They’re providing the service to the major airline for a fixed fee,” he says. “They’re forced to cut their costs to the bone to make up for the fact that the major airline can’t because of union contracts.”

SkyWest Inc.’s agreement to fly under the Delta name requires the regional airline to keep its costs at or below the average rates for all of Delta’s commuter airline partners, SkyWest Chief Financial Officer Bradford Rich said on its first- quarter earnings call in May.

When Delta acquired Northwest Airlines Corp. and its commuter contracts in 2008, Delta’s average rates went down, forcing SkyWest to cut its costs, said Rich, who didn’t return calls seeking comment.

CEO Jerry Atkin said in June that St. George, Utah-based SkyWest’s costs are among the lowest in the industry, allowing it to take market share when competitors’ contracts expire.

‘Do Things Right’

Rice of the Air Line Pilots Association says the cost- saving approach in the industry discourages regionals from putting more effort into safety.

“The regional airlines that do things right, that train well above the minimum required standards, should not be penalized by the industry structure that we have in this country,” Rice says.

Many regional pilots say that affording a place to live is often harder than flying. Low pay coupled with airlines that regularly open and close bases have made the commuting of hundreds of miles to work the norm, says pilot Mark Segaloff, who lives in Austin, Texas.

His flight assignments are based out of Newark, New Jersey.

‘Didn’t Really Know’

“I didn’t really know how difficult it would be,” he says. His initial pilot salary was $22,000 a year, so he worked a side job as a waiter at a TGI Friday’s restaurant in Albany, New York.

Segaloff, 26, is now a captain and head of the Colgan pilots union. To cope with the commute, many pilots stay in crash pads near airports.

The Web site www.crashpads.com has a database with 350 listings, says Steve Botkin, president of Flight Crew Services, who started the site in 1997. Crash pads provide better sleeping conditions than crew lounges, says Botkin, whose site has had 10,000 members.

Mark Yakopovich, a flight attendant for Republic Airways Holdings Inc., says he decided to run his own crash pad near LaGuardia Airport in the borough of Queens, New York, eight years ago after staying at unlocked apartments that sometimes didn’t even have beds.

Yakopovich, 56, charges $200 a month for one of 22 beds in his five-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment in East Elmhurst, New York. The crash pad is two apartments on the first and third floors of a brick building that’s a five-minute walk to a US Airways building.

Arrows to Mattresses

The bottom apartment’s living room functions as the common area for both spaces, with a futon, a television and a desk. The kitchen is upstairs in the third-floor apartment. The bedposts have stickers on them with pilots’ and flight attendants’ names, along with arrows pointing to their mattresses.

“You need a place that doesn’t smell like sewage,” he says. “I feel very strongly about having a quiet place, a secure place and your own bed to get the rest. It’s all about saving lives.”

The commuting and living conditions, the pilot fatigue, the minimal training and the use of faulty aircraft are posing a danger for millions of Americans.

“Here’s what the customers do: They assume the FAA, the federal government and the airlines are doing their job on safety,” says Senator Begich.

No Action

The FAA and federal government have failed to ensure that regional airlines are as safe as their major partners, says Begich, whose father died in a 1972 charter plane crash.

In the 10 months since the fatal crash in upstate New York, the U.S. Senate held six hearings on aviation safety and two more on the reauthorization of the FAA. So far, it has taken no action.

The FAA said in mid-2009 that it would introduce new regulations regarding pilot flight hours by Dec. 31. Now, it’s saying the rules will change in 2010.

Former Gulfstream pilot Edwards says government delays in enforcing and improving safety rules put the public at risk.

“The only thing that I think would really change the situation, as much as I hate to say this, is more accidents,” he says.

Until the FAA steps up, passengers traveling on commuter flights will be left wondering whether buying a cheaper ticket will continue to mean bargaining away their safety.

To contact the reporter on this story: Caroline Salas in New York at csalas1@bloomberg.net;

***********************

WHISTLEBLOWING AIRLINE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
 
"Patriotism and Freedom of Speech in Actrion"
 
"Transportation Insecurity Syndrome"
 
Do your holiday travel plans call for air travel this season?  Are your family members suffering from chronic 'Transportation Insecurity Syndrome"?  Do you presently feel that you're getting max whack for your tax buck from the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration?  Based on concerns being expressed via the 'Contact Us' page of our website, it appears that the latest failure of our government to protect the travelling public has reached epidemic proportions.  In light of the blatant failures in this regard pre-9/11, and given the heightened terrorist threat level in this country with the escalation of conflict in the middle east, coupled with the stated mission of our association on our website home page, should we not collectively speak out with rage over the apparent lack of congressional oversight of DHS/TSA?
 
After the globally embarrassing Abu Ghraib debacle, coupled with the trashing of so many professional aviation careers of the likes of honest whistleblowers TSA Bogdan Dzakovic, FAA Gabe Bruno, FAA Chris Monteleon, FAA Anne Whiteman, FAA Richard Wyeroski, Federal Air Marshals Robert Maclean, Spencer Pickard, and Craig Sawyer, Captain Dan Hanley, and so many more, we've come to clearly recognize the meaning of the terms "scape-goating", "stonewalling", "white washing". and "cheat until you get caught, then lie about it" from the press releases of various agencies of our federal government. 
 
When it comes to the safe and secure carriage of passengers, federal air marshals, and aircrew members onboard commercial jet aircraft in a high-threat terrorist environment in the midst of increasing global conflict, which further exacerbates terrorist threats, have you had enough yet?  Members of the 'Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association' and their affiliate groups have reached their prudent limit of endurance and are 'mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore'!  Wasn't one 9/11 more than enough?  Speak out!
 
The email excerpt below was just received from one of our affiliate groups for broad dissemination across our email network and website...please forward to all!  There is strength in unity and numbers!  The millions who travel by commercial air this holiday season are expecting us to speak out and should not be suffering from "Transportation Insecurity Syndrome".  Besides, our association safety and security mission statement is in consonance with those of the FAA and DHS.  Our special interests are the millions who travel by commercial air and those dedicated safety professionals who serve them each day...aircrew members, federal air marshals, and FAA personnel. We already pay too much in taxes...demand more from our governmental leaders.
 
                             GET ACTIVE!  CALL CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS WITH NUMBERS PROVIDED BELOW! 
 
Email Received:

The House Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Transportation Security & Infrastructure Protection is dragging in the "TSA dragon lady." It has been well known that Gale Rossides (pronounced: Roh-see-deez) is the senior executive who has been running day-to-day operations for the TSA since early 2002. Everything to ever come out of James Loy and Kip Hawley's mouth was rehearsed first with Gale.

Check out Kip's delirious take on the SOP manual debacle by his old subordinates still in TSA headquarters:

      http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/12/tsa-response-to-leaked-standard.html

Kip and Gale both state that the 17-month old SSI-marked SOP is "outdated" and poses no threat to the flying public, yet they declared over three years after MacLean's validated whistleblower disclosure -- which reversed an illegal and dangerous cost-cutting plan -- that he is no longer worthy of protecting the public anymore. The hearing could be an opportune time expose the Bush TSA's hypocrisy.
 

Please call these members of the committee and tell them this:

"Please have the congressman/woman ask TSA Acting Administrator Gale Rossides in this Wednesday's hearing why we should not have to worry about her agency disseminating around planet the Sensitive Security Information marked June '08 screening manual, but she had no problem firing TSA Air Marshal Robert MacLean THREE YEARS after he made a valid whistleblower disclosure that reversed TSA's illegal and dangerous plan to save on hotel costs for marshals. Ms. Rossides fired TSA Air Marshal Robert MacLean, and then four months LATER she retroactively marked his whistleblower disclosure as Sensitive Security Information -- or S.S.I. Seems that Ms. Rossides uses S.S.I. to hide her embarrassing mistakes."

Democrats:

Bennie Thompson (Chair, Full Committee): 202-225-5876
Sheila Jackson-Lee (Chair, Sub Committee): 202-225-3816
Peter DeFazio: 202-225-6416
Eleanor Holmes Norton: 202-225-8050
Ann Kirkpatrick: 202-225-2315
Ben Ray Lujan: 202-225-6190
Emanuel Cleaver: 202-225-4535
James A. Himes: 202-225-5541
Eric J.J. Massa: 202-225-3161
Dina Titus: 202-225-3252


Republicans (waste of time, they won't shoot their "pallbearer"):

Charles Dent (Ranking Member): 202-225-6411
Daniel E. Lungren: 202-225-5716
Pete Olson: 202-225-5951
Candice Miller: 202-225-2106
Steve Austria: 202-225-4324
Peter T. King: 202-225-7896
 
**************************** 

Air Safety Round Table

April 21, 2009


In a landmark event, members of parliament, aviation experts, accident survivors and whistle blowers gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa for a round table discussion on the decline of air safety in Canada. 

Air Safety Round Table

Few Canadians realize that the major airlines are governing themselves, with little if any government oversight. Despite industry protest, Transport Canada is quietly attempting to pass regulations that would make the remaining majority of the aviation industry – the air taxi, commuter and maintenance sectors – essentially responsible for themselves. Already Transport Canada has ceased almost all regulatory oversight in these sectors, which are rife with problems.

Canadians need to know that despite lessons learned from aviation accidents and related problems in the rail industry, Transport Canada has abandoned them and left their lives in the hands of those responsible for profit margins – a dangerous strategy which is likely to have tragic consequences.

*********************************

 

Congress to toughen airline standards

 

In Legislation to be Introduced Today, Lawmakers Aim to Mandate Successful Safety Programs

 

By Alan Levin, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON

Safety standards for airlines and pilots would be dramatically toughened in legislation scheduled to be introduced Wednesday in Congress.

Prompted by the crash last February near Buffalo that has raised questions about pilot qualifications, training and fatigue, the "Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009" aims to find the most successful safety programs and mandate them for all airlines, said Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee.

The bill would add tough new certification requirements for entry-level commercial pilots, require additional emergency training, improve availability of pilot records and mandate stricter rules to minimize pilot fatigue.

"Our bill is a serious effort to consolidate what we know industry-wide about aviation safety to improve safety performance going forward," Costello said in a statement.

The bill would:

" Require that all airline pilots obtain an Airline Transport Pilot license, which is currently only needed by captains. Pilots must have a minimum of 1,500 flight hours to obtain the license. Co-pilots may now be hired at airlines with as little as about 200 hours, though most begin airline work with more experience.

" Mandate that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within 90 days set up a new database of pilot records so that airlines will have access to more information before they hire someone for the cockpit. The captain of the jet that crashed near Buffalo had failed several FAA-mandated tests of his piloting skills, but his airline did not know about all of them when it hired him.

" Direct the FAA within one year to rewrite the rules for how long pilots can work. Several attempts to rewrite the rules to make piloting less prone to fatigue have failed in recent decades. FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt also has vowed to update the rules.

" Require airlines and travel websites when they sell tickets to disclose the name of the carrier operating the flight. About half of all flights are operated by regional airlines working under contract to major carriers, but those regionals almost never sell tickets directly to passengers. Most of the regional flights are flown with the name of the major carrier painted on their aircraft.

" Set up numerous studies and task forces to examine how best to train pilots, minimize pilot fatigue and run a safe airline.

The Air Transport Association, which represents large carriers, issued a statement saying that it would prefer that current efforts to improve safety begun earlier this year by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood be allowed to work before Congress passes legislation.

"We believe in that process, and we believe it should be allowed to proceed to a successful conclusion," said ATA President James May.

The Regional Airline Association said it welcomes changes that improve safety. Several parts of the bill are already contained in the association's safety initiative, it said in a statement.

The crash Feb. 12 of a Colgan Air turboprop, which killed 50 people, has raised numerous safety issues. A National Transportation Safety Board investigation has found that neither pilot may have gotten a full night's sleep. The pilots also reacted improperly to an emergency, raising questions about how well they were trained.

 
********************************
 
 
Please click here to read about the FAA Airline Safety and Pilot Training Action Plan released in June.  As an airline pilot or employee, do you personally feel that this plan adequately alleviates your present concerns involving airline safety, training, and especially the ability to feel comfort and security in reporting safety issues via appropriate communications channels without impediment or fear of intimidation or recrimination?
 
Kindly forward your anonymous remarks to us about this step the FAA has recently taken by using our "Contact Page " of this website to provide us feedback. 
 
*******************************
 

NBC Los Angeles


   
 

 
 

How Safe Is Airplane Air?

By  JOEL GROVER and MATT GOLDBERG

Updated 6:57 AM PDT, Fri, Jul 24, 2009



 

 

For years, passengers and crew have reported mysterious illnesses after breathing strange fumes on some airplane flights. NBCLA has uncovered growing evidence that explains where those fumes are coming from and why they could be making some travelers sick.

 

Just how safe is the air you breathe on commercial airplanes?

 

Joel Grover investigates passenger and crew claims of illness after breathing strange fumes on commercial flights.

An untold number of air travelers have complained of experiencing tremors, crippling headaches and other neurological problems after breathing strong fumes while in flight.

"The flying public has a right to know what they're breathing," said Aviation attorney Alisa Brodkowitz.

Brodkowitz wants to know what happened to two of her clients, twin sisters Victoria and Valerie Vaughn, after they left Los Angeles International Airport last January, on a Southwest Boeing 737 to Nashville, Tenn.

According to a petition filed in Los Anegels Superior Court, the plane filled with a strange mist, then made an emergency landing. Ever since that flight, the Vaughn sisters say they've been seriously ill.

"They experienced severe headaches, tremors, cognitive problems, memory problems," says Brodkowitz.

The mystery of what's happened to the Vaughn sisters and other travelers might be starting to unravel, nearly a decade after Congress ordered the National Academy of Sciences to study the air on commercial planes.

That study, and other studies done abroad, reveal that toxic jet engine oil fumes sometimes "unintentionally enter the cabin" of a plane.

Dr. Clement Furlong at the University of Washington, who's studying the problem of toxic air on planes, believes a chemical found only in jet engine oil -- called TCP -- has poisoned passengers and crew.

"These are pilots and crew from all over the world, they describe similar symptoms," Furlong said.

Former flight attendant Karen Burns says she experienced symptoms, like tremors and memory loss, for three years after breathing fumes on one particular flight.

Angie Estes, 77, says she still has daily tremors that began the day after she flew home to Seattle from visiting family in Phoenix.

"It comes on so fast," says Estes.

These alleged illnesses have even been documented in a film made by former commercial pilot Tristan Loraine, who believes he was poisoned by fumes on one of his flights.

"My doctors decided that the medical effects and symptoms which I had were such that my health had been compromised to the point that it was no longer safe for me to fly," Loraine said.

So how do toxic fumes end up in the air you breathe on a plane?

Numerous studies now blame what's called a "bleed air system," which is used on almost all commercial jets made by Boeing and Airbus.

In a bleed air system, the plane's engines suck in fresh air from the outside and circulate it through the plane.

But the studies show, if there are oil leaks in the engine, which are not uncommon, the system can actually pump toxic fumes through the cabin and that can cause nervous system disorders.

Both Boeing and Airbus tell us that air on its planes can occasionally become contaminated. Boeing claims those fumes can only cause short-term health problems for travelers, not long-term illnesses.

Airbus says it's not aware of any significant problems from the contaminated air.

But some travelers who say they've fallen ill, like Valerie and Victoria Vaughn, want more information.

That's why their lawyers took Southwest Airlines to court this past week. Southwest says there were no toxic fumes on the Vaughns' flight from LAX, but the airline agreed in court to turn over evidence from the grounded plane to the Vaughns' lawyers and allow them to test materials from the 737 to see if any chemicals might have been in the cabin air.

And Congress is now calling for a long-term solution to the problem of contaminated bleed air.

The U.S. House just passed a bill calling for the FAA to study requiring sensors and filters on planes that would detect and remove toxic fumes inside an airplane. The technology already exists, but would be costly to install.

"Airline manufacturers should equip their planes with filters that would filter out chemicals so people don't breathe them," Brodkowitz said.

What to Do If You Are Exposed to Toxic Fumes on an Airplane

  1. Know what oil fumes smell like. Dirty socks, "chemically smell," vomit, wet dog, and burning oil are the most common descriptors, but some people have described electrical or fuel smells that turn out to be engine oil fumes.
  2. If you see or smell oil fumes, or feel ill from breathing the airplane's air, notify the cabin crew. Ask for assistance and request that the pilot record the problem in the logbook to ensure that maintenance staff members investigate the problem.
  3. Engine oil fumes are a toxic soup of chemicals, including some oil additives called tricresyl phosphates (TCPs). Symptoms associated with exposure vary, but some of the most commonly reported initial symptoms are stomach cramps, muscle weakness and flu-like symptoms. TCP exposure can also cause chronic tremors, problems with gait and balance, tingling/numbness, fatigue, memory loss, attention deficit and difficulties with speech. Some of these neurological symptoms may develop during the days or weeks after being exposed. Engine oil fumes can also contain carbon monoxide gas, causing headache, dizziness, weakness, fainting and confusion.
  4. Write down the tail number of the aircraft and the aircraft type. If possible, ask a crewmember for the aircraft number, or at least try to record the tail number, which is painted on the outside of the aircraft tail.
  5. Keep a record of any symptoms and take photos/video of any visible symptoms (e.g., tremor, rash).
  6. If you need to see a doctor, take a copy of the health care providers' guide posted here: http://www.ohrca.org/pdf/quickreference.pdf
  7. Write to the airline, reporting the event and asking for the name of the engine oil used on your aircraft and any relevant aircraft mechanical records. Keep a copy of your letter for your records.
  8. Get your blood drawn and analyzed for oil fume additives. Instructions at: http://ashsd.afacwa.org/docs/howto.htm .
  9. Write to Dr. Fred Tilton, the Federal Air Surgeon at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Tell him that you do not want to be exposed to toxic oil fumes or hydraulic fluid fumes. Urge him to require that cabin supply air be filtered before you breathe it.
  10. Finally, file a complaint with the Department of Transportation Aviation Consumer Action Division at: http://airconsumer.dot.gov/problems.htm
  11. For more information on bleed air exposure visit these websites: http://www.aopis.org/  http://www.aerotoxic.org/ and http://www.toxicfreeairlines.com/

 

Illness among cabin crew heightens toxic air fears

Fresh concerns have been raised over whether passengers could be inhaling contaminated air on planes.

 
Illness among cabin crew heightens toxic air fears
If engine oil or hydraulic fuel leaks, toxic chemicals can contaminate the air supply

A survey of pilots and crew has found alarmingly high levels of illnesses they have contracted since beginning work for airlines.

One in seven of the 789 British airline staff surveyed had to take more than a month's sick leave in the previous year. One in 23 was diagnosed with cancer, even though the average age of those surveyed was around 40. According to Cancer Research, one in 34 Britons will contract cancer at some point, but for those under 44, the figure falls to one in 200.

One in 20 of those surveyed reported being diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The charity SupportME says the incidence of CFS in Britain is normally around one in 1,000. A further 20 per cent of those surveyed were diagnosed with depression - the national average is 8 to 12 per cent, according to the Mental Health Foundation.

The reports, seen by Telegraph Travel, also reveal high levels of miscarriages, thyroid conditions, high blood pressure, cholesterol, pneumonia, bronchitis and IBS. Campaigners claim that the high levels of illness are the result of toxic engine fumes contaminating the air in cabins, and say this has implications for passenger safety and the health of frequent fliers.

Scientists have claimed that toxins enter the cabin as a result of the "bleed air" system used on modern aircraft. Air is drawn out of the compression section of the engine and cooled. It then enters the cabin, where it mixes with recirculated air that has passed through filters designed to remove bacteria and viruses.

These "recirculated air" filters do not remove fumes or vapours from the engine, so if engine oil or hydraulic fuel leaks, toxic chemicals can contaminate the air supply.

Sue Dale, a former airline attendant, who conducted the research in conjunction with the British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association, said the results showed there was a need for a full official investigation.

Earlier this year, undercover investigators claimed to have found high levels of a dangerous toxin on several planes. Of 31 swab samples taken secretly from the aircraft cabins of popular airlines, 28 were found to contain high levels of tricresyl phosphate (TCP), an organophosphate contained in modern jet oil as an anti-wear additive, which can lead to drowsiness, respiratory problems and neurological illnesses.

Dr Mackenzie Ross, a clinical neuropsychologist at University College London, says contaminated cabin air may be affecting up to 200,000 passengers each year. A Telegraph Travel investigation last February revealed that hundreds of incidents of contaminated air had been reported by British pilots.

Reports linking exposure to contaminated air with long-term harm to health have led to an increase in the number of passengers and crew seeking redress. This month a former American Airlines attendant, Terry Williams, 40, launched a lawsuit against Boeing over illnesses she claims were caused by toxic fumes.

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority said investigations were continuing but that there was no evidence of a link between cabin air and ill health. A spokesman for British Airways said that it would continue to liaise with the authorities, including the CAA and the Department for Transport, on the issue.

The Boeing Dreamliner 787, to be launched next year, will be the first passenger jet since the mid-1950s to use air supplied from a separate source, rather than recirculated air that passes through the engine. This had previously been deemed too expensive.

What the cabin crew say

The following cabin crew, speaking on condition of anonymity, reveal the health problems they have faced since they started flying:

Case study 1 (age 36)

Illnesses: High blood pressure, high cholesterol, anaemia, pneumonia/bronchitis, asthma, infertility, chronic fatigue, insomnia, depression, multiple chemical disorder, eczema/psoriasis, IBS/Crohn’s disease

“My health has become so bad over the last five years that I’ve only been able to work half the schedule that I used to. My doctor has attributed my illnesses to exposure to fumes and toxic chemicals on planes. I’ve been off work for eight months and my company has denied me compensation benefits. I’m about to lose my home.”

Case study 2 (age 50)

Illnesses: High blood pressure, high cholesterol, anaemia, pneumonia/bronchitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, thyroid disorder, multiple chemical disorder, breast cancer, osteoporosis, chronic sinusitis, tachycardia, peripheral nerve damage, obstructed lungs

“I had 12 years of ill health that was a mystery until I found out about contaminated air. My GP believes all my health problems have been caused by flying and has written 'Aerotoxic Syndrome’ on my medical certificate. I have been on sick leave for over a year and my airline has threatened to terminate my contract on three occasions. ”

Case study 3 (age 32)

Illnesses: Pneumonia/bronchitis, osteoarthritis

“I experience extreme fatigue after flying. I have ongoing sinus problems and an increase in cold and flu and I am convinced this is related to flying . I have noticed an impairment in simple mental processes such as memory, mental arithmetic and sometimes even finding the words to speak. Before I began flying I considered myself fairly intelligent and articulate.”

************************************

  
Senators back limit on tarmac strandings

WASHINGTON (AP) — Airline passengers could be stranded on tarmacs no longer than three hours under legislation introduced Tuesday in the Senate.

The protection for stranded passengers is part of larger bill that provides a blueprint for Federal Aviation Administration programs for the next two years, including an acceleration of the agency's timetable for modernizing the nation's air traffic control system.

The bill was introduced by Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate's commerce committee, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the aviation subcommittee.

Congress has been trying unsuccessfully for more than two years to reauthorize FAA programs and has had to pass temporary funding extensions.

The tarmac provision would require planes delayed more than three hours to return to a gate to give passengers the opportunity to get off. The proposal has been championed by passenger rights advocates but opposed by the airline industry and airports.

"A hard and fast inflexible timeframe for returning to the gate will have unintended consequences for customers, including the likelihood of more cancellations and inconvenience," said David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association.

"We believe that we have made great progress in reducing lengthy tarmac delays and improving service while on board as reflected in Transportation Department statistics," Castelveter said.

But passenger rights advocate Kate Hanni called the provision "extremely positive for airline passengers."

The bill would also require airlines to provide passengers with food, potable water, comfortable cabin temperature and ventilation, and adequate restrooms while a plane is delayed on the ground, Hanni said.

The nearly $35 billion bill would require the FAA to speed up its plans to switch from a radar-based air traffic control system to a system based on GPS technology. The new system is expected to increase the number of planes that can safely take off and land at airports and allow controllers to track planes in areas where there is no radar coverage.

The bill requires FAA to have the system in operation at the nation's 35 largest airports by 2014 and the rest of the country by 2018. FAA's current plan puts full modernization more than a decade off.

FAA inspections of foreign repair stations that perform maintenance on U.S. planes would be increased from once a year to twice a year under the bill. A similar provision is included in a version of the bill that passed the House in May.

A report last year by the Transportation Department's inspector general said nine big U.S. airlines are farming out aircraft maintenance at twice the rate of four years earlier and now hire outside contractors for more than 70 percent of major work. While most of the outsourced work is still done in the U.S., often at nonunion repair shops, more than one-quarter of the repairs are done overseas.

The European Commission has threatened to pull out of an aviation safety deal over the requirement. A U.S.-European Union agreement says each will have comparable safety requirements and inspection systems.

Another provision would increase funding for a program that underwrites the cost of air service to small airports in communities where there would otherwise be no commercial air service by $48 million, for a total of $175 million. That is the same size increase President Barack Obama called for in his budget proposal earlier this year.

 
June 24, 2009, 10:57 am
 

What Captain Sullenberger Meant to Say (But Was Too Polite to Do So): A Guest Post

 

We recently introduced you to Captain Steve, an airline pilot for a major U.S. carrier, who will be regularly fielding your questions about any and all aspects of air travel. But before we get to that, Captain Steve had something he wanted to say about the overall state of the industry, and particularly how pilots fit in — or don’t.

What Captain Sullenberger Meant to Say
(But Was Too Polite to Do So)
A Guest Post
By Captain Steve

After reading some of the excepts of Captain Sullenberger’s various speeches, especially those of a few weeks ago with the National Transportation Safety Board, I would like to add my editorial from a seasoned international captain.

Captain Sullenberger has been a class act all the way. He’s not been petty, pious, or egotistical. He is, however, much like most of the captains I know and, more broadly, most of the pilots I know. Why? He doesn’t need to be otherwise. When someone has accomplished what he and the scores of men and women like him have accomplished, why do we need to boast?

He implies that what he did while serving as the “skipper” of US Airways flight 1549 was simply his job. He is being as honest and accurate as he can be: “Please, no fanfare, no applause, just doing my job.” But what he has also alluded to in some of his speeches is that it has taken years, even decades, to prepare himself for that one single “lifetime event” of guiding his jet into the safe, smooth landing on the Hudson River.

What he is not saying is this:

We, the airline pilots, are facing a losing battle in the PR department. You believe that we make huge salaries and are treated like royalty. Pure fiction. The public persona or image as propagated by airline management and the ATA is grossly wrong. Why have we been losing this battle for such a long time? Simple. Because most of us are like “Sully”; we don’t want applause or fanfare for doing what we are trained to do. However, we do realize that we should be fairly compensated for what we have achieved to get this job and what we continue to do on a daily basis to keep it. This backlash of pilot bashing is building to a boiling point.

Regional carriers, like the Colgan Airlines flight in Buffalo, are simply this: they employ the lowest-bidder pilots. No offense to them, this is not personal. Don’t make that a distraction to the problem. It is the system that is at fault. Money and profits at all cost.

Airline history lesson 101: It used to be, up until the mid 1980’s, that a young pilot would be hired on at a major carrier, become a flight engineer (FE), and then spend a few years managing the systems of the older-generation airplanes. But he or she was learning all the while. These new “pilots” sat in the FE seat and did their job, all the while observing the “pilots” doing the flying, day in and day out.

The FE’s learned from the seasoned pilots about the real world of flying into the Chicago O’Hares and New York LaGuardias. They learned decision making, delegation, and the reality of “captain’s final authority” as confirmed in the law. When they got the chance to upgrade, they became a copilot. The copilot’s duty was to assist the captain in flying; but even during their time as the new copilot, they had the luxury of the FE looking over their shoulders — i.e., more learning. This three-man-crew concept, now a fond memory in the domestic markets but used predominately in international flying, was considered one more layer of protection. But it’s gone.

Now domestic flying is being shifted to the regional carriers, like the American Eagles, Comairs, Mesas, and Colgan Airs, to name a few. These consist of the lowest bidders and the newest pilots flying into the harshest of environments. The airline management teams would respond that it works and that this is routine flying. I beg to differ.

Analogy: You are told you need open-heart surgery for a quadruple bypass. I ask that from this date forward you go out and search the Internet for the cheapest price that you can get, and you rush to schedule this operation because there are only two dates that you can get that cheap rate. Done!

Do any of us do that? No. What do we do? We get second opinions, we ask who is the best in town, etc. We ask: “Is there anyone who has been doing this surgery for the last 20 to 25 years”? We don’t say, “Let me use someone who just graduated from medical school and was rushed through residency because it will be cheaper.”

Why not apply the same logic that the public uses to buy an airplane ticket to this surgery scenario? Bypass surgery is routine, right? Some surgeons do two, three, or four a day. It must be easy.

To take that a step further, how many surgeons have to retake their medical boards every nine months in order to be qualified? Airline pilots do. We are subject to simulator check-rides every nine months to demonstrate knowledge, proficiency, and ability.

How many surgeons have to take a physical exam every six months by the A.M.A. in order to work? None! Airline pilots do. Fail your medical exam and you’re done! How many surgeons (or any other critical professional like surgeon or politician) are subject to random drug and alcohol testing? None.

Flying across the North Atlantic is routine, right? It wasn’t just a short few decades ago. We, the pilots, make it routine for you because we have skills, experience, and training like very few others.

Gifted? No, not many of us are. But dedicated and focused upon excellence, you bet! I have told my kids one thing many times since they were little children: “I don’t expect perfection, I expect excellence.” I expect 100 percent effort in all you do. This is the creed of every pilot I know.

Flying from Chicago’s O’Hare to Denver is routine, right? But it wasn’t a few decades ago. We, the pilots, make it routine too. But I challenge you on this. Is your life worth less because you are over the heartland of America in the dark of night rather than climbing into the skies of Rio over the Amazon or headed out across the Pacific? It is worth less if you are on the low-cost regional carrier because you chose to pay less. If you are on the regional carrier headed to Denver and the engine is on fire, I am sure that it is comforting to know that you saved 15 percent by shopping the Internet for the cheapest fare. Isn’t it great to know that you have the newest, least-experienced, exhausted, starving young cockpit crew that this regional airline could find? Good for you!

Did I say starving? Yeah, I did. Did you know that these regional crews can work for 12 to 13 hours every day, flying five to eight legs a day, but their airline does not feel it’s important enough to provide food for them? They are already on welfare wages, and now they have to find time and money while on the ground for 25 minutes to simply nourish themselves. It’s a sad state of affairs. Remember, you bought the cheapest ticket.

Why do we do this? We do this in spite of having lost our pensions, lost 50 percent of our wages, and our horrible work conditions. Our job is intense. It is very fatiguing. Our work causes us to break circadian rhythms and we can’t sleep. I told you, we are dedicated and professional.

The public thinks it is entitled to fly anywhere in the country for $99. Get Real. You get what you pay for. Less airfare means less pay, less maintenance, and less customer service. Lower fares mean peanuts are now too expensive and pretzels will cost you.

By the way, the next shoe to drop is for airlines to allow foreign investment. Prepare to have our airlines taken over by foreign governments, robbed of cash, and then disbanded. You will now be flying on China Eastern, Lufthansa, or British Airways from O’Hare to Denver. Our jobs and the entire airline industry is about to implode, just so you can have your $99 fare.

*******************************

 
 

 

Toxic plane air sickens flight attendant, suit says

  • Story Highlights
  • A flight attendant claims a cabin 'fume event' on a plane left her chronically ill
  • Product liability suit blames Boeing for not having filters, sensors in place
  • Since April 2007, she's suffered from chronic migraines, tremors and vision loss
  • Suit follows years of recommendations about 'bleed air," which Boeing says is safe
By Jessica Ravitz
CNN

(CNN) -- The last time Terry Williams can remember being headache-free was in December. A chronic migraine has plagued her ever since. So have balance and vision problems, a tremor in her left arm, a prickly sensation in her feet and a loss of childhood memories.

The ailments, she says, began April 11, 2007. Williams, then a veteran American Airlines flight attendant of 17 years, noticed a "misty haze type of smoke" on Flight 843 as it taxied toward a gate in Dallas, Texas.

That "fume event," as it is known, and the physical maladies she felt afterward drove Williams, 40, to file a product liability lawsuit late Tuesday in Seattle, Washington, against Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, aircraft manufacturers linked to the MD-82 aircraft she was on. Her claim: Toxins in the cabin's air made her sick, and a design flaw -- the lack of filters and sensors -- left her unprotected.

They "knew or should have known that toxic nerve agents, contaminates, and dangerous fumes could bleed into the plane's ventilation system, causing serious and irreversible health effects," her attorneys said in a written statement.

Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said he was "aware of the lawsuit" but couldn't "discuss details of it at this time."

He then added, "Regarding the issue that the suit appears to raise, I can say that we believe that the air in airplane cabins is safe." VideoWatch Williams discuss her suit »

McDonnell Douglas is no longer in business. It merged with Boeing in the late 1990s to form the Boeing Co., so Blecher said he spoke on behalf of both entities.

"Since we're not named in the suit and it was just filed, we have no comment at this time," said Tim Wagner, a spokesman for American Airlines. "We'll watch the lawsuit as it progresses."

The 'same color as antifreeze'

Between a tickle in her throat, cough and headache, Williams thought she had the start of a common cold when she stepped off the flight in question. But she says the symptoms grew worse and included a nasal discharge she described as "neon green, the same color as antifreeze."

Within several weeks, Williams says, she had to make repeated visits to emergency rooms before a neurologist told her she'd been the victim of toxic exposure.

Since the early 1960s, air in passenger jets has typically combined re-circulated existing cabin air with air bled off the engines. The air pulled into the engines is cooled and compressed before it is pumped into the the plane. It is this "bleed air" that Williams' suit claims was contaminated. See how "bleed air" enters a plane's ventilation system »

Leaks in the seals that keep engine oil in place could cause chemically laden fumes to enter the air stream, said William Nazaroff, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at University of California, Berkeley.

"A specific chemical of concern is tricresyl phosphate," he said, a chemical compound used in nerve agents and pesticides. "Historically, there have been some neurotoxic health consequences from high human exposures to [tricresyl phosphate]."

How often "fume events" happen, and how often they are reported, is disputed.

A National Research Council report in 2002, using data from three Canadian airlines, said that on one aircraft model, nearly four out of 1,000 flights had a fume event.

The Committee on Toxicity in the United Kingdom, a group made up of independent experts who advise government agencies, said in September 2007 that pilots reported events in 1 percent of flights and that maintenance inspected and confirmed incidents in 0.05 percent of flights.

"These frequency estimates may all sound low, but consider that there were 10.65 million flights on U.S. registered aircraft in 2008. Even 0.05 percent of flights translates into about 14 events per day," said Judith Murawski, an industrial hygienist with the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, who has studied the issue for more than nine years.

Most of the flying public has never heard of "fume events," and employees, especially in this economy, may stay mum for job security reasons, Murawski said. Flight attendants who become too sick to work -- and Murawski estimates that there have been hundreds -- usually file a workers' compensation claim, which Williams has also done.

'Bleed air' research spans decades

The Federal Aviation Administration does not dismiss the possibility of fume events and the potential health dangers.

"The concerns are reasonable and are being investigated," the agency said in a written response to CNN's questions about the issue.

"These symptoms" -- including memory loss, vision impairment, tremors, headaches and vomiting -- "have been attributed to exposure to tricresyl phosphate (TCP) and other breakdown products of hydraulic fluid, fuel, deicing fluid and engine oil," it said.

The statement also said, however, that the same symptoms occur as a result of other neurological conditions. The FAA said researchers at seven universities involved in Airliner Cabin Environment Research are trying "to assess the level of exposure to toxic chemicals in aircraft and to correlate any verified exposures with crew and passenger symptoms."

The first known written report about exposure to toxins on airplanes -- entitled "Human Intoxication Following Inhalation Exposure to Synthetic Jet Lubricating Oil" -- was submitted in 1977 by a team of doctors, including those affiliated with a pulmonary-toxicology lab at a VA Hospital in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Their investigation focused on a case of a "previously healthy" 34-year-old military pilot who became "acutely incapacitated" while flying after being exposed to "aerosolized or vaporized synthetic lubricating oil," the doctors wrote in the report. They said further investigation was "definitely warranted."

In 1986, the National Research Council, an operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, conducted -- at the request of Congress -- an independent study and produced a report entitled "The Airliner Cabin Environment: Air Quality and Safety." In this, the council raised myriad concerns about air quality in cabins, including exposure to contaminants.

The research council was enlisted again by Congress about 15 years later. The result was the 2002 report "The Airliner Cabin Environment and the Health of Passengers and Crews." In its own language responding to the NRC's recommendation regarding air quality and ventilation, the FAA said it "has not kept pace with public expectation and concern about air quality" and cannot guarantee protection from contamination "because no airplane design incorporates an air contaminant monitoring system."

In its statement to CNN, the FAA said it "supports all of the NRC's recommendations and continues to monitor the development of data on cabin air contamination to ensure the health of the flying public."

Christiaan van Netten, an environmental toxicologist in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, devised a simple device to measure air quality on planes. Seventy-five of the hand-held monitors were used in a study conducted by the Occupational Health Research Consortium in Aviation, a project that was funded by the FAA.

Van Netten says he's not at liberty to talk about the results because this report was submitted last month and is being reviewed by the FAA. But he said more comprehensive and transparent air-quality testing would only help the industry.

"When you don't have access to real information, people go from one extreme to another," he said. "By not addressing the facts, you open yourself up to all sorts of wild speculation."

Others also report exposure

Tristan Loraine, an English pilot who said he was forced to retire because contaminated bleed air made him sick, thinks the airline industry is more concerned about profits than protecting passengers and employees. His experience drove him to create a documentary titled "Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines."

He and others say it's difficult for doctors to diagnose exposure and that the effect on individuals -- based on differing immune systems, enzyme levels, medications -- varies dramatically. For this reason, there's a chance Williams alone may have reported a reaction to the fume event on her flight.

Clement Furlong, a research professor in the departments of medicine and genome sciences at the University of Washington, has worked since 2005 to develop a simple blood test to determine whether a person has been exposed to contaminated bleed air. He says he's getting close.

"If we have 10 boxes to check to be there, we've checked off nine," he said.

Terry Williams is not the only person claiming ill effects of bad cabin air. Her attorneys also represent twin sisters, 45, who say they were sickened on a Southwest Airlines flight in January -- one that was diverted for what they called an "unexplained malfunction."

A spokeswoman for Southwest Airlines, Brandy King, confirmed that the flight had been diverted but would not say why and would add only, "We are actively collecting information and reviewing the sequence of events."

Another aviation attorney out of Chicago, Illinois, represents 20 U.K. passengers who say they became sick two years ago on a charter flight to Orlando, Florida.

"There's been enough research to show that indeed this is a problem, and it's now time to implement solutions," said Christopher Witkowski, director of air safety, health and security for the union AFA-CWA.

The issue gained traction in the mid-1990s, Murawski says, because by then most airlines had banned in-flight smoking and people began noticing other smells and hazes. But after September 11, she says the industry's priorities turned full-throttle to an entirely different safety issue.

Changes on the horizon

Those concerned about fume events point to recent developments that give them hope.

The new Boeing 787 Dreamliner, set to roll out soon, does not use bleed air and instead compresses atmospheric air from outside the plane. Blecher, the Boeing spokesman, said electrical system advances that improve efficiency -- and not concerns over bleed air -- inspired the change.

Meanwhile, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009, which passed in the House and is now in a Senate committee, calls for research and development of sensor and air cleaning technology to remove "oil-based contaminants from the bleed air."

The Australian government's Civil Aviation Safety Authority set up an Expert Panel on Aircraft Air Quality to review this issue. And on Wednesday, the United Kingdom Parliament held a debate about aircraft air quality, specifically discussing design flaws that might expose people to toxic fumes.

Williams, who lives outside Seattle and has 3- and 4-year-old boys, said she's pursuing the lawsuit because she doesn't want others to suffer.

"I'm often unable to play with my children. I feel like I'm depriving my kids of a mom and my husband of a wife," she said, her voice cracking. "I walked off that plane and have never been the same. ... If I can educate anyone and help raise public awareness to stop this from happening, hopefully changes can be made to keep people healthy."

*************************

 

 

 

 A reprint of an article from 2006 

 
January 29, 2006
Everybody's Business

When You Fly in First Class, It's Easy to Forget the Dots

 

Correction Appended

ONE of the best conspiracy movies ever made is the perfect British classic, "The Third Man." In the most haunting scene, the villain, played adroitly by Orson Welles, takes Joseph Cotten, the good guy, up in a Ferris wheel. The villain, named Harry Lime, has been selling adulterated penicillin in postwar Vienna, making a fortune and causing children to become paralyzed and die.

Mr. Cotten's character, a pulp fiction writer named Holly Martins, asks him how he could do such an evil thing for money. The two men are at the top of the Ferris wheel, and the people below them look like tiny dots. Mr. Welles's villain looks down and says, "Tell me, would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you £20,000 for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare?"

This scene comes to mind when I think of Glenn F. Tilton and other executives of the UAL Corporation and the hapless employees of its primary business, United Airlines. Its history is a perfect text for the ethical morass in which American business often finds itself.

United is one of the proudest names in airline history. It has long been a synonym for fine service and extensive, convenient routes. In the early 1990's, when some investment bankers were casting around for a way to make tens of millions of dollars, they came up with a doozy: the employees of UAL would give up some of their salaries and benefits in exchange for stock in UAL, eventually becoming UAL's largest owner through an employee stock ownership plan.

The deal went through — with staggering compensation to Wall Street — and in 1994 the American employees of UAL, as a group, became its largest owners. Within a few years, overseas personnel were allowed the privilege of tossing their life savings into UAL, too.

Trouble was not far behind. The employees found management demanding pay cuts, big (and, for passengers, inconvenient) changes and cuts in scheduling and services, and even silly changes in their once-great flight attendant uniforms. Then came the blows of 9/11 and a recession, and then rising fuel costs. There were demands for more cuts in pay and benefits and more layoffs. That was not enough. About three years ago, UAL was "forced" to enter bankruptcy to stay alive.

This step meant that UAL could drastically cut workers' pay — and it did. Pensions were simply jettisoned and made the burden of the federal government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which meant cuts of close to two-thirds in some pilots' pension payments. And, of course, the bankruptcy simply eliminated all of that equity in UAL that the employees had bought with their hard-earned savings.

Thus, in a series of evil events, management of UAL basically ruined the lives of the employee-owners, if that is not putting too fine a point on it, by taking away their savings, incomes and pensions. (I am indebted to my pal, Phil DeMuth, for much of this research.)

All right, you might say. What else could management have done amid high fuel costs and a deregulated, supercompetitive market? That's "creative destruction," and it's good for the economy, some of my fellow Republicans and admirers of the free market might say. But what about the rules of law and common decency? Because, you see, there is a bit more to the story.

Now UAL has been reorganized. It is preparing to emerge from bankruptcy. It will soon have a stock offering. This offering is expected to raise very roughly $6 billion. It is presumably worth that because UAL now has such low labor costs that it may actually make a profit of some size. (I'll believe it when I see it.)

Here comes the good part: management has asked the bankruptcy court to let it have — free — roughly 15 percent of the stock in the new company, or about $900 million. Mr. Tilton, the chief executive, who plays the Orson Welles character in this drama, would get about $90 million personally for his hard work shepherding UAL through bankruptcy (for which he was already paid multiple millions of dollars).

The bankruptcy court, instead of ordering Mr. Tilton's arrest, instead cut the management share to about 8 percent, so he will get more than $40 million, more or less. That is more than Lee R. Raymond, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, one of the most successful companies of all time, was paid in 2004 (not counting Mr. Raymond's 28 million shares of restricted stock).

So here it is in a nutshell: employees are goaded into investing a big chunk of their wages and benefits in UAL stock. They lose that. Then they lose big parts of their pay and pensions. They become peons of UAL. Management gets $480 million, more or less. "Creative destruction?" Or looting?

Wait, Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bankruptcy Judge. The employees were the owners of UAL. They were the trustors, and Mr. Tilton and his pals were trustees for them. How were the trustors wiped out while the trustees, the fiduciaries, became fantastically rich? Is this the way capitalism is supposed to work? Trustors save up, and their agents just take their savings away from them?

If the company is worth so much that management has hundreds of millions coming to them, shouldn't the employee-owners get a taste? Does capitalism mean anything if the owners of the capital can be wiped out while their agents grow wealthy? Is this a way to encourage savings and the ownership society? Or is this a matter of to him who hath shall be given?

I know that this is basically the same story I described recently concerning the Delphi Corporation, where something similar is going on. But that's exactly the point. Management is using competition, higher fuel costs and every other cost complaint to cut the pay and pensions of its own employees while enriching itself.

And I can well imagine what goes through Mr. Tilton's mind as he does it: "Hey, I'm a great executive. Great executives in private-equity firms make more than I do. Why shouldn't I get the moolah? Basically, I've worked it so UAL is now a private-equity deal anyway. That's what it's all about now, isn't it? Who's got the most at the end of the day at Bighorn or the Reserve or whatever golf course I choose to retire at? And, anyway, wouldn't you take $48 million for a few of those dots we used to call our employees and owners to stop moving?"

Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist. E-mail: ebiz@nytimes.com.

Correction: Feb. 5, 2006, Sunday:

Because of an editing error, the Everybody's Business column last Sunday, about executive pay at the UAL Corporation, misstated part of the compensation for the leader of another company in 2004. Lee R. Raymond, then the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, received restricted stock worth $28 million; he did not receive 28 million shares of restricted stock.

 

 

**********************

 

 



Home
Memorial
ALPA Ethics
Contact Us
Examiner.com
DOT IG - Ltr Aug 2010
FBI ATL - Ltr Aug 2010
Public Retraction
WB Editorials
Lynch Jail Time
Mr. Lynch in Jail!
FBI Atlanta
Mr. Waxman 2006
SEC WB Agguire
ALPA Response
Mr. Miller July 2010
Captain Hanley
WB TV Series
David Gibbons
Blog Talk Radio
WAEA Blog
WAEA FB Group
Facebook Cause
UA Bankruptcy Info
United Bankruptcy
FAA Stonewall
NTSB Stonewall
Ltr to Mr. Costello
FAA Open Ltr
Ltr Senator Obama
President Obama
President Obama II
DOJ
VP Joe Biden
Inspector Generals
DOJ-DHS-DOT
Patrick Fitzgerald
Letters-Congress
FAA WB
WB Org Links
Outside Consultants
Union  Sites
Qui Tam?
PR
News!
GAP OpEd
Colgan Air Update
OSC Corrupt!
WB Press
NWA Whistleblower
Airline WB News
Houston...
Gimme Truth!
WB News 1
DOT Witnesses
WB News 2
Industry News
Union News
Govt Links
Comm Tools