I finished my first trial! I also have never felt more exhausted at the end of each day. ABX four attorneys conspired around their conference room table in Ohio, and I battled from my little office in Seattle. And the trial was spicy.
I fully appreciate the power of depositions, that I didn’t have the opportunity to acquire, as when witnesses spout statements opposed to the truth you have a source to snag them. But when ABX read my motion for summary decision, they knew what I was trying to prove and the witnesses testimony revealed as much. But when you keep them talking long enough, they eventually contradict themselves, and that’s exactly what happened.
My greatest challenge was my background of pilot training when witnesses (retired captains, instructors, and senior flight operations leadership) answered in a manner that was opposite to aerodynamics or realism, I thought that they could not have possibly understood the question. I repeated the question and added more, then ABX challenged that I was testifying. I would reword the question, and ABX yelled, “Asked and answered!” What do you say when an instructor says that it takes 8 minutes to do a V1 cut and fly around the pattern to a 23 mile final to another approach and missed approach?
Day three was interesting because while the judge only allowed me to prove what was in the pilot’s initial report, she did give me latitude to prove that because they did the single engine training in the fixed base simulator, that they would not have had time to do the FBS 3 training. That would explain the instructor’s 8 minute statement. Do we think he was briefed? But when the Director of Flight Operations, and the Manager of Flight Training and Standards could absolutely not give an estimate to the time it would take to fly the scenario, even though both had been instructors, check airman, captains, and one even had 6000 hours is type, their testimony simply showed lack of credibility.
The most disturbing testimony from a pilot’s perspective was the instructor who testified that he was moving the trim for the pilot who was having trouble in the non-motion simulator with an engine failure on final, to assists his directional control after the pilot got slow and then applied too much power. This instructor was trying to provide directional with the trim. Both the Director and the Manager of training concurred this was an appropriate action.
ENGINE FAILURE AND TRIM:
Pilots if you lose an engine, use your rudders to gain directional control and “Trim should be adjusted to lower the control forces,” as the airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3C, directs. Don’t ever use trim to fly the aircraft. Trim is not a primary flight control. Trim is used as your assistant to remove the pressure only. The fact that these ABX training and management professionals don’t know this and support their instructor’s actions is extremely disconcerting.
The ABX team was counting on the Judge’s lack of aviation knowledge. However this judge is smart and she knew that in the pilots report that the other pilot was also inputting uncommanded trim without his knowledge. And she specifically asked the training manager a very pointed question. “Is that in compliance with the FAA and the ABX FAA approved manuals?” He stated “NO”. That is called protected activity. Thank you instructor and manager, you both just made our case.
Shifting Rational.
Under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), if an airline changes its explanation for why an employee was terminated, it is heavily utilized as legal evidence against the employer. In fact an employer’s inconsistent, evolving explanations are routinely used by Department of Labor Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to establish that the company’s stated reason is a pretext for illegal retaliation
2024 the Director wrote in an affidavit that because this pilot did not perform his single-engine training to standards he terminated, and he placed “pilot performance” in his record. Note the event was Fixed Base Training lesson three and single engine work was not in the syllabus.
Trial, “Sir, but isn’t it true that his instructor said he was better than 90% of the guys you get through here?” He said, “Yes.”
Prior to trial 2026, the Director wrote a declaration claiming that it was his behavior that was the reason for termination. Note: the behavior was telling the instructor his concerns and then telling a union rep followed by the letter. In 2026 declarations, both instructors stated they did not evaluate his performance in the simulator. I knew when I saw that a shift was about to happen and welcomed it.
In trial the Director stated the pilot just never showed up or contacted anyone with an update as to when he was coming back, after the company had pulled him for a medical, so they just determined he wasn’t coming back and terminated him. While he was giving this testimony, I opened my calendar to 2024. Hmmm. “But sir, you pulled him from duty on a Friday, he can’t make an appointment on the weekend. Monday the 5th he calls to schedule an EKG for the 7th, but you terminate him on the 6th?” Do you think that’s reasonable? Oh shit moment.
Let’s make up another excuse!!! Ummm. The pilot is racist and the things he wrote were despicable! The Director raved on about his hatred for anyone who is racist and the horrific things the pilot said, but he could not tell me what those things were in court. However, the documents show that the worst thing the pilot wrote was, “I can’t believe this didn’t happen because I am not Colombian.” Yes, he did reference the parties involved were Colombian and that was the extent. But it was he who appeared to be reporting a concern that he might be the recipient of ethnicity issues.
Then the Director said they had to terminate him because he would not follow directions. My question was, “If the instructor is teaching something wrong do you expect blind compliance?” I think we went back forth three or four times before I got an answer. The judge did not object to my repeating this question, I think she wanted to know the answer, too. Thank you Director, you just made our case.
RESIGNATION:
We have an email from the chief pilot sharing the content of his August 6th conversation with the pilot. In that email the chief pilot wrote, “I asked him if he was resigning and he said no.” Now, ABX legal counsel got a little confused when I said he offered a resignation, because that would be in violation of the PRD. They played the semantics game and how that statement could not imply an “offer.” The Director pontificated in detail how that would be a violation of the PRD. We all know that goes on all the time.
The ABX legal team missed my motivation for pointing this out in that letter. At the end of this letter this chief pilot told his bosses that the pilot also told him he was going to report to the FAA. If the chief pilot is asking him if he is going to resign in the same conversation that the pilot has report he is going to the FAA, he could not yet have possibly been terminated. He wasn’t even notified until the following day. That too is protective activity because an employee is protected if they report to the FAA or “are about to report” to the FAA. Thank you ABX legal team, you just made our case.
These are just a few of the highlights of this case. Transcripts coming soon. Reports due on December 4th. I’m now going to focus on school as my mid terms are next month. But when transcripts arrive and the report is underway I will be quoting verbatim testimony and share more of the drama.
If you were at the trial, I would love to hear your thoughts. For pilots and the training process of giving uncommanded trim to the other pilot, what do you think?
32 Comments
I was at the trial. Here are some nonsense coming out of Boja’s mouth:
ICAO English proficiency levels are 1 thru 6. 6 being native fluency and 1 being the lowest. To fly internationally, one needs level 4 or above. Boja said 1 thru 7 and Ryu was at 7. I heard it and I was like “is he serious!?!?”
FAA doesn’t even have English proficiency levels. They just slap a “English Proficient” onto the license which is equal to ICAO level 4. The examiner during your checkride is also an unofficial “language accessor”. Under FAA, there is no separate language test like in a lot of other countries.
All the instructors were saying he was “unprofessional”, and he “walked off the job” or he “just didn’t show up”! But ABX BOUGHT HIM a ticket home to get his chest pain checked out. So ABX knew where he was the entire time, he didn’t just no show or walk off.
And I have never heard of PM trimming for PF uncommanded. When commanded, yes PM can trim for PF but not when they never asked for it. How would the PF know if it was the PM trimming or a malfunctioned aircraft that started trimming itself?? Like a runaway. And for Boja to say “ah….. no I wouldn’t think it would be environmental” shows he was being dishonest. Anyone in aviation can tell he was being dishonest!! No wonder they crashed that DC-8 doing a function check flight!!
And then Boja said Ryu was racist based on the instructors statements. The instructors said he said “Columbians can’t train with Koreans” or something like that. But he never went to Ryu and asked him “hey did u say that?” So the person who complained about being a victim of racism is now the racist??
Too bad we have to wait til December for any updates on this case.
Thank you for the comment and the added information. I had to go search that accident and there was. I’m not surprised either. And that level 7 surprised the heck out of me, but I did not have enough information to know. I was thinking, this is a pilot, a Director of a 121 airline who is proficient on the language levels and doesn’t know that trimming another pilot’s aircraft is wrong? How is that possible. Well… you just confirmed he had not a clue on the proficiency levels either. Credibility is huge. Judge Morris, in my case, dedicated many pages on the credibility of the witnesses. And that calling the victim the racist bothered me a great deal, too.
You do not have to wait until December. My brief is due then. When I get the transcripts I will be writing weekly. This is an affront to safety. Thank you for your comment!
Right on!
As for ABX Air’s self-appointed “English Language Expert Assessor,” Professor Boja, let’s not forget that this is the same individual who spent much of his testimony struggling to keep straight who said what to whom, and when. Given that performance, I seriously question his ability to assess much of anything.
You would think that someone making determinations about Ryu’s ICAO English proficiency would have paid close attention to the proceedings and listened carefully to Ryu’s testimony. Yet after hearing Ryu speak firsthand, Boja still arrives at a Level 7 assessment? That’s not just questionable, it’s laughable.
As for the claims about Ryu’s professionalism, allegedly “walking off the job,” or supposedly failing to show up, all anyone needs to do is look at the testimony. Witness after witness, particularly Graves and “I-Don’t-Know-Anything-About-My-Own-Manuals” Boja, became so tangled in their own contradictions that it was difficult to tell whether they were explaining events or trying to remember which version of the story they had previously told. I have to admit, though, it was glorious to watch.
Then there was Dan Graves himself, Manager of Flight Training and Standards, who apparently cannot determine whether he has 5,000 or 6,000 hours in the Boeing 767. Being off by a few hours is understandable. Being off by a thousand hours in a specific make and model, while serving as the Manager of Flight Training and Standards for a Part 121 airline, raises some interesting questions. It certainly makes one wonder what a careful review of his logbooks, training records, applications, and FAA documentation might reveal.
I was not aware of the crash you referenced, but it only reinforces what many people in attendance appeared to conclude after listening to the testimony: there are serious concerns about the judgment and credibility of some of the individuals responsible for training and operational oversight.
The irony, of course, is that Boja was the man questioning Ryu’s qualifications and competence as a safe pilot. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
And regarding Boja’s bizarre, made-up explanation that Ryu’s termination somehow involved “racism,” I would encourage anyone interested to simply read the transcript once it becomes available. Throughout his testimony, Boja repeatedly appeared unable to reconcile his own statements, often responding to one inconsistency by creating another. By the end, it looked less like testimony and more like someone trying to untangle a knot he had tied himself.
Personally, I don’t believe Boja could successfully explain his own version of events even after reading the transcript of his testimony. The record will ultimately speak for itself.
No, you can’t make this up. And sadly this goes on far too often. I better that law degree and then I can have time to help people.
Thanks for the additional update.
I was able to watch some of the trial. I’ve covered my fair share. Catherine Zeta Jones & Michael Douglas in London, Dan Brown’s plagiarism trial in London, a manslaughter trial, etc. etc. This one had one of the rudest attorneys I’ve seen in a public court proceeding. I’m sure it happens a lot, but I’ve been a journalist for 30 years and this guy was getting rattled. Great job! You can read my non-aviation-expert take on this over at Substack. https://sarahammel.substack.com/p/ret-delta-pilot-karlene-petitt-probes
Thank you Sarah! I was quite surprised too, and thought a little bit histrionic perhaps. I guess a show for the judge, and wonder if she had the same impression. I received many comments to the effect, and I have a new name, “Non-attorney representative”. You captured that first day well. The problem with this is they considered the pilots abnormal behavior as writing to this union representative because he was on the training committee. The only abnormal behavior was that Union representative blocking his number and emailing the pilots message to management. He should be thrown out in my opinion.
Congratulations on completing your first trial!
Trials are exhausting and mentally draining.
Do you file written submissions or sum up orally for the Judge?
Thank you! We have to wait for transcripts, they are due on December 4th.
I was not able to watch any of the trial but have followed Sara Hammel’s Substack article written on 8/7/26 on the topic, as well as Karlene aviation website.
I am not a pilot, but my perspective comes from being a Safety Chairman in the transportation sector supporting commercial trucking under DOT compliance and being an Engineering Occupational Safety instructor for fully ABET accredited colleges and instructing on safety and regulatory compliance for some of largest aerospace manufactures and airlines in the world.
I commend Karlene Petitt for her expertise as a Part 121 Airline Pilot and top SME in Aviation Safety and regulatory compliance. There is still a lot of work that is needed to advocate for transportation safety of all types across the industries. Karlene has been making a difference with AIR21 in the industry and increasing awareness.
Sara Hammel’s Substack post related to this, posted on 8/7/26 has valuable content worth checking out. Sara pointed out Karlene’s professional presentation attributes with a calm demeanor and probing questions in her delivery.
Karlene, thank you for your past work and continued work with AIR21 and advocating for whistleblowers, especially in the high-stakes aviation sector. The aviation safety community is counting on strong warriors like you that are willing to take a risk to make a difference.
Liz, Thank you for your comment, it means a great deal coming from you. Being a safety expert in the transportation industry you also understand the importance of the issues herein. And you’re correct, Sara is an excellent reporter she covered the essence perfectly. I’m sorry you were not able to attend, but I will be writing more on this subject. I appreciate the work you do!!
As a non-pilot watching this trial, it was obvious these “instructors” did not know what they were talking about. Or in the alternative trying to cover what they did. ABX witnesses contradicted their own testimony many times. When Ms. Petitt (aka non-attorney representative) asked for clarification, Mr. Carney would pompously object as asked and answered. There was so much non-sensical information to process it reached the point of absurdity. At times it was sadly predictable. When asked how long something took the answer was 12 minutes. Not about 15 minutes, not a range 10-20 minutes, nope, 12 minutes…no collaborating there I’m sure. The instructor/trainer/observer needed refreshing after 3 months, but the pilot was good to go because he was type rated even if he hadn’t flown in years. The reasons (varying reasons) and timeline for terminating this man was an affront to common sense. If this wasn’t someone’s life and career, it would be laughable. I look forward to the decision. Also, on a side note. Do not make a drinking game of taking a shot every time an attorney says um or uh. You would be completely trashed before Mr. Carney got done with his first witness.
Kris, I certainly hope the non-pilot judge had the same takeaway as you. As non pilots, I am certain the ABX attorneys also did not understand the nuances of their witness testimony, of which can be identified contradictory to FAA regulatory standards. Fortunately for me, but a sad state of aviation safety, if the leadership and instructor testimony was authentic to their actual level of aviation knowledge, then they will not be able to identify what they said that hangs them in their transcripts either. There is absolutely no regulatory control over ABX by the FAA. And that point about a pilot who had not flown for 4 years before before obtaining a type rating and 85 hours, but the simulator instructor needs training after not teaching for three months makes you question the logic of it all. And for the drinking game… he managed to get the words out when he was loudly and theatrically asserting that I was testifying and this is why he did not want an aviation safety expert as a representative. I wonder if he knows that attorneys words are not actually testimony. Only the statements of the witnesses. But what do I know? I’m just a non-attorney representative.
I will be the first to admit that the law in aviation is generally not my pervue however I beleive I understand the basic ck dept here and that is the gross discrepancies between the company and training and how it starts at the bottom. K- give me a little time to get to know this situation so I am able to respond with a knowledge based comment!
Congratulations on your first trial!
Jennifer
Thank you Jennifer, training starts at the bottom, but leadership starts at the top… and the head should be chopped off. What we really need to focus on is where is the FAA oversight? More to come!
Congratulations on your first trial, Karlene!
I read Sara Hammel’s Substack post also and the vague, colluded responses sound (unfortunately), quite typical of an airline Training Department response. Reading through your recount of the trial brought to mind two pilots in Australia that were fired due inconsistencies in the training department and personal grievances. One was for Virgin Blue (Virgin Australia’s former name) and Jetstar. The VB case was against a former Check airman (GE) who ruffled the feathers of ‘one of the boys’ when training standards were questioned. His paper sim records were then physically altered to show he had scored multiple ‘2/5’ scores. GE had kept photocopies of all of his checks, so when he produced his original with his union reps, was told HE falsified his records. It became an unspoken rule, always make a copy to keep, in case they want you gone.
Jetstar case I know of, they changed the training of WH so there was no preparation, which also threw her Captain off guard. They terminated her employment in the simulator, there and then!
Regarding an uncommanded manipulation of the rudder pedals, firstly, grounds for the NFP to be reprimanded and secondly, that in its self may display as an aircraft flight control issue, requiring a different handling and checklist. In a training situation, especially fixed based, is it not advantageous to allow the student to see the effects of control input (or lack there of)? If the pilot required extra rudder input, the instructor/trainer could have used this as an opportunity to point out the basics like “step on the ball” etc to help him for linking understanding and outcome.
It blows my mind how the airline in questions claims even stand up.
Michelle, thank you for the very thoughtful response. Yes, that was the underlying issue…the instructor did not know how to teach. He was only certified in the Fixed Based training device (or that is what he was becoming requalified in.) He actually showed up and briefed the crew on single engine work. So ABX created the story that he was in the first four hours to make him legal. I need to read the transcripts because I think he said he showed up at 10, or 10:15 and then changed his story later in the testimony. Apparently to make him legal he had to observe the first four hours, but they did single engine training there too so I don’t think that counts. He was actually in the briefing room. Now the manager of training testified that to legally conduct the additional training, they had to brief it first, and complete the FBS3 in entirety. But, the instructors changed reality to make him a legal instructor they pretended he was in the first four hours, and testified they did not brief, and they only did half the training before the remaining training.
Bottom line, we wasn’t current to do FBS training and he had never been trained to give single engine training as that is a full flight maneuver. He should have discussed power application, and the use of the rudder… the last thing he should do is give uncommanded trim movement. But, I’m not so sure he really did. I think he told the first officer to do it. But the company thought it sounded better if he did it because he was training. What does the judge know about single engine training? Since they are now saying they terminated him for not following directions, I think every pilot can assert that you do not use the trim for directional control in a single engine condition and nobody would follow that direction, and I can educate the judge with that with federal documents and an NTSB report or two to support that.
Thank you for sharing those stories of copying your records. It’s a shame we people don’t play nice.
Congratulations, Karlene!
I watched part of the trial, and I was genuinely impressed by how well prepared, organized, and composed you were throughout. I was also shocked by some of the testimony regarding ABX management and the conduct of its instructors and check airman/union representative during training, debrief, and evaluation.
Wishing you the very best as you move forward, I look forward to reading the transcript.
Thank you for the kind compliments Carlos. I have to say, I, too, was very surprised.
“But when you keep them talking long enough, they eventually contradict themselves, and that’s exactly what happened.”
Karlene Petitt
“When the enemy is making a false movement, we must take good care not to interrupt him.”
~ Unknown
First, congratulations on your first trial.
You absolutely nailed it.
The professionalism, poise, patience, composure, and respect you showed toward the witnesses, and even toward the hostile little “Real-Attorney” representing the Defendants, was commendable. I only wish the favor was returned. It wasn’t.
Old Dan Graves, in particular, put his contempt and disrespect toward a woman on full display. He was pathetic to watch. Imagine being stuck in a simulator, a cockpit, or an office with this character. I would genuinely be interested in knowing whether the ASPCA paid his dog a visit Wednesday evening.
Had I not known you already, I never would have guessed this was your first trial, especially considering you’re only in your first year of law school. Meanwhile, our little “Real-Attorney” is probably still seething that he couldn’t rattle you, couldn’t outmaneuver you, couldn’t walk all over you, and couldn’t deliver whatever grand performance he promised ABX Air. Legend has it he’s still sitting at the bar, trying to recover after getting steamrolled by a First-Year Law Student in an open-to-the-public trial.
Now, onto some of the highlights.
I attended all three days of the trial. I have extensive experience training/flying under both AQP and Appendix F (which it appears none of the ABX Air’s management and training personnel know what it is!)
What I witnessed was an astonishing display of ABX Air management and training personnel repeatedly contradicting themselves, contradicting each other, and, at times, appearing completely unable to keep their own stories straight.
There was the union clown who was supposedly representing pilots but was, in reality, representing management. He even said so, verbatim, on the record.
Then there was the “Real-Attorney Representative,” Carney, otherwise known as Mister “I Have No Manners” and “Professional Etiquette Is Optional.” He spent much of the proceeding physically present while seeming mentally absent. In apparent frustration with his own limitations in experience, skill, and preparation, he repeatedly referred to Ms. Petitt as a “Non-Attorney Representative.”
How childish.
Then, every time he suddenly tuned back into the proceedings, he would leap up with a dramatic “Objection!” only to discover that Ms. Petitt was simply rephrasing a question at the witness’s own request.
It became a recurring theme.
Then came the steady stream of testimony from ABX Air management and training personnel, including their union clown, Manningham. A pilot union official effectively aligning himself with management interests raises an obvious question: Where have we seen that before?
Next up was Dan Graves, Manager of Flight Training and Standards, who somehow could not recall what he had written in his own declaration. His contempt toward Ms. Petitt was impossible to miss.
In all my years in aviation, I have never witnessed such open disrespect directed toward another professional, particularly one whose credentials exceed those of the people sitting across from her. Ms. Petitt possesses more education, more qualifications, and more type ratings in heavy transport-category aircraft than the ABX Air management personnel present in that courtroom combined. Furthermore, none of them have flown, or instructed in, many of the modern aircraft on which Ms. Petitt has accumulated extensive experience. Old Grave’s jealousy was palpable.
Last, but not least, there was ABX Air Director of Flight Operations, Boja.
On the record, Boja testified that he questions the skill, ability, and knowledge of a pilot who cannot immediately determine what is happening during a hand-flown single-engine approach when the rudder trim is being manipulated by another pilot without command.
He went on to state that he does not want such a pilot operating in U.S. airspace for reasons of public safety. Yes, that is ABX Air’s Director of Flight Operations speaking!
And, for those keeping score at home, he also apparently does not know what an EKG is.
But the most remarkable part of Boja’s testimony was watching him become entangled in contradiction after contradiction regarding who terminated the Complainant, why the Complainant was terminated, who communicated what to whom regarding the initial complaint, whether the Complainant “walked away” from training (he did not!), whether John Restrepo was conducting training, whether John Restrepo was not conducting training, whether engine-failure training was scheduled in FSB3, and whether he had heard from the Complainant after the medical examination.
The list goes on.
By the end of the testimony, it became increasingly difficult to distinguish between what Boja claimed happened, what company records indicate happened, and what other witnesses testified happened.
The full extent of those contradictions will become clear once the transcripts are released and Ms. Petitt completes her report.
As for me, based solely on what I observed over the 3 days of proceedings, I could write a small book about the drama that unfolded in that courtroom.
And this is only the beginning.
My next report will cover the testimony of instructors William Minerich and John Restrepo, what the Aviation Expert and Boeing Trainer said regarding Boeing 767 training, and additional contradictions involving ABX Air management, training department personnel, and, of course, whatever else union clown Manningham had to say.
Nicely done, Ms. Petitt!
Frank, thank you for the kind comments and for hanging with me throughout this trial. We were supposed to go four days, but after I witnessed what was happening with their witnesses on day two I decided not to give them the night to prep Mr.Boja and started my day at 4 to alter the questions and finish them up on day three. Mr. Boja, actually made me laugh because the things he said were so incredulous, and then the drama of it all, and now I learn he just made that BS up about his testing the pilots English skills and rating him a 7, when there is not such thing. That’s going to be good reference for my report. Then there was Captain Graves…I’m not sure what he was trying to do, but to me he came across as evasive and far less knowledgeable than he should be in his position. And the instructors… I’m unsure if anyone truly comprehends the inconsistencies between them all. My heartburn, however, was that union rep. Shame on him. Thank you for sharing this recap and looking forward to more.
I am not a pilot or a lawyer. I am a big fan of Karlene’s and I have read all of her books. Karlene’s knowledge of and commitment to aviation safety is incredible. I am looking forward to another one of Karlene’s books and after listening in on some of the trial, I’m thinking there might be another one coming. At the very end, the judge told Karlene that for a non-lawyer, she did an admirable job. Nice compliment!
Thank you Carol, you have been with me every step of the way, and I appreciate you listening in and support. And, that was a very compliment for sure. Thank you for reminding me.
I remember Boja kept saying with respect to uncommanded trimming, that “Its training!” “They are there to learn! So thats ok!”.
Do we train the way we fly and fly the way we train? Or do we train one way and fly another way??
He is saying it’s ok to give your sim partner uncommanded trim in training because “it is training” and expect that they won’t do the same on the line!?!?
Annon, yes, it took me multiple times to get him to answer that very question with the instructor, too. And if you remember, the judge did not break me off for repeating the question and adding too it each time. The following might not be verbatim, but this is the gist. K: “What if the instructor is training incorrectly, do you want your pilot’s blind compliance?” B: “But it’s in the simulator.” K: “What if the instructor is training incorrectly and the pilot takes it to the flight line, do you want your pilot’s blind compliance?” B: “We don’t know he’s going to do that.” K: “Isn’t it true that when teach in the simulator it’s for the purpose of taking to the flight line?” B: “yes.” We’ll wait fo the transcripts because there was much more about the confusion between safety, the simulator and the flight line.
Karlene,
Congratulations on doing such a professional job in your first trial; I’ll add my compliments to those which all the other people who have posted such eloquent comments. Clear, concise, courteous, well-prepared, assertive, and always championing the cause of your client, Josh.
Up at 0400 to reshape your questions! That’s our Karlene.
It struck me that focusing right-from-the-start on Josh’s broader aviation experience, and particularly with the accident investigation he did, which, of course, involved report writing, presented him as a mature, serious person; far from the picture of him the Respondents wanted to paint.
I was able to watch some of each day, and it was dispiriting watching these ABX people being so exposed on so many basics; how has our great industry slid to such a point?
I’m clear that you have changed the way future AIR21 hearings are going to be conducted; there are of course excellent non-pilot attorneys, but your enormous experience and knowledge of flying made a key difference.
Shouldn’t William Minerich have been able to reel off his answers to your questions about the details of the V1 Cut procedure?
It was left, however, to John Restrepo to give us our Bastian moment; I can’t recall your exact question, but Restrepo’s ignorance of his own company’s SMS was alarming.
See Delta boss Ed Bastian’s equivalent moment when he was being deposed about Karlene’s case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa5wer0KKY4
The SMS questions start at 3:35:47PM Alarming!!
I’m looking forward to a ruling in Josh’s favour.
Well done!
Brgds
Ken Lownds
Thank you for the kind comments Ken, and for attending the trial. Yes, I smiled at the Bastian moments too, for each of them.There were a few! Joshua actually had more experience than all of them together with respect to safety. He understood the significance of not training the pilots, and because he spoke out, they had to get rid of him. How this is occurring in today’s world is dumbfounding to me, and a shame. And the reason that Carney fought so hard to keep me from representing Joshua, was because he was at least smart enough to know that I would see through their game and understood the logistics of what they were doing wrong. He did try everything he could to stop me, then to remove me, discredit me, and demean me. He failed. And I learned a great deal through this experience, and did not let him get to me. So, all in all… we’ll see what happens next. I’ll keep you posted.
Karlene,
Congratulations on the amazing work you did! I’m sorry I couldn’t see more than the first day.
I had to read your blog a couple of times because I thought that I had read it wrong, but my eyes did not deceive. They were teaching V1 cuts in a non-moving simulator? A trainer that gives absolutely no feedback to the pilot, then the instructor provided opposite trim and back and forth trim, and then they terminated him for not being able to perform in that impossible scenario. Who are these idiots!
They should be taken to task for even considering training like that!
Terry, you got the gist. That is exactly why they terminated him and put pilot performance in his PRD. Then, two years later they have come up with a variety of other excuses all of which don’t hold water. Every person involved should be taken down with this event. Except for the pilot who reported it.
I would like to say Congratulations also on your first trial as a “non-attorney representative”. I bet you are both relieved that it is over, and also exhausted by the attention to detail required to be an active participant in this case. Not having watched the actual trial though, I can only go by the written discussion presented and the comments by others after the fact. What impressed me the most though, was the defensive stance of the ABX attorneys, who in my opinion do seem to be, not intending to be rude, but in all honesty just covering their asses. Also, considering the quite apparent “he said/she said” nature of this proceeding, it seems to me to be nearly impossible to tell the truth from the conjured and apparently fictional statements being made. If the actual timeline of events does not make sense, doesn’t that mere fact elicit sufficient suspicion to call into question nearly everything the defense offered in evidence?
Also, I am very highly suspicious of the uncommanded trim control inputs made during the training session. It seems to me that is very very contradictory to the intent of the training event. I recall from my own simulator training and check experiences that such “assistance” from the non-flying pilot is not to be allowed. The rationale for this unstated rule is both quite obvious, and can be considered very detrimental to the intent of a training or checking event, and therefore unprofessional. Unless said assistance is commanded by the student/pilot being evaluated. Isn’t this considered inappropriately aiding the pilot, rather than performing what would be considered acceptable crew resource actions in a more normal line flying situation? Correct me if I’m wrong about this. Because this type of scenario is one of my pet peeves that tends to lead to simulator training being unrealistic when compared to actual line flying. It’s one thing to “teach” the student by guiding him or her through a maneuver. But, quite another to perform such “assistance” when not specifically asked for. Again, am I not seeing a quite obvious flaw in what actually happened during the training event in question?
This was supposed to be a FBS teaching hot starts, fuel spar, and then navigation. Plac/bearing, intercepts, long range cruise,Econ, speed intervention… etc. This was not to be single engine training session. This was not full flight. The instructor did not know how to teach it. The instructor was not a full flight instructor. One of the pilots involved and now at another airline told the pilot that they only gave single engine training during all events after FBS 2, so they could pass the checkride. The other pilot was actually moving the trim with out the pilots knowledge.
I remember being admonished by Boja years ago for standing up to a known problem Captain for attempting to bully me in the Engineers seat. Instead of addressing the actual problem, he put a letter in my file for insubordination. Says all you need to know about the Man and the management structure at ABX.
After what I witnessed, I’m sad to say that this doesn’t surprise me. The man has not changed. The industry moved through the evolution of safety. CRM initiated the importance of proper communication to improve safety, then threat and error management improved upon that, then SMS followed. But current management is not held accountable and nobody is making them so. I think to improve safety, we should now have the clean house initiative. Airlines should be be required by law to get rid of these guys and place their heads on a stick.