AIR21 Trial and the Cockpit Coach

When a company tries to kill the messenger, there is usually more to the story. The subtext of why they killed the FSAP report could also be as simple as United Airlines and the FAA working together to cover up safety issues and used this captain as a scape goat. If you’re coming late to the story, you might want to read the background to this case here.

This is an update to the Clifford v. United AIR21 trial.

Testimony Proves the Case

In early 2024, United Captain Lori Killiany was embroiled in termination, disciplinary proceedings led by Senior Manager of Flt Ops Support, Captain Jim Bowers, for rocking the boat by operating a sports charter flight for the Chicago Bears with “the flight deck door closed,” displeasing the flight attendants and the team by not providing the normal experience they felt they paid for on their chartered planes. However, in April 2024, everything changed when another Rockies charter flight made the news with a social media post of a coach posting himself in the control seat. United immediately dropped all charges against Captain Killiany, at which time Captain Jim Bowers turned his plane, or plan of attack, 180 degrees from disciplining Captain Killiany for leaving the door closed, to disciplining Captain Cynthia Clifford for “leaving the cockpit door open,” on her first ever charter flight as captain.

The first ever is significant because those who had gone before her including her training manager, who told her this was the unwritten mandate. The manager at the training center also showed pictures and videos of players and coaches in his jumpseat on charters. Furthermore, if she didn’t leave the door open, history proved discipline was forth coming. The lead charter flight attendant, who primarily flew charters for the Rockies, explained this was standard operating practice.

How is it possible that Managing Director Bowers can discipline two different captains for the opposite reasons? Apparently, Captain Clifford was damned if she did, and damned if she didn’t.

Pilot testimony confirmed this practice. Coach Meulens, the coach who sat in the seat, testified that almost every charter flight he was on had been flown with the flight deck door open with players and managers up in the cockpit jumpseat, including take-off and landing. Meulens deposition testimony revealed that for 22 years on both United and Delta that this was standard practice.

When I asked Google how many charter flights United operated in 22 years, AI said: 

“United Airlines operates approximately 15,000 to 18,000 sports charter flights over a 22-year period. This estimate is based on the airline servicing roughly 20 to 30 professional and major collegiate teams with a standard schedule of 35 to 45 charter flights per year per team.”

I take AI with a grain of salt, but this provides an estimate of the potential number of flights.

Pressure to bypass the FSAP system

Captain Clifford filed an FSAP (Flight Safety Action Program) report as soon as she realized her mistake of following the standard unwritten rules that are engrained within United’s culture. During the proceedings, 2 of the 3 members of the Event Review Committee (ERC) were under intense pressure by managers to exclude her FSAP, a process that should have had no outside influence. The FAA ERC member received an email from FAA Aviation Safety Manager, Keith Frable, telling him that he would expect his decision of exclusion by the end of the week. This decision is supposed to be that of the member, but when a directive from the FAA Safety Manager tells you how to rule, there is no doubt that his job would be in jeopardy if he went against the directive from above.

The United ERC member, Captain Mike Cuchna, was also under intense pressure by United management because, he was also told that the expectation was to exclude the FSAP or his professional career would be in jeopardy.

Despite these threats of job action, captains Cuchna and the FAA representative held strong to the rules and sanctity of the FSAP system. While reviewing the facts, all three members of this committee followed AC 120-66c to the letter of the law, administered a neutral fact-gathering process, and did what they believed was the right thing and Accepted the FSAP in late April 2024.

The ERC decided that there was a systemic cultural problem of normalized deviation on charter flights that needed to be fixed. Immediately after accepting the FSAP, both the company and FAA members of the ERC that were inappropriately directed or threatened, were permanently removed from their jobs. 

After the ERC had been concluded, Captain Clifford was given a training plan for remedial training, as required by the program, prior to her return to flying.  For the first time ever, United refused to send a pilot to training, per the FSAP program. United’s story was that her schedule wouldn’t allow it. Then they changed their rationale and said that the FAA had told United to not allow her to fly. Why would the FAA do that?

When questioned, Managing Director of Safety Captain Mary Anne Schaffer seemed confused during testimony and claimed that the pilots were not available for retraining. But then she later recanted that story to claim that “not available” meant that the pilot hadn’t completed the FSAP process of which the ERC recommended training. However, training that can’t be completed because United wouldn’t send them, so the process would never be complete. Thus, this proverbial bullshit is a hamster wheel that never ends.

Captain Schaffer had also repeatedly refused a request from the ERC to conduct a Flight Safety Investigation, a request that occurred at least three times from both the ERC and ALPA.  Captain Schaffer claimed that the ERC process was sufficient to determine what safety issues if any were occurring. The ERC summarized the underlying safety issues telling United Airlines they had a systemic safety issue. However, instead of an immediate Pilot Bulletin to address the pilot group as a whole, to educate them, United Management disagreed with the ERC recommendations and elected to ignore the committee. The company only issued a voluntary FOU (Flight Ops Update) article not even required reading.

Interpretation of FSAP

The coach had a cup, and it was unknown if he had alcohol in it. I believe he had testified that he had a drink earlier.

For weeks United worked with their legal team for an interpretation that they could find a reason to throw out the FSAP. They finally came up with a rationale, The company determined that the term alcohol did not apply to the pilot, but to everyone else. Thus, if the person who breached the cockpit had consumed alcohol that enabled the company to throw out the FSAP.

The sentence in the rules actually means that the FSAP would be excluded if the reporting employee was involved in criminal activity, substance abuse, controlled substances, alcohol, or intentional falsification of the report.

However United interpreted the sentence to mean that criminal activity, substance abuse, controlled substances and alcohol had nothing to do with the reporting pilot, but only the intentional falsification was with respect to the reporting pilot. 

The FAA thereafter came up with a new interpretation that an FSAP would be excluded for someone other than the reporting pilot who had consumed alcohol. The FAA then replaced the original FAA ERC member and reopened the case in late May. Despite the first FAA ERC member accepting Captain Clifford’s FSAP, this new guy reversed the decision and excluded it. Ironically, the Safety database still shows Captain Clifford’s FSAP as Accepted, awaiting training.

The judge vehemently disagreed with United and the FAA’s interpretations and rejected it by saying alcohol was “by the reporting employee” and that it had nothing to do with a passenger having a drink.  This particular Judge used to be an FAA prosecuting attorney and he is well versed with the ASAP system.

Charter Culture Problem

Judge Morris told United Airlines management that with the evidence presented that they had a Charter Culture problem. He continued to state that the ASAP/ FSAP system was an incredible tool United had available to use to maximize safety in the Aviation Transport system and that they (United Management) were destroying the effectiveness of the system by destroying the trust with its pilots/employees. Trust that an employee can file an FSAP and, when accepted, can expect protections from discipline for bringing up a safety related problem. 

Management Testifies

Management testified that they had no data to support any cultural charter problems. However, despite several pilots and the Rockies coach telling them leaving the door open was the standard, United management clung to lack of data. 

The Judge is a realist. He told United that no pilot would raise his/her hand to say that they had operated charters like this when the union said they might not be protected by the FSAP system. In fact, one ALPA representative testified that Captain Jim Bowers provided a grave warning during a hearing. He said that if any names were brought forward to him, those pilots would be investigated in the same manner as Captain Clifford. As he said, “A shot across the bow.” Bowers warned all pilots to not come forward or they, too, would be terminated.

COURAGE

However, one pilot did come forward to file an FSAP about the United charter culture, in support of Captain Clifford. She was the captain mentioned earlier, that had been in the process of disciplinary actions for keeping the door closed until this action against Clifford at which time it was dropped.

Within two weeks of her speaking out there were charges against this 63-year-old female captain for physically assaulting a flight attendant. The flight attendant’s complaint (about a third-party assault against a male flight attendant) did not go to her flight attendant supervisor, or pilot supervisor, or in a safety report, as would be normal protocol. Instead, it was emailed directly to Captain Jim Bowers. How would she even know to email Bowers? If the male flight attendant felt assaulted with the captain brushing against him as she passed him in the aisle, why didn’t he file a report himself? Bower’s threat came to fruition. Captain Killiany was removed from flying for 7 months while she was under investigation. Captain Clifford then filed for a protective order for any pilot that might step forward and testify on her case and Captain Killany’s investigation was dropped the following day.

Note:

AIR21 law protects anyone testifying in another AIR21 complaint. Therefore, she was already protected testifying in trial, and a protective order was unnecessary. Captain Killany also had available, at the time, an AIR21 complaint against United for retaliating against her for coming forward. Unfortunately, the AIR21 statute has the shortest of all statute of limitations of only 90 days, so she missed the window.

However, I do believe she has a Tort claim of defamation against the Flight Attendant for false statements. If Bowers conspired with that flight attendant to create the false accusation creating harm to Captain Killany, then she could file against them both as joint tortfeasors. More so, I think United would be vicariously liable to the actions of its employees. Therefore, she could file against all three. The statute of limitations for defamation in most states is two years. I’m not an attorney and I am not giving legal advice, I just know that until we start holding individuals accountable, nothing will change.

I wrote an AIR21 book to educated employees on this law, so everyone will know their legal rights and how to protect themselves. When you have courage like Captain Killany to come forward, and you face the wrath, you should know and understand your legal protections.

Captain Clifford’s Testimony

Captain Clifford testified that during her phone call with United’s FAA Principal Operating Inspector (POI) Carol Sitterly, that Carol admitted that she had flown numerous charters herself at American Airlines with the flight deck door open and that they (FAA) had known for decades that the open door policy was happening at Delta, American and United Airlines.

The FAA knows this is ongoing and nothing has been done about it.

Considering that United was in the process of disciplining a 36-year 777 captain for flying her charter with the door closed, management not only knew about the charter culture of leaving the door open and visitors to the cockpit but United insisted upon it of face termination.

The FAA knew about charter culture. 

When Captain Clifford brought it up in a safety report, they could no longer turn a cheek. Granted this was now in the public, not by her doing, but by the coach with social media. Everyone had to save face and pretend that this was horrific crime that nobody knew was an ongoing practice.

There is also speculation that United needed to pass a Safety Audit from the FAA and used Captain Clifford as a scapegoat. United was under investigation by the FAA for a series of federal concerns and multiple failures at the time. The FAA needed to prove they were taking “action,” on something, so perhaps they used this event as the “fix” at United. United terminated Captain Clifford, and one week later United passed their audit. If the FAA was serious about their concerns, they would have immediately posted a bulletin at all airlines. Yet, per the FAA POI they all know that this is standard operating practice at “Delta, American and United.”

Side note: The FAA made their first ever change to the ASAP, after Clifford was terminated. April 2025, the FAA changed the language of the FAA FSAP page: Lessons Learned BEST Practices, by eliminating the words “by the reporting pilot,” completely destroying the intent and purpose of item number 5, and opening up the pilot to problems if they file an FSAP with respect to a drunk in the cabin. Technically, with this new language the FSAP can be thrown out if the pilot diverts because a passenger tried to open the door if he had been drinking. However, with this said, this is a “Best Practices” guidelines and ERC committees do not have to follow it. Somewhat like the FAA doesn’t have to follow the NTSB recommendations.

Conclusion

Judge Morris warned United they were not going to like what he had to say about their charter program. He understood the manipulation and creative interpretation of the alcohol clause and didn’t bite. He knows keeping the door open and allowing team members in the jumpseat is an ongoing practice at United and other airlines, and that the FAA apparently knows, too, and has never taken action before. However, with all that knowledge he must still apply the law.

Clifford has proven her AIR21 case in all areas, now the burden of proof shifts to United. Therefore, United now has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would have terminated Captain Clifford, even if she hadn’t filed an ASAP.

The ruling in this case is beyond United destroying the sanctity of the ASAP program and degrading this safety system. It’s not even about Captain Clifford violating a federal regulation for leaving the door open. This ruling now comes down to one question. Would United have terminated Clifford for leaving the door open and allowing a coach in the jumpseat even if she had not filed her report?

This might be a suitable time to note that while Captain Clifford was in the restroom when the coach sat in her seat, it was a flight attendant who used the coach’s phone and took the video that went live on his social media. She is still employed.

All facts indicate that United would not have terminated Captain Clifford, based upon. the trial testimony, for simply leaving the door open allowing a coach in the jumpseat.

This leaving the door open and allowing coaches and team members in, is a “known” and ongoing practice at United. Known by the FAA. Known by United management. The coach testified this has happened often over the previous twenty-two years. The company took no measures to find out who else was doing this based upon the coach’s admissions. To the contrary, they were in the process of disciplining a pilot for “NOT” opening the door during a charter and thereafter warned all other pilots to not come forward. Despite the fact that United has the records, and they know who all the pilots are, and could have queried them, free of retaliation, to determine if this was pattern of practice….gathering the “data,” they did not. Why? Because they already know the truth. Instead, Managing Director Bowers threatened other pilots to stay in hiding.

If I were United, I’d probably settle this before that ruling comes out. Judge Morris was the judge in my case against Delta, and he gave Delta similar advice. They didn’t listen. When the judge calls you out in trial, you can believe he knows BS when he hears it. However, he must apply the law despite personalities and testimony that lacks credibility. I have two pilot friends he ruled against, not because the company did not retaliate, but the law did not apply. However, in this case, the law points in Captain Clifford’s favor. United cannot prove they would have terminated her anyway, when a preponderance of evidence proves the opposite.

Now we wait a year until the decision is released.