THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SEATTLE — An Alaska Airlines passenger is suing the airline over injuries she says she suffered when deicer fumes entered an aircraft at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Christmas Eve.

Paramedics treated 25 people who were on an Alaska Airlines plane. Deicer fumes made their way onto the plane and irritated the eyes of passengers and the crew.

An attorney for passenger Arianna Morgan says she still feels the effects of that exposure and suffers numbness in her hands and fatigue.

The lawyer says the airline had a duty to ensure ventilation systems were closed during deicing.

The lawsuit was filed Monday in federal court in Seattle.

Airline spokeswoman Caroline Boren says the company is concerned about passenger welfare and is reviewing the complaint.

All 143 passengers boarded another plane and continued to Burbank, Calif.

By SUSANNAH FRAME / KING 5 News

Sparkling blue and white airplanes with the well-known Alaska Airlines logo painted on the side of the jets. This is the company image Alaska Airlines wants you to see.

But the KING 5 Investigators have obtained photos of the inside of some of their planes that the company would never want you to see: image after image of graffiti buried in the bellies of a number of planes where luggage, cargo and animals are loaded.

The pictures show area codes, scratched out symbols, and words that look like they could be related to gangs.
  
Is this harmless scribbling or really gang graffiti?  We showed our photos to five highly respected gang experts in Arizona, New York, California, and two in the Seattle area.  They all came to the same, disturbing conclusion.

“It’s definitely gang, and some major gangs are represented there, with some very violent rivalries.  No doubt about it,” said Richard Valdemar, who started the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department gang unit 33 years ago. He’s one of the top gang experts in the country.

“There is some real rivalry going on,” he said.

We asked him to analyze 62 images, all taken from Alaska cargo bins.  Like the other four experts, he said the graffiti shows gang members are working there, with full access to the airplanes.

 
  
“By definition, they are gang members, which means they are outlaws. They’re outside of our system of law. They answer to their own system of law, which is a criminal culture,” he said.

Experts say the word “norte” appears many times in the images, as does “XIV”, the Roman numeral 14. Together, they refer to the violent Norte 14 gang.  Members identify themselves with locations like Oakland , and area code 510.

Their number one rival – the Surenos — is represented as well, primarily from further south, like Orange County and Santa Ana and area code 714.

Experts say this gang answers to the Mexican mafia, or EME, which you can faintly see spelled out in one of the images.

Throughout the bins, the monikers are crossed out, which means a serious challenge by a rival gang.

“It’s not just ‘I’m claiming this territory’ it’s also an act of defiance and it demands retaliation,” said Valdemar.
  
There other references to “Tookie,” likely the Crips gang founder Tookie Williams executed in California last month.

What’s more, there are many references to smoking drugs on the job.

One picture shows a marijuana joint with the Seattle area code 206 reference nearby. Underneath the joint, a line reads: “reason for delays.”

And a dollar sign written on top of a person smoking pot means something else in the gang world.

“So, they’re saying they sling dope … sell dope,” said Valdemar.

Pilots tell their union they saw a dramatic increase in this kind of graffiti last May, after Alaska fired its ramp workers and hired a cheaper outside contractor, Menzies Aviation, to load the bags on planes at Sea-Tac.

The union says whoever’s to blame, they want something done.

“Where is their limit?  What else are they going to do or what are they capable of?  It’s against the law and they should be prosecuted, and not out there on our ramp,” said Capt. Paul Emmert of the Seattle Pilot’s union.

Asked by Alaska Airlines months ago to look into complaints about graffiti, the Port of Seattle Police concluded that gang graffiti does not always equal gang activity.

“It just doesn’t amount to anything that raises to that level of concern that we’d want to take any other overt action in dealing with it,” said Port of Seattle Police Chief Tim Kimsey.

Alaska’s director of security says the company’s satisfied with the Port police investigation.

“They have told us it is not an indication of gang activity,” Holly Geiger Zimmerman said.

“I think we have to go with the jurisdiction. The people with jurisdiction is the airport police unit. We know they are good at their job,” she said.

Port police say they even went outside their department and showed similar images to their own gang experts.

“A few of them in there may raise some concern, based on that input that we got back, but again, not enough that it tells us that we have an issue or problem here at Sea-Tac Airport,” according to Kimsey.

But the KING 5 Investigators learned Wednesday night that the port was warned. A local gang task force looked at some photos last summer and told the officer assigned to the case this looked like a serious problem. 

And that’s exactly what all the experts told us in our investigation.

And the people writing the graffiti don’t belong anywhere near an aircraft, said Valdemar.

“That is a criminal element, active in the bellies of the planes, with rivals also in the same proximity.”

Why did the port ignore the advice of experts?

When we confronted them with that question Thursday, they said they didn’t think the group had enough experience to draw any conclusions.

That doesn’t explain why they sought their advice in the first place.

The experts tell us the graffiti suggests strong connections to California and Seattle.

Alaska Airlines told us repeatedly it’s depending on the Port of Seattle to investigate.

To this date the Port has not interviewed one employee or done any surveillance, something our experts all say would be a very good idea.

Mr. Bill Ayers
President and CEO
Alaska Airlines
19300 International Boulevard
Seattle, WA 98188

Dear Mr. Ayers:

On Saturday, February 21, 2004, I flew on your airline from Burbank to Seattle, Flight #561. I am a professional musician of over 40 years standing, and a professional photographer of nearly 30 years. Thus, I often fly with my equipment. Sometimes I carry a guitar, sometimes I have photo gear, sometimes I have both.

On the day of my flight, I arrived at Bob Hope Airport/Burbank and checked in at 11:30am for a 2:00pm flight. I was the only person in line. I had in my possession one large soft case travel bag, a collapsible nylon mesh bag, a box of fragile glassware, a camera bag which doubled as my personal bag and a standard sized acoustic guitar in a hard shell case. It was my intention to check the large travel bag, and insert the box of glassware into the nylon mesh bag for carry-on. It was also my intention, as it has been for years, to carry my camera/personal bag and instrument on the plane with me.

Your counter attendant, however, saw it differently. She insisted that regardless of how I combined or configured my items, I would still be one item over the limit for carry-on. She insisted that I would have to check either the box of fragile glassware or the guitar.

At the time of my check-in I had in my possession a photocopy of a letter from Mr. Thomas R. Blank, Assistant Administrator for Security Regulation and Policy for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Transportation Security Administration. I have attached a copy of Mr. Blank’s letter herein. In his letter, dated January 17, 2003, to Mr. Thomas Lee of the American Federation of Musicians, Mr. Blank states:

“On December 20, 2002, TSA instructed aircraft operators that effective immediately, they are to allow musical instruments as carry-on baggage in addition to the limit of one bag and one personal item per person as carry-on baggage on an aircraft.”

I tried to present this letter and information to your attendant. She had no interest in reading it, and inferred that I was being argumentative. This surprised me, since at no time did I do or say anything that should have brought about such a response. In fact, I was doing my best to comply with her requirements.

In addition to the letter from Mr. Blank at TSA, I was in possession of an advisory notice from Mr. Eugene Mopsik, Executive Director of the American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. The advisory, dated November 20, 2003, states the following:

“Thanks to the effort of ASMP and the cooperation and understanding of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), working photographers and other members of the traveling public may now take on board an additional piece of carry-on baggage containing photographic equipment. This means you are allowed to carry on two bags – when at least one is photographic equipment – along with a personal item. …The TSA has said to go ahead at this time and take advantage of the new policy.”

I had no opportunity to present this information, either.

If I may, I would like to call your attention to your own website, regarding Alaska’s baggage policies. Under Section V, Baggage, Rule 190AS, Paragraph E, Item 6 Fragile Items, it states:

• c. The classes of items listed below are deemed to be too fragile or perishable or otherwise unsuitable as checked baggage and are subject to the conditions of acceptance set fort in paragraphs a) and b) above:
• v. Glass (see also chinaware/ceramics/pottery): Glassware, crystal, lamps, mirrors, bottles, and other glass containers and any liquids contained therein, telescopes, binoculars, barometers and eyeglasses and contact lenses that are not in their hard cases.
• ix. Musical Instruments and Equipment: Guitars, violins and other stringed instruments, organs, horns, percussion, wind and brass instruments, amplifiers or speakers in conjunction with electronic instruments.
• xi. Photographic/Cinematographic and Precision Equipment: Cameras, disposable cameras, photoflash equipment, photometers, spectroscopes, phototubes or other devices using sensitive tubes or plates, projectors, lenses, film, flash bulbs…

One thing seems quite clear: Under any of several scenarios, I should have been allowed to carry on the camera/personal bag, the glassware box and the guitar, without question. The TSA has adopted these policies and instructed the airlines accordingly. The policy regarding musical instruments is well over a year old; the policy regarding photographic equipment dates back three full months. And your own website acknowledges that these items are fragile and unsuitable to be checked as baggage.

Instead, I was forced to gate-check my guitar. When I picked it up in Seattle, the guitar felt nearly frozen. It should go without saying that subjecting an expensive professional instrument to the temperature extremes found in an unheated space at 31,000 feet is detrimental to the instrument. In some cases it can result in permanent damage. I would prefer to not run that risk on an irreplaceable instrument. I would prefer to not have my livelihood risked because my means of making it has been compromised by an airline attendant’s unwillingness to comply with, or even be informed of, standing TSA and airline policy. And I should think Alaska Airlines would not be enthused about the prospect of replacing a valuable instrument, let alone the inconvenience to one of its long-standing patrons.

The following information is also relevant:

• My guitar easily fits into the overhead compartments of the 737’s and MD-80’s Alaska uses on the Burbank/Seattle route.
• The glassware box and camera bag in question were both substantially smaller than most carry-on luggage. The camera/personal bag measures 16Lx10Wx7.5H inches, the glassware box 9×13x7.5 inches. Combined they are still smaller than many carry-ons. Either one fits under the seat in front of me, leaving the other for the overhead bin.
• On all three other legs of my Alaska round trip, which took me to and from Manzanillo, Mexico, taking my guitar on the plane was never an issue. I had the identical carry-ons in Manzanillo as I did in Burbank.

Given the foregoing, can you please resolve these issues for me?

Is there any reason at all that your employees in Burbank would not be fully aware of TSA or Alaska Airlines policies?

Why would your Burbank counter attendant be unwilling to at least review the TSA and ASMP letters?

Why would your Burbank counter attendant be unaware of Alaska’s policy regarding fragile items?

What kind of response should I expect from your attendants the next time I fly Alaska Airlines with my professional equipment and/or instruments?

I very much look forward to your early response. Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

Jef Jaisun

CC:
Mr. Thomas R. Blank, TSA
Mr. Eugene Mopsik, ASMP
Mr. Thomas F. Lee, President, AFM New York
Mr. Hal Ponder, Legislative Director, AFM Washington, D.C.
Mr. John McCutcheon, President, AFM Local 1000

Dear FAA,

I recently read the NTSB’s report and findings on Alaska Air flight 261. One of my neighbors was killed on the flight. I was in Puerto Vallarta on the day of the crash. I had flown into Puerto Vallarta on an Alaska flight.

One of the recommendations in the NTSB report was that the FAA should follow up on it’s oversight of maintenance at Alaska Air. The report stated that the FAA made a review of Alaska Air’s maintenance program and found several deficiencies. A follow up review revealed that several problems still existed at Alaska. The NTSB report suggested that further oversight of Alaska Air by the FAA is still needed.

I would like to know what steps the FAA has taken to ensure that maintenance at Alaska Air is being done correctly. If there is something wrong at Alaska Air, why is the airline allowed to operate?

I am expressly concerned, not only since my neighbor needlessly died in what the NTSB termed a maintenance accident, but because I intend to fly with my family on Alaska Air next month. We had heard about the FAA oversight of the Alaska Maintenance program and believed that the problems at Alaska had been corrected. It has been three years since flight 261 crashed into the Pacific killing all 88 aboard. That would be ample time in my mind for the FAA to have acted in a diligent manner to correct deficiencies at Alaska. Now with the recent NTSB report we see that further follow-up oversight at Alaska is needed and recommended.

This is very unsettling since we are booked on an Alaska flight less than 30 days from now. Can you assure me that the FAA has done everything that needs to be done at Alaska Air? Would you characterize Alaska Air’s fleet as well maintained and now meets the scrutiny of the FAA?

I need to know what the FAA knows about Alaska Air, and I need to know soon. Please respond to my questions about Alaska Air as soon as possible.

Sincerely Yours,

Grant A. Silvey, PE

Dear Mr. Silvey:

We have been asked to respond to your recent e-mail regarding the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB’s) recent findings on Alaska Airlines flight 261. Please accept our sincere condolences for the loss of your neighbor in that tragic accident.

As you indicated, the NTSB was critical of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) oversight of the company at the time of the accident. Both before and after the accident we have taken actions to strengthen the FAA’s surveillance of the carrier. Staffing at the Alaska Airlines Certificate Management Office (ASAA CMO), the FAA organization responsible for oversight of the airline has increased from 15 to 37 since the accident. In addition, 10 remotely sited inspectors assist in conducting surveillance of the carrier in Anchorage, Oakland and Los Angeles.

We also conducted a special national safety inspection (NSI) of the airline following the accident. In response to the FAA’s proposal to suspend the carrier’s heavy maintenance authorization following the NSI, Alaska Airlines proposed an action plan that implemented significant changes in maintenance, operations and management. A FAA safety panel that included inspectors from the local, regional and national levels monitored performance of this action plan to completion. Top level management at the airline continues to meet with the CMO manager and supervisory inspectors on a quarterly basis to provide updates.

FAA regulations mandate that airlines serving the general public maintain the highest level of safety. Alaska Airlines has made significant changes since the accident in order to maintain that standard. We believe the current structure of the Alaska CMO is sufficient to allow the FAA to provide the oversight necessary to make sure the airline maintains the highest level of safety and we are confident that standard is currently being met.

On a personal note, since the accident I have bought several tickets for my wife and myself to go on vacation on Alaska Airlines. Those trips included like yours, a trip to Mexico and as recent as November to Phoenix. I can assure you that I feel comfortable with the service and reliability of Alaska Airlines aircraft.

Sincerely,

Timothy L. Miller
Alaska Airlines Principal Maintenance Inspector

Holy shit! What a horrifying experience! So what did the air crew do after you safely landed - I understand they didn’t give any explanation- but what did they tell the passengers at the time, how did they respond to your shall we say inconvenience?

Each airline has a process by which every incident is reviewed, the crew interviewed - faa and I forget who else are involved. Usually the crew is videotaped. These are used as learning experiences and each incident has value in that something can be learned to prevent further occurances, or techniques to respond to incidents are derived. The results are not shared with the public, but some response is definitely in order.
Keep plugging away - try the interstate commerce commission or whatever it’s called. They may be more forthcoming than the faa, who are notoriously tightlipped.

We’re trained to assess passengers as they board, pick out who we would ask for assistance in the event of an emergency. We look for people who seem calm under pressure, capable, strong enough to open the door if necessary. There are specific words we use in evacuation. Did the flight attendant say “you - come with me” ? Do this, do that. “Get the people out.”

Sometimes I dream the phrases.

Anyway, good luck in your search for answers. There must be a local weekly alternative newspaper in Seattle, enlist their help. (was the aircraft a Boeing??)

ciao
Judy

Hey Judy,

Holy shit! What a horrifying experience! So what did the air crew do after you safely landed - I understand they didn’t give any explanation- but what did they tell the passengers at the time, how did they respond to your shall we say inconvenience?

Mostly, they hustled us onto another plane. There were two other planes from Seattle that had to connect with 222 in LA, combining for the one flight to Mexico. They gave me free cognacs on the flight to LA. I needed them.

Each airline has a process by which every incident is reviewed, the crew interviewed - faa and I forget who else are involved. Usually the crew is videotaped. These are used as learning experiences and each incident has value in that something can be learned to prevent further occurances, or techniques to respond to incidents are derived. The results are not shared with the public, but some response is definitely in order.

You tell them that, wouldja? They obviously don’t care what I have to say.

We’re trained to assess passengers as they board, pick out who we would ask for assistance in the event of an emergency. We look for people who seem calm under pressure, capable, strong enough to open the door if necessary. There are specific words we use in evacuation. Did the flight attendant say “you - come with me” ? Do this, do that. “Get the people out.”

I was minding my own business, sitting at a window seat forward of the wing, trying to come to terms with what I expected was going to be an untimely and ignominious demise. I really didn’t want to talk to anybody at that moment. Then a stew sticks her head into the row and says, “Sir, would you please come with me?”

“Why?”

“We may need your help at the back of the plane, in case the rear emergency exit doesn’t open.”

Oh, that’s fucking GREAT! I don’t want to be at the back of the plane to begin with, which is why I always sit forward of the wing. Now she’s filling my head with visions of wings and engines digging into the tarmac, sending huge chunks of metal and flaming jet fuel right into my face. Like I needed that.

Yeah, I went back there, but I wasn’t the least bit happy about it. Further, the stew herself was practically in tears, trying to keep it together. Afterwards, she told me it’s the first time anything like that had ever happened to her, and all she could think of (beyond the immediate situation) was her two small kids at home.

We landed without incident, and I didn’t have to pop open the rear door. That didn’t make the ride any less scary.

The plane? Funny you should ask. It was an MD-80, piece of shit inherited from Boeing’s takeover of Lockheed and subject to the exceptional Alaska “maintenance” program. In the next few weeks there was a spate of MD-80 incidents, including Flight 261 and a plane that came into SFO with an engine on fire. The FAA should have grounded all of them IMMEDIATELY, but that would have meant putting people’s safety above airline profits. And boy howdy, we sure can’t do that. So when all this shit started to be uncovered about Alaska and their maintenance falsifications, I was way ahead of the curve. Alaska should have had its license to fly revoked on the spot.

I haven’t flown Alaska since, except to get home from Mexico two years ago. And those assholes made it just about as incovenient as they could. I used some Continental miles for the ticket, after Alaska and Continental made their co-share deal. I flew into Manzanillo, 15 minutes from my hotel. When I wanted to come home several weeks later, Alaska told me there were no seats available on the Manzanillo planes, and that I had to come back via Puerto Vallarta. PV is a four hour Mexican bus ride and a major hassle away. I went to the ZLO airport to talk with a super, and she told me the only person who could help me was at a counter in PV. So, either way I was being sent back on the long bus. Meanwhile, I’m watching all my other buddies getting stand-by seats on the same planes I’m being told are sold out!

The real story? Because I used my Continental miles instead of my Alaska miles, they dropped me to the bottom of the food chain. They wouldn’t admit this to my face, of course, but I had a mole in the agency who copped to it. The next morning I dialed Alaska’s stateside 800 number and chewed out one of their supervisors. I told him, “After what I’ve been through with you guys, and after you just killed some people I know!, you’re lucky I’m flying with you at all. The least you can do is get me on a freakin’ local plane!” Long silent pause on the other end of the line, followed by, “Would you like a window or aisle seat, sir?” Sheesh.

With all this in the hopper, I find it astounding that not one single media person in this market has seen fit to follow up on my letters. And believe me, I started e-mailing them from Mexico two-and-a-half years ago.

Jef

Dear Mr. Fancher and the editorial staff of the Times:

Two years ago this week I was involved in an emergency situation involving an Alaska Airlines MD-80 at Sea-Tac Airport. I wrote you and other members of the media about it extensively. Yet, a full two years later, and on the anniversary of the Flight 261 tragedy, not a one of you has seen fit to follow up on my letter and the terrifying moments experienced by the passengers on my flight.

In fact, despite all your coverage of Alaska Airlines and its problems, the incident on Flight 222 has gone wholly unreported. Why is that?

To recap:

On January 20th, eleven days prior to the Flight 261 disaster, a plane load of Alaska passengers, which included me, thought we were due to be tarmac cinders. Our flight, Alaska 222, bound for Manzanillo via Los Angeles, blew something on take-off from Sea-Tac Airport. We heard several loud bangs from the back of the aircraft. A few seconds later there were two more, and the plane lurched to the right. One woman passenger screamed in obvious apprehension, “Oh no!”

A minute passed before the pilot finally announced there was a problem, and we’d have to turn around and make an immediate emergency landing. An extremely distressed flight attendant gave us instructions for assuming the crash position. One passenger took out a marking pen and wrote a farewell message to his girlfriend on a drop-down tray. We all thought our lives were over, especially me, when I was asked to come to the rear of the plane to assist the attendants in case the rear emergency door didn’t open during the landing procedure.

At no time during the emergency, nor any time since, has Alaska Airlines informed us what happened on that flight. No apologies, no explanations, no nothing! I received no communication from the airline whatsoever, despite five months of trying to get answers. The FAA was “unable” to provide information because Alaska hadn’t filed any!

What continues to tear at me is the possibility that my plane’s malfunction could have been identical to Flight 261’s. When the FAA later reported hearing “two loud bangs from the back of the aircraft” on 261’s cockpit voice recorder, I immediately thought about what happened on Flight 222. Perhaps the tragedy of 261 could have been averted if someone at Alaska had been paying attention. Was it the same plane? Was it the same problem? Nobody knows because Alaska has never told us anything! I was scheduled to fly back from Puerto Vallarta on Alaska. I could have been on Flight 261. As it turns out, my parents were returning from Puerto Vallarta on an Alaska flight at the same time 261 went down. It’s only by chance they were not obliterated on Flight 261.

My opinion, which I have stated repeatedly since February 1, 2000, is that Alaska Airlines deserves to be ripped open and examined from the bottom up. Even more so than has already occurred. In the three years prior to the 261 and 222 incidents, I watched the airline steadily deteriorate as bean counters made the calls and cut corners. We have all now seen the results. I applauded the FAA’s decision to hold Alaska accountable, and shut them down if the situation warrants, but I have not been impressed with the results so far.

As Alaska CEO John Kelly and his spin doctors continue their damage control press conferences, which we will no doubt be treated to again this coming Thursday, I still wonder why I should ever get on another Alaska plane. I haven’t done so since my return from Mexico two years ago, and I see no reason to change my mind any time soon.

I want some answers! I want to know what happened on my flight. I want to know why it’s being hushed up. I want to know if the failures on Flights 222 and 261 were related. And I’d really like to know why nobody in the massive Seattle media market thinks the Flight 222 incident is important enough to expose and thoroughly investigate.

Yes, just as you did, I knew people on Flight 261. Yes, I continue to mourn their loss. It should never have happened. And maybe — just maybe — it wouldn’t have if someone had been paying attention on January 20, 2000, eleven days earlier.

Sincerely yours,

Jef Jaisun
Seattle

Hey Jef,

Thanks for copying me on the flight incident. Did you hear back this time? And do I understand that the FAA DID acknowledge that Alaska reported SOME problem on board?

Mike Webb
KIRO Radio

Mike,

Nope, I ain’t heard shit. My pal Casey Corr, a Times editorialist (and striker who has yet to be called back) has passed it on to Chuck Taylor, a Times aerospace reporter and former editor in chief of the Union Record. Maybe Chuck will get interested.

Re the FAA: When I contacted them initially (I think it was in June), their response was something to the effect of, “Alaska filed the bare minimum required, acknowledging there was an incident. No details. That’s all we have, so we really can’t tell you anything more than you already know.” When I pressed for more info, I was essentially blown off, being advised to file a FOIA request “to get more details…that way they have to respond.” The FAA guy also allowed as to how Alaska had a full year to file any additional information. Now that it’s been a full year, I should probably go back and ask what’s in the FAA file. But at this point I would just as soon it were done by a reporter, talk show host or NTSB investigator. Obviously, passengers like me don’t count much at the local FAA or Alaska.

Jef

Jef Jaisun

Dear James,

I haven’t received a response from you since I e-mailed you the letter below over a month ago. So I guess the possibility that the Flight 261 disaster may have been preventable as late as 11 days prior is not an issue with you. However, I note with extreme distress in your P-I article today that not only was there a suspect arrangement between Alaska Airlines and the local FAA office, but that FAA officials conspired to exclude the Flight 261 investigation from the Freedom of Information Act. It was these same local FAA officials whom I contacted last spring regarding my experience on Flight 222. And you know what they told me? “Alaska didn’t tell us much about the emergency on your flight. You should file a Freedom of Information Act request.”

Now I know what they were really telling me: “Get lost!”

I may never find out what happened to Flight 222. You won’t, either. It’s just too bad nobody around here apparently has the guts, the curiosity or the dedication to the truth to find out if the Flight 222 emergency could have been related to Flight 261’s subsequent fatal plunge.

Sincerely yours,

Jef Jaisun

Hola amigos,

Wednesday will be the anniversary of the crash of Alaska Flight 261. There are numerous memorials planned for the day. On February 15 there will be a dedication ceremony in Puerto Vallarta, in case any of you are there and feel like attending. Here’s the info from today’s Seattle Times, which has several very fine stories on the people who perished on the flight, in case anyone wants to read them.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/SeattleTimes.woa/wa/

“A memorial in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, to Joe and Linda Knight, co-pastors of The Rock Church of Monroe, WA, who were in Mexico to work with children living in a city dump, is in the final stages of construction. The memorial — a community shower, medical clinic and dining area for the children of about 200 families who live in filth and poverty in shanties and lean-tos at the dump — will be dedicated Feb. 15.

“Seattle Times readers donated $24,000 to the project. The Puerto Vallarta City Council donated the land for the center. … Americans who live on yachts in the resort’s harbor have assisted in the project. In addition, several churches in the Seattle area have been working with the congregation at Perdon y Amistad, a non-denominational church in Puerto Vallarta, to provide regular meals to the children. Tax-deductible donations to the combined ministries may be sent to Feed the Children in Puerto Vallarta, 718 Griffin Ave, PMB 207, Enumclaw, WA.”

El Jefe

Dear Alaska Airlines:

Last January 20th I was on an Alaska Airline flight #222 that took off from Sea-Tac for Manzanillo, via Los Angeles. Less than two minutes after take-off, several loud banging noises were heard from the rear of the airplane. We immediately turned around and made an emergency landing at Sea-Tac, and most of us on that plane were convinced we were going to die on that runway. This was 11 days before Flight 261 went down in the ocean.

To date, your airline has not told any of us what happened on our flight, nor has it responded to my questions concerning that incident. The FAA says you did not file a detailed incident report.

For these reasons, and many more that have come to light in the past eight months, I have refused to fly Alaska planes. I have no intention of getting on another one of your MD-80s.

This brings up my forthcoming annual winter visit to Manzanillo. I notice in your recent promotional contest to Cabo San Lucas, you advertised it as being a Boeing 737 plane. I would like to know when, if ever, you plan to offer 737 flights to Manzanillo. I would like to know now, so that I may plan my winter vacation schedule accordingly. If you have no plans other than to fly MD-80s on that route, I will make other arrangements.

Sincerely yours,

Jef Jaisun

Dear Alaska,

I’m trying to find a flight to either Manzanillo or Puerto Vallarto from Seattle. I have never liked flying on the MD 80 planes. The flight crews call them Mad Dogs and hate them. The engine noise in the rear is near intolerable. The mechanical safety of these planes has been called into question with last year’s fateful flight out of PRV. I cannot bring myself to book a flight on an MD aircraft, especially since one of the persons that died on that flight out of PVR was a neighbor.

I want to know what Alaska’s policy is now regarding the wear tolerances on key control elements such as the rear stabilizer jack screw? I’d like to think that when tolerances get to a ten thousandth away from replacement, that remeasurement 6 times to justify not replacing the part is not going to happen. Especially when the next heavy check of that part won’t be for another 2 years. That’s fool hardy at best and put the lives of people at risk. When replacement tolerances are that close, the part should have been checked more frequently…or better yet replaced when it gets within one 10 thousandth of an inch of the wear tolerance. If that part cost $10,000 to replace it would have been cheap compared to losing an aircraft over it.

I would prefer to fly on a Boeing aircraft, but your fleet seems to be full of those MD’s. Why don’t you put more Boeing planes in service to Mexico? If you can help me with finding a flight on a Boeing Aircraft that has been properly maintained I’d appreciate it.

Thanks,

Grant

Mr. Silvey:

Thank you for writing in regards to our MD-80 aircraft.

I understand your concern, and want to assure you that all of our aircraft have completed inspections and are continually checked on a daily basis. The MD-80s are one of the safest commercial airliners in the history of aviation. Its safety record is .41 accidents per million departures (one incident out of over two million flights), which is four times safer than other aircraft, even the 737’s. The FAA made the public announcement a few months ago that our aircraft were safe for operation and that they had no concerns. We understand that these planes will be getting much attention until the cause of the accident is discovered, and we want to make you as comfortable and confident as possible. You are welcome to change your flight schedule, however, aircraft swaps do occur, and there is not a guarantee of which aircraft type you will be flying. Our Reservation agents can assist you in booking a flight that is operated with a 737.

All of our aircraft are Boeing aircraft. This includes that MD-80’s, which are now Boeing aircraft due to the past merger of Boeing and McDonnel Douglas.

Feel free to write us again if you have any further questions or comments.

Jeffry
Alaska Airlines
Supervisor, Consumer Affairs

Thanks for your reply. I was not aware of the MD 80’s safety record. I hear that almost one third of your MD 80 fleet was out of tolerance with respect to the rear stabilizer jack screw as found after the accident of flight 261. Has there been scrutiny of other critical control parts on all your aircraft?

I also heard that the pilots of flight 261 were aware of the control problem shortly after takeoff and could have returned to PVR, or landed at any number of airports along the way but opted to continue without aborting the flight.

What policy does Alaska air have with respect to supporting a pilots decision to abort a flight or to make an unscheduled emergency stop? Has the company reinforced to the pilots that any problem with a control surface is reason to abort the flight plan and to seek the closest airfield?

A recent Alaska flight had a deployment of the emergency oxygen masks, but then proceeded to it’s destination. Isn’t it FAA policy to abort the flight plan after such a deployment and to return to the nearest airport? Have the pilots been reprimanded? Has management taken a firm stand to avoid this type of incident in the future?

I’m curious about any undue pressure that the pilots might have either from management or because of their personal schedules to not abort a flight. Has the management set policy clearly to pilots that safety is the number one concern? Has management issued any statements to pilots supporting their decision to abort a flight under safety concerns? Has management made it clear to pilots that the number one priority is safety and following FAA guidelines for safe operation? Is it company policy to have it’s pilots abort the flight plan at the first indication of a problem with the flight controls?

If so then why did the crew of the plane with the deployed oxygen maskscontinue to it’s destination and not return to the nearest airport? When, exactly did the flight crew on 261 become aware that they had a problem with the rear stabilizer? Is that been made public knowledge?

My concerns with Alaska do not end with the aircraft. I’m concerned that Alaska has lost it’s focus on safety as the number one priority of an airline. I have flown Alaska for years, and have always felt comfortable on Alaska planes. But recent news surrounding flight 261, and the fact that my neighbor and her husband perished on 261, has me concerned about your commitment to safety. I was in Puerto Vallarta when 261 went down. I was flying on Alaska, and it was very disconcerting knowing that I was going to be boarding an Alaska flight on the same route three weeks after the crash.

Thanks,

Grant

Mr. Silvey:

I apologize, but due to NTSB regulations, we are not permitted to comment on flight 261 or the flight that had the oxygen masks deploy until both investigations are complete. I hope you understand.

Our policy towards safety, when flying our aircraft, has always been to insure the safety of the passengers. Certain situations are investigated when the flight crew elects not to operate a flight, but their decision is never questioned. The Captain of the aircraft is the sole authority of that flight, by our policy and by Federal Law. We will not, and are not permitted to, force the crew to operate an aircraft if they feel the flight may pose some safety concerns.

As a commercial pilot myself, I can tell you that there are procedures that are followed during an emergency. These will vary slightly for each aircraft, but are a set or ordered procedures that are done in order to see to it that the aircraft completes its flight without incidence. When an emergency landing is required, we allow the crew to have final say on what airport is chosen due to the fact that they are more likely to have the most information to make this decision.

I have done my best to answer all of your questions that I am permitted and able to. Again, please understand that we are not permitted to discuss certain items regarding our policies and the two occurrences. I hope we will have the pleasure of welcoming you on board a flight with us soon.

Jeffry
Alaska Airlines
Supervisor, Consumer Affairs

FAA considers tighter scrutiny of airlines

Oversight of Alaska Air caused concern

Saturday, June 17, 2000
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF and NEWS SERVICES

The Federal Aviation Administration may change the way it monitors safety at the nation’s airlines after audits at Seattle-based Alaska Air Group Inc. showed potential weaknesses in the agency’s oversight.

The agency is preparing to announce next week whether it plans to take the dramatic step of suspending Alaska Airlines’ authority to perform heavy maintenance, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey said yesterday.

That move could force the carrier to park planes as they come due for heavy maintenance.

As Alaska awaits the FAA’s judgment, the broader changes could spark increased near-term scrutiny and audits for other U.S. airlines, Garvey said. She didn’t provide specifics of changes her agency is considering.

“I am not opposed to the audit of airlines because I think it is good to monitor ourselves as a precaution,” Garvey said. “With these audits we can make improvements to our training, oversight and maintenance systems. . . . We may, (although) I’m not sure we will.”

The FAA itself is coming under some scrutiny.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer first reported in April that federal agents investigating the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 in January and the airline’s maintenance operations are also examining the FAA’s oversight of the carrier.

The FBI’s preliminary inquiry into the FAA was undertaken to determine if a formal criminal investigation is necessary, federal criminal justice sources said.

Agents with the FBI and the Transportation Department’s Office of Inspector General have been interviewing current and former FAA inspectors and supervisors along with Alaska Airlines personnel in the course of conducting the inquiry into the airline, the sources said.

One high-ranking criminal justice source told the P-I that the question facing prosecutors and agents “is how broad is (the investigation) going to be.”

A criminal investigation of the FAA would focus on whether Alaska encouraged criminally improper maintenance practices that were either sanctioned or ignored by the FAA.

The P-I reported last year that several FAA inspectors in the agency’s Flight Standards Division office in Renton say they had been pressured by superiors to take it easy on Alaska and were punished when they tried to strictly enforce federal regulations.

One Alaska mechanic working at the airline’s Sea-Tac hangar told the P-I that a San Francisco-based FBI agent questioned him a few weeks ago about the FAA and its relationship with Alaska.

“I told them, ‘The most I know of the FAA is they don’t come around very much,’” said the mechanic, who recounted the interview on condition he not be named.

The newspaper last year found many instances where the FAA appeared to have given a higher priority to maintaining a cordial relationship with the airline and operators of unrelated aircraft repair facilities than to imposing tough penalties for regulatory violations.

Some federal inspectors assigned to Alaska Airlines said they were penalized by supervisors when they were strict in enforcing federal regulations. Inspectors have been disciplined and moved to other jobs after airline managers or pilots campaigned against them.

Asked to comment on reports that local FAA inspectors, who spend all their time working with a particular airline, might get too close to the people there, Garvey defended the professionalism of her staff.

But, she added, she has begun rotating inspectors at an airline through various aspects of that carrier’s work and may move inspectors to other carriers for 60- to 90-day visits to bring in “fresh eyes.”

Regularly moving inspectors around the country, however, would be very expensive, she said.

The crash that sparked the Alaska FAA audit was Flight 261, which plunged into the ocean Jan. 31 about 20 miles northwest of Los Angeles International Airport after reporting trouble with its stabilizer trim. The reason for the crash is still unknown.

Garvey said part of the investigation included an internal audit of Alaska Airlines’ flight and maintenance systems by the FAA.

“All the facts are not yet in from the crash, so there is not a need to jump to any conclusions,” Garvey said, “But we have serious questions to ask ourselves, and this internal audit may be a basis for a change.”

She said she received a full report on June 9 from Alaska on why the agency shouldn’t suspend the airline’s ability to do heavy maintenance on their aircraft.

Alaska officials have said they expect to be able to resolve the FAA’s questions. They also say the carrier is close to wrapping up its own report. The carrier commissioned a panel of 13 safety professionals to examine its safety operations, and it could release the report in the next two weeks, according to Greg Witter, a spokesman for the company.

“It is our belief that we will be able to address all of the FAA’s concerns before any suspension of our authority to do heavy maintenance occurs,” Alaska Airlines President Bill Ayer said in a statement posted on the company’s Web site.