Response to USAPA ad in USA Today

[cleardirect]

Hi Jerry, you are correct. The type rating really doesn't mean much in the big picture of global warming and saving the whales and such, but if you don't have a type then you can't be assigned as a captain to the trip or exercise captain decisions that require the captain type rating decoder ring.

Did 6 pilots refuse to fly a perfectly good airplane? Was all the crackpot maintenance and management really incapable of persuading 6 pilots that the plane was perfectly good?

Your position is a really sad commentary on everyone (except you? Were you off or unavailable during that shift?).

Stick with us. You are starting to grow on us.

Did all 6 of these highly experienced pilots test that system independently and come to their own conclusion? Or perhaps did a single captain that may have a weak understanding of the systems tell her crew and the next crew that the plane was broken? Did that second captain do any testing or did he just take the first captains word for it?

You know if one captain refuses why would the second captain take it? What were the F/O's doing during this time? All standing around comparing DOH's and dreaming of the day when they would get paid more than a commuter pilot?

 

[Pi brat]

Did all 6 of these highly experienced pilots test that system independently and come to their own conclusion? Or perhaps did a single captain that may have a weak understanding of the systems tell her crew and the next crew that the plane was broken? Did that second captain do any testing or did he just take the first captains word for it?

You know if one captain refuses why would the second captain take it? What were the F/O's doing during this time? All standing around comparing DOH's and dreaming of the day when they would get paid more than a commuter pilot?

Do you KNOW what happened? Were you there? Do you have a A330 type rating? If you can answer yes to all these questions, fill us in on what really happened. I'd really like to know.

WHACK!

 

[cleardirect]

I hope you do not design aircraft electrical systems....The A330 can be controlled in flight with a TOTAL AC power loss for as long as the Hot battery Bus "batteries" supply power to the DC ESS bus. An inverter is connected to the DC ESS bus and inverts DC current to single phase AC current, which is supplied to the AC ESS bus. Your words....Wells put the aircraft in ground configuration, how?. If above 50 knots, this switching will occur regardless of the position of the battery pbs. If the airspeed is less than 50 kts, both BAT pbs must be in the auto position. The RAT provides limited AC power in the event of a total primary AC failure. The batteries via the DC ESS bus and static inverter provide ESS AC power, limited to about 30 minutes. There is a log page with the work that was done on the A330 in question. Was the static inverter replaced? I do not know. Why do you smear Captain Wells without knowing what your talking about. Here's the crux of the matter. A USAirways crew gets escorted off an airplane, for what? What ever happened to the obvious "just fix the damm thing".

There is the real question right there. Why did that captain get escorted off? The second captain refused to fly the airplane but was not escorted out. Why not? Has any other captain ever been escorted out for refusing to fly an airplane? NO?

So everyone must ask yourself what did this captain do to cause the gate agent to call security? Did it have anything to do with refusing to fly the airplane or did it have to do with some other behavior? I have heard it was some announcements made to the PAX. If it was something disparaging to the company they have the right to remove her and it has NOTHING to do with safety or refusing to fly the airplane. But as usual usapa and the supporters hide and distract from the real reason.

Ask yourself why was this one captain removed but not the other one. They both refused the same aircraft for the same reason. What is the difference?

 

[SparrowHawk]

“Appx. 1 hour ago,CLT-LAX Crew & pax taken to hospital in LAX for fumes. Unconfirmed but from reliable source.”

This is the third text this week I've received this week on these incidents. WHAT is going on?

 

[kubotapilot]

Vice President's Letter To The Pilots


Fellow pilots,
As many of you know, I attended the LCC Board of Directors, Labor Committee meeting last week in Tempe. The timing of this meeting provided an excellent opportunity to bring our concerns to the Board regarding the deteriorating safety situation at US Airways. While every labor group in attendance has its members' unique interests at the forefront of their agenda, it's important to note that we all have the same goals of providing safe, convenient and reliable air transportation.
My comments to the Board as well as a rebuttal to Robert Isom's letter to employees are attached and can be found in the Miscellaneous Documents Library of the USAPA web site. As you'll quickly perceive, these documents describe a situation that was anything but safe. On the eve of June 16th, US Airways trampled the concept of Captain's Authority in a bout of intimidation and humiliation that we are still working to understand. We feel strongly that Management has reached a new low point in their campaign to destroy the piloting profession, and we will not step aside and allow them success in this regard.
The other labor groups -- while understandably concerned about our decision to publicize the Company's actions in the recent USA TODAY ad and the accompanying information on the USAPA website -- are nonetheless in support of USAPA's position that the Captain, as the pilot in command, needs the authority to prevent unsafe operations from continuing.
While an individual opinion expressed by an AFA member ran counter to their union's position, the AFA's actual position as disseminated to its members is as follows:
"US Airways Flight Attendants are trained in and follow the chain of command on each and every flight we fly. The ultimate authority onboard our aircraft lies with the Captain (the pilot in command) of each flight. Our flight attendants respect and support the authority of the Captain and his or her determination with respect to the safe operation of the flight in which he or she is in command." The East and West Master Executive Councils AFA-CWA
The CWA expressed their concern that USAPA reported that it was one of their members who made the call to Corporate Security to throw our Captain out of the airport. In a testament to the value of these Labor Committee meetings, I was able to explain that it was indeed Management's account of the events that placed blame on Airport Customer Service. The act of pitting one employee group against another is a tired, rehashed management technique, and I trust you share my desire for a more responsible leadership style.
Finally, to our fellow professionals at the IAM, we extended our acknowledgement that these are difficult circumstances and that the pressure from Management to move airplanes on time has reached an unprecedented level. We understand that the IAM's frontline mechanics possess talents that are invaluable to our continued success. The events of July 16th had nothing to do with expertise or the willingness of our mechanics to deal with the A330's electrical failures. Every misstep by Maintenance happened at the supervisory level or above, and our investigation has revealed that these are Management issues -- not Mechanic issues. We are united with the IAM in our pursuit of safe operations, and I look forward to working with them cooperatively to bolster our collective efforts to combat the erosion of US Airways' safety culture.
Aviation is a very special endeavor. Each of us -- every US Airways employee -- has a moral obligation to work in earnest to protect the lives of our passengers and our co-workers and to preserve the stature of our professions. Management is trying to produce outstanding performance through old fashioned intimidation, pitting its employees against each other, and insulting, low-ball incentives. Predictably, as time wears on, that strategy is failing, and safety is suffering as a result.
Sincerely,

Captain Randy Mowrey
Vice President



USAPA Vice President Randy Mowrey's Remarks At US Airways Labor Committee Meeting

"To begin, I think that it is worth a moment for me to discuss my view of the purpose of these BOD Labor committee meetings. First I must presume that, due to the level of commitment in terms of the status of the participants - both for the Company and for Labor - and the respective value of their time, this venue is reserved for a high level agenda. And I will assume that the resultant communication will make its way from the Committee to the BOD for deliberation. I would also like to believe that there is a commensurate level of respect for the need to take the issues presented seriously and to pursue them with all due diligence.
The issue that I bring before the Committee today, without any doubt whatsoever, rises to the highest possible level as it goes to our ultimate collective responsibility, the safe transport of our passengers and crew, without which all is lost.
As you all are aware USAPA has been vigorously communicating our concerns to the Company regarding what we are certain are serious lapses in safety. These lapses have not only been uniformly dismissed by the Company but are predictably growing more frequent, with an alarmingly exponential component. Most egregious is the plain evidence that the Company’s behavior in this regard has evolved from foundational neglect to active interference with Pilots’ efforts to ensure the safety of their flights, through acts of blatant intimidation.
As a Captain with 26 years of service to this company and over 40 years of flying experience, I have to say that I have never experienced a worse safety culture than that which I am operating within today at US Airways. I am certain that the corporate officers at this table will dispute this point with me. They will likely characterize my concerns as imagined for the purpose of creating some phantom leverage in contract negotiations. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that it is true that as a professional airline Captain, I resent the fact that I am paid at one of the lowest rates in the industry. Of course I would like to share in the financial success of my airline. These are perhaps interesting and important facts that relate to my employment relationship with the Company but they’re completely irrelevant to the issues that I am addressing now. When the people charged with the ultimate responsibility for the safe conduct of flight operations tell you repeatedly that we are experiencing a significant breakdown in the safety culture, perhaps the most dangerous course of action is to stick your head in the sand and proclaim it just isn’t so. Further, a world renowned expert in the field has reviewed the Company's safety culture and found it amongst the worst they have ever seen.
First and foremost I am here to tell the Committee that USAPA will not allow anything to stand in the way of our support for the line Pilots’ right and obligation to freely exercise their judgment without interference. We will do all that is necessary to provide our Pilots with the environment they need to achieve this goal. It is beyond perplexing that the
Company does not intuitively recognize that the flight crews are the most valuable, informed, and useful real-time asset available to ensure the safe operation of any given flight. Yet with a disturbingly increasing incidence, Management has recklessly encroached into this territory with an utter lack of regard for the disastrous effects that loom if such behavior is left unabated.
A prime example, of which I am sure you are all now aware, is of the A330 captain who was escorted off the airport property by corporate security after refusing to operate a trans-Atlantic (nighttime) flight with an aircraft that was later proven to have exactly the mechanical malfunction which she had correctly identified - namely that at least two of the primary redundant electrical systems vital for flight in an electrical contingency were completely unreliable. Only after two crews - six highly qualified and experienced pilots - refused to accept the aircraft did maintenance replace or repair the components in question. It should be abundantly obvious to everyone here that the maintenance performed could only have been necessary if the observations made by these Pilots, but dismissed by others, were valid from the beginning.
Despite this, everyone involved except for the Pilots and Flight Attendants worked vigorously to push this flight through full in the face of the absolutely accurate assessment of the Captain, who’s expertise is beyond question, that to proceed would be unsafe. That there was such a concerted and seemingly coordinated effort by these employees is clear evidence of a dangerous corporate culture that has permeated deeply into the fabric of the line operation.
The attending maintenance supervisors first attempted to convince the Captain to not enter the discrepancy into the Flight Deck Maintenance Logbook, a violation of both Company procedure and Federal Aviation Regulations. They then admitted that this issue had arisen on the same tail number on other occasions, and finally they corrected a problem that could only be corrected if it in fact did exist. Nonetheless, pilots received a message from Captain Lyle Hogg which denies that there ever was a mechanical discrepancy on that aircraft. I find that sort of denial both disturbing and unbecoming.
The agents (ramp tower, ramp supervisor, and gate) all appear to have pressured the crew in addition to apparently frustrating the efforts of the Captain to manage the situation pursuant her responsibilities.
It was 22 long days before the Company offered any explanation for why this Captain was removed by corporate security. The final story – that Airport Customer Service had her thrown out – is offensive and it underscores our concern that the corporate culture here is broken. But it also fails to explain several key questions: Why did corporate security threaten to arrest the First Officer and IRO should they attempt to participate in the conversation that took place beforehand? Why were the Flight Attendants later escorted through the crew room by corporate security? As with numerous events we are currently researching, the key components remain unexplained. The obvious and disappointing conclusion is that of a cover up.
There are a stunning number of similar examples of the Company’s attempt to bully Pilots into compromising the judgment for which they are employed - experienced judgment which every paying passenger has been promised by you, Doug. Perhaps most emblematic of this perilous approach is the letter from Mr. Steve Johnson to USAPA Safety Committee Chairman Captain Tom Kubic threatening him with termination for exercising his duty to keep our Pilots apprised of situations affecting safety, and for suggesting anything more than the very minimum procedures required.
When viewed in-total, the evidence begs the unavoidable question of how far the Company is willing to go to hammer its employees into submission, what you are willing to place at risk and if you are obtusely blind to giving any credence to the issues being raised by the very people in whom you’ve placed the ultimate trust for safety of flight on the front lines?
Robert Isom’s July 22nd letter to the employees only underscores how very broken the safety culture of this airline has become. Rather than seeking a level of understanding of the perspective of the flight crews involved, senior management’s response is to characterize their legitimate safety concerns as “defamatory and baseless.” Simply put Mr. Isom, your response is unfathomable to an airline professional like me.
Then there’s the follow up letter which shamelessly plays on the average employee’s lack of Airbus systems knowledge in an obvious and desperate attempt to confuse everyone. Citing FAA expertise, the letter casts faint blame on a depleted APU battery, which has nothing to do….none whatsoever…. with the failure of the Hot Battery Busses and the completely disabled aircraft we’ve been discussing. This sort of damage control by the Company certainly isn’t helpful. It does nothing to enhance safety. Instead, it exposes the truth about what this company’s real objectives are, and it underscores everything we’ve been saying about the deplorable Safety Culture at US Airways.
Make no mistake, USAPA will do all that is necessary to ensure the safety of our passengers and crew through all available means. As you have seen we are prepared to make our case in any venue that we deem necessary. Even though doing so may initially present problems for the Company, those problems pale in significance to the inevitable alternative as we see it.
I am, quite frankly, skeptical about the chances of a substantive response from the Company. However USAPA is wholly interested in working cooperatively should you wisely choose to do so. It is clear to me that this solution is in the very best interest of everyone involved and it is my first choice.
Should the Company wish to engage USAPA in a collaborative effort to seriously address this issue you will find us to be fully cooperative, both internally and publicly. Further, I believe that by working with us to replace today’s culture of intimidation and
disrespect, you will realize the immediate benefits that come from employing such an experienced and dedicated group of pilots."

USAPA VP Isom Letter Rebuttal

Fellow Union Brothers and Sisters,
As you are certainly aware, USAPA is engaged in an escalating confrontation with US Airways management regarding serious safety issues. This engagement has been ongoing for many months and has, unfortunately, not slowed our descent into an incredibly unstable safety environment.
Our overtures toward working collaboratively with Management have been consistently met with aloof dismissal. As the situation has deteriorated, and it has become more evident that the Company’s posture is unlikely to change, USAPA has deemed it necessary to pursue other means to address the looming safety threat.
One component of this effort is a media campaign designed to enhance public awareness. After careful consideration, the decision to shed light on Management’s careless disregard for its employees and its pursuit of profits over safety was deemed appropriate because we had exhausted every internal avenue.
Management has taken the regrettable stance that everything is political. Everything is related to negotiations. Like your organizations, USAPA is multi-faceted and provides a wide array of services to its membership. We have over 30 committees staffed with dedicated members who care. They care about their fellow pilots and the also care deeply about US Airways. Our Safety Committee is NOT involved in negotiations; their work and their oversight of our operation are critical components of ensuring that the contentious work environment – created by and fueled by Management – doesn’t cause someone to pay the ultimate price.
It’s important to note that we haven’t simply relied on our own analysis of the situation. Last year our Safety Committee asked US Airways to partner with us in a Safety Culture Survey conducted by renowned expert Dr. Terry Von Thaden. Management refused to participate and is, in fact, the only airline in history to refuse participation in one of Dr. Von Thaden’s surveys.
This isn’t the first time USAPA has been moved to make our safety concerns part of the public record. Three years ago this month we alerted the travelling public in USA Today to Management’s last big assault on our Captains’ authority when they started issuing discipline to pilots who disagreed with how much fuel was needed on Trans Atlantic flights. As always, we gave Management every opportunity to work toward a solution that respected all parties and, per their now-standard script, they refused. Faced with an unquestionable safety concern and a recalcitrant management, we went public in July, 2008, with a full-page ad in USA Today, and the Company quickly stood down.
Aviation safety is serious business. While we recognize that publicizing our concerns might be unsettling and could propagate some potential problems for the Company, it is our considered view that any incidental damage resulting from public awareness of the flawed culture here is far outweighed by our responsibility to our fellow crew members
and our passengers. Historically, this management has been unwilling of their own volition to meet their responsibilities in the same regard. We care deeply for this company, most of us having been here far longer than our top management personnel. We feel strongly that their behavior, left uncorrected, could lead to the ultimate demise of US Airways.
Our commitment to safety trumps every other concern, bar none, and our Safety Committee’s work has been invaluable in identifying several obvious deficiencies. Conversely, the Company’s feverish pursuit of profits and their use of overt intimidation have exposed them; they absolutely have placed profits and their corporate image in front of safety. While the centerpiece of our recent communications – the use of Corporate Security to remove an A330 Captain from the airport – amply proves our point, we are dealing with countless other incidents where Management has crossed the line. Among them:
- Misleading flight crews, leading them to believe that certain irregular Trans Atlantic flights had been FAA approved. Further investigation has revealed that these flights were most likely illegal and violated ETOPS regulations (rules that allow our twin-engine fleet safe, efficient access to oceanic routes.)
- Openly asking pilots to violate maintenance write-up procedures by urging them to fly aircraft with known deficiencies back to maintenance bases.
- Pressuring pilots and threatening discipline for legitimate maintenance logbook entries.
What occurred on June 16th, 2011 and the Company’s actions in the aftermath were simply unacceptable beyond all reasonable limits. While Management’s spin campaign and now their apparent cover-up of the facts surrounding the event have left us seriously disappointed, we are amused by their predictable behavior. In response to our ad, Lyle Hogg issued a message to pilots claiming “In order to set the record straight, the advertisement placed in the USA Today this morning is not correct. We have not been able to find any maintenance discrepancies with the A330 aircraft referenced in this morning's ad.” Two separate crews refused to fly this aircraft and a third crew finally flew it after several hours of maintenance were performed in response to the discrepancies entered in the logbook, yet there is no record of any discrepancies? It’s a shameful attempt to discredit these pilots who put their jobs on the line and refused to be intimidated. They deserve our thanks and respect, yet the culture at US Airways produces a very different reward. Rather than applauding them, Management has trashed their reputation in pursuit of damage control.
The inescapable truth is that the Company’s actions – no matter which version of their story you examine – unquestionably compromised safety. US Airways pilots are repeatedly trained to utilize all available resources in the pursuit of safety. We are coached on the use of “barriers” – layers of procedures and protocol to make sure that a flight doesn’t depart unless every safety consideration has been addressed. Removing
a Captain from the airport property effectively removed one of these barriers. The incoming crew had to assess the aircraft absent her briefing, and we will go on record by saying that nothing the Company has offered as an excuse for throwing her out of the airport comes close to addressing our concerns that they were “Captain Shopping” – looking for a crew who would fly the airplane without fixing it.
We’ve attached an analysis of Robert Isom’s letter to employees as further evidence that the Company has resorted to spinning the facts, pitting its employees against each other, and covering up its missteps. Should you have a desire to learn more about our position on the safety culture here at US Airways, please feel free to call on us. We stand ready to work together as a team to ensure our collective success.
Captain Randal Mowrey
VicePresident, US Airline Pilots Association
Robert Isom’s letter to employees regarding USAPA’s safety effort is an affront to common sense. At a minimum the following statements deserve to be examined:
“...USAPA has been embroiled in an intra-union seniority dispute for several years and is also working to negotiate a joint contract. Those efforts have been severely complicated and delayed by their inability to resolve the seniority dispute, and because of this dispute, USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.” ...“I can tell you unequivocally the union’s claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways.”
In point of fact there is absolutely no legal impediment regarding seniority that would preclude reaching agreement in negotiations today. The mention of delay by the Company is the height of irony because in our view it is their main tactic - they want to wear the pilots down, languishing under bankruptcy era conditions. However let’s not permit Mr. Isom to change the subject. The simple truth is that healthy labor contracts with motivated employees promote a healthy, successful, airline but an unsafe operation begs for an accident that, in this environment, would likely shut the doors forever at US Airways. We believe that such an event is inevitable if the Company does not correct course.
“... USAPA’s account is highly inaccurate and its claims about the aircraft in question were wrong – it flew that day and performed flawlessly, and has done the same ever since.”
This remark is a prime example of the caviler attitude the Company takes toward its employees and how little regard they have for your intelligence. After having been refused by another crew this aircraft received two new batteries (responsible for emergency power with loss of normal electrics). It is beyond doubtful that the Company would repair something that was not in fact broken and it is proof that the Captains’ assessments were entirely correct. Is it a coincidence that Mr. Isom chose to omit this fact from the above remark? The aircraft performed flawlessly because the Pilots did their job despite the Company’s efforts to bully them into an unsafe operation.
“The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has cited US Airways as the model for other airlines to follow with our significant investment of time and resources into the voluntary Safety Management System (SMS) program.”
The citation from the FAA is all well and good but it in no way absolves the Company from continued scrutiny. It is not an automatic clean bill of health as they seem to infer, and it is not a cover-all assessment of safety. The clear evidence to the contrary speaks for itself.
“That exemplary record is due to you – the 32,000 outstanding aviation professionals of US Airways who put safety first every day.”
The irony here is, of course, that US Airways Pilots are also included in that head count. The fact that all 32,000 employees contribute to our safety record is not in dispute, but Isom’s mention of it diverts your attention from the real problem: Management’s disrespect for Captain’s Authority. Our pilots must be allowed to perform their duties unencumbered by intimidation or by interference from other front-line employees. Management is purposely pitting employee groups against each other with one goal: intimidate the pilot group and keep the metal moving at all costs. Yes, safety is everyone’s job, but Pilots clearly have a pivotal role and Management has lost sight of this critical characteristic of our operation.
“The Captain simply chose to exercise her pilot- in-command authority of not accepting an aircraft.”
The Captain did a lot more than that. The Captain stood up to repetitive, intimidating questions concerning her refusal to fly the aircraft in its obvious state of disrepair. She also endured two unnecessary and insulting explanations of ETOPS procedures from supervisory personnel. She was then removed from the airport without explanation and was hence not allowed to brief the incoming crew. We find the Company’s story – which took 22 days to concoct – that she was removed from the airport because of customer service concerns to be highly suspicious. And in every account of these events they omit the fact that the next crew also refused to fly the broken airplane.
“Our information indicates that US Airways followed their approved MEL procedures, and all maintenance procedures were followed in accordance with the operator’s approved maintenance program. We found no violations of Federal Aviation Regulations.”
The Company has the Pilots to thank for this, and we note that no statement of thanks has yet been offered. Had the Pilots not stood their ground the FAA’s assessment would be entirely different were they to be given the facts. The only reason there was no FAR violation with the FDML was because the Captain entered the observed discrepancies in the logbook, exactly as she was supposed to do. In this instance as in so many others, the Pilots protected the Company from itself, and that is exactly what USAPA is trying to do through this effort.

 

[UPNAWAY]

This is the third text this week I've received this week on these incidents. WHAT is going on?

Work slowdown, just like at CAL.

 

[toganoflex]

Do you KNOW what happened? Were you there? Do you have a A330 type rating? If you can answer yes to all these questions, fill us in on what really happened. I'd really like to know.

WHACK!

The investigation has determined she lacked systems knowledge. The batteries were pulled and tested. All related systems were checked and passed.

The mechanics found nothing wrong.

She f'ed up and added to it when she didn't shut the f up.

 

[toganoflex]

Congrats USAPA for alienating to IAM.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Work slowdown, just like at CAL.

I don't think so. This time at least Customers were also overcome. The AFA E-line has some pretty sobering numbers. you should check it out. Additionally AFA has been gathering this info for nearly 3 years IIRC, so that kind of shoots the theory in the foot.

Near as I can tell and I'm not privy to everything, AFA is geared up for CHAOS should the need arise. I don't see the East doing the work slowdown thing. I could be wrong.

 

[Pi brat]

Work slowdown, just like at CAL.

There is no way you can know that and to claim that someone is not truly harmed when you DO NOT KNOW is pretty low life. Let's fire up a crock pot with turbine oil in your office and see how you feel after a while. I mean, Mr Isom said there is no proof it is harmful, so you shouldn't mind, right?

 

[Phoenix]

I don't think so. This time at least Customers were also overcome. The AFA E-line has some pretty sobering numbers. you should check it out. Additionally AFA has been gathering this info for nearly 3 years IIRC, so that kind of shoots the theory in the foot.

Near as I can tell and I'm not privy to everything, AFA is geared up for CHAOS should the need arise. I don't see the East doing the work slowdown thing. I could be wrong.

<sarcasm> Oh, customers went to the hospital too? Just looking for an easy lawsuit. <sarcasm>

Is A/C Packs maintenance outsourced to a third world company? If not, there are savings still to be had!!

 

[crazystnic]

The investigation has determined she lacked systems knowledge. The batteries were pulled and tested. All related systems were checked and passed.

The mechanics found nothing wrong.

She f'ed up and added to it when she didn't shut the f up.

there you go , blame your fellow pilot
If she was a west pilot would you blame her?... since you really don't know what happened... and were not there.. why don't you shut the f up

 

[toganoflex]

there you go , blame your fellow pilot
If she was a west pilot would you blame her?... since you really don't know what happened... and were not there.. why don't you shut the f up

Most of what I posted came from an east pilot that knew her (obviously not in a good way).

The testing info came in the form of a letter from Isom.

So, back at you jackass.

 

[Phoenix]

Most of what I posted came from an east pilot that knew her (obviously not in a good way).

The testing info came in the form of a letter from Isom.

So, back at you jackass.

Dude if you shake your pom poms any harder you are likely to find all the little filly strings have come off. Pace yourself, Bro.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

Most of what I posted came from an east pilot that knew her (obviously not in a good way).

The testing info came in the form of a letter from Isom.

So, back at you jackass.

I have flown with her and find that her concern for passenger safety trumps most any pilot. Your inability to read what Mr. Isom is really saying speaks to your immaturity and naiveté, items that will be honed with actual experience and time in the cockpit, something many in the west seem to lack and may not get because it actually takes years.

Testing info? What the heck is that? Please, mr. rocket scientist, help us out here.