# Fa~ECEIVED 1 WILLIAM V. O'CONNOR, JR. (CA SBN 216650) WOConnor@mofo.com 

## AUG -9 2013 HEARING DOCKET 2 MORRISON & 

### FOERSTER LLP 

### 12531 High BluffDrive 3 San Diego, California 92130-2040 Telephone: 858.720.5100 4 Facsimile: 858.720.5125 5 Attorneys for Alaska Airlines Inc. 6 7 8 9 

### 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

11 In the Matter of: FAA Case No. 2011NM020013 12 Alaska Airlines Inc. 

### DECLARATION OFJIM WINKELMANIN SUPPORT OF ALASKA AIRLINES INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE THE AUGUST 20, 2013 HEARING DATE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 '25

26 

### 27 28 I, Jim Winkelman, state: 1. I am the Director ofFlight Operations and Compliance and Quality Management at Alaska Airlines. I have personal knowledge ofthe facts set forth below. Ifcalled upon to testify, I could and would testify as to the matters set forth herein. 2. On February 25, 2013, I received a visit from FAA Aviation Inspector Joel Wade. At the time ofthe incident which is the subject ofthis enforcement action, Inspector Wade was the Assistant Principal Operations Inspector at the Alaska Certificate Management Office ("CMO"). The best ofmy knowledge, Inspector Wade, as the Assistant POI, was second-incommand at the CMO. 3. During this visit, Inspector Wade showed me a copy ofthe Enforcement Investigation Report ("EIR") Checklistrelated to the present enforcement action against Alaska Airlines. The EIR Checklist reflected that Inspector Wade had, as the Assistant POI at the time,

Dec! ation ofWinkelman ISO ofMotion to Compel I (No. IINM020013) sd-6231531 been the "reviewer"assigned to this case file. This EIR Checklistincluded the "comments" 2 section, which reflected that "WitnessElgee['s] credibility [was] in question" and that there was 3 "no conclusive evidence to supportthe alleged violation." TheEIR Checklist that Inspector Wade 4 showed me during this meeting was e-mailed byInspector Wade shortly after the meeting. A true 5 and correct copy ofthis EIR Checklistis attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6 

### 4. InspectorWade also showed me other investigation-related documents during this 7 meeting. These documents were also e-mailedto me shortly afterthe meeting. 

### 8 

### 5. During this visit, Inspector Wade explained that he did notthink enforcement of 9 this action was proper and that he-as AssistantPOI and the EIR reviewer-recommendedthe 10 FAA notpursuethe matterbecause ofquestions about the passenger witness's credibility and the 11 lack ofconclusive evidence to supportthe civil penalty. Inspector Wade explained thathe had 12 several reasons to questionthepassenger's credibility, including the passenger's failure to alert 13 the flight crew ofthe alleged frost before takeoff. 14 

### 6. InspectorWade also explained that, afterhe recommended against enforcement, 15 the file was sentto a differentreviewer (for Wlknown reasons). 16 

### 7. InearlyJanuary, before mymeeting with Inspector Wade but afterthe Notice of 17 Civil Penalty was filed inthis case, I received a voicemail message from Inspector Wade. In this 18 voicemail, Inspector Wade expressedthat he thoughtthe case was "totally bogus," and that he 19 had rejected enforcement "as not beingvalid." 20 

### 8. I declare underpenalty ofperjury underthe laws ofthe United States ofAmerica 21 thatthe foregoing is rue and correct andthatthis declaration was executed in 22 on this

# _b_th day ofAugust 2013. 23 

### 24 25 

### 26 27 

### 28 By:

Decl ation ofWinkleman ISO ofMotion to Compel 2 (No. llNM020013) sd-623153'· 

## ..



# EXHIBIT A

### r-· 

## .. 

# 0 AVS QPM# Revision 

# Quality Management System AFS ANM-200-010 F1 2 Title: AFS ANM-200-010 F1 EIR REVIEW CHECKLIST Effective Date: October 24, 2008 Page 1 of3 If a problem is identified in any area, enter a comment in the corresponding comment block on page 3, identifying the checklist question number in the text of the comment. I EIR Number: 2011 NM020013 Reporting ASI: Meisberger 

# IRespondent's Name: Alaska Airlines Reviewer's Name: Wade 

## I Review Date: March 23, 2011 Yes No

Administrative EIR's, require Checklist Section A only. Is this an Administrative EIR? 

## D [Zi**~o. _;.._~~**  

### FA_A.**Fo~** 

### 2150-5**Requirement~: E~R**  

### Section A, 

### (Chpt 8,**paragra~~-~ _:~e--~_!~~-**  1. If applicable, ts Related EIR number tdenttfied? N/A 

# 0 [gj 

# 0 2. Blocks 1-7 complete? (Address should match the information from airman/aircraft 

### [:8J 

# D registry, if applicable.) 3. 

# I Blocks 8-12 (aircraft) complete? (If an aircraft was involved then these blocks should 

### [ZJ 1 

## D be completed.) i

4a.

5. 

### 6. 6a. 6b. 6c. 

### 7. 8 8a. 8b. 8c. 9. 10. 11. 12. 12a.



## -- 1. 2. Blocks 13-14, Date and Time consistent with "local" time?**~** 

## 0 I Based on the Date Occurred (13)"does the case fall within stale complaint deadlines? Is block 15, "Date Known to (anyone) in FAA", accurate? Block 18; are the "Regulations Believed Violated" cited? Does each regulation cited, correlate with the apparent violation? Is each regulation cited, an enforceable regulation? Have all applicable regulations been cited? Blocks (19-23), are the two-digit codes selected for "Type", "Sub-type", "Category", "Source" and "Accident Associated" consistent with Order 2150.38 (Appendix G)? Is the Investigating Field Office Recommendation for:**~** 

## [J

Block (25) 'Type Action" appropriate? (Admin, CP, Suspension, No Action) 

# 0**~** Block (26) "Sanction", appropriate? (blank if "no action"; warning notice or letter of

### ~**flu~** correction ifAdmin action, or if CP or certificate action specify dollars or days

Does this EIR meet the conditions ofa Significant Enforcement Case ? 

## 0**~** If yes, was this case assessed in accordance with AFS ANM-200-003? N/A**~** 

# 0 0 ' (B) EIR 

### Section

### B, Statement of Case and Factors Affecting Sanction

.. -

### -~~iY~s No

Does Section 

### 8 contain a statement of the origin or basis for the investigation? 

## j[gl 1 

## D Does Section B contain a concise statement of the facts and regulatory and statutory 

### [g] 

## D

· violations to include a discussion of how the facts establish the violation{s)?

Is the Statement of Case and Factors Affecting Sanction format presented 1----l--'-c_hr__.o_n_o_logically, addressing each element of the cited regulations? 

# I . Is the Statement of Case and Factors Affecting Sanction format presented in an f--- .• orderly and logical manner to address; who, when, where, why and how? 

### 3. 

## IZl D 3a. 3. 

### I 0**IV10~** Does each reference for an Item of Proof (I P) appear directly after the statement it l6J !---+-'-supports? ----· ···--

### "~"+-r==;-J 4. Are each ofthe cited regulations addressed in Section B?**~** 

## D
TTNC:ONTROT .T .F.n C:OPY WHF.NDOWNT.OADF.n

## AVS QPM# Revision 

## Quality Management System AFS ANM-200-010 F1 2 Title: AFS ANM-200..010 F1 EIR REVIEW CHECKLIST Effective Date: October 24, 2008 Page 2 of3

r--· . 

### - -**AG~Ye** 5. Are each ofthe following Factors Affecting Sanction analyzed with regard to MIT / their relevance and/or applicability? (ref 2150.38 Chpt 7, Para 4 and Chpt 8, Para 3b)

# I

I 

### Sa. 

## I Nature ofthe violation. (Operational, Non-Operational, Careless, Reckless, etc.)

### ~ 

## ID 10 5b. 1 Whether the violation was inadvertent and not deliberate? 

### 12?] 

## ID 10 5c. Certificate holder's level of experience? 

### [ I 

## LR1 

## "'lJ 5d. Attitude of the violator? 

## D [gJ 

## 10 5e.**~ree** of hazard? "How**safet~** was affected"

. .

# ~-~=pa Sf. j Action{s} taken-by violator, employer or other authority? 

# +o- 1

# fZl 

# 'o 5g. l Use ofthe certificate? 5h. 1Violation**histor~? {Summar~)**  

# n __ ._· i

_____

.. 

# I 5t. 

### I Dec1s1onal law? (Determined by legal) 

# I**Abilit~** to absorb sanction? - 

### - 

# D D

# ~~B I Sj. 

### Sk. Consistency of sanction? (RFSD) 

# 'D 

# lo 51. Whether the violation was reported voluntarily? 

## 0 0 (;g1 

## 0 5m. Corrective Action? 

## 0 10 [ZJ 

# D

6. Does Section B include the following under Factors Affecting Sanction? MIT AGGYes; No 6a. I Evaluation of the reliability ofthe evidence (lOP's)? 

## D 

# 10 

# !l2l

# -o6b. I Discussion of any conflicting evidence? 

# D ID lZJD 6c. An<?l:t:sis of the aeearent violator's exelanation, if erovided? 

## jD**~~** 

# IO'D 6d. Discussion of any other mitigating, extenuatii'!9_Er aggravating_factors? 

### rz;J 

## D 

# ottr 6d(1 ). 1Consideration of aggravating factors for U_nruly Passengers? N/A

### ~ 

# u41=o D 

# d- : (ref 2150.38 chpt 7, paragraph 12 (b) (1-7) 6d(2). Consideration of mitigating factors for Unruly Passengers? N/A 

### IZ;1 

# ,o D 

## 0 D (ref2150.38 chpt 7, paragrapl112 (c) i 6e. Opinions, if applicable? 

## .D 

## 0**~** 

# Q_ 6f. A stated conclusion? D 

## 10 

## 0**~** I 6g. A recommendation about sanction? 

## D D [;gilD**~** 6h. Justification for enforcement action and sanction recommendations? 

## D 

## 0 r:gjD 7. Enforcement Decision Tool (EDT) Yes· No ?a. Is the EDT included in Section B? 

### IX) 

## [ J ?b. Is the EDT Acceptable? 

# D**~** 8. j Regional Program Office Sanction Recommendation, as applicable? 

## 0**~** '--- i 

### (C) EIR Section

## c, Items**~f** 

### Pro2!_

__**;Ye~** No 1. Is each lOP**clear!~** identified?

### ~~ 

# o2. Are the lOP's in a logical sequence?

# '~ D 3.

. If ehotos are included are they exelained?

### ~ 

## 0 4. If documents are they legible I understandable I relevant?

### ~ 

## l 

## J 5. Is there at least one lOP to support every element of each regulation cited in sections A 

### [gj D and B? 6. Is each "Fact" in Section B supported by an lOP?

### ~

# liT 7. 

## i Does each "Fact" represent the applicable lOP at face value (i.e. accept the lOP as true 

# i regardless of our own opinions)?

### ~ 

## 0 8. Are**~II** appropriate lOP's**includ~d** in the Section B**pr~ser1tation** of Facts?

### ~ 

## 0

·- I : TTNr.ONTROT .T.F.n r.OPY WT-TF.N DOWNT.OADRD**··~;** 

# AVS QPM# Revision

## ~((~3t: ..**~.: A'··~**  1**·~**

# .,... 

# Quality Management System**~v** AFS ANM-200-010 F1 2 Title: AFS ANM-200-010 F1 EIR REVIEW CHECKLIST Effective Date: October 24, 2008 Page 3 of3



### Item Comments Section "A" 8a There is no conclusive evidence to support the alleged violation. 8b See 8a

Item Comments Section "B" 6a Witness Elgee credibility is in question. 6a Witness Elgee acted contrary to logic and sacrificed believability by not notifying flight crew prior to takeoff. ' 

### 7b )It 

### is this reviewer's opinion that blocks 7 & 

### 8 in Step Two of the EDP are unchecked due to reasons external and irrelevant to this investigation.

_ 

# I I I 

# I 

# _j r-:--;::- :::--- 

## -**~---** 

# I _...;**~** (.' .. I • 0 I ftc-:lo I 

# ,-f

·-------- 

# _[§**~** n-

### -·--·~----- --**r~ ~-~--~----**  Co:nments 'Enforcemem Oeciston 1oo! 

# I I

TJNC:ONTROT.T .Rn C:OPY WHRNnoWNT.OAnRn

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 The undersigned certifies under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of 3 California that on this date I caused to be served in the matter indicated a copy ofthe within and 

### 4 foregoing document upon the following persons: 5 6 

### 7 

### 8 9 

### 10 11 

### 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 

### 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Federal Aviation Administration Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC**~** 

### 430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591

Robert Spitzer Robert.Spitzer(a),faa.gov FAA Office ofRegional Counsel 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Renton, W

### A 98057

Dated: August 9, 2013

Ccrlil. •ate o(Service (No.1 IINM020013) 

### ViaNationwide Legal, Inc.

Via E-Mail