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 Bluff Drive 

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 OF JIM 

WINKELMAN IN 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 of Flight Operations and Compliance and Quality Management 

at Alaska Airlines. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below. If called 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 of this enforcement action, Inspector Wade was 

the Assistant Principal Operations Inspector at the Alaska Certificate Management Office 

("CMO"). The best of my knowledge, Inspector Wade, as the Assistant POI, was second-incommand at the CMO. 

3. During this visit, Inspector Wade showed me a copy of the Enforcement 

Investigation Report ("EIR") Checklist related 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 of Winkelman ISO of Motion to Compel I 

(No. IINM020013) 

sd-623153 
1 been the "reviewer" assigned to this case file. This EIR Checklist included the "comments" 

2 section, which reflected that "Witness Elgee['s] credibility [was] in question" and that there was 

3 "no conclusive evidence to support the alleged violation." The EIR Checklist that Inspector Wade 

4 showed me during this meeting was e-mailed by Inspector Wade shortly after the meeting. A true 

5 and correct copy of this EIR Checklist is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

6 4. Inspector Wade also showed me other investigation-related documents during this 

7 meeting. These documents were also e-mailed to me shortly after the meeting. 

8 5. During this visit, Inspector Wade explained that he did not think enforcement of 

9 this action was proper and that he-as Assistant POI and the EIR reviewer-recommended the 

10 FAA not pursue the matter because of questions about the passenger witness's credibility and the 

11 lack of conclusive evidence to support the civil penalty. Inspector Wade explained that he had 

12 several reasons to question the passenger's credibility, including the passenger's failure to alert 

13 the flight crew of the alleged frost before takeoff. 

14 6. Inspector Wade also explained that, after he recommended against enforcement, 

15 the file was sent to a different reviewer (for Wlknown reasons). 

16 7. In early January, before my meeting with Inspector Wade but after the Notice of 

17 Civil Penalty was filed in this case, I received a voicemail message from Inspector Wade. In this 

18 voicemail, Inspector Wade expressed that he thought the case was "totally bogus," and that he 

19 had rejected enforcement "as not being valid." 

20 8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 

21 that the foregoing is rue and correct and that this declaration was executed in 

22 on this _b_th day of August 2013. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

By: 

Decl ation of Winkleman 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 AS I: Meisberger I Respondent'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 if Admin action, or if CP or certificate action specify dollars or days 

Does this EIR meet the conditions of a 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 Does each reference for an Item of Proof (I 0 P) appear directly after the statement it l6J IV10~ 

!---+-'-supports? ----· ···-- "~"+-r==;-J 4. Are each of the cited regulations addressed in Section B? ~ D 

TTNC:ONTROT .T .F.n C:OPY WHF.N DOWNT .OA DF.n 
AVS QPM# Revision 

Quality Management System AFS ANM-200-01 0 F1 2 

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

r--· . - -

5. Are each of the following Factors Affecting Sanction analyzed with regard to MIT AG~Ye 

/ their relevance and/or applicability? (ref 2150.38 Chpt 7, Para 4 and Chpt 8, Para 3b) I I 

Sa. I Nature of the 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" . . 

Sf. j Action{s} taken-by violator, employer or other authority? ~-~=pa +o- 1

5g. l Use of the certificate? fZl 'o 

5h. 1 Violation 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 of the 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 ). 1 Consideration 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 

(ref 2150.38 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 .OA DRD 
··~; 

AVS QPM# Revision 

~((~3t: .. ~.: A'··~ 1 

·~ ., ... ~v Quality Management System AFS ANM-200-010 F1 2 

Title: AFS ANM-200-01 0 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 1 oo! 

I I 

TJNC:ONTROT .T .Rn C:OPY WHRN noWNT .OAnRn 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

2 The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 

3 California that on this date I caused to be served in the matter indicated a copy of the 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 2W1 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Robert Spitzer 

Robert.Spitzer(a),faa.gov 

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

Dated: August 9, 2013 

Ccrlil. •ate o( Service 

(No.1 IINM020013) 

Via Nationwide Legal, Inc. 

Via E-Mail