This is another quote from the letter noted in the 8-20-06 quote:
I contacted the MIDO this morning. I asked them if any of the items in my report were still under investigation. They said no. I asked them if any other agencies had been contacted about any of the items in my report. They said no. All was over except the C/Aing, it seems. What I had specifically requested not to happen both in my report and in my contacts with the MIDO had happened. The root cause of virtually all of the items in my report was not addressed in the investigation at all—the corrupt QA Management in place at BCAG. The vast majority of the most serious items in my report had also been ignored in the investigation—the ones involving personnel misconduct in violation of our procedures and FAA regulations, rules, and orders. What I had learned about the status of the investigation confirmed what I had suspected by contacts with former coworkers at PSD—that my evidence of corruption in the QA Management ranks had never been investigated. No one was interviewed about anything of the sort, and no one was even interviewed under oath about the limited matters from my report they chose to investigate. The investigation had confirmed what my colleagues at PSD had always told me when we spoke of going to the FAA—that it was pointless as "the FAA was in bed with Boeing" and any investigation would intentionally go nowhere. I had chosen not to believe them, disregarding what I thought was their likely correctness on the matter, and I decided to "take a chance," knowing that the urgency of taking action to stop the corruption forthwith outweighed by far such opinions of the FAA’s objectivity in the past, given the gravity of corruption at BCAG and that corruption’s much more likely harmful effect on many people’s lives and livelihoods. In the end, unfortunately, I had proven my colleagues correct, and I can now add my voice legitimately to those others in the past that have opined on the subject after attempting to get the FAA to do their job in the public interest before people died:
"The question right now is how broad is it (the investigation) going to be," said one federal criminal-justice source. "Is FAA in bed with Alaska?" ("U.S. Looks Into FAA's Alaska Air Oversight," article, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER, Thursday, April 13, 2000). (By the way, I do not agree with (name) opinion in the article that the FAA’s laxness in doing their jobs reflects "the good-old-boy network" in aviation. I believe there are much more insidious reasons than that behind it. Getting to the bottom of that problem is a matter for a long overdue Congressional investigation, I believe. You could say Eighty-eight people died on Alaska flight 261 because of that "problem" ("problem" is putting it mildly), and 3000 people died on September 11th partially because of the FAA’s "lax oversight." However, I believe if only a "good-old-boy network" was responsible for the lax oversight that contributed to all of those deaths (and many others not mentioned), that mere "social club" network would have long since disbanded in favor of saving innocent lives by forgoing the "lavish poker parties," "reciprocal backscratching," and exchanging of favorite books between heads of corporations and the head of the FAA (as occurred between (former Boeing CEO) and Administrator (name), I believe). I believe such a "network," if one exists, probably much more resembles that one depicted in the "Sopranos"—it would have to be one corrupt enough to ignore the sanctity of all of those innocent lives.
"Back to the question – did FAA ever look the other way on security problems, because the airlines wanted you to?" ("FAA Answers Whistleblowers' Charges," a very interesting article, interview with FAA official, WorldNetDaily.com)
‘One veteran FAA inspector told the magazine: "The airlines won't admit they have a bogus-parts problem. The FAA's top brass is in bed with the airlines, so they won't admit it either. The flying public is getting screwed,"’ ("CRASH COURSE," article, www.eye.net)
And the now "infamous" (name) (depending upon how you see his role—I for one (I’m biased towards his high ethics, I know), consider him more a "hero" than the other myopic view that seems to brand him as a "troublemaker" for the status quo operandi that were in place at (airline name) when it appears things went horribly wrong) also said a similar comment to the above, lamenting that the FAA was not doing their jobs for ulterior reasons. I could not find that quote again in a limited web search this morning. And/or perhaps it was (name) that that quote was from (I have no time to do the research to pin down the exact quote from my memory).
The three articles quoted are only from the first couple pages of a Google web search on the subject of some 1900 results.
As long as we are on the subject of the (name) investigation, I think I should state that I think my situation and his are very similar. We both went to the FAA after getting nowhere going through the "official" Company channels. I suggested an ethics investigation of one of my supervisors to an ethics focal. No investigation was begun. I talked to (name), a former QA Director of mine about the same supervisor’s ethical lapses. The supervisor was promoted. I was "promised" meetings with (name), my last QA Director at PSD, in which I would have surely brought up my concerns. No such meetings ever were scheduled. I made my experiences and feelings known in writings in response to Company surveys. And countless other times in crew meetings and in other meetings, I spoke of my concerns to QA Supervision and others. All to no avail. We both were laboring in organizations in which cost and schedules overrode quality and safety concerns, from what I have read about his situation, and from what I have witnessed in mine. Our similar investigations were quashed despite overwhelming evidence. (Name’s) report’s investigation only was performed thoroughly after people died. I guess my report’s investigation is being held similarly until people also die because of the corruption I have detailed in the report. However, I believe the corruption in my report is even more serious and can have much more horrific consequences than that at (airline) did. Our corrupt Quality System inspects (or more accurately, does not inspect) many more airplanes than (airlines’) did. And it is not the signature of one supervisor on one piece of paper that is at issue as in (Name’s) report. It is hundreds of personnel and untold thousands of "pieces of paper" signed off incorrectly in my report. But I digress…
I was hoping that all I would have to do was to submit my report to the FAA, and they would do the rest ethically, thoroughly, and with integrity. I was hoping they were the "one stop shopping place" that 14CFR13 seems to indicate, and would coordinate with the FBI and Justice Department as necessary during their investigation, making my further involvement with rectifying the corruption in the Quality System at BCAG unnecessary. However, I was horribly mistaken, it seems. Due to the apparent failure of the FAA to fully investigate the items in my report. It appears the ball is now back in my court. I am now at a crossroads. Quitting my "crusade" is not an option for me. I decided after that meeting on 1/11 that I must do something, no matter how long or hard the journey to rectify the situation. I had planned for the eventuality of all the "pundits" being right about the FAA’s lack of objectivity, but I am losing my stomach for what lays ahead. That is why I write to you now, in order to avoid "carrying this torch" down that dangerous path, hoping to pass that "torch" onto Boeing senior management. I knew, if an honest investigation of my report had been performed by the FAA, some damage may occur to the Company publicly. However, I knew then, as I know now, that lives and the Company’s long term future outweighed the short term publicity. However, I wanted to propose a solution at this time that may avoid such publicity, due to the vulnerable time’s our Company is in currently. My intention has always been to do what was best for public safety and what was best for the Company, believe it or not. I did not think the corruption in our QA department was what was best for public safety or the Company, for reasons that are contained in my report.
The Last Inspector