Alaska Airlines Facility Probed

During the past 15 months, the Alaska Airlines facility where heavy maintenance was performed on all of the airline’s MD-80s has been targeted by two federal investigations into accusations that mechanics falsified safety inspection records and allowed two airplanes to fly in “unairworthy” condition.

The facility, at Oakland International Airport, has also been shaken by labor turmoil that climaxed with the ouster of the local mechanics union president after he became a federal whistle-blower. The tumult has included a lawsuit by Alaska alleging that a work slowdown forced flights to be canceled, and charges by the union that staff and equipment shortages hurt the quality of maintenance.

The probes by a criminal grand jury in San Francisco and the Federal Aviation Administration involve work done on at least two MD-80 series aircraft, but not on the Alaska jet that crashed Monday in the Pacific Ocean off Ventura. That airplane, an MD-83, underwent its last major servicing at Oakland in January 1999.

There is no indication that maintenance troubles contributed to the accident that killed all 88 people aboard. The cause of the crash is under study by the National Transportation Safety Board.

The grand jury investigation in San Francisco began after FAA inspectors uncovered evidence that mechanics had falsified records and failed to complete required maintenance. As part of the criminal inquiry, armed federal agents raided the maintenance hangar in Oakland and seized documents and control of computers.

In one instance, FAA records show a mechanic certified that a plane had been ground-tested even though the engines were never fired up and the mechanic was not qualified to start the plane.

In another instance, a supervisor is alleged to have signed off on a throttle repair that was not done.

Alaska officials defended their maintenance program and denied that there has been any impropriety at the Oakland hangar or the airline’s other repair facility in Seattle. “We do not believe there was any falsification of records,” said Alaska Airlines spokesman Jack Evans in Seattle.

The airline also disputes the FAA’s conclusion that two aircraft thereafter were in “unairworthy” condition when flown a combined 844 times in late 1998 and early 1999.

“We believe we have the best and safest maintenance in the industry,” Evans said.

A Cornerstone of Safety Efforts

Enforcement of airline maintenance programs is a cornerstone of the federal government’s efforts to ensure flight safety.

In the last two decades, records show, the FAA has taken about 70 enforcement actions against Alaska Airlines, ranging from warning letters to substantial fines for violations of maintenance regulations. The number of actions doubled in the last 10 years.

Using FAA data for the 10 largest carriers, The Times found that Alaska--the 10th biggest--had the lowest number of fines for maintenance violations during the 20-year period. The airline ranked ninth in the total amount of fines paid and sixth in the average amount of fine.

The FAA declined to compare Alaska’s maintenance record to those of other airlines, but one official said the increase in enforcement actions against Alaska may be attributable to the company’s expansion during the period.

Since 1980, records show, the airline has received 16 fines totaling $323,288 for maintenance-related violations. Most were under $5,000 but in 1998 Alaska paid a $125,000 fine for what airline officials described as operating an MD-80 without one of its required fuel tanks. Evans said the airline believed that the tank could be disabled because the plane had been converted from long-range to medium-range service.

In a 1992 incident, the airline paid a $45,000 fine that Evans said resulted from the FAA’s discovery that an exit sign was missing from a remodeled airplane cabin.

Private aviation experts say many variables enter into the frequency of maintenance violations, including the quality of FAA oversight.

“Just because there have been enforcement actions it does not necessarily follow that an airline is a bad airline,” said Robert Wagstaff, an Anchorage, Alaska, attorney who specializes in aviation litigation and has been a pilot for 33 years.

Ira Furman, a Long Island attorney and a former deputy director of the NTSB, said that comparing airline maintenance records is virtually impossible because the carriers vary in number of planes, miles flown and regions served.

“FAA inspections in different geographical areas have been more lax than in other places, historically speaking,” he added.

Mechanic’s Call Launches Probe

The Oakland investigation was born Oct. 6, 1998, while an FAA inspector was making a routine check at Alaska’s hangar, the agency’s records show. A supervising mechanic approached and asked if the inspector had received any phone calls.

Returning to his office later that day, the inspector found a voice mail message waiting for him: “Alaska Airlines was pencil wiping task cards.”

In the aviation community, that means maintenance records were being filled out although the work actually was not performed.

The inspector figured out that the caller was the Alaska mechanic. His name was John Liotine, and he was president of the local mechanics union.

Later that day they met “in a discreet place,” and the investigation was underway.

FAA records show that Liotine met at the Alaska Airlines maintenance facility and at Mechanics Union Hall in Oakland with the investigator and produced documentation regarding alleged falsification of records.

By December 1998, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General was involved--and Liotine had provided a signed statement about what he witnessed. “My utmost concern is for the safety of those who trust themselves and their families, myself included, to Alaska Airlines,” he wrote.

“A significant driving force in this endeavor has been the downward trend among the ranks of maintenance personnel and the management team with respect to actual work experience in the performance of the duties entrusted them.”

Based on its investigation, FAA staff last February recommended an $8.72-million fine for violations at the Oakland hangar. The proposed fine was reduced to $44,000 after a review by FAA officials determined that the problems were not systemic and higher-ups at Alaska were not involved. The FAA also proposed the revocation of the licenses of three mechanics.

The airline regulators referred the Alaska case to the Justice Department for criminal action. Alaska challenged the proposed $44,000 fine, and the FAA’s own investigation was put on hold pending the outcome of the criminal probe.

A few days before Christmas of 1998, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Transportation had raided Alaska’s facilities in Seattle and Oakland and seized records involving three jetliners. Details of the search remain under seal.

Last February, three Alaska Airlines officials had a tense meeting in Oakland with an assistant U.S. attorney, an FBI agent and an FAA inspector.

Alaska officials tried to find out if the investigations involved more than the three specific MD-80 series planes for which the company received subpoenas, according to an FAA report.

The answer they got was: “At this time, those are the ones we are reporting on, but that’s not to say other aircraft are not involved.”

3 Jetliners Focus of Allegations

The allegations by Liotine centered on maintenance of three of Alaska’s 35 MD-80s, according to FAA documents obtained by The Times under the Freedom of Information Act.

After investigating, the FAA alleged that records were falsified to show that work had been done although it had not. No mishaps involving the planes were reported, and there were no allegations of shoddy work.

According to the FAA investigator, Liotine told him that when the inspections fell behind schedule, “management and supervisors alike were telling the relatively new . . . mechanics to perform certain inspection task cards out of sequence to save overall total inspection time.”

Alaska disputes the accusation.

One incident involved the alleged failure to conduct a series of ground checks for quality control called a “Post Maintenance Final Run Checklist.”

Instead of performing this task the mechanic sat at a desk in the hangar and filled out the form, Liotine said, adding that the worker was not qualified to run the airplane as required to complete the checks.

The mechanic, Liotine wrote, “neither performed the work signed for, nor was the aircraft ready for this [checking] to be performed.”

Liotine said he later had the plane towed out to the ramp and ordered the work done by men on his crew. He said that the plane passed all the items on the checklist but that two additional problems were found and corrected.

Investigators verified Liotine’s account by examining airport records that indicated the plane had not been moved, nor the engines run at the time of the maintenance check.

During servicing for another MD-80, a problem with engine throttle synchronization was discovered, Liotine said. Documents show Liotine alleged that a supervisor proceeded to “sign off” the records without performing “any sort of corrective action.”

The plane was slated to fly to Phoenix but that plan was canceled and the problem was fixed, Liotine said.

Details about the third plane were not available.

In letters to the FAA, attorneys for three mechanics involved in the allegations said their clients had done nothing improper. Alaska officials said the mechanics are continuing to do the same jobs.

The federal grand jury in San Francisco has been taking testimony and collecting records over the past year. FBI and Transportation Department officials declined to acknowledge the existence of a grand jury case but confirmed that their agencies have been investigating allegations regarding the maintenance records of Alaska Airlines.

Liotine was among the grand jury witnesses, according to a knowledgeable source who said the mechanic appeared three times.

Liotine was removed as head of his local of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Assn. and has been placed on paid administrative leave by Alaska during the investigations. The company barred him from the hangar to avoid “disruption in the workplace.”

Reached at home by phone last week, he expressed his condolences to the families and friends of the crash victims. “I have grief,” he said. “It is a very sad time for me.

“I don’t have any speculation as to why [the crash occurred],” Liotine said. “It is not fair to make any correlation between [the ongoing investigations] and what happened with this airplane. . . .

“I only wish it never happened. It is a tragedy to see one of our airplanes broken up and spread over the ocean.”

Maintenance issues have figured in union disputes at the airline, including the removal of Liotine from his local union presidency.

Alaska mechanics voted to replace the International Assn. of Machinists with the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Assn. two years ago. The vote was followed by lengthy and bitter contract negotiations.

In early May 1999, Alaska Airlines sued the aircraft mechanics association, alleging that it was engaged in an illegal work slowdown. The union denied the accusation and said “deficiencies” in the maintenance program were exacerbated by a shortage of experienced mechanics and aircraft parts, combined with an increase in the number of hours that Alaska planes were flying each day. The lawsuit was dropped when union members ratified a new contract in late May.

After a union hearing, Liotine was recalled from office by the members July 21. In an Aug. 30 letter to his national union’s director, he alleged that his ouster was “in retaliation for my identifying serious . . . violations to the FAA” and he said his local was a “tool of management.”

Alaska officials said the union is independent. The labor organization’s national director, O.V. Delle-Femine, did not return phone calls.

Mark Dahl, a mechanic and president of the union’s Local 34 in Anchorage, said Liotine’s removal was not related to his complaints but declined to elaborate.

“Everybody has friends and acquaintances who were involved in this accident,” said Dahl. “It’s just not a good time to be asking questions or pointing fingers.”

*

Times staff writers Nancy Cleeland and Sylvia Pagan Westphal in Los Angeles, Nicholas Riccardi in Seattle, and Ricardo Alonzo-Zaldivar and Lisa Getter in Washington contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Maintenance Probe at Alaska

The federal investigation into alleged falsification of maintenance records at Alaska Airlines began with an anonymous call to the Federal Aviation Administration in Oakland. (See below) The caller turned out to be John Liotine, a mechanic and president of the union local.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Fines for Maintenance Violations

Alaska Airlines ranks last among the 10 largest airlines in the number of fines for maintenance violations since 1980. It ranks ninth in the total amount of fines paid, and sixth in average fine amount. The airlines are listed in descending order of passengers carried in 1997.

*--*

Number Total Average Airline of fines amount fined fine Delta Air Lines 37 $3,343,250 $90,358 United Airlines 17 $872,500 $51,324 American Airlines 79 $2,779,869 $35,188 US Airways 66 $2,593,750 $39,229 Southwest Airlines 22 $426,000 $19,364 Northwest Airlines 39 $1,015,050 $26,027 Continental Airlines 40 $448,386 $11,210 TransWorld Airlines 76 $1,056,600 $13,903 America West Airlines 20 $304,200 $15,210 Alaska Airlines 16 $323,288 $20,206

*--*

Source: FAA enforcement data; analysis by Times librarian Paul Singleton