This page contains a discussion of safety issues at UAL, raised by a former pilot, and the ensuing discussion that took place through this site. The discussion has been arranged in forward chronological order to preserve continuity.

Former UAL Pilot comments

Fri, 16 Jan 1998 23:52:11 -0600

As a former United Airlines pilot, I read with interest all the stories about my former employer. I'd like to say I'm surprised at all the unhappy passengers, but having been on the "inside" of the company, I have to say I’m not the least bit surprised. While issues of rudeness and incompetence with regards to customer service are deficient, United’s attitude toward customer safety is unconscionable. In fact, it was this attitude that brought about my departure from United.

I could write volumes - quite literally hundreds of pages - of supporting information about United's lack of concern for customer safety. For practicality I'll remain brief. However, such conciseness may create of appearance of unsubstantiated claims. Rest assured that I can (and will if required) provide reasonable support for every claim in this overview.

During my initial training at United I was surprised at the "just get it done" attitude. There were a number of FAA required training tapes and exercises that United included in their program. While I'm not an ardent supporter of some of the FAA's requirements, I nevertheless complied with each requirement. However, monitoring and enforcement of these requirements is insufficient. The FAA relies on United to ensure compliance, but United has little regard for many FAA requirements. Such disregard for regulations and requirements is a finely honed skill at United. The training department would, I'm sure, gladly refer any investigator to the curriculum that includes all the FAA requirements, and would show all the pilots' signatures declaring that the training had been completed. However, the scheduling (which makes it very difficult to comprehensively complete the requirements) along with the general attitude of the training department makes it clear that the real requirement is to simply "sign off" the training log. Consequently, there are undoubtedly a substantial number pilots who are deficient in their training. For reasons of security I won't elaborate on the nature of the training, and it's true the likelihood that such training will be used by a specific trainee is remote, but wouldn't you prefer to have a pilot that was properly trained in all conceivable emergency scenarios?

Additionally, during training there were a notable number of inconsistencies. For example, the academics department would make incorrect statements about line operations or training issues. Those issues would later be re-addressed by pilot instructors as they became known, but it's disconcerting to know that training is not as cohesive as it could be.

United talks with enthusiasm about it's commitment to customer safety, but the facts simply don't support the talk. For example, I once had an overnight layover shortened due to a late arrival at the airport. I, along with the rest of the pilot crew, agreed to waive our contractual layover requirements providing the FAA requirements were met. The scheduling department assured us that we were "FAA legal." About a month after that flight I received a notice from the FAA that we were in violation of crew rest requirements. Upon further personal investigation, I agreed with the FAA. We were, in fact, in violation of the FAA rest requirements.

For those who aren't familiar with FAA requirements, particular regarding crew rest, I should explain that it's a complicated requirement, and mistakes are inevitable. That's why it's so helpful to have a computer program that analyzes schedules and flags illegalities. We, the crew involved in this incident, believed we were in compliance with the requirements, but relied on United's scheduling computer to confirm the legality. Unfortunately, we were in error due to time zone and schedule changes, and the computer also failed to flag the error.

In response to the FAA, United asserted there was no illegality - even though a thorough analysis of the FAA requirements clearly indicated an infraction. The problem is that United's scheduling program apparently does NOT include the particular restriction that created the illegality. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, there was no modification to the program when brought to the attention of United Management. United simply disputed the claim with the FAA, somehow made the incident go away, and today continues with the same program that permits violations of FAA crew rest requirements.

I must make clear that I don't believe every infraction is a compromise of safety, but rules are rules, aren't they?! In the case of the incident I previously described, we, the crew, were well rested and believed safety was NOT compromised. Otherwise we would have demanded additional rest. However, it's the overall attitude at United that concerns me. United has simply chosen to ignore an FAA requirement. While it may not compromise safety most of the time, it does compromise safety some of the time. United's history of minor mishaps is not particularly impressive. I can’t help but wonder how many of these mishaps were the result of a tired crew?!

United's policy of "reserve" pilots is, in my opinion, also in violation of FAA crew rest requirements and not in the best interests of passenger safety. However, instead of presenting a case for illegalities, Ill simply describe the policy and let you decide whether or not you think it’s safe - regardless of whether or not its legal.

Approximately 20% of United’s pilots are on "reserve." Since there are two or three pilots in each cockpit, there is a reasonable chance that a reserve pilot is onboard. Reserve pilots are intended to fly trips that were initially unassigned, and to fly trips that scheduled pilots can’t fly due to a scheduling conflict, vacation, or illness. Reserve pilots are on call for 1-6 days, depending on the particular reserve block, for 24 hours a day. Consider a pilot on reserve that rises from bed at 7:00 am, spends the day at home (or in his hotel) doing whatever he/she wants to do, and returning to bed at 11:00 that evening. At that time, the phone rings and a United scheduler assigns the reserve pilot a flight that departs in 4 hours. Instead of going to bed, the reserve pilot goes to the airport, and at 3:00 AM begins a duty day that can exceed 12 hours. That means the reserve pilot - the pilot that may be landing your aircraft in heavy fog or rain - may have been awake for more than 32 hours. As a passenger, how do you feel about that?!

Not all airlines have this kind of reserve schedule. Many airlines acknowledge that it’s impossible to be ready to begin a safe flying duty day all the time. Consequently, these airlines have "call out" windows that assist the reserve pilot in scheduling rest so that he/she is well-rested during all "call out" periods. Of course, a system of "call out" times requires more pilots, and costs more in payroll. American Airlines is smaller than United, but has 1000 more pilots, and substantially more expense for pilot salaries. However, their use of pilots is far more conservative. As a passenger (and as a pilot) I appreciate American’s commitment to passenger safety.

The most egregious act by United’s management is their failure to address problems with crewmembers. Most of United’s pilots are very good and very safe pilots. Unfortunately, there are a noteworthy few that are NOT safe. I flew with one captain who had difficulty with every aspect of our multi-day trip. Not only was he deficient in his own capabilities, but he would project his deficiencies on others. He had altercations with gate agents, maintenance technicians, security guards, flight attendants, and the flight crew. He attempted to takeoff in illegal conditions. He attempted to takeoff with one engine not running. (No, I’m not joking.) Sounds crazy doesn't it? It’'s ridiculous, yet it's the absolute truth - and I have only begun to disclose the extent of his incompetence. As I checked with other pilots I found this particular captain had been a problem for years. He didn't like anyone, and no one liked him. Furthermore, his performance was highly questionable. When I checked with management about this particular captain, I was told that, due to the union contract, there was nothing that could be done. How nice for you - the passenger!

There was another captain with whom I trained that was even worse. He could fly well, but he could not "command" a crew. He did not know his aircraft systems, his checklist procedures, or his emergency procedures. Communication was difficult since his hearing was, at best, marginal. He can physically fly the aircraft well, so I’m sure his passengers think he is a great pilot. What they don't know is that they are vulnerable if any emergencies arise, and that their operational success is most likely dependent on a good first officer (co-pilot). One pilot can typically compensate for a deficient pilot, but during an emergency every crewmember is heavily tasked, and any pilot that is not fully prepared is a major liability to the successful resolution of the emergency situation. Wouldn't you like to know that ALL your pilots are sufficiently prepared to handle whatever emergency your aircraft might encounter?!

So why am I no longer at United? That’s a good question. United management apparently wanted me to "step in line" and not ask questions. Apparently they were not happy that I refused to be the scapegoat for incompetent pilots. Rather than acknowledge the deficiencies of a few of their more senior pilots, they chose to ignore the warnings - my warnings - and, instead, decided to shoot the messenger. Of course, you, the reader, have no evidence to support my competence and excellence in the cockpit, but I can produce my distinguished Air Force records showing 12 years of successful checkrides (evaluations). My initial checkride at United was considered "superb" by the oral evaluator and "outstanding" by the simulator evaluator. My subsequent checkrides were all excellent. In fact, my United file contained over 20 very complimentary reports about my performance and demeanor from senior United pilots. Isn’t it strange that somehow 17 of those 20 reports mysteriously disappeared from my file?!

Even more distressing is my conversation with management personnel during my outprocessing. The airport chief pilot said (verbatim) "You’re a very competent and articulate individual, and I can’t help but believe that worked against you." I never thought being competent and articulate would be a liability! The fleet manager told me, "I kept asking (the other managers) 'Are we getting rid of this guy because he’s too good.'" Again, I never thought being "too good" would be a problem. I thought United wanted excellence in their pilots and throughout the organization. Obviously, I was wrong. The existence of this web site and the number of comments attests to the fact that United has a long, long way to go.

That's the short version. As I said in the beginning, the full story would take a long, long time to read. It’s difficult for me to speak out against United because so many of my friends are still employed at the company. Rest assured, there are many dedicated, hard-working employees trying very hard to make it the best airline in the world. The majority of the pilots are very competent individuals that work hard to make your flights enjoyable and safe. Unfortunately, you have no way of knowing if you have one of the pilots with a deficiency that management refuses to acknowledge - and who wants to take that chance?!

I have every reason to be personally bitter toward United Airlines, but I feel only disappointment. I’m disappointed that management chose to fabricate stories and ignore obvious warning signs. I expected more integrity in the airline industry - especially at United. I’m disappointed that management continues to put passengers at risk. United Airlines has the infrastructure and route structure necessary to leap well ahead of the competition. They COULD BE the airline of choice, but instead they have chosen to retreat into the world of mediocrity, showing little regard and respect for their passengers.

I tried very hard to bring about positive attitudes and positive changes at United. I progressed well beyond the bounds of indifference to create a sense of unity and excitement. Apparently, my vision was too much for management to accept. Yet, I still take great pride in knowing that I positively motivated many pilots, flight attendants, gate agents, and others at United. I wasn't the only one with sparks of enthusiasm, but such exuberance was rare. Perhaps the excitement will someday take hold and begin to spread. Perhaps someday the concern for excellence will become prolific throughout United. If that happens, I can take pride in knowing that I had a small part in bringing about a "customer-oriented revolution." I would love to see that happen. But, alas, I fear Uniteds progress has peaked. When managerial integrity is non-existent, there is little hope for the company. I suspect United will continue to operate simply due to air travel demand. But I will always wonder "what could have been" and I will always feel disappointment that those who could have made a difference had not the courage to make a difference.

UAL Replies

From: Edmond Soliday <Rita.Schaaf@ual.com>
Vice President-Corporate Safety and Security
Thu, 5 Feb 1998 9:58:44 -0600

I appreciate your invitation to respond to the allegations about United's attitude toward safety, although I must admit I am dubious as to whether my comments will be openly received. Moreover, I do not believe your web site is an appropriate forum for me to respond to each and every specific allegation raised by comments contributed to your site.

What I can say, however, is that United Airlines values safety above all else. I can personally vouch for the sincerity and depth of the company's commitment to safety in such matters as the training of our employees, the maintenance of our equipment and our overall operation of nearly 2,300 flights a day. We have an excellent safety record over many decades that is the result of our emphasis on safety in all aspects of our operations.

Hello? We've all heard the PR about your "excellent safety record" but the numbers just don't support your talk. Since you can "personally vouch for ... the maintenance of [your] equipment" then I'm sure you will have a perfectly good explanation for the cause of an emergency landing at Heathrow due to an electrical fault that was not repaired prior to takeoff as well as a faulty aircraft flap that was inadequately repaired.

As a 30-year employee of United, I can assure you that this airline has never forced a pilot to leave the airline for refusing to compromise on flying safety and training issues. If this anonymous pilot who contacted you left our airline, it was for reasons quite different from these.

I don't think anybody would expect United to admit that a pilot was forced out over his refusal to compromise on safety issues. Say, wasn't there a recent lawsuit over the real reason why a flight attendant was fired?

The anonymous pilot has authorized me to release his name but suggested that I delay in doing so. His concern is that providing his name immediately will encourage UAL to concentrate on attacking him rather than answering the fundamental question: what is the airline doing to improve safety?

We are also in compliance with all applicable FAA regulations. If any of your correspondents or readers honestly believe they are aware of any violations of federal air regulations, I would encourage them to bring the matter to the immediate attention of the FAA or the NTSB, or to my attention in personal correspondence. I assure you they will be investigated and we will provide a written, private response.

Obviously, one of my correspondents, a former UAL pilot, is aware of a violation of FAA regulations. According to his letter, above, so was the FAA. To quote:

"In response to the FAA, United asserted there was no illegality - even though a thorough analysis of the FAA requirements clearly indicated an infraction."

Given the obvious, unwavering, negative bias against United evinced on your web site, I do not feel that providing any further information, such as attempting to respond to each and every comment that people have brought to your attention, will serve any real beneficial purpose.

Please see the comments on how I do my best to be fair to United. Untied.com isn't asking you to respond to each and every comment -- from the thousands of letters I receive from other readers, it is quite clear that answering only a handful would be an accomplishment. However, it would be encouraging to see you respond to any of the comments made in this page. And no, responding with, "we value safety and have never done anything wrong" just doesn't cut it.

Former UAL Pilot is topnotch!

Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:22:12 -0500 (EST)

I read with horror the comments about the pilot that was fired from United Airlines. I was also able to determine that this pilot is the same officer who worked for me while in the Air Force. I have personally spoken with the pilot last month, and am astonished at the treatment he was given at United.

Let me say that I consider this person to be above reproach. His integrity is absolutely impeccable. His competence is unsurpassed. Under my command, he had one of the most difficult jobs in my unit and performed it with incredible skill and efficiency. I also personally flew with this pilot and observed while he instructed other pilots. Again, his skill was extraordinary. His demeanor was non-threatening. In fact, I consider his diplomacy a model for Air Force officers. He was extremely well liked among his peers and his students. I don't know anybody that didn't like this pilot.

However, I can understand why someone may have a problem if issues of integrity are at risk. He was the most resourceful and flexibile individual that ever worked for me, but he absolutely refused to compromise on integrity. I'm sure anyone asking him to waiver on his integrity would receive a swift, succinct response of "no."

This cannot be a simple case of misunderstanding. United clearly has an agenda inconsistent with its advertising. This individual was a model pilot and loyal employee. He excels at everything he does and he takes great pride in his commitment to excellence. The fact that UAL has chosen to fire him speaks volumes about UAL's real agenda.

I may someday be searching for an airline job myself and, therefore, must apologetically (but realistically) not allow my name to be published due to the obvious adverse effect it may have in a less-than-forthright business. Whether or not you choose to publish these comments is up to you, but if you -- the website operator -- have any doubt about his personal or professional capabilities and qualities, let me assure you that he is a man of high moral character and enormous personal ability. United clearly has a problem, and eliminating those with the ability to fix problems is not going in the right direction.

Respectfully,
Active Duty Lt Colonel, Command Pilot

Another side

from: William W. Lawrence, Puyallup, WA
Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:12:43 -0400 (EDT)

I hope that I may have some credibility since I'm the pilot who wrote a letter which you published in which I expressed my concerns over the way United uses and abuses the traveling public, particularly in San Francisco.

This time, I'm singing a different tune, and I wonder if you will publish it. This is in response to the pilot who was allegedly fired for being vocal about safety concerns. I am a United captain with 32 years service, and I will tell you categorically that United Airlines DOES NOT fire pilots for raising safety issues. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN!!! There is a lot to this story which the pilot in question is withholding, because this simply does not happen at United.

I am happy to publish responses from UAL in answer to the charges raised. In posting your letter, I'd like to give you the opportunity to explain what the pilot in question "is witholding", as evidence of your familiarity with this particular case. Otherwise, of course, your response that "this simply does not happen at United" would seem to be speculative. Perhaps you could start by providing the pilot's name?

On another matter. The aircraft which returned to London with an electrical problem. I have a surprise for you. Modern jet transports are hideously complex machines, and occasionally something doesn't work as it should. That's why every machanical system has a backup. And the backups have backups. I challenge you to make the case that the passengers on board that flight were in any way endangered. Inconvenienced, yes, but endangered? I dare you to even attempt to make that case. Same with the flap problem. Also, and this may come as a shock, but ALL airlines experience these problems from time to time--most of them more often than United. A week ago, an American Airlines Flight landed in Seattle with the flaps totally inoperative. Care to ballyhoo that? We'll see. I will say it to you and I'll say it to the world. United's maintenence of it's fleet is second to none in the world.

Regarding the electrical fault that resulted in an emergency landing at Heathrow, I am well aware of the complexity of modern aircraft as well as the existence of backup systems. However, the safety issue raised by the Emergency landing letter (Mon, 12 Jan 1998) is not the electrical fault itself but the fact that the flight was allowed to operate despite the unfamiliar engine sound several hours prior to takeoff. As far as passengers being endangered, I make no claims to expertise in this area, but I suspect the FAA would not endorse a forward cabin and cockpit filling with smoke as ideal safety conditions.

With respect to the faulty flap problem raised in the Safety first? letter (Sun, 4 Jan 1998), once again, the concern was that United knew there was a mechanical problem with its aircraft, yet allowed the plane to fly. Granted, an attempt was made by a mechanic to repair the problem, but obviously, this was unsuccessful. Another serious concern is the continued dishonesty on UAL's part. Telling passengers that a plane is being fueled when in fact it is being repaired is a blatant lie.

I make no claims that other airlines do not also suffer from such problems. You may well be correct in asserting that "United's maintenence of it's fleet is second to none in the world." However, I hope you will understand my hesitance to give a ringing endorsement to your airline's safety record when:

1. an FAA study reports that United had the highest accident rate among the top 10 US carriers, for the period of 1990 through May 1996;
2. a pilot with glowing flight reviews from the US Air Force (and allegedly from UAL) is fired over his criticism of safety issues at UAL;
3. Edmond Soliday, Vice President-Corporate Safety and Security at United, refuses to address the pilot's allegations directly, and despite repeated evidence to the contrary, simply repeats the company line that UAL has "an excellent safety record over many decades that is the result of our emphasis on safety in all aspects of our operations."

Ex Wanna Be

from: Jurgen M Steppel, Captain
Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:27:17 -0700 (PDT)

Jeremy: It would probably be polite on your part and the ex "wanna be airline pilot" to to indentify him/himself and have a candid discussion as to why he was forced to leave the company. I have to say this one time only, United Airlines will not dismiss anyone for bringing training/safety isuues to light, guaramteed!! Obviously there is more to the story and he should be honorable enough, specially since he was in the armed forces to indentify the real reason he was dismissed. His allegations are truly that of a disgruntled ex wanna be with no merit whatsoever. I challenge him and or you to discuss this with me. I have shown his comments to a lot of pilots I fly with and all they do is really, laugh at him. These are pilots that have also come out of the military, just like him, and say that he is nothing but a charlatan, a ridicoulous charlatan. Ok Jeremy, thankyou for your time and hope to hear from both of you soon. Lets get this issue discussed in an open forum so that I can prove him wrong, very wrong.

Sincerely,

Jurgen M Steppel, Captain

Former UAL Pilot replies

Mon, 06 Sep 1999 22:16:53 -0500

Apparently Mr. Steppel never got the word that UAL management does NOT want individual employees responding to allegations such as those I've made. After reading Mr. Steppel's response, the reason is clear: its hard to imagine that anyone could take his response seriously. However, in his defense, UAL management isn't doing any better.

Admittedly, it was a little difficult getting past the array of incorrectly spelled words, grammatical errors, and punctuation mistakes. Fortunately, however, the safety of Mr. Steppel's passengers rests on his piloting not his communication skills. Despite his inability to articulate a credible response to my allegations, I suspect his piloting skills are fine. After all, I have never maintained all UAL pilots are unsafe. I believe only 2-4% of UAL's pilots are unfit for the cockpit, but that's 2-4% too many and UAL management still refuses to fix the problem!

Mr. Steppel says it would be polite to identify myself. Why is that necessary? I can't believe that UAL management is so completely inept they can't figure out who I am! I have made numerous attempts to speak to the company's senior managers. If Mr. Steppel wants to know my identity, he should simply ask management. However, I'm sure management will discourage his further remarks and for good reason.

Mr. Steppel wants a candid discussion. Shortly thereafter, he says I'm a ridiculous charlatan and that he wants this issue discussed in an open forum so he can prove me wrong. This kind of reasoning is sure to propel Mr. Steppel high into UAL management since it replicates their methods. Mr. Steppel clearly has no desire to find out what really happened. All he wants to do is prove me wrong. Doesn't it seem strange that someone who doesn't know who I am (who hasn't even made an effort to ask management), and has no first-hand knowledge of the details of my dismissal is absolutely certain that I'm a ridiculous charlatan! Wouldn't any self-respecting pilot want to know the real truth about the company providing his/her paycheck and the union that permitted the action? Alas, instead of a genuine desire to know the facts, Mr. Steppel has sunk into the mire of mediocrity and hypocrisy so tenderly embraced by UAL's management. Instead of seeking the truth, he finds amusement in the inequity. With this kind of concern for safety, integrity, and forthrightness, is it any wonder why UAL's rising campaign was a catastrophic failure?!

Mr. Steppel says (quoted exactly), Obviously there is more to the story and he should be honorable enough, specially since he was in the armed forces to indentify the real reason he was dismissed.

Yes, Mr. Steppel, there is MUCH more to the story, but it only concerns those who possess the desire and the ability to accept the truth even when it runs contrary to their most precious personal beliefs. It concerns those who have the integrity and fortitude to go against the current -- those who actively seek moral justice. So, Mr. Steppel, I don't think you'd be interested in the rest of the story because you've already fabricated an ending and passed judgment. You have the audacity to suggest I should be honorable enough to identify the real reason I was dismissed, yet you can't muster enough honor to reasonably consider my allegations and the possibility that UAL is on a vector to disaster. You continue to let ALPA and UAL management put the lives of innocent passengers in jeopardy, and you speak of honor?!

By the way, Mr. Jurgen M Steppel, I was a wanna be pilot when I was in high school. Since then I have flown globally, commanding large crews and large aircraft in conditions you probably wouldn't take your car. I still hold all my licenses, and I'm still a pilot. You apparently find that offensive. I am, however, not an airline pilot. My association with UAL management and APLA led me to seek out organizations with true integrity. I'm currently a senior manager (in a national company) with compensation and a lifestyle that exceeds anything the airlines offer. There really are some organizations that value intelligence, ingenuity, and integrity and clearly I have neither reason nor desire to return to United Airlines.

As stated in my web site narrative, I still believe that UAL has the potential to be the airline of choice globally. The hubs and route structures clearly posture the company well. Given some semblance of mature management, the company should not just compete, but dominate the industry.

I have many friends that fly as UAL pilots. I would be ecstatic to see UAL thrive, but until management is willing to address basic issues of morality and ethics, preeminence will continue to elude the carrier. UAL management lied to me, made false claims about me, fabricated stories, destroyed evidence contrary to their assertions, and ignored the multitude of positive comments about me from other pilots (particularly the Captain's Reports.) Despite my attempts to open dialog with UAL management, I have been shunned with every attempt. When UAL management is ready for serious dialog, I'll be here. When management is ready to begin infusing morality and ethics into their decisions, I'll be here. When management truly wants to put passenger safety where it belongs, I'll be a willing participant and consultant.