What a surprise to find individuals here demeaning Karlene. Might I suggest those that have already taken the corporate 'Blue Pill' are way to far gone and should find a natural home at the FAA.

You see, I was contacted by Karlene many years ago after I successfully also brought to heel a major UK airline in very similar circumstances. As in Karlene's case the union turned its back. I won my case despite having to represent myself. I therefore know Karlene's case intimately.

I would lay a rather large bet that those decrying Karlene have not read the judgement, the depositions or the transcript of the trial. Might I make a friendly suggestion that they do, then remove the comments before their comments are made to look foolish or...dare I say it... Managerial.

I will say one word....'Altman' ...do your research.

Due to 'regulatory capture' the FAA, unions and airlines are all in one nice cosy bed. It's the same in the UK. I wrote a book about my case, named names, highlights internal documents, and according to one review 'publically shamed individuals'. Karlene's case is featured in the second in the series. Don't worry...the books are all legally checked before publication. The same is planned. The choice is yours Blue pill and swallow the corporate BS 'safety is our blah blah blah' or take the red pill, read it and not only see whats going on but start to push back www.pullingwingsfrombutterflies.com

Not at all. A general mocking of credentialism is not a specific mocking of an individual.

The dueling mandated psychological exams discussed in the transcripts are territory that I don’t think most pilots think about ever being subjected to. At the very least, I think it’s fair to say that if you decide to go down the “whistleblower” route, getting a company mandated eval by a company chosen physician is apparently fair game.

That was news to me. For the would be whistleblower “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead.” When considering your possible resultant psyche eval, the old saw about “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Lots of expensive uncertainty, and while KP “won”, it was a pretty tough road to get there.

I haven't read the tiny details but it sounds like they were incorrectly representing dead head time. And possibly causing too long of duty times. Or something like that. And even if she had been incorrect about her findings, its not crazy to have a safety concern and to voice it to management. It does not make a good "safety culture" if bringing potential issues to light gets you shipped off to a psychiatrist who labels you as crazy. This seems like a huge issue to me. And now this man is nominated to run the FAA? No thank you.

Know absolutely NOTHING about this particular case. I have worked with numerous HR departments though, and just like airline pilots have their “pilot friendly” AMEs to go to, HR departments also have their lists of “company friendly” fitness for duty docs to send their employees to. You would be a fool to think otherwise. Contracts should always require a second opinion and - if necessary - a DISINTERESTED tie breaker.

0F936BEE-1C76-43E5-BF28-7DA4E4F1BA35.jpeg
Sorry Mike, unable.

Regarding Dr. Altman and his history, can you please provide
some references?

He has been very influential in professional aviation medicine.

One of the safety issues she had was positive space to work not being considered DH and appropriate FAR’s applied.

Thats just crazy talk.

Are you referring to the same captain Graham that's the Endeavor new CEO?

I'm not sure what a can of worms actually looks like...but it could be something like that.