FAA Administrator nominee Steve Dickson defended his decision against disclosing a whistleblower complaint during the congressional vetting process, saying he was not named as a party to the complaint. Dickson further said that, given the information at the time, he believes certain moves made by his former employer, Delta Air Lines, were appropriate.

The White House in March announced its intention to nominate Dickson, the former senior v-p of flight operations for Delta, to the FAA administrator’s post, and the nomination initially had received rare support from nearly all corners of the industry.

But that nomination hit a stumbling block when, after the Senate Commerce Committee confirmation hearing in May, information came to light that a whistleblower had filed a complaint against Delta, alleging that after raising safety questions to airline leadership, she was subsequently ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation that ultimately led to the loss of pilot privileges. Two subsequent evaluations disagreed with the initial evaluations and the pilot returned to duty. The complaint was filed against Delta, but it mentions Dickson’s involvement in receiving the safety concerns.

A Senate Commerce questionnaire for administrative nominees calls for disclosures of legal actions. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, had asked Dickson for an explanation, noting he was deposed in the discovery process related to the whistleblower claim, the Washington insider publication Politico reported. “Your failure to disclose this matter to the Committee is of major concern. Further, the facts related to the whistleblower claim are troublesome and suggest at least the possibility that the claim of retaliation has merit,” Cantwell told the nominee.

Dickson responded, “I interpreted the Committee questionnaire, as well as the pre-hearing interview with staff, to pertain to my personal conduct, my behavior both in general and as an officer of a large public company, or any instance in which I was a named party to a proceeding.”

He outlined several reasons for that approach, including discussions with the Department of Transportation and White House staff on how to handle the legal disclosures “given the broad scope of responsibilities and length of my tenure in my previous role at a large public company.”

Over his 12-year tenure, there were numerous legal and administrative proceedings, he said. “During my tenure, individual pilot matters were handled by an experienced cross-divisional team, and I had little to no direct involvement in the process.” He did disclose his employer was involved in legal proceedings but “I had never been named a party in any of them.”

He further made this decision after reviewing responses of other similarly situated nominees and added since he had retired, he no longer had access to details of each individual proceeding.

As for the case at hand, he said his involvement was “limited to one meeting with the pilot, and providing direction to my leadership team to ensure that the appropriate follow-up actions were completed and that the contractual processes were followed so that the pilot was treated fairly in the review process.”

A cross-departmental team typically handled matters related to individual pilots, he said. “I was much more involved in other proceedings where I was the decision-maker on matters more strategic to the corporation.”

Having said that, he said the “referral [for psychiatric evaluation] was made based on a credible report about statements the pilot made to company officials and behavior she exhibited, which raised legitimate questions about her fitness to fly” and said the move was made “out of an abundance of caution,” following processes in the company’s collective-bargaining agreement.

“The process is, by design, non-punitive and non-disciplinary and is intended to be fair to the pilot by providing full pay and benefits during the review,” he said.

When asked if there were other cases he might be a party to, Dickson reiterated that he had not been personally named as a party to any such proceeding but that Delta has been involved in various judicial, administrative, and regulatory proceedings relating to its business.”