AWA Pilot's trial comes to an end...the tug driver did it!

[AeroBoy]

They are not walmart greeters.

They just might be now...

 

[DoinTime]

The really sad part about all of this is that local authority knew of the drunken condition of the pilots long before the push back. Instead of pulling them for testing before the cabin door was closed they waited until pushback in order to "get the conviction." If the ruling comes down that these pilots were in control of the aircraft then the local authority is partially to blame for allowing them to be there.

 

[joe_pilot]

It was extremely poor judgement on the part of the pilots. It was prudent however, of the TSA person to stop them. I just wish that the TSA dude (or chick) would have pulled them to the side and said something like "call in sick or I'm turning you in". I think that's the only thing that they could have done better. I'm not saying that's their job to stick up for the pilots, but I would just hope they would do so out of decency. I know, I know you guys are going to argue that isn't their job, but hey, its just my opinion. Its what I would do, pull them to the side.

No jail time.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Then they would think they got away with it again (and I say "again" because I am absolutely certain this is not the first time they tried "getting away with it"), and there would be a next time, and a next time, and a next time until they were caught and forced to face up to their problems.

"Close calls" never do the trick in these situations.

 

[say again]

Then they would think they got away with it again (and I say "again" because I am absolutely certain this is not the first time they tried "getting away with it"), and there would be a next time, and a next time, and a next time until they were caught and forced to face up to their problems.

"Close calls" never do the trick in these situations.

And to think how many other pilots are doing this exact same thing. I've flown with quite a few. Used to anyway.

 

[zonker]

They just convicted them.

---------------------------


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=1&u=/ap/20050608/ap_on_re_us/drunken_pilots

 

[dsee8driver]

FN FAL
One break, coming up!
So are cops, politicians, preachers, doctors, boy scout leaders, lesbian stand up comics and that Lenny Bruce drug addict guy.!"

Admit it FN, only reason you added lesbian stand up comics is because Ellen's got Portia Di Rossi in the sack and u don't.

 

[FN FAL]

I remember reading an article about a drunk driver, who was pulled over on the side of the rode with his car off, getting arrested and convicted all because his keys were in the ignition. A little extreme, but it happens.

And I know someone who got his drunk driving ticket thrown out, because he was driving his car while drunk on an airport runway. And, to top it off, the airport management told the chief to keep their town's cops off the airport property.

Life is strange...if you don't believe the story, call up the Wolf River Skydivers in Shiocton. They'll back the story up.

One of the other jump pilots there got nailed a while back and came to me for advice. I whipped out the FAR/AIM and we read the relevant reporting regulation, then I advised him to get a lawyer and take his day in court. The cop screwed up the paperwork and the case was thrown out by the judge.

Cloyd and his co-pilot had a right to their day in court, they had that, now they are found guilty. End of story, unless they can get an appeal.

 

[Big Duke Six]

Originally poated by PurpleInMEM
You obviously have no idea how the US and Florida judicial systems work. Never admit anything and never voluntarily answer questions. When compelled to answer questions your answer should always be "I don't remember."

Just the level of integrity that got them into trouble in the first place, buddy. They should have called in sick. Failing that, they should have saved everyone the trouble and expense of a trial by admitting they screwed up. At least they'd have some self-respect to hold on to. Call me old-school, but I can't believe they actually sat there and let their attorney go through the motions trying to claim they "weren't in control". They are either a couple of real clowns or got some very bad legal advice, like yours.

 

[FN FAL]

Just the level of integrity that got them into trouble in the first place, buddy. They should have called in sick. Failing that, they should have saved everyone the trouble and expense of a trial by admitting they screwed up. At least they'd have some self-respect to hold on to. Call me old-school, but I can't believe they actually sat there and let their attorney go through the motions trying to claim they "weren't in control". They are either a couple of real clowns or got some very bad legal advice, like yours.

I don't blame them for defending themselves against their charges. The FAA administrative process was one thing and the State criminal process was another, as we saw in this case.

Without a trial, you'll never get defintions defined and law is all about definitions. Federal and State constitutional law is a living document in that it grows and becomes more defined by age and use. Without trials like these, you'll never have a complete definition of what "operation" means and it also makes those who haven't been caught yet think about the consequences.

 

[FL000]

Scenario: you are drunk as a skunk and in the passenger seat of the family car. Your legally licensed son is driving, but is obligated to listen to your directions and do what you tell him short of breaking the law or causing a safety breach.

It is your intention to change seats at the next intersection, and you will complete the drive home. However, you are pulled over before you get the chance to make the switch and you are given a DUI and prosecuted for it.

How does that make you feel?

I'm not defending what these guys did one iota. But from a legal standpoint, are they guilty of what they were charged with? This is not Minority Report.

If you don't like that scenario, put the son in a tow truck and he is pulling you (you are now in the driver's seat) to the next intersection to set your car down and let you complete your journey.

 

[FN FAL]

The really sad part about all of this is that local authority knew of the drunken condition of the pilots long before the push back. Instead of pulling them for testing before the cabin door was closed they waited until pushback in order to "get the conviction." If the ruling comes down that these pilots were in control of the aircraft then the local authority is partially to blame for allowing them to be there.

Exactly...the state allowed the pilots to "operate" the plane, so that it could get the evidence it needed.

 

[Jmajoris]

Why must people try to compare scenarios? You can't state a different situation and compare it to the actual situation. The pilots are a disgrace to all professionals. How could anyone actually contemplate the idea of tolerating this behavior?

Scenario: you are drunk as a skunk and in the passenger seat of the family car. Your legally licensed son is driving, but is obligated to listen to your directions and do what you tell him short of breaking the law or causing a safety breach.

It is your intention to change seats at the next intersection, and you will complete the drive home. However, you are pulled over before you get the chance to make the switch and you are given a DUI and prosecuted for it.

How does that make you feel?

I'm not defending what these guys did one iota. But from a legal standpoint, are they guilty of what they were charged with? This is not Minority Report.

If you don't like that scenario, put the son in a tow truck and he is pulling you (you are now in the driver's seat) to the next intersection to set your car down and let you complete your journey.

 

[FN FAL]

Scenario: you are drunk as a skunk and in the passenger seat of the family car. Your legally licensed son is driving, but is obligated to listen to your directions and do what you tell him short of breaking the law or causing a safety breach.

It is your intention to change seats at the next intersection, and you will complete the drive home. However, you are pulled over before you get the chance to make the switch and you are given a DUI and prosecuted for it.

How does that make you feel?

I'm not defending what these guys did one iota. But from a legal standpoint, are they guilty of what they were charged with? This is not Minority Report.

If you don't like that scenario, put the son in a tow truck and he is pulling you (you are now in the driver's seat) to the next intersection to set your car down and let you complete your journey.

That's just it...untill you are found "legally guilty" you are innocent in a due process based judicial system. We could all see they were "factually guilty" before the trial...if you can believe what you read in the media and what the TSA says.

It's up to the state to prove their case...and I don't see anything wrong with a defendant demanding due process.

This whole "why don't the pilots be men and admit their guilt" thing sounds nice in a sunday sermon, but it would effectively render the three branches of our government into two...the legislative and the executive.

Do those who think that the pilots should have admitted guilt, also believe we should live in a society where there is no judicial branch of government? It would streamline things a lot. Then you could federalize all the security guards in this country and hand them the power to grab people by their collars if they thought they saw them do something wrong and demand a written confession from them...after all, "If you're a man, you'll admit guilt...besides, it'll save us the effort of having to beat it out of ya!"

Yea, that's what I want to see happen...not.

 

[FL000]

Why must people try to compare scenarios? You can't state a different situation and compare it to the actual situation. The pilots are a disgrace to all professionals. How could anyone actually contemplate the idea of tolerating this behavior?

I have to use my SAT analogy skills for something.