Guilty!!!

[GogglesPisano]

Every professional pilot should be alarmed that these guys were prosecuted in a state court for something concerning their federal license.Radar traps on taxiways are next.

 

[zonker]

~~~^~~~ <--- Fins to the left!

It is a reference to a song by another pilot troubador, a son of a son of a sailor born in the wrong century. But oops, I am off topic.

I interviewed these pilots' attorneys in the first round of appeals while they were still spending their first $100,000 of their own money defending this case. It was a first offense.

Actually, I believe Cloyd had a domestic violence and a prior DUI arrest on his record. I'm not sure if that was admissible evidence, but at any rate, he wasn't a choirboy.

But your prior points are well taken, and I agree with you.

 

[castle bravo]

Just where is ALPA on all of this?

 

[Lequip]

Sweet Justice! Give em 5 and let em Rot!

 

[Captain Overs]

Every professional pilot should be alarmed that these guys were prosecuted in a state court for something concerning their federal license.Radar traps on taxiways are next.

Why be alarmed? When you act in a reckless manner you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. I don't feel sorry for these guys.

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

Nationalist would be more accurate or

racist? i don't think so. everyone can agree they are a bunch of weenies (that have good wine and some good food)

Nationalistic with low tolerance for others.

 

[Dog Driver]

Why be alarmed? When you act in a reckless manner you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. I don't feel sorry for these guys.

You are missing the point .....

I don't feel sorry for them either .....

Yes, if you act stupid, you should be punishied right ??

Ok, now who decides what is stupid ?? FAA ?? Florida ?? Me ?? My dog ??

Now, who is going to punish the 'stupid' people ??

Understand that this OPENS the door to NON-AVIATION people writting laws that regulate AVIATION and the need for every pilot to learn a bunch of random local laws that we do not train for.

How many times have you heard 'NO FLIGHT PLAN ON FILE'? Sounds dangerous and stupid (to a non-aviation person)!!!! We need a law !!!!!

Yes, DUI is a universal no-no...what they did is not the point. But it is no more the state's buisiness to punish these guys then it is mine, yours or my dogs. It is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ... the same entity that WROTE the AVIATION laws. We have agreements with other countries to use the same, universal laws just to avoid this mish-mash of localized laws. Aviation and Maritime operations are and need to be different. We cover too much teritory to not have a common set of rules and enforcement.

Think of it this way ..... you killed someone, should you be tried by a jury of your peers, convicted and punished or...
Dragged out into the street, beaten and hung by a mob ?? Yes, you did something wrong and should be punished, right ?? What difference does it make who punishes you ??

 

[GogglesPisano]

Why be alarmed? When you act in a reckless manner you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. I don't feel sorry for these guys.

Reckless as defined by what entity? The FAA? The state? The city? Let's assume you get stopped going through security and randomly breathalized because some local politician in Texas (or Alabama, or New York) decides that pilots should be randomly tested over and above FAA guidelines. You had a glass of wine with dinner the night before (more than 12 hours) and you blow a meager 0.0002%. Perfectly legal right? Wrong, the local authorities have just passed "zero tolerance" policy for flight crew "in the public interest." Off to the hooswkow with you for 5 years. You think the press will be sympathetic?

Another example: They stop you at security because you have a newspaper in your flight bag. A local politician has passed a law forbidding flight crews from "attempting" to read non-flight-related publications in the cockpit. Again, what do you think the local press would report?

Already overseas flight crews are being criminally prosecuted for making honest mistakes -- "pilot error."

Let's just answer to the FAA -- that's hard enough.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Just where is ALPA on all of this?

After the revocation of their Certificates for proper cause, ALPA took the position that they were no longer pilots and the union could not defend them in this civil matter.

They are out over $100,000.00 in defense costs, out of their own pockets.

 

[redflyer65]

You guys are missing the fine points on what is going on. I agree with where you are coming from but remember these facts....

1- In reality the FAA has no teeth. Whats the worst they can do? Pull their tickets and possibly disallow a re-instatement later. Thats it. Yea, the FAR says .04%, but they can't do anything more.

2-The Federal statute on operating a vehicle is .10%, so guess what, you are not going to see a federal case on this. It's simple not there.

The focus of the defense was if they had been operating the aircraft. I believe that as soon as they started running checklist and doing flows, they were operating the aircraft. I can't believe how far they took there stupidity. If anyone gets themselves in this situation (and there shouldn't be a reason to drink this much on an overnight anyway), just call in sick and preserve the rest of your career, and don't endanger anyone else's life. We get enough bad press as it is.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Redflyer:

Loosing my certificate would cost me over $5,000,000.00 in net present value of future earnings at 6% inflation. That isn't teeth?

Ask the Delta and American pilots who enjoyed $300,000 incomes, who then retired with over $3,000,000.00 how valuable their certificates were.

The FAA has the power to keep me out of my profession - that is some teeth.

 

[Dog Driver]

I do have to say that thier defence was totally stupid ... they had NO defence... they where wrong. The money they spent .... thier choice. If they knew they were guilty (I am sure they knew) they could have pleeded guilty and not spent the money.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Dog Driver:

The first Defense was on Constitutional grounds. However the Court of (no) jurisdiction will not fairly hear a Constitutional defense, this defense was crafted on local law, probably having to do with the fact that they did not actually drive anywhere under the influence.

For example, I might think of having a wild weekend with Anna Kornikova (sp?) but the intent without any action is not enough for me to say I have done it. Sure it is a stupid defense to a stupid prosecution. The Federal Government has the legal tools to deal with this and they have already dealt with it through revocation of the Pilots' Certificates.

All this defense did is to preserve the case for appeal.

~~~^~~~

 

[Dog Driver]

All this defense did is to preserve the case for appeal.

~~~^~~~

I think I will agree with you on that one.

I did learn / re-learn something though .....

Seems I might have miss-assumed that local government has no right here ....

91.17


(1) On request of a law enforcement officer, submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when—

(i) The law enforcement officer is authorized under State or local law to conduct the test or to have the test conducted; and

(ii) The law enforcement officer is requesting submission to the test to investigate a suspected violation of State or local law governing the same or substantially similar conduct prohibited by paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section.

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

Something is just not right here ....... Just can't put my finger on it.

 

[RP 04]

They are out over $100,000.00 in defense costs, out of their own pockets.

HA HA