Lawyers. I’ll tell them something.

[CurlyD777]

So anyone looking at the news lately on a long layover may have read this article about the America West pilots attempting to fly intoxicated a couple years ago. Now before anyone gets ready to bash on any airline, this is to be about the lawyers this time.



The two pilots are on trial right now for endangering 120 some passengers on their 319 while they were both clearly over the .08 level for driving, let alone the FAA rules or even the America West rules for drinking. They combined had 22 glasses of beer and a bottle of wine up to 5am the night before their 10am flight. They are on trail for a reason, and I think they should be criminally punished for this infraction. Luckily there was no accident.



Here’s what frustrates me.

“Defense attorneys said the pilots should not be convicted because they were not "operating" the plane at the time in question. The aircraft was being towed away from the gate and the driver of the tug truck had control of the aircraft, they said.

"They couldn't endanger anyone as long as they were connected to that tug," said Cloyd's attorney, Dan Foodman. "The plane is inoperable at all times that they were in that plane."

What? So I guess they were planning on being sober by the time they disconnected from the tug, and everything would have been all fine.

It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next couple days. I can’t believe that we have to actually consider the “rights” of the pilots since they were apprehended before they actually committed any harm. What about the rights of 120 passengers who just need to get to another destination?

 

[CurlyD777]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/23/crime.pilots.reut/index.html

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

What I found the most disgusting thing about the whole trial was the bit I saw live on Court TV.



The screener who was being questioned required a translator to understand the questions of the prosecution.



How was that screener able to effectively do her REAL job... and that was to screen passengers without being able to communicate with them? (Or understand what the passengers going through her station were saying?)

Maybe the requirement of "Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language" needs to be applied to ALL aviation related jobs ...especially those involving SECURITY of the system.

And by the way, I'm not condoning the crew's actions IF found guilty.

 

[TWA Dude]

I can’t believe that we have to actually consider the “rights” of the pilots since they were apprehended before they actually committed any harm.

Everybody in this country is entitled to a legal defense. Sure, the lawyer's logic is faulty but that's for the judge and jury to decide.

 

[I.P. Freley]

Everybody in this country is entitled to a legal defense. Sure, the lawyer's logic is faulty but that's for the judge and jury to decide.

Shame on you. People who are "obviously guilty" aren't entitled to due process.



Of course they're entitled to a defense. This particular defense is silly and won't keep them out of trouble, but what else is the lawyer supposed to do? Throw his hands up and say "the Devil made them do it"?

 

[cactuspilot]

Shame on you. People who are "obviously guilty" aren't entitled to due process.



Of course they're entitled to a defense. This particular defense is silly and won't keep them out of trouble, but what else is the lawyer supposed to do? Throw his hands up and say "the Devil made them do it"?

It worked for O.J.

 

[oldxfr8dog]

The screener who was being questioned required a translator to understand the questions of the prosecution.

I may have misunderstood, but it seemed to me it was the JUDGE who couldn't understand the screener. Of course, I couldn't either. She spoke Creole.

A good friend told me, "The nice thing about MIA, is it's SO close to the United States."
You on here, Stuart?

 

[ThisistheDream]

I dont think the pilots defense attroney idea of saying they where not in control of the airplane is going to do anything but make a jury ready to vote guilty even more MAD and vote guilty quicker. There arguement is like saying when your legally drunk and in your car but not actually driving it and a cop sees uou drunk in it your getting a DWI!!!!!! How do we know the pilots did a safe and correct preflight?? What if during the push back the tug driver hit another plane causing some kind of emergency situation where an evacuation is required putting the pilots in control to start the evacuation which if happened they would be drunk!!! I think these guys are in big trouble.

 

[ironwedge]

So anyone looking at the news lately on a long layover may have read this article about the America West pilots attempting to fly intoxicated a couple years ago....

Well, I'd have to agree with the defense. Did the pilot operate the aircraft: NO they did not. Did the pilots have the intent to operate the aircraft in that condition: YES it appears so.

So the defense will have to convice the jury that intent to operate the aircraft is clearly not that same as actually operating the aircraft.

I'm sure that a clear description of the "point of maintenace release" and the "point of dispatch" will be presented, which I don't think they ever reached.

Welcome to the legal system....it's rarely about justice

 

[elag777]

Shame on you. People who are "obviously guilty" aren't entitled to due process.



Of course they're entitled to a defense. This particular defense is silly and won't keep them out of trouble, but what else is the lawyer supposed to do? Throw his hands up and say "the Devil made them do it"?

Don't you miss FWA?

 

[oldxfr8dog]

Well, I'd have to agree with the defense. Did the pilot operate the aircraft: NO they did not. Did the pilots have the intent to operate the aircraft in that condition: YES it appears so.

I respectfully disagree. They did a cockpit setup, must have flipped a few switches. Operated the APU, a jet engine. Cleared the tug driver to push, right?They operated the aircraft, even if they didn't start the big engines on the wings. Accepted and signed a dispatch release which acknowledged (joint) responsibility for the flight.
It's very sad, but both these guy's blood alcohol was over the limit to drive, two hours later.
This has cost them everything, I just hope they can avoid jail time.

 

[Ty Webb]

When they were first arrested, I said on this very board that there was no way they would be convicted under Florida law, which is what this whole thing is about. This is not a Federal trial, it is a trial under FL state law, and they were arrested for operating the aircraft.

Technically, they were not "operating it", at least not in layman's terms, the tug driver was. How hard would it be for even the cheesiest and most inept lawyer to ask the jury, 'If you were sitting in your car, being towed by a towtruck, would it be fair to arrest you for operating your car? Of course not". . . They will not be convicted under that particular statute; it is a waste of taxpayers' money.

Do I think they were guilty of violating the FAR's? Well, hell yeah! Were they guilty of violating FL law? Probably not, but what it will come down to is a question not of right or wrong, but of how much "justice" can they afford.

 

[ironwedge]

I respectfully disagree...Accepted and signed a dispatch release which acknowledged (joint) responsibility for the flight.

I only agree with the defense lawyer's logic, I do think that he can convice a jury that these guys did NOT operate an aircraft. I DO NOT support these guys getting hammered and showing up for work to fly, or "intend" to fly airplanes.

That crew stepped on it big time, I think they still have a right to even the cheesiest public defender doing everything he/she can to keep them out of prison.

 

[TonyC]

I pretty much figure if you're talking about the LEGAL SYSTEM, you should check your logic at the door. Better yet, just leave logic at home. Logic just doesn't seem to count for much.


The discussion at hand is really not about whether it was right or wrong for the pilots to do what they did. I think we might achieve a very high percentage of agreement on that issue - - there's no way those guys should have been in uniform on an airplane in their condition.


That said, the issue at hand has nothing to do with that fundamental truth. The issue is this: Did they fit the specific, well-defined conditions defined in Florida law? On that question, it might seem that the defense lawyers are doing a respectable job of answering, "No."

A more important question, in my opinion, is this: Should airline pilots operating under Federal Regulations be subject to the various and sundry laws of states, counties, and municipalities?

I believe most folks given the time to thoughtfully consider the question would answer, "No!" I have enough trouble keeping up with the silly laws of the place where I live - - it would be impossible for me to keep track of all the laws in all the places where I operate. Certainly we know that ignorance of the law is no defense. (Certainly ignorance of the law is not the issue with these particular pilots in this particular incident. The principle, however, is jurisdiction.) I think that once the crewmember steps onto the airplane with the purpose of operating it, he/she should fall under the sole jurisdiction of the Federal government.

Consider the far-reaching implications with which, I believe, Delta flight attendants must now deal as a result of attempting to attach local laws to flight crews. I might be off on a detail or two here, but I believe there is an attempt to hold a flight attendant responsible for serving alcohol to a passenger who, subsequent to deplaning, was involved in a auto accident which resulted in a fatality. Must flight attendants be responsible for knowing and following the laws regarding alcohol service of every state, county, and city in which they operate? What about the counties they overfly? Doesn't the jurisdiction of each location extend from the surface to infinity? What if a flight attendant serves an alcholic beverage while overflying a dry county?

Do you know the specifics of laws concerning first aid in every state, county, and city where you depart, arrive, or overfly? Should that knowledge, or lack thereof, be a consideration when you lend aid to a passenger suffering a heart attack?

I may have just touched the tip of the proverbial iceberg with these examples. I think it is unwise to apply local laws to the operation of aircraft. The fact that this case is even in court sets a bad precedent. (At least I think it sets a bad precedent - - I don't really know, perhaps a precedent has already been set and we just haven't heard about it. If that is the case, then this case continues a bad precedent. )



Given all that... I hope the Florida case gets thrown out, and the FAA throws the book at 'em.




.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Guys - you are missing the point.​

The Federal Aviation Administration regulates aviation. Not local jurisdictions. Florida should not be allowed to prosecute these pilots after the FAA has already taken administrative action based on these pilots violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Not only is this another case where a State is trying to regulate aviation, it is another attempt to undermine our Constitutional protection against being punished twice for the same crime. States and our Federal government have been constantly assaulting the Bill of Rights, in this case the 5th Amendment. This is how freedom dies.

Florida has a nasty habit of trying to take back aviation safety matters from the Federal Governement. After Val-u-jet, Florida prosecutors brought up several people on murder charges. Each of these cases were eventually dismissed.

In the case of these America West pilots, they have already lost their certificates and their careers. ALPA will not pay for their defense. They have, between the two of them, spent nearly $100,000.00 defending a case that should have never been brought. When I spoke with their defense counsel about nine months ago they were already in for $68,000 - so the number has surely gone up from there.

If Florida prevails, expect more local regulation of aviation. Surely more bans on aviation operations, more "registration," or "licensing" with local officials, more regulation that pilots from other parts of the world will not know about and cannot even comply with. Anyone want to study a set of "Florida - State Aviation Regulations?"

Further, aviation safety is a slippery slope. Criminal prosection of safety matters frequently results in cover ups. Pilots are not criminals and volunteer programs like ASAP work because we all have a common interest in aviation safety. Why do you think the NTSB has a voluntary reporting system?

I agree what the pilots did was stupid and lacked judgement. However, they have already paid a high price. It will not ever happen again with these guys, regardless of whether Florida bankrupts them first. But as pilots, you should be pulling for these guys because their rights are YOUR rights.

We should never cheer when our nation's Constitution is undermined by overzealous prosecutors - who are only trying to make a name for themselves by using a popular case to get in the press.

 

[~~~^~~~]

A more important question, in my opinion, is this: Should airline pilots operating under Federal Regulations be subject to the various and sundry laws of states, counties, and municipalities?

I believe most folks given the time to thoughtfully consider the question would answer, "No!" I have enough trouble keeping up with the silly laws of the place where I live - - it would be impossible for me to keep track of all the laws in all the places where I operate.

Exactly

 

[CurlyD777]

the FAA has already taken administrative action​

Good, the administrative actions, now what about legal / criminal actions. You say this is how freedom dies,

​

assaulting the Bill of Rights, in this case the 5th Amendment. This is how freedom dies.

Ok, so if we are all talking about rights, and the bill of rights, what about the rights of the 120 passangers on board the aircraft?


"No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
- Amendment XIV, section 1 U.S. Constitution


So in other words, the Fedreral FAA creates laws that pilots can't fly intoxicated, that means the Florida can make a law, denying the safety of passangers not to prosecute the pilots for breaking a federal law?

How but then the fact that "no state is to deny to ANY person within its jurisidiction the equal protection of law."

So does this mean the 120 people in back of the plane don't get the equal protection that the Federal law creates??? I don't think that was the intention

The constitution, including the bill of rights, wasn't written just to protect the guys who break the law, although that is the way we view it now. It was written to protect all of us americans equally.

 

[~~~^~~~]

"No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
- Amendment XIV, section 1 U.S. Constitution


So in other words, the Fedreral FAA creates laws that pilots can't fly intoxicated, that means the Florida can make a law, denying the safety of passangers not to prosecute the pilots for breaking a federal law? So does this mean the 120 people in back of the plane don't get the equal protection that the Federal law creates??? I don't think that was the intention

The constitution, including the bill of rights, wasn't written just to protect the guys who break the law, although that is the way we view it now. It was written to protect all of us americans equally.

The people in the back of the airplane still have a right to bring claims for damages. If they wanted to sue the pilots for delaying a flight, have at it. It is a different issue. None of the passengers were hurt, so they have no injury claims and "fear" cannot be the basis for an injury claim, thanks to a EAL case a good friend of mine took to the US Supreme Ct.

What you are confused about is Federal Preemption. The section of the US Constitution you quoted alludes to the fact that States should not abridge the rights of citizens found in the Constitution. This includes the 5th amendment. The Federal government has preempted aviation regulation under the enabling legislation for the Federal Aviation Administration. Yes, I am telling you that we don't need every State, City, County and Municipal government getting into the aviation regulation business.

The Pilots had fewer "rights" under the FAA's administrative action than they have to a DUI prosecution in Florida. Also note, that they responsibly accepted their punishement, which was the loss of everything - their career and their certificates. What more do you want from them and their families? How does your version of justice help right the wrongs? These guys are not going to be flying airplanes any time soon.

Some folks just like kicking people when they are down.... I hope you are not one of them. Is over $100,000, loss of a career and Certification not enough for you? What do you think is fair? What do you think was fair if you were in their shoes? Should we shoot people on first time DUI offenses, if so, what about President Bush when he got a DUI?

 

[TonyC]

Ok, so if we are all talking about rights, and the bill of rights, what about the rights of the 120 passangers on board the aircraft?

How were the rights of any of the passengers infringed upon by application of federal law? Each of them received the same protection as any other citizen. Their benefit was mutual, and it was individually identical.

"No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
- Amendment XIV, section 1 U.S. Constitution


So in other words, the Fedreral FAA creates laws that pilots can't fly intoxicated, that means the Florida can make a law, denying the safety of passangers not to prosecute the pilots for breaking a federal law?

NO, those are NOT "other words" that express the same idea. This is not about Florida making a law that treats a citizen differently than other citizens. This is not about Florida depriving any person without due process. This is not about equal protection of the laws.

In fact, as I compose the "This is not..." sentences, I find it difficult to even sense the root of your confusion. The Amendment you cite is so clear, it's hard to understand how you misunderstand it.

How but then the fact that "no state is to deny to ANY person within its jurisidiction the equal protection of law."

So does this mean the 120 people in back of the plane don't get the equal protection that the Federal law creates??? I don't think that was the intention

OK, so I'll go with this. Am I to understand that you feel the passengers in the airplane were somehow treated unequally?

If so, could you please explain how they were treated unequally?

The constitution, including the bill of rights, wasn't written just to protect the guys who break the law, although that is the way we view it now. It was written to protect all of us americans equally.

Do you feel like the Constitution does not apply to citizens who break a law? Should the protections be removed once a citizen is accused of wrongdoing? If not then, then at what point should those protections be removed? What is the standard of proof that you would require be met prior to removing the protections of the Constitution?




Federal Law proscribes a punishment for an illegal act - - a citizen commits the act, enjoys due process of law, is found guilty, and is punished according to the law.

State F decides it is unhappy with the punishment proscribed by Federal Law for the act, so it passes a law proscribing a more severe punishment. Not only will the citizen endure the punishment proscribed by Federal Law, but they will also serve 5 years in a State Penetentiary and forfeit $100,000 in fines.

County D has a populace that is less tolerant of the crime than even the majority of State F, so they pass a law that proscribes castration as a punishment for the crime. In order to discourage commission of the crime, they determine that the castration must be performed publicly, on the steps of the capitol, on a Saturday at noon. (Sunday if it's raining.)

City T is happy to see the county take such a strong stand against the crime, but feel the punishment is too lenient. After all, once the citizen has served the Federal sentence, served the state sentence, paid the state fine, and been publically castrated, he can put his pants on and walk through the streets of the city and nobody will be able to tell him from Adam. The City of T, then, has determined that the punishment shall include the placement of a scarlett letter "D" on the forehead of the criminal.

Do you think the guy would be punished ENOUGH were he to stand trial FOUR spearate times for the same crime, only to be served FOUR separate punishments?

This is where the Constitution comes into the story. The Constitution says NO, it's NOT fair. And it won't be done.


Ignoring the protection against double jeopardy is an assault on the Constitution, and THAT is what ~~~^~~~ was talking about when he said, "This is how freedom dies."

 

[TonyC]

Ignoring the protection against double jeopardy is an assault on the Constitution, and THAT is what ~~~^~~~ was talking about when he said, "This is how freedom dies."

~~~^~~~,

I see we were typing at the same time. I hope I didn't put words in your mouth.


Tony