No law against drunk flying but drunk pilot gets 6 -22 months?

[FN FAL]

I understand why the pilot got 6 to 23 months and how they did it, but does it happen enough that they actually have to create a new law...sounds like they got their felony conviction anyway.

"Jail Time for Drunk Pilot

NORRISTOWN, PA-November 30, 2004 — The man who witnesses say was drunk and on Valium when he took a plane for a joy ride over Philadelphia found out today how long he'll spend behind bars.

​

Moments after he was sentenced 6 to 23 months in jail, 44-year-old John Salamone appeared relaxed, chewing gum and smiling as he left the courtroom along with his attorney. Both declined comment.

On the night of January 15th, Salamone piloted his Piper Cherokee on a drunken joyride across the skies of southern New Jersey, Philadelphia, its airport and suburbs. He came within a few hundred yards of the cooling towers at the Limerick Nuclear power plant, and forced controllers to divert at least 6 commercial jets with as many as 200 on board. According to the prosecution, Salamone was in effect, playing chicken with those aircraft.

By the time he landed safely, Salamone was still so drunk he couldn't walk. Today, prosecutors brought up his long history of drinking-related problems, including 2 DUIs and 20 motor vehicle license suspensions since 1981.

Salamone admitted to the judge he has a drinking problem. The judge called the entire incident outrageous.

There is currently no law against flying drunk, but this incident prompted legislation awaiting Governor Rendell's signature to correct the oversight. "(Copyright 2004 by WPVI-TV 6. All rights reserved.)

 

[sqwkvfr]

Chewing gum in the courtroom?.......there's a sure-fire way to tack 10-20% onto your sentence.

Was he wearing a hat, too?

 

[homerjdispatch]

By the time he landed safely, Salamone was still so drunk he couldn't walk. Today, prosecutors brought up his long history of drinking-related problems, including 2 DUIs and 20 motor vehicle license suspensions since 1981.

20 suspensions in 23 years is outrageous. He should have been locked up years ago.

 

[avbug]

FAA regulation prohibits flying while intoxicated, and is punishable both administratively and criminally. The same may be said for any violation of 14 CFR, if warranted.

Operation of a motor vehicle, even while not an automobile while intoxicated is illegal in every state. State police, and a local jurisdiction, are within their discretion to arrest the pilot. Add to that reckless endagerment, and potentially attempted vehicular homicide. There are a lot of chargest that could be successfully prosecuted, should the state decide to do so.

 

[cforst513]

sending them to prison doesn't do much good. I had an 11 year old cousin who was riding her bike one day and a drunk driver hit and killed her. he was out in 10 years, AND he can drive. where's the justice for my aunt and uncle? no doubt he still drinks. it's rediculous. i know the prisons are overcrowded, but if you take someone's life, there's got to be more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[FSB99]

i don't understand that last line, no law against flying drunk.. do they mean state laws, or local, etc? what happened to no person may operate an aircraft within 8 hours of consuming? isn't that a law?

 

[midlifeflyer]

i don't understand that last line, no law against flying drunk.. do they mean state laws, or local, etc? what happened to no person may operate an aircraft within 8 hours of consuming? isn't that a law?

A state's power to prosecute people criminally and send them to jail is based on state criminal statutes. The FAR is a federal civil regulation, not a state (or even a federal) criminal statute.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Operation of a motor vehicle, even while not an automobile while intoxicated is illegal in every state.

I'm sorry, but that does not necessarily apply to airplanes. In many states there are two obstacles. One is a statutory definition of "motor vehicle" that does not include aircraft; the other is a statutory definition of driving offenses that make it clear that they have to take place on public =roads=.

There may also be a question whether a state is even constitutionally permitted to create an offense that involves flying. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over aviation. That's how most of those local "anti-noise" ordinances get struck down. A state might be limited to "taxiing" under the influence.

 

[avbug]

A peace officer may effect an arrest in any municipality or jurisdiction in which his or her powers are recognized in the interest of public safety. Creating a hazard to public safety is an offense which may fall under multiple charges, including attempted homicide. Weather the case will stick depends on the strength of the prosecutor, but a pilot that has flown under the influence and is caught in a case such as this has done a lot to help the prosecution already.

The regulation, "FAR's," may be handled administratively, but also may be prosecuted in criminal court. Are you not aware of this?

 

[FN FAL]

I'm sorry, but that does not necessarily apply to airplanes. In many states there are two obstacles. One is a statutory definition of "motor vehicle" that does not include aircraft; the other is a statutory definition of driving offenses that make it clear that they have to take place on public =roads=.

There may also be a question whether a state is even constitutionally permitted to create an offense that involves flying. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over aviation. That's how most of those local "anti-noise" ordinances get struck down. A state might be limited to "taxiing" under the influence.

Imagine that, I been screaming about intra and interstate commerce all week on this board. States cannot regulate against interstate commerce and the federal government cannot regulate against intrastate commerce. It applies to a myriad of things.

The state where this occured needs to include aircraft in it's definition of motor vehicle and it's a done deal. They don't have to specifically make up a new law pertaining to driving an airplane drunk...the politician in the news story makes it sound like they have a pilot drinking problem and that they "need to get tough on this crime!" by creating a NEW law.

All they got to do is add aircraft to the definition of the terms in their law regarding motor vehicles. And like avbug said...they could charge him with all sorts of state laws that don't use the defined term "aircraft" in the law specifically. Reckless endangerment covers a plethora of things people do.

They got their felony conviction regardless of lacking legislature with the word aircraft in it. This guy will never fly another aircraft again in his life, unless aliens attack and they need him to fly a F-18 hornet against the invaders...

 

[midlifeflyer]

The regulation, "FAR's," may be handled administratively, but also may be prosecuted in criminal court. Are you not aware of this?

Not in =state= criminal court. Basic rules of separation of powers and jurisdiction.

 

[midlifeflyer]

All they got to do is add aircraft to the definition of the terms in their law regarding motor vehicles.

It might or might not be quite as easy as that.

First of all, states regulate "motor vehicles" in ways other than for driving offenses. Simply adding "aircraft" to the definition of motor vehicles would make them subject to state titling laws, compulsory insurance laws, consumer protection laws regulating motor vehicle financing. A whole bunch of stuff. Does United now have to bring their aircraft to the weigh station on the interstate because there's a law that says that all vehicles with a max gross weight above a certain point have to be weighed periodically? How about emission control standards? If you buy an airplane, do you have to taxi it down to the nearest inspection station?

=Much= easier to create a new offense than to search through the other 40 volumes of state statutes and fins all the other provisions that are affected.

At the same time, the definition of the offense itself may preclude airplanes, even if "motor vehicle" were defined to encompass them. For example, in Massachusetts, the offence of operation under the influence defines the crime as occurring

==============================
upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees
==============================

which basically means public roads, some private roads, and parking lots.

Again, much easier to write a new offense than mess around with existing and long-standing definitions.

 

[Axel]

Virginia:

§ 5.1-13. Operation of aircraft while under influence of intoxicating liquors or drugs; reckless operation.

Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of any narcotic or any habit-forming drugs shall be guilty of a felony and shall be confined in a state correctional facility not less than one nor more than five years, or, in the discretion of the court or jury trying the case, be confined in jail not exceeding twelve months and fined not exceeding $500, or both such fine and imprisonment.

Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth carelessly or heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and in a manner so as to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

[Wankel7]

Landed safely? WOW! Must have been intersting to see that :0

 

[midlifeflyer]

Virginia:

There are a bunch of them. I think Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, and Maine also have one. Might be interesting to get a survey.

 

[FN FAL]

It might or might not be quite as easy as that.

First of all, states regulate "motor vehicles" in ways other than for driving offenses. Simply adding "aircraft" to the definition of motor vehicles would make them subject to state titling laws, compulsory insurance laws, consumer protection laws regulating motor vehicle financing. A whole bunch of stuff. Does United now have to bring their aircraft to the weigh station on the interstate because there's a law that says that all vehicles with a max gross weight above a certain point have to be weighed periodically? How about emission control standards? If you buy an airplane, do you have to taxi it down to the nearest inspection station?

=Much= easier to create a new offense than to search through the other 40 volumes of state statutes and fins all the other provisions that are affected.

At the same time, the definition of the offense itself may preclude airplanes, even if "motor vehicle" were defined to encompass them. For example, in Massachusetts, the offence of operation under the influence defines the crime as occurring

==============================
upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees
==============================

which basically means public roads, some private roads, and parking lots.

Again, much easier to write a new offense than mess around with existing and long-standing definitions.

Well, I don't think I would want to be the test case, but the federal government already regulates United and regulates little planes as well. I guess the smart guy would opt for getting the "ticket" from the state...then getting the case into court and defeating it on the grounds that the state doesn't have the right to interfere with or regulate interstate commerce. Once that case was struck down, it probably would fall under double jeopardy for the feds to step in and try the case again.

 

[Axel]

Didn't include it in the copy/paste, but the VA law has been on the books since 1950. There is a veritable plethora of tax/title/commerce type law as well. The state absolutely has jurisdiction depending on how their laws are written. That was the plan of the founding fathers.

If the Feds want their piece of the offender, they can suspend, revoke or fine while he does his 1 to 5 for the state felony offense.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Once that case was struck down, it probably would fall under double jeopardy for the feds to step in and try the case again.

Just an FYI. This part would not work. Multiple jurisdictions (here the state and the Feds) can each prosecute the same conduct without violating the double jeopardy clause.

BTW, this question came up on another group and I ended up doing a little more looking. That Florida case in which the prosecution of two pilots ended because of preemption? This past July, the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and said that there was no "clear" preemption preventing a state from prosecuting a pilot for drunk flying. I've never heard anything about whether the state has gone forward since then or not.

 

[FN FAL]

Ok...in light of the fact that Mayor's can tear up runways in their town and the fact that we all agree that states should make up their own regulations pertaining to aviation so we can have a cornicopia of local aviation regulations, I have an idea.

It kind of correlates to the concept that is being proposed by anti gun groups after the clinton violent crime and law enforcement act was allowed to expire. That concept is for special interest groups to petition STATES to pass anti-gun laws individually. I think that states passing their own aviation regulations is a perfect opportunity for special interest groups to get their foot in the door towards creating legislation that would rid them of their nasty neighbor, them people down at the noisy, dangerous and polluting little airport in their neighborhood.

Here's my IDEA. It's based on the fact that Constitutionally, when the federal government decides to not regulate something that is "interstate" in nature, the several states can regulate it how they see fit.

Well, you know those noisy, dangerous, airports that occupy land near our houses? Most of them allow planes to depart and fly in uncontrolled airspace for who knows how far? Guess you'd need a climb gradient table to figure it out, but when they depart IMC, they could in theory fly quite a distance in IMC conditions, but outside of "FEDERALLY CONTROLED" airspace. Plus, as we all know, you can fly from point A to point B, in IMC, in an instrument airplane, with a current instrument pilot at the controls...outside of "FEDERALLY CONTROLLED" airspace, with no instrument flight plan or clearance! Good gawd yall...you know how much danger that exposes the people living near non-towered fields and living under non-"FEDERALLY CONTROLLED" airspace?

I say we make it a state law that you can only depart a field that's IMC, only if you can do so within "FEDERALLY CONTROLLED" airspace or "STATE" controlled airspace...so that we can end this dangerous practice of flying about willy nilly.

Once we pass this law, those 700 to 1,200 feet of airspace the federal government doesn't want to control, will be regulated by the state. No more will we be subject to the dangers of wondering what will happen to our homes, our children and our way of life, when pilots are out flying willy nilly attempting to climb up blindly into "FEDERALLY CONTROLLED" airspace.

 

[FN FAL]

I see ya gawking down there on the tool bar Midlife...but I got some more soapboxing...

What if we make it a state law to ban night flying by private pilots in single engine airplanes. Since most private pilots are not engaged in "interstate" commerce, they would easily fit the bill of being regulated by the state. The special interest groups could lobby that night flying is inherently dangerous and that any engine failure would ultimately lead the plane to crash into some dwelling, or highway, creating a risk to people on the ground.

A special interest group could lobby that night flying by private pilots in single engine planes is leasurely in nature and not worth the risk to people on the ground. Night flying by private pilots in single engine airplanes is not "suitable for, nor readily adaptable to sporting purpose" and should be considered a negligent activity.

 

[midlifeflyer]

the fact that we all agree that states should make up their own regulations pertaining to aviation

I really didn't notice anyone saying that. Preemption is not an all-or-nothing deal, nor as simple as you want to make it sound. Where the federal government has the ability to preempt, it takes various forms, shapes and sizes.

But if you want to go off the deep end with the concept, that's okay too.