Southwest Airline pilot arrested! Drunk in cockpit!!!

[kevdog]

maybe some people mistake being drunk for being extremely tired

The blowanator never seems to.

 

[time builder]

Are you suggeting the fine folks in SLC discriminated against this pilot because he is not a mormon?

More like a lot of Mormons don't know what a drunk looks like, just a lack of experience, but they've heard stories, and this guy fit the description. LOL

 

[FN FAL]

More like a lot of Mormons don't know what a drunk looks like, just a lack of experience, but they've heard stories, and this guy fit the description. LOL

Once again, what makes you think the pilot was drunk?

If you are someone who becomes "drunk" at .04, you and my wife can go do "girl friend" things together, because you definitely are flaming or sit down to pee.

 

[A Squared]

is an A/L-300 type rating a herk?

so hes a mil dude, eh?
​

An L-300 is a C-141

Third -- show TSA folks common respects due other humans. Do you abuse the order-taker at McDonald's?

Uhhhh, not that I abuse TSA people, nor advocate that, but that respect thingy goes both ways. I don't abuse the order taker at mcDonalds, but if that order taker acted like many TSA idiots do, I would d@mn sure complain to the manager, and a McDonalds order taker that acted like a TSA person wouldn't last long, even at McDonalds.

 

[niteflyr]

July 10th, 2006 @ 7:39am
(KSL News) A Southwest Airlines co-pilot will be arraigned today, after what was nearly a case of flying drunk.
Flight 135 was scheduled to leave Salt Lake International Airport for Phoenix eary yesterday morning. Instead, the flight was delayed while the FBI arrested co-pilot Carl Fulton of Texas.
Security screeners say they smelled alcohol on Fulton's breath and alerted the FBI.
When Fulton entered the cockpit, agents arrested him and gave him a breathalizer test. Authorities wouldn't reveal exact test results, but they did say Fulton's blood alcohol level exceeded the federal limit of .04. Fulton will be charged with operating a common carrier under the influece of alcohol or drugs. If convicted, he could spend up to 15 years in jail.


And PLEASE don't use this as another excuse for a bash Mormons thread....Irrelevant!

 

[Gobi Gred]

12 hour bottle to throttle rule for 121 operators is coming sooner rather than later I think.

 

[A Squared]

12 hour bottle to throttle rule for 121 operators is coming sooner rather than later I think.

Perhaps, but will it do any good? Pure speculation here, but I think it's likely that this guy was in violation of the laws that already exist. In the case of the America West pilots in Florida, it's pretty clear that they were in violation of the 8 hour rule. So how would making the rule stricter help?

It's sort of like lowering the legal BAC level for driving to 0.08%. (and before any of you get started, I am not advocating or excusing drunken driving) It just seems to be taken on faith that lowering it is a good thing, and will make our world safer. Me, I'm skeptical, and I am of the mind that we should have good reasons backed up by fact before we make any laws more restrictive. So my question is: How many accidents are caused by drivers with a 0.08% or 0.09% BAC? I know this isn't scientific, but I don't *ever* recall reading about a fatal accident where the driver had a 0.09% BAC. Seems to me like they are generally .185 or .231 or some number a long way from 0.08%

If the drivers that are causing the problems are .15% or more, then how does lowering it from .10% to .08% make things safer?

Getting back to the topic at hand, if the problem pilots are already drinking within the current 8 hour time limit, then how will extending the time limit solve the problem?

 

[FN FAL]

Perhaps, but will it do any good? Pure speculation here, but I think it's likely that this guy was in violation of the laws that already exist. In the case of the America West pilots in Florida, it's pretty clear that they were in violation of the 8 hour rule. So how would making the rule stricter help?

It's sort of like lowering the legal BAC level for driving to 0.08%. (and before any of you get started, I am not advocating or excusing drunken driving) It just seems to be taken on faith that lowering it is a good thing, and will make our world safer. Me, I'm skeptical, and I am of the mind that we should have good reasons backed up by fact before we make any laws more restrictive. So my question is: How many accidents are caused by drivers with a 0.08% or 0.09% BAC? I know this isn't scientific, but I don't *ever* recall reading about a fatal accident where the driver had a 0.09% BAC. Seems to me like they are generally .185 or .231 or some number a long way from 0.08%

If the drivers that are causing the problems are .15% or more, then how does lowering it from .10% to .08% make things safer?

Getting back to the topic at hand, if the problem pilots are already drinking within the current 8 hour time limit, then how will extending the time limit solve the problem?

Eliminate crime, raise the Federal BAC to .08. It seems kind of funny that you can drive your car to work on the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, pump import/export regulated fuel in your car and drive your NHTSA/EPA regulated car to work with a .079 BAC, but if you jump in a plane, you go to prison if you're more than .039999 BAC.

 

[NoahWerka]

Until the Northwest crew got caught in, what '97-'98?, the reported incidence of flight crews drinking on duty was almost non-existant(not that they didn't, it was usually taken care of in house). After the Northwest crew got caught, any and everybody that has been caught or even suspected of drinking, since then is a complete moron. I would not want them flying the airplane I am riding on. If they don't have enough sense to CYA, much less not even drink in the aviation enviroment,and, under the kind of scrutiny that was brought upon flight crews by that incident, how do they have enough sense to fly an airplane? There has been several pilots that have been caught and deservedly so. But, everybody should be given the benefit of the doubt until proved guilty.

 

[FN FAL]

Eliminate crime, raise the Federal BAC to .08. It seems kind of funny that you can drive your car to work on the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, pump import/export regulated fuel in your car and drive your NHTSA/EPA regulated car to work with a .079 BAC, but if you jump in a plane, you go to prison if you're more than .039999 BAC.

I guess they busted him at .02. Is that something new? I thought .04 was the limit? According to the news, he blew a .039 and a lower number on the second try.

 

[sidesaddle]

Here is a a newspaper story on the incident:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640193806,00.html

 

[LarryinTN]

Blowing less than .04 doesn't mean that you're legal. They can still (try to) prove that you were intoxicated or that you had drank within 8 hours of flying. A test over .04 just makes it easier for them to prove guilt.

 

[PacoPollo]

Kudos for TSA. I dont blame them, They are doing there jobs.

 

[twepilot]

let me help...Them there TSA our duing them their jobz..

thanks,

RV

 

[Mr Wu]

Kudos for TSA. I dont blame them, They are doing their jobs.

No they were not. This is outside the scope of their job description.



Job Description: Transportation Security Screener duties include providing frontline security and protection of travelers, airports and airplanes by identifying dangerous objects in baggage and on passengers. They also are responsible for preventing those objects from being transported onto aircraft by utilizing diverse, cutting edge electronic detection and imaging equipment in a courteous and professional manner. Since airports are open 24-hours a day, the job may require working:

• Irregular hours and/or shifts
• Holidays and weekends
• Overtime and extended hours

 

[PacoPollo]

No they were not. This is outside the scope of their job description.

Job Description: Transportation Security Screener duties include providing frontline security and protection of travelers.....

They protected hundreds of innocent pax. by removing a cockpit crewmember under the influence of alcohol. You should see security at airports in my country. Im safe with TSA! That poor sob wont even get a job in Honduras with his record....

 

[sky37d]

Q: Say your on a over night your captain and you decide to go out to dinner and your captain shows up in a dress? What would you do?

I would say, well, I presume the captain in this case is a woman, so nothing needs to be said:beer:

 

[Mr Wu]

They protected hundreds of innocent pax. by removing a cockpit crewmember under the influence of alcohol. You should see security at airports in my country. Im safe with TSA! That poor sob wont even get a job in Honduras with his record....

If you are going to crop the quote, the proper way to do it is


Job Description: Transportation Security Screener duties include providing frontline security and protection of travelers..... by identifying dangerous objects in baggage and on passengers.

 

[MalteseX]

I would say, well, I presume the captain in this case is a woman, so nothing needs to be said:beer:

C"mon.... Have you EVER actually seen a woman airline captain wear a dress?

 

[Daveman]

Not until I get her alone at my place. imp:

Ya' but I'd Mc-dugal her with exta special sauce!
Eh Brah!

 

[sky37d]

C"mon.... Have you EVER actually seen a woman airline captain wear a dress?

Yes, but not while flying an airplane, it's not the uniform. And the question related to seeing the captain in a bar.

Okay, back to the topic at hand.
I agree, changing the regs to 12 hours doesn't solve the problem. If pilots drink inside 8 hours, or as in the case of the NWA folks, just before boarding, it's not the drinking rule that needs to be changed, it the people drinking before flying.

I would presume that in this case, that person won't be a pilot for quite a while.

 

[FN FAL]

C"mon.... Have you EVER actually seen a woman airline captain wear a dress?

The real question isn't whether you've seen airline captains wearing a dress, it's whether or not you've seen them wearing a condom when they aren't.

 

[skydiverdriver2]

I knew this would happen when they decided to make screeners federal employees. Now, anyone can see a pilot and call someone to make a complaint, but making them federal law enforcement officials will lead to abuse. I don't belive it's any of their business if a pilot smells or looks wrong to them.

Of course, I don't believe in random alcohol or drug tests either, as there is no reasonable cause to test people just because they work at an airline. I don't think it's legal, but to test it someone would have to refuse to be tested and lose their job. I'm not sure I would trust the Supreme Court with that decision. Of course, I will follow the law as it currently reads, even though I disagree with it.

 

[FN FAL]

I knew this would happen when they decided to make screeners federal employees. Now, anyone can see a pilot and call someone to make a complaint, but making them federal law enforcement officials will lead to abuse. I don't belive it's any of their business if a pilot smells or looks wrong to them.

Of course, I don't believe in random alcohol or drug tests either, as there is no reasonable cause to test people just because they work at an airline. I don't think it's legal, but to test it someone would have to refuse to be tested and lose their job. I'm not sure I would trust the Supreme Court with that decision. Of course, I will follow the law as it currently reads, even though I disagree with it.

How many airline crashes have occured with a .08/.07/.06/.05/.04% BAC?

Probably not as many as those caused by persons impaired with religion.

 

[DiamondFlyer]

Per the SOP, a TSA Screener would be required to call a LEO for suspected un-fit for duty. Quoting the Job Description is not valid as the individual airport's SOP dictates the reponsiblility of the TSA workforce. That said, the proper action is for the Screener (TSO) to notify the Screening Manager (SM) who will coordinate LEOs, because it's a criminal act. With this in mind, there is a process by which TSA can hold the aircraft if LEOs are running a little slow that particular day. The aircraft was going no-where, and there was probably much less of a scene to get the guy in the cockpit instead of in front of 1000 passengers in a terminal. In truth, the SOP would have required SWA be notified and a combined presence should have removed the pilot from the aircraft as quietly as possible, most likely announcing that the crew, "clocked out".

With consideration of TSA, all this is coordinated a facility by a neutral party in a facility far away.