Suspected drunk pilot in OMA? Republic/CHQ

[landlover]

What is it with this generation of kids that cannot take responsibility for their actions? Geesh!

probably raised by a spineless generation aka babyboomer parents.

 

[hmmurdock]

A issue here is that a pilot would rather risk his career and life rather than suffer the company consequences. Nice safety culture we have here

Greetings. When did frontier start flying 190s. I am afraid to ask what chatauqua pilots are being paid to fly frontier planes!

 

[IBNAV8R]

If I caught a guy raping my wife, police would be the least of his worries. (Remember, when seconds count, they are just minutes away.)

OTOH, the van driver could have said, "Sir, you're not looking well, I'm sure your room is still available." And/or, "I smell alcohol. I strongly recommend you ride back to the hotel with me."

Then, given how I've seen some pilots treat van drivers, there's probably some petty satisfaction in having a part in ending one's career - especially if the person in question was a total DB.

 

[willbob]

I'll take a stab at it. It is ironic that the pilot tipped the van driver for helping him get to the plane that morning then the guy turned around and stopped him from getting to the plane. Either way, i think he was pointing out the humor in it more than saying he shouldn't have snitched. I think we would all agree that this pilot was an idiot for what he did and the van driver, although he did "snitch", did the right thing.

Dave

PS It's ironic that a guy with the name Little Mojito is bashing someone for drinking.

This is why I quite tipping van drivers

 

[willbob]

Bull. The van driver is a prick. He could have confronted the pilot in the van. If he would have let the pilot know he was calling the police, I'm sure the pilot would have gone back to the hotel with the van driver. The van driver is a rat, plain and simple. It's still the pilot's fault also, but the van driver is a scumbag.

You just fricking nailed it well said

 

[emspilot 01]

Van Drivers Fault..

Bull. The van driver is a prick. He could have confronted the pilot in the van. If he would have let the pilot know he was calling the police, I'm sure the pilot would have gone back to the hotel with the van driver. The van driver is a rat, plain and simple. It's still the pilot's fault also, but the van driver is a scumbag.

I'm thinking you comment is nothing more then flamebait. Your saying it's the van drivers fault the pilot showed up drunk to fly. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions. It's not the van drivers job to pull someone off a flight for being drunk. We could also blame the hotel or front desk person. Do you know how stupid you sound to most people.

 

[Varmint]

I'm thinking you comment is nothing more then flamebait. Your saying it's the van drivers fault the pilot showed up drunk to fly. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions. It's not the van drivers job to pull someone off a flight for being drunk. We could also blame the hotel or front desk person. Do you know how stupid you sound to most people.

LOL agree. I have never seen a pilot who doesn't wear a watch or have a cellphone with a clock on it. If you can't tell time, stop boozing 12 hours prior to report, and a mind altering liquid is more important than your career then you don't deserve to be in the cockpit of a multi-million dollar airplane. Obviously, the decision making skills need to be tweaked.

 

[outerlimits]

I had the opportunity to speak to a hotel staff and a pilot who works for the same company. It is not a great story and it is upsetting that multiple incidents have occurred within the same company in the last 12 months.

Did u have to fly 8 legs the next day, like everyone on hear says u guys do everyday?

 

[B727FA]

Yes. Showing up at the airport after an overnight with fellow crewmembers, in the absence of reporting yourself unavailable to crew scheduling, is considered intention to operate.

That may be the rule at your airline. However, the DOT's rules say that
"Reasonable Suspicion" cannot be acted upon unless the crew member is ON the a/c. Up to the point that one foot is on that a/c you can STILL call off/be pulled aside, etc "no harm, no foul." The lawyers on both sides can argue "intent to operate" but the threshold for a test is presence on the a/c.

As for being a crime to be at the airport drunk, I believe the charge could only be Public Intoxication. There could be company policy violations with being drunk in uniform, conduct unbecoming, etc.

 

[emspilot 01]

Drunken Pilot...

That may be the rule at your airline. However, the DOT's rules say that
"Reasonable Suspicion" cannot be acted upon unless the crew member is ON the a/c. Up to the point that one foot is on that a/c you can STILL call off/be pulled aside, etc "no harm, no foul." The lawyers on both sides can argue "intent to operate" but the threshold for a test is presence on the a/c.

As for being a crime to be at the airport drunk, I believe the charge could only be Public Intoxication. There could be company policy violations with being drunk in uniform, conduct unbecoming, etc.

According to your "Reasonable Suspician" The van driver might of saved him from serving jail time. Where does "intent" come into play with showing up to fly and being on duty. I assume he was not taken off the flight, until being caught...

 

[Aviatard]

I don't think you can tie the DOT's "reasonable suspicion" rule with intent. I think they are independent. I disagree with the statement that the threshold to prove intent is presence ON the acft.

 

[outerlimits]

That may be the rule at your airline. However, the DOT's rules say that
"Reasonable Suspicion" cannot be acted upon unless the crew member is ON the a/c. Up to the point that one foot is on that a/c you can STILL call off/be pulled aside, etc "no harm, no foul." The lawyers on both sides can argue "intent to operate" but the threshold for a test is presence on the a/c.

As for being a crime to be at the airport drunk, I believe the charge could only be Public Intoxication. There could be company policy violations with being drunk in uniform, conduct unbecoming, etc.

Good defense , but will not work. Many have tried. Might as well say until pushback. Meaning I was just Going To do my flows and make sure the engines will start.

 

[svcta]

This thread is unbelievable. Do you people really think that a hotel van driver has any business doing anything other than driving the van and turning the heat up and down? . It is not the driver's place to counsel a customer on his life choices. He's not Mr. Miagi, for the love of God. In any event, someone with knowledge of the situation said that it wasn't the driver, so quit barking up that ridiculous tree. You sound like petulant brats who can't hack it without someone to mete out second and third chances.

Gee whiz, grammar and spelling, too. Appropriate, I guess. Those of you who want to pin this pilot's fate on the van driver's behavior are a pox on this business. There was one person responsible for anything that took place that morning and he will now go through whatever the next part of the process is for him. I am all for allowing someone to get help when they need it, but it is not a van driver's duty to carry the AA big book around under his seat so he can club drunk pilots with it in order to save them from making difficult choices.

What a pathetic argument. The older I get I keep hoping that my peer group will begin to act like the adults that I admired when I was a kid. Thanks for the setback.

 

[B727FA]

I don't think you can tie the DOT's "reasonable suspicion" rule with intent. I think they are independent. I disagree with the statement that the threshold to prove intent is presence ON the acft.

Good defense , but will not work. Many have tried. Might as well say until pushback. Meaning I was just Going To do my flows and make sure the engines will start.

The difference is, it's not a choice anyone can make, it's been determined already: one step on the a/c. Not doing flows, walk-around, crew brief, etc. All of that *technically* doesn't prove intent...if it's off the a/c. One you step ON you prove intent. That's the DOT rule and not subject to interpretation.

I'm not saying the person didn't intend to fly based on common sense from our perspective. Obviously, to anyone seeing this, there was intent. However, LEGALLY, there wasn't until he stepped aboard.

Because we might disagree with legal terms doesn't make us right and the rule wrong. This interp came directly from the DOT rules and we dealt with this when I worked in the D&A Enforcement/Compliance department at a former carrier for which I worked.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Get your drinking under fking control!!!!

It really is a sickness when one cant stop. Believe me... I know.

 

[emspilot 01]

Pilot Drinking Problems...

Get your drinking under fking control!!!!

It really is a sickness when one cant stop. Believe me... I know.

How many people know pilots with drinking problems. I'm guessing, it's more common then most might think...

 

[Amish RakeFight]

How many people know pilots with drinking problems. I'm guessing, it's more common then most might think...

Some of these problems may even go beyond alcohol and into pills. Pill problems are even easier to hide.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

The difference is, it's not a choice anyone can make, it's been determined already: one step on the a/c. Not doing flows, walk-around, crew brief, etc. All of that *technically* doesn't prove intent...if it's off the a/c. One you step ON you prove intent. That's the DOT rule and not subject to interpretation.

I'm not saying the person didn't intend to fly based on common sense from our perspective. Obviously, to anyone seeing this, there was intent. However, LEGALLY, there wasn't until he stepped aboard.

Because we might disagree with legal terms doesn't make us right and the rule wrong. This interp came directly from the DOT rules and we dealt with this when I worked in the D&A Enforcement/Compliance department at a former carrier for which I worked.

Go to Nebraska Statutes, Drunk Flying is covered as well as Criminal intent, very clear, this guy will be some jailbirds girlfriend. If the DOT doesn't get him a newshungry DA will.

 

[sunlitpath]

That may be the rule at your airline. However, the DOT's rules say that
"Reasonable Suspicion" cannot be acted upon unless the crew member is ON the a/c. Up to the point that one foot is on that a/c you can STILL call off/be pulled aside, etc "no harm, no foul." The lawyers on both sides can argue "intent to operate" but the threshold for a test is presence on the a/c.

As for being a crime to be at the airport drunk, I believe the charge could only be Public Intoxication. There could be company policy violations with being drunk in uniform, conduct unbecoming, etc.

There are numerous laws governing airline pilots and alcohol use. Feds have laws, states have laws, and of course companies have their own policies. Here is an interesting article from ALPA Legal. It mentions reporting for duty and other scenarios that pilots must consider.
http://www.boaf.org/alpaarticle.htm

 

[Erlanger]

Pilots aren't the only ones getting drunk.

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_n...k-flight-attendant-caused-flight-cancellation