Suspected drunk pilot in OMA? Republic/CHQ

[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