SWA f/o arrested for intoxication

[Benhuntn]

"We're all crewmembers. The guys we fly with are most-often not just coworkers but friends. I know it sounds cheesy as heck, but let's start being each-other's wing-men when it comes to crap like this!! Have the balls to pull your coworkers to the side and TELL them they're stinkin'!!"


Well said Barney

 

[GuppyWN]

You got that right. Either you call in sick or I call in sick for the whole crew. Someday you'd thank me.

Gup

 

[satpak77]

I hope to god that is true for him and his family. After that, it's clear skies for him. Literally.

unfortunately, not true. See

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_17A.html

18 USC 343 states

343. Presumptions
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) an individual with a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or more shall be presumed to be under the influence of alcohol; and
(2) an individual shall be presumed to be under the influence of drugs if the quantity of the drug in the system of the individual would be sufficient to impair the perception, mental processes, or motor functions of the average individual.

Hopefully defense attorney can attack the calibration/etc of the testing equipment and the interview (he gave statements according to the paper).

The second element also could be attacked by saying this guy is fatter than normal, in good shape, etc (really WHATEVER at this point) and argue that he is not "the average individual" and thus would not be impaired.

At alleged triple the .10 limit, tho, it may be a difficult case.

Re:

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000342----000-.html

§ 342. Operation of a common carrier under the influence of alcohol or drugs

Whoever operates or directs the operation of a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), shall be imprisoned not more than fifteen years or fined under this title, or both.

Maybe the Capt was taxiing the airplane and the FO was physically not on any control device (rudders, yoke, etc) and was reviewing the Jepp chart, etc. Maybe the defense could argue that "operates" by definition was not fulfilled by the FO and thus he cannot be charged with this statute. I believe he is being charged with this one....


Good luck to the guy...

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

So they arrested the guy for blowing BELOW the legal limit? In Utah, do you get a speeding ticket for doing 54 in a 55? Now this guy has been publicily humiliated and they didn't have grounds to charge him in the first place? The scumbag lawyers are going to be pounding this guys' door down to get a chance to represent him in this lawsuit.

 

[GuppyWN]

bingo. If you're under you're under. End of story. And yes, I'd be saying this even if you flew for Brand X.

Gup

 

[Ty Webb]

This type of situation is the reason I said it would be helpful to do a blood test in a hospital environment, where he would come into contact with medically-trained witnesses who could testify that he did not appear to be impaired . . . . . scared sh!tless, perhaps, but not impaired.

The airline I fly for has a .02 limit . . . . more restrictive than the FAA, so he would still be fired, but yet still capable of transporting rubber dog-doo from Hong Kong, should he feel the need . . . . . . the need . . . for speed!

.

 

[Falconjet]

Satpak: .039 is much less than .10.

.04 is the FAA limit. So he was under that as well.

FJ

 

[satpak77]

Satpak: .039 is much less than .10.

.04 is the FAA limit. So he was under that as well.

FJ

I thought I read somewhere .39

if not, GREAT

 

[bluejuice787]

unfortunately, not true. See

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_17A.html

18 USC 343 states




Hopefully defense attorney can attack the calibration/etc of the testing equipment and the interview (he gave statements according to the paper).

The second element also could be attacked by saying this guy is fatter than normal, in good shape, etc (really WHATEVER at this point) and argue that he is not "the average individual" and thus would not be impaired.

At alleged triple the .10 limit, tho, it may be a difficult case.

Re:

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000342----000-.html




Maybe the Capt was taxiing the airplane and the FO was physically not on any control device (rudders, yoke, etc) and was reviewing the Jepp chart, etc. Maybe the defense could argue that "operates" by definition was not fulfilled by the FO and thus he cannot be charged with this statute. I believe he is being charged with this one....


Good luck to the guy...

Satpak-

Uh, you might want to consider putting another zero in front of the 39. He was well below the legal limit for intoxication and also under the federal guideline of .04 bac for aviation.

Juice

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

deleted