Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SWA Pilot on paid leave pending alcohol investigation

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
So what IF the guy screwed up (none of us know what really happened). We all make mistakes. You guys pointing fingers are masking a bigger problem. Your need to be critical of others to make up for your own short comings.
 
Why was he NOT detained? Why was he NOT arrested? Why is he still employed? Think about the whole situation and consider that if he was even close to intoxicated, they would have kept him detained long enough for a blood-test and then arrested him. They certainly wouldn't have let him go.

Wrong. Although the cops reacted quickly to "apprehend" this guy, it would not have taken them long to realize that that there is no federal, state, local law, or FAR against being slightly buzzed in an airport...what you happen to be wearing doesn't change that.

They had no grounds to force a blood test, and would have ended up signing over their houses to the guy if they had.

Pilots have been confronted at the airport and they invariably say "I'm going in to tell ops that I am calling in sick" Obvious BS, but since you can't prove otherwise, no crime.

If you think about every other high profile incident along these lines, you will recall that the offenders were arrested on board the aircraft.

Even the TSA is smart enough not to confront the drunk pilot at security...cuz if they do, he will leave and call in sick...no bust, no TSA heroism medal.

This guy may have been saved when that pax flushed him out before he got to the plane. Assuming he was even drunk... although his behavior was mighty fishy.
 
Last edited:
So

- We agree that he was probably not drunk

- We agree he prob is not a bad guy

- And we (ahem...) agree that he recogized a dicey situation and wanted out of it (mission accomplished)

so that should just about put this to bed then...

MODS: Request thread re-title to:

"Guy makes stupid mistake, recognizes it, and decides on another course of action before he gets himself or others in trouble, then is bashed on flightinfo for 5+ pages for taking proper course of action, which was done after honest disclosure to police and his own management"

:rolleyes:

Sorry mate, but even if sober he's a dumb@ss that made every 121 pilot look bad. That's my issue. I get very irritated when I hear the 'breathalyzer before pilot flies' talk on MSNBC. What has happened here raises that bs once again.

The course of action when a passenger makes such an accusation is to call for the pee test and delay the flight. How you get to the point of being a captain at any airline and follow the path he took is beyond me? Rushing to the bathroom and telling a cop you partied hard last night is about as bright Pacman Jones 'makin it rain' at the strip club.
 
Last edited:
I am still blown away by the belief that the pilot said, "I partied hard". NO WAY did he say that. The running to the bathroom bit it BS too. His FO said that this was BS. I don't care if the Pope swears by that statement, the guy didn't say it.

By the way, the police can hold you, for a long time, for a multitude of reasons and suspicion being the most likely. Long enough for the company to administer a bloodtest, which I don't think they did.

I can't believe that most here aren't fuming from the fact that this dude was outed for doing nothing. The passengers and TSA have all the creditbility and the crews have none. Bull$hit! They can say anything they want, true or not, and anyone buys it.
 
I heard Southwest was kicked out of a hotel in some small town because a crew of gay flight attendants had a sex party, and ended up plastering the walls with enema induced turd juice?

So that's what the crap is at the Hilton?! I thought it was textured paint!
 
Sorry mate, but even if sober he's a dumb@ss that made every 121 pilot look bad. That's my issue. I get very irritated when I hear the 'breathalyzer before pilot flies' talk on MSNBC. What has happened here raises that bs once again.

I dont know whats worse, the breathalyser or watching MSNBC.
 
I am still blown away by the belief that the pilot said, "I partied hard". NO WAY did he say that. The running to the bathroom bit it BS too. His FO said that this was BS. I don't care if the Pope swears by that statement, the guy didn't say it.

So now we're saying the cop is a liar? Then I'd be calling a lawyer to prep a libel suit on him and a few media outlets.

From officer Harry H. Fisher:

"I then asked Captain Shook if he had been drinking today, and he stated, "No, but I partied hard last night at the hotel". Mr. Michael Rucker, Southwest CMH station manager and Mr. James June were in the room. Mr. Rucker was on the phone with Southwest drug and alcohol office, and stated to this officer that Captain Shook would have to submit to an alcohol test.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/01/heres-the-police-report-on-the.html

Who knows, maybe that was misinterpreted sarcasm?
 
Last edited:
I was hoping it was that POS xxxx xxxxx.

Say what you will...you and others might not agree with what he did, but I tip my pointy hat to him. At least he has integrity, is principled, and put in over 20 years of elbow grease to change something he felt was wrong. That's a whole lot more than I can say for your post, which outs him on a public forum.
 
So now we're saying the cop is a liar? Then I'd be calling a lawyer to prep a libel suit on him and a few media outlets.

From officer Harry H. Fisher:

"I then asked Captain Shook if he had been drinking today, and he stated, "No, but I partied hard last night at the hotel". Mr. Michael Rucker, Southwest CMH station manager and Mr. James June were in the room. Mr. Rucker was on the phone with Southwest drug and alcohol office, and stated to this officer that Captain Shook would have to submit to an alcohol test.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/01/heres-the-police-report-on-the.html

Who knows, maybe that was misinterpreted sarcasm?

We all have our definition of "partying hard". Maybe his definition is watching COPS and eating a bag of popcorn.
 
Zonker should get some days off from FI. Where are the Mods?
 
So now we're saying the cop is a liar? Then I'd be calling a lawyer to prep a libel suit on him and a few media outlets

Most Cops are liars, nothing new there.
 
Say what you will...you and others might not agree with what he did, but I tip my pointy hat to him. At least he has integrity, is principled, and put in over 20 years of elbow grease to change something he felt was wrong. That's a whole lot more than I can say for your post, which outs him on a public forum.

Are you going to tip your pointy head as well? How exactly did I "out" him?

That idiot never missed a chance to flap his gums in the press...he's quite well known for his greedy cause.
 
Zonker back again. I thought when I flushed I had seen the last of you.
 
Are you going to tip your pointy head as well? How exactly did I "out" him?

That idiot never missed a chance to flap his gums in the press...he's quite well known for his greedy cause.

Zonk,

Where was the "leadership" on our side? Did anyone do any lobbying on Capitol Hill for the other side?
Ever get any press attention? Emens did...why didn't our side get any attention?

Bottom line...some people know how to work on a political issue...other sit on the sidelines and throw rocks. Key word="work"

the real question here is....what will you do different on the next issue?

Besides, that is now an old issue.....Age 65...it is what it is...
 
Emens didn't accomplish a thing.

Age-65 was a non-starter on Capitol Hill until Prater got ALPA to lay down on the issue, against the majority will of its membership.

But as you say, it is what it is.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top