Update on SWA f/o arrested for intoxication.

[Oh-ryan]

at the risk of aligning myself with D'angelo on this one I need to throw this out there...

Should this guy have been arrested... no way. Do I want this guy flipping switches in a cockpit that my family is on... probably not. I think you need to have a little better judgement than this poor guy did.

Have I screwed up royally in my life... absolutely. Everyone is young and stupid. But when you find yourself responsible for the lives of 100+ people you've got to have better judgement.

Have I asked enough rhetorical questions and answered them myself... you bet.

 

[canyonblue]

Fulton told the court he was an active member of the military. Prosecutors did not have information Monday about where Fulton was serving or in what capacity.

In 2002 the FAA found a decade-high 22 pilots in violation of the .04 alcohol violation. Since then, that number has been reduced every year.

The agency regularly matches pilot's names against DUI data in the national driver's licenses registry, FAA Northwest Region spokesman Allen Kenitizer said. The agency also requires airlines to have random testing programs in place. Between 2000 and 2003, more than 10,200 pilots were tested, FAA data show.

Anybody know how this would affect him if he is in a Guard Unit?

 

[habitual pilot]

I wonder if we could stop this witch hunt by the poorly untrained individuals if we all showed up with a little Jack Daniels smell with absolutely NO alcohol in our systems? If a couple hundred of us blew a .000, they might just look like the idiots they usually seem to be....

 

[satpak77]

[quote='LUVIN LIFE]
3. The FO blew below the .04 limit (by .001, not half which I read in a previous post) but was still arrested. Why? Media? Once again, NOTHING to do with the TSA?

But all I'm looking for is some unbiased TRUTH. If what I've written is wrong please type away. I just see no reason for unwarranted blasting.

God bless![/quote]

Sir

He was arrested and charged with 18 USC 342, which requires a .10 or above BAC. He had .039, which is less than half of what the federal charge requires.

Half of .10 is .05

FAA regulations (note the term "regulation", and not "law" or "code") are civl in nature and not criminal in nature, however criminal laws exist on the books with exist parallel to FAA laws. For example the Valujet crash, multiple people got prosecuted criminally over that, for false logs and other stuff.

However, in and of itself, since FAA regulations have no criminal nature to them, the only punishment for a violation is a SANCTION, which is a license suspenion/revocation and/or a fine. Those are the remedies to a violation of a FAR.

Again, in grossly outrageous cases the US Attorneys office will attempt a criminal prosecution, and likely state laws will be used to enhance the prosecution (landing on a highway, etc type stuff) but in 95% of FAR violations the only people involved is the FAA.

Why was he arrested?

He was likely arrested per instructions by the US Attorney's office, why we don't know.

It is HIGHLY unlikely that the US Attorney, the airport police, nor the FBI had a working knowledge of the FAR's or anything about .020 to .040, you "sit out until you are below .020" or etc type details.

The above parties are more familiar with criminal laws, not civil/administrative law. Heck, you can't get three FAA Chief Counsel attorneys to agree on something....

It appears TSA merely reported it, then they were out-of-the-loop, it was Airport Police/FBI who ran with the ball.

 

[Indy refugee]

I wonder if we could stop this witch hunt by the poorly untrained individuals if we all showed up with a little Jack Daniels smell with absolutely NO alcohol in our systems? If a couple hundred of us blew a .000, they might just look like the idiots they usually seem to be....

The problem is we still have idiots out there that blow .039 when they should be blowing .000.

And worse yet, another bunch of idiots want to argue that .039 is ok and everybody should leave him alone.

So the bottom line is, while we should be making them look like idiots, every time we have a drunk or almost drunk pilot caught it makes us the idiots, particularly those who want to defend this guys. The tolerance is ZERO, as in 0.00, anything more than that is inviting trouble.

 

[satpak77]

The problem is we still have idiots out there that blow .039 when they should be blowing .000.

And worse yet, another bunch of idiots want to argue that .039 is ok and everybody should leave him alone.

So the bottom line is, while we should be making them look like idiots, every time we have a drunk or almost drunk pilot caught it makes us the idiots, particularly those who want to defend this guys. The tolerance is ZERO, as in 0.00, anything more than that is inviting trouble.

Best post on this discussion yet. Agree 100%

I don't know about the "we should make them look like idiots" but I understand how you feel....

Note, my posts are from a "legal discussion" standpoint. I no way do I think we all should be running around with BAC of ANYTHING before we fly.

 

[roughneck]

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

How Current is This?
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.

This is what he was charged with and they can't prove that he was under the influence. (he blew below the federal governments own definition of "under the influence") Not to mention that he did not "operate" or " direct the operation" of a common carrier.

 

[shooter]

[quote='LUVIN LIFE]Well, there's been a lot of debate. So here's what I've gotten. Correct me if I'm wrong.....

1. The FO did pass through security with alcohol on his breath.
2. The TSA called the POLICE to administer the breathalizer. (All the TSA does is make a phone call. Trained monkeys, etc., their only function was a call. That's it. Which it sounds like they did correctly and with just cause. All the other debate about them seems pretty unwarranted IN THIS CASE. Chalk up a job well done. I know the people on the plane appreciated it - our paycheck generators.)
3. The FO blew below the .04 limit (by .001, not half which I read in a previous post) but was still arrested. Why? Media? Once again, NOTHING to do with the TSA?
4. He still would have been done with the trip because he was above a .02.

I know it sounds like I'm a TSA defender. But all I'm looking for is some unbiased TRUTH. If what I've written is wrong please type away. I just see no reason for unwarranted blasting.

Also, I was curious, I read that somebody mentioned about getting a blood test. Do we have that option? Is that written somewhere? The post I read about that had very good points.

God bless![/quote]

Okay, I’ll type away. But I do not know if I am right, I will only tell you how I interpret the post’s on the TSA.

1. Yes the FO did in fact pass through TSA security smelling of alcohol. Problem? Yes, but he was still within the legal limit before testing and assuming control of an aircraft.
2. Yes the TSA did the right thing by calling the police to administer the breath test. NOT a problem unless the FO assumes control of an aircraft. (I will soon point out when they become trained monkeys)
3. Being below .04 is legal as long as it is not to assume a safety-sensitive position. Which is not until he reports to the aircraft. He is lower than half the legal limit for driving a car. So he was legal to drive to the airport if he lived in SLC. Arrested? Yes and it's all because of the TSA. Had the TSA held him at the checkpoint and called the police, they would see that yes he is above the limit to operate an aircraft, but NOT above the limit to come in to work. NOT above the limit to drive to work. And definitely, NOT above the limit to be arrested unless he got into that aircraft. Which TSA let him do knowing he smelled of alcohol, which is where he gets into trouble.Now let me quickly ask you this question. Would TSA allow someone to proceed to the aircraft if they had a weapon, while they wait for the police that they called?
4. The whole point of the alcohol program is to allow him to be done with the trip and not suffer from the company unless he broke a company rule to lose his job. He did not break the law until he assumed control of the aircraft, which TSA allowed him to do even though they suspected he should not proceed to operate a flight. Again, I will point out that this is the fault of TSA to allow him to keep going to the slaughter.

You are defending TSA, and in this case I do not think you should since they allowed him to keep going. Would you defend them if they allow a crazy terrorist to proceed with a fuse hanging out of his shoe? While they waited for the police?
Again, I do not know if I am right in my interpretation. But that’s my thoughts on the subject.
Like someone said in a previous post: you never, NEVER mess with a mans livelihood.

 

[AA717driver]

My entire point when I posted in response to Lowcur's indictment on the other thread (I'm posting on this one because the other thread is just too d@m long...) is that you CANNOT judge an individual's sobriety based on a breathalyzer.

The evidence rests on "BLOOD" alcohol content. The breathalyzer just gives you a swag. It's the difference between an NDB approach and a Cat IIIa ILS.

Until his blood test comes back, all this is conjecture.

My second point is that any report by the cops of his appearance of intoxication can be countered by those who observed him prior to the TSA making the call. I guarantee you that the police will report slurred speech, swaying when he walked, inability to perform basic tasks... The usual.

This guy will walk unless his blood test is above .04 (unlikely since the breathalyzer reading decreased between the first and second tests). But he'd better be real careful from now on--just like the rest of us.

Take your altoids as you get out of the van.TC

 

[satpak77]

AA717

keep in mind the criminal charge requires .10, not a mere .04.

His walk (from the criminal standpoint) is now a slow stroll and is picking up steam as we speak....

Since violations of FAR's do not provide for a right to a jury or "probable cause" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" minimum, he may have some issues in that arena.

But one bridge at a time....