Update on SWA f/o arrested for intoxication.

[FN FAL]

Court of public opinion? I think blowing .039 twice is a fact and not an opinion.

Factual guilt and legal guilt are two different things.

O.J. Simpson may have been factually guilty of killing his wife. However, he was never legally found guilty of that murder.

And, the capitol of Nebraska is Lincoln.

 

[LarryinTN]

By the way, I see no FAR violation here nor a criminal violation, based on the laws existing on the books now.

Really? How do you explain a .039% BAC at show-time if he hadn't had a drink for at least eight hours? With a normal metabilism rate he would have had to have been at three times the fatal BAC in order to produce a .039% eight hours later.

If the information that we have is correct it should not be difficult to meet the burden of proof that he had been drinking less than eight hours prior to show time.

 

[satpak77]

Really? How do you explain a .039% BAC at show-time if he hadn't had a drink for at least eight hours? With a normal metabilism rate he would have had to have been at three times the fatal BAC in order to produce a .039% eight hours later.

If the information that we have is correct it should not be difficult to meet the burden of proof that he had been drinking less than eight hours prior to show time.

The criminal charge does not contain a "within 8 hours" element, just .10 BAC or above. He did not meet this. End of story.

Observe he got arrested and jailed for a purported criminal violation.

The FAR's do state 8 hours, and since FARs do not provide for "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold nor a jury trial, he will have more problems here. However, there is no evidence (based on the reports) that he in fact did consume something in violation of the 8 hour rule.

To try to prove that based on .039 BAC, his last drink was 7:45 before show-time and not 8:15 hours before, will be challenging.

You and I both know that if he blew .039 during the taxi to the runway, he in all likelihood exceeded that at show-time. BUT ---> The regulations and the laws have parameters, and DOT/FAA guidance appears to only accept BAC readings taken at TIME OF TEST using a certified DOT device.

See page 9 (.pdf file page 18) of this document

http://www.dot.gov/ost/dapc/testingpubs/Employee_Handbook_low%20version.pdf


Again, based on the facts at hand, as we know them, I see no FAR violation nor criminal violation.

If his credit card shows a alcohol purchase at 3 AM, then thats another story. The investigation is ongoing I am sure.

This guy needs a solid criminal defense lawyer AND a solid aviation attorney, and this should "go away". If he in fact is an alcoholic, he needs to IMMEDIATELY enroll in a formal rehab program since Alcholism is indeed a disease and if officially diagnosed by a medical professional, opens up additional protections since Alcholism is disability protected by the ADA, if it "majorly impairs" that persons life.

This does not mean the ADA says airline pilots can drink, but when his attorneys are arguing to the courts and FAA Chief Counsel, it could push the case in his favor.

 

[FN FAL]

With a normal metabilism rate he would have had to have been at three times the fatal BAC in order to produce a .039% eight hours later.

Normal?

You're honor, my client is innocent of child molestation charges, because normally people prefer partners of the same age group.

Hanover Fiste: Hangin's too good for 'im. Burnin's too good for 'im. He should be torn into little bisty pieces and buried alive!

Sternn: Relax Harry, I've got an angle.

 

[Sluggo_63]

...never mind... we won't agree. I'm done arguing.

 

[Oh-ryan]

Factual guilt and legal guilt are two different things.

O.J. Simpson may have been factually guilty of killing his wife. However, he was never legally found guilty of that murder.

And, the capitol of Nebraska is Lincoln.

FN FAL,

Pass that peace pipe my friend. I want a hit of whatever you are smoking. My post had nothing to do with whether or not this guy officially broke laws. I will let the courts decide that one. I was merely trying to counter an earlier argument that he was being unfairly judged in the "court of public opinion". He blew .039 twice... fact. Bad judgement... absolutely! Let him face the full wrath of the "court of public opinion." We work in highly visible career fields. I would expect the same treatment if I found myself in a similar situation. Sure it would suck, but I don't think I would be blaming the court of public opinion. I would blame myself and that dang floozey I was trying to impress at the bar the night before.

How you managed to pull off an OJ reference was quite impressive though. Let me add my own sports reference.... I think the DH rule sucks!

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL,

Pass that peace pipe my friend. I want a hit of whatever you are smoking. My post had nothing to do with whether or not this guy officially broke laws. I will let the courts decide that one. I was merely trying to counter an earlier argument that he was being unfairly judged in the "court of public opinion". He blew .039 twice... fact.

Just because you don't know the difference between factual guilt and legal guilt, it is no reason to go around citing the media as your impartial finders of fact.

 

[FN FAL]

...never mind... we won't agree. I'm done arguing.

We'll go back and let your preacher give you that, "I don't need to KNOW the definition of DRUNK; I KNOWS it, when I SEES it!" speech again.

 

[Oh-ryan]

Just because you don't know the difference between factual guilt and legal guilt, it is no reason to go around citing the media as your impartial finders of fact.

Heck... I just learned that there is a difference between "good touch" and "bad touch"

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL,

Pass that peace pipe my friend. How you managed to pull off an OJ reference was quite impressive though.

It wasn't an OJ reference, it was a correlation to his criminal case.

OJ Simpson was never "legally guilty" of anything regarding the criminal murder trial in Nicole Simpson's death.

This SWA FO is not "legally guilty" until a verdict of guilt is handed down from a jury.

As far as facts go, you were not there when he took the breathalyser test, you are not a certified breathalyser operator, you are not an expert witness on breathalyser machines. The only "facts" available, are what you have read on the internet, heard in crew lounges or saw in the news.