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....

 

[FN FAL]

Hmmmm, half the legal limit to drive a car. Legally he was not drunk.

.08 isn't "drunk" for a lot of people either. Check the modern phrasology, they call "drunk" drivers "drinking" drivers now. It's all about level of impairment.

Just think, when you have to drive your mom or dad around because age 60 has been legally defined as "impaired" driving, you'll see where it's all heading.

I think the next logical step will be to ban cell phones from the passenger compartment of motor vehicles. They have already done studies that prove that cell phone talkers are more impaired than a .08% drinking driver. If I can't have an open bottle of Jack Daniels laying on the back seat of my car, you shouldn't be able to have an operating cell phone in the passenger compartment of a car either.

 

[FN FAL]

http://www.tigerweekly.com/story.php?iidart=3326

Get plastered for science and talk on your phone

[Comment Below]
By Danielle Bachan
A recent study conducted by the University of Utah Psychology Department claims that driving while talking on your cell phone is as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. The goal of the study was to understand what makes people assume they are driving safely while talking on their cell phones. Startling evidence from the study showed that “while some of the participants crashed in a virtual vehicle while sober and chatting, none of them crashed while drunk.” Volunteers were given alcoholic drinks until the legal blood alcohol limit (.08) was reached. The participants were then instructed to drive. Other volunteers were instructed to talk on their phones and drive. All tests were performed on a virtual driving course.

The test showed that the talking drivers drove slower, failed to maintain a safe driving distance and were, on average, slower to hit the brakes. The drunk drivers also drove slower but were much more aggressive than the talking drivers. Throughout all findings, none of the drunk drivers crashed.

These results may seem a little off beat, but according to University of Utah Psychology Department member Frank Dews, “This study does not mean people should start driving drunk … It means talking on your cell phone is as bad as, or maybe worse than, driving drunk.”

Many drivers who talk on their cell phones are unaware of the risks they cause, just as drunk drivers believe that the problem is not them. The cell phone talkers are very likely to miss out on potentially dangerous situations on the road due to being engaged in a conversation, thus posing a greater risk to those around them.

The use of a hands-free device seemed to be the answer, but new laws are making just about any form of yapping illegal when behind the wheel. Many areas throughout the United States are beginning to make the roads safer by regulating drivers’ cell phone use. New York was the first state to ban drivers from using hand-held cells.

Other recent reports and studies have declared hands-free devices just as distracting as a hand-held model. Anne McCartt, VP for research and author of the cell phone study stated that either phone type increased the risk.

The Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office stated that there are currently no laws in place in Louisiana regarding cell phone usage in vehicles.

“I can assure you that the sheriff’s office does not have this as one of our top priorities,” declared Fred Raiford III, Administrative Assistant at the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office.

Talking on a cell phone while driving is considered by many as “multi-tasking” rather than a possible driving hazard. However, while this may be public perception, the national Highway Traffic Safety Administration determined that a driver’s risk of getting into an accident is three times higher when the driver is on a cell phone.

 

[Captain Overs]

Maybe you shouldn't drink on overnights. This wouldn't be an issue. The only time I drink is on my days off. Too much to lose otherwise.

 

[FN FAL]

Maybe you shouldn't drink on overnights. This wouldn't be an issue. The only time I drink is on my days off. Too much to lose otherwise.

Drinking on a day off is the same as drinking on an overnight.

 

[JP4user]

What an A$$, this DeAngeFAG will end up in a smoking hole someday, I just home my family does not follow him in.

He would have to actually be a pilot to cause an accident. The only smoking hole he now leaves is after rolling off his boyfriend.

 

[Publishers]

Let there be no doubt, in many companies you blow a .39 during duty hours, you are gone..... period.

 

[JP4user]

Let there be no doubt, in many companies you blow a .39 during duty hours, you are gone..... period.

You would be lucky to still be alive with a .39.

 

[Megalops]

Let there be no doubt, in many companies you blow a .39 during duty hours, you are gone..... period.

Let there be no doubt you have no attention to detail....period. He was .039 not .39, back to microsoft flight sim for you.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Now that's funny!

 

[:-)]

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....

Brother, we think alike on this. I started out thinking that we should all just dip our ties in cheap rye whiskey, but that isn't real professional and I don't want to scare the pax. I've recently thought about wadding up a kleenex and dipping it in Jack, wearing it through security, and then tossing it into the trash after clearing security. Both of those plans actually require that we have some Jack somewhere in our possession, which could be trouble, so they're out of consideration. '

Lately, I've been wondering if the security screeners might also be on the lookout for bad breath and strong mouthwash. My latest idea is to eat Italian, heavy on the garlic, and gargle with cheap-no-alcohol mouthwash just before entering security. The only drawback is that the FO better follow the same plan or my breath might run him/her out of the cockpit.

Or maybe, I could just do the cheap mouthwash thing. Once the mouthwash wears off, I'm back to normal. It could work, maybe we should start a movement.

Another idea just popped up, Does anyone know if the listerine pocket pacs contain any amount of alcohol? They are certainly strong in the smell department. Maybe we should all start popping a double dose of listerine pocket strips before every time we enter security.

I'm doing it. Who's with me?



BTW, why is it that the TSA smelled booze, but the other crew members did not? We all should really start doing the self police deal. If I ever manage to run out of brains and tie one on, I'd certainly appreciate it if my co-worker started the day off with, "dude, you smell like a bloody brewery. CALL IN SICK"