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

Update on SWA f/o arrested for intoxication.

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
Oh-ryan said:
Heck... I just learned that there is a difference between "good touch" and "bad touch"
More facts from the six o'clock news?
 
FN FAL said:
Your problem, is that you don't know the definition of "drunk", nor do you know the difference betwixt "drunk", "impaired", "problem drinker" and "alcoholic".

FN FAL said:
Just becuase you don't know the difference between factual guilt and legal guilt, it is...

FN FAL said:
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.

You must be really impressed with how smart you think you are.

How 'bout this for a plan: Don't show up for your flight hung over or even with beer on your breath. Is that really so difficult a concept?
 
satpak77 said:
If his credit card shows a alcohol purchase at 3 AM, then thats another story. The investigation is ongoing I am sure.

Can't remember the last time I used a CC to buy beer on the road. Geez. Recent history has show that paper trail catches up to you in a hurry.

This will all get thrown out anyway, IMO.
 
OJ didn't do it. This SWA FO didn't do it. The LAPD framed them both. Thats what I hear on the street.
 
Terrain Terrain said:
What an A$$, this DeAngeFAG will end up in a smoking hole someday, I just home my family does not follow him in.

ummm yea how do you even know that. You just as well may be the one in that smoking hole. You will be too busy whining and complaining about how PSA screwed PDT as the GPWS screams terrain terrain.
 
AA717driver said:
This is the kind of witch hunt perpetrated by the trained monkeys in the TSA, most local police departments

Easy there, fella. Don't go lumping "most local police departments" into the bunch of government program workers on payroll at the TSA. I personally have known dozens of "local police officers" and they are not there to engage in witch hunts or to smear good citizens. Your post sounds dangerously like the type of person that gets into lots of trouble and then blames it on the guys that have to clean it up and put them back in line.
 
FN FAL said:
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 yessirie Massa... you's so smart... I's hopin I could git somma dat fancy book lernin so's I could be more likes you some day...

--tool
 
I can't help but notice a common thought thru this entire thread. By looking back at most of the posts here, ANY drinking is being viewed negatively. "Alcoholic" "Problem Drinker" "Casual Drunk"

If this is really percieved as this bad, wouldn't it be totally against the law for any of us to drink on an overnight?

I'm sorry. I, for one, will stand here and say that I enjoy a glass of wine with my dinner. I like a good cold brewskie at the end of a 14 hour duty day. Some days they taste better than others and go down pretty quick. I guess I should just be calling in sick as I order the first one just to be safe.

Was this guy wrong? I don't know. He blew a .039. Was he hung over? I don't know. Maybe his head didn't hurt at all. There's absolutely no way to tell what our BAC level is just by how we feel. Until then, I throw no stones. I wish him the best with his future. Everyone here knows he'll need it.
 
Some interesting items from another website.

The human body can produce a blood alcohol content of .015 through it's normal metabolic process without having ever ingested a drop of alcohol.

A glass of "fresh squeezed" orange juice can have as much natural alcohol as an O'douls non-alcohol beer. Up to 1/2 of 1 percent alcohol by volume.

The breathalizers approved by the FAA for testing pilots have an accuracy range of .015%

When X airline approved certain breathalizers; the manufacutor demonstrated it's capability on a test sample of air containing .0% alcohol. The machine tested the sample and produced a result of .015% alcohol! I was in the room along with other ALPA officials and several Vice-Presidents. The machine met standards and was approved!!

Add the error rate of .015 plus the natural metabolic possibility of .015 and you have a possible reading of .030 even if the subject has never consumed alcohol in their
lives.

Thus the FAA range of up to .039 considered no fault, no penality with a withdrawal from duty until below .20

Thus the FAA policy of up .20 as permissable for continued, uninterupted duty.

Other legal entities have gotten into the act in recent years complicating what was once FAA and airline turf.

Be careful out there.
 
Thanks, AAflyer, you made my point better than I did. The breathalyzer is a swag. That's why both parties should request a blood test.

nightfr8er--Sorry to lump the local cops in with the Feds. Most local cops I know spend their time harassing kids with loud stereos and and souped-up cars. I have great respect for the State Police.

BTW, I have a clean record. TC
 
MalteseX said:
Slurred speech; staggering; stupid comments, etc. YOU CAN be convicted of impairment, (ie DUI, etc) by exhibiting these traits, even if you "blow" below the legal limit. It's happened to many people; especially those who do not get a good lawyer and defend themselves in court.
OH CRAP - 737Pylt's going to jail for sure.
 
nightfr8er said:
AA717driver said:
Easy there, fella. Don't go lumping "most local police departments" into the bunch of government program workers on payroll at the TSA. I personally have known dozens of "local police officers" and they are not there to engage in witch hunts or to smear good citizens.
Nah - they are too busy patrolling that 3 mile stretch of interstate where the speed limit suddenly (and for no reason) drops from 70 to 55 in order to protect the people of their community from the horrors suffered by efficient use of our nation's freeways. They surely would not engage in a witch hunt, entrapment, or spear the driving records of otherwise good citizens, MEOW.

But, if given the choice, I guess I'd rather have the Super Troopers than the cameras a company in Scottsdale, AZ uses to raise revenue, which is what traffic enforcement is all about these days.

BTW - the Insurance Institute's data MEOW shows that speed cameras increase collisions in the areas where they are deployed by 15%.
 
Last edited:
Sluggo_63 said:
Oh yessirie Massa... you's so smart... I's hopin I could git somma dat fancy book lernin so's I could be more likes you some day...

--tool
Whatever, Toby.
 
~~~^~~~ said:
BTW - the Insurance Institute's data MEOW shows that speed cameras increase collisions in the areas where they are deployed by 15%.
Do they have a little robot that comes out of the camera that administers first aid to the car collision victims? I didn't think so. If the camera sees a rapist or a mugger does it release the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark they shoot bees at the mugger or rapist? I didn't think so.

If that town in Scottsdale is not sharing the ticket money with federal government, then that town has set up a money making racket on one of the channels of interestate commerce and needs to have their camera money maker shut down. I don't pay taxes for the federal government to build highways so some jerk water town can earn revenue off of it.
 
To SWA's credit, the pilot was put on paid leave. Alot of companies would hang you out to dry in a heart beat.
 
AA717 - I'm sure you do have a clean record - as do most of us here. We all suffer from the negative press of a few bad apples. (Northwest, Frontier, etc, etc.) Then lots of the public looks at all of us like we're drunks. I continue to maintain that the type of guys that drinks until 3-4 hours before his report time, and shows up at TSA smelling like a still, and endangers his livelihood that he spent years accomnplishing, and the main means of support for his family, has a bigger problem than just having a few on an overnight. Those types are real, full-time professional drunks. The just happen to work amongs us. And in that regard, I feel sorry for them. That their addiction is so out of control, and their lives are such a shambles that they seek solace in a glass is, when you get right down to it, really, really sad.
 
FN FAL said:
If that town in Scottsdale is not sharing the ticket money with federal government, then that town has set up a money making racket on one of the channels of interestate commerce and needs to have their camera money maker shut down. I don't pay taxes for the federal government to build highways so some jerk water town can earn revenue off of it.


Another sector heard from... Legitimate law enforcement is legitimate law enforcement - not matter where the fines go to. If you're out there breaking the law, than you can be caught by anybody with jurisdiction. Stop whining. If you're not breaking the law, then you have nothing to worry/complain about.
 
habitual pilot said:
I'm sorry. I, for one, will stand here and say that I enjoy a glass of wine with my dinner.

Wine? Screw your BAC, what's your estrogen level? It sounds dangerously high. :D
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us how you like mixed drinks with umbrellas in them. :p
 
nightfr8er said:
Another sector heard from... Legitimate law enforcement is legitimate law enforcement - not matter where the fines go to. If you're out there breaking the law, than you can be caught by anybody with jurisdiction. Stop whining. If you're not breaking the law, then you have nothing to worry/complain about.

Anybody with jurisdiction? Only judges have jurisdiction, cops have authorization of arrest powers. Better go back to school god boy.
 
FN FAL said:
Anybody with jurisdiction? Only judges have jurisdiction, cops have authorization of arrest powers. Better go back to school god boy.
Actually, "courts" have jurisdiction, not judges.

If you take the other definition of jurisdiction: "the territory within which power can be exercised," then law enforcement has jurisdiction.

You will find state law, US Code, and the US Supreme Court all use the term "police jurisdiction" to describe the physical boundries in which law enforcement have "arrect powers."

School's out. Go play kickball.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top