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
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.
 
Andy said:
Wine? Screw your BAC, what's your estrogen level? It sounds dangerously high. :D

LMAO! :D ZINGGGGGG!

Seriously, I'm not in favor of pilots being impaired on duty. We all have to know our limits (mine are expanding at a shocking rate as I age... :( ). I object to the immediate labeling of someone as guilty before ALL the evidence has been collected.

I'm not against law enforcement. I'm against the kind of chicken$h!t small-town cop BS that I witness in my local town and across the nation (cops riding MY bumper because I drive a car commonly driven by teens), harassing my daughter's classmates because they were driving their mom's Mercedes, cops getting convictions/charges/confessions thrown out because they wouldn't provide lawyers after the suspect requested one, cops withholding food and water for hours during questioning, cops threatening to hold people after their bail has been made, 4 cars show up to intimidate a State Policeman who pulled over a local cop for doing 110 with no lights or siren or being on duty... crap that isn't necessary to protect the safety of the community.

I was in a bar in Chicago years ago (on a layover :blush: ) and talked to a Transit Authority Police officer. She said that "cops have to stick together because everyone is against them". I told her that wasn't true and the general public supported them. But I related the above incident about the State cop being accosted by the locals and she said he shouldn't have been pulled over in the first place. The discussion headed downhill at that point with the result being that she (I assume representing the general attitude of her co-workers) felt police officers should not be held to the same standards (read laws) as the public because they have a difficult job and no one supports them. Boo-F'in-hoo.

Like so many other "public servants" many have forgotten that they are there to protect US. We aren't there for THEIR entertainment. And, unfortunately, the above happens so frequently that it makes me question the "few bad apples" defense.

Carry on.TC
 
:-) said:
Brother, we think alike on this:D. 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"

I agree with you on this. I thought that the TSA ratted another pilot out for smelling of alcohol but he infact had nothing to drink at all the night before. Might have been mouthwash. Not knowing for sure what the TSA folks go through for training but they had better be sure when they cry wolf.
 
I bought me a monster pack of those Listerine strips at the Sams. From now on, they'll be in my pocket awaiting the next strip search.

:-)
 
Hey "DumAngelo"

There is an old saying, but you are probably tooooo young to know it, and probably tooooo "stupid" to even understand it, but here goes;

"It is often wise to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Sorry, I guess judging from most (well, "all") of your posts, I guess I am a little too late in giving you that advice/quote.

Ouch... maybe there's some background I'm missing here but your reply seems a bit harsh for pointing out the obvious ~ that coming out to the airport a gnats ass away from being legally drunk is a bad idea. Good TSA, Bad TSA... whatever your opinion of them, DeAngelo is right on in saying that if you keep your sh*t together on layovers and are thinking about what's best for your career and your passengers you won't end up taking a sobriety test for anyone. Call me dense, but I just don't see how that is "Stupid".
 
Last edited:
AA717driver said:
LMAO! :D ZINGGGGGG!

Seriously, I'm not in favor of pilots being impaired on duty. We all have to know our limits (mine are expanding at a shocking rate as I age... :( ). I object to the immediate labeling of someone as guilty before ALL the evidence has been collected.

I'm not against law enforcement. I'm against the kind of chicken$h!t small-town cop BS that I witness in my local town and across the nation (cops riding MY bumper because I drive a car commonly driven by teens), harassing my daughter's classmates because they were driving their mom's Mercedes, cops getting convictions/charges/confessions thrown out because they wouldn't provide lawyers after the suspect requested one, cops withholding food and water for hours during questioning, cops threatening to hold people after their bail has been made, 4 cars show up to intimidate a State Policeman who pulled over a local cop for doing 110 with no lights or siren or being on duty... crap that isn't necessary to protect the safety of the community.

I was in a bar in Chicago years ago (on a layover :blush: ) and talked to a Transit Authority Police officer. She said that "cops have to stick together because everyone is against them". I told her that wasn't true and the general public supported them. But I related the above incident about the State cop being accosted by the locals and she said he shouldn't have been pulled over in the first place. The discussion headed downhill at that point with the result being that she (I assume representing the general attitude of her co-workers) felt police officers should not be held to the same standards (read laws) as the public because they have a difficult job and no one supports them. Boo-F'in-hoo.

Like so many other "public servants" many have forgotten that they are there to protect US. We aren't there for THEIR entertainment. And, unfortunately, the above happens so frequently that it makes me question the "few bad apples" defense.

Carry on.TC

I know of this pilot who spouts like a know it all arrogant prick on a certain web board. Because of this I now think of all pilots who fly 717's and GV as being similar to this pilot (the arrogant prick) because I am so narrow minded. Oh yea, all asians drive bad, all blacks steal, all mexicans steal my jobs and all Irish drink.

SS
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom