Florida cannot prosecute pilots

I agree that people can indeed change. But, as harsh as it sounds, I
really think that some fields require such 'good judgement', that one
really shouldn't get a second chance after certain types of screwups.
That isn't to say that they should bhe permanently punished for one
mistake, but that being a pilot is an honour and a privilege, and not
having that privilege isn't a punishment, as much as it might feel
like it.

I really wouldn't want to see these guys go to jail. They screwed up,
they know it, and they will pay a very hefty price (with their
careers, likely). But being allowed to be an airline pilot brings with
it the higest demand for responsibility and professionalism. And these
two pilots failed to meet that standard in a *stunning* manner. All
they had to do was to abide by the rules that we, as pilots all
follow. Personally, I would never get in an airplane againt with a
pilot who knowingly chose to operate an aircraft while intoxicated.
That shows such terribly poor judgement that I could never again trust
their judgement when it comes to flying. If a surgeon botched an
operation because he was drunk, I doubt I could ever trust him again
in such a situation, regardless of how hard they have worked to fix
their life. Same goes for an airline pilot.

Cheers

Cap


(Rick Durden) wrote in message om...
Captain,

In general, you're correct. However, there has been at least one
airline captain who managed to get his life straightened out after
alcoholism, getting busted,prison and a lot of self evaluation. A NWA
captain did get his position back in circumstances that were
completely appropriate. He served prison time, realized he'd been a
screwup, straightened out, and was leading a completely straight life
with extensive volunteer work for aviation groups. His friends saw
the change and pressed the airline, getting his job back, many, many
years later.

People do screw up. Some of them recognize it and make corrections.
It would be interesting to see what happens with these folks. In this
day and age we are pretty quick to condemn everyone, no matter what.

Despite the hype, there hasn't been an airline accident in which
alcohol or drugs was even considered a factor in decades. Maybe that
goes to prove that airliners are really easy to fly g.

All the best,
Rick

(Captain Wubba) wrote in message . com...
"John Smith" wrote in message . ..
Well, if they are prepared to continue flying drunk (and lets face it, with
blood 0.091, they were), hopefully they will not get their jobs back, from
anyone. Unsafe pilots should be grounded, end of story.


"Edward Todd" wrote in message
...
Florida cannot prosecute pilots

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/05/pi...ing/index.html

Not only will they not get their jobs back, the FAA pulled their
tickets. Even though they probably won't go to jail, their careers are
*totally* over. They won't fly for anyone, at least not for years, and
even then it won't be for an airline. The only uniform these guys will
be wearing will say 'Burger King' on it.

Big John wrote:
Pilots did NOT fly.

Big J...

91.17 (a) no person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of
a civil aircraft (w/in 8 hrs, while under influence, 0.04 blood alcohol)

I know these guys weren't flying under Pt. 91, but I've been
corrected before that Part 121 encompassess the Pt 91 regs then
adds additional, it doesn't supercede them.

So wrt Federal regulation, it would seem that getting into
the plane with the intent to fly it, getting ready for flight,
and ordering pushback sure counts as "act or attempt to act
as a crewmember".

Even if they taxied the plane, is there any rule that says they have
to be sober to do so???

See above; I read it that way, but perhaps I'm missing something?

Cheers,
Sydney

Pilots did NOT fly.

91.17 (a) no person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of
a civil aircraft (w/in 8 hrs, while under influence, 0.04 blood alcohol)
....
And the lawyer says they were taxing to check out the brake system at
which time they would decide to fly or return for maintenance.

The regulation doesn't require any intent to fly. Just 'acting' or
'attempting
to act as a crewmemeber ...

Maintenance personnel (not pilots) often taxi planes on the ground (if
checked out in taxiing). If one of these had been drinking what FAA
rule says they can't taxi with no intent to fly, only reposition bird
on airport?

91.17 -- acting as a crewmember (operating the aircraft to
reposition it, in this case)

Big John wrote:

Even if they taxied the plane, is there any rule that says they have
to be sober to do so???

Yes, the same rule that says you can't fly.

Big John wrote:

Our tort system may well grab this episode and the two pilots sue
everyone in sight and:

1. Make a killing so they will have enough moo-la they don't have to
work again.
2. Or get FAA to clear them for flight again.

The tort system has absolutely no control or influence over the FAA.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

Yeah, the monthly aviation legal columns in AOPA Pilot covered this a few
months back. The pilot had been out to dinner with friends, decided to
RON instead of going home that night. Had some drinks, but wanted to go
back out to the airport and move the plane to a different spot. Went off
the taxi way and got stuck. Didn't even qualify as an accident. Somebody
caught the alcohol on him and wrote him up. The FAA pulled his ticket and
the NTSB upheld it.

Dave Reinhart


Big John wrote:

Pilots did NOT fly.

Can they be hung for intent? If so, I know a bunch of Democrats that
would be in jail for their thoughts on GW.

I'll bet a good lawyer can get them off. If they had let then take off
then they would have been flying under the influence but 'push
back'????

Even if they taxied the plane, is there any rule that says they have
to be sober to do so???

Looks like a good pro bono case for some lawyer to make his bones.

Big John

Would you pour me one for the road please?

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:00:29 -0500, Edward Todd
wrote:

Florida cannot prosecute pilots

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/05/pi...ing/index.html

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:02:06 -0700, "Tom S." wrote:


Double jeopardy?

No. That's not it. The double jeopardy clause doesn't prevent separate
state and federal prosecutions.

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

David (and others)

I'll be darn. Learn something every day.

If I drink I let my desiganted driver drive. If I had to reposition, I
guess I could let her do it with me sitting there tellng her what to
do? Wonder if that would satisfy the FAA and teh busy bodies?

Big John

I'm assuming this was as GA bird and not a commercial aircraft from
posted text?


On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:33:21 GMT, David Reinhart
wrote:

Yeah, the monthly aviation legal columns in AOPA Pilot covered this a few
months back. The pilot had been out to dinner with friends, decided to
RON instead of going home that night. Had some drinks, but wanted to go
back out to the airport and move the plane to a different spot. Went off
the taxi way and got stuck. Didn't even qualify as an accident. Somebody
caught the alcohol on him and wrote him up. The FAA pulled his ticket and
the NTSB upheld it.

Dave Reinhart


Big John wrote:

Pilots did NOT fly.

Can they be hung for intent? If so, I know a bunch of Democrats that
would be in jail for their thoughts on GW.

I'll bet a good lawyer can get them off. If they had let then take off
then they would have been flying under the influence but 'push
back'????

Even if they taxied the plane, is there any rule that says they have
to be sober to do so???

Looks like a good pro bono case for some lawyer to make his bones.

Big John

Would you pour me one for the road please?

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:00:29 -0500, Edward Todd
wrote:

Florida cannot prosecute pilots

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/05/pi...ing/index.html

Big John wrote in message . ..

Our tort system may well grab this episode and the two pilots sue
everyone in sight and:
1. Make a killing so they will have enough moo-la they don't have to
work again.
2. Or get FAA to clear them for flight again.

Well, I don't think the tort system has much influence over
the FAA. I could be wrong of course.

I do think that the tort system is likely to involve a jury
trial, and finding 6 good citizens with tuppance of sympathy
for two sloshed airline pilots has a probability near zero.

I could be wrong about that too, of course.

I wasn't making judgements, just pointing out what could happen. (What
did that old broad get for spilling McDonalds coffee in her crotch?)

Not as much as the original award. $160,000 plus 2.7 mill punitive
(2 days coffee sales for Micky D's), but that was reduced during a
"secret settlement". So no one knows.

BTW, when I read the actual facts of that case (see
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm for example) vs. the
media fluffing about it, I personally saw it differently.

1) McDonalds ordered its stores to maintain coffee at 185 degrees
2) A liquid at this temperature will cause complete (3rd degree)
burns in 2 to 7 seconds
3) Normal coffee, including other restaurants, is 135-155 degrees
4) McDonalds had more than 700 previous claims of people seriously
burnt by their coffee
5) McDonalds had calculated it cost less to settle such claims
while boosting coffee sales by selling the hottest coffee
6) Liebeck, the name of the woman in question, originally sought
to settle for $20,000 (essentially, medical expenses plus
additional therapy and care) and McDonald's refused.

Bad move. If I'd been on that jury, I would have hung McDonald's
up, based upon what I perceive as a calculated decision to place
profits above a known, documented, verifiable risk of serious
harm PLUS a refusal to settle for a reasonable amount with a
customer who was unquestionably seriously injured (6% surface)

But then, I've seen 3rd degree burns and their treatment

Aside: I once cleared the room at a t-giving dinner. A roommate
had spent hours preparing a Chinese-style steamed turkey. I was
young, dumb, and fresh from an EMT lecture on burn treatment. I
was also a vegetarian . I looked at the table and thoughtlessly
remarked "Oh! Looks just like 3rd degree burn flesh!"

For some reason, the cook seemed to think *I* was the turkey, and
he was plenty steamed, at me.

And the lawyer says they were taxing to check out the brake system at
which time they would decide to fly or return for maintenance.

Maintenance personnel (not pilots) often taxi planes on the ground (if
checked out in taxiing). If one of these had been drinking what FAA
rule says they can't taxi with no intent to fly, only reposition bird
on airport?

Well, I believe taxiing is held to be "acting as a required crew
member" somehow, and at least one pilot has had his ticket pulled
for repositioning his plane w/out any intent to fly, while inebriated.
Seem to recall something in AOPA Pilot about this.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Big John" wrote in message
I'll be darn. Learn something every day.

If I drink I let my desiganted driver drive. If I had to reposition, I
guess I could let her do it with me sitting there tellng her what to
do? Wonder if that would satisfy the FAA and teh busy bodies?

If you need to tell her what to do, she's probably not qualified
to do it on her own? Sounds like a) leaving someone unqualified
at the controls without qualified (crewmember) supervision -
probably a violation of some other reg, or b) you're a crew
member anyway.

Best thing is to just push/pull/drag it.