Drunk Delta Pilot

Larry in TN said:
I am not a lawyer. You will have to Google that yourself.

Would you expect state and Federal laws to have different standards on this?

The message from our airlines and unions are consistent. When you join the line for security screening you are operating the aircraft for the purposes of being fit for duty. Do you have anything that shows that this is wrong?
Click to expand...
It may vary airline to airline. You can call in sick, drink, enter HIMS, etc., right up to the point that the Captain signs the flight release certifying that the crew is “fit to fly.” Once the flight plan is signed, all bets are off. If you’re drunk, you’re fired.
 
I hope people aren't taking my question wrong. I am all for this guy not flying unless he can prove he's free and clear and can get another medical. That is between him, his AME, the FAA and any potential employer. I thought it was pretty much a given that will not have a flying job from today and on for a long time.

Just curious if he actually broke any aviation specific laws and would then also be arrested. You think it would be clear and obvious but just like the drunk walking to the car when is the line actually crossed. I would think the instant he went through any security (normal or for crew) while on his way to duty he is schedule for (and not called in sick) that he must have violated some federal law. If he is required to get on the plane that would be ridiculous and with the mandatory security requirement, makes it different that the drunk guy walking to his car.
 
Sluggo63 said:
It may vary airline to airline. You can call in sick, drink, enter HIMS, etc., right up to the point that the Captain signs the flight release certifying that the crew is “fit to fly.” Once the flight plan is signed, all bets are off. If you’re drunk, you’re fired.
Click to expand...
Thanks...not being in the business I had no idea there was a "Flight Release" which (probably among several other things) certifies the crew is fit to fly.

I notice you did cover the work termination part. Wouldn't this person also be arrested under some federal or state regulations. Or would they actually have to "operate controls" or something like that to be arrested?
 
Larry in TN said:
The message from our airlines and unions are consistent. When you join the line for security screening you are operating the aircraft for the purposes of being fit for duty. Do you have anything that shows that this is wrong?
Click to expand...
That’s the message from your airlines and unions, but is it he message from the FAA?

In other words, if you get in line for security screening drunk, your company procedures go into effect, but does the FAA violation occur there, or do you have to take some official action with the airplane to be considered”act(ing) or attempting to act as a crew member” in order to violate 91.17?

To put it another way, if one walks through security drunk intending to act as a crew member, and the guy right behind him is drunk but only deadheading, will the FAA violate either, neither, or both?
 
Last edited:
I don't work for Delta, but our manual is pretty clear - we're not to report for duty within 8 hours of consuming an alcoholic beverage, or "under the influence* or effect of an intoxicating liquor", or show any signs of intoxication while on duty. We're required to report for duty one hour prior to departure or 30 minutes prior to a deadhead. So it seems to me that unless you got to the security line waaaay early - a case could be made that you're on duty.

This is straight from our FOM, which isn't just a company or union thing - it's an FAA thing.

*under the influence is defined as an alcohol concentration of .02 or greater
 
Silvaire said:
I've read, or been told, that open container is okay in Texas (not sure if it's true though)
Click to expand...

With very minor exception that is false, see Texas Penal Code 49.031.

The only two exceptions is as a passenger in a motor vehicle operated for compensation (party bus) or as a passenger in the living area of a motor home or similar RV.

But, it some parts I’d say it’s more tolerated by LEO than others.
 
MauleSkinner said:
To put it another way, if one walks through security drunk intending to act as a crew member, and the guy right behind him is drunk but only deadheading, will the FAA violate them both?
Click to expand...

If the deadheading pilot works for my employer, then the answer is yes. Our manual specifically lists deadheading and training as part of the duty that falls under our alcohol guidelines. But note that duty for a deadhead begins at 30 minutes prior and not an hour, so maybe a lawyer would get the pilot off if he/she were to show up earlier than that. Perhaps that's why they always seem to make the bust at the airplane.
 
kayoh190 said:
If the deadheading pilot works for my employer, then the answer is yes. Our manual specifically lists deadheading and training as part of the duty that falls under our alcohol guidelines. But note that duty for a deadhead begins at 30 minutes prior and not an hour, so maybe a lawyer would get the pilot off if he/she were to show up earlier than that. Perhaps that's why they always seem to make the bust at the airplane.
Click to expand...
But is that a violation of 91.17, or “merely” a violation of he FOM?

While they could probably be violated under whatever reg requires compliance with the FOM, I don’t think its a 91.17 violation at that point.
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
A drunk, trying to sleep it off in the backseat of his car, is guilty of DUI if he has access to the car's keys.
Click to expand...
In what state? That is certainly not the law where I grew up. Stumble out the bar, stumble to the car, get in the car and put the keys in the ignition, and then go to sleep, no laws broken, nothing a cop can charge you with. The moment you start the car and move it, now they can arrest you. But until they see you do that, they've got nothing they can charge you with.

Same with this guy. They arrested him. What exactly did they arrest him for? Does Minnesota have a law on the books against flying an aircraft while intoxicated that local LEO's can charge a person with? Flying an aircraft or attempting to while intoxicated is an FAA matter and a company matter. I don't see what a local prosecutor could charge that person with other than some generic public endangerment violation.
 
I did see a pilot at the airport who had a few not long ago. He wasn’t in uniform, or anywhere near flying a plane, so no worries.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But is that a violation of 91.17, or “merely” a violation of he FOM?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. From an airline pilot's perspective there's no distinction, as we operate under the FOM and it's up to the company to ensure that the guidance therein complies with the underlying CFR and OpsSpecs. So we don't always know what's from the company and what's from the feds unless we take the time to dig. But yeah, if the FOM is more restrictive than the CFR and the issue falls somewhere in the middle, perhaps it's technically a company issue.
 
kayoh190 said:
That's an interesting point. From an airline pilot's perspective there's no distinction, as we operate under the FOM and it's up to the company to ensure that the guidance therein complies with the underlying CFR and OpsSpecs. So we don't always know what's from the company and what's from the feds unless we take the time to dig. But yeah, if the FOM is more restrictive than the CFR and the issue falls somewhere in the middle, perhaps it's technically a company issue.
Click to expand...
This is straight from our FOM

“Should any conflict occur between the contents of this manual and compliance with any applicable federal regulation, Federal Aviation Regulations will take precedence over other documents. However, company policy may be more restrictive in nature and, therefore, would take precedence.”

So basically whichever one is more restrictive, we use.

Our bottle to throttle is 12 hours prior to reporting for duty. Delta’s is 8.
 
Is this "FOM" thing some type of manual that is required under 121 or 135 and thereby what is in it also becomes FAA enforceable.

From everything so far in this thread the guy easily gets fired. Probably never hired again. But will he go to jail and/or get a fine from the state or federal govt? You would sure think so but maybe its more of the drunk walking to the car thing...not quite far enough to break a law.
 
jordane93 said:
So basically whichever one is more restrictive, we use.
Click to expand...

Our FOM has verbiage at the beginning that states that it's the company's responsibility to ensure that the FOM complies with all applicable regs, so we don't tend to concern ourselves with the underlying CFR.
 
Last edited:
As far as I can find, there is no specific reg that requires a pilot to comply with the FOM, in which case it would be 100% a company issue.
 
MauleSkinner said:
As far as I can find, there is no specific reg that requires a pilot to comply with the FOM, in which case it would be 100% a company issue.
Click to expand...
Wow, so in the end for this case it could turn into a Medical that will never be granted and employment terminated. But not an actual arrest like a DUI.
 
Sinistar said:
Wow, so in the end for this case it could turn into a Medical that will never be granted and employment terminated. But not an actual arrest like a DUI.
Click to expand...
And he could probably get a medical again if he jumps through the right hoops.
 
Sinistar said:
Wow, so in the end for this case it could turn into a Medical that will never be granted and employment terminated. But not an actual arrest like a DUI.
Click to expand...
He may not even get fired. There’s an ALPA program called HIMS that focuses on dealing with addiction. Not sure how it exactly works and whether or not you need to enroll yourself in the program before an actual event like a DUI happens but you basically go through the program and it’s up to the AME whether or not he wants to give the pilot back his/her medical. Maybe @bbchien knows more. Not sure if he’s a HIMS AME.
 
Sluggo63 said:
It may vary airline to airline. You can call in sick, drink, enter HIMS, etc., right up to the point that the Captain signs the flight release certifying that the crew is “fit to fly.” Once the flight plan is signed, all bets are off. If you’re drunk, you’re fired.
Click to expand...
Many of our Captains sign the release before they leave the hotel.
 
Larry in TN said:
Many of our Captains sign the release before they leave the hotel.
Click to expand...
Now with iPads it’s very easy. I don’t. I wait until I at least get together with the FO. Mostly to make sure (s)he is good with the fuel, etc., before signing. This might be another reason to wait, although it never crossed my mind. I can’t imagine someone showing up drunk to work (although it obviously happens), and if I can help a guy get the help he needs without getting fired from his job, I’d like to try.
 
Sinistar said:
Normal Guy: When does he actually break the each law? Walking out to the car drunk with a open bottle he still hasn't really broken any laws. If a cop is sitting in the parking lot watching this guy - when can be bust him for DUI...does he have to get into the car? Once he's in the car I can see the open container charge but do keys have to be inserted for the DUI?
Click to expand...

In my State having access to keys and being in a vehicle is enough for a DUI arrest and charge.

After that, we all know DUI is a catch and release program until your third in most States so they’re let off since they weren’t driving with some form of slap on the wrist.

But LE will arrest to make sure you don’t have a brilliant idea to start driving later even if you’re sleeping it off in a car. Some folks will do stuff like lock the keys in the trunk trying to get out of it, but local LE knows you can go get them anytime you want. The only way to avoid arrest is to give the keys to someone else, far away from the vehicle. Even then, they’re then going to ask to search — they don’t know if you have a spare.

Learned all about how bad the whole catch and release thing is from watching one family member. Made it all the way to the breathalyzer interlock and GPS tracking to go to home and work and the store only. He even broke that. Still had a license. Think he managed to barely not lose it.

The other alcoholic in the family killed himself partially over the alcohol and being caught drinking on his job. It was about to ruin three businesses he owned and force him further away from his kids. He drank so much he started having delusions that he had diseases he didn’t have, when it was really his liver dying.

Alcohol is truly evil for some.
 
jordane93 said:
He may not even get fired. There’s an ALPA program called HIMS that focuses on dealing with addiction. Not sure how it exactly works and whether or not you need to enroll yourself in the program before an actual event like a DUI happens but you basically go through the program and it’s up to the AME whether or not he wants to give the pilot back his/her medical. Maybe @bbchien knows more. Not sure if he’s a HIMS AME.
Click to expand...

He is. And it’s not just an ALPA program. It’s an FAA Senior AME program and used by all sorts of pilots. I believe Bruce has authored or Co-authored some of the protocols for certain substances.
 
denverpilot said:
After that, we all know DUI is a catch and release program until your third in most States so they’re let off since they weren’t driving with some form of slap on the wrist.
Alcohol is truly evil for some.
Click to expand...

Well my best friends dad they arrested him, just to formally do it, this goes back to before computer days, and as areas added old records from other states, into 1 central data base, they found he had numerous DUI convictions in many states, he worked construction, and had over 15 DUI in 6 or 7 states, when it caught up, he was arrested and then declared habitual, and pulled a little time, then less than year later he got caught DUI again, and got a felony conviction, and 1 year in jail, when he got out, his company refused to rehire due to him a felon, his wife couldn't keep up with house payments, and lost house they had paid on for 27 years, under 3 years left, when got out, had a rental home, and he worked odd jobs and drank himself to death, at age 65 he was drinking 3 fifths a day, plus 2 gallons of wine. So anyone know of anyone more than 16? And this guy also had been caught more, but told to walk home, so probably over 20, but only 16 official DUIs
 
I've known that addiction is biochemical and psychological, at least I knew it intellectually. But down where I live, I tagged it "character flaw". . . .until an athletic injury in my 40s. The pain killer was great! Not just for the acute injury, but for the accumulated damage from years of sports. . .

About the time for the third dose, I knew I was gonna have a problem - ALL the pain went away, and it was fabulous! I had to get rid of the script, throw it out; I had a high level of confidence I'd keep using it, if it was in the house.

That was tough to do, and before any chemical dependency had taken hold. Dodged a bullet before I was in too deep, and got some slight glimpse on what full blown addiction might be like.
 
Sundancer said:
I've known that addiction is biochemical and psychological, at least I knew it intellectually. But down where I live, I tagged it "character flaw". . . .until an athletic injury in my 40s. The pain killer was great! Not just for the acute injury, but for the accumulated damage from years of sports. . .

About the time for the third dose, I knew I was gonna have a problem - ALL the pain went away, and it was fabulous! I had to get rid of the script, throw it out; I had a high level of confidence I'd keep using it, if it was in the house.

That was tough to do, and before any chemical dependency had taken hold. Dodged a bullet before I was in too deep, and got some slight glimpse on what full blown addiction might be like.
Click to expand...

Pain killers can be insidious. There’s studies now that show with only a prescription of 10 days to an opioid your chances of addiction skyrocket.

Which is why when my neurologist started me off with a low dose synthetic opioid the medical insurance covered one week and then stopped and the doc had to fill out extension forms that they’d counseled me on the dangers of addiction and also that they themselves had to see me on a set schedule to look for signs of it. Ugly crazy stuff.

Of course neurologists and their assistants take this in stride and can choose from a whole range of drugs for nerve pain, and that was her plan anyway. But it’s interesting seeing the inside of the pharma-beast this way. Somehow I don’t think the State mandated pretty tri-fold pamphlet with happy models that look healthy inside telling you not to become addicted is going to reach many people. But I have my official copy of it now. (Well it went in file 13. An excellent ten second read and use of taxpayer funds. Sheesh.)

Also have a friend and former manager who ejected from an F-15 and broke his pelvis amongst other things. Not too long after he could get on crutches he and his wife go to Boston to visit family and he decides to cut off the opioids he was on, cold turkey.

So three days into their stay in a hotel in Boston, he hasn’t slept a wink. Ironically his wife is a psychiatrist and notices and says, “You stopped taking the pain killers didn’t you?” He admits he has and he left them back home and she tells him, “You idiot. You’re going through withdrawal!”

As he tells it, she writes him a script on the spot and calls it in herself (I don’t even know if this would be possible today?) and they go pick up the drugs, he takes one, and passes out of exhaustion for like 12-14 hours. Hahaha. He was kinda ticked he couldn’t just stop when he wanted to. You can tell he’s still annoyed that he didn’t have the “willpower” to drop them to this day.

Apparently I can’t stop the neuro pain drug I’m on cold turkey either, it’s a bad idea. So sayeth the bottle and the paperwork and the doc, so I won’t be trying that one if it becomes a problem with side effects or anything. Ha. You get the joy of being weaned off of it.

I was always the guy who took NOTHING. I hate taking drugs. And somewhere in my head I’m still that person and don’t want to lose that. I feel like I’m forced to do it because of the stupid hand pain but I put it off for hours (supposed to be on a schedule) and such just because I dislike it. A necessary evil I guess.

My wife is in medical and has seen it all. I’m still gawking at the shelf after shelf of bags of drugs waiting to be picked up when I have to make a pharmacy run... I have never done pharmacies... and it just floors me. I think half the country is high on something. It’s kinda nuts when you look at it from the outside. It’s a new kind of culture shock for me, honestly. All those bags sitting there.

I know many are just an antibiotic or medicine for a cold or whatever, but a large percentage of those have to be mind-altering in one way or another. The first time I noticed it I wasn’t first in line and I really looked behind the counter just kinda stood there for a minute staring. Wow.

And then I realized there’s at least six pharmacies in my small suburban closest town and two more in the small town 12 miles south of our rural home and all of them have the racks and racks of bags. And probably another four at the edge of the new big city northwest of us. That’s all within a 30 minute drive of our rural home. Then I imagined how many across the entire metro.

Good lord.
 
Silvaire said:
Aren't these State laws? Is there a Federal DUI statute? I've read, or been told, that open container is okay in Texas (not sure if it's true though)
Click to expand...

Years ago it was legal in Texas to drink and drive unless you were over the legal limit. When the DOT demanded unification of state DUI laws under the threat of federal funds denial, that went away.
 
3393RP said:
Years ago it was legal in Texas to drink and drive unless you were over the legal limit. When the DOT demanded unification of state DUI laws under the threat of federal funds denial, that went away.
Click to expand...
It’s still legal in Germany.
 
3393RP said:
"Authorities say the pilot was able to make it onto the plane before being taken into custody."

I'd say that's strong prima facie evidence he intended to fly.
Click to expand...
No doubt. But at what point does intent actually become a regulatory violation?
 
MauleSkinner said:
But is that a violation of 91.17, or “merely” a violation of he FOM?

While they could probably be violated under whatever reg requires compliance with the FOM, I don’t think its a 91.17 violation at that point.
Click to expand...
The FOM is regulatory... it is a controlled FAA approved document and just as binding as any other reg on the register. Certificate holders write their own rules. The FAA then reviews and approves them. Once approved they carry the same weight as a regulation.
 
Let’s just forget about the legal details a bit, whether the pilot is eventually convicted of anything in the future.

It’s still a MAJOR disruption in one’s career going forward, assuming it can be salvaged. At 37 years old, there was a lot of years ahead for him.
 
3393RP said:
"Authorities say the pilot was able to make it onto the plane before being taken into custody."

I'd say that's strong prima facie evidence he intended to fly.
Click to expand...
That answers the question of what he did that violated regulations. It doesn't answer the question of what he did that was illegal.
 
Sinistar said:
I hope people aren't taking my question wrong. I am all for this guy not flying unless he can prove he's free and clear and can get another medical. That is between him, his AME, the FAA and any potential employer. I thought it was pretty much a given that will not have a flying job from today and on for a long time.

Just curious if he actually broke any aviation specific laws and would then also be arrested. You think it would be clear and obvious but just like the drunk walking to the car when is the line actually crossed. I would think the instant he went through any security (normal or for crew) while on his way to duty he is schedule for (and not called in sick) that he must have violated some federal law. If he is required to get on the plane that would be ridiculous and with the mandatory security requirement, makes it different that the drunk guy walking to his car.
Click to expand...
There are laws, and there are regulations. They aren't the same thing. He surely busted some regulations. Depending on how he got to the airport, he may have busted some laws.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The FOM is regulatory... it is a controlled FAA approved document and just as binding as any other reg on the register. Certificate holders write their own rules. The FAA then reviews and approves them. Once approved they carry the same weight as a regulation.
Click to expand...
So what regulation shows up on the paperwork when there's an FOM violation?
 
Depends on the state. In some states, it's just a pretty heavy financial hit but you might even escape a criminal conviction. In other states, even a first is far from a hand slap.

However, the real key is that if you are a pilot (or a CDL holder) you don't want even the first. The impact on your medical (or your CDL) will be far worse than what the criminal justice system will do to you.
 
I don't get it - just call in with a sinus problem. There are a dozen guys sleeping in a trailer in the parking lot who will fill in. Yeah, you're going to lose some pay, but better than losing your job.

Let the stupid be punished.
 
I have found that as often as not, if a person is getting fired its because ultimately they wanted to get fired.
 
bflynn said:
Yeah, you're going to lose some pay, but better than losing your job.
Click to expand...

You don’t even lose the pay if you call in sick (assuming you still have sick time available, which most everyone does).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top