IL Pilot crashes 182, charged with drunk flying

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
Display name:
iWin
The pilot of the Cessna 182, Sean Oskvarek, 45, was charged with operating an aircraft under the influence of drugs or alcohol and was being held in DuPage County Jail in lieu of $100,000 bail, according to the DuPage County sheriff's office.

If convicted of the Class 3 felony, Oskvarek could face 2 to 5 years in prison.

Oskvarek, the only person aboard the aircraft, was only slightly hurt and left the crash site in a private car, witnesses said. He was later treated at Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital in Downers Grove and was arrested when he was released.
...
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/11/small-plane-crashes-near-darien.html
Click to expand...

It's been overcast with rain and low ice. He's lucky he made it that far.

I wanna know how they were able to charge him as being under the influence hours afterwards. He musta been mighty drunk...or maybe he refused a test.

Somebody see if he even had a certificate.
 
Last edited:
Re: Pilot crashes 172, charged with drunk flying

mikea said:
I wanna know how they were able to charge him as being under the influence hours afterwards. He musta been mighty drunk...or maybe he refused a test.
Click to expand...

Probably a lot of specifics left out of the article. Also, the media will never not print a story just because they don't have all of the facts straight.
 
Re: Pilot crashes 172, charged with drunk flying

Hadn't heard that it was a 182. Looked up the name they gave in the article, Sean Oskarek, and didn't find a certificate with the FAA.

Edit: They later came out with a corrected spelling of his last name, Oskvarek, and he DOES have a pilot certificate.
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
It's been overcast with rain and low ice. He's lucky he made it that far.

I wanna know how they were able to charge him as being under the influence hours afterwards. He musta been mighty drunk...or maybe he refused a test.

Somebody see if he even had a certificate.
Click to expand...

Unless they got a blood sample or breath test right after the crash, I don't see how they could prove he didn't get drunk between the crash and the hospital. Surviving a crash might be an reason to drink.
 
Good luck in them proving that he was drunk while flying. In our legal system evidence is collected based on a chain of custody and signed statements that the evidence was not tampered with. In this case there is no way to prove that he was flying drunk only that when they went and found him that he was drunk at that time. They may be able to charge him with leaving the scene of an accident however.

I am gonna be interested in knowing how this one turns out.
 
I know Bob Sigfried, he's been on the Beech list and Avsig forever. I posted a query to him about the pilot's alleged intoxication, maybe he knows something about that.
 
Followup:


Sean Oskvarek of Woodridge is charged with operating an aircraft under the influence of drugs or alcohol, according to the DuPage County Sheriff's Department. He remained in jail in lieu of $100,000 bail Sunday.

Authorities would not discuss Oskvarek's alleged drug or alcohol consumption before the ill-fated flight, but Illinois law prohibits pilots from flying when their blood-alcohol level is 0.04 or more, half the legal limit for vehicle drivers.

Pilots also face steeper penalties for flying drunk. While a drunken motorist most likely would receive a misdemeanor charge for a first-time offense, Oskvarek, 45, has been charged with a Class 3 felony and could face 2 to 5 years in prison.

"Obviously, it's much more serious to fly while you're impaired," DuPage County State's Atty. Joe Birkett said. "But it's very rare. Pilots take public safety very seriously." (Why, thank you, Joe!)

...

Oskvarek, who has a valid pilot's license, was the only person aboard the Cessna 182 at the time of the crash, authorities said. The aircraft is registered to his mother, Evangeline, who lives along the private air strip, about a half-mile from the accident site.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-downers-grove-plane-crash-17-nov17,0,3723181.story
Click to expand...

I had no idea that Illinois had a drunk flying felony law. I wonder if that was one that followed the Philadelphia joy flier.
 
Sounds like he is on his way to a career as an airline pilot. :lol:
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
Followup:
I had no idea that Illinois had a drunk flying felony law. I wonder if that was one that followed the Philadelphia joy flier.
Click to expand...

Interesting, Mike. Would federal law supersede state law in this type of situation, I would think so? If so, then why is the law on the books? :dunno:
 
kevin47881 said:
Interesting, Mike. Would federal law supersede state law in this type of situation, I would think so? If so, then why is the law on the books? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I would imagine that if the federal law was more stringent it would trump the state law. Since it's the same, he'll probably face charges from both the state and feds. This way everyone gets their pound of flesh, so to speak.
 
Geico266 said:
He must have been studying for his commercial rating! :cheerswine:


:cheers:


Kidding! I'm just kidding! :lol:
Click to expand...


"This is your captain, Al Kohallic, we'll be departing just as soon as I finish my martini"
 
1. No physical evidence required to prove driving or flying under the influence "in our system." None at all. At least in most states.
2. I agree that it is certainly very helpful in proving beyond a reasonable doubt to the decider of fact. But, refer to number 1.
 
kevin47881 said:
Interesting, Mike. Would federal law supersede state law in this type of situation, I would think so? If so, then why is the law on the books? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Been a while since I looked, but I believe that there is no federal criminal drinking while flying regulation, at least not in the FAR's or other federal regulations enforceable by FAA investigators. There IS a civil one and he can guarantee he will be hit up for it, but for criminal charges I am mostly sure that the FAA must rely on state or local authorities (and authority.)
 
Teller1900 said:
I'm certainly no lawyer, but I would imagine that if the federal law was more stringent it would trump the state law. Since it's the same, he'll probably face charges from both the state and feds. This way everyone gets their pound of flesh, so to speak.
Click to expand...


What federal law?
 
lancefisher said:
What federal law?
Click to expand...

None, aparantly. :shrug: I was just saying that's how I would guess it to work in general if there are concurrent state and federal laws. But like I said, I'm no lawyer and this further proves why.
 
"Obviously, it's much more serious to fly while you're impaired," DuPage County State's Atty. Joe Birkett said. "But it's very rare. Pilots take public safety very seriously I like JOE !
 
alaskaflyer said:
1. No physical evidence required to prove driving or flying under the influence "in our system." None at all. At least in most states.
2. I agree that it is certainly very helpful in proving beyond a reasonable doubt to the decider of fact. But, refer to number 1.
Click to expand...
Really? I thought they'd do a blood test if you refused a breath test. How do they prove that you were drunk beyond the legal limit if they don't?
 
sba55 said:
Really? I thought they'd do a blood test if you refused a breath test. How do they prove that you were drunk beyond the legal limit if they don't?
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Isn't this 21st century America, where one is presumed guilty until proved guilty?:eek:
 
gprellwitz said:
What do you mean? Isn't this 21st century America, where one is presumed guilty until proved guilty?:eek:
Click to expand...


Grant, that is certainly the trend from an increasingly grasping federal government (and this is not political, it is pragmatic reality). As you well know, they often use the ability to control the use of the funds which were confiscated from the productive class (you and me...) as a carrot/stick...

...more to the point, the feds operate under the Administrative Law system, in which procedural rights and burdens of proof are much different than in real (ie, non-kangaroo) courts.

---

There is no requirement for physical evidence to charge in most states, but the proof becomes a little more difficult. One can certainly be convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (by whatever name the statute or code goes in each particular state) on circumstantial evidence, testimony of witnesses, demeanor, etc.
 
sba55 said:
Really? I thought they'd do a blood test if you refused a breath test. How do they prove that you were drunk beyond the legal limit if they don't?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, implied consent means you agree to take the test and if you don't you face same penalties as if you had taken the test and were found impaired.

That's for driving.

I think there is a similar rule in the FARS for flying???

The run from the scene cure is street wisdom, because as Lance said, the chain of custody is broken and you can say you had the drink after the accident. The city boys would go to the phone to call the cops and report the plane stolen.

Somebody drove this guy away. The driver could be in trouble as a collaborator to a felony? Oh. Not if they went direct to the hospital.
 
sba55 said:
Really? I thought they'd do a blood test if you refused a breath test. How do they prove that you were drunk beyond the legal limit if they don't?
Click to expand...
Just because you refuse the blood/breath test doesn't mean they can't make the case. The judge or jury can still find the case proved beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence -- weaving across the road, inability to pass a field sobriety test, alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, etc. Note the word "reasonable" -- it ain't the same as "absolute certainty beyond any doubt."
 
Someone I know..

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/3683.PDF

All the Feds could do was revoke his commercial pilot certificate. The state (Florida) came up with a list of criminal charges which were all dropped since they really screwed up the arrest that night.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Been a while since I looked, but I believe that there is no federal criminal drinking while flying regulation, at least not in the FAR's or other federal regulations enforceable by FAA investigators. There IS a civil one and he can guarantee he will be hit up for it, but for criminal charges I am mostly sure that the FAA must rely on state or local authorities (and authority.)
Click to expand...

Thanks, Richard.
 
It's a pretty sad thing that the best this guy could come up with was to go running to his mommy's house with his boo boo. Can't you just see the look on the cops faces - they ring the doorbell at the aircraft owner's house and a wasted guy bleeding from a 4 inch gash in his forehead answers the door. They had to be thinking, "Uh, case closed."

This is kinda reminiscent of the Patrick Swayze incident. Didn't he just disappear for several hours before reporting to the authorities?
 
sba55 said:
Really? I thought they'd do a blood test if you refused a breath test. How do they prove that you were drunk beyond the legal limit if they don't?
Click to expand...

That's what implied consent is all about. AFaIK you can refuse all tests but by refusing you are basically accepting a greater penalty than the conviction you'd get if you failed a blood test.
 
FYI they posted this pilto's mug shot in the Chicago Tribune today
43425046.jpg


That looks like a nasty gash!

Defendant: Sean Oskvarek

(DuPage County Sheriffs Police photo / November 15, 2008) Charge: Operating an aircraft under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Oskvarek, 45, of Woodridge, clipped a house and crashed his single-engine plane into a neighboring yard as he was approaching a private air strip near Downers Grove late on Nov. 15, 2008, according to the DuPage County Sheriff's Department.

Authorities would not discuss Oskvarek's alleged drug or alcohol consumption before the ill-fated flight, but Illinois law prohibits pilots from flying when their blood-alcohol level is 0.04 or more, half the legal limit for ground vehicle drivers.

Oskvarek, who has a valid pilot's license, was the only person aboard the Cessna 182 at the time of the crash, authorities said. He is charged with a Class 3 felony and could face 2 to 5 years in prison.
Click to expand...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-mug-photogallery,0,5488047.photogallery
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top