SWA co-pilot arrested in 737 cockpit for FUI

[mikea]

(CNN) -- Authorities in Utah ordered a Southwest Airlines co-pilot out of the cockpit of his Arizona-bound jet shortly before takeoff Sunday morning and jailed him on suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol, FBI and airline officials said.

Carl Fulton, 41, of Fort Worth, Texas, faces federal charges of operating a plane under the influence of alcohol, said Special Agent Pat Kiernan, an FBI spokesman in Salt Lake City.

...

Transportation Security Administration screeners had him followed to the flight's departure gate after noticing Fulton smelled of alcohol while going through security about a half-hour before takeoff, Kiernan said.

...

When Fulton boarded the aircraft and went to the cockpit, airport police followed him onto the flight deck and asked him to come to the terminal for questioning, Kiernan said. The flight, which had 123 passengers aboard, left 15 minutes late, Berg said.

FBI agents and officials from the Federal Aviation Administration joined the questioning, and Fulton was given two breath tests before his arrest, Kiernan said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/09/pilot.arrested/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Took off 15 minutes late? I know SWA specializes in quick turnarounds for the 737s but how did they have another co-pilot ready in 15 minutes? OK. Maybe they were the first flights of the day, but still.

 

[ScottM]

I also read that they breathalized him twice. But the papers did not print the results. Of course as with most things the initial reports could be wrong and he was not tested.

 

[mikea]

I also read that they breathalized him twice. But the papers did not print the results. Of course as with most things the initial reports could be wrong and he was not tested.

Can you refuse the breathalyzer like you can with driving (and get a 6 month(?) license suspension)? I bet not.

 

[ScottM]

Can you refuse the breathalyzer like you can with driving (and get a 6 month(?) license suspension)? I bet not.

Interesting. At this point I wonder if the local police have any real jurisdiction.

 

[wbarnhill]

It was mouthwash, I swear!

As to jurisdiction, I'd say they'd have the ability to detain him until the FAA stepped in. But I have no idea if that's right, that's just what common sense tells me... and we know how much common sense is in gov't.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Interesting. At this point I wonder if the local police have any real jurisdiction.

Sure they do.

FAR's:

(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft—
(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;
(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
(4) While having .04 percent by weight or more alcohol in the blood.
(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.
(c) A crewmember shall do the following:
(1) On request of a law enforcement officer, submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when—
(i) The law enforcement officer is authorized under State or local law to conduct the test or to have the test conducted; and
(ii) The law enforcement officer is requesting submission to the test to investigate a suspected violation of State or local law governing the same or substantially similar conduct prohibited by paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section.
(2) Whenever the Administrator has a reasonable basis to believe that a person may have violated paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section, that person shall, upon request by the Administrator, furnish the Administrator, or authorize any clinic, hospital, doctor, or other person to release to the Administrator, the results of each test taken within 4 hours after acting or attempting to act as a crewmember that indicates percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood.
(d) Whenever the Administrator has a reasonable basis to believe that a person may have violated paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that person shall, upon request by the Administrator, furnish the Administrator, or authorize any clinic, hospital, doctor, or other person to release to the Administrator, the results of each test taken within 4 hours after acting or attempting to act as a crewmember that indicates the presence of any drugs in the body.
(e) Any test information obtained by the Administrator under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section may be evaluated in determining a person's qualifications for any airman certificate or possible violations of this chapter and may be used as evidence in any legal proceeding under section 602, 609, or 901 of


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

STATE LAWS RELATING TO FLYING WHILE IMPAIRED
NTSB SAFETY RECOMMENDATION A-92-113
As of August 1, 1994

| Provisions | FWI Law |
|Implied BAC Report| Code | Year |
State |Consent Level to FAA| Section |Enacted|
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Alabama | | | |AL Code ss 4-2-79| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Alaska | Yes |0.08 | Yes |AK Stat. 2.30.030| 1994 |
| |>0.04| | |tech. |
| |no FWI | |amdt. |
| |presumed | | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Arizona | Yes |0.04 | Yes |AZ RS Ann 28-1750| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Arkansas| Yes |0.04 | Yes |AR RS 27-116-101 | 1993 |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
California|Yes |0.04 | Yes |CA PUC 21407.5 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Colorado| Yes |0.04 | Yes |CO RS 41-2-101 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Connecticut| | | | | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Delaware| | | | | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Florida | | | |FL S Ann. 15-77 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Georgia | Yes |0.04 | Yes |GA C Ann. 6-2-5.1| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Hawaii | Yes |0.02 | Yes |HI RS 263A-1 | 1991 |
| |0.04 | | | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Idaho | Yes |0.04 | Yes |ID Code 21-112(a)| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Illinois| | | |ILRS Ch. 15 1.2/ | |
| | | |22.43d(a) | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Indiana | | | |IN C Ann 8.21-4-8| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Iowa | | | |IA C Ann 328.41 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Kansas | Yes |0.10 | Yes |KS S Ann. 3-1001 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|

5

Kentucky| Yes |0.04 | Yes |KY RS Ch. 183 | 1992 |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Louisiana| Yes |0.10 | Yes |LA RS Ann. 14:98 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Maine | Yes |0.02 | Yes |ME RS Ann. tit. 6| 1993 |
| |0.04 | |ss.202 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Maryland| | | |MD C Ann. 5-1000 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Mass. | Yes |0.10 | Yes |MA GL Ann Ch90 | |
| | | |ss. 44 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Michigan| Yes |0.04 | Yes |MI C Ann 259.185(1)| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Minnesota| Yes |0.04 | Yes |MN S Ann 360.0752| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Miss. | | | |MS C Ann 61-11-1 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Missouri| Yes |0.04 | Yes |HB 562 Sec. 8.1 | 1993 |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Montana | Yes |0.04 | Yes |MT C Ann 67-1- | 1987 |
| | | |204(7) | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Nebraska| Yes |0.05 | Yes |NE RS 28-1465 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Nevada | | | |NV RS Ann 493.130| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
New Hamp| Yes |0.04 | Yes |NH RS Ann 422.34 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
New Jersey| | | |NJ S Ann 6:1-18 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
New Mexico| | | |NM S Ann Ch 64 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
New York| | | |NY GBL 245(7) | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
N. Carolina| | | |NC GS 63-27(a) | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
North | | | |ND Cent.C. 2-03 | |
Dakota | | | |10(02) | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Ohio | | | |OH C Ann. 4561.15(c)| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Oklahoma| Yes |0.04 | Yes |OK S Ann Tit. 3 | |
| | | |ss.301 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Oregon | | | |OR RS 193.160 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|

6

Pennsylvania| | | | | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Rhode Island| | | | | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
S. Carolina|Yes |0.04 | Yes |SC C Ann 55-1-100| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
S. Dakota| | | |SD CL Ann 50-13-17| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Tennessee| Yes |0.04 | Yes |TN C Ann 42-1-201| 1994 |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Texas | | | |TX RCS Ann art | |
| | | |46f-3(2) | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Utah | Yes |0.04 | Yes |UT C Ann ss2-6-101| 1993 |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Vermont | | | |VT S Ann tti 5 ss427| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Virginia| | | |VA C Ann 5.1-13 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Washington| | | |WA RC Ann 47.68.220| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
W. Virginia| | | |WV C 29-2A-11 | |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Wisconsin| | | |WI S Ann 114.09(1)| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Wyoming | | | |WY Stat 10-6-103(A)| |
________|_______|_____|______|_________________|_______|
Total | 23 |.02/.04 (2) |
| |.04 (15) |
| |.05 (1) |
| |.10 (4) |
| | | 23 |
________|_______|_____|______|

 

[alaskaflyer]

Utah Code Annotated: (the pilot is Scr*wed):

Part 5. Flying While Intoxicated
[2-6-101]. 72-10-501. Flying under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or with specified
or unsafe blood alcohol concentration -- Measurement of blood or breath alcohol -- Criminal
- 261 -
Enrolled Copy H.B. 202
punishment -- Arrest without warrant.
(1) (a) A person may not operate or be in actual physical control of an aircraft within this
state if the person:
(i) has a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .04 grams or greater as shown by a
chemical test given within two hours after the alleged operation or physical control; or
(ii) is under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or the combined influence of alcohol and any
drug to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely operating an aircraft.
(b) The fact that a person charged with violating this section is or has been legally entitled
to use alcohol or a drug is not a defense against any charge of violating this section.
(2) Alcohol concentration in the blood shall be based upon grams of alcohol per 100
milliliters of blood, and alcohol concentration in the breath shall be based upon grams of alcohol per
210 liters of breath.
(3) (a) A person convicted of a violation of Subsection (1) is guilty of a:
(i) class B misdemeanor; or
(ii) class A misdemeanor if the person has also inflicted bodily injury upon another as a
proximate result of having operated the aircraft in a negligent manner.
(b) In this section, the standard of negligence is that of simple negligence, the failure to
exercise that degree of care that an ordinarily reasonable and prudent person exercises under like or
similar circumstances.
(4) A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for a violation of this section
when the officer has probable cause to believe:
(a) the violation has occurred, although not in [his] the officer's presence; and
(b) the violation was committed by that person.
Section 324. Section 72-10-502, which is renumbered from Section 2-6-102 is renumbered
and amended to read:
[2-6-102]. 72-10-502. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drugs --
Number of tests -- Refusal -- Person incapable of refusal -- Results of test available -- Who may
give test -- Evidence.
- 262 -
H.B. 202 Enrolled Copy
(1) (a) A person operating an aircraft in this state consents to a chemical test or tests of his
breath, blood, or urine:
(i) for the purpose of determining whether [he] the person was operating or in actual physical
control of an aircraft while having a blood or breath alcohol content statutorily prohibited under
Section [2-6-101] 72-10-501, or while under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or combination of
alcohol and any drug under Section [2-6-101] 72-10-501, if the test is or tests are administered at the
direction of a peace officer having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual
physical control of an aircraft in violation of Section [2-6-101] 72-10-501; or
(ii) if the person operating the aircraft is involved in an accident that results in death, serious
injury, or substantial aircraft damage.
(b) (i) The peace officer determines which of the tests are administered and how many of
them are administered.
(ii) The peace officer may order any or all tests of the person's breath, blood, or urine.
(iii) If an officer requests more than one test, refusal by a person to take one or more
requested tests, even though [he] the person does submit to any other requested test or tests, is a
refusal under this section.
(c) (i) A person who has been requested under this section to submit to a chemical test or
tests of [his] the person's breath, blood, or urine may not select the test or tests to be administered.
(ii) The failure or inability of a peace officer to arrange for any specific chemical test is not
a defense to taking a test requested by a peace officer, and it is not a defense in any criminal, civil,
or administrative proceeding resulting from a person's refusal to submit to the requested test or tests.
(2) (a) If the person has been placed under arrest and has then been requested by a peace
officer to submit to any one or more of the chemical tests provided in Subsection (1) and refuses to
submit to any chemical test, the person shall be warned by the peace officer requesting the test that
a refusal to submit to the test is admissible in civil or criminal proceedings as provided under
Subsection (8).
(b) Following this warning, unless the person immediately requests that the chemical test
offered by a peace officer be administered, a test may not be given.
- 263 -
Enrolled Copy H.B. 202
(3) Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering [him] the
person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have
withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection (1), and the test or tests may be administered
whether the person has been arrested or not.
(4) Upon the request of the person who was tested, the results of the test or tests shall be
made available to him.
(5) (a) Only a physician, registered nurse, practical nurse, or person authorized under
Section 26-1-30 to draw blood under Section 41-6-44.10, acting at the request of a peace officer,
may withdraw blood to determine the alcohol or drug content. This limitation does not apply to the
taking of a urine or breath specimen.
(b) Any physician, registered nurse, practical nurse, or person authorized under Section
26-1-30 to draw blood under Section 41-6-44.10 who, at the direction of a peace officer, draws a
sample of blood from any person whom a peace officer has reason to believe is flying in violation
of this chapter, or hospital or medical facility at which the sample is drawn, is immune from any civil
or criminal liability arising from drawing the sample, if the test is administered according to standard
medical practice.
(6) (a) The person to be tested may, at [his] the person's own expense, have a physician of
[his] the person's own choice administer a chemical test in addition to the test or tests administered
at the direction of a peace officer.
(b) The failure or inability to obtain the additional test does not affect admissibility of the
results of the test or tests taken at the direction of a peace officer, or preclude or delay the test or tests
to be taken at the direction of a peace officer.
(c) The additional test shall be subsequent to the test or tests administered at the direction
of a peace officer.
(7) For the purpose of determining whether to submit to a chemical test or tests, the person
to be tested does not have the right to consult an attorney or have an attorney, physician, or other
person present as a condition for the taking of any test.
(8) If a person under arrest refuses to submit to a chemical test or tests or any additional test
- 264 -
H.B. 202 Enrolled Copy
under this section, evidence of any refusal is admissible in any civil or criminal action or proceeding
arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was operating or in actual
physical control of an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or combination of
alcohol and any drug.
(9) The results of any test taken under this section or the refusal to be tested shall be reported
to the Federal Aviation Administration by the peace officer requesting the test.
Section 325. Section 72-10-503, which is renumbered from Section 2-6-103 is renumbered
and amended to read:
[2-6-103]. 72-10-503. Standards for chemical breath analysis -- Evidence.
(1) The commissioner of the Department of Public Safety shall establish standards for the
administration and interpretation of chemical analysis of a person's breath, including standards of
training.
(2) In any action or proceeding in which it is material to prove that a person was operating
or in actual physical control of an aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or
operating with a blood or breath alcohol content statutorily prohibited, documents offered as
memoranda or records of acts, conditions, or events to prove that the analysis was made and the
instrument used was accurate, according to standards established in Subsection (1), are admissible
if:
(a) the judge finds that they were made in the regular course of the investigation at or about
the time of the act, condition, or event; and
(b) the source of information from which made and the method and circumstances of their
preparation indicate their trustworthiness.
(3) If the judge finds that the standards established under Subsection (1) and the conditions
of Subsection (2) have been met, there is a presumption that the test results are valid and further
foundation for introduction of the evidence is unnecessary

 

[wbarnhill]

What's with the .10 BAC levels? Do you really need to be that intoxicated to be considered flying while intoxicated?

Oh, and is the co-pilot really being charged with flying while intoxicated if he never performed his duties and flew the aircraft? Looks like they got him before he could fly. So does that change the situation?

 

[alaskaflyer]

What's with the .10 BAC levels? Do you really need to be that intoxicated to be considered flying while intoxicated?

Oh, and is the co-pilot really being charged with flying while intoxicated if he never performed his duties and flew the aircraft? Looks like they got him before he could fly. So does that change the situation?

Actual physical control=in cockpit ready to fly.

And that list I got from the NTSB is a bit outdated, dollars to donuts that most states have changed .10 to something lower by now, just like for driving.

 

[mikea]

Actual physical control=in cockpit ready to fly.

And that list I got from the NTSB is a bit outdated, dollars to donuts that most states have changed .10 to something lower by now, just like for driving.

Those two USAir pilots who were arrested in the cockpit Florida tried to claim they weren't flying, just being towed from the gate. It didn't work. Guilty!

 

[bbchien]

There are definitely some issues over at SWA.....

 

[mikea]

There are definitely some issues over at SWA.....

Really? They weren't known for having issues. They did have no accidents at all until the overrun into the gas station and no fatalities until the overrun at Midway.

The secret was supposed to be that they only flew 737s, so the flight and ground crews would always be familiar with them.

Maybe the issues are with the presuure on keeping up that tight schedule. I imagine the mainstream airlines would love for the public to think SWA is unsafe being that they can't compete otherwise.

I once was scheduled to leave on SWA from Nashville where they had an snow/ice storm hours before. Snow in Nashville is treated like a natural disaster. I got to the airport, which I could do since I'd seen snow before.

It turned out that the only flight leaving BNA that night was my SWA flight. The other airlines, including American which had BNA as a hub, cancelled everything. I got my seat but they had sold every seat to passengers from the other airlines.

The snow and ice continued as we taxied out and got deiced at the runway threshold. I was very uncomfortable because the plane was packed, and the alcohol smell came into the cabin.

We took the runway, used the WHOLE runway, and got home without incident.

 

[Brian Austin]

Really? They weren't known for having issues. They did have no accidents at all until the overrun into the gas station and no fatalities until the overrun at Midway.

I thought they overran in CA somewhere, too, once upon a time.

 

[mikea]

I thought they overran in CA somewhere, too, once upon a time.

That was the gas station. The 737 went into a Speedway (I think) on a rainy runway.

Oh yeah. It was in beautiful downtown Burbank.

 

[ScottM]

I thought they overran in CA somewhere, too, once upon a time.

yep, http://www.ntsb.gov/PressRel/2002/020626a.htm

But it was not the result of snow on the runway.

 

[tonycondon]

and i believe there was one fatality in the midway overrun. a young boy in a car? right?

 

[ScottM]

and i believe there was one fatality in the midway overrun. a young boy in a car? right?

Yes__

 

[jason]

What's with the .10 BAC levels? Do you really need to be that intoxicated to be considered flying while intoxicated?

Oh, and is the co-pilot really being charged with flying while intoxicated if he never performed his duties and flew the aircraft? Looks like they got him before he could fly. So does that change the situation?

You missed the first line of the FAR's

(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft—

 

[ausrere]

Interesting. At this point I wonder if the local police have any real jurisdiction.

Yes they do in most states:

Texas Penal Code:
49.05. FLYING WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating an
aircraft.
(b) Except as provided by Section 49.09, an offense under
this section is a Class B misdemeanor, with a minimum term of
confinement of 72 hours.

I think most states have lowered the BAC level to .08, but even that doesn't mean you HAVE to have a BAC of .08 to get a conviction. You have to prove that they don't have "the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body;" [per our statutes anyway]

49.09 is the Enhanced Offenses and Penalties statute for mostly previous convictions which could enhance it to a felony.

Also, "operating" doesn't mean just flying. It means having the control of the aircraft..even sitting on the ground. The instant he sat down in the cockpit he was controlling it. I suspect just about every state has a similar offense on the books.

 

[ScottM]

Yes they do in most states:




49.09 is the Enhanced Offenses and Penalties statute for mostly previous convictions which could enhance it to a felony.

Also, "operating" doesn't mean just flying. It means having the control of the aircraft..even sitting on the ground. The instant he sat down in the cockpit he was controlling it. I suspect just about every state has a similar offense on the books.

But my point was about real jurisdiction. If that law challenged on the pre-emption arguement could it be over turned? I think there was some discussion in the courts in regards to the FLorida pilots. I cannot recall the outcome but I remember that some charges were dropped due to federal pre-emption.

 

[alaskaflyer]

But my point was about real jurisdiction. If that law challenged on the pre-emption arguement could it be over turned? I think there was some discussion in the courts in regards to the FLorida pilots. I cannot recall the outcome but I remember that some charges were dropped due to federal pre-emption.

Does it matter? It appears from the article that he wasn't charged with a state offense, he was charged with a Federal one when he was arrested.

Remember, part 91 says:

(c) A crewmember shall do the following:
(1) On request of a law enforcement officer, submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when—
(i) The law enforcement officer is authorized under State or local law to conduct the test or to have the test conducted; and
(ii) The law enforcement officer is requesting submission to the test to investigate a suspected violation of State or local law governing the same or substantially similar conduct prohibited by paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section.

It doesn't say the person has to actually be arrested by the state or local officer. It just says while investigating the state officer has every right to request a sample, if the given conditions above are met, which Federal prosecutors and the FAA can use in their various civil and criminal actions against the pilot.

 

[ausrere]

Does it matter? It appears from the article that he wasn't charged with a state offense, he was charged with a Federal one when he was arrested.

/snip/

It doesn't say the person has to actually be arrested by the state or local officer. It just says while investigating the state officer has every right to request a sample, if the given conditions above are met, which Federal prosecutors and the FAA can use in their various civil and criminal actions against the pilot.

Not to mention it simply gives the local officers the ability to detain the subject in the first place (with or without a sample). No formal charges need come from that detention. Personally..utlimately, I could care less who prosecutes the pilot, as long as somebody had the authority to keep him/her from continuing on the flight.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other state statue that could be used here. Even Deadly conduct (which having a drunk pilot would be deadly in my book!) doesn't cover it because it would have to involve a firearm. Reckless conduct isn't on the books anymore except for driving..and a motor vehicle in Texas doesn't cover an aircraft because it's not designed to operate on a public highway. You 'could' probably go with simple public intoxication (have to prove danger to himself or others...but that wouldn't be hard if they intended to fly in that condition). But PI in this state doesn't require a breath/blood sample... so I'd have no problem with a state/local cop detaining the pilot for FWI/FUI, taking the sample, then passing the whole thing on to the feds to prosecute. Everybody wins except the idiot who tried to fly in that condition.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Not to mention it simply gives the local officers the ability to detain the subject in the first place (with or without a sample). No formal charges need come from that detention. Personally..utlimately, I could care less who prosecutes the pilot, as long as somebody had the authority to keep him/her from continuing on the flight.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other state statue that could be used here. Even Deadly conduct (which having a drunk pilot would be deadly in my book!) doesn't cover it because it would have to involve a firearm. Reckless conduct isn't on the books anymore except for driving..and a motor vehicle in Texas doesn't cover an aircraft because it's not designed to operate on a public highway. You 'could' probably go with simple public intoxication (have to prove danger to himself or others...but that wouldn't be hard if they intended to fly in that condition). But PI in this state doesn't require a breath/blood sample... so I'd have no problem with a state/local cop detaining the pilot for FWI/FUI, taking the sample, then passing the whole thing on to the feds to prosecute. Everybody wins except the idiot who tried to fly in that condition.

I'm not sure about every state but TN still has a "reckless endangerment" statute which covers general conduct. Including presumably aviation assuming one is in state jurisdiction (lets not get in another so-called "Federal preemption" argument here folks - usually you are all wrong anyway )

 

[ScottM]

(lets not get in another so-called "Federal preemption" argument here folks - usually you are all wrong anyway )

Geesh Richard take too many angry pills today??

I just asked a question. And a question, BTW, that Florida drunk pilots used to get off of a few charges and the AOPA has and is using to stop additional regulation of aviation.

 

[TMetzinger]

While we're discussing the ways that a pilot can be detained, investigated, and eventually charged and tried, has there been any new evidence that shows the pilot was intoxicated as opposed to having some other problem?

 

[alaskaflyer]

While we're discussing the ways that a pilot can be detained, investigated, and eventually charged and tried, has there been any new evidence that shows the pilot was intoxicated as opposed to having some other problem?

Other than he smelled of alcoholic beverages, took two chemical tests which presumably showed him over the limit (I presume that because they arrested him afterwards), and "presumably" possessed a first class medical which would "presumably" rule out diabetes?

No, nothing new

 

[alaskaflyer]

Geesh Richard take too many angry pills today??

I just asked a question. And a question, BTW, that Florida drunk pilots used to get off of a few charges and the AOPA has and is using to stop additional regulation of aviation.

Sorry, but I'm still raw over the last Federal vs local jurisdiction thread on the red board. Too many people get confused over opinion vs fact. "I believe it ought to be, therefore, it is."

 

[TMetzinger]

What I'm REALLY asking is whether there has been other sources than the one posted claiming he was arrested and charged? I'll concede that if he was arrested then there's a high probability he was intoxicated.

 

[alaskaflyer]

What I'm REALLY asking is whether there has been other sources than the one posted claiming he was arrested and charged? I'll concede that if he was arrested then there's a high probability he was intoxicated.

Most sources say the gov't is not releasing the breath alcohol test results.

 

[tonycondon]

and to play devils advocate, it is quite possible to get a 1st class medical with diabetes. I checked out a 747 captain in a 172 last year who had a special issuance for just that. he was diet controlled of course. first day he gets put on insulin is the last day he flies.