What happened with Patty Wagstaff?

[SkyHog]

Man Nick, I can't wait until you get a OUI for sleeping in the back of your car. Or for just walking through the parking lot with your keys. Both can get you a OUI... but officer I was just going to get some more smokes... Don't care! Arrested and charged, and then intimidated into paying thousands in fines (extortion) and going on probation to avoid the possibility of Jail. What a fair and reasonable system we have.

That's not fair, since that's not what happened with Wagstaff. If that was what happened, I'd find it to be silly, but instead, she was driving drunk, was stopped, refused to uphold the agreement she signed by obtaining her license, and now, it appears, was uncooperative with the police officers that were there to do their job.

And I'm more than slightly offended that you "can't wait" to see me get screwed by the system because I feel that a drunk driver should be punished.

 

[Ted]

And I'm more than slightly offended that you "can't wait" to see me get screwed by the system because I feel that a drunk driver should be punished.

Nick, if you got a DUI charge, would you expect us to start out assuming you were guilty? Of course not. I think that is more the point. You, along with a number of other people, seem to "know" exactly what happeed. Unless you were good friends with Patty and happened to be there, the one real fact is that you don't, you only "know" what you read in some media articles.

As such, you and everyone else making similar accusations should shut up until the legal process does its thing. Whether or not the legal process is what it ought to be, that's another matter entirely. However none of us are in a position to say that she is or is not guilty. I understand you've got a big thing against drunk drivers. I have zero tolerance for them, too (although it's not as personal for me). All that said, Mark is right that this quarterbacking is insane and needs to stop. We compain about fascist laws on other threads, yet do not ourselves protect that people here are innocent until provent guilty. I'm sure y'all would say you do, but those who are making accusations here prove otherwise, and you need to reevaluate your true values.

Want to bet that if she's found not guilty you will be screaming how she should be imprisoned anyway? That's pretty un-American.

 

[tdager]

For the few who think I'm making an early judgment, I'm not. I'm all for the legal proceedings to run their course and let a judge or jury make the finding of fact.

But, if convicted I don't think it should be simply a probationary period by the FAA. Sorry but there have been too many cases where pilots have slid by. If your ticket means anything to you, stay away from the booze for the duration or a good 24 hours before flight. If that's judgmental, so be it. My ticket is not worth a couple beers or otherwise to enjoy just because I'm not flying in the next eight to twelve hours.

It's already too easy to keep driving after multiple DUIs. One shot is plenty when it comes to flying. Otherwise, where are the rest of your ADM skills being used?

Sorry Ken, but I just have to disagree. That is just too binary a way of thinking that does not take into account the real world. We are becoming a "zero tolerance" society in too many ways, leading to too many silly rules and punishments. EVERY offense should be taken on its own merits....analyzed, reviewed, and then judgment made.

To do otherwise is to abdicate our critical thinking and reasoning skills to a set of scripts and binary, black and white, thinking, something I am not willing to do.

 

[KennyFlys]

Sorry Ken, but I just have to disagree. That is just too binary a way of thinking that does not take into account the real world. We are becoming a "zero tolerance" society in too many ways, leading to too many silly rules and punishments. EVERY offense should be taken on its own merits....analyzed, reviewed, and then judgment made.

To do otherwise is to abdicate our critical thinking and reasoning skills to a set of scripts and binary, black and white, thinking, something I am not willing to do.

The moment you take the first drink, you're more than capable of making the decision. Unless you're consuming Everclear, that's likely the case with the second and third drinks, as well.

Upon that action, you take the responsibility for the outcome of your actions. When it comes to operation of an aircraft, I find the need for this to be very black and white. If you're convicted by a state law, you're FAA certificate should be toast.

That in no way says she should lose her rights as a defendant in that state case. But if convicted, let the chips fall where they may.

 

[tdager]

The moment you take the first drink, you're more than capable of making the decision. Unless you're consuming Everclear, that's likely the case with the second and third drinks, as well.

Upon that action, you take the responsibility for the outcome of your actions. When it comes to operation of an aircraft, I find the need for this to be very black and white. If you're convicted by a state law, you're FAA certificate should be toast.

That in no way says she should lose her rights as a defendant in that state case. But if convicted, let the chips fall where they may.

Again...I will just have to disagree. *shrug*

 

[timwinters]

I can't help but to ask again...

Who here doesn't talk on their cell phone while driving?

I must admit that I laugh when I read all the seemingly self righteous, holier than thou, commentary regarding drunk driving when it's been repeadedly shown that cell phone use is even more dangerous than DUI. No, it's not illegal (yet) but there's no argument that the danger level is still there.

Again, I'm not defending DUI, I'm just saying that these conversations appear to be had by those living in glass houses throwing stones.

 

[Ted]

I Again, I'm not defending DUI, I'm just saying that these conversations appear to be had by those living in glass houses throwing stones.

You're absolutely right. Hopefully you aren't actually surprised by this.

 

[KennyFlys]

I can't help but to ask again...

Who here doesn't talk on their cell phone while driving?

I must admit that I laugh when I read all the seemingly self righteous, holier than thou, commentary regarding drunk driving when it's been repeatedly shown that cell phone use is even more dangerous than DUI. No, it's not illegal (yet) but there's no argument that the danger level is still there.

Again, I'm not defending DUI, I'm just saying that these conversations appear to be had by those living in glass houses throwing stones.

Very, VERY rarely do I use a phone while driving and 90% of that time I'm using Bluetooth.

How many here look both ways before proceeding across an intersection with a traffic light? How many call "Clear left, clear right, clear across" before crossing an intersecting taxiway or runway? I do it and I teach it.

Will such things absolutely prevent an accident? Nope. But, they will substantially mitigate the potential. The only way to mitigate the potential for an alcohol-related event is to NOT drink for a substantial period before driving or flying. Anyone who can reasonably argue against that is wearing rose-colored glasses.

I don't know how my posts were twisted but someone sure as heck has done so. I'm not convicting the person. I'm saying that if she has violated the law with regard to alcohol, then she reasonably deserves the outcome with the FAA.

My first ground session with every student involves Human Factors and physiology along with Aeronautical Decision Making. If your instructor did not put that time in with you, shame on them. It will last a good hour. I make it clear that abuse of alcohol can cost them everything they worked for with regard to airmen certificates up to and including a lifetime revocation. Will that much usually happen? No. But, the rules leave a tremendous amount of discretion with no limits placed on the administrator.

All I'm saying is IF she drank and IF she did so act irresponsibly (at an air show of all places), AND IF she acted as is reported, she deserves what may happen with regard to the administrator's actions. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON here can claim they didn't know they were subject to rules in 91.17. Act accordingly and you know the potential of what to expect.

Now, is that harsh? When it comes to substance abuse, I don't think so. I share the sky with enough people who do not act responsibly where drugs are not involved. I dang sure don't want that rule to be any less strict. There are a lot more rules out there in our society that hurt us much worse than this one, one's we have no control over. This one, we have every bit of control over.

There's nothing self-righteous about my statements. As to personal actions, I don't drink at all because my airman certificates are that important to me. The few times I've had other PoA'ers offer to buy a beer for me, I've declined and drank only a Coke. Gary, Ric, PJ and LanceF can most recently attest to this. My livelihood depends on those certificates daily because I have a student nearly everyday. That's not the case with every person and they can make their own decisions.

Patty Wagstaff made her decision. So, let's see what is determined in a court of law then what the administrator decides.

 

[EdFred]

The real "smartest thing you can do" is make 100% certain that you don't drink and drive, in Wisconsin or any other jurisdiction.

And don't use mouthwash, or certain breath mints, or hope that you aren't sick, and just took some DayQuil.

 

[steingar]

Nick, if you got a DUI charge, would you expect us to start out assuming you were guilty? Of course not. I think that is more the point. You, along with a number of other people, seem to "know" exactly what happeed. Unless you were good friends with Patty and happened to be there, the one real fact is that you don't, you only "know" what you read in some media articles.

As such, you and everyone else making similar accusations should shut up until the legal process does its thing. Whether or not the legal process is what it ought to be, that's another matter entirely. However none of us are in a position to say that she is or is not guilty. I understand you've got a big thing against drunk drivers. I have zero tolerance for them, too (although it's not as personal for me). All that said, Mark is right that this quarterbacking is insane and needs to stop. We compain about fascist laws on other threads, yet do not ourselves protect that people here are innocent until provent guilty. I'm sure y'all would say you do, but those who are making accusations here prove otherwise, and you need to reevaluate your true values.

Want to bet that if she's found not guilty you will be screaming how she should be imprisoned anyway? That's pretty un-American.

Celebrity changes things though. Patty Wagstaff didn't have to walk or take the bus like I did. I bet she wasn't sleeping in her tent the way I was. She got special treatment throughout because of her celebrity status, and rightly so. Having celebrities at an event draws others.

However, celebrity has a downside. If I got pinched DUI, you guys would probably never know unless I told you. I doubt strongly you'd engage in any speculation, and would likely offer support and well wishes, assuming the best. But celebrity blunts this, it's just how it is. Part of the human nature enjoys seeing the mighty fall. I truly hope for the best for Ms. Wagstaff; she's a tremendous pilot and role model.

I would love to say I genuinely don't care, but I have my primate wiring same as you guys and here I am in this thread. I have no doubt that the legal process will roll itself out in a way that is the slowest, most expensive, and least responsive to the truth of the matter. I have even less doubt that we will never actually know what happened that fateful night.

 

[Missa]

Being charged and being convicted are two different things. Just sayin'.

When the prosecuting attorney and judge all belong to the same country club and live in teh same neighborhood, they aren't.

And the police officers, that they work with all the time, bonus is depending on the convicition... plus no one really goes to jail, The courts just intimidate and extort the "Charged offenders" instead. I tell you what, you can go to court and will be convicted and have to spend up to a year in jail or you can enter our alternative program spend $6K go on probation for a year and then we'll wipe it clean. A better word for it, Alternative revenue plan. We don't need to raise taxes we'll just arrest more people for a DUI (can be done under the legal limit even blowing a 0) and then intimidate them for $$ by telling them if they don't enter the program they will go to jail. Nobody will fight for sanity in the system because then they will look bad for being soft on drunks who kill people by driving. Oh, and while were at it we'll set aside some of this raised revenue fund to put one or two officers on the street just to arrest DUI's... then if a real emergency comes in like a woman in a domestic abuse situation has her husband pointing a gun at her... and that's the ONLY cop available, he can not go to her rescue because he has to continue monitoring his DUI checkpoint. So what if she died. (it happed)

It is totally disgusting to me.

 

[Missa]

Not to the FAA. The recent change to the medical application instructions now requires you to report any DUI (or whatever it's called in your state) arrests on your next medical whether you were convicted or not. Y'all be careful -- and smart.

And you can be arrested if you blow under the legal limit all the way down to 0

Not only is drinking illigal but so is just going to a bar for a burger, a coke and to watch the band.

 

[Missa]

I don't want to get into a discussion of the constitutionality of this change -- it is what it is, so if you value your flying privileges, you'd better not get caught by the cops driving around with booze in your system. Since it's really easy to get caught if you do drive that way, you'd better make certain that when you drive you don't drink, and when you drink you don't drive. Period.

And don't go to a bar even to see a band. Because if you are pulled over and PASS the DUI tests, you can still be arrested and charged. Then extorted. It's all about the money.

 

[ScottM]

And you can be arrested if you blow under the legal limit all the way down to 0

Not only is drinking illigal but so is just going to a bar for a burger, a coke and to watch the band.

Interesting that you wrote this. A long time ago I stopped at a bar to meet up with friends and had a burger and a coke with no additives in it. I did not feel like drinking even one beer. When I left the bar I was pulled over almost as soon as the wheels of my car hit the street. I am sure it was some sort of sting.

the police officer asked me how much I had to drink and I said nothing, he did not believe that anyone would be in a bar and have NOTHING to drink. He gave me a field sobriety test, which is hard even when you are stone cold sober, I passed. he gave me the blow test and I blew 0.00, still he did not believe me and asked if I would submit blood.

I told him no I would not, I then said I have passed the field test and blown a 0.00 if he thinks there is still probable cause to arrest me for DUI then please proceed otherwise it would seem that my story was true. He hemmed and hawed and finally realized that he was not going to get a good arrest for DUI.

 

[Missa]

Want to bet that if she's found not guilty you will be screaming how she should be imprisoned anyway? That's pretty un-American.

No, he's already conviced her... "She's dead to me now"

 

[poadeleted20]

That's not fair, since that's not what happened with Wagstaff. If that was what happened, I'd find it to be silly, but instead, she was driving drunk,

We don't know that with any certainty -- that question is still under adjudication.

was stopped,

That we do know.

refused to uphold the agreement she signed by obtaining her license,

Ms. Wagstaff's driving license was issued in Florida, not Wisconsin. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, we don't know whether she knew what the law is in Wisconsin, so her legal consent was almost certainly only implied, not explicit.

and now, it appears, was uncooperative with the police officers that were there to do their job.

Thanks for the "appears" -- this, too, is a question yet to be answered by the court.

 

[poadeleted20]

And don't use mouthwash, or certain breath mints, or hope that you aren't sick, and just took some DayQuil.

Didn't Adam and Jamie cover that one?

But before you get to that point, you have to be pulled over, and that means you have to have been driving in a manner to attract the officer's attention. Further, if you are stopped at a drunk driver checkpoint after one of those things which can leave an alcohol-like odor, you're going to pass the field test, blow zero on the breathalyzer, and show zero on the BAC test. Unless, of course, you've also been drinking.

 

[EdFred]

Didn't Adam and Jamie cover that one?

But before you get to that point, you have to be pulled over, and that means you have to have been driving in a manner to attract the officer's attention. Further, if you are stopped at a drunk driver checkpoint after one of those things which can leave an alcohol-like odor, you're going to pass the field test, blow zero on the breathalyzer, and show zero on the BAC test. Unless, of course, you've also been drinking.

Not here. All the officer has to say is "it looked like he wasn't wearing his seat belt."

 

[Missa]

But before you get to that point, you have to be pulled over, and that means you have to have been driving in a manner to attract the officer's attention.

You mean like driving out of a Bar parking lot?

Further, if you are stopped at a drunk driver checkpoint after one of those things which can leave an alcohol-like odor, you're going to pass the field test, blow zero on the breathalyzer, and show zero on the BAC test. Unless, of course, you've also been drinking.

You can still be arrested. Even at zero. Passing the Field test means you are in perfect physical condition... having a lazy eye will make you fail.

And remember the person judging your fitness is a person who gets monetary compensation if you fail.

 

[Everskyward]

Passing the Field test means you are in perfect physical condition... having a lazy eye will make you fail.

I've passed a field sobriety test at 2am after being stopped at a drunk driver checkpoint. That was after being up all day. It was pretty much a non-issue other than it being a huge inconvenience when all I wanted to do was go home and get to bed.

Still, I agree that the changing of the wording on the medical application from "convicted" to "arrested" is going too far. Drinking is still legal in all states that I know of. Even drinking and driving is legal as long as you stay under the limit.

 

[poadeleted20]

You can still be arrested. Even at zero. Passing the Field test means you are in perfect physical condition... having a lazy eye will make you fail.

Pass the field test and come up zero on the breath/blood tests, and still get arrested? If they arrest you under those circumstances, you're going to get rich at their expense, and the arrest will be expunged.

 

[poadeleted20]

Even drinking and driving is legal as long as you stay under the limit.

Which is exactly why the FAA changed the wording. They have concluded that people who play chicken with the DUI laws to the point of getting arrested will do the same in airplanes, and it is well-proven that piloting is less forgiving of alcohol than driving.

 

[Missa]

I've passed a field sobriety test at 2am after being stopped at a drunk driver checkpoint. That was after being up all day. It was pretty much a non-issue other than it being a huge inconvenience when all I wanted to do was go home and get to bed.

But you do not have a genitic problem with your eyes that cause them to cross even when you are sober. You are physically in good condition without problems with your ankles that cause stability problems even when sober. Several medical aliments will cause you to FAIL the feild sobrity test, specially when the person adminstraiting the test has a finical insentive to have you fail.

Even drinking and driving is legal as long as you stay under the limit.

No it's not. You can be arrested and charged with a DUI when you are UNDER the legal limit. There is in essance no legal limit it's a fallacy.

 

[Missa]

Pass the field test and come up zero on the breath/blood tests, and still get arrested? If they arrest you under those circumstances, you're going to get rich at their expense, and the arrest will be expunged.

So what if you can't pass the feild sobrity test because of a medical problem, then blow a zero and still get charged. Or you fail due to a medical problem and have a BAC of 1/2 the "legal limit". Oh yea I can spend Thousands on an attorney and risk jail or I can give into the extortion offer by the court (discraceful).

And you are unlikely to get rich at their expense... your lawyer will but unless you have a law degree you will not.

 

[Everskyward]

Which is exactly why the FAA changed the wording. They have concluded that people who play chicken with the DUI laws to the point of getting arrested will do the same in airplanes, and it is well-proven that piloting is less forgiving of alcohol than driving.

I think their assumption is wrong as I know quite a few people who will drive after a beer or a glass of wine but wouldn't think of flying in the same condition.

 

[Missa]

I think their assumption is wrong as I know quite a few people who will drive after a beer or a glass of wine but wouldn't think of flying in the same condition.

That's because they are under the assumption that there is a legal limit and having one glass of beer or wine with dinner and driving home is "ok".

They are wrong, but that is only because we (as in the American people) are ignorant of the laws. Drinking anything is effectively illegal in the united states and no one cares or does anything because it looks bad to fight MAD.

 

[Everskyward]

Drinking anything is effectively illegal in the united states

Do you have some kind of proof of this?

 

[Missa]

Do you have some kind of proof of this?

Study the laws and tell me what you think.

You can be arrested for a DUI for being under the legal limit. You can be arrested for comming out of a bar and failing the feild test due to a medical condition. You can drink a beer and go for a bycicle ride on your own property, and be arrested for DUI. You can get arrested for a DUI if you are walking with your car keys. You can get arrested for a DUI if your designated driver fails the Feild test due to a medical condition and is arrested. So unless you live in NYC where they have great public transportation, effectivly it is illegal to drink anywhere outside of your own house.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not going to argue further with Missa about the specific medical condition to which she refers other than to say that if the condition is documented, and can be shown to be the only reason the officer arrested the person, then the arrest is going to be squelched and the FAA is not going to be concerned.

 

[Everskyward]

You can be arrested for a DUI for being under the legal limit. You can be arrested for comming out of a bar and failing the feild test due to a medical condition. You can drink a beer and go for a bycicle ride on your own property, and be arrested for DUI. You can get arrested for a DUI if you are walking with your car keys. You can get arrested for a DUI if your designated driver fails the Feild test due to a medical condition and is arrested. So unless you live in NYC where they have great public transportation, effectivly it is illegal to drink anywhere outside of your own house.

You can probably be arrested in the NYC subway for public drunkenness too...

I'm not saying these things are impossible, just highly improbable if you have only had a drink or two. How many people do you know that have been arrested for riding a bicycle while drunk, especially when they have had only one or two drinks? How about for walking around with their cars keys? I can see how someone might have a physical disability that would cause them to look drunk and fail a field sobriety test but they would be able to pass the breathalizer test and have a defense. If they arrested everyone who drinks other than in their home, the bars would be out of business and at least half the adults in the country would be in jail.

 

[kevin47881]

It's MADD, not MAD.

 

[Missa]

I'm not going to argue further with Missa about the specific medical condition to which she refers other than to say that if the condition is documented, and can be shown to be the only reason the officer arrested the person, then the arrest is going to be squelched and the FAA is not going to be concerned.

You will be, but only after it costs you big bucks to defend yourself and a lot of inconvince and heart ahce. It costs them nothing to arrest and accuse you and if they get you it's even more money in their pocket. I bet the FAA will pull your medical until you have it all sorted out, so just the act of being arrested (rightly or wrongly) get's your right to fly suspended.

 

[Missa]

You can probably be arrested in the NYC subway for public drunkenness too...

I'm not saying these things are impossible, just highly improbable if you have only had a drink or two. How many people do you know that have been arrested for riding a bicycle while drunk, especially when they have had only one or two drinks? How about for walking around with their cars keys? I can see how someone might have a physical disability that would cause them to look drunk and fail a field sobriety test but they would be able to pass the breathalizer test and have a defense. If they arrested everyone who drinks other than in their home, the bars would be out of business and at least half the adults in the country would be in jail.

It's all about risk management. If you value your certifiicate, it's illigal to drink at all. Because it may be rare, but it does happen.

 

[Missa]

It's MADD, not MAD.

Nah... they just want you to think it's MADD, it's better for PR for them to be against Drunk Drivers rather then just Drinkers.

 

[TMetzinger]

I agree that Missa does have a point, in that in many states motor vehicle laws, both related to every day driving and operating while intoxicated, have been crafted primarily as a way to generate revenue.

That said, however, driving impaired, WHATEVER the reason, is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with harshly. The tricky part is defining "impaired".

 

[Everskyward]

It's all about risk management. If you value your certifiicate, it's illigal to drink at all. Because it may be rare, but it does happen.

Isn't life about risk management? You're right, everyone needs to make their own decisions regarding risk and reward, but it's also good to have a realistic view of what the risks actually are. If you have decided not to drink outside your house, more power to you, but there are other people who have decided differently whose decision is just as valid.

 

[steingar]

Proverbial protestant morality legislated in our society. Ethanol is bad, a tool of the devil. And we've all played along in the guise of public safety. Makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

 

[Anthony]

Proverbial protestant morality legislated in our society. Ethanol is bad, a tool of the devil. And we've all played along in the guise of public safety. Makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

Totally agree! I have heard that gasoline with ethanol is wreaking havoc with boaters and lawn care equipment as it attracts WATER. Boats live in WATER. If the gov't hadn't mandated E10 (10% ethanol) this wouldn't happen.

 

[Missa]

I agree that Missa does have a point, in that in many states motor vehicle laws, both related to every day driving and operating while intoxicated, have been crafted primarily as a way to generate revenue.

That said, however, driving impaired, WHATEVER the reason, is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with harshly. The tricky part is defining "impaired".

I agree people who are impaired should be dealt with and repeat offenders should be even more so.

Defining Impaired is the problem, some people operate better then others... Some people should not be on the road when sober. Ma and I took g-pa off the road, the state was still issuing him a drivers license. The real way to do it is make it harder to get the drivers license in the first place, but then we would have to invest in reliable safe public transportation... and that's not going to happen.

But a good start would be to not give officers a finical incentive to arrest a person for a DUI. (just give them a raise and be done with it) That way we can be certain they work for us not for the money. Go back to "protect and serve" instead of generate revenue.

 

[Missa]

Isn't life about risk management? You're right, everyone needs to make their own decisions regarding risk and reward, but it's also good to have a realistic view of what the risks actually are. If you have decided not to drink outside your house, more power to you, but there are other people who have decided differently whose decision is just as valid.

But if you are going to make it illegal you should do it in front of the people no in the back handed way it has been done... We all know the "legal limit" but it really doesn't exist, we are just told it does so we go out and have ONE beer or glass of wine, we think were ok because we are under the legal limit and then get arrested and charged.

Everyone has the right to decide if they want to break the law. The issue here is no one is informed about the law so they make a decision based on the lies they were told and then break the law without deciding to.