Shopping in Osaka
Guest
Posts: n/a
The notorious conduct of a crew member reflects directly on the company for whom he or she works.
If, as suggested, there is no correlation between off duty conduct, and crew duties, then perhaps all forms of off duty conduct should be “decriminalised”. Open slather drinking, drug taking, assault on a prostitute, whatever one can dream up.
The suggestion this individual carries an illness, kleptomania, might well indicate the character may be unsuitable to hold a licence. It may very well impact on his/her fitness for duty as an operating crew member, especially after being “nicked” by the Old Bill.
Who knows what sunsequent mental process might trigger an event, which may be catastrophic.
No, I am not an emotional cripple, I am an ‘89er. I sure wasn’t beaten by anyone cleverer than I, and neither were my fellow ‘89er’s. They were just, and they are too foolish to understand that their current potential predicament is self induced by their ’89 conduct.
You can be assured the sadistically derived pleasure at the pain of the ‘89er’s, to the extent they even turned up at funerals. One could hardly imagine it was out of sympathy.
I certainly think the term “egomaniac”, applies to a . Never to an ‘89
[ 23 August 2001: Message edited by: Woomera ]
If, as suggested, there is no correlation between off duty conduct, and crew duties, then perhaps all forms of off duty conduct should be “decriminalised”. Open slather drinking, drug taking, assault on a prostitute, whatever one can dream up.
The suggestion this individual carries an illness, kleptomania, might well indicate the character may be unsuitable to hold a licence. It may very well impact on his/her fitness for duty as an operating crew member, especially after being “nicked” by the Old Bill.
Who knows what sunsequent mental process might trigger an event, which may be catastrophic.
No, I am not an emotional cripple, I am an ‘89er. I sure wasn’t beaten by anyone cleverer than I, and neither were my fellow ‘89er’s. They were just, and they are too foolish to understand that their current potential predicament is self induced by their ’89 conduct.
You can be assured the sadistically derived pleasure at the pain of the ‘89er’s, to the extent they even turned up at funerals. One could hardly imagine it was out of sympathy.
I certainly think the term “egomaniac”, applies to a . Never to an ‘89
[ 23 August 2001: Message edited by: Woomera ]
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A mate of mine who works for the international white rat, told me that a few years ago that they stayed in 5 star pubs on special floors, no mini bar,no food, basically anything that could not be tied down was removed because of the on going removal without payment of non tied down items.He even quoted a Hero taking his own 40w bulbs away with him and coming home with the good 75's
Gaunty
The first part of your post merely – though eloquently - redefines the problem: who decides what personal attributes preclude a person from participating in a particular occupation? I will indulge in a ‘T’ism and state that I know what the answer isn’t. The answer isn’t "the mob".
The least-worse option is to try to articulate the relevant considerations in general terms – e.g. ‘fit and proper person’ and ‘air safety’ – and make assessments on a case-by-case basis, hopefully objectively, against those considerations. Beyond that, you start down a very steep, slippery slope that’s traversed by eugenicists, ethnic cleansers, misogynists, homophobics, inquisitors and witch burners.
I’m glad you provided a reasoned response to my "emotional cripple/beaten by cleverer people" comment. (Compare Amos, whose response can be answered shortly and demonstrates my point.)
People who are angry about events 10 years old are emotionally crippled. They have clearly suffered so profoundly that they continue to manifest reptilian rather than reasoned responses to event-related stimuli. Ask any psychiatrist. (And may I stress that I don’t doubt their suffering was and remains profound, and was inflicted unconscionably.) But whatever the rights and wrongs of the underlying cause, they are emotional cripples.
The important point is that notwithstanding that handicap, they, their employers, their colleagues and the regulatory authorities must in general consider them to be proficient and professional airmen. The same must be true in relation to the person the subject of this thread.
The word "cleverer" has positive connotations that I did not intend. I take your point on that score, Gaunty. To the extent that the word has positive connotations, its use was unfair.
Rats are clever, as are vultures. Everyone eventually learns that rich and powerful people have a propensity to use their resources and power, manipulate the legal system and the media, take advantage of the greedy and exploit the naive, and do whatever else it takes to remain and get more rich and powerful. The phrase ‘never give a sucker and even break’ was not coined by Mother Teresa. It’s a valuable but painful lesson, from which some don’t fully recover.
Amos: it’s not a sign of weakness to ask for help.
The first part of your post merely – though eloquently - redefines the problem: who decides what personal attributes preclude a person from participating in a particular occupation? I will indulge in a ‘T’ism and state that I know what the answer isn’t. The answer isn’t "the mob".
The least-worse option is to try to articulate the relevant considerations in general terms – e.g. ‘fit and proper person’ and ‘air safety’ – and make assessments on a case-by-case basis, hopefully objectively, against those considerations. Beyond that, you start down a very steep, slippery slope that’s traversed by eugenicists, ethnic cleansers, misogynists, homophobics, inquisitors and witch burners.
I’m glad you provided a reasoned response to my "emotional cripple/beaten by cleverer people" comment. (Compare Amos, whose response can be answered shortly and demonstrates my point.)
People who are angry about events 10 years old are emotionally crippled. They have clearly suffered so profoundly that they continue to manifest reptilian rather than reasoned responses to event-related stimuli. Ask any psychiatrist. (And may I stress that I don’t doubt their suffering was and remains profound, and was inflicted unconscionably.) But whatever the rights and wrongs of the underlying cause, they are emotional cripples.
The important point is that notwithstanding that handicap, they, their employers, their colleagues and the regulatory authorities must in general consider them to be proficient and professional airmen. The same must be true in relation to the person the subject of this thread.
The word "cleverer" has positive connotations that I did not intend. I take your point on that score, Gaunty. To the extent that the word has positive connotations, its use was unfair.
Rats are clever, as are vultures. Everyone eventually learns that rich and powerful people have a propensity to use their resources and power, manipulate the legal system and the media, take advantage of the greedy and exploit the naive, and do whatever else it takes to remain and get more rich and powerful. The phrase ‘never give a sucker and even break’ was not coined by Mother Teresa. It’s a valuable but painful lesson, from which some don’t fully recover.
Amos: it’s not a sign of weakness to ask for help.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The light has dawned, insofar as I now think I know who the subject of this thread is, which calls for a reassessment of my opinions, or does it?
I first ran across this person when he was a teenager flogging Daddy's Turbo Commander around. He was God's gift to aviation then and an arrogant little pr1ck who demonstrated none of the qualities which would cause you to believe that he would mellow as he grew older. He displayed the same cavalier attitude to flying and the rules of the air as his old man, and I am surprised to learn that he was ever able to summon the discipline required to be an airline pilot.
That said, I go back to Captain Claret's wise question; had he not been an insufferable yob, universally disliked and a "hero", but instead had been a humble and popular man with a genuine addiction to stealing which when exposed came as a surprise to everyone, would there be the same overwhelming condemnation, or would there be general sympathy?
None of us is immune from indulging in a little Schadenfreude, and I confess that when I realized who it was I understood the general consensus. I certainly won't be losing any sleep over his situation.
But that said, to go back on my earlier opinion that his crime has nothing necessarily to do with his ability to fly an aeroplane would be substituting a reasoned argument with personal feelings, thereby destroying the validity of the argument. So my comments stand. Just in case anybody cared.....
RD
I first ran across this person when he was a teenager flogging Daddy's Turbo Commander around. He was God's gift to aviation then and an arrogant little pr1ck who demonstrated none of the qualities which would cause you to believe that he would mellow as he grew older. He displayed the same cavalier attitude to flying and the rules of the air as his old man, and I am surprised to learn that he was ever able to summon the discipline required to be an airline pilot.
That said, I go back to Captain Claret's wise question; had he not been an insufferable yob, universally disliked and a "hero", but instead had been a humble and popular man with a genuine addiction to stealing which when exposed came as a surprise to everyone, would there be the same overwhelming condemnation, or would there be general sympathy?
None of us is immune from indulging in a little Schadenfreude, and I confess that when I realized who it was I understood the general consensus. I certainly won't be losing any sleep over his situation.
But that said, to go back on my earlier opinion that his crime has nothing necessarily to do with his ability to fly an aeroplane would be substituting a reasoned argument with personal feelings, thereby destroying the validity of the argument. So my comments stand. Just in case anybody cared.....
RD
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noted the remark about the time when the "struggling F/O" was taking home airline food to feed the kids. Poor kids!!
On the other hand plenty of other struggling F/Os did not feel it necessary to pinch the stuff.
But this is not about petty pilfering or because of the events of '89. Pilots of all persuasions would consider his behaviour unacceptable not because of just one incident many years ago but for repeatedly reprehensible behaviour over a long period as has been revealed.
The debate about what the licencing authority may do in relation to his certificate is a red herring; however in the process he must have made false declarations; again beside the point.
The real issue is in the employer's hands since he must have made a false declaration on his employment application; as well as the current situation.
Most airlines' policy manual specify instant dismissal in the case of pilfering from the employer and also some kind of statement of expected standards of honesty.
Some say this has no relevance to his suitability for command but it is not that simple. Why does a man being well paid need to steal repeatedly? One possibility is that perhaps he has made bad financial decisions but still desires to provide his children with their desires and conceal his predicament. If that is so the stresses involved could very well affect his performance. Such a scenario has been suggested in the Silk Air case. Who knows?
After all in another instance of financial stress, close to home, a pilot comitted suicide. Apparently he gave no indication of his intention or situation prior to his demise.
Then we have Creampuff rationalising and attacking those who express an opinion different from his in an insulting manner. Well I'll deviate from my normal practice of not responding in kind. Another bloody bleeding heart!! Just like the judge who reduced the sentence of a convicted child rapist,many times over, by saying that he was otherwise of "good character"
The company should sack him!!! Others have been sacked for much less.
[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]
On the other hand plenty of other struggling F/Os did not feel it necessary to pinch the stuff.
But this is not about petty pilfering or because of the events of '89. Pilots of all persuasions would consider his behaviour unacceptable not because of just one incident many years ago but for repeatedly reprehensible behaviour over a long period as has been revealed.
The debate about what the licencing authority may do in relation to his certificate is a red herring; however in the process he must have made false declarations; again beside the point.
The real issue is in the employer's hands since he must have made a false declaration on his employment application; as well as the current situation.
Most airlines' policy manual specify instant dismissal in the case of pilfering from the employer and also some kind of statement of expected standards of honesty.
Some say this has no relevance to his suitability for command but it is not that simple. Why does a man being well paid need to steal repeatedly? One possibility is that perhaps he has made bad financial decisions but still desires to provide his children with their desires and conceal his predicament. If that is so the stresses involved could very well affect his performance. Such a scenario has been suggested in the Silk Air case. Who knows?
After all in another instance of financial stress, close to home, a pilot comitted suicide. Apparently he gave no indication of his intention or situation prior to his demise.
Then we have Creampuff rationalising and attacking those who express an opinion different from his in an insulting manner. Well I'll deviate from my normal practice of not responding in kind. Another bloody bleeding heart!! Just like the judge who reduced the sentence of a convicted child rapist,many times over, by saying that he was otherwise of "good character"
The company should sack him!!! Others have been sacked for much less.
[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
This person really should not be working for the airline for a few reasons.
Firstly, they have an addiction and apparently have not made any effort to cure it. (i am probably going to be crucified for drawing this analogy, but anyway) Just as an alcoholic or heroin addict suffers an illness (addiction) so does this person. And for the same reasons that the heroin addict or alcoholic would be dismissed if they refused treatment, this person should also be dismissed. Not only because of the physical manifestations of cravings etc but because of the psychological effects of an adicts performance.
Is their mind really on the job at hand when they are thinking about the next hit, or in this case, the next steal. For this reason alone this person should have been counselled and dismissed.
However, there is another reason and it's related to AN employment policy.
AN like Q, has anti-theft policies in place that make removing AN property from the aircraft a dismissable offence. AN cannot hope to rely on these policies if it allows this person to repeatedly steal and remain employed. I know he did not steal from AN on this occasion, however, it shows a pattern of conduct upon which AN is entitled to rely.
The same goes for any pilot caught DUI in their own car on their day off. It shows a willingness to disregard others safety and AN would be justified in at the very least suspending an employee convicted of such an offence.
Firstly, they have an addiction and apparently have not made any effort to cure it. (i am probably going to be crucified for drawing this analogy, but anyway) Just as an alcoholic or heroin addict suffers an illness (addiction) so does this person. And for the same reasons that the heroin addict or alcoholic would be dismissed if they refused treatment, this person should also be dismissed. Not only because of the physical manifestations of cravings etc but because of the psychological effects of an adicts performance.
Is their mind really on the job at hand when they are thinking about the next hit, or in this case, the next steal. For this reason alone this person should have been counselled and dismissed.
However, there is another reason and it's related to AN employment policy.
AN like Q, has anti-theft policies in place that make removing AN property from the aircraft a dismissable offence. AN cannot hope to rely on these policies if it allows this person to repeatedly steal and remain employed. I know he did not steal from AN on this occasion, however, it shows a pattern of conduct upon which AN is entitled to rely.
The same goes for any pilot caught DUI in their own car on their day off. It shows a willingness to disregard others safety and AN would be justified in at the very least suspending an employee convicted of such an offence.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Federal Aviation Administration
DUI/DWI Program History
The DUI/DWI compliance program was established in November of 1990 by Congressional act. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1990 and was codified in Federal Aviation Regulation Parts 61 and 67.
The final rule sets forth regulations under which the FAA may deny an application for, and suspend or revoke, an airman certificate or rating if an individual has had two or more alcohol-related motor vehicle convictions or state motor vehicle administrative actions within a 3-year period. The rule requires pilots to report to the FAA in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, all alcohol- or drug-related motor vehicle convictions or state motor vehicle administrative actions that occur after the effective date of the final rule. The rule also amends the FAA's medical certification rules to include an "express consent" provision that authorizes the FAA to obtain information from the National Driver Register.
The rule was needed to prohibit a pilot from operating an aircraft after multiple alcohol- or drug-related motor vehicle actions. It is also needed to verify traffic conviction information required to be reported on the airman medical application and to evaluate whether the airman meets the minimum standards to be issued an airman medical certificate.
FAA
14 CFR - CHAPTER I - PART 61
View Part
§ 61.15 Offenses involving alcohol or drugs.
(a) A conviction for the violation of any Federal or State statute relating to the growing, processing, manufacture, sale, disposition, possession, transportation, or importation of narcotic drugs, marijuana, or depressant or stimulant drugs or substances is grounds for:
(1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of final conviction; or
(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.
(b) Committing an act prohibited by § 91.17(a) or § 91.19(a) of this chapter is grounds for:
(1) Denial of an application for a certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that act; or
(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.
(c) For the purposes of paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section, a motor vehicle action means:
(1) A conviction after November 29, 1990, for the violation of any Federal or State statute relating to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug;
(2) The cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a license to operate a motor vehicle after November 29, 1990, for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug; or
(3) The denial after November 29, 1990, of an application for a license to operate a motor vehicle for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug.
(d) Except for a motor vehicle action that results from the same incident or arises out of the same factual circumstances, a motor vehicle action occurring within 3 years of a previous motor vehicle action is grounds for:
(1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of the last motor vehicle action; or
(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.
(e) Each person holding a certificate issued under this part shall provide a written report of each motor vehicle action to the FAA, Civil Aviation Security Division (AMC-700), P.O. Box 25810, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, not later than 60 days after the motor vehicle action. The report must include:
(1) The person's name, address, date of birth, and airman certificate number;
(2) The type of violation that resulted in the conviction or the administrative action;
(3) The date of the conviction or administrative action;
(4) The State that holds the record of conviction or administrative action; and
(5) A statement of whether the motor vehicle action resulted from the same incident or arose out of the same factual circumstances related to a previously reported motor vehicle action.
(f) Failure to comply with paragraph (e) of this section is grounds for:
(1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of the motor vehicle action; or
(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.
FAA Title 14 Medical Aspects
§ 67.7 Access to the National Driver Register.
At the time of application for a certificate issued under this part, each person who applies for a medical certificate shall execute an express consent form authorizing the Administrator to request the chief driver licensing official of any state designated by the Administrator to transmit information contained in the National Driver Register about the person to the Administrator. The Administrator shall make information received from the National Driver Register, if any, available on request to the person for review and written comment.
FAA Title 14, Medical Aspects
§ 67.207 Mental.
Mental standards for a second-class airman medical certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following:
(1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts.
(2) A psychosis. As used in this section, "psychosis" refers to a mental disorder in which:
(i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition; or
(ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition.
(3) A bipolar disorder.
(4) Substance dependence, except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section --
(i) "Substance" includes: Alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics; hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and
(ii) "Substance dependence" means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by --
(A) Increased tolerance;
(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;
(C) Impaired control of use; or
(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning.
(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;
(2) A verified positive drug test result acquired under an anti-drug program or internal program of the U.S. Department of Transportation or any other Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation; or
(3) Misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the substance involved, finds --
(i) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(ii) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
(c) No other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds --
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
END.
is necessary to remove from navigable airspace pilots who demonstrate an unwillingness or inability to comply with certain safety regulations
The pedants amongst will rave on that this rule relates to substance abuse, true, and they will say that a pattern of theft, does not a safety issue make.
But isn't the real point that whether its substance abuse, theft, or any other offence against the accepted rules of society doesn't it demonstrate an inability to comply with regulations PERIOD.
Or are we allowed to be selective as to which convention, rule or regulation we choose to comply at any point of time.
"Oh your Honour, I may ignore the other rules that allow our civilisation to operate effectively but I am scrupulous about the application of the aviation ones"
If that's not bipolar I don't know what is.
Geez what's wrong with the world, we have our Treasurer asking us to believe that the Singapore Govt have assured them they wont use Singtel to spy on us through our satellite and PSTN that we have sold them, despite senior security people expressing grave reservations and much other evidence besides and politicians in our local Parliament calling each other t#rds and the Premier on 'your ABC' saying that it's 'OK' things do get a bit heated in debate and that he's not going to discipline the offender (a Minister) because "he's already disciplined himself by saying sorry".
Go figure.
unreconstructed gaunty
DUI/DWI Program History
The DUI/DWI compliance program was established in November of 1990 by Congressional act. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1990 and was codified in Federal Aviation Regulation Parts 61 and 67.
The final rule sets forth regulations under which the FAA may deny an application for, and suspend or revoke, an airman certificate or rating if an individual has had two or more alcohol-related motor vehicle convictions or state motor vehicle administrative actions within a 3-year period. The rule requires pilots to report to the FAA in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, all alcohol- or drug-related motor vehicle convictions or state motor vehicle administrative actions that occur after the effective date of the final rule. The rule also amends the FAA's medical certification rules to include an "express consent" provision that authorizes the FAA to obtain information from the National Driver Register.
The rule was needed to prohibit a pilot from operating an aircraft after multiple alcohol- or drug-related motor vehicle actions. It is also needed to verify traffic conviction information required to be reported on the airman medical application and to evaluate whether the airman meets the minimum standards to be issued an airman medical certificate.
The rule is intended to enhance safety in air travel and air commerce, and is necessary to remove from navigable airspace pilots who demonstrate an unwillingness or inability to comply with certain safety regulations and to assist in the identification of personnel who do not meet the medical standards of the regulations.
FAA
14 CFR - CHAPTER I - PART 61
View Part
§ 61.15 Offenses involving alcohol or drugs.
(a) A conviction for the violation of any Federal or State statute relating to the growing, processing, manufacture, sale, disposition, possession, transportation, or importation of narcotic drugs, marijuana, or depressant or stimulant drugs or substances is grounds for:
(1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of final conviction; or
(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.
(b) Committing an act prohibited by § 91.17(a) or § 91.19(a) of this chapter is grounds for:
(1) Denial of an application for a certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that act; or
(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.
(c) For the purposes of paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section, a motor vehicle action means:
(1) A conviction after November 29, 1990, for the violation of any Federal or State statute relating to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug;
(2) The cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a license to operate a motor vehicle after November 29, 1990, for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug; or
(3) The denial after November 29, 1990, of an application for a license to operate a motor vehicle for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug.
(d) Except for a motor vehicle action that results from the same incident or arises out of the same factual circumstances, a motor vehicle action occurring within 3 years of a previous motor vehicle action is grounds for:
(1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of the last motor vehicle action; or
(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.
(e) Each person holding a certificate issued under this part shall provide a written report of each motor vehicle action to the FAA, Civil Aviation Security Division (AMC-700), P.O. Box 25810, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, not later than 60 days after the motor vehicle action. The report must include:
(1) The person's name, address, date of birth, and airman certificate number;
(2) The type of violation that resulted in the conviction or the administrative action;
(3) The date of the conviction or administrative action;
(4) The State that holds the record of conviction or administrative action; and
(5) A statement of whether the motor vehicle action resulted from the same incident or arose out of the same factual circumstances related to a previously reported motor vehicle action.
(f) Failure to comply with paragraph (e) of this section is grounds for:
(1) Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part for a period of up to 1 year after the date of the motor vehicle action; or
(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this part.
FAA Title 14 Medical Aspects
§ 67.7 Access to the National Driver Register.
At the time of application for a certificate issued under this part, each person who applies for a medical certificate shall execute an express consent form authorizing the Administrator to request the chief driver licensing official of any state designated by the Administrator to transmit information contained in the National Driver Register about the person to the Administrator. The Administrator shall make information received from the National Driver Register, if any, available on request to the person for review and written comment.
FAA Title 14, Medical Aspects
§ 67.207 Mental.
Mental standards for a second-class airman medical certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following:
(1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts.
(2) A psychosis. As used in this section, "psychosis" refers to a mental disorder in which:
(i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition; or
(ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition.
(3) A bipolar disorder.
(4) Substance dependence, except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section --
(i) "Substance" includes: Alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics; hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and
(ii) "Substance dependence" means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by --
(A) Increased tolerance;
(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;
(C) Impaired control of use; or
(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning.
(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;
(2) A verified positive drug test result acquired under an anti-drug program or internal program of the U.S. Department of Transportation or any other Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation; or
(3) Misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the substance involved, finds --
(i) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(ii) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
(c) No other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds --
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
END.
is necessary to remove from navigable airspace pilots who demonstrate an unwillingness or inability to comply with certain safety regulations
The pedants amongst will rave on that this rule relates to substance abuse, true, and they will say that a pattern of theft, does not a safety issue make.
But isn't the real point that whether its substance abuse, theft, or any other offence against the accepted rules of society doesn't it demonstrate an inability to comply with regulations PERIOD.
Or are we allowed to be selective as to which convention, rule or regulation we choose to comply at any point of time.
"Oh your Honour, I may ignore the other rules that allow our civilisation to operate effectively but I am scrupulous about the application of the aviation ones"
If that's not bipolar I don't know what is.
Geez what's wrong with the world, we have our Treasurer asking us to believe that the Singapore Govt have assured them they wont use Singtel to spy on us through our satellite and PSTN that we have sold them, despite senior security people expressing grave reservations and much other evidence besides and politicians in our local Parliament calling each other t#rds and the Premier on 'your ABC' saying that it's 'OK' things do get a bit heated in debate and that he's not going to discipline the offender (a Minister) because "he's already disciplined himself by saying sorry".
Go figure.
unreconstructed gaunty
Guest
Posts: n/a
....quote from previous post by another: "And may I stress that I don’t doubt their suffering was and remains profound, and was inflicted unconscionably"unquote....
Indeed it was, and also that explains that the events remain indelibly imprinted on every participant - scab and 89'er alike. It is the only link.
Indeed it was, and also that explains that the events remain indelibly imprinted on every participant - scab and 89'er alike. It is the only link.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Creampuff the misdemeanours you cite, eg, ".....to walk my dog off her leash (an offence), occasionally to ride my pushbike on walking trails and across pedestrian crossings (both offences), occasionally to fish without a licence because the shops aren’t open to buy one (an offence), occasionally to turn right through a red light when it’s 3 am, no one’s around, and they haven’t got round to putting up the ‘turn right ok after stopping’ sign up (an offence), occasionally to put lawn clippings in the trash can (an offence), occasionally to use the internet and email for personal reasons during working hours (a breach of my employment contract), occasionally to …. are seen as just that. The obvious conclusion you wish us all to reach is that at SOME time, most of us INTENTIONALLY breach the law, when we believe that it won`t harm anyone else AND that there`s a fair to better chance that even IF we did get caught, the apprehender would understand the circumstances.
This man STOLE - he is a THIEF, who illegally removed other peoples' possessions, not out of NECESSITY, but for PLEASURE. We are talking about model airplane parts. From his long, previous history, perhaps the pleasure lay as much in the act of stealing as in the use of the stolen objects. Whatever though, a THIEF in any society is not accepted, and in the occupation of pilot, extremely uncommon, hence the numerous responses to this thread.
BTW, Creampuff, should YOU happen to find that YOU feel you NEED to repeatedly commit those apparently petty violations, perhaps you too should seek professional consultation, before the passion envelops you!
This man STOLE - he is a THIEF, who illegally removed other peoples' possessions, not out of NECESSITY, but for PLEASURE. We are talking about model airplane parts. From his long, previous history, perhaps the pleasure lay as much in the act of stealing as in the use of the stolen objects. Whatever though, a THIEF in any society is not accepted, and in the occupation of pilot, extremely uncommon, hence the numerous responses to this thread.
BTW, Creampuff, should YOU happen to find that YOU feel you NEED to repeatedly commit those apparently petty violations, perhaps you too should seek professional consultation, before the passion envelops you!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: MNC NSW australia
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago a QF flight attendant was allegedly caught shoplifting in London,they were sacked then re-employed some time later under dubious circumstances.
Said person has since been promoted to CSM.
All was kept very quiet at the time.
Said person has since been promoted to CSM.
All was kept very quiet at the time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
But safety is not the only concern. If there are some out there that believe that a propensity to steal will not necessarily end in a big silver cylinder plummeting to earth, there are other considerations.
What this behaviour displays is a blatant disregard for the rules within society. Wouldn't you think the airlines would be concerned that this would transport into an even more blatant disregard for rules and/or procedures the breach of which would not necessarily end in a prison term.
Again putting aside the safety considerations, there are multitudes of policies that are designed to enhance productivity and efficiency that this chap may well consider surplus to requirements.
Which is basically exactly what Gaunty just said.
What this behaviour displays is a blatant disregard for the rules within society. Wouldn't you think the airlines would be concerned that this would transport into an even more blatant disregard for rules and/or procedures the breach of which would not necessarily end in a prison term.
Again putting aside the safety considerations, there are multitudes of policies that are designed to enhance productivity and efficiency that this chap may well consider surplus to requirements.
Which is basically exactly what Gaunty just said.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think someone earlier in this thread hit the nail squarely home with one sure blow when they said that if this person had been an ordinary guy who had made one serious error of judgement in forgetting (or even "forgetting" [wink wink]) to pay for for whatever it was he took in Osaka, this thread would have died in page 1.
However, the facts speak plainly that this person is anything but that. I remember him, and remember him very well, from both his pre Ansett days and while he was in Ansett - and the fact that I (and so many others) do remember him should speak volumes.
To those who ask why something wasn't said at the time, let me assure them that much was said. Many people who knew him (and his father, and thee's another story all of its own), were outraged when he got the AN job - and his behaviour after he joined did nothing to make them believe they had judged him unfairly.
The fact that he was one of the very first to jump ship in 89 should say it all.
However, the facts speak plainly that this person is anything but that. I remember him, and remember him very well, from both his pre Ansett days and while he was in Ansett - and the fact that I (and so many others) do remember him should speak volumes.
To those who ask why something wasn't said at the time, let me assure them that much was said. Many people who knew him (and his father, and thee's another story all of its own), were outraged when he got the AN job - and his behaviour after he joined did nothing to make them believe they had judged him unfairly.
The fact that he was one of the very first to jump ship in 89 should say it all.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the press report that he has been brought back under Ansett security guard and sacked.
Whether this was because his "holiday" courtesy of the Nipponjin plod caused a 12 hour delay on his flight and a knock on delay of the next or because of his behaviour was not revealed.
Whether this was because his "holiday" courtesy of the Nipponjin plod caused a 12 hour delay on his flight and a knock on delay of the next or because of his behaviour was not revealed.
short flights long nights
sorry if I am repeating stuff, but yes just had a download from Aus, and it seems he has been asked to go. I really have to wonder about all of this. I am not even going to start a discussion, I am amazed! Ok I have to say it, "wasn't living life as a Hero close to ideal, especially as a 747 hero,?" Yeh, sorry, as I said, I am lost. 
Whilst aplauding those who call for a fair hearing of this individual, I find it very dificult from what I know of him to find enough endearing qualities to prevent him from being sacked. Here are a few events in his checkered career:-
. July 1976 - discharged from RAAF after passing "Wings test" (but before graduation) for stealing a television (from on base), a stereo system from a store in Perth and numerous other less expensive items.
. Approx 9 months later he arrived at NASA in Cessnock with a log book containing 800 hours on RAAF Macchi aircraft. At the time students on course flew approx 150 hours on Macchis.
. Early 1984 he applied for a position with Qantas but on checking his background, QF decided that his services were not required.
. Currently, his neighbours in Brisbane frequently call the police because of his very un-neighbourly activities which many suspect are caused by a "medical condition".
I believe him to be a very good pilot as far as the "pole-ing" part of the job - it's just his decision making that I suspect could have safety implications. A large number of people who have come into contact with him know that he is "different" but as we are pilots we are ill equiped to actually pin down his condition.
Another indication of his "condition" could come by doing research into the aviation career of this individual's father. He passed away in a Citation crash in North Qld a number of years ago, but, I believe that he did not hold down a steady job for long - quite unusual for a pilot once he/she gets a "foot in the door" with a major airline. Maybe Brenda might think that it's newsworthy enough to look into this!
For those who wish to protect his flying career - how thick a file does he need to acquire before AN management take action to prevent a repeat of the Silk Air trajedy?
. July 1976 - discharged from RAAF after passing "Wings test" (but before graduation) for stealing a television (from on base), a stereo system from a store in Perth and numerous other less expensive items.
. Approx 9 months later he arrived at NASA in Cessnock with a log book containing 800 hours on RAAF Macchi aircraft. At the time students on course flew approx 150 hours on Macchis.
. Early 1984 he applied for a position with Qantas but on checking his background, QF decided that his services were not required.
. Currently, his neighbours in Brisbane frequently call the police because of his very un-neighbourly activities which many suspect are caused by a "medical condition".
I believe him to be a very good pilot as far as the "pole-ing" part of the job - it's just his decision making that I suspect could have safety implications. A large number of people who have come into contact with him know that he is "different" but as we are pilots we are ill equiped to actually pin down his condition.
Another indication of his "condition" could come by doing research into the aviation career of this individual's father. He passed away in a Citation crash in North Qld a number of years ago, but, I believe that he did not hold down a steady job for long - quite unusual for a pilot once he/she gets a "foot in the door" with a major airline. Maybe Brenda might think that it's newsworthy enough to look into this!
For those who wish to protect his flying career - how thick a file does he need to acquire before AN management take action to prevent a repeat of the Silk Air trajedy?
PPRuNette
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: de nile...
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, this bloke is, indeed, one very troubled unit!
And Going Boeing...your last para...SPOT ON. Let's just hope he does get the help he obviously needs...but in the mean-time...Get him the hell outta the cockpit
GG
And Going Boeing...your last para...SPOT ON. Let's just hope he does get the help he obviously needs...but in the mean-time...Get him the hell outta the cockpit
GG
